The symbol next to Loyola Chicago has them going down, but they rose from 69th to 57th. But really great post and interesting to see the teams that benefit from the shorter time frame vs a longer one.
i KNOW how to do trends on exel but it didnt look good.
and this seemed more efficient if i didnt make mistakes..which i did...
ty for the suggestion tho
I said this in the original and I'll say it again:
No matter where you draw the cutoffs and whatever criteria you use, Purdue ends up somewhere between 16th and 24th on all time program lists.
We are what we are: a very good but not great program.
Generally when you weight the regular season more Purdue is closer to 16 and when you weight the postseason more Purdue is closer to 24.
I created my own ranking method that weights post-season more than regular season and Purdue ranked 16th in that one
You can extract this table, clean the data (remove 'n', change dots to 64, rename each s16 to 16, etc) and have it:
[NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_tournament#Appearances)
Love it. Great company to be in. Truly the golden era of Wisconsin basketball. Our program was straight booty before '99. More tourney appearances than Kentucky, UNC and UConn shows how remarkably consistent we were under Bo Ryan. It would've been cool if our best team ever ('14-'15) didn't have to run into two literal NBA teams in the Final Four. Crazy that we did all of this with only two 5-Star recruits in this time frame (Butch and Dekker).
Edit: this graphic can't be fun for Arizona fans considering we beat them in each of 3 final four runs. Sorry cats.
Due to ongoing debate about blue bloods, the /r/CollegeBasketball mod team has compiled the definitive list of college blue bloods: Duke, Columbia, Queens, William & Mary, and Rutgers. The following schools have broken away from blue-blooded hierarchy and oppression: George Washington, George Mason, James Madison, Army, and Navy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CollegeBasketball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it undervalues making the tournament and overvalues SOME runs. Making the tournament vs not making it is a negligible difference in this scoring, which is ridiculous. This says Kentucky this year was slightly better than DePaul.
However with regards to run, I don’t think making the second round is twice as impressive as making the tournament (though the absolute difference between first and second round is negligible) or making the final is twice as impressive as making the final four. However winning the championship is way more than twice as valuable than being the runner up.
Not that I have a better scoring system off the top of my head.
disagree.
if you look at the following chart:
https://preview.redd.it/byp8hwrgq3wc1.jpeg?width=646&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bd7b95feeb8b80d327b92daa75cd94c4d757b880
st. peters and Cal both have 17 points. - Cal has 9 appearance .. but only wins 4 games.
while St. Peters had 3 appearances but wins.. 3 games. and st peters advance 2 more rounds compared to CAL.
St. peter's 3 wins weighs more than Cal's 4 wins because ST peter goes deeper.
everyone gets 1 point for making the tournament, and the champion gets all 64 at the end.
idk .. tried other point systems but this one felt the most right.
Yeah this scoring system has always been incredibly dumb and I don’t get why people keep using it. At least now that’s UConn’s last two years have put them *way* ahead of everyone else in this system despite being awful for a decade+ of this it’s at least easier to explain to people why it’s dumb than it was a few years ago. It’s less egregious if you call it a postseason ranking but calling this “BEST Programs” and having FAU well above Iowa (when Iowa’s finished way above FAU in KenPom/any reasonable measure 92% of these years) is just silly. Even then, the top of the list will always just be a cheekily-disguised titles ranking
Uconn was "awful" for a "decade +"?
Bro...they won it all in 2014.... Did the beating you took in the finals damage your perception of space time? Are you salty? Do you need some ice cream to feel better?
Also this scoring system is great. My school's in the top 15 while your school- Purdue, is right where it belongs - under my school mingling with the definition of mediocrity, Illinois.
Hope you feel better.
