Sagarin Top Programs Rankings

[KYtotheCore]

Opinions vary. I've seen Sagarin referenced here frequently, so he must be held in high regard. It's a little old, but would probably create some interesting debate.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=4532209

[MarkD83]

I hate to hijack your thread in the first response, but in the article you linked dated Oct 2009 it is very eerie that the last picture is of Butler's coach Brad Stevens.

Did Andy Katz know something we didn't?

[Jderf]

Yea, I think this got discussed a lot a while back. While I respect Sagarin and think his rankings are useful and informative to help predict the success of teams over a single season, I think the approach here is pretty flawed. Obviously, it can't weigh things like prestige or the different values of success in different eras. The numbers can't reflect the loss of standing a program endures after scandals. The stats can't capture how post-season performance can change perspectives on an entire period. And, of course, differentiating between the top programs is not very useful; it's easy to say which programs are at the top, but to really divide up the teams and make such narrow distinctions based on win-loss differences, is not particularly insightful.

[proelitedota]

LMAO at Illlinois at 5 when they've never won a title.

[striker219]

Good lord Kentucky fans try hard to be relevant.

Oh well, it's good to know that as a fan I'll be able to ride Coach K's success all the way to my deathbed, no matter what Duke does for the next 50 years.

[amat1129]

LMAO at Illlinois at 5 when they've never won a title.
seriously ridiculous, i understand consistency of winning but four NC's, i guess it was three at the time but still the final four appearances and NC's alone should move Duke ahead of illinois

[oldnavy]

8 Big Ten teams in the top 20 should be a clue as to how ridiculous this is.

[sagegrouse]

... Is the fact that he apparently weights each year equally, going back to the 1930s, or whenever he started. [Too lazy to look it up.]

This is preposterous, in my view. Much more weight should be given to recent decades, when there has been stronger competition throughout the NCAA.

As an old-timer (there are less polite terms), I remember being at the 1964 Eastern Regionals at Reynolds Coliseum. In the semis, Duke beat UConn by about 50 points (50 POINTS). There were only 22 teams in the entire tournament. Truly, there were only about 30 programs in the country that could classified as "major," including the Big Four in NC. That made UCLA's long run of tournament wins more understandable, if still unbelievably impressive.

So, giving equal weight to each year, the Big Ten looks awfully good. And so would a lot of Catholic colleges in the Northeast, since the game seems to have been nurtured in CYO leagues in the big cities of the US. These schools are not at the top of the list because they have not done nearly as well in recent decades (St. Bonnies, LaSalle, etc.).

sagegrouse