The Top 100 Programs in NCAA Division I Women's Basketball: #11-25
Some wins really are better than other wins. Beating Connecticut in the NCAA Women's Basketball championship is a lot better than beating Bluebell Girls Academy in an exhibition game. But the question is then "which wins are better than which other wins?"
Not all wins are created equal
Clearly the NCAA doesn't believe that all wins are equal (except, oddly enough, in its coaching record books). In women's basketball, there's a sense that 20 wins is a benchmark number, the point on the scale where a team becomes tournament bound. That might be true if one is a power conference team, but for those that are low conference teams - the ones which are neither power conference nor mid-majors - even 20 wins won't get you a bid in the NCAA tournament.
For these less-esteemed conferences the only thing that will get you to the NCAA's grand spectacle is winning your conference tournament. Every year there's the case of the regular season champion losing in some conference tournament with the winner being a low-seeded team that barely has a .500 record - or worse. It doesn't matter. The barely above water team goes to the NCAA tournament, usually as a #15 or #16 seed, while the best team in the conference must settle for the WNIT as the price for its failure in the conference tournament.
This gives us an idea of which wins are important.
The wins that matter most
Conference championships are important, because for a lot of conferences these tournaments truly are winner-take all. A team which both won its conference tournament and made it to the NCAA tournament should receive more credit that a team that was given an at-large bid to get in.
The benchmark in the NCAA tournament is not merely getting there, but how deep one can go. Likewise, making it to the Final Four should be worth more than making it to the Elite Eight. What about the WNIT? It's sad to say it, but the WNIT is simply not as prominent as the NCAA. Our ranking system gives teams credit for getting to the WNIT, but not much more than a minimum amount no matter how deep they go. The teams in the WNIT simply aren't the best teams in the country. A WNIT championship is noteworthy and should get some extra credit, but nothing else (as for the CBI, well, try harder next year. There are some people who don't even know the WNIT exists, and there are a lot of people who don't know the CBI exists).
There are other types of wins (or non-wins) that should matter:
* Benchmark wins: People like nice round numbers. A twenty-win season is a nice thing, but truth be told, it doesn't mean as much as it used to. My current understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that an NCAA Division I team should play at least 29 games against Division I opponents. In most cases, that's winning two thirds - sometimes less - of your total season games.
College basketball is a lot like college football in that the final results of a season can be very unbalanced. Connecticut proves that going undefeated in college basketball isn't a rarity. (Try doing that in the NBA, with the longer schedule and with teams composed entirely of dominant college players.) If you're in a power conference, if you have the right resources and you hand-pick the right opponents, getting to 20 wins shouldn't be that difficult. It's certainly better than not winning 20 games, but it's not that astonishing.
Winning 30 games, however, is definitely noteworthy. There aren't that many ways one can win 30 or more games in a season. One either has to go virtually undefeated in the regular season or conference tournament, or get close to thirty wins before going deep in the NCAA tournament. Either of those accomplishments is very remarkable, and we've tried to weight that into the results.
* Losing seasons. If I'm correct in reading the historical record, the 2010-11 season for Mississippi was the worst in its history as a program. This was mentioned not to direct any specific ire towards the Rebels (Rebel Black Bears?) but rather to point out that it wouldn't have mattered if the Rebel Black Bears finished 10-19 or 1-28 or 14-15: "losing season" pretty much says it all. Just as there's a difference between winning 29 games vs. winning 30 games, there's a difference between finishing 14-15 and finishing 15-14.
If one wishes to claim that some losses are just as good as some wins - making it to the finals of some post-season tournament but not winning - that person shall be asked to name the losers from the last five NCAA women's basketball tournaments (*).
Click here for an overview of how these rankings were determined.
Programs #11-25
11. North Carolina: The Tar Heels lost two players to the second round of the WNBA Draft - F Jessica Breland and G Italee Lucas. You can complain all you want about Sylvia Hatchell's coaching style which seems closer to what the Phoenix Mercury do than anything else - North Carolina was a top ten team in scoring offense this year and made it to the ACC Championship game, losing to Duke. They then followed that with a Sweet Sixteen appearance, losing 72-65 to Stanford in the Regional Semifinals.
The Tar Heels has a nice recruiting class but they lose three starters including PG Cetera DeGraffenreid. DeGraffenreid played almost 30 minutes a game and a lot of leadership leaves with her. But in a way, Tar Heels never leave the program. Coach Sylvia Hatchell makes sure that there's at least one prominent alum on the bench. Sylvia Crawley was one such alum who is now head coach at Boston College. With Charlotte Smith departing for Elon, who will be the next former North Carolina player to make the transition into coaching?
12. Iowa State: The Cyclones are coming off their second straight Sweet Sixteen appearance and have had ten 20-win seasons over the last 15 years. Overall, they've had five Sweet Sixteen appearances and two Elite Eight appearances. They've been in the top 10 nationally in attendance for 12 straight years - and if you ever seen a game, those bodies in the seats aren't tickets given away. They averaged 9,370 players a game in Ames, Iowa last season, good for fourth in the country. (Amusing factoid: in 2009 Iowa State got a grant from the NCAA to help increase attendance - where was this unoccupied seat, behind a support beam?) That spectator support might describe why the Cyclones were 16-1 at home last year.
