Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

Slightly outdated, but it shouldn't affect anyone too much as it shouldn't be counting tourney runs. This is sort of interesting from the prestige/historical perspective of overall quality of programs, instead of just using tourney stats.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

The 13 for 12
16: St. Johns
21: Villanova
24: Marquette
26: DePaul
42: Georgetown
48: Dayton
52: St. Louis
59: Xavier
76: Seton Hall
78: Providence
86: Creighton
98: Butler
167:VCU

Others of Interest
12: Notre Dame
56: St. Joseph's
67: Duquense
107: Detroit
127: Gonzaga
139: St. Mary's
158: Richmond

Interesting but probably not relevant. Seeing DePaul at 26 should tell you all you need to know about that list.

That's a perfectly acceptable placement for DePaul. It reflects why the Big East was willing to take them. Two Final Fours, 22 NCAA bids, and a slew of NIT bids. Some were wiped by sanctions, but 20 years ago anyone would be raving about adding DePaul. They've had some hard years, but they're worth keeping around. You kind of expect them to return.

Honest question for DePaul fans...what happened? I remember the glory years of Ray Meyers with Dave Corzine, Mark Aguire et al. Man, DePaul was a powerhouse. Now, not much heard out of Chicago.

yorost wrote:Slightly outdated, but it shouldn't affect anyone too much as it shouldn't be counting tourney runs. This is sort of interesting from the prestige/historical perspective of overall quality of programs, instead of just using tourney stats.

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

The 13 for 12
16: St. Johns
21: Villanova
24: Marquette
26: DePaul
42: Georgetown
48: Dayton
52: St. Louis
59: Xavier
76: Seton Hall
78: Providence
86: Creighton
98: Butler
167:VCU

Others of Interest
12: Notre Dame
56: St. Joseph's
67: Duquense
107: Detroit
127: Gonzaga
139: St. Mary's
158: Richmond

LOL. 1) this predates Butler and VCU's Final Four runs 2) it explicitly weights success from 40-70 years ago over relevance within the last two generations of modern college basketball.

And?

The list is a historical perspective, not a recent perspective. Laughing at it for not being indicative of recent success is downright silly, as that's not what it's trying to be. That it's outdated doesn't concern me, it was the most recent type of list like this I could find quickly. It's just supposed to be an interesting look at the programs involved, nothing else. I pointed out it was a little old, but it remains that a few years won't influence it that much. The placements wouldn't change THAT much over a few years, no matter how good a team was. All these arguments on who has had a better overall history made me look from a computational analysis. I didn't even know where the schools would fall when I started to post this.

VCU would receive almost no bump from their Final Four year. They weren't that strong that year, they barely made the field, even. The run wouldn't influence this much at all.

Same with Butler. They might move up a little, but 3 seasons even ranked #1 all the way probably wouldn't move teams up that far, unless they were at the very bottom.

yorost wrote:And?

The list is a historical perspective, not a recent perspective. Laughing at it for not being indicative of recent success is downright silly, as that's not what it's trying to be. That it's outdated doesn't concern me, it was the most recent type of list like this I could find quickly. It's just supposed to be an interesting look at the programs involved, nothing else. I pointed out it was a little old, but it remains that a few years won't influence it that much. The placements wouldn't change THAT much over a few years, no matter how good a team was. All these arguments on who has had a better overall history made me look from a computational analysis. I didn't even know where the schools would fall when I started to post this.

VCU would receive almost no bump from their Final Four year. They weren't that strong that year, they barely made the field, even. The run wouldn't influence this much at all.

Same with Butler. They might move up a little, but 3 seasons even ranked #1 all the way probably wouldn't move teams up that far, unless they were at the very bottom.

Again, my apologies for making assumptions here. When I think "overall quality of the programs, instead of just using tourney stats", I tend to exclude success in the 1950s and 60s. Again, I assumed you were pushing an agenda but it turns out you're just really into the history. Nothing wrong with that, just not very relevant compared to the last 40 years.

Hey look at Bradley at #39!

If only this were the criteria.

Can we all agree that any year in which the players wore booty shorts doesn't count?!

ljay wrote:Can we all agree that any year in which the players wore booty shorts doesn't count?!

Hahaha. So when does that era end like... 1990 or something?