Kenpom aggregate CBB rankings (1997-present)

[Goo Punch 4275]

 

[Goo Punch 4275]

sorry, was having trouble getting these posted last night.

https://thespun.com/acc/duke-blue-devils/kenpom-ranked-the-best-college-basketball-teams-since-1997/amp

 

College basketball is still a few months away from returning, but that doesn’t mean it’s too early to talk hoops. With the 2019 season in the distant future, Ken Pomeroy put together an interesting project and released his rankings for the best programs – since 1997.

 

Pomeroy is known for putting together advanced statistics for almost any category in college hoops. His latest work is yet another example of his expertise.

It’s hard to argue against the teams placed in Pomeroy’s top 10, but the order should certainly spark a debate.

According to Pomeroy, the best program in college basketball since 1997 is Duke. After all, Mike Krzyzewski has led the team to three national championships during that span.

Here is the top 10 from Ken Pomeroy:

 

1. Duke
2. Kentucky
3. Kansas
4. North Carolina
5. Arizona
6. Michigan State
7. Villanova
8. Louisville
9. Florida
10. Texas

It’s not too surprising of a list toward the top as the trio of Duke, Kentucky and Kansas is considered basketball royalty. Seeing Arizona in the No. 5 spot is interesting considering it hasn’t made a Final Four appearance since 2001.

The full list from KenPom was shared on his Twitter account.

 

 

 

[DanRydell 799]

I know they've been bad the last 5 years or so but that still seems really low for UConn.

[conVINCEd 21474]

20 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

I know they've been bad the last 5 years or so but that still seems really low for UConn.

I know we’ve been real bad for the last 5 years or so, but that still seems really high for us.

[Jhawk 1075]

Nova seems a tad high too in my opinion. I thought UCLA would be higher and maybe Maryland/cuse as well. I don’t know anything about UT basketball prior to the Mouton years but the last several years have to hit hard on this ranking. Which means if UT was even serviceable over the last 3-5 years you’d be ranked top 7ish??? 

I think that goes to show that the consistency of the top 4-5 schools is just unreal compared to the rest. 

[Goo Punch 4275]

1 hour ago, conVINCEd said:

I know we’ve been real bad for the last 5 years or so, but that still seems really high for us.

very few programs had a 13 year run equal to/better than the one we had from 1999-2011. we don't have the hardware of the teams above us (mostly hoops blue bloods), but we also had a longer sustained run of success during this time period than most any team below us. 

[SimonBolivar 10962]

Last place was Grambilng, but I really thought it would be Savannah State.

Big 12-

3.) Kansas

10.) Texas

26.) Oklahoma

28.) West Virginia

34.) Oklahoma State

39.) Iowa State

49.) Baylor

52.) Kansas State

60.) Texas Tech

87.) TCU

 

Other Texas-

58.) Texas A&M

89.) SMU

92.) Houston

122.) UTEP

180.) SFA

196.) Rice

206.) Sam Houston State

213.) North Texas

235.) UTSA

247.) Texas State

253.) A&M- Corpus

273.) Lamar

310.) Texas Southern

331.) ACU

333.) Incarnate Word

342.) Houston Baptist

344.) Prairie View

[HookEm 2472]

This also illustrates how tough the Big-12 is.  Nine out of ten are ranked in the top 60.  That means just about every team in our conference is EXPECTING to make the NCAA tournament every year.  There is not a single easy game within our conference.  And the rankings don't really do justice to the improvement that TCU has made.  And Tech.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

On 8/11/2019 at 10:39 AM, longhornmatt said:

Connecticut has 4 national championships during that period and really only became bad the last few years.  Most of the years in the sample had them playing in a really tough old Big East that should have produced nice computer rankings.  I don’t understand how they would be so low.  I would have thought that they would easily be in the top 5.

how, how, how can there be a metric by which UConn is judged inferior to Indiana over the past 20 years? 

[76Jayhawk 44]

On 8/12/2019 at 10:45 AM, SwanderedTalent said:

how, how, how can there be a metric by which UConn is judged inferior to Indiana over the past 20 years? 

This does not look at championships, final fours, or anything. This looks at only your efficiency. Indiana and UConn's effeciency ratings over the last 20ish years have been roughly even.

Going back to 2002 when you can actually see the data posted, UConn has finished in the top 10 4 times in efficiency. The top 25 3 more times. They have been outside the top 25 10 or 11 times (i lost track) and outside the top 50 7 times.

We all rememeber the years UConn was awesome because they were unforgettable seasons but man they feast or famine. Indiana has a similar profile over the course of the 20 years.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

9 minutes ago, 76Jayhawk said:

This does not look at championships, final fours, or anything. This looks at only your efficiency. Indiana and UConn's effeciency ratings over the last 20ish years have been roughly even.

then it is useless in aggregate or in ranking programs comprising 20+ discrete teams

It is meaningless to say Indiana's Kenpom is marginally better than UConn's the past 22 years. the results on the court speak for themselves.

