MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: naginiF on November 17, 2020, 04:29:06 PM
-
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time-nos-68-51/ (https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time-nos-68-51/)
This should be a fun roller coaster ride with Wisconsin and DePaul being in the first batch (68-51) published.
I'm guessing MU @ 26
-
I’m taking 28.
-
Looking at the criteria, we fare pretty well.
Record: 1,434-868 (since 38-39)
Regular Season Titles: 3 (wonder how independent years are treated)
NCAA Appearances: 33
Final Fours: 3
Top-60 NBA picks: 32
Weeks Ranked: 376
I'll go with 24.
-
Jeff Sagarin ranked MU at 24th all-time
-
College Basketball wasn’t invented until April of 1994.
-
Guessing the top-10:
1) UCLA
2) Kentucky
3) North Carolina
4) Duke
5) Kansas
6) Michigan State
7) Louisville
8) Villanova
9) Connecticut
10) Oklahoma State
-
Guessing the top-10:
1) UCLA
2) Kentucky
3) North Carolina
4) Duke
5) Kansas
6) Michigan State
7) Louisville
8) Villanova
9) Connecticut
10) Oklahoma State
Pretty good list. I agree with 1-5, but would fill out the next five as follows:
6. Louisville
7. Villanova
8. Indiana
9. Michigan State
10. UConn
-
Good catch! I meant to have Indiana at 8 and forgot to add them in my debate between 'Nova and UConn. D'oh!
1) UCLA
2) Kentucky
3) North Carolina
4) Duke
5) Kansas
6) Michigan State
7) Louisville
8) Indiana
9) Villanova
10) Connecticut
11) Oklahoma State
-
Good catch! I meant to have Indiana at 8 and forgot to add them in my debate between 'Nova and UConn. D'oh!
1) UCLA
2) Kentucky
3) North Carolina
4) Duke
5) Kansas
6) Michigan State
7) Louisville
8) Indiana
9) Villanova
10) Connecticut
11) Oklahoma State
Out of curiosity, why do you rank oklahoma state so high?
-
Out of curiosity, why do you rank oklahoma state so high?
Past dominance, mostly. It goes back to 1939, and they were dominant in the 1940s into the 50s. They edge Ohio State because of one more title.
Cincinnati, Michigan, Arkansas, and Syracuse are in that mix as well. All in that 11-20 range. I wouldn't really quibble much with any order in there, just picked Oklahoma State because they have the most Final Fours of teams with multiple championships that aren't listed above them.
-
Sagarin's list included Purdue higher than I thought
Purdue was listed as a top 10 program in 40's, 70's, 80's and 90's
top 30 in the 50's and 60's.
actually 7 Big Ten teams in his top 20.
-
These are always fun lists.
The author did not incorporate NIT into the mix.
I guess the question is what year would be the cutoff , maybe when NCAA went to 64 teams?
-
These are always fun lists.
The author did not incorporate NIT into the mix.
I guess the question is what year would be the cutoff , maybe when NCAA went to 64 teams?
It's all in there. The cutoff is 1938-39. And the NIT is included:
The rankings were compiled using an objective statistical formula based on 13 categories: wins, losses, national championships, Final Four appearances, Elite Eight appearances, NCAA Tournament bids, regular-season championships, NIT championships (they held significant value long ago), total weeks ranked, wins over ranked opponents, top-10 NBA Draft picks, first-round/11-30 NBA draft picks and second round/31-60 NBA draft picks.
-
Good catch! I meant to have Indiana at 8 and forgot to add them in my debate between 'Nova and UConn. D'oh!
1) UCLA
2) Kentucky
3) North Carolina
4) Duke
5) Kansas
6) Michigan State
7) Louisville
8) Indiana
9) Villanova
10) Connecticut
11) Oklahoma State
I think Indiana will be higher than Michigan State. More national titles and conference championships. I would put them at six or seven.
-
It's all in there. The cutoff is 1938-39. And the NIT is included:
I missed that. So that will help schools like Seton Hall and the Johnnies
-
I think Indiana will be higher than Michigan State. More national titles and conference championships. I would put them at six or seven.
Agreed. IU has 5 National Championships and 39 NCAA appearances; MSU has 2 National Championships and 33 NCAA appearances. IU also has more all-time wins, more Big Ten titles and a higher winning percentage.
I put IU at 8 and MSU at 9, but I could see them move a spot or two...as long as IU is above MSU.
-
Would've been interesting to see the rankings of every school. I've wondered how you grade a school like Loyola Chicago. Few schools have two final fours let alone a championship. But then they've pretty much had nothing else going for them.
-
I think Indiana will be higher than Michigan State. More national titles and conference championships. I would put them at six or seven.
