The top ten programs of the NCAA Tournament Era

[mtsuraider06]

Should schools receive points for the number of WNBA they have produced if we are talking about the success of the overall program? UCONN has had 30 different players play in the WNBA. This does not count Shea who was drafted but unable to ever play because of her ACL tears. Also that they developed the Liberty around Lobo and the Miracle around Sales is worth noting.
We also have at least 12 Olympians... and some of those have played in multiple games. DT and Sue are going for their forth.

Should some points be added there?

For what it's worth, Tennessee has produced 14 Olympians to UConn's eight:

Cindy Brogdon - 1976
Tamika Catchings - 2004, 2008, 2012
Daedra Charles - 1992
Bridgette Gordon - 1988
Lea Henry - 1984
Chamique Holdsclaw - 2000
Kara Lawson - 2008
Nikki McCray - 1996, 2000
Carla McGhee - 1996
Cindy Noble - 1980, 1984
Candace Parker - 2008, 2012
Jill Rankin - 1980
Patricia Roberts - 1976
Holly Warlick - 1980

Sue Bird - 2004, 2008, 2012
Swin Cash - 2004, 2012
Tina Charles - 2012
Asjha Jones - 2012
Rebecca Lobo - 1996
Maya Moore - 2012
Diana Taurasi - 2004, 2008, 2012
Kara Wolters - 2000

Tennessee has also had 38 players drafted into the WNBA to UConn's 31. I can list those as well but it will be a long post. UConn has 11 All-Stars to Tennessee's nine:

Sue Bird - 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014
Swin Cash - 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011
Tina Charles - 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014
Charde Houston - 2009
Asjha Jones - 2007, 2009
Rebecca Lobo - 1999
Renee Montgomery - 2010, 2011
Maya Moore - 2011, 2013, 2014
Nykesha Sales - 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006
Diana Taurasi - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014
Rita Williams - 2001

Nicky Anosike - 2009
Tamika Catchings - 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014
Tonya Edwards - 1999
Chamique Holdsclaw - 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005
Glory Johnson - 2013, 2014
Kara Lawson - 2007
Nikki McCray - 1999, 2000, 2001
Candace Parker - 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014
Michelle Snow - 2005, 2006, 2010

 

[UcMiami]

It's not arbitrary if you're interested in the Geno era. It's just a different question.

But Geno era would start in 1985 and would include 5 years of nothingness (it only cuts off the first three NCAA years and the results would still favor TN though dropping the first three years would make it a closer calculation.

 

[Wally East]

Should schools receive points for the number of WNBA they have produced if we are talking about the success of the overall program?

That would be awarding points for a symptom of success rather than success itself (plus, the WNBA came into existence only about about halfway through the NCAA tournament error).

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Great work Alex. I've listed some concerns and I hope they are not taken as some sort of repudiation but simply as additional food for thought. I know how difficult your list was to compile.

• I think using 1982 is about as arbitrary a cutoff as any other but do understand why you chose it. My objection is that early tournaments included fewer teams. Making the Sweet Sixteen when there are only 32 teams in the tournament seems, on its face, to mean its was easier to amass points in early years. Not sure how to quantify that though. My preference would be to include only years where the tournament fields were all equal.
• Isn't awarding points for both seeding and tournament play a form of double counting? As Alex pointed out, seeding is a form of rewarding regular season performance. But tournament performance is also reflected in seeding in that higher seeds get easier opponents. Thus seeding, which is reflective of regular season performance is also reflected in tournament play, two supposedly different components of team strength.
  
• Why exclude data? Why not reward programs seeded #5 through #16? I understand that the effort involved expands as data does but were there other reasons?
• What's the rationale behind the scoring values? For seeds the values for the top four seeds are 5, 10, 20, and 30. Seeds 2 and 3 are twice as valuable as a the immediate prior seed but the 1 seed is only worth 50% more. Why the discrepancy? Similarly, tournament performance doesn't seem to follow any easily discernible logic. An Elite Eight performance is 3 times as valuable as a Sweet Sixteen but a Final Four only twice as valuable as an Elite Eight. Using absolute numbers rather than multiples doesn't appear to add clarity. For each level of advancement the numerical values are 10, 15, 10, and 30. Why do the values jump around?

For those who challenged others to come up with their own list, here's mine. But first a word about methodology. I chose 1994 as the beginning year because that was the year the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Thus all fields in the study group are numerically identical.

