Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
College Basketball Tiers
Author Message
jedclampett Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,356
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 120
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #61
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-15-2020 12:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 11:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 11:05 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(09-14-2020 09:33 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  
(09-14-2020 08:42 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  NCAA % inflates schools who miss the NCAA Tournament.

Switch NCAA % with NCAA wins and you get the blueblood list you're looking for:

I
Kentucky 131
UNC 126
Duke 115
Kansas 108
UCLA 106

II
Louisville 76
Michigan St 69
Syracuse 68
Indiana 66
Villanova 65

III
Michigan 61
UConn 59
Ohio St 57
Arizona 56
Florida 50

I agree with this - this would be pretty close to my tiers as well

This is pretty much how I see it too.

I like this list because it includes past achievements back to the 1940s, but gives higher weight to post-1980s when the tournament expanded.

However, I think this list should remove wins that were forfeited for cheating.

So Louisville (11 vacated wins), Ohio State (6 vacated), Michigan (6 vacated). Syracuse & Villanova would lose 4 each, and Syracuse & Kentucky & UConn would also lose a couple. Memphis (14 vacated) would be hurt the most, dropping from 34 wins to 20 wins.

The NCAA has already removed the wins that were forfeited. So if these numbers were taken from the NCAA stats, they would already represent forfeited wins. Why would you want to take away additional wins?

The way that you wrote that - and with genuine and massive respect to you for being a super-moderator (because that takes a great deal of time & commitment on your part) - - I'm asking myself (gut response) if you're actually hoping that the memory of those sanctions will just fade into oblivion (and the sooner the better), so that we can all just forget about the cheating and enjoy watching those teams get back to dominating their conferences again (and as soon as utterly possible)?

I'm an AAC fan, and in the wake of UConn's sudden and disrespectful departure, I don't want to see the memory of UConn's recruiting violations fade into oblivion any time soon.

As I see it, UConn were cheaters, and they've always been cheaters, and they proved it by the way they shafted the AAC by ditching the conference that gave them every opportunity to thrive for 7 long seasons.

...but.....no....they saw it as being in their own self-interest to bite the hand that fed them. It's hard for me to contemplate letting them off easy at this point, after what they did. I hope they end up stewing in the cellar of the Big East for the next two decades, and that they'll have to battle with DePaul for last place in the Big East until 2050 or beyond.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2020 12:55 PM by jedclampett.)
09-15-2020 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Huskies12 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 363
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #62
RE: College Basketball Tiers
OK John Chaney. The 1990's A10 was a bastion of fair play.

Didn't Chaney threaten to kill Calipari?
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2020 01:21 PM by Huskies12.)
09-15-2020 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sctvman Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 865
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 32
I Root For: C of Charleston
Location: Charleston, SC
Post: #63
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-15-2020 12:38 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I would consider the following big time basketball programs (i.e. their games are fun to watch, have a great fan base, and always going to be some what competitive)

Arizona
Butler
Cincinnati
Creighton
Dayton
Duke
Florida
Georgetown
Gonzaga
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisville
Memphis
New Mexico
New Mexico State
North Carolina
NC State
Ohio State
Pitt
San Diego State
Syracuse
UCLA
UConn
Villanova
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Xavier

I would say Florida State, Baylor, Houston, BYU, VCU, and Wichita State are getting close to that point now in basketball as well.

Don’t disagree with that list at all. That is pretty much all of the “national” programs in recruiting in college basketball. I’d add Michigan, Michigan State, and Maryland to that list most likely. All schools where basketball is pretty much equal to football, if not bigger.

Flagship program in every mid-major conference (that even folks who don’t follow these leagues know is in that league):

America East- Vermont
A-Sun- Liberty or FGCU
A-10- VCU
Big Sky- Montana
Big South- Winthrop
Big West- UC-Irvine
CAA- Charleston or UNCW
C-USA- really nobody because they change so much, but I’d say WKU
Horizon- Nobody at this point
Ivy- Harvard or Yale
MAAC- Iona
MAC- Buffalo
MEAC- Nobody after NC A&T leaves
MVC- Loyola Chicago or UNI
Mountain West- SDSU
Northeast- Nobody really
OVC- Murray State
Patriot- Holy Cross
SoCon- Wofford or ETSU
Southland- Stephen F. Austin
SWAC- Texas Southern
Summit- North Dakota State
Sun Belt- Nobody
WCC- Gonzaga, of course
WAC- New Mexico State
09-15-2020 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,725
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1628
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #64
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-15-2020 12:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 12:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 11:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 11:05 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  
(09-14-2020 09:33 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I agree with this - this would be pretty close to my tiers as well

This is pretty much how I see it too.

I like this list because it includes past achievements back to the 1940s, but gives higher weight to post-1980s when the tournament expanded.

However, I think this list should remove wins that were forfeited for cheating.

So Louisville (11 vacated wins), Ohio State (6 vacated), Michigan (6 vacated). Syracuse & Villanova would lose 4 each, and Syracuse & Kentucky & UConn would also lose a couple. Memphis (14 vacated) would be hurt the most, dropping from 34 wins to 20 wins.

I think that ignores actual success. You are pretending those things didn't happen. I think vacated wins is the dumbest penalty. Vacated titles, yes-UNC should have lost a couple, but not vacated wins.


I disagree. For example, the Fab Five won 5 games in the NCAA tournament. But both Michigan and the NCAA both say that the Fab Five were not University of Michigan student-athletes.

So I agree that Chris Weber can boast about winning 5 NCAA tournament games. But the University of Michigan can't claim those wins because Chris Weber was not representing Michigan.

But if you are looking at the value of the programs and success of the programs, those don't go away. ESPN does specials on the Fab 5. They generated tons of positive publicity for the program in real time.
09-15-2020 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Online
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,429
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #65
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-15-2020 12:53 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 12:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 11:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 11:05 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  [quote='Gamecock' pid='16992229' dateline='1600093995']

I agree with this - this would be pretty close to my tiers as well

This is pretty much how I see it too.

I like this list because it includes past achievements back to the 1940s, but gives higher weight to post-1980s when the tournament expanded.

However, I think this list should remove wins that were forfeited for cheating.

So Louisville (11 vacated wins), Ohio State (6 vacated), Michigan (6 vacated). Syracuse & Villanova would lose 4 each, and Syracuse & Kentucky & UConn would also lose a couple. Memphis (14 vacated) would be hurt the most, dropping from 34 wins to 20 wins.

The NCAA has already removed the wins that were forfeited. So if these numbers were taken from the NCAA stats, they would already represent forfeited wins. Why would you want to take away additional wins?

Quote:The way that you wrote that - and with genuine and massive respect to you for being a super-moderator (because that takes a great deal of time & commitment on your part) - - I'm asking myself (gut response) if you're actually hoping that the memory of those sanctions will just fade into oblivion (and the sooner the better), so that we can all just forget about the cheating and enjoy watching those teams get back to dominating their conferences again (and as soon as utterly possible)?



I dont at all see how you could come to that conclusion by my post, unless you are simply trying to nitpick. I simply wanted to clear up what I thought was a mistake, which Captain Bearcat explained his position clearly and simply.


Quote:'m an AAC fan, and in the wake of UConn's sudden and disrespectful departure, I don't want to see the memory of UConn's recruiting violations fade into oblivion any timIe soon.

As I see it, UConn were cheaters, and they've always been cheaters, and they proved it by the way they shafted the AAC by ditching the conference that gave them every opportunity to thrive for 7 long seasons.

