Sporting News: Best Programs Since 2000

[upstater]

If you start this a year earlier, 1999, then UConn is #2

 

[sdhusky]

Wow did not realize this. Still, they should win a lot more games with the talent they get year after year. I still hold my opinion that we should definitely be ranked higher than them since 2000. Kansas: 4 FF, 1 NC. UConn: 4 FF, 3 NC. The national championships speak for themselves.

How many big 12 titles haven't they gotten in this time period? Bet they have every one but maybe 2.

 

[BUConn10]

We've had this general discussion in different terms in many threads in the last year or so. The general consensus from these types of articles and from unbiased Yarders is that UConn's championships definitely weight heavily in this but they get knocked down some for the lack of consistency. Kansas and Duke have been more consistent and have overall had more dominating regular seasons. UConn hasn't won as many regular season championships in their conferences. That's illustrated in UConn's winning percentage since 2000 being 15th. While championships are definitely great and the ultimate goal I don't think you can totally dismiss the other 30-35 games during the season.

Playing in the toughest conference in the history of the sport puts that lack of consistency into context. Duke and Kansas would not have the same records and conference titles had they been in the Old BE, and we did all our damage during the conferences peak.

 

[Matrim55]

This seems fair to me.

 

[AtlHusky]

If you start this a year earlier, 1999, then UConn is #2

Not to nitpick (OK, maybe I am), but you would have had to start two years earlier in order to include the win in 1998-99, and MSU gets on the board with a championship in 1999-2000.

 

[SubbaBub]

Using tournament wins is perfectly reasonable. Using regular season wins is not. Using a 1-15 Nascar ranking is not.

Without crunching numbers, it's Duke, ys, then UK, because 3>1 more than 4>3 seeing as we beat them twice.

 

[Skies17]

The UConn - Kansas comparison is an interesting one. The list puts a lot of weight into winning percentage. Kansas (2nd with .820 gets +14, UConn 15th with .716 gets only +1). But I don't think there's any doubt that had KU played most of the last 15 years in the Big East like we had, they wouldn't be sitting at .820. The Big 12 has helped them go on an incredible streak of conference titles and great records with sporadic challenges from conference mates (Texas, OU, Ok State, K State, Mizzou and Iowa State all having good years at some point), but I can't help but think that KU runs through weak conferences and doesn't get prepared enough facing the toughest teams. This might account for them reaching 7 Elite Eights and 4 Final 4's but not having national championship success. The flip side would be UConn. Kemba's year we went 9-9 in conference and finished 8th. But obviously we were battle tested and it showed in the tournament. In the end the rankings don't matter much. Even if Kansas is ranked higher, the titles more than make up for not having the consistent winning of Kansas.

 

[champs99and04]

Surprised so many people are trying to justify UConn being #4. Using overall winning percentage is flawed because there is no commonality in the scheduling structure. Look at these numbers and tell me Kentucky belongs ahead of UConn:

Tournament appearances: Kentucky 13, UConn 10 (should be 11 if you discount the NCAA mafia parachuting down on Calhoun)

Sweet Sixteen: Kentucky 7, UConn 5

Elite Eight: Kentucky 6, UConn 6

Final Four: Kentucky 4, UConn 4

National Championships: Kentucky 1, UConn 3

Essentially, they're valuing Kentucky's additional three tournament appearances and additional two sweet sixteen's over UConn's additional two championships.

 

[UconnFanNVa]

The UConn - Kansas comparison is an interesting one. The list puts a lot of weight into winning percentage. Kansas (2nd with .820 gets +14, UConn 15th with .716 gets only +1). But I don't think there's any doubt that had KU played most of the last 15 years in the Big East like we had, they wouldn't be sitting at .820. The Big 12 has helped them go on an incredible streak of conference titles and great records with sporadic challenges from conference mates (Texas, OU, Ok State, K State, Mizzou and Iowa State all having good years at some point), but I can't help but think that KU runs through weak conferences and doesn't get prepared enough facing the toughest teams. This might account for them reaching 7 Elite Eights and 4 Final 4's but not having national championship success. The flip side would be UConn. Kemba's year we went 9-9 in conference and finished 8th. But obviously we were battle tested and it showed in the tournament. In the end the rankings don't matter much. Even if Kansas is ranked higher, the titles more than make up for not having the consistent winning of Kansas.

To that point, we should be running the AAC and raising our regular season % up, getting more conference championships and more tournament appearances than in past years going forward. At least while we are in the AAC.

 

[MexicoHusky]

I look at this issue slightly different:

1995 - Should have been in Final Four. Rickey Moore injury stopped it. I actually think our 95 team gives the best Kentucky team a run for their money. I know we play to win...unlike stupid Cuse who plays to keep it close

1999 - Championship

2004 - Championship

2009 - Should have played UNC for the championship. Dyson injury prevented it. I think we have a chance to win. Like Cuse vs. Kentucky, we play to win more than Mich State does. Both Cuse and Michigan State started those games knowing they lose.

2011 - Championship (this was a surprise)

2014 - Championship (oddly enough I was not surprised by this. I was just surprised how avg they were during the regular season)

That's a championship caliber team almost every 4 years. Our success is like clockwork (every four years a team matures). We have been gaining on these programs my entire adult life. Even by their dumb standards we have passed almost all other programs (including UNC). We are the future. I would bet on our players and the guys that JC taught over the likes of whoever eventually replaces K, Cal, Self and Williams

 

[MexicoHusky]

I'd also add that our 4 year cycle wasn't even interrupted by a NCAA suspension. You might even say it rallied us.

Also...Kansas is total B.S. on almost all levels.

 

[Greathusky]

I will jump on Kansas like everyone else in this thread.

Rock Chalk BullHawk I say!

 

[Skies17]

To that point, we should be running the AAC and raising our regular season % up, getting more conference championships and more tournament appearances than in past years going forward. At least while we are in the AAC.

Agreed. Coming off of Calhoun leaving/sanctions/Big East dying we say half our roster transfer/graduate and we ended up with a somewhat depleted roster. Obviously winning in 14 is big for dispelling that, but the key to prolonged success is consistently good recruiting. Our recruiting classes after the Boatright/Daniels/Drummond classes were:

2012: Nolan, Calhoun, Tolksdorf - two four year guys, Leon transferred
2013: Samuel, Facey, Brimah - Amida was a diamond in the rough, Facey is a four year guy, Samuel transferred
2014: Hamilton, Lubin - Daniel is a great get, Rakim transferred.

Getting some influx of transfer talent (Kromah, Purvis, Cassell, Gibbs, Miller) plugged some huge holes but going forward that won't be a recipe for success. I think we will dominate the AAC like Kansas has dominated the B12 (along with sporadic reasonable challenges from Cinci, Memphis, Temple, and SMU) but it won't be for a couple years when we establish a talent base on the roster.

 

[Jerry1714]

I'd also add that our 4 year cycle wasn't even interrupted by a NCAA suspension. You might even say it rallied us.

Also...Kansas is total B.S. on almost all levels.

Name a level other than the titles (which obviously is the most important and should be weighted the heaviest), because you cannot.

People banging on what KU has accomplished just do not know what they are talking about.

 

[Jerry1714]

Surprised so many people are trying to justify UConn being #4. Using overall winning percentage is flawed because there is no commonality in the scheduling structure. Look at these numbers and tell me Kentucky belongs ahead of UConn:

Tournament appearances: Kentucky 13, UConn 10 (should be 11 if you discount the NCAA mafia parachuting down on Calhoun)

Sweet Sixteen: Kentucky 7, UConn 5

Elite Eight: Kentucky 6, UConn 6

Final Four: Kentucky 4, UConn 4

National Championships: Kentucky 1, UConn 3

Essentially, they're valuing Kentucky's additional three tournament appearances and additional two sweet sixteen's over UConn's additional two championships.

Did you look at the article and see it was a simple point system? 1+1=2, that is all that it is.

If they graded NCs as a 10, as opposed to an 8, UConn would be #2 and everyone would be happy, but because it is an 8, the list and author is a joke.

 

[mets1090]

That works, but it isn't the case here.

I disagree with what you're saying but if you want to argue semantics, I would tend to say it in the opposite order. For example, since the 98-99 season, UConn has made 7 E8s, 5 FF, and won 4 titles. That makes it easier to discern how successful they are once reaching each level.

You're also generally stating these numbers so that they can be compared to other programs. So if you know that Program A has 5 trips to the E8 since 99, wouldn't you want to know that UConn has 7 E8s and not just 2?

 

[dennismenace]

Kansas has also won the big12 reg season title 12 years in a row...so i think they're winning plenty, and don't be cliche and say "they're not winning when it counts." They've been to just as many FF's as us in that span, and had more tourney appearances overall. Winning that NC game is a huge step, and we've been lucky to have elite college guards like kemba, bazz, and boat to get us over the hump.

I have no problem with where he put us on the list. If we want to push the debate for a higher spot in our favor we need to be more consistent each year and start winning some regular season trophies as well. No question the NC is a 1000x more important, but it's a crap shoot every year to win the NCAA (who knows who you'll run into, and who's getting hot at the right time, etc). Much more straightforward to win a regular season title or conf tourney since you know what you're going to run into so we need to start doing that as many people on here are starting to harp on

From a future recruiting standpoint I think being number four is OK. The main reason we are number four is winning championships. Not too shabby in producing NBA players (long term as well). This should give some recruits a reason to pause
for a moment and consider that the national media may be overlooking us a bit IMHO. Great to see us ahead of North Carolina,
Louisville and Syracuse. Plus with KO the young coach who has already proven himself the future looks bright!

