Best Programs of the Modern Era

[hooskies]

Well that was a waste of time

 

[CallMeBruce]

I think it makes perfect sense. Winning a championship isn't that much better than getting to the championship game.

Would you rather be a fan of a team with one title and 6 final fours or 2 titles and two final fours? I'd prefer the six final fours.

OK, but would you rather be a program with 4 championships, 5 final fours, 10 elite eights, and 14 sweet sixteens, or a program with 1 championship, 4 final fours, 6 elite eights, and 13 sweet sixteens but a handful of extra tournament appearances? That seems incredibly lopsided to me, but by this system, those two programs are equal.

 

[Dooley]

The whole premise of this is determine who are the BEST programs of the Modern Era. The "BEST", to me, means championships. You can't call any other team but the team who won the National Championship the "best". So in that regard, championships are very under-weighted in this scoring system. I'd probably score it something along the lines of:

0 points - no NCAA Tourney
2 points - 1st rd win
5 points - 2nd rd win (get to Sweet 16)
10 points - 3rd rd win (get to Elite 8)
20 points - 4th rd win (get to Final 4)
40 points - 5th rd win (get to Championship Game)
100 points - win Championship

 

[SubbaBub]

Not to get all Nascar up in here, but the guy who finishes 17th gets more points than the guy finishing 21st and no one cares about either of them.

Making the tournament is a given and whatever demerits you want to give UConn for not making it those first few years and for the post title slumps and the BS APR go right ahead. See previous paragraph.

Objectively making the tournament or even winning a first (64) game has nothing to do with being elite. Sweet sixteen and up are what schools, coaches, and the media use as measuring stick unless they are trying to overhype something (see Arizona and Pitt).

Usually the Tourney appearances are the honorable mention ribbons for programs like RU and your mid major flavor of the month. Look out for Campbell, it's their second straight appearance. Yawn.

The best programs are Duke, UConn, Kentucky in some order depending how you dissect it. UNC, Kansas, and MSU are next. Everyone else is a pretender who may or may not have had a moment in the sun.

 

[Gurleyman]

Obviously, this methodology hurts us a little since we got a late start (5 years with no appearances until the 1990 breakthrough).

But anything that has us behind Arizona and even with Syracuse needs to be fixed. Those programs have wet dreams about having our success. If banners were Beatles, we'd get their complete works, including Sgt. Pepper's and The White Album. They'd be playing Back Off Boogaloo.

(And, yes, I think your first banner is Ringo and then you build up to John with your fourth. Seems only right that CCNY and Holy Cross can't be considered John Lennon programs.)

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Okay so give them consolation points or something. You're missing my general point though.

which is?

 

[Rocktheworld]

which is?

I can't get any clearer: the scoring method is flawed. It equates moving from the FF to the NC game (worth 1 more point) to getting in to the tournament (worth 1 more point). Does that not betray your logical intuition?

 

[Deleted member 3149]

I'm sorry, but this is an odd distinction of who's the best in the modern era. Us and Duke are in a league of our own since 1985

 

[sammydabiz]

Flawed analysis, plain & simple

 

[RegisteredUconn]

The whole premise of this is determine who are the BEST programs of the Modern Era. The "BEST", to me, means championships. You can't call any other team but the team who won the National Championship the "best". So in that regard, championships are very under-weighted in this scoring system. I'd probably score it something along the lines of:

0 points - no NCAA Tourney
2 points - 1st rd win
5 points - 2nd rd win (get to Sweet 16)
10 points - 3rd rd win (get to Elite 8)
20 points - 4th rd win (get to Final 4)
40 points - 5th rd win (get to Championship Game)
100 points - win Championship

Replacing the scoring I used with yours, I get the following results for the first 5 teams:
1. Duke 808
2. Kentucky 580
3. Kansas 576
4. UNC 574
5. UConn 556

I don't see those results as a whole lot different from what I originally had.

[edit]
My apologies, Dooley, I made a mistake when replacing the values.
Here are the corrected numbers:
1. Duke 688
2. Kentucky 520
3. UNC 514
4. UConn 496
5. Kansas 471

 

[CallMeBruce]

Replacing the scoring I used with yours, I get the following results for the first 5 teams:
1. Duke 808
2. Kentucky 580
3. Kansas 576
4. UNC 574
5. UConn 556

I don't see those results as a whole lot different from what I originally had.

That has UConn in a clump with Kentucky, Kansas, and UNC, which is far more reasonable than behind Arizona and equal with Syracuse and Michigan State.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I applaud the OP for the idea, the effort, and the presentation.

I do think, like many others who have chimed in, that the point system should be somewhat different. Something closer to a power series, but maybe not an extreme one. I would offer:

No appearance - 0
1st round - 1
2nd round - 2
Sweet 16 - 4
Elite 8 - 6
Final Four - 12
Runner-up - 20
Champion -40

But we can debate forever exactly what the point values should be.

