(07-15-2013 10:23 AM)transitt Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 06:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:06 AM)transitt Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:01 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(07-14-2013 07:10 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Not having Gonzaga, and even Cincinnati in there is a joke using that points system. When was the last time Tennessee won a tourney game? That Chris Lofton hail mary from the corner to barely miss losing to Winthrop as a #15? Garbage lol

Tennessee was a missed shot away from going to the Final Four in 2010.

That was also the lone Elite Eight in the history of the program.

The list isn't about what the total history of the program has been.

One elite eight in their history doesn't put them above Memphis in any poll.

Why not?

And it wasn't just an Elite 8. Tennessee had a couple of Sweet 16s recently as well.

BTW, it's not a poll. It's a rating system designed to identify which programs have the strongest recent history.

(07-15-2013 10:07 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:46 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 08:19 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 07:13 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  There has been a comparison of programs and conference in another recent thread, which is why I posted this list.

I posted the methodology so that anyone can disagree with it and propose a better analysis of historical data as it relates to current strength of program.

In no way am I attempting to troll. I'm trying to stimulate some serious discussion about relative strength of programs based on objective data.

If you don't like what I've come up with, that's fine with me. Propose something better or suggest how to improve what I've come up with. I'm open minded enough to say there's lots I could learn and am open to new ideas.

BTW, Temple? Seriously? What has Temple done lately to warrant serious consideration on this kind of list? It's not the 1990s any more.

Temple has done nothing in the past 10 years in relationship to your criteria of a sweet 16 appearance or higher.

However, Temple mens basketball over the past 10 years has:

2 regular season conference championships 2010 and 2012 in the A10 which some argue is the strongest Mid Major basketball conference.
3 consecutive conference tournament championships, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
6 consecutive trips to the NCAA tournament, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.
Has beat an a top 10 opponent each year for the past 6 consecutive years.
In 2013 went over the 1800 win mark and is in 6th place for the most wins in college basketball history behind Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, and Syracuse. 60 wins ahead of the 7th place team.

Now the bad with the good, in the 6 consecutive tournament appearances the Owls have won a total of 2 games.

I understand none of what I've listed above meets your criteria of being a “Top 30 College Basketball Program” and that’s why I never commented about Temple not being part of that list, however, your comment “BTW, Temple? Seriously? What has Temple done lately to warrant serious consideration on this kind of list? It's not the 1990s any more.” is a bit of an ignorant statement, but then again, that's only my opinion.

I respect your opinion. And mine is only my opinion. Not presenting it as anything more than that.

I understand what Temple has accomplished during the regular season, but who on the list of 30 that I presented does that make them better than. How are than any different than a program like Creighton, for example, which is also not on the list.

I don't see how it's ignorant not to include Temple. It's not like I didn't do my homework. Not saying you're doing this, but name brand schools like Temple and Gonzaga get thrown around all the time even though they haven't done much in a long time against national competition at tournament time. Is it my ignorance to pass them over or is it ignorant for them to be included just because they have a "name". We're all a little ignorant about some things and I plead to having my share of ignorance. I'm just saying that it takes more than showing that Temple had some good seasons that got them into the tournament and a few conference championships. I think you really need to demonstrate why that makes them better than others who are on the list and even others still who are not.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they should be on your list, because based on your criteria they don’t belong there and I’m not arguing that. I was simply addressing your comment of what has Temple done lately to warrant consideration onto ANY kind of list. The key word is any.

All “lists” aside, looking at the 10 year resume I posted regarding Temple. I’m willing to bet that of the approximately 345 D1 basketball programs, 90% of them would willingly take the resume of Temple in a heartbeat. Their fans would be ecstatic to have the opportunity to root for their school 6 straight years in the NCAA Tournament, enjoy the pride of 2 conference championships and 3 conference tournament trophies in a strong (though be it Mid Major) A10, A program that is recognized nationally with a solid history free of scandal and graduates its players. Good solid consistent performance is being viewed as worthless.

You write off anything short of the Sweet 16 as meaningless, and as a college basketball fan that’s what I find ignorant.

All good points. Lots of respect here for the Temple program.

Lists like this are designed to discriminate in order to see who rises to the top. Just like bubble teams who have an argument when they get left off the list of invitees, there are certainly bubble teams who can make an argument. Temple is one of them.

I'm not writing off anything short of the Sweet 16 as meaningless. I drew the line there because a trip to the Sweet 16 means 2 wins. One win can mean that a team got hot and pulled an upset or caught someone on a bad day when they were off there game. Two wins gets my attention because that team did it again. Now it's no longer a fluke or just a lucky day.

It would also be incredibly time consuming to count all 32 first round wins for every team for 10 years. I doubt that it would make much difference if a team didn't do anything beyond that. Would Temple's 2 wins in the past 10 years, for example, have elevated them onto the list? Nope.

Back to Temple for a moment. I think it's especially important for a program getting to the tournament out of a mid major conference to validate those conference championships in the tournament precisely because they qualified by beating lesser competition. When teams like Temple and Gonzaga fail in the tournament year after year, it begins to raise the question that maybe they're just not that good.

