I've compiled a List of the Top 30 College Basketball Programs, based on their performance over the past 10 years with bonus points added for national championships in the previous 10 years. More value was placed on more recent accomplishments. Here it is:

1. Louisville
2. Kansas
3. North Carolina
4. Kentucky
5. Florida
6. Duke
7. Ohio State
8. UConn
9. Michigan State
10. Butler

11. Syracuse
12. UCLA
13. Michigan
14. Marquette
15. Arizona
16. Xavier
17. West Virginia
18. Wichita State
19. Baylor
20. Villanova

21. Wisconsin
22. VCU
23. Tennessee
24. Memphis
25. Indiana
26. Oregon
27. Pitt
28. Texas
29. Georgetown
30. Kansas State

Breakdown By Conference:

ACC (5)
1. Louisville
3. North Carolina
6. Duke
11. Syracuse
27. Pitt

Big Ten (5)
7. Ohio State
9. Michigan State
13. Michigan
21. Wisconsin
25. Indiana

Big East (5)
10. Butler
14. Marquette
16. Xavier
20. Villanova
29. Georgetown

Big Twelve (5)
2. Kansas
17. West Virginia
19. Baylor
28. Texas
30. Kansas State

SEC (3)
4. Kentucky
5. Florida
23. Tennessee

Pac Twelve (3)
12. UCLA
15. Arizonz
26. Oregon

AAC (2)
8. UConn
24. Memphis

Missouri Valley (1)
18. Wichita State

Atlantic Ten (1)
22. VCU

(06-08-2013 07:35 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I've compiled a List of the Top 30 College Basketball Programs, based on their performance over the past 10 years with bonus points added for national championships in the previous 10 years. More value was placed on more recent accomplishments.:

Is the latter code for the results didn't come out the way I wanted them simply by using a very narrow range of the last 10 years to begin with, so I adjusted it further to make sure I got the result I truly wanted to show?

Cheers,
Neil

(06-08-2013 06:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 07:35 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I've compiled a List of the Top 30 College Basketball Programs, based on their performance over the past 10 years with bonus points added for national championships in the previous 10 years. More value was placed on more recent accomplishments.:

Is the latter code for the results didn't come out the way I wanted them simply by using a very narrow range of the last 10 years to begin with, so I adjusted it further to make sure I got the result I truly wanted to show?

Cheers,
Neil

No.

(06-08-2013 11:01 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 07:35 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I've compiled a List of the Top 30 College Basketball Programs, based on their performance over the past 10 years with bonus points added for national championships in the previous 10 years. More value was placed on more recent accomplishments.:

Is the latter code for the results didn't come out the way I wanted them simply by using a very narrow range of the last 10 years to begin with, so I adjusted it further to make sure I got the result I truly wanted to show?

Cheers,
Neil

No.

If you say so. But you do realize that giving extra points for more recent accomplishments on a study that only goes back 10 years is strange, right?

Oh, another question. When you do this again next year at this time, will it be 11 years then? Don't bother to answer it. I already know the answer.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-09-2013 12:51 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 11:01 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 07:35 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I've compiled a List of the Top 30 College Basketball Programs, based on their performance over the past 10 years with bonus points added for national championships in the previous 10 years. More value was placed on more recent accomplishments.:

Is the latter code for the results didn't come out the way I wanted them simply by using a very narrow range of the last 10 years to begin with, so I adjusted it further to make sure I got the result I truly wanted to show?

Cheers,
Neil

No.

If you say so. But you do realize that giving extra points for more recent accomplishments on a study that only goes back 10 years is strange, right?

Oh, another question. When you do this again next year at this time, will it be 11 years then? Don't bother to answer it. I already know the answer.

Cheers,
Neil

No, I don't see anything strange about it. You're free to disagree obviously, but it seems to me that the most relevant information regarding the strength of a current program is what is most recent. The older the information, the less relevant. Ten years is an arbitrary number of course, but was picked simply because it's a round number.

