(09-15-2020 09:22 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-15-2020 08:40 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 09:22 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 08:50 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 07:15 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  Hartford?

He almost certainly meant "Houston."

I was hoping so, if not I was prepared to lobby for our inclusion lol

Fun fact: Hartford is one of 45 schools without an NCAAT appearance.

Interesting. Did not know. Hartford once had a high-profile player: Vin Baker, who played in the NBA.

Bill, I put a lot of work into the post above, which started out by comparing Cincinatti Bearcat's 7 tier system with the 4 tier system that I had been developing. Then, I realized that NCAA tournament records should be part of the definition of tiers, and worked out a mathematical/quantitative approach to come up with a method of estimating more precisely which schools are the closest to being BB blue bloods.

I was surprised when I discovered that the data on a school's number of Final AP Top 25 teams and the number of their NCAA tournament bids converged more closely than I had expected. Even more interestingly, there were some schools, such as Temple, which had a very large number (33) of NCAA appearances but only 8 Final AP Top 25 finishes. Only the top tiers of schools maintained anything approaching an equivalence between NCAA appearances and top 25 finishes.

I hope you'll click "quote" and respond to it, even if only briefly, so that it doesn't end up getting ignored.

Question: Does this seem like an interesting or useful way of comparing programs to estimate their strength through the years?

One thing I like about it is that it is a totally transparent approach (i.e., I have provided the details of all the data and computational methods that I used in the post so that others can replicate it and see if they get the same results do their own calculations on other teams, or use it to gauge improvements or adverse changes in the history of each team.

It would be fun to get into a conversation with some people who share interests in these kinds of things, so that maybe we might be able to come up with something even more precise and well informed by data.

It may be too quantitative to interest some readers, and if it's too data intense for your tastes, I hope you might mention it to some other CBB fans who might appreciate that sort of thing.

When I wrote it, part of my hope was to give you some food for thought so that we could kick some of these hypotheses around online and get some feedback from other readers.

Thanks. BTW, I think you're one of the most positive, respectful, and genuine readers and posters. People like you are why I keep posting on CSNBBS.

Jed,

First, a very thorough and impressive job.

The "quantitative" approach (with NCAA appearances and final Top 25 finishes) you have taken is strong in that it can't be disputed.
The numbers don't lie. However (and as I posted previously), there are so many ways to define a program and (more specifically) place it into a tier. Admittedly, some of those metrics (such as how many "high-profile" coaches a program has had over the years and how many general fans nationwide are interested in a program other than their own) are rather subjective. As such, I can see why many posters would not use multiple metrics and, instead, focus on a few.

Once, again, thanks for the very kind words.