The Modern Era

[Dogdeacon]

Agreed. I don’t think many ppl feel that making the tournament 6 times is equivalent to a title—or 3 sweet 16s for that matter.

Yes, and further because of the week between games making the sweet sixteen - winning 2nd game far more important that winning first. Likewise with the emphasis on the final four and that week of concentrated hype there is a huge value to making a final four, winning 8 >> than winning in the round of 16.
I'd go 2-4, 5-10, 12-24

 

[pepband99]

If I recall correctly, Duke’s big break onto prominence happened when they recruited the top center in the county… a 7 footer from Monroe, CT… Mike Gminski. That was unbeknownst to many the beginning of the hatred towards Duke. Flash forward to today and the next great 7 football center from CT stayed home and remedied the sins of the past.

The Knorr Rd Flash!

 

[storrsroars]

Point values on these things are always tricky, but we can take a cue from March madness pools, to kind of figure out how we value the different rounds. The standard is the doubling every round point value, but most people who are serious about this kind of thing agree that that puts way too much emphasis on the champion, even though we do emphasize the champion a lot in real life. You've gone with the just elevate by one every round, which doesn't seem to give enough value to going far. What many people believe is it better system is the Fibonacci sequence.

Try running it again with this modified Fibonacci 2-3-5-8-13-21.

My gut reaction to that is it greatly devalues making the tourney consisten5ly, which is sort of the point behind blue bloods. Do you really feel missing the tourney 10x is worth one banner?

 

[Rocktheworld]

I threw together a quick sheet from 1975-present, putting a value on each step (except R32 as everyone was in R32 from 1975-1984). So 1 pt for making tourney, 2 for Sweet Sixteen, 3 for Elite Eight, 4 for Final Four, 5 for NC game, and 6 for winning it all.

There are 16 teams with at least 100 points. We're 8th.

View attachment 86993

I don't want to hear about vacated titles. I watched the games. Just like I watched Bruce Jenner win the decathlon.

UNC only missing 4 tourneys in 48 years is pretty incredible. Other than Florida, UConn has the fewest tourney appearances of the 16. As they say, gotta be in it to win it.

Nerd mojo fumes carrying over to the off-season. Love it

 

[huskyharry]

If I recall correctly, Duke’s big break onto prominence happened when they recruited the top center in the county… a 7 footer from Monroe, CT… Mike Gminski. That was unbeknownst to many the beginning of the hatred towards Duke. Flash forward to today and the next great 7 football center from CT stayed home and remedied the sins of the past.

IIRC I was a sophomore at E.O. Smith when we played against him in the high school playoffs, 1979

 

[auror]

My gut reaction to that is it greatly devalues making the tourney consisten5ly, which is sort of the point behind blue bloods. Do you really feel missing the tourney 10x is worth one banner?

I think for people without any banners, they would absolutely trade 10 tourny appearance misses. I think it's a decent break-even point. I would definitely trade 8 misses for a title (we just had a similar if lesser period of crappiness and the title totally redeems it ). 12 -15 seems like too many misses and too much irrelevance. 10 seems about even.

I agree with your premise to a point about consistent competing. I'd like to see the result. Multiple final fours and titles are pretty scarce, so I don't think more heavier weighting for later rounds dilutes it as much as you expect. Either way, Cincinnati isn't a blue blood. You gotta win more than just show up in the tournament.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The NBA has also developed a great training system to help players now to not see as many flat out flame outs as we did before.

The G League has only been a thing since I think 2003 and it hasn’t been until recently where they’ve utilized it as the development league that it’s meant to be. Which helps them take risks on younger talented guys because they’re confident they can develop them.

There is not a lot of statistical evidence beyond anecdotal that players develop better in the pros than they do in college. Look back at the recent drafts since 2010. The outcome of the straight to pros players is not any better, and may be worse, than that of top recruits who went to college for a year or two, then went pro. Pro teams have a tendency to write off players pretty quickly (see Bouknight) because there is always a new batch of draft picks coming the next year.

 

[Deleted at users request]

There is not a lot of statistical evidence beyond anecdotal that players develop better in the pros than they do in college. Look back at the recent drafts since 2010. The outcome of the straight to pros players is not any better, and may be worse, than that of top recruits who went to college for a year or two, then went pro. Pro teams have a tendency to write off players pretty quickly (see Bouknight) because there is always a new batch of draft picks coming the next year.