You obviously don't know the answer to your second question. What's strange here is your claim to be able to read another poster's mind and to make the poster the subject of the discussion rather than the topic.

The idea that making the cut off one year later or earlier would substantially change the results is just silly and a failure of analysis. The older any season, the less value it has. A Sweet 16 appearance in 2013 carried more weight than a national championship in 2004.

I specifically created a separate thread in which I explained my methodology and listed the point totals for each of the 30 teams. I did so in order that methodological issues could be discussed separately. That's where your post questioning methodology belongs. It is off topic here.

If you have a better system, please feel free to post it and to explain it.

Frankly, I was motivated to construct this list by Hoops22's discussion of Big East expansion. I thought that such a list might put the various candidates into some perspective. For example, the following points relevant to that discussion can be noted from my list:

1. Wichita State ranks higher than VCU, a point raised by Sactowndog in that discussion.
2. Gonzaga doesn't even appear on the list.

Had I chosen to extend the list beyond 30, these would have been the next 10 teams:

31. Purdue
32. Washington
33. Missouri
34. Oklahoma
35. NC State
36. Miami
37. Florida Gulf Coast
38. La Salle
39. Gonzaga
40. Illinois


Based on this, LaSalle would be a better candidate than Gonzaga for the Big East. That's the kind of discussion I was trying to spark, not petty bickering over whether the list is self serving.

Cheers,
Bill

(06-09-2013 05:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 12:51 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 11:01 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 07:35 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I've compiled a List of the Top 30 College Basketball Programs, based on their performance over the past 10 years with bonus points added for national championships in the previous 10 years. More value was placed on more recent accomplishments.:

Is the latter code for the results didn't come out the way I wanted them simply by using a very narrow range of the last 10 years to begin with, so I adjusted it further to make sure I got the result I truly wanted to show?

Cheers,
Neil

No.

If you say so. But you do realize that giving extra points for more recent accomplishments on a study that only goes back 10 years is strange, right?

Oh, another question. When you do this again next year at this time, will it be 11 years then? Don't bother to answer it. I already know the answer.

Cheers,
Neil

No, I don't see anything strange about it. You're free to disagree obviously, but it seems to me that the most relevant information regarding the strength of a current program is what is most recent. The older the information, the less relevant. Ten years is an arbitrary number of course, but was picked simply because it's a round number.

You obviously don't know the answer to your second question. What's strange here is your claim to be able to read another poster's mind and to make the poster the subject of the discussion rather than the topic.

The idea that making the cut off one year later or earlier would substantially change the results is just silly and a failure of analysis. The older any season, the less value it has. A Sweet 16 appearance in 2013 carried more weight than a national championship in 2004.

I specifically created a separate thread in which I explained my methodology and listed the point totals for each of the 30 teams. I did so in order that methodological issues could be discussed separately. That's where your post questioning methodology belongs. It is off topic here.

If you have a better system, please feel free to post it and to explain it.

Frankly, I was motivated to construct this list by Hoops22's discussion of Big East expansion. I thought that such a list might put the various candidates into some perspective. For example, the following points relevant to that discussion can be noted from my list:

1. Wichita State ranks higher than VCU, a point raised by Sactowndog in that discussion.
2. Gonzaga doesn't even appear on the list.

Had I chosen to extend the list beyond 30, these would have been the next 10 teams:

31. St. Mary's
32. Washington
33. Missouri
34. Oklahoma
35. NC State
36. Miami
37.Florida Gulf Coast
38. La Salle
39. Gonzaga
40. Cincinnati


Based on this, St. Mary's would be a better candidate than Gonzaga if the Big East were looking west. That's the kind of discussion I was trying to spark, not petty bickering over whether the list is self serving.

Cheers,
Bill

Melky even I would redo the analysis and keep the weighting the same. I would suggest you can add a slight kicker if the coach who generated the results is still at that school because that is a relative point. It is one thing to have results it is another to develop the resources to keep the coach.

