The top ten programs of the NCAA Tournament Era

[mtsuraider06]

Great work and as KnightBridgeAZ pointed out, a "Good and valid analysis for the period you cover."
I will quibble with one point you made. "I think using 1982 is about as arbitrary a cutoff as any other but do understand why you chose it."
1982 is in no way an arbitrary cutoff/starting point. It was the beginning of the NCAA tournament. Ignoring the years 1982-1993 eliminates about 1/3 of NCAA WCBB history. As UcMiami has done, calculations can be made to include the years 1982 to 1993 and the results are pretty much the same as Alex's were in his analysis.
Odds and ends. Since 1994, the top 16 teams (all #1-#4 seeds) are 345-7 in the first round of the NCAAT. Those are the games that didn't exist (#1 vs #64, #2 vs #63 ...) when there were just 32 teams (1982, 1983 there were 4 play in games, 1984, 1985). From 1989 to 1993 there were 48 teams in the NCAAT.
There's no doubt which team has been the most dominant in WCBB since 1994 (UConn). Just as there is no doubt which team had been the most dominant from 1982-1993 (Tennessee). Recognizing the latter doesn't diminish the former.

UConn's dominance didn't start until 2000. Tennessee won four NCs in the 90s to UConn's one. Tennessee also won three consecutive from 1996-1998, but UConn was more dominant? No, UConn has not been dominant since 1994.

 

[mtsuraider06]

Two of those "Tennessee Olympians" didn't transfer to Tennessee until after their Olympics.

Tennessee claims them as Olympians, as does USA Basketball.

 

[JS]

UConn's dominance didn't start until 2000. Tennessee won four NCs in the 90s to UConn's one. Tennessee also won three consecutive from 1996-1998, but UConn was more dominant? No, UConn has not been dominant since 1994.

RVW is talking about the starting point and ending points for analysis, by the subject methodology, of an entire period spanning decades.

He's comparing Alex's 1982 starting point for an analysis to date (which RVW defends as not arbitrary) with other (arguably more arbitrary) possible starting/ending points that UConn fans might prefer, such as 1994 to date.

It could be 1990 to date, for that matter -- anything that lops off the 1980s, but RVW is saying any such periods aren't the topic.

No need to leap to the barricades.

By the way, if you think RVW's statement "robs" Tennessee of six years, please reflect that many UConn fans -- who TN fans like to say think WCBB started in the mid-90s -- will feel there's far worse larceny afoot in Alex's starting point and methodology.

Under that regime, assuming current paces, UConn will not "catch" TN until 2019. By then, UConn partisans will complain, the methodology will have "robbed" UConn of a mind-boggling 25 years of being the overall best program.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

UConn's dominance didn't start until 2000. Tennessee won four NCs in the 90s to UConn's one. Tennessee also won three consecutive from 1996-1998, but UConn was more dominant? No, UConn has not been dominant since 1994.

Your concluding statement depends on the meaning of "dominant." I would put it thus: Since 1994 (the year that all teams began following the same 6 game tournament format), UConn has surpassed Tennessee as the preeminent program in women's college basketball.

Here are my data for the period 1994-present.
Tournament appearances: UConn 22; Tenn 22.
First round eliminations: UConn 0; Tenn 1.
Second round eliminations: UConn 0; Tenn 0.
Sweet Sixteen appearances: UConn 22; Tenn 21.
Elite Eight appearances: UConn 19; Tenn 17.
Final Four appearances: UConn 15; Tenn 11.
Championship game appearances: UConn 10; Tenn 9.
Tournament championships: UConn 10; Tenn 5.

 

[rvwsleep]

RVW is talking about the starting point and ending points for analysis, by the subject methodology, of an entire period spanning decades.

He's comparing Alex's 1982 starting point for an analysis to date (which RVW defends as not arbitrary) with other (arguably more arbitrary) possible starting/ending points that UConn fans might prefer, such as 1994 to date.

It could be 1990 to date, for that matter -- anything that lops off the 1980s, but RVW is saying any such periods aren't the topic.

No need to leap to the barricades.

By the way, if you think RVW's statement "robs" Tennessee of six years, please reflect that many UConn fans -- who TN fans like to say think WCBB started in the mid-90s -- will feel there's far worse larceny afoot in Alex's starting point and methodology.

Under that regime, assuming current paces, UConn will not "catch" TN until 2019. By then, UConn partisans will complain, the methodology will have "robbed" UConn of a mind-boggling 25 years of being the overall best program.

Thank You for your response. You are, of course, correct. I was referring to the time periods under consideration. However, mtsuraider allowed his partisanship to cloud both his reading comprehension and his reasoning. He won't be the first or the last on either side to do this. If mtsuraider still disagrees and thinks UConn has not been the dominant team over the last 22 seasons in WCBB, I eagerly await his analysis showing how Tennessee was the better program. Now that would prove interesting.

