You get into the logic of weighing 6-win tournament results vs non-64+ team tournaments, not to mention the whole thing with Integration.Long time - 50 years, before they had an RPI. Back when APR meant a month of the year.
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.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 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....I can't wait to have two more solid teams to cheer for in the non-conference.
Considering 62-92 saw GW make no NCAA appearances (but 8 in the last 20 years) I'd like that timeframe better!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.
Research seems solid to me, but if you're 81st and 126th, it must seem flawed in some way.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.