(06-09-2013 12:14 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 12:51 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 11:01 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Is the latter code for the results didn't come out the way I wanted them simply by using a very narrow range of the last 10 years to begin with, so I adjusted it further to make sure I got the result I truly wanted to show?

Cheers,
Neil

No.

If you say so. But you do realize that giving extra points for more recent accomplishments on a study that only goes back 10 years is strange, right?

Oh, another question. When you do this again next year at this time, will it be 11 years then? Don't bother to answer it. I already know the answer.

Cheers,
Neil

No, I don't see anything strange about it. You're free to disagree obviously, but it seems to me that the most relevant information regarding the strength of a current program is what is most recent. The older the information, the less relevant. Ten years is an arbitrary number of course, but was picked simply because it's a round number.

You obviously don't know the answer to your second question. What's strange here is your claim to be able to read another poster's mind and to make the poster the subject of the discussion rather than the topic.

The idea that making the cut off one year later or earlier would substantially change the results is just silly and a failure of analysis. The older any season, the less value it has. A Sweet 16 appearance in 2013 carried more weight than a national championship in 2004.

I specifically created a separate thread in which I explained my methodology and listed the point totals for each of the 30 teams. I did so in order that methodological issues could be discussed separately. That's where your post questioning methodology belongs. It is off topic here.

If you have a better system, please feel free to post it and to explain it.

Frankly, I was motivated to construct this list by Hoops22's discussion of Big East expansion. I thought that such a list might put the various candidates into some perspective. For example, the following points relevant to that discussion can be noted from my list:

1. Wichita State ranks higher than VCU, a point raised by Sactowndog in that discussion.
2. Gonzaga doesn't even appear on the list.

Had I chosen to extend the list beyond 30, these would have been the next 10 teams:

31. St. Mary's
32. Washington
33. Missouri
34. Oklahoma
35. NC State
36. Miami
37.Florida Gulf Coast
38. La Salle
39. Gonzaga
40. Cincinnati


Based on this, St. Mary's would be a better candidate than Gonzaga if the Big East were looking west. That's the kind of discussion I was trying to spark, not petty bickering over whether the list is self serving.

Cheers,
Bill

Melky even I would redo the analysis and keep the weighting the same. I would suggest you can add a slight kicker if the coach who generated the results is still at that school because that is a relative point. It is one thing to have results it is another to develop the resources to keep the coach.

Good point. It would be an interesting factor.

Top programs seem to have a way of finding top coaches. Butler, Cavier, and VCU, for example, have built their programs on a series of top coaches. North Carolina stuck with it until they got the right coach to replace Dean Smith. Georgetown Arizona, and Indiana did the same after the loss of legendary coaches.

We could, for example, have tweaked Kentucky's record a few years ago because the coach who had built their record for a decade was gone. But then we would have downgraded a program that only got better after John Calipari replaced Tubby Smith.

Occasionally there are programs that are purely the creation of a single individual, but I don't know of anyway to tell which programs will continue to succeed in spite of the loss of a coach and which ones won't. And I especially don't know how to build that into a formula.

Bottom line is that my list is simply a measure of success in the recent past. After that, it's up to the individual to decide what it means. I don't pretend that it is a way to predict the future.

I love these kinds of things Melky, so thanks for doing this.

That said, the one major that pops out to me (seems to benefit from your forumla the most somehow) was when you extended it to 30, Florida Gulf Coast making it on that list with just one NCAA tournament appearance. I'll go check the formula, but I think as far as "mids" go, just off the top of my head, Davidson and George Mason would clearly have them beat (Elite 8 and Final 4 teams, with multiple tournament appearances as well...not to mention them ranking higher than Gonzaga).

Regardless, fun read.

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Natty Wrote:  I love these kinds of things Melky, so thanks for doing this.