...but.....no....they saw it as being in their own self-interest to bite the hand that fed them. It's hard for me to contemplate letting them off easy at this point, after what they did. I hope they end up stewing in the cellar of the Big East for the next two decades, and that they'll have to battle with DePaul for last place in the Big East until 2050 or beyond.


I was under the impression that Uconn gave their notice to the conference and are paying their exit fees and observing the AAC rules in their return to the BE. If that is the case, then why be so negative and wish so much misery upon the school? I cant stand Uconn, its HC and many of their fans, but I dont wish any misery to the program or its fans. And thats a large leaping stretch to say that its proven that the program cheats by the way they left the American.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2020 04:09 PM by cuseroc.)
09-15-2020 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Online
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,429
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 423
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #66
RE: College Basketball Tiers
ENOUGH WITH ALL THE NAMECALLING AND POLITICAL AND RACIAL OVERTONES!
09-15-2020 04:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,428
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 175
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Tower Crane Town
Post: #67
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(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.
03-woohoo01-ncaabbs05-hide04-bolt


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.
09-15-2020 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Huskies12 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 363
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #68
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-15-2020 03:57 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 12:53 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 12:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 11:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 11:05 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  [quote='Gamecock' pid='16992229' dateline='1600093995']

I agree with this - this would be pretty close to my tiers as well

This is pretty much how I see it too.

I like this list because it includes past achievements back to the 1940s, but gives higher weight to post-1980s when the tournament expanded.

However, I think this list should remove wins that were forfeited for cheating.

So Louisville (11 vacated wins), Ohio State (6 vacated), Michigan (6 vacated). Syracuse & Villanova would lose 4 each, and Syracuse & Kentucky & UConn would also lose a couple. Memphis (14 vacated) would be hurt the most, dropping from 34 wins to 20 wins.

The NCAA has already removed the wins that were forfeited. So if these numbers were taken from the NCAA stats, they would already represent forfeited wins. Why would you want to take away additional wins?

Quote:The way that you wrote that - and with genuine and massive respect to you for being a super-moderator (because that takes a great deal of time & commitment on your part) - - I'm asking myself (gut response) if you're actually hoping that the memory of those sanctions will just fade into oblivion (and the sooner the better), so that we can all just forget about the cheating and enjoy watching those teams get back to dominating their conferences again (and as soon as utterly possible)?



I dont at all see how you could come to that conclusion by my post, unless you are simply trying to nitpick. I simply wanted to clear up what I thought was a mistake, which Captain Bearcat explained his position clearly and simply.


Quote:'m an AAC fan, and in the wake of UConn's sudden and disrespectful departure, I don't want to see the memory of UConn's recruiting violations fade into oblivion any timIe soon.

As I see it, UConn were cheaters, and they've always been cheaters, and they proved it by the way they shafted the AAC by ditching the conference that gave them every opportunity to thrive for 7 long seasons.

...but.....no....they saw it as being in their own self-interest to bite the hand that fed them. It's hard for me to contemplate letting them off easy at this point, after what they did. I hope they end up stewing in the cellar of the Big East for the next two decades, and that they'll have to battle with DePaul for last place in the Big East until 2050 or beyond.


I was under the impression that Uconn gave their notice to the conference and are paying their exit fees and observing the AAC rules in their return to the BE. If that is the case, then why be so negative and wish so much misery upon the school? I cant stand Uconn, its HC and many of their fans, but I dont wish any misery to the program or its fans. And thats a large leaping stretch to say that its proven that the program cheats by the way they left the American.

Sorry I know my post was deleted. I still think the video posted with no extra thoughts really is very funny
09-16-2020 07:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,356
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 120
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #69
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-15-2020 03:57 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 12:53 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 12:06 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(09-15-2020 11:49 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This is pretty much how I see it too.

I like this list because it includes past achievements back to the 1940s, but gives higher weight to post-1980s when the tournament expanded.

However, I think this list should remove wins that were forfeited for cheating.

So Louisville (11 vacated wins), Ohio State (6 vacated), Michigan (6 vacated). Syracuse & Villanova would lose 4 each, and Syracuse & Kentucky & UConn would also lose a couple. Memphis (14 vacated) would be hurt the most, dropping from 34 wins to 20 wins.

The NCAA has already removed the wins that were forfeited. So if these numbers were taken from the NCAA stats, they would already represent forfeited wins. Why would you want to take away additional wins?

Quote:The way that you wrote that - and with genuine and massive respect to you for being a super-moderator (because that takes a great deal of time & commitment on your part) - - I'm asking myself (gut response) if you're actually hoping that the memory of those sanctions will just fade into oblivion (and the sooner the better), so that we can all just forget about the cheating and enjoy watching those teams get back to dominating their conferences again (and as soon as utterly possible)?



I dont at all see how you could come to that conclusion by my post, unless you are simply trying to nitpick. I simply wanted to clear up what I thought was a mistake, which Captain Bearcat explained his position clearly and simply.


Quote:'m an AAC fan, and in the wake of UConn's sudden and disrespectful departure, I don't want to see the memory of UConn's recruiting violations fade into oblivion any timIe soon.

As I see it, UConn were cheaters, and they've always been cheaters, and they proved it by the way they shafted the AAC by ditching the conference that gave them every opportunity to thrive for 7 long seasons.

...but.....no....they saw it as being in their own self-interest to bite the hand that fed them. It's hard for me to contemplate letting them off easy at this point, after what they did.


I was under the impression that Uconn gave their notice to the conference and are paying their exit fees and observing the AAC rules in their return to the BE. If that is the case, then why be...negative...?

I cant stand Uconn, its HC and many of their fans, but I dont wish any misery to the program or its fans. And thats a ... stretch to say that its proven that the program cheats by the way they left the American.

There is a segment of AAC BB fans that have expressed a range of objections about UConn's commitment to the AAC. One of the issues mentioned was that there were some UConn fans who expressed the notion that the Huskies were too good to play in the AAC. Another issue raised by some was the view that UConn got a disproportionate share of the settlement from the sale of the Big East conference name.

The main issue that I had with UConn's MBB program was that they were barely "slapped on the wrist" by the NCAA, despite the recruiting violations that took place, year after year for the decade from ~2005 (or earlier) under Calhoun, to ~2015 under Ollie. As much as anything, that would have been a much more proportionate response, and it would help to dissuade other programs from recruiting violations.

What I would hope, in a world where everyday people want to discourage cheating of that magnitude, would be that their program would go through a decade without top notch recruiting. Truthfully, since they violated recruiting rules for a decade, I think that justice would have been served the NCAA should have put some sort of limits on their recruiting for another decade.

So stewing in the cellar of the nBE for two decades would be disproportionate. To be fair, they would only have to "serve out" 7 more years with recruiting limits, with the past three season being considered "time served" in basketball purgatory.

All schools that violate the rules should be disciplined with much more proportionate limitations, in my view - - not just UConn. Penn State and Ohio State have both had major scandals in the past decade or so, and both of them got away with a mild slap (actually more like a "tap") on the wrist. The fact that OSU shrugged it off within 3 seasons seems like a major injustice. In the case of Penn State, the details about which personnel were involved in enabling and covering up the Sandusky scandal were never disclosed to the public, and they were back in business among the top tier B1G teams within less than 5 years.

So, the message sent to D1 universities was that they can get away with systematically violating the recruiting rules, year after year, for a decade, or overlook and enable years of sexual abuse of athletes, knowing that there won't be any lasting consequences.
09-16-2020 08:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,606
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 292
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #70
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-16-2020 08:17 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  What I would hope, in a world where everyday people want to discourage cheating of that magnitude, would be that their program would go through a decade without top notch recruiting. Truthfully, since they violated recruiting rules for a decade, I think that justice would have been served the NCAA should have put some sort of limits on their recruiting for another decade.

