The top ten programs of the NCAA Tournament Era

[UcMiami]

One more:
NCAA 64 team era to 2009 (1994-2009): TN 190 Uconn 181

(Dominance is really very recent 2009 - 2015 TN 27 Uconn 121)

 

[MilfordHusky]

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

Sue Bird, NPOY, #1 overall pick
Diana Taurasi, 2-time NPOY, #1 overall pick
Tina Charles, NPOY, #1 overall pick
Maya Moore, 3-time NPOY, #1 overall pick
Britney Griner, 2-time NPOY, #1 overall pick

Geno Auriemma, 10-time NCAA champion, 7-time NCOY

The best lineup ever?

 

[EricSD]

Sue Bird, NPOY, #1 overall pick
Diana Taurasi, 2-time NPOY, #1 overall pick
Tina Charles, NPOY, #1 overall pick
Maya Moore, 3-time NPOY, #1 overall pick
Britney Griner, 2-time NPOY, #1 overall pick

Geno Auriemma, 10-time NCAA champion, 7-time NCOY

The best lineup ever?

Honestly, can't argue one bit with that - one could argue that each of those players area the very best at their position in the world, but if Parker is healthy and on the team I'd consider starting her over Griner or Charles. Other than that, the lineup you listed might be the very best in the history of women's basketball...

 

[Wally East]

Honestly, can't argue one bit with that - one could argue that each of those players area the very best at their position in the world, but if Parker is healthy and on the team I'd consider starting her over Griner or Charles. Other than that, the lineup you listed might be the very best in the history of women's basketball...

If we're talking all=time, I might go with Lisa Leslie over Tina Charles, and, I know how this will sound, but I'd at least consider going with Cynthia Cooper over DT. (Calm down , just considering it. It's a reasonable thing to consider.)

 

[mhshuskies]

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.

Thanks for the discussion it was as I thought that each season is unique and therefore not dependent upon prior seasons. However the advantage factor was a good point. Geno and staff have figured it out better than any other and they usually have better or at least even talent. So that means Geno was incorrect and UCONN would always have the best odds to win the NC.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Thanks for the discussion it was as I thought that each season is unique and therefore not dependent upon prior seasons. However the advantage factor was a good point. Geno and staff have figured it out better than any other and they usually have better or at least even talent. So that means Geno was incorrect and UCONN would always have the best odds to win the NC.

I think I haven't made myself clear.

Independence means that the outcome for trial #2 is in no way related to the outcome of trial #1. Flipping a coin, rolling a pair of dice, picking a card from a deck are often given as examples of independent events.

The outcome of basketball games or tournaments or seasons aren't independent because many of the factors that influence outcomes remain the same over the several trials. Coaches, players, opponents are, to one extent or other, carried over from game to game and season to season. Those 3 factors are why UConn will be ranked #1 in next year's pre-season poll, probably unanimously.

 

[Gus Mahler]

I think I haven't made myself clear.

Independence means that the outcome for trial #2 is in no way related to the outcome of trial #1. Flipping a coin, rolling a pair of dice, picking a card from a deck are often given as examples of independent events.

The outcome of basketball games or tournaments or seasons aren't independent because many of the factors that influence outcomes remain the same over the several trials. Coaches, players, opponents are, to one extent or other, carried over from game to game and season to season. Those 3 factors are why UConn will be ranked #1 in next year's pre-season poll, probably unanimously.

I enjoy your posts and appreciate your analyses and contributions to this board.

 

[easttexastrash]

If we're talking all=time, I might go with Lisa Leslie over Tina Charles, and, I know how this will sound, but I'd at least consider going with Cynthia Cooper over DT. (Calm down , just considering it. It's a reasonable thing to consider.)

It's hard to omit Swoopes when she was in her prime.

 

[Wally East]

It's hard to omit Swoopes when she was in her prime.

Yup, I thought of her, too. Hard not to.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Trends

We've spoken about the ranking top programs since the beginning of time (1982 in Alex's case, 1994 in mine) but how are the top teams trending? I've taken two additional slices of the data: the last decade and the last 5 years.

The Top Ten programs over the past decade are (values in parens represent the change in rank from the 22 year results):
1. Connecticut (no change).
2. Tennessee (no change).
3. Stanford (no change).
4. Notre Dame (no change).
5. Maryland (up 7).
6. Baylor (up 2).
7. Duke (down 3).
8. Louisville (up 8).
9. Texas A&M (up 8).
10. North Carolina (down 3).