That said, the one major that pops out to me (seems to benefit from your forumla the most somehow) was when you extended it to 30, Florida Gulf Coast making it on that list with just one NCAA tournament appearance. I'll go check the formula, but I think as far as "mids" go, just off the top of my head, Davidson and George Mason would clearly have them beat (Elite 8 and Final 4 teams, with multiple tournament appearances as well...not to mention them ranking higher than Gonzaga).

Regardless, fun read.

Fair point.

This is an attempt to identify a pattern of success to measure the strength of a program. What do we say about a program like FGCU that comes on like gangbusters it's 2nd year in division I?

It's going to be hard to say now that Andy Enfield is gone. Bt if he were staying, wouldn't we all be expecting big things of them?

The same view could be taken of Michigan whose success this year catapulted them into the top 15 with one big year this season. Michigan went 10 years (1999-08) without making the tournament. They then made the field 3 of the next 4 years with only 2 wins to show for it. But is their any doubt that John Beilein now has the program positioned to be a factor year in and year out?

The system puts a lot of emphasis on what's been accomplished in the most recent seasons . . . For better or worse.

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Natty Wrote:  I love these kinds of things Melky, so thanks for doing this.

That said, the one major that pops out to me (seems to benefit from your forumla the most somehow) was when you extended it to 30, Florida Gulf Coast making it on that list with just one NCAA tournament appearance. I'll go check the formula, but I think as far as "mids" go, just off the top of my head, Davidson and George Mason would clearly have them beat (Elite 8 and Final 4 teams, with multiple tournament appearances as well...not to mention them ranking higher than Gonzaga).

Regardless, fun read.

Yeah given they have also lost their coach it shows the weakness in the current model.

(06-09-2013 06:09 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Natty Wrote:  I love these kinds of things Melky, so thanks for doing this.

That said, the one major that pops out to me (seems to benefit from your forumla the most somehow) was when you extended it to 30, Florida Gulf Coast making it on that list with just one NCAA tournament appearance. I'll go check the formula, but I think as far as "mids" go, just off the top of my head, Davidson and George Mason would clearly have them beat (Elite 8 and Final 4 teams, with multiple tournament appearances as well...not to mention them ranking higher than Gonzaga).

Regardless, fun read.

Yeah given they have also lost their coach it shows the weakness in the current model.

George Mason has averaged 23 wins the past 2 years under Paul Hewitt, showing no drop off since the departure of Larranaga. Given that Hewitt took Georgia Tech to the Final Four within the past decade, we also have no change in coaching credentials. They've exchanged one Final Four coach for another.

George Mason is actually an example of the theory that strong programs hire a series of strong coaches and are not dependent on a single individual. There are examples of schools which have declined after the departure of a great coach, but this isn't one of them.

I recently posted my top 30 list on the AAC board where it generated a lot of discussion. As a result of suggestions there, which reflected some of the same suggestions here.

I changed the name of the thread to Top 30 NCAA Tournament Performers since the data is all collected from the tournament and reflects the regular season only to the extent that a team has to have a big regular season just to get into the tournament and that seedings are based on the regular season.

The second thing I did is that I tweaked the formula to include points for first round wins and for tournament bids even if a team won no games in the tournament.

I thought that those who browse this board might be interested in the results. Parentheses indicate an improvement from the old list (+) or a decline (-). I've also extended the list to 40.

Please keep in mind that this ranking is based on the last 10 years and that the methodology gives more points for the same tournament finish when it is accomplished in a more recent year, i.e. points decline each year from 2013 to 2004. The reason for this is that I wanted to see what the last 10 years of history could tell us about current program strength rather than to simply look at who had the most accomplishments in the last 10 years. The methodology is explained in a separate post, which I have bumped so it can be more easily referenced.

