Comments on: Breaking Down ESPN’s Prestige Rankings

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:22:32 +0000

You forgot to mention the Gators in the Championship Game in 2000. That is a total of four (4) Final Four appearances since 1994 and of course, 2 NCs. Not bad for a mediocre basketball program!!!!

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:08:48 +0000

I love how all the talking heads immediately go after the non BCS schools as overrated. The ESPN prestige rankings award teams for continued success not flash in the pan success. Xavier is a team that the BCS followers love to through under the bus. Florida was irrelevant until Billy Donovan showed up on campus. ,they have won two titles and made another final 4, but before Donovan got there they sucked. You can not have it both ways, this is a ranking system that is over a 24 year period, what Florida has been relevant since 1997.

Also the grip about conference championships is bogus. If Xavier was in the ACC they would have better facilities, coaching, recruits, etc. Also non BCS teams do not have the luxury being in the polls all year because of pollsters opinions. I’m sure a lot of people do not mind that Gonzaga is in the top 25 but Xavier is not the media darling who ESPN is in love with.

All in all these Prestige rankings are a joke, and only really matters if you are in the top 10. Prestige is based on where you live, what conference you are in, and your personal opinion of a team. I doubt recruits are going to look at this as a basis for making their decision.

By: rtmsf

rtmsf — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:01:33 +0000

Aaron, don’t consider it nitpicking, that’s exactly what we wanted when we put the criteria up for public comment. We weren’t aware there have been so many 30+ win seasons. Maybe that’s something we need to rethink.

Good points about the conference titles as well. We’re still trying to figure out a fair way to do that.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:53:11 +0000

Not trying to nitpick, but the 30 win seasons aren’t quite as rare as you think. Since 1999 (that is, in the last 10 years) there have been 31 different schools with 30 win seasons and a total of 51 such seasons (so around 5 a year).

In terms of the rankings, balancing the conferences titles is the trickiest aspect. Teams probably should be rewarded prestige points for winning lesser conferences (as opposed to finishing in the middle of the pack in major conferences); however, mediocre teams in big conferences get far more exposure than good teams in mediocre conferences.

By: nvr1983

nvr1983 — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:34:17 +0000

While you probably could call me a Duke shill (and the pictures in this article would support your claim), I think it is ridiculous to suggest that anybody other than Duke could be considered the most prestigious program of the era.

After looking through the brackets since 1985, Kansas hasn’t done as poorly as I remembered, but my memory may be unduly influenced by the choke jobs under Roy Williams and the consecutive pathetic opening round losses a few years ago. My issue with Kansas is their performance in the mid-90s (with your favorite coach Roy Williams). They Jayhawks results in the tournament during that stretch makes this Duke group look pretty good in comparison. The combination of losing in the 2nd round or Sweet 16 as a #1 or #2 seed (particularly the Jacque Vaughn teams) and several bids as a 6 seed or lower make it hard for me to put Kansas above Duke as the most prestigious program.

Duke and Kansas are essentially tied in the conference championship/30-win seasons although I would argue that the ACC is a much tougher conference to win than the Big 8/12 during this era. Duke has the edge in national championships. Yes, 3-2 is close, but national championships are what define your program. Duke opens up a gap with a big edge in the number of tournament wins (69-58), AAs (almost as many 1st teamers as Kansas has on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd team combined), and top 10 picks (11-5, Duke).

That said Kansas might have a legit claim to the #1 program if they hadn’t lost to Bucknell and Bradley in the first round in back-to-back years and been put on probation immediately after they won the 1988 national title.

Re: AAs and HOFers at Kansas. Who would you be referring to? UNC has the edge on Kansas with AAs at 17-13. HOFers coming out of Kansas in this era? Sorry, but the only guy who has a shot is Paul Pierce (aka The Kobe Killer) and even he is a stretch (coming from a Boston Celtics fan who wears a Pierce jersey to every Celtics game). Perhaps you are referring to the other NBA HOFers Kansas has produced during this era (Manning, LaFrentz, Gooden, Hinrich, Pritchard, Randall, Ostertag, Pollard, Vaughn, Robertson, Chenowith, and Simien)? I would actually put UNC’s group (check http://rushthecourt.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/nba-draft-picks-by-school-1949-2008/) ahead of that even if I consider Pierce better than anybody UNC has produced during this era.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:15:31 +0000

Nice breakdown of ESPNs rankings, I think some of their criteria is a bit flawed and I would have done the rankings a bit differently.

My only bone to pick with you is that you said…”Kansas historically underperforms in the tournament.” While I won’t argue that KU has experienced some upsets….to say they have historically underperformed is just plain incorrect.

You don’t have the 3rd most tourney wins of the 64 team era (since 1985) if you’ve “historically underperformed”. KU trails only Duke and UNC (by 3 wins) in tourney wins in the modern era.

I If KU underperforms…then almost every other program in the country hugely underperforms….because KU has been better than just about everyone else in the modern tourney era.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:53:46 +0000

Duke hasn’t exactly been red hot in the tourney since 2000 and freaking UNC has a 8 win season in that time span. Kansas, who has been an upset vitim, has been consistent since 83-84, including 7 Final Fours and 2 National Titles. Combine that with being the winningest team in the 90’s, multiple Elite 8’s, All American’s, Hall of Famers, and totally dominating their conference, it’s easy to see why they were number 2. In fact, if this was computed from, say, 1990, KU very well would be number 1.