It means a lot when programs like that get even one big upset in the tournament. It can make their season when Albany, for example knocks off Syracuse. But to be considered on the same level as the power conferences, they need to get more than an isolated tournament win here or there. Temple did that under John Cheney in the '90s going to something like 5 Elite 8s in 12 years or so. But the Temple program hasn't had those kinds of deep runs in the tournament in a long time.

I think that a better argument can be made that my system undervalued schools out of power conferences like Pitt, Georgetown, and Notre Dame who had lots of regular season success - including conference championships - against some of the best competition in the country, but got ranked low because they hit a bad stretch in the tournament. That's a valid criticism. My only come back to that is that their failures are all the more glaring because that regular season competition gave them high seeds in the tournament, meaning they were getting knocked off by significantly less accomplished teams. It's a tough nut and a better system that compensates for that would take more time than I have available.

BTW, I was aware that you were talking about Temple on ANY list. I'm just saying that I don't see enough from Temple to make me think that they would be on any list. Not saying I'm write. Just that so far I don't see it. That's not to say that they don't have a very nice program that gives its fans lots to cheer about. Heck, I was cheering for them last March and was disappointed when they lost. Those kids played their hearts out.

Let me start by saying you did a great job pulling this data together, it must have taken hours. In another post you asked for suggestions on how to improve the list. There is no way to improve it and you shouldn't be looking to change it, the list is the list, and it will always be skewed toward the points the creator of the list holds most valuable. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it just makes it your list. Along with that is the fact that the creator of the list can’t expect everyone to view it as valuable as he does.

It’s why I’m not a big fan of lists, or even subjective polls because they will always reflect the views and values of the person controlling the data. If I was to modify or filter your list I would have added points for graduation rates, subtracted points for kids who left school early for the NBA or never graduated. I would have subtracted points for recruiting and academic violations, as well as NCAA probation. I would have deducted points for each kid who transferred. But that’s how the programs would be valued based on what I feel is important. Some would agree I’m sure, but many would find it ridiculous.

I’m a big fan of the true student athlete, the kid who balanced the challenges of athletics and academics. I’m one of the people who dislike college basketball being looked at as the minor leagues for the NBA and think one and done is a huge problem. I’m one of the few who feel the University of Kentucky basketball program stands for everything that’s wrong with college basketball.

That’s enough time on my soap box voicing my opinions. Your list did exactly what it should, encouraged discussions about who should and shouldn't, and why, but at the end of the day the list is nothing more than your opinion based on numbers to back it up, and holds no more value than mine or anyone else’s here.

(07-15-2013 10:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I think if you changed the title to Top 30 Tournament Performers alot fewer of these nut jobs would be bashing you. For some one who laid out exactly what the criteria and eliminated all subjectivity except placing more emphasis on recent success some of these folks' inability to grasp what you were going for is shocking. It's an interesting list imo.

Exactly, Top 30 tournament performers in the past 10 seasons would have been the perfect title.

(07-15-2013 10:24 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:45 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 08:44 AM)Knights_of_UCF Wrote:  terrible list and your point system is very flawed. You can't give 10x points for a NC last year but only 5x points for a NC just 5 years ago. then you give a point to a team who won the NC 20 years ago, and the same point to a team that won it 10 years ago. Does recency matter or not?

Yes, it is flawed. I'm open to suggestion. How would you improve it?

Give points for making a tournament, round of 32. Give points for regular season championships (if you wanted to make it more complete). Don't give any points for a NC from beyond 10 yrs ago, since you want it to be a relevancy poll. Give more points for a NC 10 years ago (you have worth 6pts) than a sweet 16 last year (you have worth 10 pts). A NC is always worth more than a sweet 16, even if it was 10 years ago.

Its your list, and your work went into it, but its a very pedestrian point system. Do you really think a sweet 16 in 2011 is worth more than a NC in 2003?

Good suggestions. When I have time, I'll rework it with tournament appearances and first round wins factored in. We'll see if it makes a difference.

I only gave bonus points to for a NC more than 10 years ago to programs that had already made the list. So, Arkansas, for example, didn't get a bonus point for 1994. For programs that are continuing to compete on a high level, I thought that a bonus point here or there was worth it because it does add to the long term strength of the program to recognize the ultimate accomplishment within the last 2 decades. Not a big deal to me if that were eliminated because it's a small number.

I think a Sweet 16 last year does mean more than a NC 10 years ago if we're trying to measure the strength of a programs recent history. If I were doing this list 2 years ago, Maryland would be getting credit for their 2002 NC? ButMaryland has done very little since then. How would it improve the validity of the ratings system to exaggerate the importance of that achievement from 10 years ago? Theteam coming off a current Sweet 16 has demonstrated that the program has accomplished something right now that'is relevant and noteworthy. It's a sign of the program's health right now.

Of course the system is pedestrian. I 'm doing this as a hobby in my spare time. I'm not writing a book. I'm not Bill James or Ken Pom or Jeff Sagarin. I'm not trying to sell anything. I'm just trying to make the conversation a little more interesting.

(07-15-2013 10:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:23 AM)transitt Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 06:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:06 AM)transitt Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 12:01 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  Tennessee was a missed shot away from going to the Final Four in 2010.

