REVISED! The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

[point1zerorock]

With the season concluded I wanted to attempt to rank the great teams of the "Modern Era." Not only was the mid 1980's, in my opinion, the dawn of this "modern era," it also conveniently happened to be about when I started following and having memories of the game - so this time frame has added special meaning to me personally.

Unfortunately, this era can't be defined by a single year for a cleaner, easier analysis. But I believe it makes sense to state that the "phasing-in" of the modern era began with the NCAA tournament expanding to 64 teams in 1985, continued with the introduction of the shot clock in 1986, and concluded with the introduction of the 3 point line in 1987. Put asterisks next teams that had accomplishments in the 1985 and 1986 seasons as the phase in of the modern era was not complete. UofL is a victim of this for example. I did not deduct points, but considered it.

I have ranked the teams according to the point scale below. I suspect my point scale will be up for debate, but that's part of the fun in this. I'm eager to hear if and how you would alter my point scale and if you agree with my definition of when the Modern Era began. One last note - I would personally define the "One & Done Era" as a sub-catergory of the broader modern era. A Neo or post-modern era if you will.

Point Scale:
10 Champ

8 Runner-Up
6 Final 4

4 Elite 8

3 Sweet 16

1 Tournament Appears

Example: Team - # of Titles, # of Runner-Ups, # of Final Fours, Elite 8's, Sweet 16's, Tourny Appearances

1. Duke - 5, 9*, 12*, 14*, 22*, 30* 50+72+72+56+66+30=346
2. UK - 3, 5, 8, 15*, 18*, 25* 30+40+48+60+54+25=257 (+ bonus points for undefeated regular season?)
3. UNC - 3, 3, 9, 15*, 20*, 28* 30+24+54+60+60+28=256
4. UCon - 4, 4, 5, 10, 14, 19 40+32+30+40+42+19=203 (I just can't put KU over UConn with 4 titles vs 2)
5. KU - 2, 5, 8*, 12*, 19*, 30* 20+40+48+48+57+30=243
6. Mi St - 1, 2, 7, 9, 15*, 25* 10+16+42+36+45+25=174
7. UF - 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 19 20+24+30+48+30+19=171
8. AZ - 1, 2, 4, 10, 16, 29* 10+16+24+40+48+29=167
9. UofL - 2*, 2*, 4*, 8*, 14*, 24* 20+16+24+32+42+24=158 (all important title before 3 point era)
10. Syracuse - 1, 3, 4, 6, 13, 25* 10+24+24+24+39+25=146


FYI's:
UCLA - 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 24* 10+16+24+24+39+24=137
IU - 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 24* 10+16+18+16+27+24=111
Mich - 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 17* 10+24+24+24+21+17=120
Ohio St. - 0, 1, 3, 5, 8, 18 0+8+18+20+24+18 = 88
UNLV - 1, 1, 3, 4, 6*, 15* 10+8+18+16+18+15 = 85
Ark - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 18* 10+16+18+16+18+18 =96
Wisc - 0, 1, 3, 4, 8, 19 0+8+16+16+24+19 =83




This post was edited on 4/19 1:33 PM by point1zerorock

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Sorry, somehow my formatting got off a little, but I think every things still fairly legible.

 

[wcc31]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

"Modern era" and all the other time frames are all BS. Rank all-time or this year. Otherwise, I don't have time for it.

 

[ColonelCatFan]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Agree with you on the modern era, but I nail it down to the 86-87 season as the "First year of the modern era". Alternating posession was enacted in 81, the expanded field, shot clock, and 3-pt shot came in the years you mentioned, so the only logical season to use for the genesis of the modern era would be the first season which these 4 major changes were all in place, 1986-87 season

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by wcc31:
"Modern era" and all the other time frames are all BS. Rank all-time or this year. Otherwise, I don't have time for it.

Well wcc31, we all know full well who the best of all-time is

. I enjoyed digging a little deeper into this era and I hope others will enjoy it too.

 

[Aike]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Doesn't hurt that Duke has had one coach across that entire era.

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by Aike:
Doesn't hurt that Duke has had one coach across that entire era.

That thought definitely crossed my mind Aike. That UK has 3 titles under 3 different coaches is very impressive and should give us some bonus points and close the gap - just like the unbeaten regular season I mentioned. Our program is bigger than the coach even in this era. With Duke that's TBD at best. But at the end of the day, I still think you gotta give the crown to Duke.

