Best Programs of the Modern Era

[Matrim55]

Respect to the original poster for the time and effort it took to put this together. I think a lot of the criticism of his methodology was accurate, but people sure can be insecure d!cks about it.

 

[Gurleyman]

Respect to the original poster for the time and effort it took to put this together. I think a lot of the criticism of his methodology was accurate, but people sure can be insecure d!cks about it.

I agree - I actually thought he was pasting the info from a media source. That took some effort to put together and at least led to an interesting discussion topic.

I'd probably skew it 1-2-4-5-7-8-10 (giving a bonus point from for making a Sweet 16 and a FF and two bonus points for the whole thing). That way you are both rewarding consistent success in advancing, as well as the extra prestige for being in the later rounds (the bonus for a Sweet 16 is debatable, but it does lead to an extra five days of build up and media attention if you get out of the first frenetic weekend).

 

[Dooley]

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

I think your corrected values show a more accurate Top 5. Duke, UK, UNC, UCONN and KU have very clearly been the class of college basketball over the past 30 years or so. I think this is more accurate reflection of the top hoops programs in the country.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I agree - I actually thought he was pasting the info from a media source. That took some effort to put together and at least led to an interesting discussion topic.

I'd probably skew it 1-2-4-5-7-8-10 (giving a bonus point from for making a Sweet 16 and a FF and two bonus points for the whole thing). That way you are both rewarding consistent success in advancing, as well as the extra prestige for being in the later rounds (the bonus for a Sweet 16 is debatable, but it does lead to an extra five days of build up and media attention if you get out of the first frenetic weekend).

Yes, but the difference between getting in and not getting in is also not "1". Then there is the NIT. Winning the NIT is not the same as going 2-27. Missing the NIT should be -10. Missing the tournament -5. It will never be perfect. Agree thanks to the OP for a ton of effort on this.

 

[Matrim55]

I think your corrected values show a more accurate Top 5. Duke, UK, UNC, UCONN and KU have very clearly been the class of college basketball over the past 30 years or so. I think this is more accurate reflection of the top hoops programs in the country.

Agreed. I'd love to see the full list done with that rating system.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I agree - I actually thought he was pasting the info from a media source. That took some effort to put together and at least led to an interesting discussion topic.

I'd probably skew it 1-2-4-5-7-8-10 (giving a bonus point from for making a Sweet 16 and a FF and two bonus points for the whole thing). That way you are both rewarding consistent success in advancing, as well as the extra prestige for being in the later rounds (the bonus for a Sweet 16 is debatable, but it does lead to an extra five days of build up and media attention if you get out of the first frenetic weekend).

Replacing the original scoring method with your values give these results:
1. Duke 143
2. UNC 132
3. Kansas 129
4. Kentucky 121
5. UConn 94

 

[Kitaman]

The whole premise of this is determine who are the BEST programs of the Modern Era. The "BEST", to me, means championships.

Its an argument that is difficult to win because of so many 'off court' variables.

Its great to win Championships, but things like being relevant every year in March, fan attendance, fan loyalty, in-conference hype/play, paraphernalia sales, media attention, national TV coverage, home court arenas, etc. should also be taken into consideration.

Many Gonzaga, VCU, etc.. students are happy as a pig in sh|t, being in the news practically every March because their teams are still playing and making noise. Those teams are not UConn (i.e. elite) but could somehow qualify for the discussion of top programs. Sure Championships should be paramount, but to freshman-senior students at a college with a great program, have nothing to cry about and still can be proud of their schools. Just go to any college arena of a good team in February or March, and you see similarities whether elite or not. Actually I respect any basketball program who sells out ($) every home game AND who have a high graduation rate.

Anyway, our major advantage is Championships, but as for all of the other factors we could be just about equal or slightly better with many of the rest. In the end its about winning, post season relevancy and fan participation. On that alone UConn is in the top 5.

Why are we discussing this? As someone said this could be a wasted exercise, but hell its off season.

 

[Dooley]

Why are we discussing this? As someone said this could be a wasted exercise, but hell its off season.

Because it's a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG 25 days until we take the field against BYU!

 

[AtlHusky]

...With seeding like Duke gets, S16 is practically assured.

Or so you would think...

 

[Gurleyman]

Replacing the original scoring method with your values give these results: 1. Duke 143 2. UNC 132 3. Kansas 129 4. Kentucky 121 5. UConn 94

I think it's fair to be behind the other four programs since we got a late start - and even after 1990 we have six zeroes in years we didn't make it at all. Maybe the gap should be closer with a heavier reward for a title, but the math does give some insight into how we're a bit behind the top four when it comes to consistent deep runs. And Duke has four ships and UNC and Kentucky have three in that span, so it isn't like we've out bannered them by a lot.