Unfortunately, G Kelsey Bolte is lost to graduation, and she's taking about a quarter of the Cyclone offense with her. Even so, Fennelly will try to shore up Bolte's loss with four freshmen. The only other issue Fennelly might have to deal with is treatment for a cancerous vocal cord lesion in the early part of the season.
13. Purdue: Things are looking up for Purdue -basically the entire roster returns from previous season where Boilermakers went to second round of NCAA tourney and now Purdue has the luxury of choosing between KK Houser and Courtney Moses as point guard. And even though 7,628 fans might be considered a "down" year at Purdue they still have the #8 attendance in women's basketball.
Furthermore, Mackey Arena's facilities are being upgraded, but if all Purdue had going for it was applying a new coat of varnish on an arena floor they wouldn't be a great program. They will challenge three great teams in the 2011 season - Duke on December 1st, Texas A&M on the 4th and Notre Dame on the 10th. And how many women's basketball teams cause riots when they lose? Granted, this was in 2001 but Purdue students actually rioted after the loss to Notre Dame.
F Drew Mingo recovered from the bacterial meningitis that almost took her life last year, although she now has to wear hearing aids. (She hears about at a 60 percent level in her right ear from before the illness, but her left ear hearing is severely diminished.) That didn't stop her last season, and it won't this year.
14. Rutgers: Every year, you can ask yourself two questions about the Scarlet Knights: a) who did they recruit this year, and b) who transferred out of the program?
Let's answer "a" first. Rutgers has the #3 recruiting class in the country according to Hoopgurlz.com. Three of C. Vivian Stringer's recruits were in the top 20 players of their class - G Briyona Canty, W Betnijah Laney and PG Shakena Richardson. They all have their share of national recognition, and I don't know if we should start comparing them to those three pro guys from Miami but they are very good. And Rutgers seems to get recruits at this level year after year.
So who transferred out? G Daisha Simmons and F Briana Hutchen. F Julie Pauvonic. They've lost six players to transfers since the end of the 2009 season, including Jasmine Dixon and Brooklyn Pope (seven if you count Prince's departure at the end of the junior year.) You can use either the "soft players" theory or the "demanding coach" theory, but if Rutgers had managed to keep to keep some of those players...well, who can say? Rutgers deals with loss yet again as senior F Chelsea Lee will sit out for a year due to a shoulder injury.
15. Texas: The hope in Texas was that if Gail Goestenkors didn't get them to a national championship, she'd get them within striking distance: over a 10-year span her Duke Blue Devils would make it to 10 straight Sweet Sixteens and two National Championship games.
But in the four years Goestenkors has been at Texas, the results have been disappointing (for Texas, anyway) - pedestrian Big Twelve seasons with the last three years ending with Texas booted out in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. And now the hated Aggies are the last Texas team to have a National Championship (Goestenkors is 0-11 against the Aggies while at Texas.) Texas has the #11 class according to Hoopgurlz. The Longhorns lose senior G Kathleen Nash but they still have freshman sensation G Chassidy Fussell who was Texas' leading scorer last year and member of the Big 12 All-Freshman team. They also pick up F Kayla Brewer, a transfer from South Carolina who should be eligible mid-season. Recruit PG Cassie Peoples might be the point guard Texas has been looking for.
16. Michigan State: For all four years of her tenure at Michigan State, Suzy Merchant has managed to get the Spartans into the post-season. This last season was the first time she had won 27 games and had taken Michigan State to a Big Ten Championship, but the loss to Wisconsin-Green Bay in the second round of the NCAA Tournament had to be a disappointing end to the season.
The Spartans lose four seniors this year, including three starters but keep Big 10 Defensive Player of the Year and future WNBA draft pick F Lykendra Johnson. Freshman C Madison Williams - who tore her ACL last season - should be ready to play and has picked up another inch of height along the way, moving from 6-6 to 6-7. Gatorade Michigan Girls Player of the Year F Jasmine Hines will also play next year for the first time at MSU.
17. Ohio State: Last season, I complained about Ohio State's lack of tournament oomph. The six-year string of regular season championships came to an end as Ohio State finished #5 in the conference, but rolled through the Big Ten tournament when it counted with their third straight Big Ten Championship. The Buckeyes were seeded #4 in the Dayton region and made it to the Sweet Sixteen. (Although playing a couple of games in Columbus couldn't have hurt.) Ohio State's loss to Tennessee ended an 11-game win streak.
Next year, the Buckeyes have a big hole to fill after losing #5 WNBA Draft Pick C Jantel Lavender to graduation, the only four time Big Ten Player of the Year. However, they still have PG "Psycho Sammy" Prahalis who will probably play her way into a first round WNBA draft pick. Prahalis has already broken the school's assists record as a junior, way back in February. Prahalis is great, but how do you replace those 22.8 points a game that Lavender added to the Buckeye score sheet? It must keep coach Jim Foster awake at night.