You seem to feel pretty strongly about UConn. What say you about being in a conference with SMU, the continued leader in NCAA All-Time in infractions? Or Memphis, a top-10 program in infractions? Both have those programs have had seasons eliminated, postseason bans, probation periods that have occurred across several decades.

What would have the AAC have received in TV money without UConn? Without UConn the (then) AAC was literally no different than C-USA with Temple. The $1.7 million received would have been like a pot of gold had they not been in that grouping. And, without UConn, the AAC doesn't get to say it has a $1 billion TV deal.

AAC fans holding a grudge against UConn is nothing more than sour grapes. The AAC programs increased their brand values and associations thanks to a relationship with UConn. Similarly, UConn used the war chest exit fess to temporarily sustain pre-AAC spending and costs as a power conference program. Both benefited from the other in the near and long run.
09-16-2020 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,356
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 120
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #71
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-16-2020 09:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 08:17 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  What I would hope, in a world where everyday people want to discourage cheating of that magnitude, would be that their program would go through a decade without top notch recruiting. Truthfully, since they violated recruiting rules for a decade, I think that justice would have been served the NCAA should have put some sort of limits on their recruiting for another decade.

You seem to feel pretty strongly about UConn. What say you about being in a conference with SMU, the continued leader in NCAA All-Time in infractions? Or Memphis, a top-10 program in infractions? Both have those programs have had seasons eliminated, postseason bans, probation periods that have occurred across several decades.

What would have the AAC have received in TV money without UConn? Without UConn the (then) AAC was literally no different than C-USA with Temple. The $1.7 million received would have been like a pot of gold had they not been in that grouping. And, without UConn, the AAC doesn't get to say it has a $1 billion TV deal.

AAC fans holding a grudge against UConn is nothing more than sour grapes. The AAC programs increased their brand values and associations thanks to a relationship with UConn. Similarly, UConn used the war chest exit fess to temporarily sustain pre-AAC spending and costs as a power conference program. Both benefited from the other in the near and long run.

The point that was raised about Ohio State, Penn State, and UConn not receiving anything approaching sufficiently proportional sanctions to dissuade future violations would apply, equally to any of the other schools that have violated the NCAA rules and have gotten away with little more than a mild slap or "tap" on the wrist.

Indeed, their administrators might well have walked away from such absurdly mild sanctions, humming the tune "It hurts so good."


Data printed below illustrate that NCAA violations have been so rampant among the P5 universities that the sanctions applied with the intention of reducing the amount of violations in the future have been totally ineffective. At this point, the NCAA has been completely feckless in trying to rein in the recurrent violations by the P5 universities.

By wantonly flouting the NCAA rules, the P5 universities have made it clear that they are not only richer and more powerful, but that they are also shameless and indifferent about being caught, repeateadly for tolerating severe violations of rules developed to promote good sportsmanship and a level playing field for all teams.



Despite having all of the remarkable privileges that their A5 (autonomy) status provides, the P5 schools have been several times more likely than the non-P5 schools to commit verifiable NCAA rules violation in the past decade (see data below).

Although a much smaller percentage of non-P5 schools have committed such violations since 2000, perhaps the time has come to label the P5 as not only being the "autonomous" (A5) and the "powers" (P5), but also as the "cheaters" (C5).


According to a 2016 report published at insidehighered.com:

"More than half the members of the Power Five conferences committed major violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules in the last decade, an Inside Higher Ed analysis shows."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...ast-decade


Moreover, the data in the article indicate that more than 3/4 of the P5 schools were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations between 2000 and 2016:

"Inside Higher Ed reviews of NCAA data found that 54 institutions in the FBS (or Division I-A, as it used to be called) were guilty of major violations in the 2000s..."

In percentage terms, 83% of the P5 schools were sanctioned/punished for major violations by the NCAA between 2000 and 2016.


Interestingly, only 19% of the non-P5 D1 Colleges and Universities were sanctioned by the NCAA between 2006 and 2016, according to data reported in the article.[/b]

The article reports that all 14 (100%) Big 10 schools and 8 (80%) of the Big 12 schools - - including Oklahoma and Ohio State (each sanctioned for three different sets or types of major violations) - - were found to have committed the most NCAA violations between 2006 and 2016.

Number of P5 schools punished by the NCAA by conference since 2006:

Big 10: 14 schools (100%; documented in NCAA database)
Big 12: 8 schools (80%; documented in NCAA database)
PAC 12: 6 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
SEC: 7 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
ACC: 7 schools (The conference total from 2006 to 2016 is not specified in the article, but ACC schools that been sanctioned since 2000 have included: FSU, GT, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and UNC).

The sum total is 48 P5 schools, indicates that 73.8% of the P5 universities have been sanctioned/punished by the NCAA for violations by the NCAA since 2006.

The ratio of sanctioned P5 schools to sanctioned non-P5 D1 schools between 2006 and 2016 (including reports that there were 7 sanctioned AAC schools) is:

P5 schools: 83%

Non-P5 D1 schools: 19%

83%/19% = 4.37

Summary:

The percentage of P5 schools that were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations was four times greater than the corresponding percentage of non-P5 D1 schools.
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2020 05:01 AM by jedclampett.)
09-16-2020 11:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,356
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 120
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #72
RE: College Basketball Tiers
BTW, the only reason why the discussion on this thread paused to focus on UConn was because there were a couple of readers who wrote that they considered UConn to be among the elite or "blue bood" MBB schools, while others had differing opinions.

Some readers didn't include UConn on their list of elite or blue blood teams, because in order to qualify as a blue blood BB school, it's necessary to have had a much longer track record of success as measured by indices such as average winning percentages over several decades or number of 20+ win seasons, total number of NCAA bids, W-L records in NCAA tournaments, total number of AP Top 20 rankings, etc.

Whether or not UConn is one of the truly "elite" MBB schools depends on how "elite" is defined.

1) UConn's most notable MBB credential is that it ranks #5th with respect to the total number of NCAA championship games (in 1999, 2004, 2011, and 2014).

2) However, all four of these championships were unfortunately tainted by the fact that they were coached by individuals (Jim Calhoun and his former Assistant Kevin Ollie) who were both individually cited and sanctioned by the NCAA for multiple major NCAA recruiting violations that took place over an 18-year period (1996-2014) and may have begun soon after Calhoun was initially hired in 1987. This pattern of rule violations first became evident in 1996 and was severe enough to cause UConn's 1996 tournament record to be vacated by the NCAA.

Sadly, both Calhoun's and Ollie's[/b] careers were be terminated for cause, due to the severity of their NCAA violations,
which have continued to haunt the program ever since.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/news/story?id=5228593

https://www.google.com/search?client=fir...violations


.

Q: What about the other criteria for "blue blood status?"

A: If the cut-point is drawn at the top 10 or 15 BB schools of all time, UConn probably wouldn't make the list, for the following reasons:

.

3) On the positive side, UConn is tied with Arkansas and Oklahoma with a rank of #17 with regard to the number of Final AP Top 20 teams they have had (15 teams).

However, all 15 of UConn's AP Top 25 finishes are tainted by the 18 year period of rules violations under Head Coaches Calhoun and Ollie.

It's also of interest that there is a truly elite group of schools (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, and UNC that have each
had more than twice as many Final AP Top 20 teams).


