Prestige Rankings

[NashvilleBilliken]

Looks like ESPN is putting out rankings on where your school stands over the last 15 years.

SLU comes in pretty far down the list tied at number 148. Not too bad, i guess, considering the lack of recent post season success. Our solid yearly RPI is probably what's keeping us in the top 150. Looks like X will get in the top 50, but that's it from the conference.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3481843#a-10

[Box and Won]

I'm surprised Dayton is that low and LaSalle is that high.

[Bishop]

umass is also in the top 50 coming in at 42.

I cant stand these things. The worst going is the titletown segment ESPN is running. Of course fans are going to vote for their favorite teams and/or hometowns and not the real "titletown"...

[slufanskip]

Looks like ESPN is putting out rankings on where your school stands over the last 15 years.

SLU comes in pretty far down the list tied at number 148. Not too bad, i guess, considering the lack of recent post season success. Our solid yearly RPI is probably what's keeping us in the top 150. Looks like X will get in the top 50, but that's it from the conference.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3481843#a-10

I'm not sure how they compute that. How many times have we been below 148? How many times in the top 100. It certainly can't be our avg RPI. I would think we'd be around 100.

[Pistol]

umass is also in the top 50 coming in at 42.

I cant stand these things. The worst going is the titletown segment ESPN is running. Of course fans are going to vote for their favorite teams and/or hometowns and not the real "titletown"...

I couldn't agree more. ESPN has an embarrassing amount of "we need to fill air" crap: Titletown, Who's Now?, The ESPYs, list after list, ranking after ranking. People (justly) complain that 24-hour news has ruined the way we get our information, and I would lump 24-hour sports with that based on the diminishing quality of ESPN. I hope they figure out that they're supposed to be gearing their programming for sports fans and not fringe fans and mindless TV watchers.

[mrmaguda]

I think ESPN is trying to be "scientific" with this list. The criteria is as follows:

• National title … 25

• Title game loss … 20

• National semifinal loss … 15

• Elite Eight loss … 10

• Best record in conference's regular season … 5

• 30+ wins in a season … 5

• Sweet 16 loss … 5

• Conference tournament title … 3

• AP first-team All-American … 3

• Losing in NCAA second round … 3

• Player in top 10 of NBA draft … 2

• 20-29 wins in a season … 2

• NCAA first-round win as a 12-16-seed … 2

• NIT title … 2

• AP second-team All-American … 2

• NCAA tournament berth … 1

• Postseason NIT berth … 1

• AP third-team All-American … 1

• NCAA first-round loss vs. 12-16-seed … -2

• Losing season … -3

• Ban from NCAA tournament … -3

[NashvilleBilliken]

I'm not sure how they compute that. How many times have we been below 148? How many times in the top 100. It certainly can't be our avg RPI. I would think we'd be around 100.

My guess is that RPI is only part of the equation. My guess as to other indicators is number of NCAA's made, number of NCAA's won...and maybe even NIT games.

[slufanskip]

My guess is that RPI is only part of the equation. My guess as to other indicators is number of NCAA's made, number of NCAA's won...and maybe even NIT games.

As with most things on ESPN it's stupid. I only went back 10 years, but our Avg RPI in those 10 years is 96. Only once did we finish with an RPI higher than 148 (182 in 2005) but we had an RPI under 100 5 times and under 65 3 times. What years were the Clagget, Highmark years? 94 and 95? With those both probably top 50 finishes there's no way we had an avg above 100 for the 5 years I didn't average.

It seems to me the best guage of a program's success is it's success, ie .. where it finishes the season. The ESPN ranking drops us over 50 points from where we actually finished.