Top Ten over the last 5 years (values in parens represent the change in rank from the 10 year results):
1. Connecticut (no change).
2. Notre Dame (up 2).
3. Baylor (up 3).
4. Texas A&M (up 5).
5. Stanford (down 2).
6. Maryland (down 1).
7. Louisville (up 1).
8. Tennessee (down 6).
9. Duke (down 2).
10. Kentucky (up 5).

Dominance

Dominance is a word that's been kicked around on this thread so I've tried to measure that. I'm using a team's actual performance in comparison to perfection as the measure of of dominance. Previously, I've described my system of measurement as 1 pt. for making the NCAA, 2 pt. for getting to the 2nd round, 3 pts. for Sweet Sixteen, 5 pts. for Elite Eight, 8 pts. for Final Four, 13 pts. for Runner-up, and 21 pts. for Champions. Perfection would be winning the championship (worth 21 points). Over the 22 years of my study, perfection would have been a total score of 462 (21 points times 22 years). For a decade, perfection is 210 points; for 5 years, 105 points. I divided # of points a program actually scored by a perfect score to get a measure of relative dominance.

Relative dominance over 22 years:
1. Connecticut 61%
2. Tennessee 47%
3. Stanford 26%
4. Notre Dame 26%
5. Duke 22%
6. Purdue 20%
7. North Carolina 19%
8. Baylor 18%
9. Georgia 16%
10. LSU 16%

Relative dominance over last decade:
1 Connecticut 66%
2 Tennessee 35%
3 Stanford 34%
4 Notre Dame 33%
5 Maryland 28%
6 Baylor 27%
7 Duke 22%
8 Louisville 21%
9 Texas A&M 21%
10 North Carolina 18%

Relative dominance over last 5 years:
1 Connecticut 75%
2 Notre Dame 57%
3 Baylor 37%
4 Texas A&M 30%
5 Stanford 29%
6 Maryland 25%
7 Louisville 25%
8 Tennessee 22%
9 Duke 19%
10 Kentucky 16%

 

[EricSD]

If we're talking all=time, I might go with Lisa Leslie over Tina Charles, and, I know how this will sound, but I'd at least consider going with Cynthia Cooper over DT. (Calm down , just considering it. It's a reasonable thing to consider.)

You are probably right about Leslie over Charles - she was taller and had a bit more to her game, but as far as being the best in the world right now, I think those 4 UCONN players are at the very top in their respective positions.

As for Cooper over Dee... She really only played 4 total years in the pros, took 3 years off, then came back for 4 games and was done. I don't see her in the same class as Dee - partly because Dee has played at such a high level for so long... just my $.02!

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I enjoy your posts and appreciate your analyses and contributions to this board.

Your perspicacity is truly astonishing!

 

[Gus Mahler]

Your perspicacity is truly astonishing!

Well . . . yeah . . .

 

[Wally East]

You are probably right about Leslie over Charles - she was taller and had a bit more to her game, but as far as being the best in the world right now, I think those 4 UCONN players are at the very top in their respective positions.

Agreed about right now as far as I know.

As for Cooper over Dee... She really only played 4 total years in the pros, took 3 years off, then came back for 4 games and was done. I don't see her in the same class as Dee - partly because Dee has played at such a high level for so long... just my $.02!

Well, Cynthia would've played more but was old. She performed at a really high level starting at age 34 and continued through age 37. I don't think it's a stretch to say she would've performed at a higher level when she was younger.

I have a feeling some people will hate this stat but career Win Shares per 48 minutes puts Cooper on top by a huge margin.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

You are probably right about Leslie over Charles - she was taller and had a bit more to her game, but as far as being the best in the world right now, I think those 4 UCONN players are at the very top in their respective positions.

As for Cooper over Dee... She really only played 4 total years in the pros, took 3 years off, then came back for 4 games and was done. I don't see her in the same class as Dee - partly because Dee has played at such a high level for so long... just my $.02!

Cooper is a really special case, because as Wally just pointed out, she was old with much of her career behind her in '96. IIRC she didn't generally participate much with USA basketball, but she did play overseas for many many years before the "W". I think (but I don't know it) that she was a better pro than college player. In the abstract, in her prime, as a pro at least, she was a "Dee" type player. But not perhaps stylistically as good a fit with the other players as Dee both would be in the abstract and actually is.

I think consideration to Leslie and Parker (for the variety of her game) isn't misplaced. Other national team players were great players, including Staley and Edwards among others, but I see nothing that would indicate that Bird, Dee and Maya are not collectively as good or better than any other lineup USA basketball ever put out, in their prime, anyhow. I am concerned that Bird is getting to be a bit of an elder stateswoman.