Here are the results:

1. Louisville
2. Kansas
3. North Carolina
4. Kentucky
5. Florida
6. Duke
7. UConn (+1)
8. Ohio State (-1)
9. Michigan State
10. Butler

11. Syracuse
(12. Memphis - when vacated 2008 wins are included)
12. UCLA
13. Michigan
14. Marquette
15. West Virginia (+2)
16. Villanova (+4)
17. VCU (+5)
18. Arizona (-3)
19. Xavier (-3)
20. Pitt (+7)

21. Wisconsin
22. Gonzaga (+17)
23. Wichita State (-5)
24. Texas (+4)
25. Baylor (-6)
26. Georgetown (+3)
27. Memphis (-4)
28. Kansas State (+2)
29. Purdue (+2)
30. Tennessee (-7)

31. Illinois (+9)
32. Missouri (+1)
33. BYU (new)
34. Indiana (-7)
35. Washington (-3)
36. Temple (new)
37. Oklahoma (-3)
38. San Diego State (new)
39. Texas A&M (new)
40. St. Mary's (new)

Below are schools who were previously in the top 40 but have dropped off:

Oregon (was #26)
NC State (was #35)
Miami (was #36
Florida Gulf Coast (was #37)
La Salle (was #38)

Enjoy!

(06-09-2013 06:09 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Natty Wrote:  I love these kinds of things Melky, so thanks for doing this.

That said, the one major that pops out to me (seems to benefit from your forumla the most somehow) was when you extended it to 30, Florida Gulf Coast making it on that list with just one NCAA tournament appearance. I'll go check the formula, but I think as far as "mids" go, just off the top of my head, Davidson and George Mason would clearly have them beat (Elite 8 and Final 4 teams, with multiple tournament appearances as well...not to mention them ranking higher than Gonzaga).

Regardless, fun read.

Yeah given they have also lost their coach it shows the weakness in the current model.

It really doesn't.

The point of the list is to be able to highlight schools who have been hot, to say: "Those guys have really been getting it done lately. Maybe we should pay attention to them."

The conversation could go from there, pointing out things like coaching changes as you suggest. You make a good point, but it doesn't invalidate the list, given the purpose which it's intended to serve.

(07-18-2013 04:04 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:09 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Natty Wrote:  I love these kinds of things Melky, so thanks for doing this.

That said, the one major that pops out to me (seems to benefit from your forumla the most somehow) was when you extended it to 30, Florida Gulf Coast making it on that list with just one NCAA tournament appearance. I'll go check the formula, but I think as far as "mids" go, just off the top of my head, Davidson and George Mason would clearly have them beat (Elite 8 and Final 4 teams, with multiple tournament appearances as well...not to mention them ranking higher than Gonzaga).

Regardless, fun read.

Yeah given they have also lost their coach it shows the weakness in the current model.

It really doesn't.

The point of the list is to be able to highlight schools who have been hot, to say: "Those guys have really been getting it done lately. Maybe we should pay attention to them."

The conversation could go from there, pointing out things like coaching changes as you suggest. You make a good point, but it doesn't invalidate the list, given the purpose which it's intended to serve.

I never said it invalidated the list. I just said it was a weakness in your model given the importance of coaching.

(07-19-2013 02:44 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 04:04 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:09 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Natty Wrote:  I love these kinds of things Melky, so thanks for doing this.

That said, the one major that pops out to me (seems to benefit from your forumla the most somehow) was when you extended it to 30, Florida Gulf Coast making it on that list with just one NCAA tournament appearance. I'll go check the formula, but I think as far as "mids" go, just off the top of my head, Davidson and George Mason would clearly have them beat (Elite 8 and Final 4 teams, with multiple tournament appearances as well...not to mention them ranking higher than Gonzaga).

Regardless, fun read.

Yeah given they have also lost their coach it shows the weakness in the current model.

It really doesn't.

The point of the list is to be able to highlight schools who have been hot, to say: "Those guys have really been getting it done lately. Maybe we should pay attention to them."

The conversation could go from there, pointing out things like coaching changes as you suggest. You make a good point, but it doesn't invalidate the list, given the purpose which it's intended to serve.

I never said it invalidated the list. I just said it was a weakness in your model given the importance of coaching.

Okay. Fair point. Thanks for the input.