Edited August 16, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[Goo Punch 4275]

7 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

then it is useless in aggregate or in ranking programs comprising 20+ discrete teams

It is meaningless to say Indiana's Kenpom is marginally better than UConn's the past 22 years. the results on the court speak for themselves.

it was posted somewhere else on this site, but KenPom was rating the "top programs", as in overall programs in all aspects- so things like recruiting rankings and conference affiliation were taken into account and these hurt UCONN despite them winning 4 titles. it also helped Texas because of Shaka's top flight recruiting, shitty team's notwithstanding.

 it was also pointed out that Texas finished #5 in the final KenPom of 2011, and therefore wasn't really penalized for going out early getting boned by some idiot referee in the tourney. ipso facto where a team finishes in the kenpom efficiency ratings is more important than tourney success, which does make sense.

Edited August 17, 2019 by Goo Punch

[Goo Punch 4275]

@SwanderedTalent here you go:

https://247sports.com/college/texas/Article/Texas-Longhorns-basketball-top-10-programs-KenPom-134392342/ 

 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

14 hours ago, Goo Punch said:

it was posted somewhere else on this site, but KenPom was rating the "top programs", as in overall programs in all aspects- so things like recruiting rankings and conference affiliation were taken into account and these hurt UCONN despite them winning 4 titles. it also helped Texas because of Shaka's top flight recruiting, shitty team's notwithstanding.

 it was also pointed out that Texas finished #5 in the final KenPom of 2011, and therefore wasn't really penalized for going out early getting boned by some idiot referee in the tourney. ipso facto where a team finishes in the kenpom efficiency ratings is more important than tourney success, which does make sense.

I guess what I'm saying is twofold:

1) I don't really see why anyone would care if they were ranked significantly higher than another program in KenPom over 22 years if it's based on their efficiency. Pretend you're talking to a UConn fan, you're basically saying "sure you have four national titles, but we've played a more efficient form of basketball over that time".

2) I don't really see how you could rank Texas or Indiana ahead of UConn if it's based on the rest of the picture. "Yeah well we recruited better than you and played in a tougher conference" is not a very good rejoinder to "we won four national titles". 

I am not particularly interested in "power rankings" or advanced metrics when they're applied retroactively to rank things in a way that contravenes wins and losses and especially championships. They fit some sports and some aspects of certain sports better than others.  

[Jhawk 1075]

Well this isn't really a debate about what program is better.  It is an article posted about the history of KenPom rankings.  If it was all about efficiencies in naming the best teams then we wouldn't have bowl games, CFB playoffs, or the NCAA tourney.  Championships isn't the subject here, it is what teams have played well over 22 years.  You're getting out of the scope of the conversation when talking about championships.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

17 hours ago, Jhawk said:

Well this isn't really a debate about what program is better.  It is an article posted about the history of KenPom rankings.  If it was all about efficiencies in naming the best teams then we wouldn't have bowl games, CFB playoffs, or the NCAA tourney.  Championships isn't the subject here, it is what teams have played well over 22 years.  You're getting out of the scope of the conversation when talking about championships.

Fair enough. As I think I said, I could not care less about which teams have had the best Ken Pom over 5, 10, 22, or 500 years. I find it meaningless.

Edited August 20, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[immortal13 4059]

4 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

Fair enough. As I think I said, I could not care less about which teams have had the best Ken Pom over 5, 10, 22, or 500 years. I find it meaningless.

It is

[Vic Mackey 47435]

On 8/16/2019 at 1:33 PM, 76Jayhawk said:

This does not look at championships, final fours, or anything. This looks at only your efficiency. Indiana and UConn's effeciency ratings over the last 20ish years have been roughly even.

Going back to 2002 when you can actually see the data posted, UConn has finished in the top 10 4 times in efficiency. The top 25 3 more times. They have been outside the top 25 10 or 11 times (i lost track) and outside the top 50 7 times.

We all rememeber the years UConn was awesome because they were unforgettable seasons but man they feast or famine. Indiana has a similar profile over the course of the 20 years.

I will take feast or famine over long sustained efficiency and have jack shit to show for it i.e. Texas. I mean not even one single national championship game appearance for Texas. I will gladly switch accomplishments with most of the teams below us in the top 20. Not all but most. Hell Butler even made the Finals two years in a row. Yeah Texas was consistent but would you rather be consistent with zero to show for it or be a heavy hitter for a few years here and there but actually have the hardware? As a fan, you take the hardware every time. 