18. Louisiana State University: If you look at LSU's history, it's an impressive line of coaches. Sue Gunter. Pokey Chatman. Van Chancellor, and now Nikki Caldwell, who travels from UCLA to take over at LSU, and to be in the same conference as her alma mater, Tennessee.
Although, if you think about it, LSU's coaches haven't had great luck. Gunter was forced out of coaching by respiratory disease that claimed her life just 17 months after she took a leave of absence. Pokey Chatman resigned in scandal. Van Chancellor wasn't able to restore the magic. Although he did leave Caldwell with F Krystal Forthan, the #5 player in the country according to Hoopgurlz and a big reason LSU's incoming class of freshmen is ranked #10. UCLA vaulted to prominence under Caldwell; but there's no need to vault when you're starting at one of the best programs in the SEC to begin with.
19. Kentucky: There's a saying: "Something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue." Kentucky has simply left out the "old" and "borrowed" parts. Coach Matthew Mitchell brought the Wildcats back to 20 win seasons in just four years and picking up in the footsteps of Mickie DeMoss. Kentucky made it to a #4 seed in the Spokane region but fell to North Carolina in the second round. Mitchell's rush to success has led some to consider him a longshot candidate for replacing Pat Summitt down the road - after all, he used to be a graduate assistant at UT so he has the pedigree, and it's not like a Kentucky coach never joined the Tennessee coaching staff.
The Wildcats pick up P Samarie Walker as a transfer from UConn and G/F DeNesha Stallworth from California (Walker can start play at the end of the 2011-12 fall semester.) Both were WBCA All-Americans. Victoria Dunlap was a first-round draft pick for the Washington Mystics, and last year the Wildcats had their best attendance since 1982-83, finishing 11th in the nation. But the changes don't stop there. A new snazzy website at looks like something beyond the typical random collection of videos. Could Kentucky be the next women's basketball power?
20. Vanderbilt: For all of the Commodores accomplishments in the SEC this season - a third-place finish, another 20 win season, a 12-3 home record, the semifinals of the SEC tournament and their 12th straight NCAA touranment - the impression from Vandy fans seems to be that last season was a disappointment. They expected more.
Part of the reason was injuries. F Clair Watkins suffered a knee injury before the season even started. C Kayci Ferris was an injury redshirt that hadn't played since her junior year in high school and later withdrew from Vanderbilt. C Stephanie Holzer struggled with back spasms. G Jence Rhoads had ankle and wrist injuries. G Christina Foggie was knocked unconscious in a game against Bowling Green. Vandy expected to be the tallest, toughest so-and-sos in the SEC but spent the season in a road touring company of "M*A*S*H" instead.
This season Vanderbilt will have youth on its side. By the end of the year, only one season will graduate - reserve F Jordan Coleman - and last year's leading scorer G Jasmine Lister will begin her sophomore season in Nashville.
21. Texas Tech: The Lady Raiders galloped to a 16-1 start to last season - their best in almost ten years - but hit the wall in Big Twelve play, finishing the season 6-9. However, Texas Tech grabbed the spotlight by beating then #1-ranked Baylor in front of 10,000 fans who stormed the court after the win. Despite the late-season stumble, the Lady Raiders made it back to the NCAA tournament as a #8 seed, losing to St. John's in the opening round of the Spokane Regional.
Kristy Curry's team only loses one starter to graduation, so a return to the NCAA tournament is more than probable. The Lady Raiders might have finished in the middle of the Big Twelve pack but finished in the Top Ten nationally in attendance. Curry turned down the LSU head coaching position last spring to stay in Lubbock. With F/C Kierra Mallard and PG Casey Morris leading the way, maybe Curry knew something we didn't in remaining at Texas Tech.
22. Gonzaga: It's going to be hard for the Zags to top what they did last season. Seven straight West Coast Conference titles, and the second year undefeated in conference play. A 31-win season, and an Elite Eight season, and a top three WNBA Draft Pick in G Courtney Vandersloot, who came close to sending Gonzaga to the Final Four through sheer willpower. The hype put Gonzaga in the top 25 of NCAA women's basketball attendance.
Gonzaga knew what was good for it, and signed coach Kelly Graves to a 10-year contract extension. But how much of it was a perfect storm? Having one of the top three seniors in the country and playing a regional semifinal on your own homecourt? Graves might have been tempted into take the job at Washington, but keeping Gonzaga on top might be as much of a challenge as resurrecting the Huskies. Lucky for Graves he just picked up G Taelor Karr who averaged 10.3 points last year at Kansas State...and due to the circumstances that led to her transfer, the NCAA made the exception to grant Karr immediate eligibility at Gonzaga rather than making her wait a year.
