Program of the Decade

[alexrgct]

So, I thought it would be fun to start tracking WCBB 2010-2019 to come up with the definitive "program of the decade" rankings. Since we've only completed two seasons, it's relatively easy to set the criteria now. And I actually think talking about the criteria and associated weighting is fun to do.

Let's talk about criteria. I think it's important to capture the following:

• A successful regular season/conference tourney.
• Success in the NCAA tourney
• National championships

The question then becomes how do you measure and weigh these accomplishments? Let's start with measurements.

I think success in the regular season is best captured by tournament seeding. Although the selection committee doesn't always get it right, they try to factor in record, strength of schedule, etc. If you try to measure regular season success in other ways (W/L, conference championships), you end up with all sorts of apples and oranges comparisons. Tournament seeding is imperfect but a reasonable proxy for reglar season success. If you are a top 4 seed, you get points in my system.

Success in the NCAA tournament is measured by how far you advance, obviously. If you make the Sweet 16 or beyond, you get points.

National championships are self-explanatory as far as how to measure. The weighing of them is the fun/controversial part.

On to measurement.

For seeding, I gave the following weights:

• 4 seed- 5 points
• 3 seed- 10 points
• 2 seed- 20 points
• 1 seed- 30 points

For tournament success I have following weights:

• Sweet 16- 5 points
• Elite 8- 15 points
• Final 4- 30 points
• Runner-up- 40 points
• Championship- 70 points

In other words, if you failed to make the Sweet 16 one year and won a championship the next, your cumulative score would be the same as a runner-up one season and a final four bid the next. At first pass, that seemed reasonable to me.

So, through two seasons, where does that leave us? See below.

The question I have to anyone who cares to weigh in is whether you agree. Do I have the right criteria? Do you like the weighting? Would you rather be Stanford or A&M, for instance? Did I get that right?

Thanks for your insight!

4 seed 3 seed 2 seed 1 seed Sweet 16 Elite 8 Final 4 Runner-up Champion Total
Uconn 0 0 0 60 0 0 30 0 70 160
Stanford 0 0 0 60 0 0 30 40 0 130
A&M 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 70 110
Notre Dame 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 40 0 85
Tennessee 0 0 0 60 5 15 0 0 0 80
Baylor 5 0 0 30 0 15 30 0 0 80
Duke 0 0 40 0 0 30 0 0 0 70
OU 0 10 0 0 5 0 30 0 0 45
Xavier 0 10 20 0 0 15 0 0 0 45
Nebraska 0 0 0 30 5 0 0 0 0 35
Florida State 0 20 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 35
Ohio State 5 0 20 0 5 0 0 0 0 30
Kentucky 10 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 25
Gonzaga 0 0 0 0 5 15 0 0 0 20
DePaul 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 15
West Virginia 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Georgia 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10
UCLA 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Miami 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Iowa State 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 10
Georgetown 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
San Diego State 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
OK State 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Maryland 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
UNC 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Louisville 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Green Bay 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Michigan State 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Mississippi St 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5

 

[speedoo]

I like the idea and the application. My only suggestion is to give more weight to a 1 seed and less to a 4 seed, because at least in recent years there has been more separation in quality. In other words, the one seeds are the elite teams, the 2 and 3 seeds reflect the next group, and the 4 seeds are further down in quality. So maybe 35 points for a 1 seed and 2 or 3 for a 4 seed, keep the 2 and 3 the same.

 

[trisailin]

I like the idea however it seems to me "measurement" shouldn't rely on tournament seedings. Almost every year, I hear complaints that the selection committee bent to "political" pressure to one degree or another. Sentimental/Popular programs automatically wind up ahead of equally successful less sentimental/popular programs.

To rectify the "emotion" of the situation, I'd recommend using either Sagarin composite rating or Sagarin "pure points".

 

[EricLA]

i'm not so sure i'd give any weight for seedings. i guess the seedings is a reflection of the how most teams did in their conference tourneys, but i think it's harder to win the regular season title, which isn't weighted as much when the seedings come out.

i'd almost go back to each conference and maybe give the same "score" for the top 4-5 teams in the regular season final standings. my point, if ND beats UCONN twice this year and wins the regular season but UCONN beats them in the conference tourney and therefore maybe earns a higher seed, i think it's more fair to reward ND for winning the regular season...

just my $.02. i'm not sure it would make a huge difference and it may be way more time consuming to go back 10 years to look at league standings, and the difference may end up being negligible...

 

[UCinsider]

So, I thought it would be fun to start tracking WCBB 2010-2019 to come up with the definitive "program of the decade" rankings. Since we've only completed two seasons, it's relatively easy to set the criteria now. And I actually think talking about the criteria and associated weighting is fun to do.

Let's talk about criteria. I think it's important to capture the following:

• A successful regular season/conference tourney.
• Success in the NCAA tourney
• National championships

The question then becomes how do you measure and weigh these accomplishments? Let's start with measurements.

