(11-21-2020 10:07 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(11-21-2020 09:58 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-20-2020 04:30 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 10:30 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 08:18 PM)schmolik Wrote:  CBS Sports ranked their best teams

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...-all-time/

1. Kentucky
2. North Carolina
3. Duke
4. UCLA
5. Kansas

The author developed a real complex formula to calculate an order for best programs. His top 5 programs stand-out for having many more points than the next tier. These top 5 seem to be the universal “blue bloods”.

The points formula calculates performance evenly over the past 80 years. Would probably be better if success over the past 40 years (since the NCAA tournament was expanded) was weighted more heavily.

I disagree, because the CBS article is focusing on the GREATEST TEAMS OF ALL-TIME.

The issue is that success over the past 40 years is not as compelling as "all-time" success AND WHAT EVERYONE WANTS THE MOST IS TO BE ONE OF THE GREATEST TEAMS OF "ALL-TIME" (i.e., the truest of the true "blue bloods").

Anyone who wants to compile a list of the greatest teams over the past 40 years is, of course, free to do so, as could anyone who wants to compile a list of the greatest over the past 10 or 20 or 30 years, or over the past 50 or 75 years, or since the first NCAA tournament was held. But all of these are arbitrary dates, and all of them will only capture a segment of the audience (e.g., the past 40 years list would appeal mainly to people who are 16 to 50 years old).

The farther back the list goes in time, the more interesting it tends to be.

Why? Because most people are fascinated with the history of the game, and all the interesting and wonderful things that happened in those fabled times.

Also, because the older that you get, the more fascinated you're going to be with our nation's history. I guarantee it!

I believe that the criteria of success in college basketball really changed when the NCAA decided to expand the tournament. Specifically, the expanded tournament made college basketball into a big business. The NCAA made incredible monies on media rights and needed to distribute the wealth. It encouraged universities to align into conferences so that it could “systematically” select tournament participants and distribute revenues.

In my hometown, the Big 5 competition was the big deal...but the standard of success quickly transformed to conference alignment. For example, Villanova winning the Big East and being selected for the NCAA tournament are now major annual goals.

For the elite, blue bloods, the expanded role of the NCAA only had modest impact. UK, UNC, KU, UCLA and Duke have always targeted national recruits, competition and branding. Their focus had already shifted from the NIT to the NCAA post season a few decades earlier.

The impact of the expanded NCAA tournament was on the tier below the blue bloods. The classic example is the 1974 Maryland Terrapins...who I believe were one of the top 2 teams in the entire nation. Yet these Terps get zero points for winning their conference, zero points making the NCAA tournament and zero points for making the Final Four.

The author is using today’s standard of basketball excellence and retroactively applying it to an age where it didn’t apply. Admittedly, I’m not as familiar with the storied history of schools like Western Kentucky. I’m surprised that schools like Maryland, Virginia and Florida didn’t score much higher.

That's why although they say "greatest of all time" I will never respect the champions before the expansion of the tournament as much as the teams today. Sure it was a great accomplishment for John Wooden to win all those tournaments. No way he wins seven straight national championships today. Nine of his ten championships UCLA only had to win four games to win the title and nine of his ten championships only one team per conference were allowed to make it in. Imagine if only one ACC, one Big Ten, one Big East, etc, made the NCAA Tournament vs. the multiple teams from those conferences today.

Those UCLA teams would have won. He was that far ahead of everyone else. An extra 2 games wouldn't have stopped him.

Now where it is more difficult now has been broached by several others. With the money, there are more strong programs. UCLA had no competition in the west except for maybe the WAC champ. The midwest was some of the Big 8 schools and MVC schools. The Mideast was tough with Marquette, several Big 10 schools and Kentucky. The East did have a number of strong programs between the ACC and eastern independents.