 

[Aike]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

No doubt if you use a 30 year time period, Duke will come out on top. Their run from 86 through 94 was extraordinary.

Start 20 years ago, and you get a slightly different picture. Duke is still up high, but certainly UCONN and UK would be a lot closer, if not ahead.

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by Aike:
No doubt if you use a 30 year time period, Duke will come out on top. Their run from 86 through 94 was extraordinary.

Start 20 years ago, and you get a slightly different picture. Duke is still up high, but certainly UCONN and UK would be a lot closer, if not ahead.

Very, very true. Last 20 years, it's probably us. But even though 20 years is a nice round number - its kinda random and doesn't coincide with any changes to the way game the game is played/officiated. I like how the Modern Era correctly and conveniently for us UK fans excludes UofL's 1980 championship!

 

[sillygoose12]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by point1zerorock:

Originally posted by Aike:
No doubt if you use a 30 year time period, Duke will come out on top. Their run from 86 through 94 was extraordinary.

Start 20 years ago, and you get a slightly different picture. Duke is still up high, but certainly UCONN and UK would be a lot closer, if not ahead.

Very, very true. Last 20 years, it's probably us. But even though 20 years is a nice round number - its kinda random and doesn't coincide with any changes to the way game the game is played/officiated. I like how the Modern Era correctly and conveniently for us UK fans excludes UofL's 1980 championship!

Also excludes championships for IU in 1981 and UNC in '82. You need to figure out a way to move it to 1989 to get rid of the IU title in '87 and the KU title in '88. Good work but I think most consider the start of the modern era to be when that person got old enough to remember watching.

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by sillygoose12:

Originally posted by point1zerorock:

Originally posted by Aike:
No doubt if you use a 30 year time period, Duke will come out on top. Their run from 86 through 94 was extraordinary.

Start 20 years ago, and you get a slightly different picture. Duke is still up high, but certainly UCONN and UK would be a lot closer, if not ahead.

Very, very true. Last 20 years, it's probably us. But even though 20 years is a nice round number - its kinda random and doesn't coincide with any changes to the way game the game is played/officiated. I like how the Modern Era correctly and conveniently for us UK fans excludes UofL's 1980 championship!

Also excludes championships for IU in 1981 and UNC in '82. You need to figure out a way to move it to 1989 to get rid of the IU title in '87 and the KU title in '88. Good work but I think most consider the start of the modern era to be when that person got old enough to remember watching.

LOL! That'd be nice wouldn't it! I know your partly kidding, but I don't see how that'd be fair.

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation


How about "Old School" Elites? With the tourney format changing so much between inception in 1939 up to the moden era beginning (IMO) in 1985 I developed a slightly different point scale that cuts out E8's and S16'. Tourney appearances alone, espeically in the 40's and 50's carry more importance.

5 Title
3 Title game
2 Final Four
1 Tourney appearance.


1. UCLA 134
2. UK 93
3. IU 56
4. UNC 50
5. OH St. 46
6. KU 40
7. Cincy 39
8. UofL 37
9. San Fr 36
10. OK St. 33

FYI's:
Duke 23
Mi St 16
Ark 15
NC St. 18
Utah 27
G-Town 26
Villa 20
Lasalle 22


Only UK, UNC, KU and UofL are in the top 10 in both era's. UK #2 in both = best all time.

 

[AGEE11]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

What do the results look like if you remove the asterisks? I agree with another poster above that the modern era truely started when all the changes were implemented.

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by AGEE11:
What do the results look like if you remove the asterisks? I agree with another poster above that the modern era truely started when all the changes were implemented.

I'll rework it tonight, but eyeballing it, points would change a bit but the rankings would be roughly the same. Duke, being so far ahead would still be #1. UofL would be hurt most because of the '86 title, but would still be top 10-12 I think. If someone has the time before tonight feel free to take a crack at rerating it. The point scale is above.

 

[hangin#8]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

What kills Kentucky in rankings like this is the long periods of 4-5 years in which we do absolutely nothing (probation, end of Tubby/Billy G). I think Duke benefits not only from having one great coach through the whole period, but also from consistently making the tournament and normally at least a sweet 16 or so.