Tournament play yields seven distinct levels of performance.
Level 1 -- elimination in the first round.
Level 2 -- elimination in the second round.
Level 3 -- elimination in the Sweet Sixteen.
Level 4 -- elimination in the Elite Eight.
Level 5 -- elimination in the Final Four.
Level 6 -- Runner up.
Level 7 -- Champion.

Scoring is a modified Fibonacci sequence (where each term (except the first two) is the sum of the two preceding terms).
Level 1 -- 1 point.
Level 2 -- 2 points.
Level 3 -- 3 points.
Level 4 -- 5 points.
Level 5 -- 8 points.
Level 6 -- 13 points.
Level 7 -- 21 points.

Here is my Top Ten:
1. UConn (281 points)
2. Tennessee (216 points)
3. Stanford (121 points)
4. Notre Dame (120 points)
5. Duke (102 points)
6. Purdue (92 points)
7. North Carolina (86 points)
8. Baylor (84 points)
9. Georgia (76 points)
10. LSU (73 points)

They are followed by
Louisiana Tech (66 points)
Maryland (65 points)
Oklahoma (60 points)
Rutgers (57 points)
Vanderbilt (53 points)
Louisville (53 points)
Texas A&M (49 points)
Penn St. (43 points)
Old Dominion (42 points)
Texas Tech (41 points)

 

[calpedaler]

For what it's worth, Tennessee has produced 14 Olympians to UConn's eight:

Cindy Brogdon - 1976
Tamika Catchings - 2004, 2008, 2012
Daedra Charles - 1992
Bridgette Gordon - 1988
Lea Henry - 1984
Chamique Holdsclaw - 2000
Kara Lawson - 2008
Nikki McCray - 1996, 2000
Carla McGhee - 1996
Cindy Noble - 1980, 1984
Candace Parker - 2008, 2012
Jill Rankin - 1980
Patricia Roberts - 1976
Holly Warlick - 1980

Sue Bird - 2004, 2008, 2012
Swin Cash - 2004, 2012
Tina Charles - 2012
Asjha Jones - 2012
Rebecca Lobo - 1996
Maya Moore - 2012
Diana Taurasi - 2004, 2008, 2012
Kara Wolters - 2000

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

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Great work Alex. I've listed some concerns and I hope they are not taken as some sort of repudiation but simply as additional food for thought. I know how difficult your list was to compile.

• Isn't awarding points for both seeding and tournament play a form of double counting? As Alex pointed out, seeding is a form of rewarding regular season performance. But tournament performance is also reflected in seeding in that higher seeds get easier opponents. Thus seeding, which is reflective of regular season performance is also reflected in tournament play, two supposedly different components of team strength.

For those who challenged others to come up with their own list, here's mine. But first a word about methodology. I chose 1994 as the beginning year because that was the year the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Thus all fields in the study group are numerically identical.

Here is my Top Ten:
1. UConn (281 points)
2. Tennessee (216 points)
3. Stanford (121 points)
4. Notre Dame (120 points)
5. Duke (102 points)
6. Purdue (92 points)
7. North Carolina (86 points)
8. Baylor (84 points)
9. Georgia (76 points)
10. LSU (73 points)

Good and valid analysis for the period you cover. Would love to see your analysis done from the beginning of the tourney (1982) with perhaps your point system used based on level 1 being "out in the first round" and winning the championship being whatever level that turns out to be - be that level 4 or 5 or whatever. That would be another, just as valid as Alex's, way to calculate the over-all success of a program in the NCAA tournament.

 

[UcMiami]

Good and valid analysis for the period you cover. Would love to see your analysis done from the beginning of the tourney (1982) with perhaps your point system used based on level 1 being "out in the first round" and winning the championship being whatever level that turns out to be - be that level 4 or 5 or whatever. That would be another, just as valid as Alex's, way to calculate the over-all success of a program in the NCAA tournament.

