Started By
Message
College Basketball Program Rankings
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:05 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:05 am
I’ve tweaked my formula just slightly and I think the below rankings are legit. Here is the methodology:
Season ending with….
National Title = 20 points
Champ Game Appearance = 12 Points
Final Four Appearance = 10 points
Elite 8 = 5 points
Sweet 16 = 3 points
2nd Round = 1.5 points
1st Round = 1 point
Max of 20 points in a season
Points achieved in the modern Tournament era (1985-present) get full credit. There is a sliding scale that discounts seasons from back when the tournament was smaller. From 1939-1950 the Tournament consisted of just 8 teams, so those seasons are heavily discounted.
With all that said, here is the Top 15:
1. North Carolina- 298.95
2. Kentucky- 284.85
3. Duke- 282.55
4. Kansas- 232.13
5. UCLA- 216.80
6. Connecticut- 186.10
7. Michigan St- 166.30
8. Indiana- 152.98
9. Villanova- 150.68
10. Syracuse- 150.60
11. Louisville- 137.83
12. Arizona- 126.25
13. Arkansas- 112.50
14. Michigan- 112.10
15. Florida- 110.00
Season ending with….
National Title = 20 points
Champ Game Appearance = 12 Points
Final Four Appearance = 10 points
Elite 8 = 5 points
Sweet 16 = 3 points
2nd Round = 1.5 points
1st Round = 1 point
Max of 20 points in a season
Points achieved in the modern Tournament era (1985-present) get full credit. There is a sliding scale that discounts seasons from back when the tournament was smaller. From 1939-1950 the Tournament consisted of just 8 teams, so those seasons are heavily discounted.
With all that said, here is the Top 15:
1. North Carolina- 298.95
2. Kentucky- 284.85
3. Duke- 282.55
4. Kansas- 232.13
5. UCLA- 216.80
6. Connecticut- 186.10
7. Michigan St- 166.30
8. Indiana- 152.98
9. Villanova- 150.68
10. Syracuse- 150.60
11. Louisville- 137.83
12. Arizona- 126.25
13. Arkansas- 112.50
14. Michigan- 112.10
15. Florida- 110.00
9
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:07 am to AUTiger789
you are still undervaluing getting to the championship game...I thought we talked about this...
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:08 am to AUTiger789
quote:
College Basketball Program Rankings Based Solely on NCAA Tournament Play
I fixed the thread title for you.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:11 am to AUTiger789
SEC Rankings:
2. Kentucky- 284.85
13. Arkansas- 112.50
15. Florida- 110.00
17. Oklahoma- 90.98
26. Texas- 79.90
35. LSU- 65.68
40. Alabama- 54.73
43. Tennessee- 50.58
48. Missouri- 47.05
64. Auburn- 34.90
78. Mississippi St- 26.88
79. Texas A&M- 26.80
83. Vanderbilt- 25.75
88. Georgia- 23.15
93. South Carolina- 20.88
127. Ole Miss- 11.65
2. Kentucky- 284.85
13. Arkansas- 112.50
15. Florida- 110.00
17. Oklahoma- 90.98
26. Texas- 79.90
35. LSU- 65.68
40. Alabama- 54.73
43. Tennessee- 50.58
48. Missouri- 47.05
64. Auburn- 34.90
78. Mississippi St- 26.88
79. Texas A&M- 26.80
83. Vanderbilt- 25.75
88. Georgia- 23.15
93. South Carolina- 20.88
127. Ole Miss- 11.65
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:12 am to Chicken
quote:
I thought we talked about this
You’re talking to yourself in a giant echo chamber.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:13 am to AUTiger789
quote:
You’re talking to yourself in a giant echo chamber.
In fairness, it is his echo chamber.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:15 am to AUTiger789
quote:
88. Georgia- 23.15
Not last
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:17 am to AUTiger789
Meh, this is a good metric for performance in the NCAA tourney. Nothing more than that.
You need points for 20 win seasons, regular season conference titles and conference tourney championships.
You need points for 20 win seasons, regular season conference titles and conference tourney championships.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:17 am to AUTiger789
Ranking based solely on NCAAT success... so overall wins, conference titles, etc aren't factored in...but let's face it, NCAAT success is really how people measure a program. Bama has won the SEC many times, but this Final Four year will be considered our best season ever even without a conference title.
That being said, the only surprise on your ranking to me is Michigan. Outside of the Fab Five early 90s hype, they haven't done much in basketball, at least in my lifetime.