Just as long as Arizona and Syracuse are looking way up at us where they belong.

 

[CL82]

To me, it doesn't reward the first round win or the championship win specifically, it's simply a way to calculate performance. The champion's performance is worth seven times as much as the performance of the team eliminated in the first round. What you want would be something like redefining a scoring title by considering, somehow, things like shot difficulty, game pressure, and such. Surely a game winner should be worth more than a shot at the 5 min. mark of the first half.

First, and most importantly, thanks for putting this together. We can all debate the weightings but I appreciate your work and starting the discussion.

That said, I think the analogy to the scoring a basket is a false one. The quality of the teams increase as you progress through the tournament. It's reasonable for other posters to suggest that weighting them higher makes sense.

 

[Rocktheworld]

Maybe you could multiply the "value" of each year based on seeding, like a 1 seed who wins to the championship gets 64, while a 2 seed gets multiplied by say 1.1 and is worth roughly 70, 3 seed 1.2 for 77, 3 seed 1.3 for 83, and so on

 

[CallMeBruce]

I think it's fair to be behind the other four programs since we got a late start - and even after 1990 we have six zeroes in years we didn't make it at all. Maybe the gap should be closer with a heavier reward for a title, but the math does give some insight into how we're a bit behind the top four when it comes to consistent deep runs. And Duke has four ships and UNC and Kentucky have three in that span, so it isn't like we've out bannered them by a lot.

Just as long as Arizona and Syracuse are looking way up at us where they belong.

UNC actually only has two in that stretch, but that's not important.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Maybe you could multiply the "value" of each year based on seeding, like a 1 seed who wins to the championship gets 64, while a 2 seed gets multiplied by say 1.1 and is worth roughly 70, 3 seed 1.2 for 77, 3 seed 1.3 for 83, and so on

Except then you're rewarding teams for playing worse during the regular season.

 

[Sky ball]

How does Duke and N. Car almost always playing 2-4 games of 6 in NORTH CAROLINA factor in all this over the years? Think they get a few more wins as home team many times? Wonder if UConn played the 1st 4 games in MSG every tourney? Which bodes this Q: What venue sees more NCAA tourney games? Greensboro or MSG (basketball capital of the world)?

 

[Gurleyman]

UNC actually only has two in that stretch, but that's not important.

Three - they won the Chris Webber timeout game in 1993 and twice under Roy (with Sean May in 2005 and Hansbrough in 2009).

 

[CallMeBruce]

Three - they won the Chris Webber timeout game in 1993 and twice under Roy (with Sean May in 2005 and Hansbrough in 2009).

The embarrassing part is I actually remembered the '93 win. Somehow I forgot that they won the one in 2009. What a dope.

 

[GlastonTim]

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.

I'll take the 2 titles.

 

[Excalibur]

The "modern era" really begins with the addition of the 3 point shot. That changed the game far more than expansion to 64 teams.

 

[Gurleyman]

The embarrassing part is I actually remembered the '93 win. Somehow I forgot that they won the one in 2009. What a dope.

In fairness, that's the one time that the title game fell during our three-day mourning period after a loss. Easy to black it out.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

First, and most importantly, thanks for putting this together. We can all debate the weightings but I appreciate your work and starting the discussion.

That said, I think the analogy to the scoring a basket is a false one. The quality of the teams increase as you progress through the tournament. It's reasonable for other posters to suggest that weighting them higher makes sense.

I have no problem with the use of weights. Trying to agree on what they should be might start more fights than it resolves. I'm still of the mind that performances are being weighted. A championship is weighted seven times as much as an appearance.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

The "modern era" really begins with the addition of the 3 point shot. That changed the game far more than expansion to 64 teams.

You make an excellent point.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Maybe you could multiply the "value" of each year based on seeding, like a 1 seed who wins to the championship gets 64, while a 2 seed gets multiplied by say 1.1 and is worth roughly 70, 3 seed 1.2 for 77, 3 seed 1.3 for 83, and so on

Like I said, the measurement can be simple or it can be complicated.

 

[Gringo]

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.

Let's be honest.....the real problem with your numbers is it didn't have UConn ranked #1. If you created a ranking system where UConn ended up as #1, everyone would stop crying.

 

[TheChamps990411]

This formula is pointless. In the end we will only support it if it has uconn as the best after its all tallied up. I personally think if you look at College Hoops since `85 i think Duke is the top program followed by UNC,Uconn and Uk.