I wrote an article analyzing the past nine NCAA tournament champions a few weeks ago. However, due to some suggestions and more thought I decided on some different and possibly improved rankings.
To go along with the rankings in the original article, I have three more sets of rankings here that look at things slightly different.
Here are the original rankings. The rating, in parenthesis, here weights each team's average margin of victory by their average seed defeated.
1. 2001 Duke Blue Devils (2.5)
2. 2007 Florida Gators (2.36)
3. 2002 Maryland Terrapins (2.33)
4. 2000 Michigan State Spartans (2.14)
5. 2006 Florida Gators (2.09)
6. 2004 Connecticut Huskies (2)
7. 2005 North Carolina Tar Heels (1.98)
8. 2008 Kansas Jayhawks (1.77)
9. 2003 Syracuse Orangemen (1.53)
These rankings account for the strength of opponents played, but treat each champion as the same regardless of seed. The non-No.1 seeded champions do not look as good in these rankings. This may be realistic or unrealistic, but the following two ranking sets look more into that issue.
Now here are very similar rankings, except these weight teams average margin of victory with the average seed difference in games played. It is possible to have a negative seed difference (example: a No. 3 seed play a No. 1 seed would be a "-2" seed difference).
1. 2006 Florida Gators (3.43)
2. 2003 Syracuse Orangemen (3.25)
Today's Must Reads
3. 2001 Duke Blue Devils (2.94)
4. 2004 Connecticut Huskies (2.86)
5. 2007 Florida Gators (2.83)
6. 2002 Maryland Terrapins (2.8)
7. 2000 Michigan State Spartans (2.49)
8. 2005 North Carolina Tar Heels (2.31)
9. 2008 Kansas Jayhawks (2.02)
This set was much more generous to the lower seeded champions. It basically gives a No. 3 seed more credit for beating a No. 1 seed than if a No. 1 seed were to beat a No. 1 seed.
These next rankings are the same thing as above, except they ignore the first round of the tournament. I noticed that several teams were benefiting greatly from beating No. 16 seeds by 40+ points so I tried to eliminate that as a significant factor.
1. 2003 Syracuse Orangemen (8.6)
2. 2002 Maryland Terrapins (4.6)
3. 2004 Connecticut Huskies (4.2)
4. 2006 Florida Gators (4.12)
5. 2001 Duke Blue Devils (3)
6. 2000 Michigan State Spartans (2.95)
7. 2007 Florida Gators (2.8)
8. 2005 North Carolina Tar Heels (2.62)
9. 2008 Kansas Jayhawks (2.26)
It's actually remarkable that Syracuse's rating doubles nearly every other champion's rating in this set. Syracuse had a very tough road to the championship, which boosted their rankings a ton. Their average seed difference after the first round was exactly 1 because they played three teams that were seeded higher than them.
Finally, I decided to make a set of rankings totally ignoring opponents. This rating is based solely on average margin of victory. The assumption here is that each team should have relatively equivalently difficult paths to a championship. I would actually argue that this is a fairly reasonable assumption.
1. 2001 Duke Blue Devils (16.67)
2. 2006 Florida Gators (16)
3. 2000 Michigan State Spartans (15.33)
4-T. 2007 Florida Gators (14.17)
4-T. 2008 Kansas Jayhawks (14.17)
6. 2002 Maryland Terrapins (14)
7. 2005 North Carolina Tar Heels (13.83)
8. 2004 Connecticut Huskies (13.33)
9. 2003 Syracuse Orangemen (8.67)
As you may have noticed, the 2003 Syracuse team is probably the most interesting team in this rankings. In two of the polls they are at the top or near the top of the list, and they are last in the other two. This is because their main strength was beating very highly ranked (low seeded) opponents.
In general, these four polls don't agree on a whole lot. The biggest thing I noticed in common is that the 2005 UNC team and the 2008 Kansas team were probably the consensus lowest ranked champions. Beyond that, it depends on how you believe teams should be measured.
The main question is if you think the No. 3 seeds should be rewarded because they weren't seeded as favorably or if they should be treated the same as the No. 1 seeds.
I thought about consolidating the rankings into one (and still may do that in a future post) but I think I like the variety that each one gives.
I'd love to hear people's opinions on how they would rank the teams, either objectively or subjectively.
comments (11) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Oddly (or not), this past season's Kansas team looks really unimpressive. I guess, when I run the other teams' players, it's hard not to look unimpressive. That UConn team was ridiculous. Go terps.
from about 1 month ago
One of the amazing things I think is that all of these really were very good. There was no "fluke" champions for sure. I was surprised at the low ranking of the UNC team as well because they were a very talented team.
about 1 month ago
Good article. Interesting way to rate the teams. I would have put the '07 Gators atop because they seemed to be the only team that was legitimately the best the year they won it. I think so, at least.
about 1 month ago
Interesting. Good article. I think I'd go with the gators at number one too, but you explained your reasoning. Again, good read.
about 1 month ago
This would be something cool to look at with other decades as well.
from about 1 month ago
yes it would. It might be slightly more difficult to gather the data, shouldn't be too bad though. I'll try do to that. Which ranking system that I used do you think is best?
about 1 month ago
You should find a way to combine the data into one ranking
from about 1 month ago
okay I'll work on that. Thanks for your input -- I'll try to let you know when I get that.
about 1 month ago
This is a brilliant article with data and information substantiating the premise. Thank you for staying away from gutless homerism that runs rampant in the basketball section.
about 1 month ago
Here's my list. And I'm a staunch Jayhawk so I show no bias here.
1. 2001 Duke 29-4
2. 2002 Maryland 26-4
3. 2005 North Carolina 27-4
4. 2008 Kansas 30-3
5. 2007 Florida 29-5
6. 2004 Connecticut 27-6
7. 2003 Syracuse 24-5
8. 2000 Michigan St 26-7
9. 2006 Florida 27-6
from about 1 month ago
any basis for that list? Mine was not a perceptive list, but based on strictly numbers. I disagree with your bottom two -- both of those two were extremely good teams that dominated their opponents throughout the tournament.
write a new comment