 

[mtsuraider06]

Thank You for your response. You are, of course, correct. I was referring to the time periods under consideration. However, mtsuraider allowed his partisanship to cloud both his reading comprehension and his reasoning. He won't be the first or the last on either side to do this. If mtsuraider still disagrees and thinks UConn has not been the dominant team over the last 22 seasons in WCBB, I eagerly await his analysis showing how Tennessee was the better program. Now that would prove interesting.

It seems like I'm not the one who needs reading comprehension. I said UConn's dominance began in 2000, not 1994. From 1994 through 1999, Tennessee went to four Final Fours. UConn went to two. Tennessee won three NCs, UConn won one. During those years, Tennessee was better overall. After 2000, as I said, that wasn't the case.

 

[mtsuraider06]

Your concluding statement depends on the meaning of "dominant." I would put it thus: Since 1994 (the year that all teams began following the same 6 game tournament format), UConn has surpassed Tennessee as the preeminent program in women's college basketball.

Here are my data for the period 1994-present.
Tournament appearances: UConn 22; Tenn 22.
First round eliminations: UConn 0; Tenn 1.
Second round eliminations: UConn 0; Tenn 0.
Sweet Sixteen appearances: UConn 22; Tenn 21.
Elite Eight appearances: UConn 19; Tenn 17.
Final Four appearances: UConn 15; Tenn 11.
Championship game appearances: UConn 10; Tenn 9.
Tournament championships: UConn 10; Tenn 5.

I never said 1994 until now. I said from 2000, UConn has been dominant. From 1994-1999, however, that wasn't the case.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

What is interesting is the metamorphosis of women's basketball. Look at the 2015 USA Basketball Women's National Team Mini-Camp Roster. EIGHT out of 27 went to UConn (seven UConn graduates, one current UConn player). There is one player from Tennessee, two from Baylor, two from LSU, two from Stanford, two from Notre Dame, etc.

The pool of players that is supposed to represent the best of the best of women's basketball in the United States has nearly 30 percent of its players from one school. Simply awesome.

 

[j66kicker]

I miss having Pat in the game. Love her or hate her, she added an element to the sport that cannot be replaced.

Me too. When we beat her, it felt like we really beat somebody. How many times can you beat Brenda Freese and have it really feel like you accomplished something?

 

[j66kicker]

What is interesting is the metamorphosis of women's basketball. Look at the 2015 USA Basketball Women's National Team Mini-Camp Roster. EIGHT out of 27 went to UConn (seven UConn graduates, one current UConn player). There is one player from Tennessee, two from Baylor, two from LSU, two from Stanford, two from Notre Dame, etc.

The pool of players that is supposed to represent the best of the best of women's basketball in the United States has nearly 30 percent of its players from one school. Simply awesome.

Yeah, and it's really more lopsided than that at the top - 4 of the 5 starters on the national team last summer were UCONN

 

[easttexastrash]

Yeah, and it's really more lopsided than that at the top - 4 of the 5 starters on the national team last summer were UCONN

Maybe going forward UCONN should have to play an all-star team in the NCAA championship game.

 

[j66kicker]

Maybe going forward UCONN should have to play an all-star team in the NCAA championship game.

Great idea! To extend the season a little, the NCAA winner plays an all-star team selected from everybody else and coached by the NCAA runner-up coach (Muffet's Tuffets). All stars might have a talent advantage, offset by the short time they get to practice together.

 

[mhshuskies]

Since there is so much discussion of probability, I pose a question? Geno said in his post or pre NC presser that the odds were against he and UCONN winning 10 NC and three or four in a row. I would think that each season and each tourney is unique and discreet so each NC odds are independent of how many in the past?

 

[mhshuskies]

Great idea! To extend the season a little, the NCAA winner plays an all-star team selected from everybody else and coached by the NCAA runner-up coach (Muffet's Tuffets). All stars might have a talent advantage, offset by the short time they get to practice together.

Or how about NCAA Champ vs WNBA Champ?

 

[UcMiami]

What is interesting is the metamorphosis of women's basketball. Look at the 2015 USA Basketball Women's National Team Mini-Camp Roster. EIGHT out of 27 went to UConn (seven UConn graduates, one current UConn player). There is one player from Tennessee, two from Baylor, two from LSU, two from Stanford, two from Notre Dame, etc.

The pool of players that is supposed to represent the best of the best of women's basketball in the United States has nearly 30 percent of its players from one school. Simply awesome.

Yeah, and it's really more lopsided than that at the top - 4 of the 5 starters on the national team last summer were UCONN

While I agree whole heartedly with both of these posts, I will also admit that there is some influence exerted by the national team coach and more specifically by his preferred style of play. The Uconn players all deserve to be on the team, but with some of them over the last 6 years, the connection to Geno's style of play has preferred them to other equally qualified players.