4) Moreover, there is another significant caveat, unrelated to the pattern of NCAA violations after 1987: UConn is not even ranked among the top 100 schools in the nation with regard to the first year that they had a MBB team in the Final AP Top 25 (1990). At least 42 schools had Final AP Top 25 teams before 1960.

5) UConn ranks #19th on the list of (non-vacated) NCAA bids (32 bids), although only 13 of those bids are not tainted by the multi-decade legacy of major NCAA rule violations under Head Coaches Calhoun and Ollie.

If not for their 19 NCAA bids during the Calhoun and Ollie eras, UConn would rank #87th (tie) with respect to their total number of NCAA bids.

.

6) Another fact suggesting that their BB program underwent a somewhat delayed development in some respects is that UConn didn't send their first Huskies team to the regional finals ("elite eight") until 1964.

In comparison, five schools from Philadelphia, alone, made it to the elite eight before UConn did:
(Villanova 1939, Penn 1953, LaSalle 1954, Temple 1956, St. Joe 1963)...

...as did dozens of other schools. Examples:

1940: Duquesne, Indiana, USC, Kansas, Springfield, WKU, Colorado, Rice
1941: Wisconsin, Pitt, Arkansas, Washington State, Dartmouth, UNC, Wyoming, Creighton
1942: Dartmouth, Kentucky, Stanford, Colorado, Penn State, Illinois, Rice, Kansas
1943: Georgetown, DePaul, Texas, Wyoming, NYU, Dartmouth, Washington, Oklahoma



.

Thus, overall, unless one is willing to overlook the fact that UConn's most noteworthy accomplishments in men's basketball took place under Head Coaches who were ultimately fired due to a recurrent pattern of NCAA recruiting violations over two decades, UConn's MBB program probably doesn't belong in the pantheon of the greatest college basketball schools of all time.
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2020 04:31 AM by jedclampett.)
09-17-2020 01:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Huskies12 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 363
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 12
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #73
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-17-2020 01:43 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  BTW, the only reason why the discussion on this thread paused to focus on UConn was because there were a couple of readers who wrote that they considered UConn to be among the elite or "blue bood" MBB schools, while others had differing opinions.

Some readers didn't include UConn on their list of elite or blue blood teams, because in order to qualify as a blue blood BB school, it's necessary to have had a much longer track record of success as measured by indices such as average winning percentages over several decades or number of 20+ win seasons, total number of NCAA bids, W-L records in NCAA tournaments, total number of AP Top 20 rankings, etc.

Whether or not UConn is one of the truly "elite" MBB schools depends on how "elite" is defined.

1) UConn's most notable MBB credential is that it ranks #5th with respect to the total number of NCAA championship games (in 1999, 2004, 2011, and 2014).

2) However, all four of these championships were unfortunately tainted by the fact that they were coached by individuals (Jim Calhoun and his former Assistant Kevin Ollie) who were both individually cited and sanctioned by the NCAA for multiple major NCAA recruiting violations that took place over an 18-year period (1996-2014) and may have begun soon after Calhoun was initially hired in 1987. This pattern of rule violations first became evident in 1996 and was severe enough to cause UConn's 1996 tournament record to be vacated by the NCAA.

Sadly, both Calhoun's and Ollie's[/b] careers were be terminated for cause, due to the severity of their NCAA violations,
which have continued to haunt the program ever since.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/news/story?id=5228593

https://www.google.com/search?client=fir...violations


.

Q: What about the other criteria for "blue blood status?"

A: If the cut-point is drawn at the top 10 or 15 BB schools of all time, UConn probably wouldn't make the list, for the following reasons:

.

3) On the positive side, UConn is tied with Arkansas and Oklahoma with a rank of #17 with regard to the number of Final AP Top 20 teams they have had (15 teams).

However, all 15 of UConn's AP Top 25 finishes are tainted by the 18 year period of rules violations under Head Coaches Calhoun and Ollie.

It's also of interest that there is a truly elite group of schools (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, UCLA, and UNC that have each
had more than twice as many Final AP Top 20 teams).


4) Moreover, there is another significant caveat, unrelated to the pattern of NCAA violations after 1987: UConn is not even ranked among the top 100 schools in the nation with regard to the first year that they had a MBB team in the Final AP Top 25 (1990). At least 42 schools had Final AP Top 25 teams before 1960.

5) UConn ranks #19th on the list of (non-vacated) NCAA bids (32 bids), although only 13 of those bids are not tainted by the multi-decade legacy of major NCAA rule violations under Head Coaches Calhoun and Ollie.

If not for their 19 NCAA bids during the Calhoun and Ollie eras, UConn would rank #87th (tie) with respect to their total number of NCAA bids.

.

6) Another fact suggesting that their BB program underwent a somewhat delayed development in some respects is that UConn didn't send their first Huskies team to the regional finals ("elite eight") until 1964.

In comparison, five schools from Philadelphia, alone, made it to the elite eight before UConn did:
(Villanova 1939, Penn 1953, LaSalle 1954, Temple 1956, St. Joe 1963)...

...as did dozens of other schools. Examples:

1940: Duquesne, Indiana, USC, Kansas, Springfield, WKU, Colorado, Rice
1941: Wisconsin, Pitt, Arkansas, Washington State, Dartmouth, UNC, Wyoming, Creighton
1942: Dartmouth, Kentucky, Stanford, Colorado, Penn State, Illinois, Rice, Kansas
1943: Georgetown, DePaul, Texas, Wyoming, NYU, Dartmouth, Washington, Oklahoma



.

Thus, overall, unless one is willing to overlook the fact that UConn's most noteworthy accomplishments in men's basketball took place under Head Coaches who were ultimately fired due to a recurrent pattern of NCAA recruiting violations over two decades, UConn's MBB program probably doesn't belong in the pantheon of the greatest college basketball schools of all time.

Do 5 schools from Philly have more titles than UConn? Please tell me about La Salle in the 50's
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2020 07:05 AM by Huskies12.)
09-17-2020 07:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,606
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 292
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #74
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-16-2020 11:14 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 09:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 08:17 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  What I would hope, in a world where everyday people want to discourage cheating of that magnitude, would be that their program would go through a decade without top notch recruiting. Truthfully, since they violated recruiting rules for a decade, I think that justice would have been served the NCAA should have put some sort of limits on their recruiting for another decade.

You seem to feel pretty strongly about UConn. What say you about being in a conference with SMU, the continued leader in NCAA All-Time in infractions? Or Memphis, a top-10 program in infractions? Both have those programs have had seasons eliminated, postseason bans, probation periods that have occurred across several decades.

What would have the AAC have received in TV money without UConn? Without UConn the (then) AAC was literally no different than C-USA with Temple. The $1.7 million received would have been like a pot of gold had they not been in that grouping. And, without UConn, the AAC doesn't get to say it has a $1 billion TV deal.

AAC fans holding a grudge against UConn is nothing more than sour grapes. The AAC programs increased their brand values and associations thanks to a relationship with UConn. Similarly, UConn used the war chest exit fess to temporarily sustain pre-AAC spending and costs as a power conference program. Both benefited from the other in the near and long run.

The point that was raised about Ohio State, Penn State, and UConn not receiving anything approaching sufficiently proportional sanctions to dissuade future violations would apply, equally to any of the other schools that have violated the NCAA rules and have gotten away with little more than a mild slap or "tap" on the wrist.

Indeed, their administrators might well have walked away from such absurdly mild sanctions, humming the tune "It hurts so good."