Yes - very interesting and in terms of TN and Uconn - the 12 years eliminated by starting in 1994:

Conveniently eliminates all the years that Uconn did not make the NCAA tournament (7 times and would not have made a 64 team field either), 2 years where they lost in the first round, 2 years when they lost in the second round (byes?) and their one shining moment a FF appearance. Total points accumulated during those 12 years: 14

It is the same period when TN won three of its NCs, was runner up once, a FF participant 4 times, elite 8 twice and sweet sixteen participant twice - a total of 122 points

The totals for these two schools:
TN -
8 x 21 = 168 (NC)
5 x 13 = 65 (RU)
5 x 8 = 40 (FF)
9 x 5 = 45 (E8)
6 x 3 = 18 (S16)
0 x 2 = 0 (2nd)
1 x 1 = 1 (1st)
34 Tournaments = 337

Uconn -
10 x 21 = 210 (NC)
0 x 13 = 0 (RU)
6 x 8 = 48 (FF)
5 x 5 = 25 (E8)
2 x 3 = 6 (S16)
2 x 2 = 4 (2nd)
2 x 1 = 2 (1st)
27 Tournaments = 295

The result of Registered's methodology has closed the gap a little bit by eliminating points for seeding and by minor adjustments in point ratios in the tournament results. With Alex's method Uconn ends up with 83.2% of the TN leading point total, with your method it is 87.5%

In the NCAAs Uconn's claim to superiority are two fold - it has 10 NCs to TNs 8, and from 2000 on it has dominated like no one before or likely in the future will.

On any other measure of tournament performance TN leads at this time:
NC game appearances 13 - 10
FF appearances 18 - 16
Elite Eight 27 - 21
Sweet Sixteen 33 - 23
Tournaments 34 - 27

 

[rvwsleep]

Great work Alex. I've listed some concerns and I hope they are not taken as some sort of repudiation but simply as additional food for thought. I know how difficult your list was to compile.

• I think using 1982 is about as arbitrary a cutoff as any other but do understand why you chose it. My objection is that early tournaments included fewer teams. Making the Sweet Sixteen when there are only 32 teams in the tournament seems, on its face, to mean its was easier to amass points in early years. Not sure how to quantify that though. My preference would be to include only years where the tournament fields were all equal.
• Isn't awarding points for both seeding and tournament play a form of double counting? As Alex pointed out, seeding is a form of rewarding regular season performance. But tournament performance is also reflected in seeding in that higher seeds get easier opponents. Thus seeding, which is reflective of regular season performance is also reflected in tournament play, two supposedly different components of team strength.
  
• Why exclude data? Why not reward programs seeded #5 through #16? I understand that the effort involved expands as data does but were there other reasons?
• What's the rationale behind the scoring values? For seeds the values for the top four seeds are 5, 10, 20, and 30. Seeds 2 and 3 are twice as valuable as a the immediate prior seed but the 1 seed is only worth 50% more. Why the discrepancy? Similarly, tournament performance doesn't seem to follow any easily discernible logic. An Elite Eight performance is 3 times as valuable as a Sweet Sixteen but a Final Four only twice as valuable as an Elite Eight. Using absolute numbers rather than multiples doesn't appear to add clarity. For each level of advancement the numerical values are 10, 15, 10, and 30. Why do the values jump around?

For those who challenged others to come up with their own list, here's mine. But first a word about methodology. I chose 1994 as the beginning year because that was the year the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Thus all fields in the study group are numerically identical.

Tournament play yields seven distinct levels of performance.
Level 1 -- elimination in the first round.
Level 2 -- elimination in the second round.
Level 3 -- elimination in the Sweet Sixteen.
Level 4 -- elimination in the Elite Eight.
Level 5 -- elimination in the Final Four.
Level 6 -- Runner up.
Level 7 -- Champion.

Scoring is a modified Fibonacci sequence (where each term (except the first two) is the sum of the two preceding terms).
Level 1 -- 1 point.
Level 2 -- 2 points.
Level 3 -- 3 points.
Level 4 -- 5 points.
Level 5 -- 8 points.
Level 6 -- 13 points.
Level 7 -- 21 points.

Here is my Top Ten:
1. UConn (281 points)
2. Tennessee (216 points)
3. Stanford (121 points)
4. Notre Dame (120 points)
5. Duke (102 points)
6. Purdue (92 points)
7. North Carolina (86 points)
8. Baylor (84 points)
9. Georgia (76 points)
10. LSU (73 points)

They are followed by
Louisiana Tech (66 points)
Maryland (65 points)
Oklahoma (60 points)
Rutgers (57 points)
Vanderbilt (53 points)
Louisville (53 points)
Texas A&M (49 points)
Penn St. (43 points)
Old Dominion (42 points)
Texas Tech (41 points)

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.

 

[Topdawg]

Thanks for the posts. Highlights the importance of longevity, excellence, and consistency. Numbers are numbers - though the data you choose and the way you score has a bearing on the results.

 

[easttexastrash]

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

 

[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.