 

[UcMiami]

Since there is so much discussion of probability, I pose a question? Geno said in his post or pre NC presser that the odds were against he and UCONN winning 10 NC and three or four in a row. I would think that each season and each tourney is unique and discreet so each NC odds are independent of how many in the past?

The thing with probability is that it looks at the likely outcome of a series of events, but the probability of an single event (e.g. the 2015 NC game) resets after each previous event - so the probability of Uconn going 10-0 in its next 10 NC games is one number, but should they make the 2016 NC game the probability for winning that single game is whatever the odds for that game are, with no reference to the fact it has won its last 10 in a row.
Same with flipping a coin - probability is 50/50 for heads each time you flip, even if the last 50 flips have been tails.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Since there is so much discussion of probability, I pose a question? Geno said in his post or pre NC presser that the odds were against he and UCONN winning 10 NC and three or four in a row. I would think that each season and each tourney is unique and discreet so each NC odds are independent of how many in the past?

On one hand you have the probability of a discrete event and on the other hand you have the probability of a sequence of independent events. On the third hand, and this is important here, you have the effect of auto-correlation in sequences where independence is presumed when, in fact, the events aren't independent at all. Taking the above example of flipping coins, if the flipper has developed a facility at flipping, the probability of the next flip may not be 50-50.

 

[triaddukefan]

Yeah, and it's really more lopsided than that at the top - 4 of the 5 starters on the national team last summer were UCONN

who was #4 besides Moore, Taurasi, and Bird.

 

[triaddukefan]

Or how about NCAA Champ vs WNBA Champ?

Or how about NCAA Champ (women) vs NCAA Champ (men) ?

 

[xHunt3r]

"You play to win the game!"

who was #4 besides Moore, Taurasi, and Bird.

IIRC... Charles

 

[triaddukefan]

"You play to win the game!"


IIRC... Charles

Oh ok, thanks. I forgot about her.

 

[rvwsleep]

It seems like I'm not the one who needs reading comprehension. I said UConn's dominance began in 2000, not 1994. From 1994 through 1999, Tennessee went to four Final Fours. UConn went to two. Tennessee won three NCs, UConn won one. During those years, Tennessee was better overall. After 2000, as I said, that wasn't the case.

I was comparing the two time frames. The one Alex used starting in 1984 which ran through 2015 and the one RegisteredUconn used which was from 1994 through 2015. Would the analysis have shown an even greater degree of dominance by UConn had 2000 been used as a starting point ? Yes.
But before I go any further, a definition. SINCE -in the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present.
This is what I wrote.
"There's no doubt which team has been the most dominant in WCBB since 1994 (UConn). Just as there is no doubt which team had been the most dominant from 1982-1993 (Tennessee)." The intervening period being the time span between 1994 (the time mentioned) and 2015(the present). Was UConn the dominant team every single one of those years ? No. But they were the dominant team over that 22 season span. I used 1994 because it was the starting point of RegisteredUconn's analysis. Did UConn's dominance in WCBB begin in 1994 ? No, but they are still the most dominant team in that time span (1994-2015). Hence, since 1994.
Answer just this one question for me because I think your response will clear everything up. If, as you say, "UConn has not been dominant since 1994." then which team if any has ?

 

[mtsuraider06]

I stand by what I said. From 2000 to now, UConn has been the dominant team.

If you choose to start in 1994, as others have said, you are disregarding 13 years of WCBB before UConn was even on the map. Even after going 35-0 in 1995, you only went to one Final Four until the dominance began in 2000.

I'm not disputing UConn is the dominant team in the sport, it just didn't start in 1994.

 

[rvwsleep]

On one hand you have the probability of a discrete event and on the other hand you have the probability of a sequence of independent events. On the third hand, and this is important here, you have the effect of auto-correlation in sequences where independence is presumed when, in fact, the events aren't independent at all. Taking the above example of flipping coins, if the flipper has developed a facility at flipping, the probability of the next flip may not be 50-50.

Probability as used here pertains to random events (outside of the talented coin flipper). This falls outside of wcbb where skill is involved. Which is why you have a team able to win 90 games in a row.

 

[rvwsleep]

I stand by what I said. From 2000 to now, UConn has been the dominant team.

If you choose to start in 1994, as others have said, you are disregarding 13 years of WCBB before UConn was even on the map. Even after going 35-0 in 1995, you only went to one Final Four until the dominance began in 2000.

I'm not disputing UConn is the dominant team in the sport, it just didn't start in 1994.