Entirely possible. Probably just some recency bias as they've been comparatively mediocre since Knight left.
-
Entirely possible. Probably just some recency bias as they've been comparatively mediocre since Knight left.
I have been having these discussions on various forums for about 25 years, and Indiana has slipped from a consensus all time top four or five program down to the lower top ten in many eyes. Still a great program, but they haven't been able to find that coach to get them back. (Likely had it in Sampson if he could have stopped himself from cheating.)
-
I have been having these discussions on various forums for about 25 years, and Indiana has slipped from a consensus all time top four or five program down to the lower top ten in many eyes. Still a great program, but they haven't been able to find that coach to get them back. (Likely had it in Sampson if he could have stopped himself from cheating.)
2011-12 Indiana was close.
-
DePaul and Providence in the first batch.
Does the entire current Big East make it?
Curious how they treat Butler and Creighton.
-
DePaul and Providence in the first batch.
Does the entire current Big East make it?
Curious how they treat Butler and Creighton.
No chance Creighton makes it.
-
Marquette is 35.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time-nos-50-26/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Didn’t think we would be that low. Wojo’s tenure really hurt us.😂
-
Our lack of regular season titles really hurt us.
-
Not sure why regular season titles are included in the criteria. Seems like a fairly arbitrary and unfair way to judge programs for a number of reasons.
-
I'm outraged.
-
Regular season titles is disingenuous when you consider programs that were independent for decades. We have more wins & NCAA bids than the next 7 teams. I think the weighting is flawed in that regard.
-
Regular season titles is disingenuous when you consider programs that were independent for decades. We have more wins & NCAA bids than the next 7 teams. I think the weighting is flawed in that regard.
Agreed Brew. Very arbitrary. In the end, who cares?
-
If Norlander isn't talking about the MU fanbase come the next Eye on College Basketball podcast, MUScoop has failed miserably.
-
Regular season titles are really dumb. Not only is it unfair to independents, it favors teams like Gonzaga who are in weak conferences. \
That said, 35 isn't far off what I would have guessed (low 30s).
-
Regular season titles are even dumber when you realize many leagues have irregular matchups
-
Will this affect our seeding in March?
-
Regular season titles is disingenuous when you consider programs that were independent for decades. We have more wins & NCAA bids than the next 7 teams. I think the weighting is flawed in that regard.
An adjustment needs to be made for Independents for sure.
-
Looking at those ranked above us, we probably should be a little higher, but it doesn't bother me one way or the other. All rankings like this have an "arbitrary-ness" to them.
It's largely been an NCAA Tournament regular in the past 30 years, though an interesting factoid about Marquette is Rick Majerus coaching there for four seasons but failing to get the program to the NCAAs.
Of course, Rick coached at Marquette for only three seasons. Messing up a simple fact like that doesn't help writer's credibility, though we all make mistakes.
-
An adjustment needs to be made for Independents for sure.
there must have been one made to have ND above us with two fewer Final Four appearances, no national titles and only one regular-season title. We have fewer wins but the same number of losses, only three fewer NCAA tourney appearances. I guess the draft picks are the difference between 35 and 23?
-
These teams complete the list:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
These teams complete the list:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
This list got really ridiculous real quick. Way too much weight to conference titles it seems
-
This list got really ridiculous real quick. Way too much weight to conference titles it seems
Western Kentucky and Utah show the value of dominating mid-tier conferences.
-
Western Kentucky and Utah show the value of dominating mid-tier conferences.
Uh, Gonzaga? 25 conference titles. Until 1999 they'd done nothing and end up ahead of us.
-
Uh, Gonzaga? 25 conference titles. Until 1999 they'd done nothing and end up ahead of us.
There's plenty of examples. But no doubt us being non-affiliated for decades doesn't help in something like this.
-
The methodology was flawed. Western Kentucky was never that good even when they were good.
-
I'm all for using an algorithm to give you an idea of where teams/players belong in a list. But after the initial results you manually tweak to account for bugs in the formula.
-
Uh, Gonzaga? 25 conference titles. Until 1999 they'd done nothing and end up ahead of us.
Do you really think we should be ahead of Gonzaga?
-
Do you really think we should be ahead of Gonzaga?
Definitely.
-
Do you really think we should be ahead of Gonzaga?
Overall? Please make a detailed case that Gonzaga has been the better program since 1938 using their metrics other than conference championships since we'd have as many too in that two and now recently three team conference
-
Overall? Please make a detailed case that Gonzaga has been the better program since 1938 using their metrics other than conference championships since we'd have as many too in that two and now recently three team conference
This is a no-brainer. There is no reasonable argument for GU over MU.