I think success in the regular season is best captured by tournament seeding. Although the selection committee doesn't always get it right, they try to factor in record, strength of schedule, etc. If you try to measure regular season success in other ways (W/L, conference championships), you end up with all sorts of apples and oranges comparisons. Tournament seeding is imperfect but a reasonable proxy for reglar season success. If you are a top 4 seed, you get points in my system.

Success in the NCAA tournament is measured by how far you advance, obviously. If you make the Sweet 16 or beyond, you get points.

National championships are self-explanatory as far as how to measure. The weighing of them is the fun/controversial part.

On to measurement.

For seeding, I gave the following weights:

• 4 seed- 5 points
• 3 seed- 10 points
• 2 seed- 20 points
• 1 seed- 30 points

For tournament success I have following weights:

• Sweet 16- 5 points
• Elite 8- 15 points
• Final 4- 30 points
• Runner-up- 40 points
• Championship- 70 points

In other words, if you failed to make the Sweet 16 one year and won a championship the next, your cumulative score would be the same as a runner-up one season and a final four bid the next. At first pass, that seemed reasonable to me.

So, through two seasons, where does that leave us? See below.

The question I have to anyone who cares to weigh in is whether you agree. Do I have the right criteria? Do you like the weighting? Would you rather be Stanford or A&M, for instance? Did I get that right?

Thanks for your insight!

If you're going to all that trouble, how about starting with the correct decade?
The first decade was from year 1 to year 10. The first decade of the new millennium was from 2001 to 2010. So the decade you're working with should be from 2011 to 2020.

Just trying to educate.

 

[alexrgct]

If you're going to all that trouble, how about starting with the correct decade?
The first decade was from year 1 to year 10. The first decade of the new millennium was from 2001 to 2010. So the decade you're working with should be from 2011 to 2020.

Just trying to educate.

Although you are technically correct, I disagree from a cultural standpoint. 1980 was not the 1970s. Even if 2000 was "scientifically" the last year of the 2oth century/second millenium, no one considers 2000 "the 90s".

Everyone did their team of the decade stories as 2009 was drawing to a close.

 

[EricLA]

by the way you may want to apply the same logic to last decade too. would be fun to see.

 

[rjuconn]

I think the previous decade would see an overwhelming UConn edge on everyone else...with Tennessee somewhere back in second place.

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

So, I thought it would be fun to start tracking WCBB 2010-2019 to come up with the definitive "program of the decade" rankings. Since we've only completed two seasons, it's relatively easy to set the criteria now. And I actually think talking about the criteria and associated weighting is fun to do.

Let's talk about criteria. I think it's important to capture the following:

• A successful regular season/conference tourney.
• Success in the NCAA tourney
• National championships

The question then becomes how do you measure and weigh these accomplishments? Let's start with measurements.


I think success in the regular season is best captured by tournament seeding. Although the selection committee doesn't always get it right, they try to factor in record, strength of schedule, etc. If you try to measure regular season success in other ways (W/L, conference championships), you end up with all sorts of apples and oranges comparisons. Tournament seeding is imperfect but a reasonable proxy for reglar season success. If you are a top 4 seed, you get points in my system.

Success in the NCAA tournament is measured by how far you advance, obviously. If you make the Sweet 16 or beyond, you get points.

National championships are self-explanatory as far as how to measure. The weighing of them is the fun/controversial part.

On to measurement.

For seeding, I gave the following weights:

• 4 seed- 5 points
• 3 seed- 10 points
• 2 seed- 20 points
• 1 seed- 30 points

For tournament success I have following weights:

• Sweet 16- 5 points
• Elite 8- 15 points
• Final 4- 30 points
• Runner-up- 40 points
• Championship- 70 points

In other words, if you failed to make the Sweet 16 one year and won a championship the next, your cumulative score would be the same as a runner-up one season and a final four bid the next. At first pass, that seemed reasonable to me.


So, through two seasons, where does that leave us? See below.

The question I have to anyone who cares to weigh in is whether you agree. Do I have the right criteria? Do you like the weighting? Would you rather be Stanford or A&M, for instance? Did I get that right?

Thanks for your insight!

4 seed 3 seed 2 seed 1 seed Sweet 16 Elite 8 Final 4 Runner-up Champion Total
Uconn 0 0 0 60 0 0 30 0 70 160
Stanford 0 0 0 60 0 0 30 40 0 130
A&M 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 70 110
Notre Dame 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 40 0 85
Tennessee 0 0 0 60 5 15 0 0 0 80
Baylor 5 0 0 30 0 15 30 0 0 80
Duke 0 0 40 0 0 30 0 0 0 70
OU 0 10 0 0 5 0 30 0 0 45
Xavier 0 10 20 0 0 15 0 0 0 45
Nebraska 0 0 0 30 5 0 0 0 0 35
Florida State 0 20 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 35
Ohio State 5 0 20 0 5 0 0 0 0 30
Kentucky 10 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 25
Gonzaga 0 0 0 0 5 15 0 0 0 20
DePaul 0 10 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 15
West Virginia 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Georgia 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10
UCLA 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Miami 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Iowa State 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 10
Georgetown 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
San Diego State 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
OK State 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Maryland 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
UNC 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Louisville 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Green Bay 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5
Michigan State 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Mississippi St 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5

Alex...when my grandson decides to sleep, I will give your post the thought it so richly deserves. Thanks for stimulating my brain and fertilizing my enthusiasm.