That was also the lone Elite Eight in the history of the program.

The list isn't about what the total history of the program has been.

One elite eight in their history doesn't put them above Memphis in any poll.

Why not?

And it wasn't just an Elite 8. Tennessee had a couple of Sweet 16s recently as well.

BTW, it's not a poll. It's a rating system designed to identify which programs have the strongest recent history.

As well as multiple NITs (Four, compared to Memphis' two in the same time frame) and a losing season. Two of their winning (NIT) seasons were 15 and 17 win seasons. Their most recent season was a first round NIT loss.

(07-15-2013 10:45 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:07 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:46 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 08:19 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  Temple has done nothing in the past 10 years in relationship to your criteria of a sweet 16 appearance or higher.

However, Temple mens basketball over the past 10 years has:

2 regular season conference championships 2010 and 2012 in the A10 which some argue is the strongest Mid Major basketball conference.
3 consecutive conference tournament championships, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
6 consecutive trips to the NCAA tournament, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.
Has beat an a top 10 opponent each year for the past 6 consecutive years.
In 2013 went over the 1800 win mark and is in 6th place for the most wins in college basketball history behind Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, and Syracuse. 60 wins ahead of the 7th place team.

Now the bad with the good, in the 6 consecutive tournament appearances the Owls have won a total of 2 games.

I understand none of what I've listed above meets your criteria of being a “Top 30 College Basketball Program” and that’s why I never commented about Temple not being part of that list, however, your comment “BTW, Temple? Seriously? What has Temple done lately to warrant serious consideration on this kind of list? It's not the 1990s any more.” is a bit of an ignorant statement, but then again, that's only my opinion.

I respect your opinion. And mine is only my opinion. Not presenting it as anything more than that.

I understand what Temple has accomplished during the regular season, but who on the list of 30 that I presented does that make them better than. How are than any different than a program like Creighton, for example, which is also not on the list.

I don't see how it's ignorant not to include Temple. It's not like I didn't do my homework. Not saying you're doing this, but name brand schools like Temple and Gonzaga get thrown around all the time even though they haven't done much in a long time against national competition at tournament time. Is it my ignorance to pass them over or is it ignorant for them to be included just because they have a "name". We're all a little ignorant about some things and I plead to having my share of ignorance. I'm just saying that it takes more than showing that Temple had some good seasons that got them into the tournament and a few conference championships. I think you really need to demonstrate why that makes them better than others who are on the list and even others still who are not.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they should be on your list, because based on your criteria they don’t belong there and I’m not arguing that. I was simply addressing your comment of what has Temple done lately to warrant consideration onto ANY kind of list. The key word is any.

All “lists” aside, looking at the 10 year resume I posted regarding Temple. I’m willing to bet that of the approximately 345 D1 basketball programs, 90% of them would willingly take the resume of Temple in a heartbeat. Their fans would be ecstatic to have the opportunity to root for their school 6 straight years in the NCAA Tournament, enjoy the pride of 2 conference championships and 3 conference tournament trophies in a strong (though be it Mid Major) A10, A program that is recognized nationally with a solid history free of scandal and graduates its players. Good solid consistent performance is being viewed as worthless.

You write off anything short of the Sweet 16 as meaningless, and as a college basketball fan that’s what I find ignorant.

All good points. Lots of respect here for the Temple program.

Lists like this are designed to discriminate in order to see who rises to the top. Just like bubble teams who have an argument when they get left off the list of invitees, there are certainly bubble teams who can make an argument. Temple is one of them.

I'm not writing off anything short of the Sweet 16 as meaningless. I drew the line there because a trip to the Sweet 16 means 2 wins. One win can mean that a team got hot and pulled an upset or caught someone on a bad day when they were off there game. Two wins gets my attention because that team did it again. Now it's no longer a fluke or just a lucky day.

It would also be incredibly time consuming to count all 32 first round wins for every team for 10 years. I doubt that it would make much difference if a team didn't do anything beyond that. Would Temple's 2 wins in the past 10 years, for example, have elevated them onto the list? Nope.

Back to Temple for a moment. I think it's especially important for a program getting to the tournament out of a mid major conference to validate those conference championships in the tournament precisely because they qualified by beating lesser competition. When teams like Temple and Gonzaga fail in the tournament year after year, it begins to raise the question that maybe they're just not that good.

It means a lot when programs like that get even one big upset in the tournament. It can make their season when Albany, for example knocks off Syracuse. But to be considered on the same level as the power conferences, they need to get more than an isolated tournament win here or there. Temple did that under John Cheney in the '90s going to something like 5 Elite 8s in 12 years or so. But the Temple program hasn't had those kinds of deep runs in the tournament in a long time.

I think that a better argument can be made that my system undervalued schools out of power conferences like Pitt, Georgetown, and Notre Dame who had lots of regular season success - including conference championships - against some of the best competition in the country, but got ranked low because they hit a bad stretch in the tournament. That's a valid criticism. My only come back to that is that their failures are all the more glaring because that regular season competition gave them high seeds in the tournament, meaning they were getting knocked off by significantly less accomplished teams. It's a tough nut and a better system that compensates for that would take more time than I have available.