23. Iowa: The Hawkeyes headed into their fourth straight post-season appearance last year as a #6 seed in Spokane - the eighth in 11 years under head coach Lisa Bluder - but were upset in the first round by Gonzaga's march to the Elite Eight. It was Bluder's fourth straight 20-win season. Iowa fans must have loved what they seen because Iowa's average attendance increased by 1400 patrons last year for the fourth-highest average attendance in school history.
The arena at Iowa, Carver-Hawkeye Arena, is in the process of renovation with two full-sized practice courts that will diminish conflicts with the men's team for space. The future is looking up in Iowa, and Bluder is hoping to be a part of it - she has signed a contract extension to the year 2018. Despite post-season disappointment the #2 point guard of 2011, Samantha Logic, passes up Stanford and Vanderbilt for Iowa. G Kachine Alexander made it to the third round of the WNBA draft in 2011, but Iowa recruited the #12 class in the nation according to Hoopgurlz and Logic will be joined by wing player Virginia Johnson out of Iowa City - in aggregate they might have the potential to replace Alexander's offensive output.
24. Nebraska: Optimism was very hard to find in Nebraska women's basketball last year. After a 32-2 season, Nebraska forward Kelsey Griffin graduated. Griffin was responsible for a massive chunk of Nebraska's offensive production and without her the Cornhuskers fell to 13-18, the second worst season under head coach Connie Yori. Nebraska came into its final Big Twelve tournament as a 12 seed, losing by eight points to Iowa State in the opening round. It's very hard to find anything positive about that.
However, Nebraska has a new basketball training facility to look forward to, just in time for their first season of Big Twelve play. A new basketball arena is planned to open in 2013-14. A new palace is nice, and they'll only lose one starter from last year's squad. F Jordan Hooper was on the Big 12 All Freshman team last year, and ended up #2 on Nebraska's all time points list for freshmen with 14.6 ppg, starting every game. F Emily Cady leads a #29 recruiting class from Hoopgurlz which hopes to put Nebraska back in the win column.
25. Georgia: Why should anyone be surprised that the Lady Bulldogs made it to the Sweet Sixteen? It was the Coach Andy Landers's 19th appearance in the Sweet Sixteen, and the only club with more appearances there is Tennessee. It would take eventual national champion Texas A&M to send Georgia packing in the post-season with the Lady Bulldogs suffering a crushing 79-38 defeat in Dallas.
Even so, Landers has a lot more wins that he does losses. As of the end of 2011 Landers was #5 on the career wins list for active women's basketball coaches (but no national championship, not yet). Junior G Jasmine James will have to carry a big part of the load herself. James averaged 11.4 points per game last season but lost fellow teammate Porsha Phillips (who scored 10.6 points per game and averaged a double-double) to graduation. The dismissal of one player and the indefinite suspension of another player in April due to academic issues leaves Landers looking for help from junior college players (academics?) and from guard recruits Krista Donald and Erika Ford.
______
(*) If you're a regular reader of Swish Appeal, you should know the answer to that one without Wikipedia.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Gonzaga
Gonzaga and a number of these midwest schools adds the topic of how a program can benefit from being in 1) a small town 2) without a pro sports team and 3) at a school without a dominant football team.
Spokane was an amazing place to be for the tournament – the entire town rallies around their team in ways that just wouldn’t happen in other cities. They have something special there and their fans know it.
Even with Vandersloot last season, I was concerned about how they’d do without Bowman/Frieson last year. Having lost all three (and Bekkering) to graduation now, you could be concerned again…but it’s hard to count them out of the national landscape completely given Graves’ track record of success…
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
An interesting question
Given Gonzaga’s circumstances – small town, no football team, no pro sports team, do you:
a) give Gonzaga extra credit for fan support/attendance – they had to motivate a crowd to come out and see them, or
b) dock them for all of the above? – this is the “nothing else to do” argument that gets trotted out in the case of New Mexico
by James Bowman on Oct 20, 2011 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions
In Jessica's post explaining the crtieria...
…she says:
The rankings are based on recent history. As James explained Monday, "it is meant to measure quality over a “relevant” period of time. A championship earned last year should be a lot more relevant than one earned a decade ago.
So…how recent is “recent”?
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 20, 2011 4:17 PM EDT reply actions
Right now, five years is “recent”. Beyond five years is “not recent”. Depending on good arguments to the contrary, that can change.
by James Bowman on Oct 20, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmm...
…I know you have some other criteria you’re checking, but it seems like by the time you hit top 15 or so it should be starting to weight heavily in terms of teams who are generally consistent Sweet 16 performers and top 1-2 in conference.
Texas hasn’t been any of that since 2005.
They haven’t won their conference since 2004. And, frankly, aside from a blip from the 2001-02 season through 2003-04, they haven’t been better than a 2nd round performer in the NCAA tournament since 1990.
Historically a great team? Yes, absolutely. But so was Louisiana Tech, and you ranked them 70th, despite having similar “recent” success in terms of 20-win seasons and NCAA tournament appearances to Texas. Louisiana Tech has been 1 or 2 in conference as well, while Texas has been faltering in conference. Yes, the WAC is not the Big 12 by any stretch, but it’s still notable in terms of athlete experience—winning your conference is a big deal.
