PDA

View Full Version : ESPN's 50 best programs of last 50 years



Malastein
08-21-2012, 04:36 PM
Espn's 50 best programs in last 50 years (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/tag/_/name/50-in-50-series). I haven't done the math to see how high they'd score within the system, but seems like they might have a shot at cracking it with all the conference titles and tournament wins, if they didn't lose too many points during more down periods. Anybody care to figure out Gonzaga's score?

Bogozags
08-21-2012, 06:40 PM
Rough calculations around 124pts over the last 14 years...and that was just figuring in my head...

Gin N GUice
08-21-2012, 07:23 PM
Crunched some numbers while watching King Felix, looks like 224 give or take. That should put us just ahead of byu by a few spots. Not bad considering we had some really bad teams in the 60's through the early 90"s.

TheGonzagaFactor
08-21-2012, 07:52 PM
Crunched some numbers while watching King Felix, looks like 224 give or take. That should put us just ahead of byu. Not bad considering we had some really bad teams in the 60's through the early 90"s.

Someone please redo these rankings for the last 14 years. Thanks.

Oregonzagnut
08-21-2012, 10:19 PM
Someone please redo these rankings for the last 14 years. Thanks.

I see their error right away! Having Dan Fitzgerald is worth 50 points. Having Mark Few is worth 100 pts. So since they didn't consider whether a team has, or ever has had Fitz or Mark Few as a coach in the last 50 years, then the stats should be recalculated........

According to my point system devised by my personally funded "Stats and Information Department", we have calculated the #1 team using a blind statistical analysis gathered by the 14 point mean squared hypothesis, following the 4 tier exponentially weighted point system and comparing the concrete variable allotment..... The #1 team with 1000 points even is....

Gonzaga.

ZagNative
08-21-2012, 11:13 PM
Here's what I come up with, based on what I understand the criteria (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/62654/introducing-the-50-in-50-series) to be:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-cZCbX5C9WaQ/UDSEtdxhs_I/AAAAAAABVZM/z1RjrEpb5I8/s417/50%2520teams%2520in%252050%2520years.jpg

What am I missing? (Stats primarily come from here (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/gonzaga/?redir).)

Based on those numbers, Zags don't make the cut, or we're tied wth Florida for #50.

Malastein
08-21-2012, 11:48 PM
Conference Champs(5) 17 times(2 in Big Sky) =85
Conference Tourney Champa(3) 11 times=33
NCAA appearances(1) 15 times=15
1st upset as 12 seed(1) 1 time=1
NCAA second round loss(3) 6 times= 18
Sweet sixteen loss(5) 4 times=20
Elite Eight loss(10) 1 time=10
1st team AA(3) twice=6
2nd team AA(2) twice=4(Frank Burgess was season before)
Top 10 nba pick(2) once=2
.8+ winning%(4) 6 times=24
.6-.79 winning%(2) 21 times=42
.351-.499 winning%(-2) 6 times=-12
.0-.35 winning%(-4) 2 times=-8
Which gives me a total of 240 by the criteria.

ZagNative
08-21-2012, 11:56 PM
I suspected I was wrong in thinking they were looking for the total winning %, rather than a per-year thing ... Hope you're right.

Malastein
08-22-2012, 12:12 AM
I suspected I was wrong in thinking they were looking for the total winning %, rather than a per-year thing ... Hope you're right.

Read the 5th paragraph of the introduction and it is 100% clear that they are awarding points based on individual season's winning percentage. Only thing I wonder is if Gonzaga got knocked any points for the Fitzgerald stuff.

Gin N GUice
08-22-2012, 01:24 AM
Read the 5th paragraph of the introduction and it is 100% clear that they are awarding points based on individual season's winning percentage. Only thing I wonder is if Gonzaga got knocked any points for the Fitzgerald stuff.

Any season that a team vacated any type of win was a deduction. GU had that one instance back in '80? Only a 2 point deduction for the season, not going to affect the big picture.

Martin Centre Mad Man
08-22-2012, 06:42 AM
A ranking formula that puts Gonzaga as the No. 31 program based on a 50-year body of work is probably about right.