BTW, I was aware that you were talking about Temple on ANY list. I'm just saying that I don't see enough from Temple to make me think that they would be on any list. Not saying I'm write. Just that so far I don't see it. That's not to say that they don't have a very nice program that gives its fans lots to cheer about. Heck, I was cheering for them last March and was disappointed when they lost. Those kids played their hearts out.

Let me start by saying you did a great job pulling this data together, it must have taken hours. In another post you asked for suggestions on how to improve the list. There is no way to improve it and you shouldn't be looking to change it, the list is the list, and it will always be skewed toward the points the creator of the list holds most valuable. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it just makes it your list. Along with that is the fact that the creator of the list can’t expect everyone to view it as valuable as he does.

It’s why I’m not a big fan of lists, or even subjective polls because they will always reflect the views and values of the person controlling the data. If I was to modify or filter your list I would have added points for graduation rates, subtracted points for kids who left school early for the NBA or never graduated. I would have subtracted points for recruiting and academic violations, as well as NCAA probation. I would have deducted points for each kid who transferred. But that’s how the programs would be valued based on what I feel is important. Some would agree I’m sure, but many would find it ridiculous.

I’m a big fan of the true student athlete, the kid who balanced the challenges of athletics and academics. I’m one of the people who dislike college basketball being looked at as the minor leagues for the NBA and think one and done is a huge problem. I’m one of the few who feel the University of Kentucky basketball program stands for everything that’s wrong with college basketball.

That’s enough time on my soap box voicing my opinions. Your list did exactly what it should, encouraged discussions about who should and shouldn't, and why, but at the end of the day the list is nothing more than your opinion based on numbers to back it up, and holds no more value than mine or anyone else’s here.

Thanks for the encouraging words and for recognizing the time I put into it.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts because that's what these message boards are about. I enjoy reading all the different opinions.

I share your sentiments about the true student athletes. great points.

(07-15-2013 10:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I think if you changed the title to Top 30 Tournament Performers alot fewer of these nut jobs would be bashing you. For some one who laid out exactly what the criteria and eliminated all subjectivity except placing more emphasis on recent success some of these folks' inability to grasp what you were going for is shocking. It's an interesting list imo.

Great suggestion. In the future, I'll refer to it as suggest and in fact will go back and edit my header if the message board will allow me to do that.

Greatly appreciate your thoughts.

(07-15-2013 10:45 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:07 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:46 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 08:19 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  Temple has done nothing in the past 10 years in relationship to your criteria of a sweet 16 appearance or higher.

However, Temple mens basketball over the past 10 years has:

2 regular season conference championships 2010 and 2012 in the A10 which some argue is the strongest Mid Major basketball conference.
3 consecutive conference tournament championships, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
6 consecutive trips to the NCAA tournament, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.
Has beat an a top 10 opponent each year for the past 6 consecutive years.
In 2013 went over the 1800 win mark and is in 6th place for the most wins in college basketball history behind Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, and Syracuse. 60 wins ahead of the 7th place team.

Now the bad with the good, in the 6 consecutive tournament appearances the Owls have won a total of 2 games.

I understand none of what I've listed above meets your criteria of being a “Top 30 College Basketball Program” and that’s why I never commented about Temple not being part of that list, however, your comment “BTW, Temple? Seriously? What has Temple done lately to warrant serious consideration on this kind of list? It's not the 1990s any more.” is a bit of an ignorant statement, but then again, that's only my opinion.

I respect your opinion. And mine is only my opinion. Not presenting it as anything more than that.

I understand what Temple has accomplished during the regular season, but who on the list of 30 that I presented does that make them better than. How are than any different than a program like Creighton, for example, which is also not on the list.

I don't see how it's ignorant not to include Temple. It's not like I didn't do my homework. Not saying you're doing this, but name brand schools like Temple and Gonzaga get thrown around all the time even though they haven't done much in a long time against national competition at tournament time. Is it my ignorance to pass them over or is it ignorant for them to be included just because they have a "name". We're all a little ignorant about some things and I plead to having my share of ignorance. I'm just saying that it takes more than showing that Temple had some good seasons that got them into the tournament and a few conference championships. I think you really need to demonstrate why that makes them better than others who are on the list and even others still who are not.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they should be on your list, because based on your criteria they don’t belong there and I’m not arguing that. I was simply addressing your comment of what has Temple done lately to warrant consideration onto ANY kind of list. The key word is any.

All “lists” aside, looking at the 10 year resume I posted regarding Temple. I’m willing to bet that of the approximately 345 D1 basketball programs, 90% of them would willingly take the resume of Temple in a heartbeat. Their fans would be ecstatic to have the opportunity to root for their school 6 straight years in the NCAA Tournament, enjoy the pride of 2 conference championships and 3 conference tournament trophies in a strong (though be it Mid Major) A10, A program that is recognized nationally with a solid history free of scandal and graduates its players. Good solid consistent performance is being viewed as worthless.

You write off anything short of the Sweet 16 as meaningless, and as a college basketball fan that’s what I find ignorant.

All good points. Lots of respect here for the Temple program.