Oh, I’m not sure on that. My point was moreso that the NBA feels confident about drafting young guys nowadays because they are confident in their development program.

There’s a lot of G League success stories, see Jodan Poole. It may not be over for Bouknight just yet.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Oh, I’m not sure on that. My point was moreso that the NBA feels confident about drafting young guys nowadays because they are confident in their development program.

There’s a lot of G League success stories, see Jodan Poole. It may not be over for Bouknight just yet.

The NBA drafts kids out of FOMO, not confidence in their development. In fact, you are seeing more and more GM's willing to trade half a decade of first round picks for end of the line superstars. 25 years ago, those trades would have been insane. You would never trade multiple potential lottery picks for an oft-injured borderline all-star like Paul George, or a hard partying guy like Harden that was at the end of his career. When you see an NBA GM trade 3 or more draft picks for someone like that, it means they don't put a lot of value on the draft picks.

Even the NBA players that work out often don't work out for the team that drafted them. It still takes multiple years for a player to refine his skills and have his body mature, and by that point, the player is at the end of their rookie contract. The team has a choice of letting a player go that they have already invested $20 million or more into, or wildly overpaying for someone that has not really done anything yet. Why not just trade the draft pick, save the money on a kid who can't produce for several years, and then get the best of the players coming off rookie contracts in teams that are maxed out on the cap?

 

[Deleted at users request]

The NBA drafts kids out of FOMO, not confidence in their development. In fact, you are seeing more and more GM's willing to trade half a decade of first round picks for end of the line superstars. 25 years ago, those trades would have been insane. You would never trade multiple potential lottery picks for an oft-injured borderline all-star like Paul George, or a hard partying guy like Harden that was at the end of his career. When you see an NBA GM trade 3 or more draft picks for someone like that, it means they don't put a lot of value on the draft picks.

Even the NBA players that work out often don't work out for the team that drafted them. It still takes multiple years for a player to refine his skills and have his body mature, and by that point, the player is at the end of their rookie contract. The team has a choice of letting a player go that they have already invested $20 million or more into, or wildly overpaying for someone that has not really done anything yet. Why not just trade the draft pick, save the money on a kid who can't produce for several years, and then get the best of the players coming off rookie contracts in teams that are maxed out on the cap?

I think your two points go together but doesn’t necessarily take away from them drafting young guys because of their confidence in their development system.

1. NBA drafts super young guys because they can stash them in the G League even if they aren’t ready to develop for later.

2. NBA trades picks like candy because yeah, even in that scenario if you do find a guy you only have so many years before he’s available for other teams to grab with all the player movement. So there’s no point in relying on developing guys unless your straight up Pistons/Rockets style tanking. Rookies aren’t expected to contribute to winning right away anymore.

Speaking of which, if one of those teams get Vic it makes all those years of tanking kind of worth it. Lol

 

[storrsroars]

I think for people without any banners, they would absolutely trade 10 tourny appearance misses. I think it's a decent break-even point. I would definitely trade 8 misses for a title (we just had a similar if lesser period of crappiness and the title totally redeems it ). 12 -15 seems like too many misses and too much irrelevance. 10 seems about even.

I agree with your premise to a point about consistent competing. I'd like to see the result. Multiple final fours and titles are pretty scarce, so I don't think more heavier weighting for later rounds dilutes it as much as you expect. Either way, Cincinnati isn't a blue blood. You gotta win more than just show up in the tournament.

Picked a helluva day to ask for a spreadsheet revision... laptop stopped charging last night, took in for service. Ever try to edit columns on a tablet? Ugh.

Anyway, I'm just going to list the top 10 using your sequence:
UNC 630
Duke 601
Kentucky 540
Kansas 455
UConn 371
Louisville 359
UCLA 356
Indiana 327
Villanova 293
Michigan 291

So who's gonna be first to comment that NCs are still being undervalued?

Also... need to buy a bluetooth mouse to go with the bluetooth keyboard!

