PDA

View Full Version : In 50 years only 2 schools (GU is 1 of them) have gone from "nothing to Blue Blood"



GoZags
04-04-2013, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by jhizzuw on Dawgman.com's premium site. His research is to show how difficult it is for his school (UW) to go from an also ran to a Top Program. In fact, in the last 5 decades he shows that only Stanford and Gonzaga have moved from beyond Top 50 programs to Top 20 Programs (for a decade).

I don't see the term "Blue Blood" associated with GU all that often but I see it here (btw I don't see GU as Blue Blood or Elite ......yet but can envision a day where it will be).
---------
By jhizzuw - Dawgman.com post 4/2/13 (reprinted with permission)

The most annoying line of commentary on this board is "be WINNERS, WE CAN DO BETTER, I WANT CHMPSHIPS". There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a winner. There is, however, something wrong with A) Implying that no one else is a winner (beyond ######y), B) applying no historical context to your thinking.

First, to be in the national championship conversation every few years or so you have to consistently be a top 20 program. Consistency breeds buzz, which breeds dollars, recruits, exposure, etc. Not necessarily in that order.

Hypothesis: Becoming a consistent top 20 program without pedigree is rare.

Below is by decade rankings of the top 20 schools with the most AP poll appearances. First, you can notice a pattern of fewer new entrants into the "blue blood" sphere as we move through time. In '73-'83 12 made the leap from history-less to top programs in the decade, in '83-'93 8 made the leap, in '93-2003' 5, and from 2003-2013 5 programs made the leap. This is partially do to math, the pool of potential pedigree-less programs becomes smaller every year. It is also due to programs that enter the top 20 having more resources, more boosters who care, etc. These types of things carry forward.

Digging a little deeper you'll notice a progression for most of the programs that made the leap. Progression for the '93-'03 group


7. UCONN - 95th in 73-83, 30 in '83-93
11. Stanford - 95th in '73/83 75th in '83-'93
13. Wake Forest - 29 in '73/83, 37 83/93
14. Michigan St - 42 in 73/83 27 in 83/93
18. Utah - 43 in 73/83 40 in 83/93

You'll notice that ONLY Stanford made the leap from sub-50 to Top 20 in one decade.

Now for the '03-'13 group

3. Pitt - 24th in 83/93, 45 in 93/03
8. Texas - 79th in 83/93, 28 in 93/03
10. Gonzaga - NA 83/93, 59 in 93/03
13. Wisconsin - NA 83/93, 34 in 93/03
20. Villanova - 37 in 83/93, 39 in 93/03

Here only one school, GONZAGA, made the leap from nothing to blue blood.

So in 50 years of history, only two schools have made the leap from nothing to something.

Now, Washington's progression:

1983-1993: 67th
1993-2003: 87th
2003-2013: 30th

In other words, on progress and doing something that few programs do: move from nothing to close to something.


Top 10 programs 1963-1973:
1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. UNC
4. Duke
5. Houston
6. Marquette
7. Louisville
8. Davidson
9. Kansas
10. Vandy
11. Nova
12. Michigan
13. Penn
14. OSU
15. South Carolina
16. Providence
17. Jacksonville
18. Indiana
19. Tenn.
20. Cinci

'73-'83
1. UNC
2. UCLA
3. Louisville
4. Kentucky
5. Notre Dame
6. Indiana
7. Marquette
8. Maryland
9. Alabama
10. NC State
11. Syracuse
12. Ark
13. Michigan
14. Missouri
15. UNLV
16. Virginia
17. Providence
18. San Fran
19. Depaul
20. Georgetown/Tenn

'83-93
1. UNC
2. Georgetown
3. UNLV
4. Syracuse
5. Duke
6. Oklahoma
7. Indiana
8. Kentucky
9. Kansas
10. Michigan
11. St. John's
12. Arizona
13. Iowa
14. Louisville
15. Ga Tech
16. Illinois
17. Arkansas
18. UCLA
19. Memphis
20. Mizzou/Purdue

'93-'03
1. Arizona
2. Kansas
3. Kentucky
4. Duke
5. North Carolina
6. Syracuse
7. UCONN
8. Cincinnati
9. UCLA
10. Maryland
11. Stanford
12. Indiana
13. Wake Forest
14. Michigan St
15. Florida
16. Purdue
17. Arkansas
18. Utah
19. Illinois
20. Oklahoma

'03-'13
1. Duke
2. Kansas
3. Pitt
4. UNC
5. Michigan State
6. Connecticut
7. Syracuse
8. Texas
9. Louisville
10. Gonzaga
11. Kentucky
12. Florida
13. Wisconsin
14. Arizona
15. Georgetown
16. Oh st
17. Marquette
18. Memphis
19. Illinois
20. Villanova

MDABE80
04-04-2013, 05:05 PM
Bet the UW faithful loved seeing that;)

GoZags
04-04-2013, 05:08 PM
Bet the UW faithful loved seeing that;)

The comments on their thread (premium) dealt on the appreciation for the research and how UW is doing rather than the fact that it was Stanford and Gonzaga who climbed the ladder (albeit in different decades)

cjm720
04-04-2013, 06:25 PM
Awesome statistical validation for this historic run. Thanks for posting!

gamagin
04-04-2013, 06:42 PM
thanks

229SintoZag
04-04-2013, 06:54 PM
At least the UW fans can appreciate what Gonzaga has done, even if the Gonzaga fans can't.

Refreshing.