That being said, the only surprise on your ranking to me is Michigan. Outside of the Fab Five early 90s hype, they haven't done much in basketball, at least in my lifetime.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:18 am to AUTiger789
quote:
You’re talking to yourself in a giant echo chamber
quote:
AUTiger789
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:22 am to Tornado Alley
quote:
College Basketball Program Rankings Based Solely on NCAA Tournament Play
College basketball is 100% all about the NCAA Tournament.
Let me tell you why nothing else can be valued when comparing programs:
Wins/Losses- schedule strengths vary wildly. Texas finished the year with 21 wins. Meanwhile James Madison finished the year with 32 wins. One made the NCAA Tourney 2nd round, and one got left out completely. Any metric that gives James Madison a higher score for this season over Texas is 100% flawed.
Conference Titles
Since 1983, Iona has 13 MAAC conference titles. Meanwhile a program like Syracuse has just 9 conference titles. Iona has never won an NCAA Tournament game, and Syracuse has won 59 NCAA tourney games just during this time frame. In what world should Iona be rewarded more than Syracuse since 1983?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:24 am to Chad4Bama
quote:
but let's face it, NCAAT success is really how people measure a program. Bama has won the SEC many times, but this Final Four year will be considered our best season ever even without a conference title.
Exactly.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:30 am to AUTiger789
quote:
Wins/Losses- schedule strengths vary wildly.
As do NCAA Tournament draws. More wildly than schedule strengths from teams in the same conference.
A regular season conference championship from a major conference has to mean something to a program ranking.
Really weird to intentionally exclude that, IMO.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 9:31 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:30 am to TouchdownTony
quote:
You need points for 20 win seasons
Another worthless stat when comparing programs from different conferences.
A 20 win season in the Big 10 or SEC will likely get you a top 8 seed in the Tournament. A 20 win season in the SWAC means absolutely nothing.
Western Illinois finished #270 in KenPom this season and missed all postseason Tournaments. They did win 21 games however. Why should they get credit for anything this season when they weren’t any good and had no success to show for. Literally Vandy and Missouri would have easily won 20 games against their schedule.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:35 am to AUTiger789
quote:
Wins/Losses- schedule strengths vary wildly. Texas finished the year with 21 wins. Meanwhile James Madison finished the year with 32 wins. One made the NCAA Tourney 2nd round, and one got left out completely. Any metric that gives James Madison a higher score for this season over Texas is 100% flawed.
JMU didn't get left out of the tournament. They made it to the 2nd round just like Texas did.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:35 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
A regular season conference championship from a major conference has to mean something to a program ranking.
Define major conference. What do you do with the “minor” conferences? Or the conferences in between? Where are the lines?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:38 am to Dice22
quote:
JMU didn't get left out of the tournament. They made it to the 2nd round just like Texas did.
Okay bad example. Honestly I was in Europe for several weeks and missed the first two weekends of the tournament so it’s hard to keep straight what happened.
Use App State. They won 27 games but missed the tournament. Why should they be rewarded more than 21-win Texas who made the Final 32?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:45 am to AUTiger789
Sure, I think most would agree that SOS matters at least to some degree. I also think most would agree that the NCAA tournament is what matters most in defining success of a season.
However, I think winning a regular season major conference championship is also something to be celebrated and is a measure of success. To completely leave out the regular season in defining success does seem odd to me.
That said, I don't really care that much. I was just really confused about the JMU thing.
However, I think winning a regular season major conference championship is also something to be celebrated and is a measure of success. To completely leave out the regular season in defining success does seem odd to me.
That said, I don't really care that much. I was just really confused about the JMU thing.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:50 am to Dice22
Sure. I get that winning a conference title is nice and worth celebrating. The difficulty is how to reward that in a metric when all the conferences are so different.
Gonzaga has 21 regular season conference titles since 2001. Kentucky has 9.
Surely if Kentucky had been in the WCC instead of the SEC, they’d have more than 9… and simultaneously, had Gonzaga played in the SEC they’d have no where close to 21.
So how do you value a conference title in a metric that compares programs from all the different conferences?
Gonzaga has 21 regular season conference titles since 2001. Kentucky has 9.
Surely if Kentucky had been in the WCC instead of the SEC, they’d have more than 9… and simultaneously, had Gonzaga played in the SEC they’d have no where close to 21.
So how do you value a conference title in a metric that compares programs from all the different conferences?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:55 am to AUTiger789
I would add an age factor as well. Ex, last 20 years, your values are x 1. 20 years previous x .9, etc.
Not sure those are the right time frames or weights, just a thought.
Not sure those are the right time frames or weights, just a thought.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News