Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

Hall2012 wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:

RedStorm wrote:St. Johns should be much higher. But that's what mediocrity for the better part of 2 decades will do to a great legacy

What penalizes St John's is the fact that they ignored the first 11 years of national competition, a decade in which BE schools like St John's and DePaul excelled.

This is clearly a publicity stunt by the AP to try to get more attention at a time when people don't pay much attention to the AP poll any more. To ignore more than a decade of the early years of national competition is absurd when declaring an "ALL TIME" Top 100. To compound the error, they then ignore the postseason results. For them, it's as though those games were never played. Utterly ridiculous.

But it's not the "All Time Top 100" as in top 100 programs of all time. It's the "AP All Time Top 100" as in top performers in the history of the AP Poll. I agree, it could have been done better - for instance each appearance in the poll should be weighted based on the rank. As is, extra points are only given for #1, meaning #2 = #25.

It's certainly not perfect, but judge it for what it is, not something it isn't.

Paragraph 2: "To. Determine the ALL TIME Top 100 . . ."

Bill Marsh wrote:They're claiming "all time".

No they're claiming AP All Time. If it's All Time for the AP that is 68yrs. No different than if Kenpom did an All Time analysis since he's been around, it'd be Kenpom All Time but only 15yrs old.

Bill Marsh wrote:

Hall2012 wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:
What penalizes St John's is the fact that they ignored the first 11 years of national competition, a decade in which BE schools like St John's and DePaul excelled.

This is clearly a publicity stunt by the AP to try to get more attention at a time when people don't pay much attention to the AP poll any more. To ignore more than a decade of the early years of national competition is absurd when declaring an "ALL TIME" Top 100. To compound the error, they then ignore the postseason results. For them, it's as though those games were never played. Utterly ridiculous.

But it's not the "All Time Top 100" as in top 100 programs of all time. It's the "AP All Time Top 100" as in top performers in the history of the AP Poll. I agree, it could have been done better - for instance each appearance in the poll should be weighted based on the rank. As is, extra points are only given for #1, meaning #2 = #25.

It's certainly not perfect, but judge it for what it is, not something it isn't.

Paragraph 2: "To. Determine the ALL TIME Top 100 . . ."

Does it need to preface that with "AP" every time so you don't forget?

Paragraph 2: "Instead, this list focuses more on those programs that consistently appear in the poll"

It's very clear about what its intention is. That its going by poll results during the existence of the AP poll. It's not concerned with National Championships, RPI Rankings, Kenpom, Coaches poll, whatever. It is the top 100 All Time AP Poll performers and doesn't pretend to be anything else.

Hall2012 wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:

Hall2012 wrote:But it's not the "All Time Top 100" as in top 100 programs of all time. It's the "AP All Time Top 100" as in top performers in the history of the AP Poll. I agree, it could have been done better - for instance each appearance in the poll should be weighted based on the rank. As is, extra points are only given for #1, meaning #2 = #25.

It's certainly not perfect, but judge it for what it is, not something it isn't.

Paragraph 2: "To. Determine the ALL TIME Top 100 . . ."

Does it need to preface that with "AP" every time so you don't forget?

Paragraph 2: "Instead, this list focuses more on those programs that consistently appear in the poll"

It's very clear about what its intention is. That its going by poll results during the existence of the AP poll. It's not concerned with National Championships, RPI Rankings, Kenpom, Coaches poll, whatever. It is the top 100 All Time AP Poll performers and doesn't pretend to be anything else.

Agree that it's very clear what their intention is - to pump up the AP poll.

Why in the world would anyone care what teams rank highest over the past 69 years in the AP poll? Especially while ignoring national championships, tournament runner up, etc? And while ignoring what went before the past 69 years? Is that significant to anyone besides the AP people themselves?

Talk about smug . . . Give extra points to the teams that finish #1 in the AP poll while ignoring the team that finishes #1 in real world competition.

Bill, are you complaining about the AP trying to pump up their own poll? Please tell me you have never considered working in marketing or advertising of any kind.

Why would anybody care? Quite frankly It's not a matter of caring it's click bait. it got them thousands of clicks which they can use to take to potential advertisors and say "this is our foot traffic pay us more money"

Think of the random lists on bleacher report. Nobody cares what some random persons opinion is and yet forums everywhere will post it and generate more clicks and the writer will get paid more.

MUBoxer wrote:Bill, are you complaining about the AP trying to pump up their own poll? Please tell me you have never considered working in marketing or advertising of any kind.

Why would anybody care? Quite frankly It's not a matter of caring it's click bait. it got them thousands of clicks which they can use to take to potential advertisors and say "this is our foot traffic pay us more money"

Think of the random lists on bleacher report. Nobody cares what some random persons opinion is and yet forums everywhere will post it and generate more clicks and the writer will get paid more.

So we can agree that it is simply marketing hype and not to be taken seriously by real college basketball fans.

Bill Marsh wrote:

MUBoxer wrote:Bill, are you complaining about the AP trying to pump up their own poll? Please tell me you have never considered working in marketing or advertising of any kind.

Why would anybody care? Quite frankly It's not a matter of caring it's click bait. it got them thousands of clicks which they can use to take to potential advertisors and say "this is our foot traffic pay us more money"

Think of the random lists on bleacher report. Nobody cares what some random persons opinion is and yet forums everywhere will post it and generate more clicks and the writer will get paid more.

So we can agree that it is simply marketing hype and not to be taken seriously by real college basketball fans.

Yes we can agree on that.

Just goes to show what a major shift it is being a SJ fan born in 1989 vs. being a SJ fan born in 1960. The only year I've witnessed this team on the map nationally was 2011 when we were truly in the thick of things. I really hope we can get back to being a consistently very good program. A lot of the older guys have a lot of pride being SJ fans, since they were rewarded with top notch performance. As that segment of the fanbase (I'd say 70% of our fanbase is 50+ yrs old) ages, we need young fans to take their place. For that to happen, we need to be truly relevant. By relevant I mean consistent tourney berths, consistent appearances in the top 25, etc. Too many NYC area college hoops fans are just frontrunning as Cuse, Duke, UNC, Kentucky fans since SJ has been down.