 

[JimHurley]

Kansas has also been to 26 straight NCAAs, the longest active streak. It's more than just national championships.

This is not overly impressive considering how much talent Bill Self racks up every year. The NCAAs aren't hard to make anyway. SIXTY-EIGHT teams make the tournament. National championships are the ultimate measure of success; you win when it counts most.

 

[SixRings]

Just doing the simple math essentially you get 16 points for a NC (4 for making the F4, 4 for winning first game, 8 for NC = 16) We have won 4 and made the F4 in 09 which equals 68 points. Someone much more in tune with Sporting News POY's, first team all-Americans, NBA picks, etc. can probably add to this but we only received 7 points for those accomplishments? I know it is not our strongest point but I tend to think we had more than a few. The math doesn't add up to me. Really don't care because they did get our strong point correct... Win NC's.

 

[mauconnfan]

Name a level other than the titles (which obviously is the most important and should be weighted the heaviest), because you cannot.

People banging on what KU has accomplished just do not know what they are talking about.

KU is a consistent program year in year out. But in relative terms based on the players brought in with their rankings, there are times they seem to underachieve no doubt.

 

[champs99and04]

Did you look at the article and see it was a simple point system? 1+1=2, that is all that it is.

If they graded NCs as a 10, as opposed to an 8, UConn would be #2 and everyone would be happy, but because it is an 8, the list and author is a joke.

Yes, I understand it was a point system. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[Jerry1714]

This is not overly impressive considering how much talent Bill Self racks up every year. The NCAAs aren't hard to make anyway. SIXTY-EIGHT teams make the tournament. National championships are the ultimate measure of success; you win when it counts most.

This is more ridiculous than your comment that KU is "garbage every year".

I don't even know where to start with this one it is so out there

 

[huskiesNhoos]

This is not overly impressive considering how much talent Bill Self racks up every year. The NCAAs aren't hard to make anyway. SIXTY-EIGHT teams make the tournament. National championships are the ultimate measure of success; you win when it counts most.

This is more ridiculous than your comment that KU is "garbage every year".

I don't even know where to start with this one it is so out there

I started to try and reply to this, but it's just pointless as you said...

 

[Tenspro2002]

This seems like a fair ranking.

The debate we always have is on the value of consistency vs. the value of championships. On the whole, Kansas has been consistently better than us. Period. But our highs have been higher (or our highest highs more frequent). It's up to the individual fan to decide their own weighting. The weighting these guys have chosen seems reasonable to me.

 

[Jerry1714]

KU is a consistent program year in year out. But in relative terms based on the players brought in with their rankings, there are times they seem to underachieve no doubt.

They definitely have underachieved some years, but so have we. '05, '06, '12 were massive underachieving teams with the talent level they had.

 

[SixRings]

Delete my post. See the 2000 qualifier now. Duh.

 

[Huskies4ever]

I look at this issue slightly different:

1996 - Should have been in Final Four. Rickey Moore injury stopped it. I actually think our 95 team gives the best Kentucky team a run for their money. I know we play to win...unlike stupid Cuse who plays to keep it close

1999 - Championship

2004 - Championship

2009 - Should have played UNC for the championship. Dyson injury prevented it. I think we have a chance to win. Like Cuse vs. Kentucky, we play to win more than Mich State does. Both Cuse and Michigan State started those games knowing they lose.

2011 - Championship (this was a surprise)

2014 - Championship (oddly enough I was not surprised by this. I was just surprised how avg they were during the regular season)

That's a championship caliber team almost every 4 years. Our success is like clockwork (every four years a team matures). We have been gaining on these programs my entire adult life. Even by their dumb standards we have passed almost all other programs (including UNC). We are the future. I would bet on our players and the guys that JC taught over the likes of whoever eventually replaces K, Cal, Self and Williams

FIFY

 

[Danzz]

Cuse shocked me at 7.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Essentially, they're valuing Kentucky's additional three tournament appearances and additional two sweet sixteen's over UConn's additional two championships.

What they are doing is valuing Kentucky's one-and-dones more than our Kromahs and Giffeys. Simple as that.
The results are dependent on the algorithm they are using.
If you define "program success" as consisting substantially of "guys in the NBA," then you get one result. If you define "program success" as consisting substantially of "winning when it matters," then you get a different result.
The use of the algorithm is, really, self serving. They figured out which programs they thought were the best, and they went backwards from there to derive the algorithm they should use.
Frankly, my definition of "best program" would be heavily weighted toward, "what did you do with the talent you had?" and Kentucky wouldn't be top 5, and neither would Kansas or Sadexcuse. But, hey, I guess having more and doing less with it is high on some people's list.

 

[CallMeBruce]

This is more ridiculous than your comment that KU is "garbage every year".

I don't even know where to start with this one it is so out there

Give him a few minutes. He'll top it.