ZagNative
08-22-2012, 06:58 AM
Answer: Rank #31, 232 points (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/62829/50-in-50-rankings-no-31-gonzaga-tie).

zagfan07
08-22-2012, 07:55 AM
Rank by the decade
1962-69: 8 (T-78th)
1970-79: -4 (T-257th)
1980-89: 4 (T-139th)
1990-99: 44 (T-44th)
2000-present: 180 (T-7th)

Whoa! Pretty impressive!!! We all had better enjoy the ride while it lasts.

bostoncollegezagfan
08-22-2012, 08:44 AM
Not to be negative, but in my opinion, the ranking system is far from complete. Two teams in two different conferences who win a conference tournament both get 5 points. If Kentucky wins the SEC title it gets 5 points and if Montana State University wins the Big Sky title it gets 5 points. Not to say that the Kentucky team is necessarily better and deserves more points every time, but on average, it is much harder to win the SEC title than the Big Sky title and so it will be much easier to get those points in the Big Sky.

We can apply this thought to Gonzaga. Yes, Gonzaga won 11 straight conferences titles (which is an absolutely incredible feat) and it was against strong competition, but if Gonzaga were in, say, the Pac 12, would they have won 11 straight? Probably not. So instead of getting 55 points for that category they would get less than 55.

This works as well for win percentage in a given year. It does not take into account the strength of schedule. So a team like Saint Mary's, who, in recent years, has had an easier schedule than Gonzaga, gets rewarded in that system.

I am not trying to knock Gonzaga down in any sort of way, and I absolutely believe that they are in the top 50 programs of the last 50 years, but I think the ESPN Stats & Information department could have done a much more accurate, thorough job with their criteria by taking into consideration some of these factors.

titopoet
08-22-2012, 08:46 AM
Crunched some numbers while watching King Felix, looks like 224 give or take. That should put us just ahead of byu by a few spots. Not bad considering we had some really bad teams in the 60's through the early 90"s.

Yup, they 36

KStyles
08-22-2012, 08:53 AM
Not to be negative, but in my opinion, the ranking system is far from complete. Two teams in two different conferences who win a conference tournament both get 5 points. If Kentucky wins the SEC title it gets 5 points and if Montana State University wins the Big Sky title it gets 5 points. Not to say that the Kentucky team is necessarily better and deserves more points every time, but on average, it is much harder to win the SEC title than the Big Sky title and so it will be much easier to get those points in the Big Sky.



Sure, on average, a squad would have to beat tougher competition to come across those 5 points each year in the SEC than in the Big Sky. If ESPN were trying to rank the 'best' or 'strongest performing' 50 programs, I could see where that would need to be included to get a fair assessment.

However, "ESPN.com is counting down the 50 most successful programs of the past 50 years." All other points categories aside, having both won a conference championship (although Kentucky may have on average had to do it against tougher competition, but also with better players and more program money), I'd argue that both Montana State University and Kentucky are equally successful in that given year (assuming a conference championship was a goal of both teams, both teams achieved a success). As such, both are deserving of an equal five points.

ESPN somewhat addresses your point on their explanation page (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/62654/introducing-the-50-in-50-series):


But the bottom line is this: Success -- success no matter which conference you're in -- is rewarded in the 50 in 50 series. You will see a number of mid-major programs on here and that may surprise you. But they are programs that have racked up an enormous amount of wins and conference titles over the years. Maybe they haven't appeared on television as much as a decent program from a big conference that didn't make the cut, but they have been wildly successful at their level -- and we've noticed.

MDABE80
08-22-2012, 09:37 AM
50 in 50 starting five (1962-present) I knew it. THIS list and that team: best in 50.
G – John Stockton (1980-84)
G – Dan Dickau (2000-02)
F – Adam Morrison (2003-06)
F – Ronnie Turiaf (2001-05)
C – Casey Calvary (1997-2001)

Topoptions off the bench
Blake Stepp (2000-04)
Matt Bouldin (2006-10)
Cory Violette (2000-04




BEST TEAM

1998-99 (28-7, NCAA Elite Eight)

bostoncollegezagfan
08-22-2012, 09:46 AM
However, "ESPN.com is counting down the 50 most successful programs of the past 50 years." All other points categories aside, having both won a conference championship (although Kentucky may have on average had to do it against tougher competition, but also with better players and more program money), I'd argue that both Montana State University and Kentucky are equally successful in that given year (assuming a conference championship was a goal of both teams, both teams achieved a success). As such, both are deserving of an equal five points.

