Started By
Message
Top 178 (all "power" conference teams with UCF at #178) Historical Basketball Programs
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:22 pm
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:22 pm
This post was edited on 4/8/24 at 5:23 pm
5
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:22 pm to Temple of the Dog
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:26 pm to Temple of the Dog
But all the others say we suck. Must be a misprint…
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:27 pm to Temple of the Dog
quote:
Kentucky
Arkansas
Florida
Oklahoma
Texas
LSU
Big 6
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:28 pm to Temple of the Dog
Kansas State should be B12 not B1G, obviously. Oh well.
This post was edited on 4/8/24 at 5:30 pm
Posted on 4/8/24 at 5:29 pm to Temple of the Dog
Seeing "ACC" next to Stanford and "B1G" next to UCLA is very strange.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:06 am to Temple of the Dog
Bump, sticky requested so the Auburn guy can relax and take some notes.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 10:07 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:08 am to Temple of the Dog
Good list here. There is no credible listing that doesn’t have UCLA at the top.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:16 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Bump, sticky requested so the Auburn guy can relax and take some notes.
I like these. Certainly a good attempt.
I like mine better though because like I said, conference strength makes it impossible to compare conference titles among programs from different leagues. Also LOL at even looking at the AP.
I think it’s pretty easy to spot the fallacies in this metric. Ranking UCLA #1 all time is a joke. A metric that puts Indiana well in front of UConn is a joke. Missouri being ahead of Tennessee is highly suspect. Gonzaga not being even in the Top 40 also extremely suspect.
Are those enough notes?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:23 am to AUTiger789
It isn't updated for what UConn did last night. I think that would put them at #6 right behind Kansas.
Either way, this is just data exported from SR CBB. I'd like to have it broken out by tournament run more so than "made the tournament" and "final four". An Elite 8 run shouldnt count the same as sneaking in as a 10 seed and losing in round one. It's just hard to acquire all that data in one place.
I do like having SRS in there, though, as it helps sift through SOS. And conference titles are used, but at a very small pt level.
Either way, this is just data exported from SR CBB. I'd like to have it broken out by tournament run more so than "made the tournament" and "final four". An Elite 8 run shouldnt count the same as sneaking in as a 10 seed and losing in round one. It's just hard to acquire all that data in one place.
I do like having SRS in there, though, as it helps sift through SOS. And conference titles are used, but at a very small pt level.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 10:27 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:25 am to AUTiger789
quote:
I like mine better though because like I said, conference strength makes it impossible to compare conference titles among programs from different leagues
No, if conference strength is such a sticking point for you, there are certainly ways to distinguish between them. You created a “sliding scale” to account for tournament variations. There are plenty of metrics available that would allow you to do the same for conferences. It would just require some effort.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:40 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
No, if conference strength is such a sticking point for you, there are certainly ways to distinguish between them
Not really. Conference realignment has also made things incredibly difficult on this front. A conference that is pretty good now may have been terrible a few years ago (see WCC or MWC). A conference that was good years ago may no longer exist (Big 8).
Some conferences are good and have 18 teams. Other conferences are also good but have just 10 teams. Obviously winning a title out of 10 is easier than winning one with 18.
There are just way too many moving variables.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:50 am to Temple of the Dog
STELLAR job Ole Miss. 
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:01 am to Temple of the Dog
UCLA has won 2 NCs in the last half century.
Definitely a blue blood obviously, but they're really living off those Wooden years. Before my time so I wonder how they were so dominant during the mid 60s to mid 70s. What the heck were the other blue bloods doing during that period to let them just dominate for so long annually?
Definitely a blue blood obviously, but they're really living off those Wooden years. Before my time so I wonder how they were so dominant during the mid 60s to mid 70s. What the heck were the other blue bloods doing during that period to let them just dominate for so long annually?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:03 am to Chad4Bama
Agree - I like having a NCAAT all-time version and a 64 team tournament (1985) version. Just hard to get datasets.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:07 am to Temple of the Dog
Ooh somebody learned Excel today now do a vlookup on that bitch
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:09 am to SOBMarcus
quote:
Ooh somebody learned Excel today now do a vlookup on that bitch
Or somebody decided to take 10 minutes out of their career that uses excel and use it for "fun". Either way.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:32 am to Chad4Bama
quote:
UCLA has won 2 NCs in the last half century. Definitely a blue blood obviously, but they're really living off those Wooden years. Before my time so I wonder how they were so dominant during the mid 60s to mid 70s. What the heck were the other blue bloods doing during that period to let them just dominate for so long annually?
UCLA’s accomplishments have to be discounted if you want accurate rankings.
Most of UCLA’s titles were won between 1964-1975. In most of those seasons, there were just 22-25 teams playing in the Tourney, and UCLA typically got a bye so they automatically started in the Sweet 16. There was also no real seeding.
Winning a title in the mid ‘60s is nothing like winning a title since 1985.
I have UCLA at #5 in my rankings (see another thread) for these reasons.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News