I mean, we are ranking basketball programs here, after all. And yes, great fan support and good concession stands (Fans get hungry. Bonus points to facilities with Dippin’ Dots, IMO) and shiny facilities and how great the other stuff around campus is and whether or not it’s worth it to go to a football game…all of that can and should be taken into consideration to an extent. But at some point if you’re ranking basketball programs, you have to look honestly and critically at a program that stuggles to consistently even break into the round of 32 in the NCAA tournament and ask yourself if they really deserve to be top 15.
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 20, 2011 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
The Eyes of Texas
Among all of the stuff I look at is a grab-bag factor which could best be called “glory”, which counts NCAA appearances, conference championships, and the like. Out of all the factors used to build Texas’s rating, this one contributes the least. Over the last five years, they have 3 first round NCAA’s, a second round NCAA and three 20-win seasons. No losing seasons. That’s about it., unless you count the fact that they were ranked in the top #25 for a couple of seasons.
Longhorn attendance gives Texas’s rating a lot of oomph – they’ve averaged about 5,000 a year at home over the last three seasons. Top 20 in attendance this year and probably better previously. Clearly they have fan support.
Your point on winning the conference – I have mixed feelings about that. If you’re in the Summit League, yes, winning conference is a big deal because if you don’t win conference you probably don’t go to the postseason. If you’re in a conference that sends four or five teams to the post-season, how much does a conference championship really mean?
On the other hand – and I hate being Hamlet Prince of Denmark about this- can you really be great if you can’t win conference titles? Does it matter if you play in front of big home crowds if it doesn’t capitalize into anything? But what about the reverse? What if you win conference titles but you have no home attendance so only your family and friends know?
Which is better? To go to the second round of the NCAA tournament – which Texas did in 2008 – or to win your conference? There are 32 second round NCAA teams and about 32 conference champs. Right now I have those achievements at about equal, and maybe that should change.
by James Bowman on Oct 20, 2011 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it...it's still a big deal to the tree itself.
I wouldn’t have brought it up if you had Texas around 32…but the top 16? Also, they missed the tournament one year altogether in the last 5, so they weren’t even counted among in the best 64, performance-wise. No top-16 performances at all in the last 5 years, but plenty of #32 or worse.
I’m also not saying that LaTech should be up in the top 15 where you’ve got Texas either just because of winning a conference title, but the disparity between #70 and #15 when their wins and NCAA appearances are similar, and yet one wins conference and the other doesn’t…and the one that doesn’t gets ranked THAT much higher? It doesn’t look like you rated NCAA tournament performance and conference titles equally at all. Both programs lost most of their major nationwide relevance at the same time…long ago. So attendance alone gains Texas 55 spots in the rankings as well as overcoming their lack of a conference title compared to LaTech? SPeaking of which, Texas wasn’t even top 15 in attendance last year.
“Glory” and attendance can’t gloss over that Texas achieves in NCAA tournament play at a #64 to #32 at best the last 5 years, and most of their years all the way back to 1990. And they’re a non-factor in conference, except maybe as the team that can snipe a better team if the better team is having an off-day.
It’s great to have people show up, but there are so many factors that go into attendance that aren’t remotely linked to what the actual basketball program does that it’s pretty ridiculous to use that as much more than a tiebreaker between very similar programs. Yes, people go to Texas games, but Texas is also the 5th largest university in the U.S., so that means a ton of people have Texas ties. That some of them still show up to watch women’s basketball says less about the basketball program and probably more about the size of the university. I mean, if anything we could be looking at Texas with a student population of over 55,000, plus all the faculty and staff and people around Austin who have ties to the university in some way, and say…“Damn, you can only get 5,000 people to show up for your games?” :P
Anyway, not trying to hammer you too hard here—I know a top 100 list is a lot of work (did you see me make one? NOPE!). However, there are some things on the list (I could mention others) that are going to make fans like me raise our eyebrows in more than the “Top 100 lists are meant to be debated” sort of way. Texas in the top 15 was really surprising, and almost indefensible for a "recent’ ranking. Just something to consider when you’re tweaking your weighting for future lists.
Top 15 all-time? I would give you Texas. But not the last 5 years.
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 20, 2011 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Thoughts/questions on Texas
I suppose Texas raises two questions for me regarding the rationale behind the framework:
1. Something that rankings for colleges of education do is take a poll of state superintendents for a given college and use that as a “reputation” score for their teacher education programs. There’s a built-in “reputation score” for the NCAA not only in end of season rankings, but also in pre-season rankings, which might be an even better representation of program rep as nobody has played games yet and image might weigh more heavily.
But then there’s what’s happened to Texas in the last six years, as described here:
http://www.swishappeal.com/2011/10/12/2486112/baylor-bears-picked-to-win-big-12#80025927
Might it be interesting (albeit even MORE time consuming) to look at how a program performed relative to peer expectations year to year, as defined by preseason polls?