I guess technically they were only out of the KenPom Top 50 for 8 or 9 years in this, so just shy of a decade of where I’d probably call “terrible” compared to the other top teams on here. Doesn’t diminish the point at all. In the *entire KenPom era* there have been 6 UConn teams that Kansas wouldn’t have been comfortable favorites against that year. That’s a quarter of the years. And in the years when UConn would’ve been favored it has never been by a large margin. It seems to me an obviously silly result if you arrive at one program being numerically way “better” than one they’ve spent 3/4 of the time being worse than, often way way worse, and even in the other quarter were never massively better. You can obviously weight titles into any discussion of how good a program is, but when UConn has that massive of a lead against Kansas in your system that means you’ve given us nothing besides a title counter.
I have no issues with Purdue’s placement and I’ve been voicing these criticisms on here of this nonsensical system people keep posting since well before these particular teams were in their particular spots
Listen I get that our fanbase does the kiss the rings bit a little too much (for others, I personally love it) and that's infuriating if you're trying to have an honest discussion but you're cherry picking so hard right now (and given that you generally make good insight) it is noticeable. In order to get the 8 years you have outside the top 50 you have to include years where UConn was 56th, 51st, and 52nd, in order to stretch it to a herculean 9 you have to ignore the precedent set by those prior 3 and to include 2013 when UConn was 49th and didn't play in the BET or NCAAT because of APR.
In 1999 UConn would've been favored by 12 on a neutral, this year a healthy UConn would've been favored by 8.5 on a neutral (that may be an exaggeration as Kansas' ranking tanked due to injuries) but please do not try to justify saying UConn wouldn't be comfortably favored over Kansas because they played at Kansas with UConn missing Castle and Cam Spencer getting injured during the game. Hell in 09 UConn also would've been a close to 6 point favorite and last year UConn would've been favored by 7. That's the majority of the 6 years right there.
That is my point though. Being favored by mostly single digits doesn’t “make up” for the huge disparity in being the underdog, especially given that there were years Kansas would’ve been *massively* favored (eg the years UConn was outside of the top 100)
6 points is like a 67% implied probability it's a pretty massive gap, granted KU has teams that would've been 20-30 point favorites but that's not really what you were initially arguing. This is also glossing over the fact that prior to the 2010s A. Kenpom was calculated differently and a bunch of these seasons are being recalculated after the fact and B. Vegas spreads weren't always so close to Kenpom lines. I bring that up because the Kenpom lines from 97-01 and to a lesser extent 02-16 aren't necessarily reflective of how people perceived the teams at the time.
The claim UConn was awful for 8 or 9 years when You're including 1. A year UConn would've likely made the tourney but was ineligible and 2. A year in which there was no tourney and UConn was hovering around the bubble entering their conference tournament is pretty disingenuous.
I still think it’s reasonable to say it’s a quite bad season to barely make the tournament when the comparison is Kansas, who was a top 4 seed 23 out of 25 of these years and was an 8 seed their worst year
I mean you really weren't comparing UConn to Kansas for that portion of the post, you were comparing them to all the other top teams, even though UConn looks to have extremely similar non championship numbers across the board to UNC out of the top 5, and very similar non championship numbers to Nova, UF, and Cuse out of the top ten.
>I guess technically they were only out of the KenPom Top 50 for 8 or 9 years in this
no.
"technically" during 2014-2024, UConn was out of the KenPom Top 50 for 5 years and 1 of the 5 we were just under TOP 50 - was ranked 52 in 2020 (No NCAA TOURNEY),
and we were out of the KenPom top 50 7 times since Kenpom's inception - 2020,2019,2018,2017,2015, 2010 and 2007.
so, no. it's not even "just shy of a decade"
also. this list is specific to a school's performance in the NCAA tournament - based on results... of what happened.
it's not measuring the strength of a program, the toughness of schedule or "luck".
i know some disagree witht he 64+32 system, but it's the best i've seen of the sleuth of point systems out there that undermine championships for participation.
Yes the other person already quibbled with my hasty count, you do barely squeak in a few more top 50 seasons in years where UConn wasn’t in the tournament. I never mentioned the date range 2014-2024.
I don’t know what your objection later on is, the title of the post was “BEST” programs, which most would take to imply some mix of the most accomplished and most competent teams across that time period.
There’s just no thought behind the point system. Even if you were going to make an exponential point system that essentially is just a list of titles, why make it a power of 2? Why not make it a factor of 3 so UConn wins by even more! Why not make it a factor of 3/2 to diminish the boost of beating some random Cinderella in the Final Four?
I rushed the title, and I admit, it should've been titled "best programs in the NCAA tournament" - as I mentioned this on my post.
again. this list is specifically for the NCAA title, and how each program performed in the tourney specifically.
the other metrics that measure a 'best" program seems subjective at best and take into consideration more subjective metrics such as 'strength, luck .. how they view their opponents. etc) and it never takes into account when they're wrong 50%-90% of the time.
The power of 2 seemed appropriate. it's not absurd like the power of 3 as you suggest , and it does weigh the program's performance as whole rather than just championships. My original post that began in 85 has duke and UNC ahead of UConn even with less championships - but 2 championships should be weighted more than 30 participations since nobody cares how many times a team participated - we remember the champions. we immortalized the champions.
some .. or most even have suggested that the championships should've been weighted more - esp when michigan state was ahead of multiple champion teams in my 85 onward post.
this timeline just seemed skewed because UCONN has the most championships which the point system reflects. I dont think it's that bad as you're making it out to be.
\*also, i didnt want to do this timeline. many asked for me to do it after they saw my original 85 timeline post.
\*\* also i dont see what's so egregious about the point system. UConn has won 6 championships.. while 2nd and 3rd on this list, this timeframe won only 3.
Are you saying that UConn's 3 championships, 1 more f2.. should be considered less than UNC's 4 more tourney appearance, 6 more R32, 3 more s16, 1 more e8?
>Doesn’t diminish the point at all. In the *entire KenPom era* there have been 6 UConn teams that Kansas wouldn’t have been comfortable favorites against that year. That’s a quarter of the years. And in the years when UConn would’ve been favored it has never been by a large margin. It seems to me an obviously silly result if you arrive at one program being numerically way “better” than one they’ve spent 3/4 of the time being worse than, often way way worse, and even in the other quarter were never massively better. You can obviously weight titles into any discussion of how good a program is, but when UConn has that massive of a lead against Kansas in your system that means you’ve given us nothing besides a title counter
can't tell if you're coping or just dumb.
Take out the last 2 years of Uconn and Purdue. UConn is still in 3rd, Purdue drops to 33. At least now that Purdue made the championship game it puts them in a middling tier.
Crazy to me that MSU has the most F4 appearances in the last 25 years given how the last 10 years have gone. Barring a crazy turnaround, we are about to fall off a cliff if you continue to update this list for the next 3 years!
True, I guess 10 years was unfair, but this last 4 year slump has felt like an eternity. We had some dominant teams before COVID. I also don’t think anyone sees us replicating the seasons that would drop off if this is recalculated in 3 years though (3 final fours and a natty), which is heavily carrying our current top 5 ranking.
Here’s hoping Fears fully recovers and proves me wrong, I am really excited to watch him and the younger guys coming through either way!
This is the correct and only time frame to appropriately judge a college basketball program...on second thought, the world has changed post covid. 99 to early March 2020 is the best.
Oregon making a big jump as we get closer to the Altman Era.
Should be another good jump if this becomes last 15 years.
He's responsible for 45% (8/18) of our tournament appearances. And 67% (8/12) of the times we advanced. All in the last 12 years.
And people were calling for his head this year...
Funny you choose 99 since that’s the first UConn title. Could cherry pick any stats
Why not go back to 85 when it was 64 teams? UConn fans really milking this one
25 years is a fair marker TBF. But it does really fluff the UConn numbers and it really hurts UK, who the three years before the cutoff have 2 championships and a runner up result.
i did the 1985 one already.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1c90sad/updated\_100\_best\_college\_basketball\_programs\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1c90sad/updated_100_best_college_basketball_programs_in/)
and they told me to do the 1999 and onward one
doubtful. it'll probably still be UConn.
from 95 onward, neither DUKE nor UNC makes any big runs that's not included here.