Lists like this are designed to discriminate in order to see who rises to the top. Just like bubble teams who have an argument when they get left off the list of invitees, there are certainly bubble teams who can make an argument. Temple is one of them.

I'm not writing off anything short of the Sweet 16 as meaningless. I drew the line there because a trip to the Sweet 16 means 2 wins. One win can mean that a team got hot and pulled an upset or caught someone on a bad day when they were off there game. Two wins gets my attention because that team did it again. Now it's no longer a fluke or just a lucky day.

It would also be incredibly time consuming to count all 32 first round wins for every team for 10 years. I doubt that it would make much difference if a team didn't do anything beyond that. Would Temple's 2 wins in the past 10 years, for example, have elevated them onto the list? Nope.

Back to Temple for a moment. I think it's especially important for a program getting to the tournament out of a mid major conference to validate those conference championships in the tournament precisely because they qualified by beating lesser competition. When teams like Temple and Gonzaga fail in the tournament year after year, it begins to raise the question that maybe they're just not that good.

It means a lot when programs like that get even one big upset in the tournament. It can make their season when Albany, for example knocks off Syracuse. But to be considered on the same level as the power conferences, they need to get more than an isolated tournament win here or there. Temple did that under John Cheney in the '90s going to something like 5 Elite 8s in 12 years or so. But the Temple program hasn't had those kinds of deep runs in the tournament in a long time.

I think that a better argument can be made that my system undervalued schools out of power conferences like Pitt, Georgetown, and Notre Dame who had lots of regular season success - including conference championships - against some of the best competition in the country, but got ranked low because they hit a bad stretch in the tournament. That's a valid criticism. My only come back to that is that their failures are all the more glaring because that regular season competition gave them high seeds in the tournament, meaning they were getting knocked off by significantly less accomplished teams. It's a tough nut and a better system that compensates for that would take more time than I have available.

BTW, I was aware that you were talking about Temple on ANY list. I'm just saying that I don't see enough from Temple to make me think that they would be on any list. Not saying I'm write. Just that so far I don't see it. That's not to say that they don't have a very nice program that gives its fans lots to cheer about. Heck, I was cheering for them last March and was disappointed when they lost. Those kids played their hearts out.

Let me start by saying you did a great job pulling this data together, it must have taken hours. In another post you asked for suggestions on how to improve the list. There is no way to improve it and you shouldn't be looking to change it, the list is the list, and it will always be skewed toward the points the creator of the list holds most valuable. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it just makes it your list. Along with that is the fact that the creator of the list can’t expect everyone to view it as valuable as he does.

It’s why I’m not a big fan of lists, or even subjective polls because they will always reflect the views and values of the person controlling the data. If I was to modify or filter your list I would have added points for graduation rates, subtracted points for kids who left school early for the NBA or never graduated. I would have subtracted points for recruiting and academic violations, as well as NCAA probation. I would have deducted points for each kid who transferred. But that’s how the programs would be valued based on what I feel is important. Some would agree I’m sure, but many would find it ridiculous.

I’m a big fan of the true student athlete, the kid who balanced the challenges of athletics and academics. I’m one of the people who dislike college basketball being looked at as the minor leagues for the NBA and think one and done is a huge problem. I’m one of the few who feel the University of Kentucky basketball program stands for everything that’s wrong with college basketball.

That’s enough time on my soap box voicing my opinions. Your list did exactly what it should, encouraged discussions about who should and shouldn't, and why, but at the end of the day the list is nothing more than your opinion based on numbers to back it up, and holds no more value than mine or anyone else’s here.

Why would you substract points from a school that sent players to the draft early? Some of the schools in this league recruit top 50 talent and would be ludacris to hold them here for 4 years if they were ready in year one or two. Most have seen what happens when you keep these type of kids longer than you have to. It is fine if the kid wants to stay for 4 years but the descision to turn pro you not be used as a reason to substract points from schools.

(07-15-2013 10:48 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I think if you changed the title to Top 30 Tournament Performers alot fewer of these nut jobs would be bashing you. For some one who laid out exactly what the criteria and eliminated all subjectivity except placing more emphasis on recent success some of these folks' inability to grasp what you were going for is shocking. It's an interesting list imo.

Exactly, Top 30 tournament performers in the past 10 seasons would have been the perfect title.

Or 'Top 30 performers, using only wins recognized by the NCAA, in last 10 years' ---

(07-15-2013 07:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Here's how the points look for each program:

1. Louisville (115)
2. Kansas (108)
3. North Carolina (105)
4. Kentucky (98)
5. Florida (96)
6. Duke (85)
7. Ohio State (78)
8. UConn (78)
9. Michigan State (76)
10. Butler (64)

11. Syracuse (63)
12. UCLA (40)
13. Michigan (40)
14. Marquette (37)
15. Arizona (37)
16. Xavier (34)
17. West Virginia (33)
18. Wichita State (33)
19. Baylor (32 )
20. Villanova (31)

21. Wisconsin (26)
22. VCU (24)
23. Tennessee (23)
24. Memphis (20)
25. Indiana (19)
26. Oregon (18)
27. Pitt (17)
28. Texas (17)
29. Georgetown (15)
30. Kansas State (14)

Note: Memphis' 2008 RU finish would have been worth 20 points if it had not been vacated. That would have put them in a tie with UCLA and Michigan. Since number of tournament appearances in the decade is the first tiebreaker, Memphis wins that against both of them. That would put them at #12 with everyone behind them bumping down one spot until we get to Indiana which stays at #25.

