Last week I posted a model for comparing the elite BB programs. The point of it was to allow user to set his/her own ranking criteria (i.e. metric weightings) and timeframe, and the model spits out a rank order of all the elite programs. Needless to say UConn ranked very well. But that was before our fresh new chip! Time for an update...
I'm not going to explain it all in detail again, instead I pasted my original post below which discusses methodology.
Results of the update: If you use my "tournament" weightings (50% chips, 25% FFs, 15% Sweet 16s, 10% tourney wins) then UConn ranks as the #3 program over the past 30 years, the #2 program over the past 20 years, and the #1 program for the past 11-17 years. Top 5 over 20 years are, in order - Kentucky, UConn, UNC, Duke, Kansas. Over 30 years the order switches a little - Duke, UNC, UConn, Kentucky, Kansas.
Kansas is a distant 5th in both cases. For the other 4 programs, you can make a credible argument for any of them as the best just by changing timeframe, so it really is take your pick. Kentucky, Duke, UNC - that, ladies and gentlemen, is our peer set now. Nobody else. How 'bout that!
One last comment - Mark Emmert!
Here is my post from last week explaining methodology in greater detail:
So how does our program stack up relative to the other elite ones? I posted an analysis on this subject several years ago. I was going to post an update back in January as a dose of perspective when many of us (myself included) were down in the dumps on Uconn’s performance, but I was too lazy. Then we went on a run in March and we all got excited again. My inner voice keeps telling me to wait until after next weekend to post this, but I can’t get any work done and I’m tired of reading all the Boneyard threads for the third time, so I decided to make my own.
The question is simple – how do the top programs compare in terms of performance? The answer is not so simple because it is inherently a subjective topic and the criteria/definition of “performance” are not universal. For example, how much weight should national championships carry? What about final 4s, conference titles, wins? The timeframe is also a subjective input into any analysis like this. Is it a 10 year analysis? 20 years? 25? Or does even longer term historical success count just as much (the UCLA argument)?
There is no right answer here, which is why it’s a fun debate. But whatever argument you use, it must be based on facts. I did some research to collect the relevant facts, put them into a tool that allows you to choose your own criteria of performance, then math takes over and spits out the rankings of each program.
So here’s how it works. I chose a peer set of 12 teams to compare. Besides Uconn, I included the following programs: UNC, Dook, Kentucky, UCLA, Kansas, Indiana, Mich St, Arizona, Florida, Louisville. I also included Syracuse for sh@*s and giggles, but unfortunately for them regular season t-shirts didn’t qualify as one of my performance criteria.
As for the metrics, I chose (arbitrarily) 11 of them. I don’t think they are all equally important (more on this later) but I wanted a flexible tool to accommodate differing opinions. Metrics included are
The model works like this: choose a weighting for each of the 11 metrics (adding up to 100%), then choose a timeframe in years (anything from 1-30 years since my data goes back to 1985). The tool does the rest. It ranks each team according to those metrics and creates a composite score which is the weighted average of those ranks. Lowest composite score wins.
So what’s the final verdict? I took two cracks at this, one measuring NCAA tournament performance and another measuring all-around performance (both are attached). The NCAA tournament version places a 50% weighting on titles, 25% on final 4s, 15% on sweet 16s, and 10% on aggregate tourney wins. With these weightings Uconn ranks as the #2 program over the past 20 years, behind only Kentucky and ahead of (in order) UNC, Dook, Kansas, Mich St, FL, UCLA, AZ, Syracuse, Louisville, Indiana. The timeframe matters, but not that much. Some timeframes will make Uconn #1, some will make them 3 or 4. But no timeframe between 10-30 years puts Uconn any worse than #5, and within 25 years we are 4 or better.
The all-around version is weighted 35% titles, 20% final 4s, 10% sweet 16s, 10% conference tourney titles, 15% conference regular season titles, 10% total wins. In this version Uconn ranks #3 over the past 20 years behind Kentucky and Dook but ahead of UNC and Kansas who round out the top 5. Once again this result is not too time-sensitive, as Uconn ranks somewhere between #2 and #5 for all timeframes between 11-30 years.
So no matter how you cut it, Uconn is somewhere in the top 5. Often they are in the top 2 or 3.
I have attached the output for each version. In the lower left of each page are the weightings by metric. The top table shows the ranking of each team over the past 20 years for each and every metric – so you can use whatever weightings you want to create your own composite. The bottom chart shows Uconn’s composite rank for each timeframe between 1-30 years.
Finally, this data is current as of today. Therefore this year's Final 4 is reflected, but of course there is no champion yet for 2014. I will update this after next Monday - maybe by then UConn will be #1 on all versions!!!
Sorry for such a long post. Any thoughts?
I'm not going to explain it all in detail again, instead I pasted my original post below which discusses methodology.