Regardless of that, the OP's main points are valid:
- We are unequivocally in the top 10, arguably top 5 programs in the 64-team era
- Relative to those elite teams, we are not consistent in our year-to-year performance, especially over the last ~8 years (we have higher highs and lower lows)
- When we do make the Tournament, it is rare for us to underachieve (mostly confined to 2005-08), and, as we've been seeded lowly our last few ships, we've tended to overachieve; actually, for most the 90's and early 00's, we performed pretty close to seed expectations

 

[RichZ]

Winning a championship isn't that much better than getting to the championship game.

Are you on drugs?

 

[CallMeBruce]

Are you on drugs?

Yeah, that line didn't get enough attention for how mind-blowingly wrong it is.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Changing the scoring so that making the tournament is worth 1 point and making it to each subsequent round is worth double the points of the previous round would be worth
1 point - first round
2 points - 2nd round
4 points - Sweet Sixteen
8 points - Elite Eight
16 points - Final Four
32 points - Runner-up
64 points - Champion

I get the following:
1. Duke - 492
2. Kentucky - 372
3. UNC - 367
4. Kansas - 350
5. UConn - 336

Basically, the two suggested scoring changes have kept the first four teams the same and elevated UConn from 6th to 5th.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I applaud the OP for the idea, the effort, and the presentation.

I do think, like many others who have chimed in, that the point system should be somewhat different. Something closer to a power series, but maybe not an extreme one. I would offer:

No appearance - 0
1st round - 1
2nd round - 2
Sweet 16 - 4
Elite 8 - 6
Final Four - 12
Runner-up - 20
Champion -40

But we can debate forever exactly what the point values should be.

Regardless of that, the OP's main points are valid:
- We are unequivocally in the top 10, arguably top 5 programs in the 64-team era
- Relative to those elite teams, we are not consistent in our year-to-year performance, especially over the last ~8 years (we have higher highs and lower lows)
- When we do make the Tournament, it is rare for us to underachieve (mostly confined to 2005-08), and, as we've been seeded lowly our last few ships, we've tended to overachieve; actually, for most the 90's and early 00's, we performed pretty close to seed expectations

Your scoring yields the following top 5:
1. Duke - 332
2. UNC - 259
3. Kentucky - 254
4. Kansas - 246
5. UConn - 226

 

[mauconnfan]

There's no way 5 teams are ahead of UConn in the "Modern Era" - can't be possible

 

[Rocktheworld]

Changing the scoring so that making the tournament is worth 1 point and making it to each subsequent round is worth double the points of the previous round would be worth
1 point - first round
2 points - 2nd round
4 points - Sweet Sixteen
8 points - Elite Eight
16 points - Final Four
32 points - Runner-up
64 points - Champion

I get the following:
1. Duke - 492
2. Kentucky - 372
3. UNC - 367
4. Kansas - 350
5. UConn - 336

Basically, the two suggested scoring changes have kept the first four teams the same and elevated UConn from 6th to 5th.

Again you're missing the larger point. The problem isn't that UConn was 6th instead of 5th; it's that you try to make a case that MSU, Cuse and AZ are at least as good if not better than UConn in the tournament, when any appeal to logical intuition (should) tells most people otherwise.

It's clear that you aren't catching on to this problem because you haven't compared your scoring of AZ, Cuse and MSU to other suggested methods. The obvious discrepancies would be made apparent in the numbers, as they should be. With that scoring scheme, I got AZ at 207. MSU gets 205, and Cuse gets 210.

Hell yes, UConn is at least 150% the programs MSU Cuse and AZ are when it comes to the tournamet.

 

[Horatio]

With all due respect Sir, I used a more reliable system for calculating the best program since 85. I used the old , dependable " Eeny Meeny Miny Moe " system . I came up with - 1. Uconn 2. The rest of those bums. I also factored in the level of recruits compared to those Other programs . We got /get it done with mostly 3 star Players and 3 star cheerleaders.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Again you're missing the larger point. The problem isn't that UConn is 6th instead of 5th; it's that you try to make a case that MSU, Cuse and AZ are at least as good if not better than UConn in the tournament, when any appeal to logical intuition (should) tells most people otherwise.

It's clear that you aren't catching on to this problem because you haven't compared your scoring of AZ, Cuse and MSU to other suggested methods. The obvious discrepancies would be made apparent in the numbers, as they should be.

I apologize for any misunderstandings on my part. I didn't approach this study with any specific outcome in mind. Rather, I was actually responding to a thread posted a few months ago as to who basketball's "blue bloods" were and whether or not UConn should be considered among them. Part of the problem in reaching consensus was in arriving at a way to measure a program's achievements and over what timeframe the measurements should be made.