If we had Calhoun as a coach then:

1) We likely win the NC
2) It would not have been vacated

Just sayin.

(07-15-2013 10:27 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 07:35 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-14-2013 09:03 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(07-14-2013 08:20 PM)Geotag Wrote:  Is the reason you are so intent to discredit Memphis is because D Rose put the wood on your team that year? Most Husky fans have moved in and so should you.

He won't move-in (AAC) b/c he obviously haves a hard on for that new little big east/A10 league, I think... Just s'yn.

The numbers are what the numbers are. If you disagree, explain where you disagree and why.

My list is based on actual performance. What's your disagreement based on? Just sayin' . . .

My disagreement isn't your 75% flaw numbers are what they are, but rather your main actual goal why this thread was created to begin with, if not other, but show disrespect towards AAC's power basketball members.

What in the world are you talking about?

My main goal was to show disrespect toward AAC power basketball members?

Please explain how I disrespected anyone?

I can easily give you a top 15 all time but I see what melky did using his own system. But people are bashing him as if its one for the books.lol Damn its just a system and opinion. I would probably have Kansas or Duke first myself looking at his criteria.

(07-15-2013 11:18 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 07:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Here's how the points look for each program:

1. Louisville (115)
2. Kansas (108)
3. North Carolina (105)
4. Kentucky (98)
5. Florida (96)
6. Duke (85)
7. Ohio State (78)
8. UConn (78)
9. Michigan State (76)
10. Butler (64)

11. Syracuse (63)
12. UCLA (40)
13. Michigan (40)
14. Marquette (37)
15. Arizona (37)
16. Xavier (34)
17. West Virginia (33)
18. Wichita State (33)
19. Baylor (32 )
20. Villanova (31)

21. Wisconsin (26)
22. VCU (24)
23. Tennessee (23)
24. Memphis (20)
25. Indiana (19)
26. Oregon (18)
27. Pitt (17)
28. Texas (17)
29. Georgetown (15)
30. Kansas State (14)

Note: Memphis' 2008 RU finish would have been worth 20 points if it had not been vacated. That would have put them in a tie with UCLA and Michigan. Since number of tournament appearances in the decade is the first tiebreaker, Memphis wins that against both of them. That would put them at #12 with everyone behind them bumping down one spot until we get to Indiana which stays at #25.

If we had Calhoun as a coach then:

1) We likely win the NC
2) It would not have been vacated

Just sayin.

you're talking to the wrong guy. I'm not a Calhoun fan.

Just sayin' . . .

(07-15-2013 11:46 AM)kardphan Wrote:  I can easily give you a top 15 all time but I see what melky did using his own system. But people are bashing him as if its one for the books.lol Damn its just a system and opinion. I would probably have Kansas or Duke first myself looking at his criteria.

Don't forget that Duke has had some conspicuous early round upsets in the tournament in recent years. They haven't been the juggernaut that they were early in Coach K's career.

(07-15-2013 11:02 AM)Geotag Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:45 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:07 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:46 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 09:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I respect your opinion. And mine is only my opinion. Not presenting it as anything more than that.

I understand what Temple has accomplished during the regular season, but who on the list of 30 that I presented does that make them better than. How are than any different than a program like Creighton, for example, which is also not on the list.

I don't see how it's ignorant not to include Temple. It's not like I didn't do my homework. Not saying you're doing this, but name brand schools like Temple and Gonzaga get thrown around all the time even though they haven't done much in a long time against national competition at tournament time. Is it my ignorance to pass them over or is it ignorant for them to be included just because they have a "name". We're all a little ignorant about some things and I plead to having my share of ignorance. I'm just saying that it takes more than showing that Temple had some good seasons that got them into the tournament and a few conference championships. I think you really need to demonstrate why that makes them better than others who are on the list and even others still who are not.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they should be on your list, because based on your criteria they don’t belong there and I’m not arguing that. I was simply addressing your comment of what has Temple done lately to warrant consideration onto ANY kind of list. The key word is any.

All “lists” aside, looking at the 10 year resume I posted regarding Temple. I’m willing to bet that of the approximately 345 D1 basketball programs, 90% of them would willingly take the resume of Temple in a heartbeat. Their fans would be ecstatic to have the opportunity to root for their school 6 straight years in the NCAA Tournament, enjoy the pride of 2 conference championships and 3 conference tournament trophies in a strong (though be it Mid Major) A10, A program that is recognized nationally with a solid history free of scandal and graduates its players. Good solid consistent performance is being viewed as worthless.

You write off anything short of the Sweet 16 as meaningless, and as a college basketball fan that’s what I find ignorant.

All good points. Lots of respect here for the Temple program.

Lists like this are designed to discriminate in order to see who rises to the top. Just like bubble teams who have an argument when they get left off the list of invitees, there are certainly bubble teams who can make an argument. Temple is one of them.