I notice you responded in general but without answering my simple question. But then I knew you wouldn't answer it.
Instead, you prefer to go down with a slowly sinking ship.
"If you choose to start in 1994, as others have said, you are disregarding 13 years of WCBB before UConn was even on the map".
I didn't "choose" 1994. That was the year RegisteredUconn used as his starting point for his analysis because that was the year the NCAAT went to 64 teams.
(BTW, I was the one who said "you are disregarding 13 years of WCBB")
I already stated that UConn's dominance didn't start in 1994 in my previous post. But that doesn't prevent them from being the dominant team for that time period (1994-2015)
I'll try this once more and for the last time.

If you "stand by what I said" and you said "UConn has not been dominant since 1994." then which team if any has ?

 

[JS]

I'm not disputing UConn is the dominant team in the sport, it just didn't start in 1994.

And Tennessee's dominance didn't start in 1982 either, though RVW gave the LVs 1982-1988 (when LaTech was the best, with two NCs and two runners-up) as part of giving them the longer period (1982-1994) that was under discussion as a whole.

You want to segment these longer periods, at least in order to highlight the part of the 1994 to date period in which Tennessee was the best. OK, we'll stipulate the LVs were better over the period 1994-1999 and UConn's dominance didn't start immediately in 1994.

If that makes you happy, we can return to the discussion at hand, which is rating programs over the longer "eras" -- the starting points of which were adopted for reasons other than the immediate start of one team's dominance -- including the era adopted by the OP and possible alternative eras.

This whole diversion started over RVW's statement, and I quote: "There's no doubt which team has been the most dominant in WCBB since 1994 (UConn). Just as there is no doubt which team had been the most dominant from 1982-1993 (Tennessee)."

I trust you object to the second sentence as strenuously as you've objected to the first.

 

[EricSD]

Let me make it simple. From 1994 to the present, UCONN has been the most dominant team in WCBB and it's not even close. Since 1994, UCONN has won 10 NC's and been to 14 FF's compared to 5 NC's and 10 FF's for Tenn. Now if you wanted to parse it completely, Tenn was more dominant in 1996-1998 when they won 3 NC's and then again in 2007-2008 when they won 2 in a row.

But overall I don't even get why there is a debate about it. Maybe some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing? UCONN has been the premier college program for 20 years now. And saying UCONN has been the premier program does NOT mean they won the NC every single year. But they have dominated he sport in that 20 year time frame like no other team in history over such a long period of time. Anyone who disputes that is looney tunes.

As JS said, if you pick the starting point of 1994 when the NCAA's went to 64 teams, UCONN has been the most dominant by a very wide margin. UCONN's dominance has been impeded by UNC, Tennessee, Maryland, Notre Dame, Purdue, aTm, and Baylor. While UCONN won almost half of the NCAA championships, those other 5 teams accounted for the remaining 12.

So I guess basically UCONN vs. the world - the world is winning 12-10.

 

[j66kicker]

As JS said, if you pick the starting point of 1994 when the NCAA's went to 64 teams, UCONN has been the most dominant by a very wide margin. UCONN's dominance has been impeded by UNC, Tennessee, Maryland, Notre Dame, Purdue, aTm, and Baylor. While UCONN won almost half of the NCAA championships, those other 5 teams accounted for the remaining 12.

So I guess basically UCONN vs. the world - the world is winning 12-10.

Well for the last 3 years it's UCONN 3 - World 0

 

[Bgillon]

My purpose in providing those math jokes was not to denigrate Alex's work. Just providing a bit of levity to what was becoming contentious.

What I did have in mind was happiness to see that that those results were allowed to appear and stay on this site. If the numbers were reversed and UConn were shown to be #1, they would not be allowed to appear on sites of orange persuasion, let alone be supported by members.

The value of Alex's work is that it gives UConn a goal to shoot for. There is so little else available to keep up the motivation.

Well said. I was just thinking that this is the only site that is thought provoking, encourages differing opinions including from fans of other programs, and makes me anxious for next season!!!

 

[UcMiami]

So using Registered Uconn's system because it is easy to calculate off wicky here are various breakdowns for Uconn and TN:
1982 -1984 (pre Geno) TN 26 - Uconn 0
1985-1989 TN 61 Uconn 1
--- 1982-1989 (80s) TN 87 - Uconn 1
1990-1993 (NCAA old format) TN 34 Uconn 13
1994-1999 TN 84 Uconn 47
--- 1990 - 1999 (90s) TN 118 Uconn 60
2000-2009 (00s) TN 106 Uconn 134
2010-2015 (10s) TN 26 Uconn 100

---Total NCAAs TN 337 Uconn 295
NCAAs 1982 - 1999 TN 205 Uconn 61
NCAAs 1982 - 2009 TN 311 Uconn 195

Total Geno era 1985 - 2015 TN 311 Uconn 295
Total 64 team NCAA era 1994-2015 TN 216 Uconn 281
Total new millennia (2000-2015 TN 132 Uconn 234