PDA

View Full Version : Shocker! Duke is the top NCAA performer of the 65/64 team era!



rushthecourt
06-12-2007, 07:25 PM
We took a look at all 267 schools who have been invited to the NCAA Tournament in the 65/64 team era (1985-2007), and then broke out the numbers accordingly with some commentary provided. This is just part one of a series of posts that will also look at overachievers/underachievers and how the conferences have done over this period (coming later in the week).

There is no other way to spin the numbers other than to say that Duke has had the best NCAA performance of the 65/64 team era - hands down. That part was a no-brainer, but it's interesting to see how the other major players shake out. Take a look and let us know what you think. Regards.


Top NCAA Performers of the 65/64 Team Era (http://rushthecourt.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/top-ncaa-performers-of-the-65-nee-64-team-era/)

JasonEvans
06-13-2007, 07:21 AM
I think it would be obvious to any college hoops fan that Duke would be #1, but it is interesting to see the numbers.

To me, the most impressive thing is the total wins. In 22 NCAa tourney appearances, Duke has 68 wins-- an average of 3+ wins per season. So, on average, Duke makes it a tiny bit beyond the Elite Eight every year. That's stunning. Duke also has 11 more wins during the 64-team era than any other team (Carolina is 2nd with 57 total wins). 11 wins?!?!?! That's almost 20% more than anyone else. Again, stunning.

I agree with your ranking of the top programs too and am glad you did not fall prey to ESPN's constant pumping up of the UConn program (a program that is not nearly as consistently good as the other elites).

1. Duke
2. UNC
3. Kentucky
4. Kansas

-Jason "thanks for alerting us to this-- it is an interesting analysis" Evans

Zeb
06-13-2007, 03:09 PM
One way to look at our tourney results: early on Coach K was a tournament wizard (7 of 9 final fours is just CRAZY!), consistently getting his teams to play their best ball at the end of the year. But since late 90's, K's teams have peaked earlier, getting number 1 seeds based on regular season excellence with less consistent tournament results.

Is that fair? Is it foolish to draw any big conclusions on the outcome of just a handful of games? Laettner could have missed two last second shots and that 7 for 9 becomes 5 for 9. Less partying/better pick and roll defense in 1999 wins another NC and a foul called on Boozer in 2002 opens up a possible repeat NC.

Obviously the basketball landscape has changed a lot in 20 years. Curious as to everyone's thoughts... Is the 1992 K better relative to his peers then than the 2007 version is to his peers today? The same? Worse?

Indoor66
06-13-2007, 03:47 PM
Obviously the basketball landscape has changed a lot in 20 years. Curious as to everyone's thoughts... Is the 1992 K better relative to his peers then than the 2007 version is to his peers today? The same? Worse?

Maybe another way to look at this issue is are the 2007 peers better relative to K than the 1992 version of K?

Might that be the issue?

Wander
06-13-2007, 09:55 PM
Maybe another way to look at this issue is are the 2007 peers better relative to K than the 1992 version of K?

Might that be the issue?

That's the exact same thing.

mapei
06-13-2007, 10:24 PM
Maybe another way to look at this issue is are the 2007 peers better relative to K than the 1992 version of K?

Might that be the issue?

I think that other programs are certainly better relative to Duke than they were in, say, '86-'92 or '99-'01, especially in the NCAAs. Not so much in the regular season or the ACC, which Duke really owned for quite a stretch. But, as we've said in other threads, the record in the NCAAs - which casual fans and the press tend to use as the only measure that counts - shows that we haven't been as good as we were.

I don't know that I can say that it's all K. But I do feel that the competition is rougher and the talent level on our team not as deep as in the glory days.

gep
06-13-2007, 10:52 PM
That's the exact same thing.

I thought that was the same thing too. But, reading again, maybe it's [1] the difference is the 2007 peers vs 1992 Coach K or current Coach K, and [2] the difference between the 1992 Coach K and his 1992 peers, vs the current Coach K and his 2007 peers. But, maybe an apples/oranges kind of thing...

mepanchin
06-14-2007, 07:26 AM
It's not just the other coaches. A big part of it is that there is so much more talent now than there was in 86-92. Top flight talent always went to top programs back then so it was easier for, say, UNC under Dean Smith in the 70s and 80s to be consistently very good because the competition was just not capable of being nearly as good. Meanwhile, all the kids who were very young when Magic/Larry/Michael were stars and who saw Michael play through the 90s and the Shaq/Kobe era are now grown up and playing in the NBA or capable of playing at the college level. There's just a lot more interest and talent in the sport, so even if you et a top level recruiting class, it might not mean nearly as much now than it did in 1990 because so many other teams have very good recruiting classes too.

The Gordog
06-14-2007, 08:57 AM
We took a look at all 267 schools who have been invited to the NCAA Tournament in the 65/64 team era (1985-2007), and then broke out the numbers accordingly with some commentary provided. This is just part one of a series of posts that will also look at overachievers/underachievers and how the conferences have done over this period (coming later in the week).

There is no other way to spin the numbers other than to say that Duke has had the best NCAA performance of the 65/64 team era - hands down. That part was a no-brainer, but it's interesting to see how the other major players shake out. Take a look and let us know what you think. Regards.


Top NCAA Performers of the 65/64 Team Era (http://rushthecourt.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/top-ncaa-performers-of-the-65-nee-64-team-era/)

One thing I noticed is we are the best in every positive column: appearances, wins, Sw.16's, FF's, championships.

rushthecourt
06-15-2007, 11:07 AM
Hello again:

Following up on our post the other day showing the raw stats of the 65-team era, we today take a closer look at a couple of models describing who the top overachievers and underachievers have been in that era. The results may surprise you, esp. when you consider which model you use to make the determination. Of course Duke comes out as an overachiever either way - no real surprise there. Check out today's post.

Best Regards.

RTC

Overachievers & Underachievers (http://rushthecourt.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/ncaa-tourney-overachievers-and-underachievers-of-the-65-64-team-era/)