[immortal13 4059]

3 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

I will take feast or famine over long sustained efficiency and have jack shit to show for it i.e. Texas. I mean not even one single national championship game appearance for Texas. I will gladly switch accomplishments with most of the teams below us in the top 20. Not all but most. Hell Butler even made the Finals two years in a row. Yeah Texas was consistent but would you rather be consistent with zero to show for it or be a heavy hitter for a few years here and there but actually have the hardware? As a fan, you take the hardware every time. 

This. Who gives a flying fuck about some "sustained period of efficiency"? It means nothing. 

 

 

[Vic Mackey 47435]

1 hour ago, immortal13 said:

This. Who gives a flying fuck about some "sustained period of efficiency"? It means nothing. 

 

 

Exactly. In other words, you were consistently never good enough to win anything. For players and coaches, there is more to it than just winning it all because they put in all the work and effort and it is about the whole experience of the team but as fans, we don't experience any of that so it should always be about the hardware. If Texas could have made the Final 4 more than once, it would look maybe a little better. But we have as many Final 4s as VCU and George Mason and less than Butler. And how in the hell is Gonzaga below Texas? They are the definition of consistency much longer than Texas and actually went to a national championship game.

 

[Jhawk 1075]

2 hours ago, Vic Mackey said:

I will take feast or famine over long sustained efficiency and have jack shit to show for it i.e. Texas. I mean not even one single national championship game appearance for Texas. I will gladly switch accomplishments with most of the teams below us in the top 20. Not all but most. Hell Butler even made the Finals two years in a row. Yeah Texas was consistent but would you rather be consistent with zero to show for it or be a heavy hitter for a few years here and there but actually have the hardware? As a fan, you take the hardware every time. 

I’d give a lot for another title or two, but the truth is that 99% of the time it isn’t a team that gets hot and wins a championship. You have to be a good offensive team and a good defensive team to be in the best position to win a title. These metrics get you a seat at the table as a player. Then there are a million other things, including dumb luck, that get you through the tourney. But without an efficient team you might not even be in the tourney. Once again, championships are everything, but if you’re in the tournament 22 times in a row you have a lot better chance of getting one than if you’re in it 5 times and get hot and get to the F4 once. 

[Machinator 32099]

The irony of this discussion, of course, is that Shaka Smart is the ultimate feast-or-famine coach based on his results this decade.

[Jhawk 1075]

Which is the exact reason you don’t want feast or famine. Unless your definition of feast is 4 titles like UConn. I’d take almost all of their ride except for the obvious issues they are having now. 4 titles outweighs one title, 3 championship game appearances, 5 final fours, 15 conference championships, and 22 tourneys all day every day.

The only thing I don’t like about the roller coaster model is that you never know when you are going to be up or for how long you are going to be down. I wouldn’t take Indiana’s situation for anything in the world. 

Edited August 20, 2019 by Jhawk

[immortal13 4059]

51 minutes ago, Machinator said:

The irony of this discussion, of course, is that Shaka Smart is the ultimate feast-or-famine coach based on his results this decade.

Seems like mostly fasting to me

[Vic Mackey 47435]

7 hours ago, Jhawk said:

I’d give a lot for another title or two, but the truth is that 99% of the time it isn’t a team that gets hot and wins a championship. You have to be a good offensive team and a good defensive team to be in the best position to win a title. These metrics get you a seat at the table as a player. Then there are a million other things, including dumb luck, that get you through the tourney. But without an efficient team you might not even be in the tourney. Once again, championships are everything, but if you’re in the tournament 22 times in a row you have a lot better chance of getting one than if you’re in it 5 times and get hot and get to the F4 once. 

I am talking hindsight, though. We are ranking these teams in hindsight. Sure, if you tell me my team will make the tournament 22 times in a row, I'll take that up front. Now if you let me peek at the end results and see it only resulted in one single Final 4 (that was a loss), I will gladly take another team who did not make it nearly as often but the times they did, they did much more with it. You're a KU fan and have hardware so it's hard to compare. We Texas fans have no idea what it is like to even be in the national championship game, much less win one. I'll gladly take what Virginia and Maryland have did. They won a title but outside of that, haven't did much. That one title stays with you for a very long time at a program like Texas basketball. The 2005 national title is still relished for Texas football to this day. I am not being greedy at all. I don't want UNC, Duke's Kansas' Kentucky success. I just want to witness one title.

It's kind of like the Marlins in baseball. Only 2 playoff appearances in their franchise. Both wild cards. But they are 2/2 in collecting World Series rings both years. That is probably the most extreme definition of feast of famine. But if you ask would I trade it with the Rangers history, who have many more playoff appearances and much more "consistent" but have zero rings, I absolutely would in hindsight. It is a no brainer for me.