I think that this makes the categories/requirements for success a bit arbitrary then. You state that they are equally successful in a given year if we assume that a conference championship was a goal of both. But, for a team like Boston College, who had only 9 wins in 2011-2012, I think a good goal will be to have a .500 record. Similarly, let's say North Carolina State's goal is to win a conference championship in 2012-2013. If we both meet our goals, then we both have had "successful" years. Should we both get 5 points then for completing our goals? It just makes everything too relative. I think the notion of having a goal to define success, then, is obsolete because annoying people like me can make it too trivial. It would be easy for statisticians to use RPI, BPI and whatever other fun stuff they do for choosing the NCAA tournament teams and restructure the point system to be reflecting of one's competition, or something to that matter.

Also, you said that MSU and UK would be just as successful in my hypothetical scenario but you conceded that UK has more money and better players. Well, wouldn't more money and better players be a result of being a successful program? The ability to recruit and/or coach these players into being so good originates from success. Success breeds success. I am not a fan of UK, Duke, or any of the powerhouse programs, but you can't say that a program winning the Southland Conference is just as successful as a program winning in the SEC or the WCC.

I am not trying to bash you or bash Gonzaga in any way, but the bottom line is that the system will never be perfect, but there are easy and obvious ways in which it could be much more accurate.

bostonzagfan
08-22-2012, 09:57 AM
2 sweet 16's in the past 11 tourneys - ouch

Malastein
08-22-2012, 09:59 AM
I have no problem with awarding equal points to all conference championships because they are also considering overall record(teams have won their conference but finished with lower than .500 records). The other major thing is that if your capable of winning the SEC then you are more likely to go deep in the tournament. Getting to the Elite Eight is worth 10 points, and I think the final four is worth 25. These numbers just mean more than any one season in a mid major conference. It's not like Gonzaga's insanely high on the list with 17 conference championships and 11 conference tournaments.

MDABE80
08-22-2012, 10:10 AM
2 sweet 16's in the past 11 tourneys - ouch

Let's not be selecting data points....5 in 13 years. Last one in 2009. We must do better. Only the elite of the elite can claim better.

Oregonzagnut
08-22-2012, 10:22 AM
I fired my stats and information team. I'm actually pretty happy we beat out BYU and USF!

KStyles
08-22-2012, 10:48 AM
I think that...ways in which it could be much more accurate

I wasn't really addressing whether ESPNs definition of success is correct or not, which seems to be what you're getting at. As I meantioned earlier, obviously if you add in more variables/criteria, like competition, SOS, etc., you'll get a different type of ranking.

I was just sticking up for ESPN a bit in saying that ESPN does an extremely accurate and complete job of ranking schools as they claim they will (i.e. their rankings are accurate to their description/intention of their rankings). Obviously their measurements of successes are arbitrary, but they do an outstanding job of ranking teams according to those measurements.

bostoncollegezagfan
08-22-2012, 11:02 AM
I wasn't really addressing whether ESPNs definition of success is correct or not, which seems to be what you're getting at. As I meantioned earlier, obviously if you add in more variables/criteria, like competition, SOS, etc., you'll get a different type of ranking.

I was just sticking up for ESPN a bit in saying that ESPN does an extremely accurate and complete job of ranking schools as they claim they will (i.e. their rankings are accurate to their description/intention of their rankings). Obviously their measurements of successes are arbitrary, but they do an outstanding job of ranking teams according to those measurements.

You're right. I'm too analytical for my own good. And I guess for the public ESPN needs to keep to ranking system relatively simple so everyone can understand it as opposed to developing some sort of complex system, throwing it in everyone's face and then having no one understand where the results are coming from. I will get back to you after I rank the top 50 in the last 50 years according to my guidelines ;)

MDABE80
08-22-2012, 11:36 AM
Considering we didn't do much on a national level till 1995, it's an impressive ranking in my view. 98-99 really kicked off years of impressive work. Model of consistency. Other programs go up and down (ask Romar)............but this crew managing GU's program has done an amazing job. It'll go on too. We've got some superior guards for 3 more years. It'll be key to find some superior kids underneath. I do hope Sam comes alive and Kelly's new season brings big surprises. Our new PK should answer lots of questions. He looks to be a very good player. Now......about that wing..... wouldn't it be nice if Hart shed his phobia of shooting and put some points up? Or Kyle steps into that role?
No matter, we'll do a strong job this year and everyone is back for 2013-2014. EVERYONE.

GoZags
08-22-2012, 12:34 PM
2 sweet 16's in the past 11 tourneys - ouch

You realize, of course, that only 22 schools (out of the 341 schools that play NCAA D1 Men's Basketball) have exceeded Gonzaga's number of Sweet 16's over the course of the past 11 tourneys, correct? 22 schools that can't say "ouch".

