Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,015 Posts
That's based on season's going all the way back to 1962. I'm happy with #34 based on the first 20-25 of those 50 years being very bad and negative points wise. It is impressive to have 3 teams in the Top40.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
Other samples - tied @22 - Princeton & Penn - is that one entry?
28 - Murray State
30 - Western Ky
31 - Zags
39 - Weber State

Long time - 50 years, before they had an RPI. Back when APR meant a month of the year.


Ghost of Toby Kimball.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,015 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
335 Posts
Long time - 50 years, before they had an RPI. Back when APR meant a month of the year.
You get into the logic of weighing 6-win tournament results vs non-64+ team tournaments, not to mention the whole thing with Integration.

The 2008 study that they did actually made sense in that, this was considered (although the formula needed work)

I dont know if you want to name it 1986 and on (64 team era) as the modern era of college basketball or some date slightly before that, but, obviously 50 years is absurd (without sliding weight) Either way, some date around the early 80s marks the end of college basketball's dead ball era (Who think Old Hoss Radbourne is the best pitcher in the history of baseball?)

Linear programs only work if you A. actually know your factors B. weight them properly. Obviously there are serious issues with both sides of that equation.

Putting Ken Pomeroy or Jeff Sagarin up to this task would likely give you drastically different (and more correct) results
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,781 Posts
I've never understood the fascination with these lists, be them from a group of people or spit out of a formula. It's not that hard to pick an arbitrary starting point and get teams into the proper tier. Anything more is splitting hairs. How can you really differentiate between Kentucky, UCLA, and UNC at the top? Or the 57th best program from the 43rd? It certainly doesn't happen by giving the same number of points for a 2 seed as a 9 seed, but an extra point for being a 1 over a 2. That's just insane.

This is a lowest common denominator page view grab.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
Bona's tied with UT- San Antonio. They've won once in the tournament and have only had a team since 1982. We've gone to the Final Four, won the NIT and had two guys drafted in the first round. Consider these grapes sour.


I will say this:

T-191. Niagara
281. Canisius

Eat it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,355 Posts
You get into the logic of weighing 6-win tournament results vs non-64+ team tournaments, not to mention the whole thing with Integration.

The 2008 study that they did actually made sense in that, this was considered (although the formula needed work)

I dont know if you want to name it 1986 and on (64 team era) as the modern era of college basketball or some date slightly before that, but, obviously 50 years is absurd (without sliding weight) Either way, some date around the early 80s marks the end of college basketball's dead ball era (Who think Old Hoss Radbourne is the best pitcher in the history of baseball?)

Linear programs only work if you A. actually know your factors B. weight them properly. Obviously there are serious issues with both sides of that equation.

Putting Ken Pomeroy or Jeff Sagarin up to this task would likely give you drastically different (and more correct) results
I've always considered that the start of the modern era. The tournament is the key driver in establishing program success. It's hard to discount the fact that it is much more difficult to win through a larger field.

Otherwise, I can see why you guys are happy to be out of the Horizon. Geez, what numbers, with the best remaining team checking in at 118.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,781 Posts
Is it more difficult to win in the tourney now, though? In years prior you had to either win your league or be among the best of the rest, and virtually everyone in the dance was a very good team. Nowadays you just have to be pretty good, and we have 8-10 teams that are just completely overmatched on a yearly basis, outside of the occasional random outlier like Norfolk St and Lehigh.

If you're going to use the 64 team dance as your argument, it should be about having more access, which led to greater interest and a better TV product. I don't think you can say it's more difficult to either make or advance now than it was up through the early 80s. Making is definitely easier, and advancing probably leans toward being easier, too. I mean, the tourney grew over time because the landscape surrounding divisions changed. It didn't grow at the top, it grew from the middle and on downward.

There are still about the same amount of high level to elite teams involved (what 15-20 generally?), but the amount of mediocre to poor teams getting a bid has skyrocketed. And generally, the mid level teams are playing other mid level teams in round one (hence the amount of 5/12 and 6/11 upsets every year), not the high level teams. And through the randomness of single elimination, occasionally you will get a 5 seed playing a 12 then a 13 seed. In the past, a 5 seed would play a 4 seed, then a 1 seed.

I think the latter rounds are about as tough as they ever were, but the early rounds are easier. Top seeds get to play poor teams, and mid level teams get to play games that can be virtual coin flips. That wasn't the case in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,582 Posts
Considering VCU hasn't had a D1 basketball program for 50 years, I'll take fringe top-50 status. Hopefully we can move up those lists in the years to come.

There is some very solid A-10 representation there. Losing the top ranked team in Temple sucks, but adding 2 top-60 programs in VCU and Butler certainly helps alleviate that some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,732 Posts
ESPN and Sagarin put out all-time Sagarin rankings back in 2009. Perhaps not a good indicator of "today", but here they are:

1. Temple 31
2. Dayton 48
3. Saint Louis 53
4. St. Joe's 56
5. Xavier 59
6. Duquesne 67
7. La Salle 71
8. St. Bona 96
9. GW 97
10. Butler 98
11. URI 114
12. Fordham 133
13. Charlotte 152
14. UMass 157
15. Richmond 158
16. VCU 167
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,546 Posts
As to time frame, I would prefer a 30 year ranking, that would include our wins in a 56 team field in 1984 & maybe a 1982 NIT appearance (First post season ever).

Of course, that might raise VCU a bit too. I'm sure their preferred option would be to start with 1980 & the first 48 team field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,335 Posts
I'm with Adam, this is a collossal waste of time and totally meaningless. Let's see how this year's teams rank this year. Season can't come soon enough for me. I think we're going to have a big year as a conference, and I can't wait to have two more solid teams to cheer for in the non-conference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,582 Posts
...I can't wait to have two more solid teams to cheer for in the non-conference.
I've been cheering for VCU for a few since I go to some of their games - now I'll bee rooting against them sometimes which will be weird...probably only when they play UMass since Shaka Smart is my favorite coach teaching my favorite form of basketball.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,582 Posts
Their rating system really isn't that much different than what I used in the "what have you done for us lately" thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,864 Posts
As to time frame, I would prefer a 30 year ranking, that would include our wins in a 56 team field in 1984 & maybe a 1982 NIT appearance (First post season ever).

Of course, that might raise VCU a bit too. I'm sure their preferred option would be to start with 1980 & the first 48 team field.
Considering 62-92 saw GW make no NCAA appearances (but 8 in the last 20 years) I'd like that timeframe better!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,078 Posts
I'm with Adam, this is a collossal waste of time and totally meaningless. Let's see how this year's teams rank this year. Season can't come soon enough for me. I think we're going to have a big year as a conference, and I can't wait to have two more solid teams to cheer for in the non-conference.
Research seems solid to me, but if you're 81st and 126th, it must seem flawed in some way.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top