ESPN/Sagarin ranked OU the #20 Basketball Program

[OU918]

of all time. Other notables included 1) Kentucky
2) UCLA
3) Kansas
4) UNC
5) Indiana
7) Duke
9) Ohio State
18) Stoolwater A&M
20) OU
47) Texas
66) Tulsa
118) Oral Roberts

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

 

[OUsky]

Two of the last three decades we came in 12th. Nice :clap

 

[playmakr]

UNC> Kansas

This guy must be using his computers again, because would a human say that Kansas has a better program than UNC? Outside of Larryville?

OU> OSU

Edit: I see he is using some really weird ranking system. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge with computer programming and alien rules can fill me in with how this works.

 

[OU918]

UNC> Kansas

OU> OSU

I agree wholeheartedly. :jcapel

 

[OUsky]

UNC> Kansas

OU> OSU

This.

 

[tomkar98]

UNC> Kansas

This guy must be using his computers again, because would a human say that Kansas has a better program than UNC? Outside of Larryville?

OU> OSU

Edit: I see he is using some really weird ranking system. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge with computer programming and alien rules can fill me in with how this works.

Yep

 

[DSMok1]

UNC> Kansas

This guy must be using his computers again, because would a human say that Kansas has a better program than UNC? Outside of Larryville?

OU> OSU

Edit: I see he is using some really weird ranking system. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge with computer programming and alien rules can fill me in with how this works.

Basically, I guess they decided that the only parameter could be wins, losses, and scoring margin (like in all Sagarin rankings for every sport). That means that "titles" are not included at all. Just wins and scoring.

Which I guess is a decent evaluator of overall strength of the program, but it's not about just a strong overall program, but actually reaching the peaks.

In other words, this ranking would have a team that finishes in 3 years 10th-10th-10th as higher than a team that finishes 40th-1st-10th in those 3 years. It rewards consistency, rather than reaching the heights... It doesn't even weight tournament wins more heavily, as far as I can see... just a standard "computer ranking"

 

[playmakr]

Basically, I guess they decided that the only parameter could be wins, losses, and scoring margin (like in all Sagarin rankings for every sport). That means that "titles" are not included at all. Just wins and scoring.

Which I guess is a decent evaluator of overall strength of the program, but it's not about just a strong overall program, but actually reaching the peaks.

In other words, this ranking would have a team that finishes in 3 years 10th-10th-10th as higher than a team that finishes 40th-1st-10th in those 3 years. It rewards consistency, rather than reaching the heights... It doesn't even weight tournament wins more heavily, as far as I can see... just a standard "computer ranking"

Thanks.

So, in other words, it's fairly worthless.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

Very wothless. All oSu has over OU in basketball is two titles that are dubious at best. By any other indicator OU is the better program...and yet in a ranking system that DOES NOT include titles, OU is still behind? Whatever, I almost feel like we are slighting ourselves comparing OU to oSu basketball the disparity is so great.

 

[DenverSooner]

That entire list is odd. In what world is Michigan better than Michigan State in Basketball. Possibly in the 1980s but not the 1990s, not this decade not the 1970s. I don't know what happened before the 70s but it is ridiculous to rank Michigan above Michigan State. I grew up in Detroit through junior high school and I am not even sure Michigan alumni would do that.

How about USC at 25 in front of Goergetown 42, Arizona at 49, Uconn at 54, Pitt at 60. I guess I have a lot to learn about USC basketball in the first half of the 20th centery because I sure hell don't know any reason to rank USC above any of those programs.

 

[Sid]

edit: I see he is using some really weird ranking system. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge with computer programming and alien rules can fill me in with how this works.

gigo.

 

[playmakr]

gigo.

Agreed.

 

[DSMok1]

That entire list is odd. In what world is Michigan better than Michigan State in Basketball. Possibly in the 1980s but not the 1990s, not this decade not the 1970s. I don't know what happened before the 70s but it is ridiculous to rank Michigan above Michigan State. I grew up in Detroit through junior high school and I am not even sure Michigan alumni would do that.

How about USC at 25 in front of Goergetown 42, Arizona at 49, Uconn at 54, Pitt at 60. I guess I have a lot to learn about USC basketball in the first half of the 20th centery because I sure hell don't know any reason to rank USC above any of those programs.

They are not rating more recent decades more heavily--so the 40s count as much as the 2000's. It's an overall rating.

 

[soonergrad09]

Getting beaten by .5 of a point means the debate of better basketball school in OK should rage on. That's not that much.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

Ha Ha...that there is even a debate is solely due to the delusion of oSu fans. When feel the need to add the name "Historic" to your basketball facility, you know you are grasping for tradition.

 

[playmakr]

Getting beaten by .5 of a point means the debate of better basketball school in OK should rage on. That's not that much.

There is no debate. A circle jerk is not a debate.