Other schools saying "ouch" (i.e. have fewer or equal Sweet 16's as Gonzaga since '02) include: Boston College, Georgetown, Indiana, Stanford, Oregon, Oklahoma State, LSU, Maryland, Missouri, Michigan, Notre Dame, North Carolina State and about 305 others.

But again, only 22 schools have more.

NotoriousZ
08-22-2012, 01:08 PM
I like the starting five, but off the bench I'd put Santangelo in for Bouldin, and Batista in for Violette.



50 in 50 starting five (1962-present) I knew it. THIS list and that team: best in 50.
G John Stockton (1980-84)
G Dan Dickau (2000-02)
F Adam Morrison (2003-06)
F Ronnie Turiaf (2001-05)
C Casey Calvary (1997-2001)

Topoptions off the bench
Blake Stepp (2000-04)
Matt Bouldin (2006-10)
Cory Violette (2000-04




BEST TEAM

1998-99 (28-7, NCAA Elite Eight)

tobizag
08-22-2012, 02:02 PM
50 in 50 starting five (1962-present) I knew it. THIS list and that team: best in 50.
G – John Stockton (1980-84)
G – Dan Dickau (2000-02)
F – Adam Morrison (2003-06)
F – Ronnie Turiaf (2001-05)
C – Casey Calvary (1997-2001)

Topoptions off the bench
Blake Stepp (2000-04)
Matt Bouldin (2006-10)
Cory Violette (2000-04




BEST TEAM

1998-99 (28-7, NCAA Elite Eight)

it bothers me that ESPN misspelled RONNY. the man has been an nba player for...7 years??? and he's won a title. and any article about the miami heat where he is referenced has a link to his player page, where his name is spelled correctly.

it's incredibly lazy.

that said, it's amazing to see gonzaga with the 7th most points since 2000. we're spoiled.

carry on.

MDABE80
08-22-2012, 02:54 PM
I agree Notorious..........Batista is just too strong to leave off. Also, who could forget Matt??? I did. He's the on ekid who opened the door to all this. ANd he had the numbers too. Multitalented kid. One of a kind around here.

TheGonzagaFactor
08-22-2012, 03:46 PM
We can apply this thought to Gonzaga. Yes, Gonzaga won 11 straight conferences titles (which is an absolutely incredible feat) and it was against strong competition, but if Gonzaga were in, say, the Pac 12, would they have won 11 straight? Probably not. So instead of getting 55 points for that category they would get less than 55.



That is assuming that Gonzaga would have had the exact same program for the whole run. If they were bumped up to the PAC 10, they would have recruited and signed PAC 10 talent. As a result, GU would have competed for, if not won, the conference every year.

Once and Future Zag
08-22-2012, 05:09 PM
I like the starting five, but off the bench I'd put Santangelo in for Bouldin, and Batista in for Violette.

I agree with JP over Cory, but I would swap Matt for Dickau for the guards (yes, I'd keep Bouldin and Stepp on the bench over DD)

bostonzagfan
08-22-2012, 06:38 PM
Let's not be selecting data points....5 in 13 years. Last one in 2009. We must do better. Only the elite of the elite can claim better.


You realize, of course, that only 22 schools (out of the 341 schools that play NCAA D1 Men's Basketball) have exceeded Gonzaga's number of Sweet 16's over the course of the past 11 tourneys, correct? 22 schools that can't say "ouch".

Other schools saying "ouch" (i.e. have fewer or equal Sweet 16's as Gonzaga since '02) include: Boston College, Georgetown, Indiana, Stanford, Oregon, Oklahoma State, LSU, Maryland, Missouri, Michigan, Notre Dame, North Carolina State and about 305 others.

But again, only 22 schools have more.

the hounds have been released upon me! haha. obviously the past 11 years have been great. i was more reacting to it in a way of surprise, because it seems like we've been to more than that.

bostoncollegezagfan
08-22-2012, 08:36 PM
That is assuming that Gonzaga would have had the exact same program for the whole run. If they were bumped up to the PAC 10, they would have recruited and signed PAC 10 talent. As a result, GU would have competed for, if not won, the conference every year.