 

[Icebear]

Alex...when my grandson decides to sleep, I will give your post the thought it so richly deserves. Thanks for stimulating my brain and fertilizing my enthusiasm.

Ozzie, is it David or Ricky who needs to go to bed? I'm sure that Harriet is up to the job.

 

[UcMiami]

I think this works pretty well - while there might be anomolies in any given year - like a team getting a three seed that everyone felt should have been a two seed, I think those would pretty well disapppear over a 10 year period. My only suggestion is that I think the NC wieghting is a little high compared to final 4 and runner up. I know NCs are what everyone focuses on, but the difference between the four teams at the FF can be pretty small and the match-ups can have a huge affect on the results - the two best teams can be playing each other in the semis.

 

[VAUConnFan]

I think the previous decade would see an overwhelming UConn edge on everyone else...with Tennessee somewhere back in second place.

Are you guys referring to the decade of the 90's?

 

[alexrgct]

Are you guys referring to the decade of the 90's?

I'm assuming 2000-09. Tennessee was obviously the program the 1990s.

I am in the process of running the 2000-09 numbers based on my initial criteria. Will be a nice litmus test. Obviously, UConn will be #1 and Tennessee #2, but it will be interesting to see how other programs shake out.

 

[triaddukefan]

I'm assuming 2000-09. Tennessee was obviously the program the 1990s.

I am in the process of running the 2000-09 numbers based on my initial criteria. Will be a nice litmus test. Obviously, UConn will be #1 and Tennessee #2, but it will be interesting to see how other programs shake out.

I know who would be #3

 

[alexrgct]

OK, I'm going to post the '00s using the formula in my original post. Because of the character limit, I'm only going to post the top 15. Does it seem accurate?

4 seed 3 seed 2 seed 1 seed Sweet 16 Elite 8 Final 4 Runner-up Champion Total
Uconn 0 10 40 210 5 30 60 0 350 705
Tennessee 0 0 40 210 5 15 60 120 140 590
Duke 0 10 40 210 15 30 60 40 0 405
LSU 5 20 20 90 0 30 150 0 0 315
UNC 10 10 20 120 10 30 60 0 0 260
Stanford 0 10 100 0 5 30 0 80 0 225
Maryland 0 0 40 60 0 30 0 0 70 200
Purdue 10 10 80 0 10 45 0 40 0 195
Oklahoma 5 20 20 60 15 0 30 40 0 190
Rutgers 15 20 40 0 10 30 30 40 0 185
Baylor 5 20 60 0 15 0 0 0 70 170
Vanderbilt 15 10 40 30 15 45 0 0 0 155
Notre Dame 5 0 20 30 20 0 0 0 70 145
Penn State 15 0 20 30 5 30 30 0 0 130
Georgia 0 30 20 30 20 30 0 0 0 130

 

[alexrgct]

I think this works pretty well - while there might be anomolies in any given year - like a team getting a three seed that everyone felt should have been a two seed, I think those would pretty well disapppear over a 10 year period. My only suggestion is that I think the NC wieghting is a little high compared to final 4 and runner up. I know NCs are what everyone focuses on, but the difference between the four teams at the FF can be pretty small and the match-ups can have a huge affect on the results - the two best teams can be playing each other in the semis.

That's the tricky question, and as you can see from the 2000s rankings, some people would argue the other way (i.e., wouldn't you rather be Maryland, Baylor, or Notre Dame than Duke, LSU, or UNC?). I think as a fan, I'd rather have a championship surrounded by a bunch of subpar years rather than being consistently close but no cigar. However you have to balance it with consistency and the very issue you just raised. Tough call.

 

[Icebear]

I know who would be #3

Norte Dame? ;-)

 

[UcMiami]

I am really enjoying this thread and thanks for doing the work. Looking at the aughts, I was surprised to see Stanford and OU as far down the list as they are and behind teams that I thought had lesser decades - again it may just be the weighting of a single NC/getting to the championship game vs getting to the FF multiple times.

Good work and thanks.

 

[FairView]

Norte Dame? ;-)

It's a subversive parallel institution run by the Jesuits who are angry that the country's most famous Catholic University is not one of theirs. They have a plan ....


Edit: I should also add, great thread. Thanks for the work.