DixieZag
04-05-2013, 07:37 AM
At least the UW fans can appreciate what Gonzaga has done, even if the Gonzaga fans can't.

Refreshing.

It does put some perspective into things. . . a better decade than Kentucky and Arizona?

Still, some of this "reasoning" seems to be rationalization by UW fans - if their argument is that the program is performing just fine (dunno b/c I can't read the whole thesis).

A school with THAT much money, in THAT market and with a strong desire to be competitive, to have the kind of seasons they have had recently??? Not a lot to justify it in my mind.

TravelinZag
04-05-2013, 09:22 AM
What is just as surprising is that only 2 schools -- Kentucky & North Carolina -- remained in the top 20 for all five decades. Perennial powers Duke & Kansas missed the 73-83 decade, and UCLA & Indiana missed the 03-13 era. Interesting; I would have guessed that all six were constant "blue bloods." Suspect, however, that a small change in dates, i.e., 60's, 70's, ....00's, might present a slightly different picture.

Oops! Louisville and Syracuse also made four of the five decades. Only about 50 schools on the list at all, and only about 30 in two or more decades. Sounds like a good starting point for a national conference! Yes, there are a few schools worthy of addition that haven't maintained top 20 excellence for any one entire decade, and even a couple that did make a list that haven't been heard from in a long while (Houston, DePaul, Jacksonville, Utah, San Francisco, among others).

Still, a better starting point than 347 supposedly D-1 schools, the majority of which have been non-competitive for all, or all but one or two of the last fifty years. This includes many poorer performing schools from major (read BCS football) conferences.

Why not new competitive conferences for schools with proven excellent basketball programs?

UberZagFan
04-05-2013, 05:31 PM
Wonder what the jump for GU would have been if he used the 90s compared to the 00s instead of 93/03 and 03/13?* That likely would show an astronomical jump. And where did he get the low ranking numbers, such as GU 59 in the 93/03 period?

Interesting what one can do with numbers. GU ahead of Florida? Uh huh, the Florida team that has two NCs during that decade and three consecutive EEs in the past three years? Compare that to GU's 2 S16s.



*Did he really mean 93-02 and 03-13 or what?

KStyles
04-05-2013, 06:24 PM
Wonder what the jump for GU would have been if he used the 90s compared to the 00s instead of 93/03 and 03/13?* That likely would show an astronomical jump. And where did he get the low ranking numbers, such as GU 59 in the 93/03 period?

Interesting what one can do with numbers. GU ahead of Florida? Uh huh, the Florida team that has two NCs during that decade and three consecutive EEs in the past three years? Compare that to GU's 2 S16s.



*Did he really mean 93-02 and 03-13 or what?


If I understand the post correctly, the GU #59 means 58 teams had more appearances in the AP poll (one week on the poll = one appearance) between 93-03 (or 02?). Makes sense, considering GU wasn't ranked much that decade.

As for Florida, I believe this is more of some kind of consistency ranking. Florida has had more tournament success the last decade, but it appears they'd had a bit more downtime as well (the difference from 10 to 12 is probably only a few weeks more out of the polls). They might've only been ranked #27 while GU was ranked #24 some of those weeks, its hard to say.

Like you allude to with Florida's success, I don't believe his numbers assign any weight to higher poll showings, I suspect the rankings might look a bit different if it were comparing number of times a school has appeared in the top 10 or top 5 of the AP poll.

Very interesting what numbers can show. If somebody wanted to dive into it, they could use this as a basis and weight the poll rankings to maybe get a better idea of success (regular season only, there are no postseason AP polls) within the consistency of being ranked.

Reborn
04-05-2013, 10:10 PM
Great work GoZags. Thanks!!!

GoZags
04-06-2013, 06:25 AM
Great work GoZags. Thanks!!!\

Thanks Reborn, but all I did was notice a post on Dawgman.com's premium site, PM the poster and get permission to copy/paste his work over here. JHizzuw from dm.c did the "great work".

That being said, there have been a few questions vis a vis the data -- and how it was approached. I'm not 100 percent sure, but it is my belief that the raw data (i.e. # of times ranked in the AP Top 20) came from this source (http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/report_most_in_the_top/2003-2004) which has a filter so one can look at the data any number of ways.

My favorite "response" over here came from my friend 229, whose thoughts echo mine ....


At least the UW fans can appreciate what Gonzaga has done, even if the Gonzaga fans can't.

Refreshing.

BoZarth
04-06-2013, 06:40 AM
Interesting read.

Let's stay there for the next 10 years!

Go Zags!!!!

JPtheBeasta
04-06-2013, 08:23 AM
GU- a blue blood without any blue chippers to speak of to get them there. This offseason is a good time to stop and smell the (blue) roses. What Few and Co, and those before him, have created here is incredible.

2wiceright
04-06-2013, 08:49 AM
\

Thanks Reborn, but all I did was notice a post on Dawgman.com's premium site, PM the poster and get permission to copy/paste his work over here. JHizzuw from dm.c did the "great work".

That being said, there have been a few questions vis a vis the data -- and how it was approached. I'm not 100 percent sure, but it is my belief that the raw data (i.e. # of times ranked in the AP Top 20) came from this source (http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/report_most_in_the_top/2003-2004) which has a filter so one can look at the data any number of ways.

My favorite "response" over here came from my friend 229, whose thoughts echo mine ....

+1 ! Great work GoZags, along with a nice reality check from 229SintoZag..... Thanks Again :cheers: