NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:02 am

Help support by shopping
College T-shirts at

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:39 am 

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540
Has anyone seen the special edition of Street & Smith in which they picked the "100 greatest college basketgall programs of all time"? (To satisfy people on the bubble, they added 5 more.) They ued a formula, factoring in winning %, NCAA tournament performance, almost any kind of championship imaginable, graduation rate, infractions, & # 1st round draft picks.

Its major weakness is that it counted all NIT championships the same. As a result teams get too much credit for NCAA Championships/Final Fours in the '30s & '40s - & to some extent the '50s - too little credit for NIT championships in those same decades, & increasingly too much credit for NIT championships after 1960.

Other weaknesses . . They didn't adequately deal with independents, who had no opportunity to get credit for winning conference championships. While I agree that graduation rate & infractions are relevant, credit for developing 1st round draft picks is meaningless to team success on the collegiate level. Finally, they only evaluate teams from 1939 on because that was the first year of the NCAA tournament. It's hard to call it an "all time" list when you ignore all the years before that. Otherwise, they did a good job & it's probably pretty accurate.

If you haven't seen it, here's the list:

1. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Duke
6. Indiana
7. Louisville
8. Arkansas
9. UConn
10. Cincinnati

11. Utah
12. Ohio State
13. Oklahoma State
14. Arizona
15. Syracuse
16. Penn
17. NC State
18. St. John's
19. Princeton
20. Temple

21. Georgetown
22. Kansas State
23. Texas
24. Oklahoma
25. Michigan State
26. Michigan
27. Illinois
28. UNLV
29. San Francisco
30. Purdue

31. Western Kentucky
32. Villanova
33. Marquette
34. West Virginia
35. Maryland
36. BYU
37. Houston
38. Missouri
39. Notre Dame
40. Iowa

41. California
42. Wyoming
43. St. Joe's
44. Stanford
45. Creighton
46. Wake Forest
47. Miami, O.
48. Xavier
49. UTEP
50. LSU

51. Weber State
52. Murray State
53. LaSalle
54. Alabama
55. Wisconsin
56. Virginia
57. DePaul
58. Oregon State
59. Tulsa
60. Pitt

61. Memphis
62. North Carolina A&T
63. Bradley
64. Georgia Tech
65. Colorado
66. Dartmouth
67. Texas Tech
68. Holy Cross
69. Pepperdine
70. New Mexico State

71. SMU
72. Santa Clara
73. Idaho State
74. BC
75. Providence
76. USC
77. Tennessee
78. UMass
79. Dayton
80. Davidson

81. UT Chattanooga
82. Utah State
83. Alcorn State
84. Iowa State
85. Washington
86. Ohio
87. Navy
88. UNC Charlotte
89. Gonzaga
90. Valparaiso

91. Seton Hall
92. Arizona State
93. Northeastern
94. Oregon
95. LA-Monroe
96. Florida
97. Loyola, Chi.
98. new mexico
99. Mississippi State
100. Butler

101. Florida State
102. Manhattan
103. Louisiana Tech
104. Columbia
105. Ball State

The over-emphasis on NCAA tournament accomplishments in the early years results in some teams being overrated, while under-emphasis on NIT accomplishments in those same years result in other teams being underrated. A lot of other factors effect the ratings. Schools like USC & Maryland played behind great teams in the Pac Ten & ACC respectively in years when only a single conference representative went to the NCAA tournament. However, these changes over the years are not quatifiable. Adjustment of NCAA & NIT emphasis is, so, exclusive of teams that move just a spot or two in the rankings, I would make the following adjustments:


Arkansas - Drop from #8 to #11
Oklahoma - Drop from #24 to #28
Oregon State - Drop from #58 to #62
Pitt - Drop from #60 to #65
Dartmouth - Drop from #66 to #77
Holy Cross - Drop from #68 to #83
USC - Drop from #76 to # 84
Oregon - Drop from # 94 to #100


Temple - Jump from #20 to #17
San Francisco - Jump from #29 to # 26
DePaul - Jump from # 57 to #54
Colorado - Jump from #65 to #59
Tennessee - Jump from #77 to #74
UMass - Jump from #78 to #75
Dayton - Jump from #79 to #76
Ohio - Jump from #86 to #82
Seton Hall - Jump from #91 to #87
Loyola, Chi - Jump from #97 to #91

Cheers . . .

Last edited by friarfan on Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:55 am 

Link to Post - Back to Top  IP:

The UnderHog
You are welcome to your opinion but
« Reply #2 on 2/4/2005 at 8:23pm »
[Quote] [Modify] [Delete]

Arkansas is legit - we have had some really bad seasons the last few, but we had a better winning percentage than just about anyone in the 90's - they tried to be objective with this and the stats say we're #8 - you wanna dispute track & field next? - The UnderHog

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 3:59 pm 

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Arkansas is legit - we have had some really bad seasons the last few, but we had a better winning percentage than just about anyone in the 90's - they tried to be objective with this and the stats say we're #8 - you wanna dispute track & field next? - The UnderHog

Hi, UnderHog -

I like your nickname. . . . Very creative. 8-)

I agree that Arkansas is legit. And I agree that Street & Smith tried to be objective in this effort - which is why I posted this in the first place. I especially commend S&S for not only trying to be objective but for being up front about their methodology & also for posting the data so it can be examined & analyzed. Scientists publish their results in scientific journals for the purpose of "peer review." They are actively seeking criticism to see where the flaws may be in their methodology. in their results, or in their conclusions. I offer my suggestions in this same spirit. Not as a criticism of Street & Smith, but as a contribution to their effort & in admiration for what they've done.

In regard to Arkansas, I have suggested that they be dropped 3 spots to #11. That doesn't suggest they're not legit. Being one of the top dozen programs in the 66 year history of national championship play is outstanding.

I dropped them because their rating was inflated by a Final Four appearance in 1945. In 1945, there were 8 teams in the entire tournament. To get to the Final Four, you had to win just one game. I don't think that this is worthy of the same number of rating points as getting to the Final Four today when you have to win 4 games to get there.

Who were the "Final Four" in 1945? Determining this further compounds the problem. At that time, half of the Top Ten teams were going to the NIT each year. And that tournament was in fact the more prestigious of the two then. In my opinion, the true Final Four in 1945 were the two finalist of the NCAA tournament & the two finalists of the NIT - not the four semi-finalists of either tournament.

In their methodology, S&S gave more points to Arkansas for that one tournament win than they gave to DePaul that same year for winning 3 games & fighting their way past half of the Top Ten to win the NIT. Therefore, I adjusted their results to reflect that & as a result Arkansas drops down a little from #8 to #11 & DePaul moves up a little from #57 to #54.

This leaves the two programs pretty much in the same relative position that they were in before I tinkered. I didn't think that anybody was too badly undervalued in this ranking. Colorado & Loyola (Chi) came closest. Colorado was rnner-up in the first NIT & won that tournament in 1940. Both of these accomplishments deserved more credit than they received, so I jumped them from #65 to #59. Loyola was runner-up in both the 1939 & 1949 NITs. They too were jumped as a result - from #97 to #91.

I thought that the most egregious errors by Street & Smith came from overvaluing performances in early NCAA tournaments. Holy Cross & Dartmouth were the most glaring examples of this. So, my biggest adjustments were to drop teams down. I dropped Holy Cross, 1947 NCAA champ, 15 spots from#68 to #83 & Dartmouth, NCAA runner-up in 1942 & '44, 11 spots from #66 to #77.

I welcome any other suggestions for improving the list. More could be done. I only made what I thought were the most obvious adjustments.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

NCAA Store - Food Travel Ideas

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group