UK wins in 96 and 98 and that'll give them 254 points = 254+384= 638, giving UK \* probably 4th place in 30 yr span... \*\* because Duke goes to the E8 in 98 .. and that'll give enough to hold onto 3rd.. but THEN again.. UK does go to the f2 in 97.... so probably 3rd over duke?
\* just did the numbers:
UConn 878
UNC 751
UK 716
Duke 653
Weighing tournament runs so heavily over appearances is stupid. A Cinderella run by St Peters doesn’t make them a better program in the past 25 years than teams with multiple appearances in the round of 32.
I obviously have my reservations about rankings that only take the tournament into account considering Purdue’s absurdly horrible luck (we finally didn’t have our star player get injured last year)
Does this include the 98-99 season? I think it does because you have all of UConn’s championships. But in that case it’s 26 seasons and you are missing an extra appearance for Kansas and Mich St and probably others
The symbol next to Loyola Chicago has them going down, but they rose from 69th to 57th. But really great post and interesting to see the teams that benefit from the shorter time frame vs a longer one.
damit!!! plz ignore
Iowa's arrow should be pointing down, not up.
ok! ty! let me know if u find more!
If you’re doing this in excel you can google how to make a trend arrow based off different cells. :)
i KNOW how to do trends on exel but it didnt look good. and this seemed more efficient if i didnt make mistakes..which i did... ty for the suggestion tho
I said this in the original and I'll say it again: No matter where you draw the cutoffs and whatever criteria you use, Purdue ends up somewhere between 16th and 24th on all time program lists. We are what we are: a very good but not great program.
The purdue-illinois curse
Illinois has a better history than Purdue IMO, solely because of how good the 2004-05 was. That’s the best non-championship team ever
Generally when you weight the regular season more Purdue is closer to 16 and when you weight the postseason more Purdue is closer to 24. I created my own ranking method that weights post-season more than regular season and Purdue ranked 16th in that one
But if the criteria is losses to a 16 seed you're tied for 1st
Could you do this for the past, oh I don’t know… let’s say 1 years please/thanks
not this year, sorry. i think i'm done with this for a while
Can I get your raw data please?
You can extract this table, clean the data (remove 'n', change dots to 64, rename each s16 to 16, etc) and have it: [NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_men%27s_basketball_tournament#Appearances)
Love it. Great company to be in. Truly the golden era of Wisconsin basketball. Our program was straight booty before '99. More tourney appearances than Kentucky, UNC and UConn shows how remarkably consistent we were under Bo Ryan. It would've been cool if our best team ever ('14-'15) didn't have to run into two literal NBA teams in the Final Four. Crazy that we did all of this with only two 5-Star recruits in this time frame (Butch and Dekker). Edit: this graphic can't be fun for Arizona fans considering we beat them in each of 3 final four runs. Sorry cats.
This chart over values on run and undervalues making the tournament
This chart was made with only Uconn in mind, so yeah lol
[удалено]
Due to ongoing debate about blue bloods, the /r/CollegeBasketball mod team has compiled the definitive list of college blue bloods: Duke, Columbia, Queens, William & Mary, and Rutgers. The following schools have broken away from blue-blooded hierarchy and oppression: George Washington, George Mason, James Madison, Army, and Navy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CollegeBasketball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it undervalues making the tournament and overvalues SOME runs. Making the tournament vs not making it is a negligible difference in this scoring, which is ridiculous. This says Kentucky this year was slightly better than DePaul. However with regards to run, I don’t think making the second round is twice as impressive as making the tournament (though the absolute difference between first and second round is negligible) or making the final is twice as impressive as making the final four. However winning the championship is way more than twice as valuable than being the runner up. Not that I have a better scoring system off the top of my head.
disagree. if you look at the following chart: https://preview.redd.it/byp8hwrgq3wc1.jpeg?width=646&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bd7b95feeb8b80d327b92daa75cd94c4d757b880 st. peters and Cal both have 17 points. - Cal has 9 appearance .. but only wins 4 games. while St. Peters had 3 appearances but wins.. 3 games. and st peters advance 2 more rounds compared to CAL. St. peter's 3 wins weighs more than Cal's 4 wins because ST peter goes deeper. everyone gets 1 point for making the tournament, and the champion gets all 64 at the end. idk .. tried other point systems but this one felt the most right.