 

[giddyup]

IIRC I was a sophomore at E.O. Smith when we played against him in the high school playoffs, 1979

Ha, I played you guys in the early 80s. Always tough. I don’t think we beat you until my last year. There was another super player you might remember, Frank Eady out East Windsor. All state 6’7 man-child. Had the pleasure of defending him at 6’0. My glorious assignment was beating the crap out of him and keeping out of the paint which wasn’t so effective.

 

[SubbaBub]

The cutoff should be 1975. They refused to take more than one team per conference before them. What a joke

In terms of determining a true champion, this is probably better. It's what FB should do.

The tournament is the tournament, and the winning team is crowned champion. That's different than determining the best team in any given season.

The argument for not counting seasons prior to the 64 team expansion is that it is a lot harder win 6 games vs 5 (32 team field) or 3 (8 team field). Forget about field split between multiple tournaments.

Then you add in the problems associated with the pre-shot clock era, segregation, playing in short shorts and converse all-stars etc. Even Bird/Magic was way different, 40 teams, than Jordan/Ewing, 48 teams, just a few years later.

It's like comparing the modern NFL to the leather helment days. Yeah, it's football, but then again it's not the same sport.

 

[pj]

Picked a helluva day to ask for a spreadsheet revision... laptop stopped charging last night, took in for service. Ever try to edit columns on a tablet? Ugh.

Anyway, I'm just going to list the top 10 using your sequence:
UNC 630
Duke 601
Kentucky 540
Kansas 455
UConn 371
Louisville 359
UCLA 356
Indiana 327
Villanova 293
Michigan 291

So who's gonna be first to comment that NCs are still being undervalued?

Also... need to buy a bluetooth mouse to go with the bluetooth keyboard!

This is a pretty good order. I re-did the top schools using a score where the points double each round you advance, as in the ESPN bracket challenge, and it had almost the same order:

 

[bendm]

as was explained above, we cant distinguish between bids and the second round b/c only 32 teams made the tourney from 75-85.
results dont change whether you start the fibonacci sequence with 1 or 2.

Rank 1975+	Team	Bids/R32	X1	Sweet 16	X2	Elite 8	X3	Final 4	X5	Finals	X8	Champ	X13	Total
1	UNC	44	44	30	60	22	66	15	75	9	72	5	65	382
2	Duke	40	40	28	56	19	57	14	70	10	80	5	65	368
3	Kentucky	40	40	29	58	22	56	11	55	7	56	4	52	317
4	Kansas	41	41	24	48	16	48	10	50	6	48	3	39	274
5	UConn	25	25	16	32	11	33	6	30	5	40	5	65	225
6	Louisville	35	35	21	42	12	36	8	40	3	24	3	39	216
7	UCLA	37	37	23	46	11	33	8	40	4	32	2	26	214
8	MSU	34	34	19	38	12	36	9	45	3	24	2	26	203
9	Indiana	39	39	18	36	8	24	5	25	4	32	3	39	195
10	Villanova	31	31	13	26	10	30	5	25	3	24	3	39	175
10	Michigan	26	26	14	28	10	30	6	30	6	48	1	13	175
12	Syracuse	37	37	21	42	8	24	6	30	3	24	1	13	170
13	Arizona	36	36	19	38	11	33	4	20	2	16	1	13	156
14	Florida	23	23	11	22	9	27	5	25	3	24	2	26	147
15	Georgetown	30	30	11	22	8	24	4	20	3	24	1	13	133
16	Arkansas	31	31	13	26	8	24	4	20	2	16	1	13	130
17	Virginia	25	25	10	20	7	21	4	20	1	8	1	13	107
18	UNLV	20	20	10	20	5	15	4	20	1	8	1	13	96
19	Marquette	26	26	8	16	4	12	2	10	2	16	1	13	93
20	NC St	20	20	7	14	3	9	1	5	1	8	1	13	69
21	Baylor	12	12	5	10	3	9	1	5	1	8	1	13	57

 

[BugsyCT]

I don’t have a good place to post this graphic but I like it too much to not post, mainly because of the 3rd logo top row.

 

[tzznandrew]

I don’t have a good place to post this graphic but I like it too much to not post, mainly because of the 3rd logo top row.

View attachment 87063

What's crazy is that Xavier was a Freemantle injury away (likely) and Creighton should have been in OT this year.

Those are two programs we should expect to make it. Too bad Nebhardt is off to Arizona (probably), otherwise that team would be Top-10 all year.