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation


OK, that didn't take too long actually to figure. If you define the "modern era" as when the ALL 3 new rules were fully implemented in the 1987 champ season the rankings are adjusted in the following. I maintain the era began in '85, but understand the argument of '87.

Adjusting to '87, there's no change to the top 5 teams rankings. Duke's lead shrank, but is still huge. UK and UNC still neck and neck with UK ahead. I still gotta put UConn ahead of KU with 4 titles vs 2 - the only statistical anomolly I've found. UofL tanks in this scenerio without thier pre 3-pt line title in 86.

1. Duke - 324 (lose 22 pts, no rank change)
2. UK - 245 lose 12 pts, no rank change)
3. UNC - 244 (lose 12 pts, no rank change)
4. UCon - 203 (lose no pts, no rank change - IMO)
5. KU - 229 (lose 14 pts, no rank change - UConn's 4 vs KU's 2 titles still better IMO)
6. FL - 171 (lose no pts, rise one in rankings over MiSt.)
7. MiSt. - 170 (lose 4 pts, drop one in rankings)
8. AZ - 167 (lose no pts, rise one in rankings over UofL)
9. Syrac - 146 (lose no pts, rise one in rankings)
10. UCLA - 137 (lose no pts, rise one spot in rankings and into Top 10)
11. UofL - 126 (lose 32 pts, drop 3 in rankings and out of Top 10)

12. Mich = 120
13. IU = 111
.


This post was edited on 4/15 2:47 PM by point1zerorock

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by hangin#8:
What kills Kentucky in rankings like this is the long periods of 4-5 years in which we do absolutely nothing (probation, end of Tubby/Billy G). I think Duke benefits not only from having one great coach through the whole period, but also from consistently making the tournament and normally at least a sweet 16 or so.

All programs go through dry spells. Tubby almost broke into the Final Four several times. UK was very relevant until his last few years. BCG was a train wreck though for sure. Might as well have been probation all over again!

 

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

I'm not a fan of your point scale, as I don't like the "compounding" points. I think a team should just get the points for how they finished, as opposed to a title winner getting also getting points for the FF, EE, SS, etc

For example Duke gets 32 points for this past season while UK gets 14 ? Is that supposed to suggest that Duke had more than 2X the season UK did ? Yeah...while I appreciate the work you've put into this I cant really respect any scale that gives Duke (or whoever might have won the title) more than twice the credit that UK got, at least as far as this statistical interpretation goes. And I'm not even one of those automatic Duke haters.

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by CatFanInTheBathtub:
I'm not a fan of your point scale, as I don't like the "compounding" points. I think a team should just get the points for how they finished, as opposed to a title winner getting also getting points for the FF, EE, SS, etc

For example Duke gets 32 points for this past season while UK gets 14 ? Is that supposed to suggest that Duke had more than 2X the season UK did ? Yeah...while I appreciate the work you've put into this I cant really respect any scale that gives Duke (or whoever might have won the title) more than twice the credit that UK got, at least as far as this statistical interpretation goes. And I'm not even one of those automatic Duke haters.

Fair enough. How many points would you give for a title, a runner-up, a final four, etc? I feel my point system is pretty fair, but to each his own. I'm curious if your point scale would shift the rankings, so I'm eager to hear it.

 

[AGEE11]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

As a numbers nerd, this fascinates me. I can go 85 or 87 for the start (personally in the 87 camp but whatever).

I also like the idea of using your base points, but only getting the max, not the compounding. A title run gives 32 points, but back to back final 4s only give 28. Not sure one championship and a down year is better than sustained success.

What if you used you point scale and just gave them the max each season?

Champ only gets 10
Runner up only gets 8
Final 4 only gets 6
and so on...

Don't have all the data to figure that up myself since I am supposed to be working.

Anyways, really fun post

 

[BtBlueBlood]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation


No matter which year you choose as a starting point I would definitely go with the others that suggest just using the top points you got for that year.
I would go with the following....
Champion - 12
Runner up - 10
Final 4 - 8
Elite 8 - 4
Sweet 16 - 3
Tournament Appearance - 1
(If you advance to Sweet 16 or beyond you do not get the 1 point for making the tournament, it is included in end result)