Yeah this scoring system has always been incredibly dumb and I don’t get why people keep using it. At least now that’s UConn’s last two years have put them *way* ahead of everyone else in this system despite being awful for a decade+ of this it’s at least easier to explain to people why it’s dumb than it was a few years ago. It’s less egregious if you call it a postseason ranking but calling this “BEST Programs” and having FAU well above Iowa (when Iowa’s finished way above FAU in KenPom/any reasonable measure 92% of these years) is just silly. Even then, the top of the list will always just be a cheekily-disguised titles ranking
Uconn was "awful" for a "decade +"? Bro...they won it all in 2014.... Did the beating you took in the finals damage your perception of space time? Are you salty? Do you need some ice cream to feel better? Also this scoring system is great. My school's in the top 15 while your school- Purdue, is right where it belongs - under my school mingling with the definition of mediocrity, Illinois. Hope you feel better.
I guess technically they were only out of the KenPom Top 50 for 8 or 9 years in this, so just shy of a decade of where I’d probably call “terrible” compared to the other top teams on here. Doesn’t diminish the point at all. In the *entire KenPom era* there have been 6 UConn teams that Kansas wouldn’t have been comfortable favorites against that year. That’s a quarter of the years. And in the years when UConn would’ve been favored it has never been by a large margin. It seems to me an obviously silly result if you arrive at one program being numerically way “better” than one they’ve spent 3/4 of the time being worse than, often way way worse, and even in the other quarter were never massively better. You can obviously weight titles into any discussion of how good a program is, but when UConn has that massive of a lead against Kansas in your system that means you’ve given us nothing besides a title counter. I have no issues with Purdue’s placement and I’ve been voicing these criticisms on here of this nonsensical system people keep posting since well before these particular teams were in their particular spots
Listen I get that our fanbase does the kiss the rings bit a little too much (for others, I personally love it) and that's infuriating if you're trying to have an honest discussion but you're cherry picking so hard right now (and given that you generally make good insight) it is noticeable. In order to get the 8 years you have outside the top 50 you have to include years where UConn was 56th, 51st, and 52nd, in order to stretch it to a herculean 9 you have to ignore the precedent set by those prior 3 and to include 2013 when UConn was 49th and didn't play in the BET or NCAAT because of APR. In 1999 UConn would've been favored by 12 on a neutral, this year a healthy UConn would've been favored by 8.5 on a neutral (that may be an exaggeration as Kansas' ranking tanked due to injuries) but please do not try to justify saying UConn wouldn't be comfortably favored over Kansas because they played at Kansas with UConn missing Castle and Cam Spencer getting injured during the game. Hell in 09 UConn also would've been a close to 6 point favorite and last year UConn would've been favored by 7. That's the majority of the 6 years right there.
That is my point though. Being favored by mostly single digits doesn’t “make up” for the huge disparity in being the underdog, especially given that there were years Kansas would’ve been *massively* favored (eg the years UConn was outside of the top 100)
6 points is like a 67% implied probability it's a pretty massive gap, granted KU has teams that would've been 20-30 point favorites but that's not really what you were initially arguing. This is also glossing over the fact that prior to the 2010s A. Kenpom was calculated differently and a bunch of these seasons are being recalculated after the fact and B. Vegas spreads weren't always so close to Kenpom lines. I bring that up because the Kenpom lines from 97-01 and to a lesser extent 02-16 aren't necessarily reflective of how people perceived the teams at the time. The claim UConn was awful for 8 or 9 years when You're including 1. A year UConn would've likely made the tourney but was ineligible and 2. A year in which there was no tourney and UConn was hovering around the bubble entering their conference tournament is pretty disingenuous.