[kshoe]

I think ESPN is trying to be "scientific" with this list. The criteria is as follows:

• National title … 25

• Title game loss … 20

• National semifinal loss … 15

• Elite Eight loss … 10

• Best record in conference's regular season … 5

• 30+ wins in a season … 5

• Sweet 16 loss … 5

• Conference tournament title … 3

• AP first-team All-American … 3

• Losing in NCAA second round … 3

• Player in top 10 of NBA draft … 2

• 20-29 wins in a season … 2

• NCAA first-round win as a 12-16-seed … 2

• NIT title … 2

• AP second-team All-American … 2

• NCAA tournament berth … 1

• Postseason NIT berth … 1

• AP third-team All-American … 1

• NCAA first-round loss vs. 12-16-seed … -2

• Losing season … -3

• Ban from NCAA tournament … -3

Thats not bad criteria but I will nitpick and say an NIT birth shouldn't equal an NCAA birth and a conference tournament title (3 points) + NCAA tourney birth (1 point) shouldn't be worth more than losing in the NCAA 2nd round. That means a 16 seed would get more points than an at large team that finished 2nd in their power conference, earned a 5 seed and lost in the 2nd round.

We've got at least 3 losing seasons (97, 99 and 05) dragging down our ranking pretty good.

[Box and Won]

I couldn't agree more. ESPN has an embarrassing amount of "we need to fill air" crap: Titletown, Who's Now?, The ESPYs, list after list, ranking after ranking. People (justly) complain that 24-hour news has ruined the way we get our information, and I would lump 24-hour sports with that based on the diminishing quality of ESPN. I hope they figure out that they're supposed to be gearing their programming for sports fans and not fringe fans and mindless TV watchers.

Who's Now was the absolute worst. Damn, I had just about placed all memory of it out of my mind, but now it's back.

Why the hell does everything have to be ranked? I'm sick of Top Tens and other lists (not just on ESPN).

I also hate their constant cross-marketing. Funny how NASCAR and Arena Football get a lot more coverage now that they're being shown on the Worldwide Leader. Up next: McDreamy from Grey's Anatomy will talk about his new movie!

Unless they're showing live events, I find ESPN unwatchable.

Edit: Unless they're showing live events or something with Erin Andrews, I find ESPN unwatchable.

[kwyjibo]

Thats not bad criteria but I will nitpick and say an NIT birth shouldn't equal an NCAA birth and a conference tournament title (3 points) + NCAA tourney birth (1 point) shouldn't be worth more than losing in the NCAA 2nd round. That means a 16 seed would get more points than an at large team that finished 2nd in their power conference, earned a 5 seed and lost in the 2nd round.

We've got at least 3 losing seasons (97, 99 and 05) dragging down our ranking pretty good.

I think the criteria are pretty bad. It is not surprising people here starting thinking immediately of average RPI. The ESPN rating is completely biased to what happens in the tournament (which can be pretty random in how two good teams end up). NCAA all-american selection is a completely biased selection to begin with (based nearly exclusively on publicity and face time on ESPN) and adding it here does not help with credibility. Conference tournament title and conference reg season title are biased toward teams representing worse conferences (according to these "Prestige" factors, SLU should have stayed in the Horizon and racked up conference titles and high-seed tourney appearances). I am not against any of the things they used as "adjustments" but it should have been rooted in some kind of strength of schedule adjusted win percentage.

The losing seasons, relatively speaking are not much of burden, but then again they are biased in that 15-16 is treated the same as 0-30.

It's "objective" in that it applies the same criteria (so in that regard it beats 99% of the "selling subjectivity" that ESPN normal does) but it is far from "science" (it is not open to improvement by critical thinking from the outside and I do not think internally much critical thought went into it). The irony is that 99% of the criticism will be from people who will say "my team is better than xxth!" (because they just "know" it is!).

[Pistol]

Edit: Unless they're showing live events or something with Erin Andrews, I find ESPN unwatchable.

I believe she was one of the highly-credentialed panelists on the Who's Now? series. When that debacle was going on, some friends and I were having lunch and they got into one of the matchups (I don't remember who- Jeter, Manning, Woods, something like that). Anyway, they asked me what I thought and I answered neither because it doesn't matter. They don't play the same sport, they don't have the same fan base, they will never compete against one another in anything, and popularity is not what they compete for. Their response was, "maybe so, but it's still interesting." So I tried to watch it that night for about 10 minutes, and it got to Erin Andrews wagging her finger in Terrell Owens' face and calling everyone "Hon" in a patronizing way on top of everyone else's mindless banter, and I had to turn it off. I could feel myself getting dumber. So I went back to work the next day with, "No, you're wrong- it is not interesting. There were 48 college basketball games going on last night and I had to watch a panel of crotchety old men, inarticulate pro athletes who left school early, and token eye candy argue the most subjective, least relevant topic possible." I was right.