Data printed below illustrate that NCAA violations have been so rampant among the P5 universities that the sanctions applied with the intention of reducing the amount of violations in the future have been totally ineffective. At this point, the NCAA has been completely feckless in trying to rein in the recurrent violations by the P5 universities.

By wantonly flouting the NCAA rules, the P5 universities have made it clear that they are not only richer and more powerful, but that they are also shameless and indifferent about being caught, repeateadly for tolerating severe violations of rules developed to promote good sportsmanship and a level playing field for all teams.



Despite having all of the remarkable privileges that their A5 (autonomy) status provides, the P5 schools have been several times more likely than the non-P5 schools to commit verifiable NCAA rules violation in the past decade (see data below).

Although a much smaller percentage of non-P5 schools have committed such violations since 2000, perhaps the time has come to label the P5 as not only being the "autonomous" (A5) and the "powers" (P5), but also as the "cheaters" (C5).


According to a 2016 report published at insidehighered.com:

"More than half the members of the Power Five conferences committed major violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules in the last decade, an Inside Higher Ed analysis shows."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...ast-decade


Moreover, the data in the article indicate that more than 3/4 of the P5 schools were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations between 2000 and 2016:

"Inside Higher Ed reviews of NCAA data found that 54 institutions in the FBS (or Division I-A, as it used to be called) were guilty of major violations in the 2000s..."

In percentage terms, 83% of the P5 schools were sanctioned/punished for major violations by the NCAA between 2000 and 2016.


Interestingly, only 19% of the non-P5 D1 Colleges and Universities were sanctioned by the NCAA between 2006 and 2016, according to data reported in the article.[/b]

The article reports that all 14 (100%) Big 10 schools and 8 (80%) of the Big 12 schools - - including Oklahoma and Ohio State (each sanctioned for three different sets or types of major violations) - - were found to have committed the most NCAA violations between 2006 and 2016.

Number of P5 schools punished by the NCAA by conference since 2006:

Big 10: 14 schools (100%; documented in NCAA database)
Big 12: 8 schools (80%; documented in NCAA database)
PAC 12: 6 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
SEC: 7 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
ACC: 7 schools (The conference total from 2006 to 2016 is not specified in the article, but ACC schools that been sanctioned since 2000 have included: FSU, GT, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and UNC).

The sum total is 48 P5 schools, indicates that 73.8% of the P5 universities have been sanctioned/punished by the NCAA for violations by the NCAA since 2006.

The ratio of sanctioned P5 schools to sanctioned non-P5 D1 schools between 2006 and 2016 (including reports that there were 7 sanctioned AAC schools) is:

P5 schools: 83%

Non-P5 D1 schools: 19%

83%/19% = 4.37

Summary:

The percentage of P5 schools that were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations was four times greater than the corresponding percentage of non-P5 D1 schools.

Temple was busted in 2007 for unethical conduct and impermissible financial aid. UCF has been busted twice violations in the past decade. In 2010, it was impermissible calls and text messaging. Then again, in 2012, it was lack of institutional control, failure to monitor and improper recruiting. In 2009, Memphis was busted for unethical conduct, improper recruiting and extra benefits (and this article was from 2016, so it doesn't even reference the entire Wiseman fiasco). SMU was busted twice in 2011 and 2015 for impermissible texts, academic fraud and unethical conduct. Cincinnati was busted in 2007 for impermissible recruiting calls. East Carolina was busted in 2011 for academic fraud. Last year, Houston had academic misconduct and was put on probation too. Over half of the AAC has been found with major violations in the past two decades (as referenced by this article). Beyond that, SMU had the death penalty, Tulane had a major point shaving scandal, Memphis had major violations in the 1980's.

Again, you seem to be selectively highlighting the P5, or A5, as you call it, while disregarding the known "cheating" occurrences from within your own conference.

If anything, the AAC programs, historically, cheat just as much as the P5, so they are - in this regard - very much a power conference.
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2020 09:36 AM by GoldenWarrior11.)
09-17-2020 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,725
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1628
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #75
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-16-2020 11:14 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 09:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 08:17 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  What I would hope, in a world where everyday people want to discourage cheating of that magnitude, would be that their program would go through a decade without top notch recruiting. Truthfully, since they violated recruiting rules for a decade, I think that justice would have been served the NCAA should have put some sort of limits on their recruiting for another decade.

You seem to feel pretty strongly about UConn. What say you about being in a conference with SMU, the continued leader in NCAA All-Time in infractions? Or Memphis, a top-10 program in infractions? Both have those programs have had seasons eliminated, postseason bans, probation periods that have occurred across several decades.

What would have the AAC have received in TV money without UConn? Without UConn the (then) AAC was literally no different than C-USA with Temple. The $1.7 million received would have been like a pot of gold had they not been in that grouping. And, without UConn, the AAC doesn't get to say it has a $1 billion TV deal.

AAC fans holding a grudge against UConn is nothing more than sour grapes. The AAC programs increased their brand values and associations thanks to a relationship with UConn. Similarly, UConn used the war chest exit fess to temporarily sustain pre-AAC spending and costs as a power conference program. Both benefited from the other in the near and long run.

The point that was raised about Ohio State, Penn State, and UConn not receiving anything approaching sufficiently proportional sanctions to dissuade future violations would apply, equally to any of the other schools that have violated the NCAA rules and have gotten away with little more than a mild slap or "tap" on the wrist.

Indeed, their administrators might well have walked away from such absurdly mild sanctions, humming the tune "It hurts so good."


Data printed below illustrate that NCAA violations have been so rampant among the P5 universities that the sanctions applied with the intention of reducing the amount of violations in the future have been totally ineffective. At this point, the NCAA has been completely feckless in trying to rein in the recurrent violations by the P5 universities.

By wantonly flouting the NCAA rules, the P5 universities have made it clear that they are not only richer and more powerful, but that they are also shameless and indifferent about being caught, repeateadly for tolerating severe violations of rules developed to promote good sportsmanship and a level playing field for all teams.



Despite having all of the remarkable privileges that their A5 (autonomy) status provides, the P5 schools have been several times more likely than the non-P5 schools to commit verifiable NCAA rules violation in the past decade (see data below).

Although a much smaller percentage of non-P5 schools have committed such violations since 2000, perhaps the time has come to label the P5 as not only being the "autonomous" (A5) and the "powers" (P5), but also as the "cheaters" (C5).


According to a 2016 report published at insidehighered.com:

"More than half the members of the Power Five conferences committed major violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules in the last decade, an Inside Higher Ed analysis shows."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...ast-decade


Moreover, the data in the article indicate that more than 3/4 of the P5 schools were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations between 2000 and 2016:

"Inside Higher Ed reviews of NCAA data found that 54 institutions in the FBS (or Division I-A, as it used to be called) were guilty of major violations in the 2000s..."

In percentage terms, 83% of the P5 schools were sanctioned/punished for major violations by the NCAA between 2000 and 2016.


Interestingly, only 19% of the non-P5 D1 Colleges and Universities were sanctioned by the NCAA between 2006 and 2016, according to data reported in the article.[/b]

The article reports that all 14 (100%) Big 10 schools and 8 (80%) of the Big 12 schools - - including Oklahoma and Ohio State (each sanctioned for three different sets or types of major violations) - - were found to have committed the most NCAA violations between 2006 and 2016.

Number of P5 schools punished by the NCAA by conference since 2006:

Big 10: 14 schools (100%; documented in NCAA database)
Big 12: 8 schools (80%; documented in NCAA database)
PAC 12: 6 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
SEC: 7 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
ACC: 7 schools (The conference total from 2006 to 2016 is not specified in the article, but ACC schools that been sanctioned since 2000 have included: FSU, GT, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and UNC).