Just taking the end result score Duke this year would receive 12 points and UK 8 that is fair IMO.
Taking the last 2 years however Duke would have a 2 year total of 13 and UK 18. UK making a runner up and a Final Four vs Duke first round flame out and Title, UK does get the nod for a better 2 year run. Just like if a team had an Elite 8 followed by a title that would as good as back to back final fours. I think this is a very balanced points scale and would be very interested to see how the rankings fall with this scale.
Just under Cal UK would have 42 points (E8,FF,NC,zero,RU,FF) and Duke during that same time period would have only 33 points (NC, S16, 1point, E8, 1 point, NC). Now some could argue "but Duke has 2 titles during that stretch" but they also had 2 first round exits (getting a point for each) while UK (outside of NIT = zero points) had deep runs each time. So since 2009-10 UK has had a better run and I feel that is accurate. Looking forward to seeing how my scale looks for all from 85 or 87 to present.

Also add in points for total wins and conference titles. Maybe something like this....
Total season wins
20-24 wins = 2 points
25-29 wins = 3 points
30-34 wins = 4 points
35+ wins = 5 points
Conference Championship = 5 points

This way if you have a team that just made the tournament but made a deep run they will get rewarded for the run but not the sub 25 win season. Where as elite teams that win 30 games in a season but flame out early still get credit for their record and bonus points if they won their conference Championship.
This post was edited on 4/16 1:03 PM by BtBlueBlood

 

[Aike]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

I didn't pay much attention to your point scale at first, but I agree that the compounding effect is a little much.

I also would prefer to see some weight given to regular seasons. I know it can be a little tough, because we are often not comparing apples to oranges, but some combination of conference championships, poll or statistical rankings, and even lengthy win streaks could be computed. Lot more work, of course.

 

[Pope John Wall II]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

You forgot to vacate all of UNC's results since 88.

 

[rabidcatfan]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by Aike:
Doesn't hurt that Duke has had one coach across that entire era.

Great PROGRAMS are bigger than great COACHES. UK maintained its dominance well beyond Adolph Rupp (8 National Championships under 5 different coaches is mind-blowing), Just as Kansas maintained beyond Phog Allen, and North Carolina, so far, has maintained beyond Dean Smith, even UL has managed to maintain success beyond Denny Crum (although I don't believe they will maintain it beyond Pitino).

This is also why, on the flip side, programs like UCLA (although they did win one title outside of Wooden, but have been pretty much mediocre every other season), and Indiana have not been able to replicate their success under other coaches.

It'll be interesting to see if Duke can sustain their success beyond Coach K. Coach K just turned 68 years old, and I can't imagine he has another 5 years left in him (the amount of time between his last two national championships) so I'm willing to bet that 2015 was his final "great" season. He'll probably hand the reigns off to Dawkins, Wojo, Capel, or whomever in another 3 or 4 seasons and ride off into the sunset as the greatest men's division one coach. Then, we will see what kind of program Duke has

MY PREDICTION is that (despite who they hire) there will be carryover success (think Kevin Ollie and UConn), but that success will quickly diminish as recruiting begins to become more difficult, and Duke begins to slip into the middle of the pack of the ACC. Of course, there will be strong seasons and lean seasons, and an occasional run to a Final Four that will have everyone proclaiming that Duke is back and what not, but they'll never have a run like they had with K and they will fade away with programs like UCLA and IU - once powerhouse programs who have been relegated to underdog status in a lot of games and experience moderate success every once in a while.

 

[ukalum]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by CatFanInTheBathtub:
I'm not a fan of your point scale, as I don't like the "compounding" points. I think a team should just get the points for how they finished, as opposed to a title winner getting also getting points for the FF, EE, SS, etc

For example Duke gets 32 points for this past season while UK gets 14 ? Is that supposed to suggest that Duke had more than 2X the season UK did ? Yeah...while I appreciate the work you've put into this I cant really respect any scale that gives Duke (or whoever might have won the title) more than twice the credit that UK got, at least as far as this statistical interpretation goes. And I'm not even one of those automatic Duke haters.

Not to nit pick but Duke gets only 24 points since Duke doesn't get the 8 points for runnerup.

I didn't go through his numbers to see if he was doing that for everybody that won the championship. I do agree that compounding points skews the results.