2. To your point about not all wins being created equal, that’s true at any level but especially in college where the variance in competition is so great even in-conference. So wins – to me even advancing in the tournament to some extent – means a whole lot less than performance.
So I wondered, how might RPI figure in?
To stick with LSU vs Texas at end of the last 5 years:
La Tech
2011: 23
2010: 73
2009: 146
2008: 152
2007: 125
Avg: 103.9
Texas:
2011: 38
2010: 17
2009: 23
2008: 25
2007: 45
Avg: 29.6
On the one hand, their high RPI is simply an effect of being in the Big 12, perhaps as much or more than attendance is a function of being at a big school. On the other hand, as a school like Colorado proves, you do have to actually get a) significant wins and b) not have a losing season to accomplish much in terms of RPI. CBN had them within 5 spots last season, essentially negating La Tech’s greatest advantage.
Obviously there are problems with RPI, but that’s a disparity significant to separate the two significantly. That plus attendance (18th in the nation at 4710/g) plus a 2007 top 5 draft pick (Jackson) and another pick that made a roster in 2010 (Raven) makes Texas’ case a lot stronger than just watching them on the court might suggest.
We can debate whether #15 is exactly right, but those are pretty strong credentials…
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
Circumstances matter
(Not really a reply directly to you Nate, just more general ramblings on the same subject, in part inspired by your post.)
This all made me thing of something else that isn’t getting discussed and ought to be significant to program rankings:
Who’s the coach?
Teresa Weatherspoon took over as LaTech head coach near the end of the 2008-2009 season. Since then, she’s gone 57-19.
Weatherspoon is a legend as a player.
She’s also, apparently, a damned good coach (unlike some other player legends we could name).
With just 2 full seasons under her belt she’s turned the LaTech ship around and has them moving back in the right direction, and the team’s RPI has skyrocketed. LaTech isn’t going to get good RPI from conference play—they’re going to need other good teams to see them as relevant enough to play, and Weatherspoon is making a strong argument for her squad right now. It also can take a few years to get those games scheduled, especially with programs with several established home/home OOC series. So now look at those RPI numbers again, in that context, and you’ll see a team gathering steam.
Texas also has a new coach in the last 5 years—Gail Goestenkors. But while Weatherspoon has just 2 years under her belt, Gail now has 4. While Weatherspoon is still getting her recruits into the program, Gail has a whole roster of them. What’s Texas doing with all that?
Treading water.
They’re not much better, though not worse with Gail at the helm than they were with Jody Conradt (who by all accounts was stretched thin with her multiple duties for Texas for many years). And what about their ever increasing reputation for flat out not living up to pre-season expectations? That monkey is going to sit on Gail’s back forever unless she ever snags an NCAA championship. With all the “glory” of Texas, you can’t recruit better? You can’t win more? And that is just going to pile on year after year after year…which is why we’re commenting about Texas being overrated in the pre-season rankings. We’ve established that “the decision was made to focus only on the process of recruiting and playing women’s basketball, as opposed to any of the other benefits that choosing one school over another might offer.” so the truth is, we can’t give Texas any bonus points for being Texas, even though people keep wanting to.
Yeah, yeah, you’re saying, but this isn’t a pre-season rankings list. No, it’s not. It’s a “recent” list, but we’ve already established that more recent-ish things should be weighted more heavily (“it is meant to measure quality over a ‘relevant’ period of time. A championship earned last year should be a lot more relevant than one earned a decade ago.”)
The WNBA draft pick is relevant, but not, in the same context. TJack was a Jody Conradt recruit, and she came onboard during Texas’s blip of relevance in the early/mid-00’s. And Raeven was a Conradt recruit, too. OK, so what about Texas more recently?
What school isn’t even on the list for WNBA prospects? Texas. Not a single player even worth looking at.
LaTech is there, but that’s not Weatherspoon’s recruit either, so we’ll call that even for today.
But that’s not fair, you say. You can’t expect a team to send players to the WNBA every year. You’re right, that would be ridiculous! But it’s yet another piece of a puzzle that needs to be looked at in context, and to not have any players even considered a WNBA prospect does say something. Even Stanford players from ‘the bad years" got listed as prospects, and many got drafted and made rosters. Sure, that’s why Stanford is up higher on the list. Absolutely. But Stanford in 1999 shouldn’t have counted as a top 15 team (3rd in the Pac-10, and a 1st round NCAA tournament loss), yet it had 6 players ultimately make WNBA rosters for at least a season (Flores, Carey, Moos, Yamasaki, Izidor, Donaphin). Granted many made rosters in a larger WNBA, but would have likely still been listed as “prospects” in the current 12-team WNBA. Time will tell on the rest of the current Texas roster—the lone senior from the 1999 Stanford team didn’t go to the WNBA, either. But it is noteworthy, if we’re going to consider the WNBA players in their school rankings, when the “best” players graduating from your school currently don’t even warrant WNBA consideration as even a 3rd round pick.