The sum total is 48 P5 schools, indicates that 73.8% of the P5 universities have been sanctioned/punished by the NCAA for violations by the NCAA since 2006.

The ratio of sanctioned P5 schools to sanctioned non-P5 D1 schools between 2006 and 2016 (including reports that there were 7 sanctioned AAC schools) is:

P5 schools: 83%

Non-P5 D1 schools: 19%

83%/19% = 4.37

Summary:

The percentage of P5 schools that were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations was four times greater than the corresponding percentage of non-P5 D1 schools.

Take out the MAC and the schools that weren't FBS before the year 2000 and the G5 might well top the P5.
09-17-2020 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,725
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1628
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #76
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-17-2020 09:36 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 11:14 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 09:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 08:17 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  What I would hope, in a world where everyday people want to discourage cheating of that magnitude, would be that their program would go through a decade without top notch recruiting. Truthfully, since they violated recruiting rules for a decade, I think that justice would have been served the NCAA should have put some sort of limits on their recruiting for another decade.

You seem to feel pretty strongly about UConn. What say you about being in a conference with SMU, the continued leader in NCAA All-Time in infractions? Or Memphis, a top-10 program in infractions? Both have those programs have had seasons eliminated, postseason bans, probation periods that have occurred across several decades.

What would have the AAC have received in TV money without UConn? Without UConn the (then) AAC was literally no different than C-USA with Temple. The $1.7 million received would have been like a pot of gold had they not been in that grouping. And, without UConn, the AAC doesn't get to say it has a $1 billion TV deal.

AAC fans holding a grudge against UConn is nothing more than sour grapes. The AAC programs increased their brand values and associations thanks to a relationship with UConn. Similarly, UConn used the war chest exit fess to temporarily sustain pre-AAC spending and costs as a power conference program. Both benefited from the other in the near and long run.

The point that was raised about Ohio State, Penn State, and UConn not receiving anything approaching sufficiently proportional sanctions to dissuade future violations would apply, equally to any of the other schools that have violated the NCAA rules and have gotten away with little more than a mild slap or "tap" on the wrist.

Indeed, their administrators might well have walked away from such absurdly mild sanctions, humming the tune "It hurts so good."


Data printed below illustrate that NCAA violations have been so rampant among the P5 universities that the sanctions applied with the intention of reducing the amount of violations in the future have been totally ineffective. At this point, the NCAA has been completely feckless in trying to rein in the recurrent violations by the P5 universities.

By wantonly flouting the NCAA rules, the P5 universities have made it clear that they are not only richer and more powerful, but that they are also shameless and indifferent about being caught, repeateadly for tolerating severe violations of rules developed to promote good sportsmanship and a level playing field for all teams.



Despite having all of the remarkable privileges that their A5 (autonomy) status provides, the P5 schools have been several times more likely than the non-P5 schools to commit verifiable NCAA rules violation in the past decade (see data below).

Although a much smaller percentage of non-P5 schools have committed such violations since 2000, perhaps the time has come to label the P5 as not only being the "autonomous" (A5) and the "powers" (P5), but also as the "cheaters" (C5).


According to a 2016 report published at insidehighered.com:

"More than half the members of the Power Five conferences committed major violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules in the last decade, an Inside Higher Ed analysis shows."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...ast-decade


Moreover, the data in the article indicate that more than 3/4 of the P5 schools were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations between 2000 and 2016:

"Inside Higher Ed reviews of NCAA data found that 54 institutions in the FBS (or Division I-A, as it used to be called) were guilty of major violations in the 2000s..."

In percentage terms, 83% of the P5 schools were sanctioned/punished for major violations by the NCAA between 2000 and 2016.


Interestingly, only 19% of the non-P5 D1 Colleges and Universities were sanctioned by the NCAA between 2006 and 2016, according to data reported in the article.[/b]

The article reports that all 14 (100%) Big 10 schools and 8 (80%) of the Big 12 schools - - including Oklahoma and Ohio State (each sanctioned for three different sets or types of major violations) - - were found to have committed the most NCAA violations between 2006 and 2016.

Number of P5 schools punished by the NCAA by conference since 2006:

Big 10: 14 schools (100%; documented in NCAA database)
Big 12: 8 schools (80%; documented in NCAA database)
PAC 12: 6 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
SEC: 7 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
ACC: 7 schools (The conference total from 2006 to 2016 is not specified in the article, but ACC schools that been sanctioned since 2000 have included: FSU, GT, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and UNC).

The sum total is 48 P5 schools, indicates that 73.8% of the P5 universities have been sanctioned/punished by the NCAA for violations by the NCAA since 2006.

The ratio of sanctioned P5 schools to sanctioned non-P5 D1 schools between 2006 and 2016 (including reports that there were 7 sanctioned AAC schools) is:

P5 schools: 83%

Non-P5 D1 schools: 19%

83%/19% = 4.37

Summary:

The percentage of P5 schools that were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations was four times greater than the corresponding percentage of non-P5 D1 schools.

Temple was busted in 2007 for unethical conduct and impermissible financial aid. UCF has been busted twice violations in the past decade. In 2010, it was impermissible calls and text messaging. Then again, in 2012, it was lack of institutional control, failure to monitor and improper recruiting. In 2009, Memphis was busted for unethical conduct, improper recruiting and extra benefits (and this article was from 2016, so it doesn't even reference the entire Wiseman fiasco). SMU was busted twice in 2011 and 2015 for impermissible texts, academic fraud and unethical conduct. Cincinnati was busted in 2007 for impermissible recruiting calls. East Carolina was busted in 2011 for academic fraud. Last year, Houston had academic misconduct and was put on probation too. Over half of the AAC has been found with major violations in the past two decades (as referenced by this article). Beyond that, SMU had the death penalty, Tulane had a major point shaving scandal, Memphis had major violations in the 1980's.

Again, you seem to be selectively highlighting the P5, or A5, as you call it, while disregarding the known "cheating" occurrences from within your own conference.

If anything, the AAC programs, historically, cheat just as much as the P5, so they are - in this regard - very much a power conference.

SMU and Wichita St. are on the list of all time top cheaters. And when you talk about cheaters, most people think of Memphis, in fairness, maybe simply because their best moments have been tainted.
09-17-2020 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,356
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 120
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #77
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-17-2020 09:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(09-17-2020 09:36 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 11:14 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 09:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 08:17 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  What I would hope, in a world where everyday people want to discourage cheating of that magnitude, would be that their program would go through a decade without top notch recruiting. Truthfully, since they violated recruiting rules for a decade, I think that justice would have been served the NCAA should have put some sort of limits on their recruiting for another decade.

You seem to feel pretty strongly about UConn. What say you about being in a conference with SMU, the continued leader in NCAA All-Time in infractions? Or Memphis, a top-10 program in infractions? Both have those programs have had seasons eliminated, postseason bans, probation periods that have occurred across several decades.

What would have the AAC have received in TV money without UConn? Without UConn the (then) AAC was literally no different than C-USA with Temple. The $1.7 million received would have been like a pot of gold had they not been in that grouping. And, without UConn, the AAC doesn't get to say it has a $1 billion TV deal.

AAC fans holding a grudge against UConn is nothing more than sour grapes. The AAC programs increased their brand values and associations thanks to a relationship with UConn. Similarly, UConn used the war chest exit fess to temporarily sustain pre-AAC spending and costs as a power conference program. Both benefited from the other in the near and long run.