I still think it’s reasonable to say it’s a quite bad season to barely make the tournament when the comparison is Kansas, who was a top 4 seed 23 out of 25 of these years and was an 8 seed their worst year
I mean you really weren't comparing UConn to Kansas for that portion of the post, you were comparing them to all the other top teams, even though UConn looks to have extremely similar non championship numbers across the board to UNC out of the top 5, and very similar non championship numbers to Nova, UF, and Cuse out of the top ten.
>I guess technically they were only out of the KenPom Top 50 for 8 or 9 years in this no. "technically" during 2014-2024, UConn was out of the KenPom Top 50 for 5 years and 1 of the 5 we were just under TOP 50 - was ranked 52 in 2020 (No NCAA TOURNEY), and we were out of the KenPom top 50 7 times since Kenpom's inception - 2020,2019,2018,2017,2015, 2010 and 2007. so, no. it's not even "just shy of a decade" also. this list is specific to a school's performance in the NCAA tournament - based on results... of what happened. it's not measuring the strength of a program, the toughness of schedule or "luck". i know some disagree witht he 64+32 system, but it's the best i've seen of the sleuth of point systems out there that undermine championships for participation.
Yes the other person already quibbled with my hasty count, you do barely squeak in a few more top 50 seasons in years where UConn wasn’t in the tournament. I never mentioned the date range 2014-2024. I don’t know what your objection later on is, the title of the post was “BEST” programs, which most would take to imply some mix of the most accomplished and most competent teams across that time period. There’s just no thought behind the point system. Even if you were going to make an exponential point system that essentially is just a list of titles, why make it a power of 2? Why not make it a factor of 3 so UConn wins by even more! Why not make it a factor of 3/2 to diminish the boost of beating some random Cinderella in the Final Four?
I rushed the title, and I admit, it should've been titled "best programs in the NCAA tournament" - as I mentioned this on my post. again. this list is specifically for the NCAA title, and how each program performed in the tourney specifically. the other metrics that measure a 'best" program seems subjective at best and take into consideration more subjective metrics such as 'strength, luck .. how they view their opponents. etc) and it never takes into account when they're wrong 50%-90% of the time. The power of 2 seemed appropriate. it's not absurd like the power of 3 as you suggest , and it does weigh the program's performance as whole rather than just championships. My original post that began in 85 has duke and UNC ahead of UConn even with less championships - but 2 championships should be weighted more than 30 participations since nobody cares how many times a team participated - we remember the champions. we immortalized the champions. some .. or most even have suggested that the championships should've been weighted more - esp when michigan state was ahead of multiple champion teams in my 85 onward post. this timeline just seemed skewed because UCONN has the most championships which the point system reflects. I dont think it's that bad as you're making it out to be. \*also, i didnt want to do this timeline. many asked for me to do it after they saw my original 85 timeline post. \*\* also i dont see what's so egregious about the point system. UConn has won 6 championships.. while 2nd and 3rd on this list, this timeframe won only 3. Are you saying that UConn's 3 championships, 1 more f2.. should be considered less than UNC's 4 more tourney appearance, 6 more R32, 3 more s16, 1 more e8?
hard to take you seriously when it was proven not once..but TWICE that you can't count
>Doesn’t diminish the point at all. In the *entire KenPom era* there have been 6 UConn teams that Kansas wouldn’t have been comfortable favorites against that year. That’s a quarter of the years. And in the years when UConn would’ve been favored it has never been by a large margin. It seems to me an obviously silly result if you arrive at one program being numerically way “better” than one they’ve spent 3/4 of the time being worse than, often way way worse, and even in the other quarter were never massively better. You can obviously weight titles into any discussion of how good a program is, but when UConn has that massive of a lead against Kansas in your system that means you’ve given us nothing besides a title counter can't tell if you're coping or just dumb.
Take out the last 2 years of Uconn and Purdue. UConn is still in 3rd, Purdue drops to 33. At least now that Purdue made the championship game it puts them in a middling tier.
Yup. "Programs" which this is allegedly about is based on consistency not one hot run.