Results of the update: If you use my "tournament" weightings (50% chips, 25% FFs, 15% Sweet 16s, 10% tourney wins) then UConn ranks as the #3 program over the past 30 years, the #2 program over the past 20 years, and the #1 program for the past 11-17 years. Top 5 over 20 years are, in order - Kentucky, UConn, UNC, Duke, Kansas. Over 30 years the order switches a little - Duke, UNC, UConn, Kentucky, Kansas.
Kansas is a distant 5th in both cases. For the other 4 programs, you can make a credible argument for any of them as the best just by changing timeframe, so it really is take your pick. Kentucky, Duke, UNC - that, ladies and gentlemen, is our peer set now. Nobody else. How 'bout that!
One last comment - Mark Emmert!
Here is my post from last week explaining methodology in greater detail:
So how does our program stack up relative to the other elite ones? I posted an analysis on this subject several years ago. I was going to post an update back in January as a dose of perspective when many of us (myself included) were down in the dumps on Uconn’s performance, but I was too lazy. Then we went on a run in March and we all got excited again. My inner voice keeps telling me to wait until after next weekend to post this, but I can’t get any work done and I’m tired of reading all the Boneyard threads for the third time, so I decided to make my own.
The question is simple – how do the top programs compare in terms of performance? The answer is not so simple because it is inherently a subjective topic and the criteria/definition of “performance” are not universal. For example, how much weight should national championships carry? What about final 4s, conference titles, wins? The timeframe is also a subjective input into any analysis like this. Is it a 10 year analysis? 20 years? 25? Or does even longer term historical success count just as much (the UCLA argument)?
There is no right answer here, which is why it’s a fun debate. But whatever argument you use, it must be based on facts. I did some research to collect the relevant facts, put them into a tool that allows you to choose your own criteria of performance, then math takes over and spits out the rankings of each program.
So here’s how it works. I chose a peer set of 12 teams to compare. Besides Uconn, I included the following programs: UNC, Dook, Kentucky, UCLA, Kansas, Indiana, Mich St, Arizona, Florida, Louisville. I also included Syracuse for sh@*s and giggles, but unfortunately for them regular season t-shirts didn’t qualify as one of my performance criteria.
As for the metrics, I chose (arbitrarily) 11 of them. I don’t think they are all equally important (more on this later) but I wanted a flexible tool to accommodate differing opinions. Metrics included are
- # of National titles: the ultimate measure of success
- # of final 4s: another commonly used indicator of “elite” seasons
- # of elite 8s
- # of Sweet 16s: rewards teams that are consistently solid, if not spectacular, in the tournament
- # of NCAA appearances: I don’t like this one for elite programs, more useful for lesser programs
- # of Tourney wins: an aggregate rather than seasonal measure
- # of Conference tourney titles: need something to balance out reliance on NCAA tourney success, though levels of competition vary by conference
- # of Conference regular season titles: see above
- Total # of wins: another aggregate measure
- # of NBA draft picks: in my opinion this may be a good measure from a recruit’s perspective, but from a fan’s perspective it doesn’t matter as much
- # of NBA first round picks: see above
The model works like this: choose a weighting for each of the 11 metrics (adding up to 100%), then choose a timeframe in years (anything from 1-30 years since my data goes back to 1985). The tool does the rest. It ranks each team according to those metrics and creates a composite score which is the weighted average of those ranks. Lowest composite score wins.
So what’s the final verdict? I took two cracks at this, one measuring NCAA tournament performance and another measuring all-around performance (both are attached). The NCAA tournament version places a 50% weighting on titles, 25% on final 4s, 15% on sweet 16s, and 10% on aggregate tourney wins. With these weightings Uconn ranks as the #2 program over the past 20 years, behind only Kentucky and ahead of (in order) UNC, Dook, Kansas, Mich St, FL, UCLA, AZ, Syracuse, Louisville, Indiana. The timeframe matters, but not that much. Some timeframes will make Uconn #1, some will make them 3 or 4. But no timeframe between 10-30 years puts Uconn any worse than #5, and within 25 years we are 4 or better.
The all-around version is weighted 35% titles, 20% final 4s, 10% sweet 16s, 10% conference tourney titles, 15% conference regular season titles, 10% total wins. In this version Uconn ranks #3 over the past 20 years behind Kentucky and Dook but ahead of UNC and Kansas who round out the top 5. Once again this result is not too time-sensitive, as Uconn ranks somewhere between #2 and #5 for all timeframes between 11-30 years.
So no matter how you cut it, Uconn is somewhere in the top 5. Often they are in the top 2 or 3.
I have attached the output for each version. In the lower left of each page are the weightings by metric. The top table shows the ranking of each team over the past 20 years for each and every metric – so you can use whatever weightings you want to create your own composite. The bottom chart shows Uconn’s composite rank for each timeframe between 1-30 years.
Finally, this data is current as of today. Therefore this year's Final 4 is reflected, but of course there is no champion yet for 2014. I will update this after next Monday - maybe by then UConn will be #1 on all versions!!!
Sorry for such a long post. Any thoughts?