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 21, 2011 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Lots of good stuff here from both of you. At work and then going out tonight, so it might be awhile before I turn around on these comments. But a long comment – because both posts deserve a long comment – is definitely in the pipeline.
by James Bowman on Oct 21, 2011 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, I’m making it look like I’ve really got it in for Texas.
On the contrary, I have rather a soft spot for the them, and I can’t even fake it—my 15 minutes of TV fame are mostly of me cheering rather vociferously for the Longhorns, complete with sign and Hook ‘Em hands in full effect. I can’t say I’m a closet fan since the doors got blown off that closet a long time ago.
It’s more that, due to my relative familiarity with the program, they really stuck out at #15 and were therefore an easy target for an evaluation of and rumination over the ranking criteria in general, while using Texas as an example.
Again, context matters.
Truth is, MOST WBB programs would kill to be Texas. MOST WBB programs would look at a top-32 finish and burn with jealousy, and be right to do so. There are 340-something-ish D1 WBB programs. Top 32 is top 10%. Top 10% of anything is pretty damn good.
Texas is already good. Very good. They’re top 10% anywhere in the top ~32. That’s an A grade. And that’s why any artificial inflation of that ranking hits a sour note.
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 21, 2011 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
So... hopefully James will answer that later....
But to your point, Texas has an average RPI of right around 30 in the past 5 years. So if we were to rank on that alone, they’re likely somewhere in the range you’re talking about.
When you start adding things on (e.g. attendance, draft picks, etc) and consider the company, putting them in the top 20 isn’t much of a stretch.
Texas was definitely one that jumped out to me too… but given the internal logic of this list, I can see how they got this high without negating the logic itself…
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
Not much of a stretch? Eh.
I’d say putting them in the 20’s wouldn’t be a stretch with those other factors. You could throw them in at 22 and I’d take that as more of a philosophical kind of “lists are meant to be debated” too-high ranking than it inspiring me to make an “um, I don’t understand how your criteria are at work here and it makes me start to question the whole list” kind of post.
Putting them in the top 15…that’s like when you have the Stretch Armstrong doll as a kid and you think you can totally stretch him a little more and instead his arm rips off and you get that weird goo all over. It’s all good up until that point, but the 15 was just that reach too far. ;) I put at least one player on my WNBA Top 15 of all time ballot that was probably a stretch too far for 15 (that player might bear a striking similarity to my avatar). I could definitely make some very solid arguments for her inclusion in the top 15 based on performance…but I also didn’t cry foul when she was left out of the group. It was probably a stretch too far at this point in time. Call me in 5 years and see if I look like a genius then. ;)
Texas is the same…at this point in time. Are they top 15 all time? Yes. Might they be top 15 of recent time again very soon? Yes. There’s no reason why Texas needs to stay low…just like Stanford didn’t stay low.
In the mantime, though, we maybe ought to be giving the Longhorns some negative points for finishing the year as a massive, soul-crushing disappointment compared to pre-season expectations. ;)
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 21, 2011 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
"I’d say putting them in the 20’s wouldn’t be a stretch with those other factors."
Ok and they’re at 15. And when you look at the schools in the 15-30 range, there doesn’t seem to be much separation, given the criteria…
But that makes me wonder how much separation there really is between schools – are there clear groupings that might be better presented as tiers? That’s what it appears to be to me. And if so, I’d see Texas in a tier with the 15-25/30 range rather than than the 5-15 range.
Knowing that information is probably more important than looking at how many spots out of 100 a team is off, particularly if it’s in the less than 10 range.
(And yes, James – I’m recommending tiers for the next time you do this ;))
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
I guess you could take the post breaks as tiers to an extent
And you could see 11-25 as a tier, and top 10 as a tier….and that’s fair.
But I kind of mentally broke the tier into the 5-15 range, like you did above.
To me…15 is a significant number… I see maybe 11-15 as kind of the teams that are in and out of the Top 10 any given year, and 10-5 as teams with relative stability that are up and down any given year based on recruiting, and top 5 as those programs that just wind up at the top year after year after year…
16-25 to me are the teams that bubble under the top 10, but don’t really break in, and that’s more where I see Texas right now. It’s like…#15 feels a break point where you could make an argument that the team could be included in the top 10, as a stretch. 26-40 are the teams that move in and out of the bottom part of the top 25 rankings.
That’s kind of how I see it, which explains a lot about why I feel 15 is too high for Texas—there’s no good “top 10 of the last 5 years” argument for the Longhorns at all.
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 21, 2011 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, which I actually hadn’t read yet. I was just referring back to the original criteria. Coach/coaching stability just wasn’t on that original list, yet it can be a huge factor in recruiting and program reputation, especially at the higher levels.
It’s more like…yeah, no one has heard of the coaches for teams ranked around 200. But when you hear players choose Tennessee they say “I want to play for Pat”. It’s worth taking into consideration where there’s data available, at least as part of that “glory” catchall.
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 21, 2011 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
And, again, in case I wasn't clear...