ESPN's features like these are so self-indulgent that they've lost a huge degree of credibility and turned sports reporting into something from VH1 or E! Whenever they do rankings or lists, it's just to validate their existing biases. I'm guessing their darlings will be at the top (need I say who?). And because ESPN comes up with the criteria, that sorry scorecard, there is no room for argument.

I would love to see a real competitor emerge to peel away true sports fans and force ESPN to quit acting like Entertainment Tonight, and FSN doesn't count because it's regional.

[tenthyearsenior]

I think ESPN is trying to be "scientific" with this list. The criteria is as follows:

• National title … 25

• Title game loss … 20

• National semifinal loss … 15

• Elite Eight loss … 10

• Best record in conference's regular season … 5

• 30+ wins in a season … 5

• Sweet 16 loss … 5

• Conference tournament title … 3

• AP first-team All-American … 3

• Losing in NCAA second round … 3

• Player in top 10 of NBA draft … 2

• 20-29 wins in a season … 2

• NCAA first-round win as a 12-16-seed … 2

• NIT title … 2

• AP second-team All-American … 2

• NCAA tournament berth … 1

• Postseason NIT berth … 1

• AP third-team All-American … 1

• NCAA first-round loss vs. 12-16-seed … -2

• Losing season … -3

• Ban from NCAA tournament … -3

Why did they leave out the coolness of the dudes on a teams message board? That would have got us into the top 50 or atleast above MIZZOU.

[billiken_roy]

Who's Now was the absolute worst. Damn, I had just about placed all memory of it out of my mind, but now it's back.

Why the hell does everything have to be ranked? I'm sick of Top Tens and other lists (not just on ESPN).

I also hate their constant cross-marketing. Funny how NASCAR and Arena Football get a lot more coverage now that they're being shown on the Worldwide Leader. Up next: McDreamy from Grey's Anatomy will talk about his new movie!

Unless they're showing live events, I find ESPN unwatchable.

Edit: Unless they're showing live events or something with Erin Andrews, I find ESPN unwatchable.

i love sports center. i am at the gym every morning at 5 and spend the next hour and half watching sports center. and even though the last half hour is a repeat i have no problem watching again.

on sunday's i love "outside the lines" and "the sports reporters".

i agree "titletown" is a stretch and panders to a small market. but they have had other short features that are priceless. the annual make a wish series which they recently completed. is great stuff. and while obermann and patrick are long gone, the formula they created continues and the rotating hosts are still entertaining imo.

in season the on site broadcasts from the game of the day during college football and basketball season is typically entertaining imo.

and espn has expanded the drafts to the point that they are now party events for fanatics. same with all star games and the weekends that go with them.

all in all, espn ranks pretty high on my "have to have" list.

[Bishop]

i love sports center. i am at the gym every morning at 5 and spend the next hour and half watching sports center. and even though the last half hour is a repeat i have no problem watching again.

on sunday's i love "outside the lines" and "the sports reporters".

i agree "titletown" is a stretch and panders to a small market. but they have had other short features that are priceless. the annual make a wish series which they recently completed. is great stuff. and while obermann and patrick are long gone, the formula they created continues and the rotating hosts are still entertaining imo.

in season the on site broadcasts from the game of the day during college football and basketball season is typically entertaining imo.

and espn has expanded the drafts to the point that they are now party events for fanatics. same with all star games and the weekends that go with them.

all in all, espn ranks pretty high on my "have to have" list.

I agree that my mornings would not be complete without sportscenter. I also like the baseball tonight and college football crews - minus eduardo perez. I just cant stand it when ESPN has to tell us who we should think is the best. Isnt part of being the best in someones eyes largely based on opinion and possibly emotional connection. For example, I am from Indiana and view Bob Knight in very high regards because much of my childhood involves Bob Knight and watching his teams win. This would bump him up a few spots on my coaching list where as I hate a guy like Mike Krzysdfslkdfjsf at Duke even though he has a resume that few would be able to argue against.