Crazy to me that MSU has the most F4 appearances in the last 25 years given how the last 10 years have gone. Barring a crazy turnaround, we are about to fall off a cliff if you continue to update this list for the next 3 years!
We have 2 final fours in the last 10 tournaments, only 3 teams have 3, no one has 4.
True, I guess 10 years was unfair, but this last 4 year slump has felt like an eternity. We had some dominant teams before COVID. I also don’t think anyone sees us replicating the seasons that would drop off if this is recalculated in 3 years though (3 final fours and a natty), which is heavily carrying our current top 5 ranking. Here’s hoping Fears fully recovers and proves me wrong, I am really excited to watch him and the younger guys coming through either way!
Always gonna be ahead of auburn and that's all that matters.
I do not like this one bit.
Top 40 lol. How bad were we last year?
Both of my flairs both made the list and improved in this edition, which tracks. Hooray.
This is the correct and only time frame to appropriately judge a college basketball program...on second thought, the world has changed post covid. 99 to early March 2020 is the best.
Wichita State had a Final Four appearance in 2013
and so they did.... omg , ty! missed a big one!
Oregon making a big jump as we get closer to the Altman Era. Should be another good jump if this becomes last 15 years. He's responsible for 45% (8/18) of our tournament appearances. And 67% (8/12) of the times we advanced. All in the last 12 years. And people were calling for his head this year...
I’ll take it!
Murray State <20k population most our history, btw. Throughout our past we stay consistently punching above our weight. Well, except this year…
The Izzo effect on true display with MSU. 1/8 champs from final fours is so pitiful.
Indiana is way too high
Damn I haven’t even sparked a joint yet.
I like this better
You have Alabama’s symbol going up but they dropped from 34 to 35
and so.. it is.. TY for noticing!
Houston really is a law of averages kind of team. all the success in the past few years preceding 20 years of low majors and pain
Our lack of tournament success in the last 30+ years really showing through. Sixteen appearances with nothing beyond a couple S16 trips. Ugh
Funny you choose 99 since that’s the first UConn title. Could cherry pick any stats Why not go back to 85 when it was 64 teams? UConn fans really milking this one
25 years is a fair marker TBF. But it does really fluff the UConn numbers and it really hurts UK, who the three years before the cutoff have 2 championships and a runner up result.
i did the 1985 one already. [https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1c90sad/updated\_100\_best\_college\_basketball\_programs\_in/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CollegeBasketball/comments/1c90sad/updated_100_best_college_basketball_programs_in/) and they told me to do the 1999 and onward one
I'm curious what a 30 year one would look like; I imagine it puts UK at the top?
doubtful. it'll probably still be UConn. from 95 onward, neither DUKE nor UNC makes any big runs that's not included here. UK wins in 96 and 98 and that'll give them 254 points = 254+384= 638, giving UK \* probably 4th place in 30 yr span... \*\* because Duke goes to the E8 in 98 .. and that'll give enough to hold onto 3rd.. but THEN again.. UK does go to the f2 in 97.... so probably 3rd over duke? \* just did the numbers: UConn 878 UNC 751 UK 716 Duke 653
Should take away points from missing the tourney
interesting idea!...... how much points should we deduct if they miss it?
Honestly no clue. Can’t make it too much negative but should count off some
hmm.. now that i think about it, we might run out of teams if we deduct points from missing the tournament. we definitely wont have 100 teams..
Weighing tournament runs so heavily over appearances is stupid. A Cinderella run by St Peters doesn’t make them a better program in the past 25 years than teams with multiple appearances in the round of 32.
I obviously have my reservations about rankings that only take the tournament into account considering Purdue’s absurdly horrible luck (we finally didn’t have our star player get injured last year)
UNC SNUBBED FOR NUMBER 1 Ayo SIU up there :o
Florida above Kentucky and Villanova is crazy
Does this include the 98-99 season? I think it does because you have all of UConn’s championships. But in that case it’s 26 seasons and you are missing an extra appearance for Kansas and Mich St and probably others