…though I think James is taking me at face value here…
Although I am certainly making an impassioned argument, please do know I mean it with all respect. I would not personally want to try to undertake a Top 100 list. It would take me forever and I’d get mired in minutiae and probably my head would explode and I’d need therapy afterward. I admire you for even daring to create a list and put it our for people to pick at. Please know that my point is to offer up some enthusiastic commentary in the spirit of playing devil’s advocate a little bit to give you some other things to ponder and weigh should you decide to undertake this again in the future.
My opinion is, after all, just the opinion of one random person on the internet, for whatever that’s worth. ;)
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 21, 2011 2:39 PM EDT reply actions
For what it's worth, the ones that jumped out to me were already discussed:
Pitt seemed high to me.
Cal over UVA? I see the explanation, but I struggle with that … and that’s almost entirely Pac-10/12 homerism.
JMU & Auburn jumped out to me.
Minnesota post-Whalen? Maybe I just don’t have enough access to BTN.
Then some of the [insert state here] States at the bottom of the list.
BUT…blips aside, I like the logic of taking a more holistic approach to programs and program building…and I think it’s great food for thought. Most importantly, every pick is explained by the logic presented. I might weight things differently… but this is a good jumping off point to really answer the question: What goes into building a great program?
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
Another one that jumped out at me
St. John’s, and by extension other schools like GTown.
My memory is probably short on them (maybe only 2-3 years), but 60-ish seems maybe a little low off the top of my head for “recent”. They’re kind of right in that mess with ‘Cuse and GTown in the middle of the BEast (and James has them all ranked kind of in the same 45-70 mashup)—but is the middle of the BEast really that much worse than the middle of the Big12? That’s where Texas and Texas Tech (again, maybe a little high here but not perhaps as egregiously high as Texas) sit in the Big12.
St. Johns was 22-11 last year. So was Texas Tech. St John’s earned a 9 seed, Tech an 8 seed. And St. John’s beat Tech right before my very eyes on a neutral court in the first round of the NCAA tournament last year. But St. Johns is 61 here, and Tech is 21. I know it’s not a last year ranking, but it’s something to ponder.
I’d have to do my homework to figure out the disparity between the two schools better, but like I said, just off the top of my head it struck me as a little weird, and maybe another example of slightly over-weighting the Big12 to have their middle-of-the-pack schools so highly ranked.
"I'm just playing [a center] on TV" ~Taj McWilliams-Franklin
by Shannon Cotterell on Oct 21, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Nate, I'm confused re.
“Cal over UVA? I see the explanation, but I struggle with that … and that’s almost entirely Pac-10/12 homerism.”
James ranks UVA several places ahead of Cal (she said indignantly). Perhaps we define “over” differently.
But considering their youth and the recent coaching changes, I was actually pleased to see Cal at #33.
“13 more days!” I hear BearBloke cry from downstairs. And I look forward to Swish Appeal and Cal Golden Blog threads for the away games.
Sorry... I flipped that
But I was referring to the previous discussion of Cal vs UVA…
I struggle with UVA being higher than Cal…
Twitter: @NateP_SBN.
Tiers
Might be a good way to do it next time, even though at that point it really stops being a Top 100 list and becomes a “here’s a bunch of really good schools” list.
One experiment I performed was to remove the factors for “glory”, recruiting, attendance, etc. etc. and rank the list off RPI and other mathematical rankings. This puts Texas down to 19th. Which might make Shannon a little bit happier, but not that much. :D
As for the relevance of players going to the WNBA – it counts, but only to a small degree. Texas gets no value added for Brittainey Raven. You really need a Top Five WNBA Draft Pick to get a boost, because those are the players that really bring prestige to your school. (How many players on WNBA teams can you identify with their schools?) A Candace Parker will give Tennessee a boost, but Angie Bjorkland won’t do the same thing.
This leads to the question, "what do you do about teams that are ‘treading water’? These are teams that have high RPIs/Sagarin/siimilar rankings, but don’t maximize their potential because they don’t go far in the tournament. Do you dock those teams? Do you take the position, “Well, Goestenkors is a bad coach and therefore we’ll knock Texas down a few steps” when there’s no good way to evaluate her abilities?
The way to do this might be to increase the value of “glory” in the rankings, but then you’re making the mistake of “predicting the past”. Under the right circumstances, Texas could be a much better team in the near future. They have a #11 recruiting class for the 2011-12 season. The attendance is there, and even though one could make the argument that “Austin is big” people are clearly coming to their games. The hiring of Goestenkors itself is an argument that Texas wants to be big.
Even if what success Goestenkors has had can be traced back to the previous coaching administration (even though, as the joke goes, Goestenkors might be at the “prepare three envelopes” stage, that minor success (four NCAA appeareances in five years with three 20-win seasons) still gets credited to Texas.
If Texas’s appearance as #15 is too odious – well, as they say in car repair “we’ll take it back to the shop and keep banging under the hood”. Every year’s rankings are a perpetual work in progress.
by James Bowman on Oct 22, 2011 8:01 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

by 

