The point that was raised about Ohio State, Penn State, and UConn not receiving anything approaching sufficiently proportional sanctions to dissuade future violations would apply, equally to any of the other schools that have violated the NCAA rules and have gotten away with little more than a mild slap or "tap" on the wrist.

Indeed, their administrators might well have walked away from such absurdly mild sanctions, humming the tune "It hurts so good."


Data printed below illustrate that NCAA violations have been so rampant among the P5 universities that the sanctions applied with the intention of reducing the amount of violations in the future have been totally ineffective. At this point, the NCAA has been completely feckless in trying to rein in the recurrent violations by the P5 universities.

By wantonly flouting the NCAA rules, the P5 universities have made it clear that they are not only richer and more powerful, but that they are also shameless and indifferent about being caught, repeateadly for tolerating severe violations of rules developed to promote good sportsmanship and a level playing field for all teams.



Despite having all of the remarkable privileges that their A5 (autonomy) status provides, the P5 schools have been several times more likely than the non-P5 schools to commit verifiable NCAA rules violation in the past decade (see data below).

Although a much smaller percentage of non-P5 schools have committed such violations since 2000, perhaps the time has come to label the P5 as not only being the "autonomous" (A5) and the "powers" (P5), but also as the "cheaters" (C5).


According to a 2016 report published at insidehighered.com:

"More than half the members of the Power Five conferences committed major violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules in the last decade, an Inside Higher Ed analysis shows."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...ast-decade


Moreover, the data in the article indicate that more than 3/4 of the P5 schools were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations between 2000 and 2016:

"Inside Higher Ed reviews of NCAA data found that 54 institutions in the FBS (or Division I-A, as it used to be called) were guilty of major violations in the 2000s..."

In percentage terms, 83% of the P5 schools were sanctioned/punished for major violations by the NCAA between 2000 and 2016.


Interestingly, only 19% of the non-P5 D1 Colleges and Universities were sanctioned by the NCAA between 2006 and 2016, according to data reported in the article.[/b]

The article reports that all 14 (100%) Big 10 schools and 8 (80%) of the Big 12 schools - - including Oklahoma and Ohio State (each sanctioned for three different sets or types of major violations) - - were found to have committed the most NCAA violations between 2006 and 2016.

Number of P5 schools punished by the NCAA by conference since 2006:

Big 10: 14 schools (100%; documented in NCAA database)
Big 12: 8 schools (80%; documented in NCAA database)
PAC 12: 6 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
SEC: 7 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
ACC: 7 schools (The conference total from 2006 to 2016 is not specified in the article, but ACC schools that been sanctioned since 2000 have included: FSU, GT, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and UNC).

The sum total is 48 P5 schools, indicates that 73.8% of the P5 universities have been sanctioned/punished by the NCAA for violations by the NCAA since 2006.

The ratio of sanctioned P5 schools to sanctioned non-P5 D1 schools between 2006 and 2016 (including reports that there were 7 sanctioned AAC schools) is:

P5 schools: 83%

Non-P5 D1 schools: 19%

83%/19% = 4.37

Summary:

The percentage of P5 schools that were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations was four times greater than the corresponding percentage of non-P5 D1 schools.

Temple was busted in 2007 for unethical conduct and impermissible financial aid. UCF has been busted twice violations in the past decade. In 2010, it was impermissible calls and text messaging. Then again, in 2012, it was lack of institutional control, failure to monitor and improper recruiting. In 2009, Memphis was busted for unethical conduct, improper recruiting and extra benefits (and this article was from 2016, so it doesn't even reference the entire Wiseman fiasco). SMU was busted twice in 2011 and 2015 for impermissible texts, academic fraud and unethical conduct. Cincinnati was busted in 2007 for impermissible recruiting calls. East Carolina was busted in 2011 for academic fraud. Last year, Houston had academic misconduct and was put on probation too. Over half of the AAC has been found with major violations in the past two decades (as referenced by this article). Beyond that, SMU had the death penalty, Tulane had a major point shaving scandal, Memphis had major violations in the 1980's.

Again, you seem to be selectively highlighting the P5, or A5, as you call it, while disregarding the known "cheating" occurrences from within your own conference.

If anything, the AAC programs, historically, cheat just as much as the P5, so they are - in this regard - very much a power conference.

SMU and Wichita St. are on the list of all time top cheaters. And when you talk about cheaters, most people think of Memphis, in fairness, maybe simply because their best moments have been tainted.

So, you accuse me of bloviating and then proceed to bloviate even more "eloquently" on the topic than I ! ? ! 05-bump

Note this - - I did not make any accusations about the teams that you root for. Even now, I neither care or know those details. You're the one who decided to take the low road by making it personal.

I only focused on the P5 teams because I was so astonished to learn that 80% of the P5 teams have committed major NCAA violations since 2000, while only 20% of the non-Pt teams have done so.

Perhaps you didn't notice the following paragraph, but I endorsed the idea that all schools that violate the NCAA rules should receive proportional punishment/sanctions, no matter which conference they're members of. I even included an AAC member, UConn, in that group.

The point that was raised about Ohio State, Penn State, and UConn not receiving anything approaching sufficiently proportional sanctions to dissuade future violations would apply, equally to any of the other schools that have violated the NCAA rules and have gotten away with little more than a mild slap or "tap" on the wrist.

I may be wrong, but you seem to have a vendetta out for the AAC, since you have argued that the percentage of AAC schools with major violations since 2000 is the same as the Big Ten's (100%). That wasn't my understanding, and the article that I cited seemed to suggest that the AAC might have been more similar to the SEC in that regard.

As a fan of an AAC team, I'm certainly not going to blindly take your word for it that every single AAC team has been punished for "major" NCAA violations since 2000. Some that you listed may be considered "secondary" violations, such as those that schools such as Duke and VT made and self-reported to the NCAA with no sanctions.

They say that the NCAA rules are complex enough, like golf, that it's easier than it should be to make unintentional or "secondary" violations. In such cases, when the school discovers and reports it, itself, or owns up to secondary violations quickly enough, the NCAA tends to accept self-imposed corrective actions. Although you implied that they were all major violations by using the term "busted" in every case, I gather that some of those AAC schools were on the list of schools (like Duke and VT) that committed secondary oversights, took corrective actions, and weren't depicted as having committed major NCAA violations.

While we're on the subject of the AAC, there were some apparent violations at Memphis when Calipari was coaching there, and SMU had some similar violations when Larry Brown was there. UConn's violations have already been dealt with at length. The rest, I am not familar with.

This is the first time that I've heard anyone accuse Wichita State of being "on the list of all time top cheaters." I've been following them since the 1970s, and have never heard anything about them committing "major NCAA violations." I hope it's not true, and since you didn't provide any links or citations to back up that claim, I won't take it at face value, for now.

By using a casual/slang term "busted" and not providing any supporting documentation or links to suggested that various AAC schools have committed major violations of the type that 80% of the P5 schools have been demonstrably punished for committing, you haven't made an even slightly convincing case. Documents, please. Links, please, if you expect people to believe these things, other than SMU, UConn, and Memphis, which are public knowledge.

BTW, wouldn't you agree that SMU's punishments have been "proportional?' Even you admit that they got the death penalty, which is about as severe a sanction as there is. I wouldn't have suggested that Ohio State had gotten away with multiple major offenses with just a tap on the wrist if the NCAA had instituted the death penalty against them, as they did to SMU.

When it comes to SMU, you kind of made my case for me. Just sayin'....