I don't mean to be rude but this makes absolutely no sense. Even if we can safely assume that Gonzaga's recruiting gets bumped up to that level (assuming that Mark Few would want to recruit different types of talent for his system and that the "Pac-10" level would make that strong of a difference) I still absolutely highly doubt that Gonzaga would have won the conference 11 years straight. They definitely may have won the conference a few times and competed for it every single year, but against the talent of the mid 2000 UCLA teams where they went to three straight final fours and the 2001 Arizona national runner up team, and countless other strong teams each year (well, maybe not last year) it is just quite unbelievable to me that Gonzaga would have won 11 straight conferences titles.

TheGonzagaFactor
08-23-2012, 02:49 PM
I don't mean to be rude but this makes absolutely no sense. Even if we can safely assume that Gonzaga's recruiting gets bumped up to that level (assuming that Mark Few would want to recruit different types of talent for his system and that the "Pac-10" level would make that strong of a difference) I still absolutely highly doubt that Gonzaga would have won the conference 11 years straight. They definitely may have won the conference a few times and competed for it every single year, but against the talent of the mid 2000 UCLA teams where they went to three straight final fours and the 2001 Arizona national runner up team, and countless other strong teams each year (well, maybe not last year) it is just quite unbelievable to me that Gonzaga would have won 11 straight conferences titles.

I thought I said they would have competed for, if not won all of them. I didn't necessarily say they would win any.

If GU were in the PAC 10 since, let's say, 2000, there is no way the new arena would have held less than 10,000. The recruiting difference would make a HUGE impact. They may get less than what they have earned in the WCC with respect to titles, but they may have done just as well.

GU has a 65% win percentage against the PAC since 1998 with the talent we have had, so it's not inconceivable that Gonzaga could win 70-75% with much better players, and more of them on the roster every year. If we were a PAC 10 school we could get guys like Klay Thompson, Quincy Pondexter, Aaron Brooks, etc. Few seems to be a decent judge of character in players (some leave, but besides the Heytvelt incident the players have a fairly clean record) so he may have recruited more talented teams that could have good chemistry. Not a guarantee, but with coaches like Few (same with Petersen @ Boise State), there is no reason that an improved conference affiliation couldn't make them an elite program nationally and dominate the PAC 10/12 yearly.

We are sort of saying the same thing in that we don't know how many titles they would have won, I am just trying to get the point across that going from the WCC to the PAC 10 would have changed everything for the much better IMO. I felt like you really downplayed that part and I don't understand. Good players are willing to sit and learn at a BCS school and not nearly as much at mid majors. That creates depth and a more competitive practice atmosphere.

ZagNative
08-24-2012, 10:17 AM
This complete ranking of all DI teams in the ESPN report (httphttp://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8298598/conference-breakdowns-50-50-rankings) (not just the top 50), by conference, is interesting.

Of note:

#86 - Washington
#60 - Stanford

WCC:

T-31. Gonzaga
36. BYU
49. San Francisco
T-91. Santa Clara
T-101. Pepperdine
T-168. San Diego
211. Saint Mary's
T-252. Loyola Marymount
293. Portland

CDC84
08-24-2012, 10:46 AM
GU has a 65% win percentage against the PAC since 1998 with the talent we have had, so it's not inconceivable that Gonzaga could win 70-75% with much better players, and more of them on the roster every year. If we were a PAC 10 school we could get guys like Klay Thompson, Quincy Pondexter, Aaron Brooks, etc. Few seems to be a decent judge of character in players (some leave, but besides the Heytvelt incident the players have a fairly clean record) so he may have recruited more talented teams that could have good chemistry. Not a guarantee, but with coaches like Few (same with Petersen @ Boise State), there is no reason that an improved conference affiliation couldn't make them an elite program nationally and dominate the PAC 10/12 yearly.

This is just a side note....but if Gonzaga would have been in the Pac 10, they would've passed on Aaron Brooks and Klay Thompson. They passed on both of those guys when they were high schoolers. The staff felt Derek Raivio was a better player than Aaron Brooks. In terms of college performance, I still feel Gonzaga got that one right. Brooks' street ball mentality at Oregon would have been a disaster in the GU system.

There is no doubt that Gonzaga would have a level of recruiting access that they don't right now if they were a Pac 12 team. They would land McDonald's AA's occasionally. But those talented players would also be under pressure to leave early for the NBA draft and such. Gonzaga generally doesn't have to deal with that right now. That tends to keep teams from dominating BCS leagues in the current climate, no matter how good the coach is.

What I would argue is that Gonzaga would have made the final 4 by now if they had been in the Pac 10. I'd wager on that big time. Some of their teams like the 2005/06 squad were just missing a player or two. That player or two could've been attained with a power conference affiliation.