First, and most importantly, thanks for putting this together. We can all debate the weightings but I appreciate your work and starting the discussion.
I'll take the 2 titles.
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.
You make an excellent point.
Like I said, the measurement can be simple or it can be complicated.
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.
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).
I like it. But add AZ with UNC, MSU, Kansas. I'd put AZ ahead of UNC at this point.
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?
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.
