Best Programs of the Modern Era

[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.

 

[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.