Any thoughts on how to work that into the model? I don't know how to quantify that.

(07-19-2013 10:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 02:44 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 04:04 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:09 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 01:50 PM)Natty Wrote:  I love these kinds of things Melky, so thanks for doing this.

That said, the one major that pops out to me (seems to benefit from your forumla the most somehow) was when you extended it to 30, Florida Gulf Coast making it on that list with just one NCAA tournament appearance. I'll go check the formula, but I think as far as "mids" go, just off the top of my head, Davidson and George Mason would clearly have them beat (Elite 8 and Final 4 teams, with multiple tournament appearances as well...not to mention them ranking higher than Gonzaga).

Regardless, fun read.

Yeah given they have also lost their coach it shows the weakness in the current model.

It really doesn't.

The point of the list is to be able to highlight schools who have been hot, to say: "Those guys have really been getting it done lately. Maybe we should pay attention to them."

The conversation could go from there, pointing out things like coaching changes as you suggest. You make a good point, but it doesn't invalidate the list, given the purpose which it's intended to serve.

I never said it invalidated the list. I just said it was a weakness in your model given the importance of coaching.

Okay. Fair point. Thanks for the input.

Any thoughts on how to work that into the model? I don't know how to quantify that.

I think you need to create a point based system for coaches you add to the model. So if the current coach has won an NCAA game in a year at that school they get a point. If they have won at a previous school they get half a point. Something like that would reward teams who have kept their coaches just like the market does.

(07-20-2013 07:29 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 10:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 02:44 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 04:04 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:09 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Yeah given they have also lost their coach it shows the weakness in the current model.

It really doesn't.

The point of the list is to be able to highlight schools who have been hot, to say: "Those guys have really been getting it done lately. Maybe we should pay attention to them."

The conversation could go from there, pointing out things like coaching changes as you suggest. You make a good point, but it doesn't invalidate the list, given the purpose which it's intended to serve.

I never said it invalidated the list. I just said it was a weakness in your model given the importance of coaching.

Okay. Fair point. Thanks for the input.

Any thoughts on how to work that into the model? I don't know how to quantify that.

I think you need to create a point based system for coaches you add to the model. So if the current coach has won an NCAA game in a year at that school they get a point. If they have won at a previous school they get half a point. Something like that would reward teams who have kept their coaches just like the market does.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I wish I had the time to do that, but I don't.

(07-20-2013 11:06 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-20-2013 07:29 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 10:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 02:44 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 04:04 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  It really doesn't.

The point of the list is to be able to highlight schools who have been hot, to say: "Those guys have really been getting it done lately. Maybe we should pay attention to them."

The conversation could go from there, pointing out things like coaching changes as you suggest. You make a good point, but it doesn't invalidate the list, given the purpose which it's intended to serve.

I never said it invalidated the list. I just said it was a weakness in your model given the importance of coaching.

Okay. Fair point. Thanks for the input.

Any thoughts on how to work that into the model? I don't know how to quantify that.

I think you need to create a point based system for coaches you add to the model. So if the current coach has won an NCAA game in a year at that school they get a point. If they have won at a previous school they get half a point. Something like that would reward teams who have kept their coaches just like the market does.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I wish I had the time to do that, but I don't.

I hear you. Thanks for the work you did.

I would propose a better analysis of the top college basketball programs. If I get the time to do this, I might try to compile this list.

1.) Award 5 points for winning conference regular season title (include shared titles)
2.) Award 3 points for winning conference tournament title
3.) Award 3 points for making NCAA tournament.
+1 for making round of 32 (so nothing for play-in win),
+3 for Sweet 16
+5 for Elite 8
+7 for Final 4
+10 for National Champion


I think this would be a better representation of the top programs because it values long term success of a regular season, and values consistently making the NCAA tournament. In your analysis, a school that only makes 1 tournament and reaches the Sweet 16 receives more points then a school that makes 10 tournaments and 1 Sweet 16.

If I get time, I will try to do this soon.