Best Programs of the Modern Era

[UCONNfan1]

I'm with the people that say winning the NC should be worth about .0 points. Doing the 0-7 based on not making the tourney, going out the first round, 2nd round, etc etc...

Maybe if everything were weighted... It seems that you have to give way more weight to the final 4, NC game, and winning the NC...

Winning the NC 30
Making NC game 20
Final 4 - 15
Elite 8 - 10
Sweet 16 - 7
Round of 32 - 4
Making the tourney - 2
Missing it - 0

 

[RichZ]

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.

Each one feels better than the last, here. And getting to the final four and NOT WINNING? 2009 left the biggest hole in my Husky soul since Donyell clanked those free throws.

Being good all the time is more important to me than being great occasionally.

Four titles in fifteen years is occasionally?

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Each one feels better than the last, here. And getting to the final four and NOT WINNING? 2009 left the biggest hole in my Husky soul since Donyell clanked those free throws.



Four titles in fifteen years is occasionally?

I have to admit I thoroughly enjoyed this last one, Rich. Part of it watching all those talking heads explaining how UConn's opponent probably deserved the overall #1 seed before the game then adamantly defending it again at halftime. Michigan State, Florida, Kentucky...any one of them might easily have been the country's best (except they weren't).

 

[Drame]

Winning the NC 30
Making NC game 20
Final 4 - 15
Elite 8 - 10
Sweet 16 - 7
Round of 32 - 4
Making the tourney - 2
Missing it - 0


At a bare minimum winning the title should be worth 64 pts. In the most basic way at the beginning of the tourney you have a 1 in 64 chance to win. Why would you decrease the pts compared to the odds when the games get harder.

 

[David 76]

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.

I like it. But add AZ with UNC, MSU, Kansas. I'd put AZ ahead of UNC at this point.

 

[Rocktheworld]

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

You're not rewarding them for playing poorly in the regular season; you're rewarding them for overcoming a poor seed path. You don't think the extraordinary feat of a 7 seed beating a 4, 3, 2, and overall #1 seed doesn't deserve some extra recognition? I get that for us a Championship is a Championship, but a 1 seed beating a 15, 7, 6, and 8 to get to the FF, is that really a big deal?

 

[David 76]

OP, thank you for all your hard work. I particularly liked the trending section.
There can never be a perfect system, but it looks like other weighting systems keep showing pretty much the same thing.
You must have a lot of patience. Some posters seem to expect you to have come up with a formula that is perfectly weighted for tournament rounds, home court advantage, seeding disparities and players with ingrown toenails. Rule of thumb: Don't ever present data on the BY that shows Syracuse equal to UCONN. They totally forget how to play nice when that happens.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

The 3 point shot changed the game but did it change the tournament? Would we have been arguing about the about basically the same 12 programs as being the elites with or without the 3 point line? Certainly UConn may not have been in the conversation had the tournament not expanded. Without 64 teams we definitely wouldn't have had our last championship because we didn't win the league.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

OP, thank you for all your hard work. I particularly liked the trending section.
There can never be a perfect system, but it looks like other weighting systems keep showing pretty much the same thing.
You must have a lot of patience. Some posters seem to expect you to have come up with a formula that is perfectly weighted for tournament rounds, home court advantage, seeding disparities and players with ingrown toenails. Rule of thumb: Don't ever present data on the BY that shows Syracuse equal to UCONN. They totally forget how to play nice when that happens.

Thanks for the kind words, David. I think the real "problem" is that people here are so passionate about this team. We're lucky to have such problems. I don't get too concerned about the anomalies introduced by seeding irregularities, bracket geography, hot shooting, injuries and the thousand and one other things people use to argue another perspective. Those tend to even out over time. 30 data points (years) is a pretty decent sample size. I'll keep your advice in mind. Rules of thumb are usually wisely heeded.