 

[ukalum]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by point1zerorock:

Originally posted by CatFanInTheBathtub:
I'm not a fan of your point scale, as I don't like the "compounding" points. I think a team should just get the points for how they finished, as opposed to a title winner getting also getting points for the FF, EE, SS, etc

For example Duke gets 32 points for this past season while UK gets 14 ? Is that supposed to suggest that Duke had more than 2X the season UK did ? Yeah...while I appreciate the work you've put into this I cant really respect any scale that gives Duke (or whoever might have won the title) more than twice the credit that UK got, at least as far as this statistical interpretation goes. And I'm not even one of those automatic Duke haters.

Fair enough. How many points would you give for a title, a runner-up, a final four, etc? I feel my point system is pretty fair, but to each his own. I'm curious if your point scale would shift the rankings, so I'm eager to hear it.

Your numbers are incorrect. I looked at just UK since I only know for sure what UK has done in the tournament.. UK has made 5 champoinship game appearances in your time frame (96, 97, 98, 12, 14). Yet you gave UK 8 runnerup points for 96, 98, and 2012. UK was not a runner up in those three years. I assume you did this for all teams. You are effectively giving the champion 18 points instead of 10.

 

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Uk alum he gave Duke credit for 9 runner ups (title game appearances). He is indeed giving them 32 points for this season.

OP if if had to devise a point scale each round would get at least 50% more points than the previous. I would also factor in regular seasons and conference titles.

The way you have it UConn last year would get 32 points while 35-1 Wichita only gets 1 point.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[KA4Prez]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation


I agree with the validity of the scale if your ranking NCAA Tournament success ONLY. There's more to defining an elite program though.

 

[ukalum]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by CatFanInTheBathtub:
Uk alum he gave Duke credit for 9 runner ups (title game appearances). He is indeed giving them 32 points for this season.

OP if if had to devise a point scale each round would get at least 50% more points than the previous. I would also factor in regular seasons and conference titles.

The way you have it UConn last year would get 32 points while 35-1 Wichita only gets 1 point.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

I agree he gave Duke the runnerup points for this year, but he should not have. Upon closer inspection it looks like he did that for all the champs. That definitely skews his results.

 

[BtBlueBlood]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation


Points do not stack, team only gets points for end result (Ex. NC gets only 12 points not 28. The single point just for making the tournament is only given if team doesn't advance atleast to Sweet 16, otherwise just the point total listed.)


Champion - 12
Runner up - 10
Final 4 - 8
Elite 8 - 4
Sweet 16 - 3
Tournament Appearance - 1


Total season wins
20-24 wins = 2 points
25-29 wins = 3 points
30-34 wins = 4 points
35+ wins = 5 points
Team with most wins = 1 more point
Conference Championship = 5 points

Would like to see an updated ranking list using the above points scale. I bet most rankings still don't change because the Elite teams usually win 25-30+ games and most win conference championship. This year alone would be interesting considering UK won the most games, had a deep run, and won conference, while Duke despite winning it all had less wins and did not win conference tournament.

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

I appreciate the polite feedback on the point scale and the appreciation of my efforts. Several of you make good points about the potential flaws in the compounding point scale and the ommission of regular season accomplishments. I did intend for each tournament win to compound the effect and for championships to earn a lot of points, but it may be a bit too dramatic. I am excited about making the revisions. I'll get on that tonight and share the results.

 

[ThroughBlue]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by wcc31:
"Modern era" and all the other time frames are all BS. Rank all-time or this year. Otherwise, I don't have time for it.

 

[KA4Prez]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation


This year, UK would get 5 (35+ wins) + 1 (most wins) + 5 (SEC Tournament win) and 8 (Final Four) = 19
This year, Duke would get 5 (35+ wins) + 12 (National Championship) = 17

Would that make UK's season better than Duke's? I don't think a single UK fan would agree. I don't think a single Duke fan would trade places.

 

[AGEE11]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by KA4Prez:

This year, UK would get 5 (35+ wins) + 1 (most wins) + 5 (SEC Tournament win) and 8 (Final Four) = 19
This year, Duke would get 5 (35+ wins) + 12 (National Championship) = 17

Would that make UK's season better than Duke's? I don't think a single UK fan would agree. I don't think a single Duke fan would trade places.

I agree, National Champion should rank higher than anyone in a given year.

5 for a conference title is too much. Kansas keeps winning that garbage league of theirs every year. That doesn't mean they could sniff that record in a better conference. Same can be said about SEC in recent years too. Maybe 2 for regular season and 2 for conference tournament?

