A Better Way to Measure "Best All Time Programs"

[roy]

pineapple said:

The results I arrive at using their data and your scoring table are the same as yours for the top 4: 1) Stanford, 2) Nebraska, 3) UCLA, 4) Hawaii. (Whats interesting is that I think Hawaii has a winning record over all three teams.)

Close, but Hawaii does not have a winning record against Nebraska. But Hawaii does have a winning record against Stanford and UCLA.

[pineapple]

What is it? thanks. I knew about UCLA and Stanford, but wasn't sure about Nebraska.

[lilred]

pineapple said:

What is it? thanks. I knew about UCLA and Stanford, but wasn't sure about Nebraska.

But posted it as fact...as usual.

NU leads 6-4 BTW

[pineapple]

Dammit, lireriding hood, I said "I think." You sure act so dam insecure. I want facts, nothing else. Reason I accpet Huskers postion at #3.

[pineapple]

, #4 ;D

[pineapple]

Typos- #2.

[pineapple]

Also, notice that I pointed out that LBSU should be ahead up there to, not where the original rankings had placed them. ANd sure enough, the amended measure moved them up where they belong. LBSU was Hawaii's arch rival in the old BW conference. But I will give credit where its due.

[pineapple]

BTW, I think this project is going in the right direction. Saltnpepper is doing a good job.

[pineapple]

Sorry, ???There was a calculation error. With correction, UCLA comes above Nebraska using instances of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th places. The following is subject to check by lilred: www.cvu.com/history.aspx?season=women

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
Standford 6 6 3 1 16 35.56%
UCLA 3 4 3 1 11 24.44%
Nebraska 3 3 4 0 10 22.22%
Hawaii 3 2 3 0 8 17.78%
Total 15 15 13 2 45 100.00%

Weighted finishes (1st=16, 2nd=8, 3rd=4, 4th= 2)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total %
Standford 96 48 12 2 158 37.98%
UCLA 48 32 12 2 94 22.60%
Nebraska 48 24 16 0 88 21.15%
Hawaii 48 16 12 0 76 18.27%
Total 240 120 52 4 416 100.00%


Weights are needed in general to separate 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place finishes. But in this case, without weights, i.e., giving the same score of 1 to all four place finishes, as can be seen, the results are the same.

As the above will demonstrate, even if Nebraska had lost to Stanford in 2006, it would still be ranked a few points above Hawaii.

I'm sure lilred will scrutinize this with a fine tooth comb. I will stand corrected if I am in error again.

The beauty of this instrument is that it provides us with an objective frame of reference whenever we wish to make comparisons. It can show us the top programs according to defined periods.

It can show us trends. Stanford sits way above all other schools. What must be done to topple it and the period of time needed? Or can Hawaii afford to be mediocre next season and continue to be ranked in the top 4? The instrument could give us answers. It is simple yet tells the correct story because it simply defines what is being majored.

However, it's still need to be tested further. Agreement on definition of "Top," "Best," etc., on all terms that can be misleading, should be reached, as well as on additional measures, such as number of wins in a season. A team with 30 wins in the regular season, for example, may not advance to the sweet 16, while a team with 7 losses may win the title (Didn't Satnford do something like this?). Perhaps additonal factoring in of these can be made. But it can get sticky.

Furthermore, if the intrument is intended eventually to have the capacity of profiling and ranking all 187 NCAA schools, the critieria would need to take in sweet 16 appearances, as well as 1st and 2nd round appearances. The criteria might even have to delineate down to confrences titles and even standings in the respective conferences. But for the present effort, I think arriving at the top 10 or 25 teams would suffice.


Ok, SaltNPepper, keep working! ;D

[Gorf]

Of course, now you have to weight matches played in the Final Four in each team's home state and more so in their own home city / town, and still more on their own home court.

[pineapple]

That would be ideal, Gorf. If SaltnPepper can accomplish that, he will have one heck of a sophisticated measuring instrument, for sure! And possibly all contending schools will say "you host the final 4," "no, you do," "no, no, it's your turn!" ;D

[Wolfgang]

You should weigh the numbers based on hometowns of the players on the team. The further away a player is from the school, the more points the team gets; the closer a player is, the less points. Distinguishes the elite from the regional.

Thanks, in advance.

[Wolfgang]

Also, the volleyball budget should be factored in as well. Nothing says "elite" better than $$$. It's even better than W's and L's.

Thanks, in advance.

[OverAndUnder]

With a negative correlation to W-L record, to reward those who do more with less.