Updated Team of the Decade: halfway through the 2010s

[alexrgct]

I started these rankings during very animated and good discussions I started in early 2012. Here is the latest installment now that we've completed five of 10 years of the 2010s!

Remember, these rankings reward regular season success (the proxy for which is tourney seeding), as well as success in the tournament (as measured by how far a team goes and how frequently). Thus, scoring is as follows: five points for a #4 seed, 10 points for a #3, 20 for a #2, 30 for a #1, 5 points for a Sweet 16 finish, 15 for an Elite 8 finish, 30 for a Final Four finish, 40 four finishing national runner-up, and 70 for a national championship. The best season possible is a 100 point season, which would include a #1 seed and the NC.

Having said all of that, here are the new rankings:

Team #1 #2 #3 #4 S16 E8 F4 RU NC Total
Uconn 150 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 210 420
Notre Dame 90 40 0 0 5 0 30 120 0 285
Stanford 120 20 0 0 5 0 90 40 0 275
Baylor 90 20 0 5 5 30 30 0 70 250
Tennessee 90 40 0 0 10 45 0 0 0 185
Duke 0 100 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 160
Texas A&M 0 40 30 0 5 15 0 0 70 160
Kentucky 0 40 10 10 5 45 0 0 0 110
Maryland 0 20 0 15 5 15 30 0 0 85
Louisville 0 0 20 0 5 15 0 40 0 80

Two notes:

• UConn is a lock to be #1 again after 2015 and will almost certainly be so regardless of what happens in 2016. This is a GREAT half-decade thus far.
• Tennessee is now a top-five program if this decade keeps going and the LVs continue earning top-two seeds and advance reasonably well in the tourney.

 

[Icebear]

It ain't even close.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I appreciate and applaud the effort, Alex. Furthermore, I, and I suspect most others would, agree with the results so the method certainly holds validity. If I were to pick nits, however, they would be these:

1) You combine objective (performance) and subjective (seed) data.
2) Within the subjective realm, the goal of the seeding isn't strictly to rank the 64 teams from top to bottom. Their geographic requirements, for example, can mean that certain teams are rewarded with higher or lower than deserved seedings. Undeserved seedings can translate into easier (or tougher) opponents which then affects actual results (performance). I'm thinking specifically of the notoriously weak "west" bracket.

You've done the job though, Alex.

 

[alexrgct]

I appreciate and applaud the effort, Alex. Furthermore, I, and I suspect most others would, agree with the results so the method certainly holds validity. If I were to pick nits, however, they would be these:

1) You combine objective (performance) and subjective (seed) data.
2) Within the subjective realm, the goal of the seeding isn't strictly to rank the 64 teams from top to bottom. Their geographic requirements, for example, can mean that certain teams are rewarded with higher or lower than deserved seedings. Undeserved seedings can translate into easier (or tougher) opponents which then affects actual results (performance). I'm thinking specifically of the notoriously weak "west" bracket.

You've done the job though, Alex.

Your points are very valid. Seeding was the best proxy for regular season performance that we could come up with in the discussion thread, I'm afraid. I also tested the scoring methodology out by showing the 2010s (by that point), the 2000s, the 1990s, and most of the 1980s. All of them looked good/accurate. A such, I don't think anyone believed it was perfect, but it was good enough to keep applying to the 2010s.

 

[Tenspro2002]

How about bonus points for an undefeated season?