I'm not writing off anything short of the Sweet 16 as meaningless. I drew the line there because a trip to the Sweet 16 means 2 wins. One win can mean that a team got hot and pulled an upset or caught someone on a bad day when they were off there game. Two wins gets my attention because that team did it again. Now it's no longer a fluke or just a lucky day.

It would also be incredibly time consuming to count all 32 first round wins for every team for 10 years. I doubt that it would make much difference if a team didn't do anything beyond that. Would Temple's 2 wins in the past 10 years, for example, have elevated them onto the list? Nope.

Back to Temple for a moment. I think it's especially important for a program getting to the tournament out of a mid major conference to validate those conference championships in the tournament precisely because they qualified by beating lesser competition. When teams like Temple and Gonzaga fail in the tournament year after year, it begins to raise the question that maybe they're just not that good.

It means a lot when programs like that get even one big upset in the tournament. It can make their season when Albany, for example knocks off Syracuse. But to be considered on the same level as the power conferences, they need to get more than an isolated tournament win here or there. Temple did that under John Cheney in the '90s going to something like 5 Elite 8s in 12 years or so. But the Temple program hasn't had those kinds of deep runs in the tournament in a long time.

I think that a better argument can be made that my system undervalued schools out of power conferences like Pitt, Georgetown, and Notre Dame who had lots of regular season success - including conference championships - against some of the best competition in the country, but got ranked low because they hit a bad stretch in the tournament. That's a valid criticism. My only come back to that is that their failures are all the more glaring because that regular season competition gave them high seeds in the tournament, meaning they were getting knocked off by significantly less accomplished teams. It's a tough nut and a better system that compensates for that would take more time than I have available.

BTW, I was aware that you were talking about Temple on ANY list. I'm just saying that I don't see enough from Temple to make me think that they would be on any list. Not saying I'm write. Just that so far I don't see it. That's not to say that they don't have a very nice program that gives its fans lots to cheer about. Heck, I was cheering for them last March and was disappointed when they lost. Those kids played their hearts out.

Let me start by saying you did a great job pulling this data together, it must have taken hours. In another post you asked for suggestions on how to improve the list. There is no way to improve it and you shouldn't be looking to change it, the list is the list, and it will always be skewed toward the points the creator of the list holds most valuable. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it just makes it your list. Along with that is the fact that the creator of the list can’t expect everyone to view it as valuable as he does.

It’s why I’m not a big fan of lists, or even subjective polls because they will always reflect the views and values of the person controlling the data. If I was to modify or filter your list I would have added points for graduation rates, subtracted points for kids who left school early for the NBA or never graduated. I would have subtracted points for recruiting and academic violations, as well as NCAA probation. I would have deducted points for each kid who transferred. But that’s how the programs would be valued based on what I feel is important. Some would agree I’m sure, but many would find it ridiculous.

I’m a big fan of the true student athlete, the kid who balanced the challenges of athletics and academics. I’m one of the people who dislike college basketball being looked at as the minor leagues for the NBA and think one and done is a huge problem. I’m one of the few who feel the University of Kentucky basketball program stands for everything that’s wrong with college basketball.

That’s enough time on my soap box voicing my opinions. Your list did exactly what it should, encouraged discussions about who should and shouldn't, and why, but at the end of the day the list is nothing more than your opinion based on numbers to back it up, and holds no more value than mine or anyone else’s here.

Why would you substract points from a school that sent players to the draft early? Some of the schools in this league recruit top 50 talent and would be ludacris to hold them here for 4 years if they were ready in year one or two. Most have seen what happens when you keep these type of kids longer than you have to. It is fine if the kid wants to stay for 4 years but the descision to turn pro you not be used as a reason to substract points from schools.

Again, its my opinion, and my opinion only, but for me college is about getting an education first, and playing basketball second. The NBA developmental league is the place for kids whose eye is on the NBA as a career and only reason for college is to get ready for that.

How many came out early this year and didn't get drafted?

Again, it’s only my opinion.

(07-15-2013 11:47 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:18 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 07:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Here's how the points look for each program:

1. Louisville (115)
2. Kansas (108)
3. North Carolina (105)
4. Kentucky (98)
5. Florida (96)
6. Duke (85)
7. Ohio State (78)
8. UConn (78)
9. Michigan State (76)
10. Butler (64)

11. Syracuse (63)
12. UCLA (40)
13. Michigan (40)
14. Marquette (37)
15. Arizona (37)
16. Xavier (34)
17. West Virginia (33)
18. Wichita State (33)
19. Baylor (32 )
20. Villanova (31)

21. Wisconsin (26)
22. VCU (24)
23. Tennessee (23)
24. Memphis (20)
25. Indiana (19)
26. Oregon (18)
27. Pitt (17)
28. Texas (17)
29. Georgetown (15)
30. Kansas State (14)

Note: Memphis' 2008 RU finish would have been worth 20 points if it had not been vacated. That would have put them in a tie with UCLA and Michigan. Since number of tournament appearances in the decade is the first tiebreaker, Memphis wins that against both of them. That would put them at #12 with everyone behind them bumping down one spot until we get to Indiana which stays at #25.