.

Having said these things, do you deny the point of the article, which is that - on average - the P5 conference schools have been four times as likely to have been punished for "major" NCAA rule violations as non-P5 schools have been?

If you are trying to deny that, you can look up the data source, which is linked in the article that I provided a link for. You, and anyone else who wants to, can check those numbers and see if they add up.

.

BTW, are you still trying to maintain that UConn should be on the list of NCAA "blue blood" BB schools?

.

This is an academic discussion, as far as I'm concerned. If your science is better than mine, I invite you to prove it.

Bye for now...... 04-bolt
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2020 01:23 PM by jedclampett.)
09-17-2020 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,725
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1628
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #78
RE: College Basketball Tiers
Personal means attacking someone, not pointing out things about schools. You need to chill and quit taking things so personally.

And I didn't say anything about your school, Temple. I don't have anything at all against the AAC, just pointing out the hypocrisy of your post.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/4289...ts-to-hold

And Memphis was on the top 10 list of major NCAA violations. I didn't remember them being there. Now this list is several years old, but nobody is racking up a more than one or two majors in a few years, so its still relevant.
#1. SMU
Tied for #6 to #10 Memphis, Wichita St.
Now #3 through 10 were tied with 7 major violations, but the author ranked #3-#5 higher because of the severity of the major violation.
09-17-2020 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WhoseHouse? Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,234
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 190
I Root For: UH
Location:
Post: #79
RE: College Basketball Tiers
How can one person type so much and say so little. Completely derailed this thread.
(This post was last modified: 09-17-2020 02:33 PM by WhoseHouse?.)
09-17-2020 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Carolina_Low_Country Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,316
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 89
I Root For: Go Pirates
Location: ENC
Post: #80
RE: College Basketball Tiers
(09-17-2020 09:36 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 11:14 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 09:26 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  
(09-16-2020 08:17 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  What I would hope, in a world where everyday people want to discourage cheating of that magnitude, would be that their program would go through a decade without top notch recruiting. Truthfully, since they violated recruiting rules for a decade, I think that justice would have been served the NCAA should have put some sort of limits on their recruiting for another decade.

You seem to feel pretty strongly about UConn. What say you about being in a conference with SMU, the continued leader in NCAA All-Time in infractions? Or Memphis, a top-10 program in infractions? Both have those programs have had seasons eliminated, postseason bans, probation periods that have occurred across several decades.

What would have the AAC have received in TV money without UConn? Without UConn the (then) AAC was literally no different than C-USA with Temple. The $1.7 million received would have been like a pot of gold had they not been in that grouping. And, without UConn, the AAC doesn't get to say it has a $1 billion TV deal.

AAC fans holding a grudge against UConn is nothing more than sour grapes. The AAC programs increased their brand values and associations thanks to a relationship with UConn. Similarly, UConn used the war chest exit fess to temporarily sustain pre-AAC spending and costs as a power conference program. Both benefited from the other in the near and long run.

The point that was raised about Ohio State, Penn State, and UConn not receiving anything approaching sufficiently proportional sanctions to dissuade future violations would apply, equally to any of the other schools that have violated the NCAA rules and have gotten away with little more than a mild slap or "tap" on the wrist.

Indeed, their administrators might well have walked away from such absurdly mild sanctions, humming the tune "It hurts so good."


Data printed below illustrate that NCAA violations have been so rampant among the P5 universities that the sanctions applied with the intention of reducing the amount of violations in the future have been totally ineffective. At this point, the NCAA has been completely feckless in trying to rein in the recurrent violations by the P5 universities.

By wantonly flouting the NCAA rules, the P5 universities have made it clear that they are not only richer and more powerful, but that they are also shameless and indifferent about being caught, repeateadly for tolerating severe violations of rules developed to promote good sportsmanship and a level playing field for all teams.



Despite having all of the remarkable privileges that their A5 (autonomy) status provides, the P5 schools have been several times more likely than the non-P5 schools to commit verifiable NCAA rules violation in the past decade (see data below).

Although a much smaller percentage of non-P5 schools have committed such violations since 2000, perhaps the time has come to label the P5 as not only being the "autonomous" (A5) and the "powers" (P5), but also as the "cheaters" (C5).


According to a 2016 report published at insidehighered.com:

"More than half the members of the Power Five conferences committed major violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules in the last decade, an Inside Higher Ed analysis shows."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...ast-decade


Moreover, the data in the article indicate that more than 3/4 of the P5 schools were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations between 2000 and 2016:

"Inside Higher Ed reviews of NCAA data found that 54 institutions in the FBS (or Division I-A, as it used to be called) were guilty of major violations in the 2000s..."

In percentage terms, 83% of the P5 schools were sanctioned/punished for major violations by the NCAA between 2000 and 2016.


Interestingly, only 19% of the non-P5 D1 Colleges and Universities were sanctioned by the NCAA between 2006 and 2016, according to data reported in the article.[/b]

The article reports that all 14 (100%) Big 10 schools and 8 (80%) of the Big 12 schools - - including Oklahoma and Ohio State (each sanctioned for three different sets or types of major violations) - - were found to have committed the most NCAA violations between 2006 and 2016.

Number of P5 schools punished by the NCAA by conference since 2006:

Big 10: 14 schools (100%; documented in NCAA database)
Big 12: 8 schools (80%; documented in NCAA database)
PAC 12: 6 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
SEC: 7 schools (50%; documented in NCAA database)
ACC: 7 schools (The conference total from 2006 to 2016 is not specified in the article, but ACC schools that been sanctioned since 2000 have included: FSU, GT, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and UNC).

The sum total is 48 P5 schools, indicates that 73.8% of the P5 universities have been sanctioned/punished by the NCAA for violations by the NCAA since 2006.

The ratio of sanctioned P5 schools to sanctioned non-P5 D1 schools between 2006 and 2016 (including reports that there were 7 sanctioned AAC schools) is:

P5 schools: 83%

Non-P5 D1 schools: 19%

83%/19% = 4.37

Summary:

The percentage of P5 schools that were sanctioned for major NCAA rules violations was four times greater than the corresponding percentage of non-P5 D1 schools.

Temple was busted in 2007 for unethical conduct and impermissible financial aid. UCF has been busted twice violations in the past decade. In 2010, it was impermissible calls and text messaging. Then again, in 2012, it was lack of institutional control, failure to monitor and improper recruiting. In 2009, Memphis was busted for unethical conduct, improper recruiting and extra benefits (and this article was from 2016, so it doesn't even reference the entire Wiseman fiasco). SMU was busted twice in 2011 and 2015 for impermissible texts, academic fraud and unethical conduct. Cincinnati was busted in 2007 for impermissible recruiting calls. East Carolina was busted in 2011 for academic fraud. Last year, Houston had academic misconduct and was put on probation too. Over half of the AAC has been found with major violations in the past two decades (as referenced by this article). Beyond that, SMU had the death penalty, Tulane had a major point shaving scandal, Memphis had major violations in the 1980's.

Again, you seem to be selectively highlighting the P5, or A5, as you call it, while disregarding the known "cheating" occurrences from within your own conference.

If anything, the AAC programs, historically, cheat just as much as the P5, so they are - in this regard - very much a power conference.

I wouldn't say ECU was major. A few tennis and baseball players were having people write papers for them. Something that probably happens at every school in the general student body. The true Academic Fraud was UNC that went on for decades with fake classes, etc. ECU was not ECU it was the a few student-athletes, UNC was the actual school and athletic department. Devil is in the details
09-17-2020 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.