I get this is simple click baiting, so no reason to get upset.
-
This is a no-brainer. There is no reasonable argument for GU over MU.
I get this is simple click baiting, so no reason to get upset.
Agree. Admittedly I'm a sucker for click bait and various analytical approaches to meaningless rankings but as Tamu said you have to take a look and make the logical edits after your algorithm runs
-
Recency bias.
-
Recency bias.
Yep. They’ve been great since 2000, but had exactly 2 NCAA tournament appearances in the 20th century.
-
UConn is another with only recent success.
They deserve the # 8 spot over the past 30 years.
31 conference titles. Before the BigEast they were in the Yankee Conference butting heads with Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and UMass.
Sagarin has UConn as #49 since 1939.
Gonzaga at #102, although the Zags were #127 when the the list was compiled in 2000. It's a slow climb if all 80+ seasons are weighted evenly.
-
Yep. They’ve been great since 2000, but had exactly 2 NCAA tournament appearances in the 20th century.
And despite how great they have been in the past 20 years....
Marquette still has more national championships, more national championship game appearances, more final fours, more elite 8s, more sweet 16s and more tournament appearances.
Gonzaga is ranked higher because they play in a crappy conference. That's it.
-
UConn is another with only recent success.
They deserve the # 8 spot over the past 30 years.
31 conference titles. Before the BigEast they were in the Yankee Conference butting heads with Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and UMass.
Sagarin has UConn as #49 since 1939.
Gonzaga at #102, although the Zags were #127 when the the list was compiled in 2000. It's a slow climb if all 80+ seasons are weighted evenly.
While UConn is fairly recent, they've put together a resume of final fours and championships that competes with pretty much anyone.
-
While UConn is fairly recent, they've put together a resume of final fours and championships that competes with pretty much anyone.
Yeah ... I'm not gonna begrudge a program that has won 4x as many national titles as we have, to go with 7 Big East titles.
-
While UConn is fairly recent, they've put together a resume of final fours and championships that competes with pretty much anyone.
Agreed. I pondered whether UConn really belongs in the top 10 because of the recency factor, but gave them the nod because their 15-year run from 1999-2014 is arguably the most impressive extended run outside of UCLA's run from 1962-1976.
Gonzaga has had a really nice run since 1999, but it is light years away from what UConn did.
-
Agreed. I pondered whether UConn really belongs in the top 10 because of the recency factor, but gave them the nod because their 15-year run from 1999-2014 is arguably the most impressive extended run outside of UCLA's run from 1962-1976.
Gonzaga has had a really nice run since 1999, but it is light years away from what UConn did.
UConn’s last two titles were pretty unlikely. The 2011 team was 20-9 (9-9 in conference). That was the year the Big East sent 11 teams to the tournament and I think UConn was safe heading into the Big East Toirnament but certainly didn’t have margin for error. The 2014 team was one of the worst national champions since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Would be curious to see where they would be without those two unlikely titles. That isn’t to dismiss their accomplishments but what they did through 2009 was impressive on its own
-
UConn’s last two titles were pretty unlikely. The 2011 team was 20-9 (9-9 in conference). That was the year the Big East sent 11 teams to the tournament and I think UConn was safe heading into the Big East Toirnament but certainly didn’t have margin for error. The 2014 team was one of the worst national champions since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Would be curious to see where they would be without those two unlikely titles. That isn’t to dismiss their accomplishments but what they did through 2009 was impressive on its own
Agreed, but they did take care of business in the tournament. That is not an easy thing to do.
-
Will this affect our seeding in March?
May
-
UConn’s last two titles were pretty unlikely. The 2011 team was 20-9 (9-9 in conference). That was the year the Big East sent 11 teams to the tournament and I think UConn was safe heading into the Big East Toirnament but certainly didn’t have margin for error. The 2014 team was one of the worst national champions since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Would be curious to see where they would be without those two unlikely titles. That isn’t to dismiss their accomplishments but what they did through 2009 was impressive on its own
2011 they went 9-9 in the Big East but didn’t lose a game out of conference. Won the Maui.
Think about that for a sec.
Pretty tough conference.
-
UConn’s last two titles were pretty unlikely. The 2011 team was 20-9 (9-9 in conference). That was the year the Big East sent 11 teams to the tournament and I think UConn was safe heading into the Big East Toirnament
That was one strange team. They never lost a game to a non Big East opponent all season and blew out quite a few non Big East Top 10 teams.
-
UConn is top 10. No doubt.
-
That was one strange team. They never lost a game to a non Big East opponent all season and blew out quite a few non Big East Top 10 teams.
I'd be curious how many teams with a .500 or worse league record earned a 3-seed or higher.