Also, not sure if you should factor in wins as they are truly indicative of how good a team is. Wichita St would not have been undefeated last year in a power conference. Then teams with weak SOS get a undeserved boost.

 

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

in all honesty I think that any point system is going to be somewhat flawed because of the arbitrary nature of the point values. with that in mind I've been thinking about this thread and have decided that just looking at total NCAA tournament wins would be just as fair a comparison as anything.

without knowing the results I would not be surprised if a list of the teams with the most NCAA victories in this "modern" era was a fairly accurate indicator of who the most elite programs have been.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[point1zerorock]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Taking into account some posters input, I'm going to see what this point system will look like. Championships are still king in my book. Would you have taken a few reg season losses in exchange for #9? Most of us would. If you're the champ, you still score more than a team with any other combination, but a runner up or Final Four with conference tourney and reg season titles and best record is now awfully close - a potential flaw in my previous scale. I posted a few examples, but need more time to post all the modern era's elite team results.

New Point Scale:

21 Champs (CH)
12 Runner Up (RU)
10 Final 4 (FF)
6 Elite 8 (E8)
4 Sweet 16 (S16)
3 Best Record (BR)
2 Conference Champ (CC)
2 Conference Tourney Champ (CT)
1 Conference Reg AND Tourney (BCC)
1 Tourney Appearance (TA)

Examples:

2015:
Duke: 21 points - CH (21)
UK: 18 points - FF (10), BR (3), CC (2), CT (2), BCC (1)
Wisc: 17 points - RU (12), CC (2), CT (2) BCC (1)

2012:
UK: 26 points - CH (21), BR (3), CH (2)
UL: 12 points - FF (10), CT (2)

 

[EvilMD]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation


I showed this to a U of L fan. He said the modern era is defined as 1980-1986, 2005, and then 2012-2015, but you can't count UK's two wins over U of L in that last period. He said clearly U of L has the finest tradition in college basketball.

 

[sillygoose12]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

I did something like this about 10 years ago, I think I gave

64 pts for winning title
32 runner-up
16 final four losers
8 elite 8 losers
4 sweet 16 losers
2 2nd rd losers
1 1st rd losers


I also did one with the above points along with points based on final Sagarin ranking. I think I just did 64 pts for ranking 1st down to 1 pt for ranking 64th. I never liked rankings that give points for conference titles or wins because Isee those things as meaningless without looking at strength of schedule or strength of conference.

 

[sillygoose12]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by point1zerorock:
I appreciate the polite feedback on the point scale and the appreciation of my efforts. Several of you make good points about the potential flaws in the compounding point scale and the ommission of regular season accomplishments. I did intend for each tournament win to compound the effect and for championships to earn a lot of points, but it may be a bit too dramatic. I am excited about making the revisions. I'll get on that tonight and share the results.

You're doing great work. I love these kinds of historical ranking threads, I just wish I had time to do something like this. Also, A NCAA title should count a lot more than a runner-up finish, Butler had back to back runner-up finishes not long ago and I guarantee you their players and fans would gladly trade them both for one NCAA title.

 

[BtBlueBlood]

Re: The "Modern Era" Elite Programs - A Statistical Interpretation

Originally posted by AGEE11:

Originally posted by KA4Prez:

This year, UK would get 5 (35+ wins) + 1 (most wins) + 5 (SEC Tournament win) and 8 (Final Four) = 19
This year, Duke would get 5 (35+ wins) + 12 (National Championship) = 17

Would that make UK's season better than Duke's? I don't think a single UK fan would agree. I don't think a single Duke fan would trade places.

I agree, National Champion should rank higher than anyone in a given year.

5 for a conference title is too much. Kansas keeps winning that garbage league of theirs every year. That doesn't mean they could sniff that record in a better conference. Same can be said about SEC in recent years too. Maybe 2 for regular season and 2 for conference tournament?

Also, not sure if you should factor in wins as they are truly indicative of how good a team is. Wichita St would not have been undefeated last year in a power conference. Then teams with weak SOS get a undeserved boost.

Yeah you guys are right, 5 points is too much for conference and total wins. The points I gave for tournament progression I think is right on but yeah maybe just a 1 or 2 point bonus for winning your conference and not factor total wins or team with most wins. I bet going with that the champion still ends up top points for the year and the list doesn't change much. We all pretty much know who the elite programs are anyways. (UK, Duke, UNC, UConn, KU, Mich St., etc.)