We've all been looking at the all-time counts. 8 teams with 3+ chips - 11/8/5/5/4/4/3/3 - you know the names.
I personally do not believe that # of titles is the only criteria of a program's greatness. That said, titles are without a doubt the most important criteria. And easy to measure. And a single number which makes comparisons simple. So I understand why program comparisons tend to devolve into 4>1 arguments (or 11>8, or 8>5, etc. depending on which team you support).
But all titles are not created equal. Time has to be factored in. For example Indiana's 1940 title, when there were 8 teams in the tournament and most of us hadn't been born, should not "count" as much as the one we just won. That's my (probably biased) opinion. But how do you discount older titles? What's the cutoff, and what's the discount factor? No clear-cut answers there, but I have a couple suggestions.
Approach #1: If you were alive, and even better if you remember it, it counts. So if you root for Indiana and you are 80+ years old, then go ahead and crow all you want about your 5 titles. But if you're 20, shut up. The theory here is that being a fan is all about the emotional connection you make when watching your team play, and the memories created by the special moments. I remember 1999 like it was yesterday, and nobody on earth is ever going to convince me that 77-74 "counts less" than any other title. When I think about it that way, I can understand how an old-timer UCLA fan would scoff at the notion that any other program's resume could compare. So there is some validity to this approach. It also means that old people will view UCLA, Kentucky, and Indiana as the most elite programs, whereas younger folks might say Duke, Kentucky, and UConn are the best. That makes some sense to me.
Approach #2: Totally different approach. All titles count, but older titles count for less. I chose a simple approach to count all titles in the past 10 years as 1 full point. All titles the decade before that (i.e. 11-20 years ago) get discounted by 10% and count as 0.9 points. Titles 21-30 years ago count 0.8 points, titles 31-40 years ago 0.7 points, and so on. If you look at it that way, UCLA still tops the charts at 7.0, and it's not really that close. But it's also not inconceivable that they could be caught some day. Kentucky comes in second at 5.2 points, followed by UNC at 4.0, UConn at 3.9, Duke 3.5, Indiana 2.9, Louisville 2.5, Kansas 2.2. This calculation methodology is admittedly arbitrary, but that list feels reasonable to me.
Any thoughts?
I personally do not believe that # of titles is the only criteria of a program's greatness. That said, titles are without a doubt the most important criteria. And easy to measure. And a single number which makes comparisons simple. So I understand why program comparisons tend to devolve into 4>1 arguments (or 11>8, or 8>5, etc. depending on which team you support).
But all titles are not created equal. Time has to be factored in. For example Indiana's 1940 title, when there were 8 teams in the tournament and most of us hadn't been born, should not "count" as much as the one we just won. That's my (probably biased) opinion. But how do you discount older titles? What's the cutoff, and what's the discount factor? No clear-cut answers there, but I have a couple suggestions.
Approach #1: If you were alive, and even better if you remember it, it counts. So if you root for Indiana and you are 80+ years old, then go ahead and crow all you want about your 5 titles. But if you're 20, shut up. The theory here is that being a fan is all about the emotional connection you make when watching your team play, and the memories created by the special moments. I remember 1999 like it was yesterday, and nobody on earth is ever going to convince me that 77-74 "counts less" than any other title. When I think about it that way, I can understand how an old-timer UCLA fan would scoff at the notion that any other program's resume could compare. So there is some validity to this approach. It also means that old people will view UCLA, Kentucky, and Indiana as the most elite programs, whereas younger folks might say Duke, Kentucky, and UConn are the best. That makes some sense to me.
Approach #2: Totally different approach. All titles count, but older titles count for less. I chose a simple approach to count all titles in the past 10 years as 1 full point. All titles the decade before that (i.e. 11-20 years ago) get discounted by 10% and count as 0.9 points. Titles 21-30 years ago count 0.8 points, titles 31-40 years ago 0.7 points, and so on. If you look at it that way, UCLA still tops the charts at 7.0, and it's not really that close. But it's also not inconceivable that they could be caught some day. Kentucky comes in second at 5.2 points, followed by UNC at 4.0, UConn at 3.9, Duke 3.5, Indiana 2.9, Louisville 2.5, Kansas 2.2. This calculation methodology is admittedly arbitrary, but that list feels reasonable to me.
Any thoughts?
