Pac-10 not faring so well in ESPN's Prestige rankings
by schubert69 on Jul 22, 2008 11:50 AM PDT
Email
PrintSo far...
T-109. California
T-115. Oregon
T-124. Washington
T-132. USC
T-181. Arizona State
T-237. Washington State
T-241. Oregon State
That leaves only Stanford, UofA and UCLA in the top 30. To me it seems a bit surprising that the gap is that large between the top 3 teams and the bottom seven.
Any guesses as to where we (UCLA) end up? Keep in mind that the rankings only count from 1985 to the present (clearly we would be #1 if the scope of the rankings included our prior 10 titles).
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just like SI's "ranking"
This is another arbitrary cut-off. ESPN has made no effort to hide its painfully obvious love for Duke and the ACC. I suspect that when all is said-and-done the ACC will finish #1 and #2 (Duke and UNC). What a big shock from the WWL!
What a shocker
WWL’s final “prestige” rankings are out and their top 10 look like this:
1. Duke
2. UNC
3. Kansas
4. Kentucky
5. Arizona
6. Connecticut
7. UCLA
8. UNLV
9. Syracuse
10. Georgetown
What a big shock that ACC and WWL darlings Duke and UNC finished #1 and #2 (as I predicted they would). The Mildcats finishing above us? What a fucking joke. A school whose only run of success is thanks to Lavin sinking the Bruins?
Again, no surprise from WWL, but for all of the smart-asses from schools “ranked” above the Bruins, I have only one thing to say to you:
11.
Call us when you can even come close.
Arbitrary
I don’t think this is an arbitrary cut-off (since the NCAA Tournament field expanded to 64 teams that year, and this measures tournament success as a big part of its scoring). However, I do think the scoring system is arbitrary. For example, I consider having the best W-L record or 30 wins in a season to be worth more than a Sweet 16 loss. I also think that getting an NCAA tournament berth is worth more than getting an NIT berth (and so on, and so forth). They should have made it to be out of 50 points or so, so that they could assign better values to each of the categories.
It’s obvious that UCLA has the greatest legacy as a basketball (and sports) program, but I guess their intent was to show how teams have fared under the current system of college basketball and the NCAA Tournament.
GO BRUINS. HOOK 'EM HORNS.
I think the top 3 will be
Duke, Kansas and UNC (in that order)
The points system clearly favors the ACC, since it has had a tournament longest. Duke has won 10 ACC tournament titles since ‘85, and that adds 30 points to their score. Meanwhile the Pac-10 has only ever had 11 tournaments.
The way I understand the points system...
... if your conference does not have a conference tournament then the regular season champ would also get the points that would have been awarded to the Conference tourney champ.
Top 10
My predictions:
1- Duke (3 titles, 10 Final 4s)
2-UNC (2 titles, approx 8 Final 4s)
3-Kansas (1 title, 5 Final 4s, tons of Big 12 championships)
4-Kentucky (2 titles)
5-Arizona
6-Indiana
7-UCLA
8-UConn
9-Michigan State
10-Syracuse
Barely on the outside: Arkansas, Louisville, Texas?, Florida, Georgetown
Scout boards
I’ve looked at the Kansas board, and they’ve done the math for themselves and UNC. They’re pretty confident they’ll be ahead, especially since they’ve actually won two championships (‘88 and ‘08) and they might have more Final Fours too.
by SuperBruinMan on Jul 24, 2008 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