I figured the measurement should be simple because I figured the greater complications the greater the likelihood for bickering (obviously I'm re-thinking that line of reasoning ). About the same time as the "blue bloods" discussion were some threads about how the NCAA allocates payouts. Since their method involved rewarding achievement in, assumedly, a fairly equitable fashion, I chose to use the logic they employed. I was disappointed that their reasoning didn't differentiate beyond teams in the Final Four. Whereas the NCAA awards all teams in the Final Four 5 points, I chose to recognize the two teams making it to the championship game 6 points for the runner-up and 7 points for the champion. I was also under the impression that the NCAA payout method had been in place for some period of time without enough dissention to change it, and therefore represented some degree of satisfaction with it.

As far as the time period for measurement, I chose 1985 to the present for the reasons I stated. For the most part, that hasn't been under attack.

Again, I'm not trying to make a case for or against any particular program. I selected a measurement and explained my reasons for doing so. Ditto for the timeframe. The results are just the results.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

That has UConn in a clump with Kentucky, Kansas, and UNC, which is far more reasonable than behind Arizona and equal with Syracuse and Michigan State.

I've recalculated these values (see above). You'll like the new results even more.

 

[Horatio]

I apologize for any misunderstandings on my part. I didn't approach this study with any specific outcome in mind. Rather, I was actually responding to a thread posted a few months ago as to who basketball's "blue bloods" were and whether or not UConn should be considered among them. Part of the problem in reaching consensus was in arriving at a way to measure a program's achievements and over what timeframe the measurements should be made.

I figured the measurement should be simple because I figured the greater complications the greater the likelihood for bickering (obviously I'm re-thinking that line of reasoning ). About the same time as the "blue bloods" discussion were some threads about how the NCAA allocates payouts. Since their method involved rewarding achievement in, assumedly, a fairly equitable fashion, I chose to use the logic they employed. I was disappointed that their reasoning didn't differentiate beyond teams in the Final Four. Whereas the NCAA awards all teams in the Final Four 5 points, I chose to recognize the two teams making it to the championship game 6 points for the runner-up and 7 points for the champion. I was also under the impression that the NCAA payout method had been in place for some period of time without enough dissention to change it, and therefore represented some degree of satisfaction with it.

As far as the time period for measurement, I chose 1985 to the present for the reasons I stated. For the most part, that hasn't been under attack.

Again, I'm not trying to make a case for or against any particular program. I selected a measurement and explained my reasons for doing so. Ditto for the timeframe. The results are just the results.

No apologies needed. It's sports and we're all fans. I just think that you have to
Factor in all the intangibles and you really can't put a number on those. Duke , Kansas, UNC and Kentucky were already built well before 85 . We were a " mom and pop " corner store that was built from scratch, with less material . That corner store is now better than those other programs .You can't chart that kinda stuff.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Besides not giving enough points for winning more important games, another problem any analysis won't account for is seeding bias. Some teams get easier early round games.

I suspect there will be problems with any measurement devised. I can remember how ridiculous the lines seemed on certain games. How could anybody think so-and-so is a 10 point dog? I started betting those obvious gimme's the bookies were missing. Then I realized who it was that didn't know what they were talking about. Then I stopped betting. Bad seedings? I guess St. Joe's, Villanova, Iowa State, Michigan State, Florida, and maybe Kentucky know something about that.

 

[upstater]

I suspect there will be problems with any measurement devised. I can remember how ridiculous the lines seemed on certain games. How could anybody think so-and-so is a 10 point dog? I started betting those obvious gimme's the bookies were missing. Then I realized who it was that didn't know what they were talking about. Then I stopped betting. Bad seedings? I guess St. Joe's, Villanova, Iowa State, Michigan State, Florida, and maybe Kentucky know something about that.

St. Joe's, the A10 champ, in the 1st round is a bad seed. Esp. for a top 20 team with 21 SOS and 22 RPI. As you advance, there's less argument about seeding. Seeding is only an issue during the first weekend. With seeding like Duke gets, S16 is practically assured.

 

[HuskyHawk]

OK, but would you rather be a program with 4 championships, 5 final fours, 10 elite eights, and 14 sweet sixteens, or a program with 1 championship, 4 final fours, 6 elite eights, and 13 sweet sixteens but a handful of extra tournament appearances? That seems incredibly lopsided to me, but by this system, those two programs are equal.

I'll say this. I hate not getting in. Hate it. Ruins the whole tournament and season. So as a fan, there is nothing better than always being a part of the tournament. Championships are nice, but once we won one, and especially two, the value of the others has gone down for me. Getting to the final four is what I would give extra points for.

It's like this for all sports for me. I'd take the last ten years of the Patriots over the Giants, even though the Pats won one title and the Giants two (yes, the Pats also won 11 years ago), because the Patriots got in (almost) every year and made the title game three times. Look at consecutive 10 win seasons...the Patriots are at 11, the 49ers are next best with 3.

Being good all the time is more important to me than being great occasionally. That said, Kevin Ollie is currently 1 for 1 when not banned. I am looking forward to a long streak. If you told me that from now to 2014 we'd get in every year and never win a title or we'd get in 5 years out of 10 and win a title, I'd give up the title.