If we had Calhoun as a coach then:

1) We likely win the NC
2) It would not have been vacated

Just sayin.

you're talking to the wrong guy. I'm not a Calhoun fan.

Just sayin' . . .

That's strange; UConn was nothing before him.

(07-15-2013 11:14 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:48 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I think if you changed the title to Top 30 Tournament Performers alot fewer of these nut jobs would be bashing you. For some one who laid out exactly what the criteria and eliminated all subjectivity except placing more emphasis on recent success some of these folks' inability to grasp what you were going for is shocking. It's an interesting list imo.

Exactly, Top 30 tournament performers in the past 10 seasons would have been the perfect title.

Or 'Top 30 performers, using only wins recognized by the NCAA, in last 10 years' ---

If you prefer, insert Memphis at #12 and drop everyone else behind them down a notch. That's where Memphis comes in if you count 2008.

There's a reason for being cautious with Memphis' 2008 season when trying to measure recent program strength.

No matter how you look at it, Memphis dodged a bullet in 2008. Many other schools have lost player eligibility under similar circumstances. The NCAA refuses to let players participate if there is even a question about their eligibility until that question is resolved. In 2011-12, for example, we at UConn lost Ryan Boatright for multiple games twice during that season. In one case, Boatright was found guilty of a minor infraction while in high school and in the other case, he was cleared. The total number of games he missed was much greater than the penalty imposed - 3 game (?) penalty if I remember correctly.

The point is that if a season in which a player was able to play because an eligibility question slipped by the NCAA's enforcement division is used to measure program strength, it will inflate the strength of the program because schools don't get away with that kind of thing too often - even when they're right.

(07-15-2013 11:48 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:46 AM)kardphan Wrote:  I can easily give you a top 15 all time but I see what melky did using his own system. But people are bashing him as if its one for the books.lol Damn its just a system and opinion. I would probably have Kansas or Duke first myself looking at his criteria.

Don't forget that Duke has had some conspicuous early round upsets in the tournament in recent years. They haven't been the juggernaut that they were early in Coach K's career.

Very true! I would have Indiana lower as well. Talk about a program who has dropped significantly. I would go as far to say that they are no longer a blue blood in my eyes. UK, UNC, KU, Duke, and for the most part UCLA have been way more consistent than IU. IU is a long way from the glory years. Blue bloods win every decade. IU has been irrelevant for to long. Not to say crean can't win their but ESPN wants them to be relevant so bad and in my opinion they just aren't. First title in the big 10 since 93???????

(07-15-2013 11:50 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:47 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:18 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 07:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Here's how the points look for each program:

1. Louisville (115)
2. Kansas (108)
3. North Carolina (105)
4. Kentucky (98)
5. Florida (96)
6. Duke (85)
7. Ohio State (78)
8. UConn (78)
9. Michigan State (76)
10. Butler (64)

11. Syracuse (63)
12. UCLA (40)
13. Michigan (40)
14. Marquette (37)
15. Arizona (37)
16. Xavier (34)
17. West Virginia (33)
18. Wichita State (33)
19. Baylor (32 )
20. Villanova (31)

21. Wisconsin (26)
22. VCU (24)
23. Tennessee (23)
24. Memphis (20)
25. Indiana (19)
26. Oregon (18)
27. Pitt (17)
28. Texas (17)
29. Georgetown (15)
30. Kansas State (14)

Note: Memphis' 2008 RU finish would have been worth 20 points if it had not been vacated. That would have put them in a tie with UCLA and Michigan. Since number of tournament appearances in the decade is the first tiebreaker, Memphis wins that against both of them. That would put them at #12 with everyone behind them bumping down one spot until we get to Indiana which stays at #25.

If we had Calhoun as a coach then:

1) We likely win the NC
2) It would not have been vacated

Just sayin.

you're talking to the wrong guy. I'm not a Calhoun fan.

Just sayin' . . .

That's strange; UConn was nothing before him.

Why is that strange? I can't be objective about the coach of my own school?

(07-15-2013 11:59 AM)kardphan Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:48 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:46 AM)kardphan Wrote:  I can easily give you a top 15 all time but I see what melky did using his own system. But people are bashing him as if its one for the books.lol Damn its just a system and opinion. I would probably have Kansas or Duke first myself looking at his criteria.

Don't forget that Duke has had some conspicuous early round upsets in the tournament in recent years. They haven't been the juggernaut that they were early in Coach K's career.

Very true! I would have Indiana lower as well. Talk about a program who has dropped significantly. I would go as far to say that they are no longer a blue blood in my eyes. UK, UNC, KU, Duke, and for the most part UCLA have been way more consistent than IU. IU is a long way from the glory years. Blue bloods win every decade. IU has been irrelevant for to long. Not to say crean can't win their but ESPN wants them to be relevant so bad and in my opinion they just aren't. First title in the big 10 since 93???????

I had exactly the same perception of Indiana. Slipped under my radar until I did the research. Back-to-back Sweet 16s have elevated them into the Top 25 because of the emphasis I put on recency. Crean has this program in a really good place right now. If you look at what they did during the regular season this past year, I may actually have underrated them.