Started By
Message
re: College Basketball Program Rankings
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:58 am to auisssa
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:58 am to auisssa
quote:
I would add an age factor as well. Ex, last 20 years, your values are x 1. 20 years previous x .9, etc.
I thought about this. I can easily do it with the way it’s built out… difficult to figure out how to value it.
I think it could also cause for some whacky rankings like UConn being up ahead of Kentucky, etc if you go too hard.
0
Posted on 4/9/24 at 9:58 am to AUTiger789
quote:
College basketball is 100% all about the NCAA Tournament
I don't know if you're SOG doing a bit, or someone trying to emulate SOG and simply doing so poorly, but when he did this annually, he scored it thusly, for comparison:
quote:
> National Title - 150 points
> National Runner Up - 75 points
> Final Four Semifinal - 50 points
> Elite 8 - 25 points
> Sweet 16 - 15 points
> Round 32 - 10 points
> Round 68 - 5 points
> Conference Championship (Regular Season) - 12 points
> Conference Tournament Championship - 5 points
> Losing Season - (-5 pts)
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:05 am to paperwasp
SOG’s are interesting to look at. To each their own. But as I’ve noted I think when comparing teams from a multitude of different conferences, conference titles, wins/losses, etc muddies things up.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 10:09 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:30 am to AUTiger789
I like it. For all those saying its not including reg season....reg is just for building a resume for the tourney. Hell Ar won the SWC just about every year so im sure it would add to our numbers but the tourney performance is what you are judged on. Coaches get run off winning reg season and under performing in the tourney right cats
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:40 am to AUTiger789
quote:
College basketball is 100% all about the NCAA Tournament.
Then why not skip the regular season and just hold a big tournament each year?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:42 am to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
Then why not skip the regular season and just hold a big tournament each year?
Because the regular season is what decides the Tournament Field. This is not as hard as some of you choose to make it.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:46 am to AUTiger789
quote:
127. Ole Miss- 11.65
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:54 am to swinetime
quote:
I like it. For all those saying its not including reg season....reg is just for building a resume for the tourney. Hell Ar won the SWC just about every year so im sure it would add to our numbers but the tourney performance is what you are judged on. Coaches get run off winning reg season and under performing in the tourney right cats
You just keep losing to your rivals and the fans will let you know how they feel. They don't spend millions on tickets to watch anything less than your best.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:54 am to AUTiger789
Some interesting notes:
Since 2020, Alabama has risen under Nate Oats from #52 to #40.
Since 2018, Tennessee has risen under Barnes from #52-43
Since 2018, Auburn has risen under Pearl from #87 to #64.
When LSU made their last Final Four in 2006, they got up to #25 at the time but have since fallen 10 spots to #35.
At the end of the 2004 season, Florida ranked #42 but have since risen to #15… mostly due to two national titles.
Since 2020, Alabama has risen under Nate Oats from #52 to #40.
Since 2018, Tennessee has risen under Barnes from #52-43
Since 2018, Auburn has risen under Pearl from #87 to #64.
When LSU made their last Final Four in 2006, they got up to #25 at the time but have since fallen 10 spots to #35.
At the end of the 2004 season, Florida ranked #42 but have since risen to #15… mostly due to two national titles.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:57 am to TouchdownTony
quote:
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.
if you added those I doubt it would change much
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:59 am to AUTiger789
More interesting notes:
Top programs without a national title:
#17 Oklahom, #19 Purdue, #20 Illinois, #22 Gonzaga, #26 Texas
Top programs without a Final Four:
#38 Xavier, #43 Tennessee, #48 Missouri, #50 Pittsburgh, #54 BYU
Top program without an Elite 8: #79 Texas A&M
Top programs without a national title:
#17 Oklahom, #19 Purdue, #20 Illinois, #22 Gonzaga, #26 Texas
Top programs without a Final Four:
#38 Xavier, #43 Tennessee, #48 Missouri, #50 Pittsburgh, #54 BYU
Top program without an Elite 8: #79 Texas A&M
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:10 am to AUTiger789
quote:
Some interesting notes
How are you denoting this (the change in ranking over time)?
Do you have 85 columns of calculated values for some 330-odd teams?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:15 am to paperwasp
quote:
Do you have 85 columns of calculated values for some 330-odd teams?
I have about 150 teams’ NCAA history uploaded into a master spreadsheet. I have some XLOOKUP factors and a giant pivot table that allows me to filter by team and by year.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 11:17 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:22 am to TouchdownTony
quote:
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.
The regular season is what positions you to get more of the points used in this metric. Better regular season earns you higher seeding in the tourney, which should translate to more points in this grading rubric. The regular season is (theoretically) indirectly calculated into this.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:24 am to HogPharmer
quote:
The regular season is what positions you to get more of the points used in this metric. Better regular season earns you higher seeding in the tourney, which should translate to more points in this grading rubric. The regular season is (theoretically) indirectly calculated into this.
Glad some people use their noggins.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:27 am to AUTiger789
quote:
XLOOKUP
Nice way to do it.
That was essentially where I was going with this, whether you had it in a spreadsheet or a database queried directly through code.
Sounds like a little bit of both, depending on the variables in your cells.
Would be cool to see one of those animations of someone's (like the SEC's) charted rankings over time.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:27 am to TouchdownTony
You can definitely tell Bama fans haven't had much success in basketball historically. They always seem to be the ones bumping their chests about regular seasons.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:37 am to paperwasp
My excel skills are certainly above average but are also not exactly stellar to say the least.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:38 am to AUTiger789
quote:
My excel skills are certainly above average but are also not exactly stellar to say the least.
Anything beyond VLookup and Pivot Table is just showing off
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News