Bottom line is that ESPN has shown they are more creative than to keep pumping out lists which ahve already been done by something like the Best Damn Sports Show

[Box and Won]

i love sports center. i am at the gym every morning at 5 and spend the next hour and half watching sports center. and even though the last half hour is a repeat i have no problem watching again.

on sunday's i love "outside the lines" and "the sports reporters".

i agree "titletown" is a stretch and panders to a small market. but they have had other short features that are priceless. the annual make a wish series which they recently completed. is great stuff. and while obermann and patrick are long gone, the formula they created continues and the rotating hosts are still entertaining imo.

in season the on site broadcasts from the game of the day during college football and basketball season is typically entertaining imo.

and espn has expanded the drafts to the point that they are now party events for fanatics. same with all star games and the weekends that go with them.

all in all, espn ranks pretty high on my "have to have" list.

I used to watch SportsCenter religiously and thought that I couldn't live without it. Turns out, I'm happier without it. I do like Outside the Lines and Sports Reporters though - I forgot about those shows.

I have to avoid Chris Berman though. I just can't stand him. Stuart Scott too.

Fox Sports actually has some decent shows that are fun - Amazing Sports Stories and Sports Science are pretty well done.

[tenthyearsenior]

I used to watch SportsCenter religiously and thought that I couldn't live without it. Turns out, I'm happier without it. I do like Outside the Lines and Sports Reporters though - I forgot about those shows.

I have to avoid Chris Berman though. I just can't stand him. Stuart Scott too.

Fox Sports actually has some decent shows that are fun - Amazing Sports Stories and Sports Science are pretty well done.

I love the poker, bowling and pool.

[tenthyearsenior]

How does MIZZOU make top 40 and Bills at 148? Who will be higher MU or U of I

[Quality Is Job 1]

How does MIZZOU make top 40 and Bills at 148? Who will be higher MU or U of I

Did you read the criteria? Missouri does have two Elite Eights over the 15-year span. Illinois will probably be higher than Missouri, because of its National Championship Game appearance.

I don't like all of the listed criteria. I particularly dislike the negative point total for a first-round loss to a team seeded 12-15 (no No. 1 seed has lost to a No. 16 in the first round). A team has to have a very good season -- worthy of some "prestige" -- to be seeded 1-4, but just because they lose in the first round their season is considered almost as bad as a losing season and worse than a team that has no postseason? That doesn't seem scientific or objective to me.

[kshoe]

Looks like ESPN is putting out rankings on where your school stands over the last 15 years.

SLU comes in pretty far down the list tied at number 148. Not too bad, i guess, considering the lack of recent post season success. Our solid yearly RPI is probably what's keeping us in the top 150. Looks like X will get in the top 50, but that's it from the conference.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3481843#a-10

A couple things from the listings. First, they are from 1985 on. Yeah, we had some nice NIT runs in there but really you are talking about 4 dances in 23 years and no Sweet 16s. Not exactly a lot to brag on. 148 seems about right in that context.

Yes, its stupid that a regular season conference winner from the Southland that also goes on to win the conference tourney will get 9 points while the 2nd place team in a power conference that loses in the Sweet 16 will get only 6 points. There is no deny that.

As to Metz's comment about MU. They'll be ranked pretty high. They've had a couple Elite 8s, a bunch of regular season conference championships and a bunch of NCAA appearances. Of course, they'll also have a few of the 12-16 losses to knock them down. The Illini with a Championship game, Final 4 and an Elite 8 will probably be even higher.

My guess is Duke will rank the highest based on the criteria.

[tenthyearsenior]

A couple things from the listings. First, they are from 1985 on. Yeah, we had some nice NIT runs in there but really you are talking about 4 dances in 23 years and no Sweet 16s. Not exactly a lot to brag on. 148 seems about right in that context.

Yes, its stupid that a regular season conference winner from the Southland that also goes on to win the conference tourney will get 9 points while the 2nd place team in a power conference that loses in the Sweet 16 will get only 6 points. There is no deny that.

As to Metz's comment about MU. They'll be ranked pretty high. They've had a couple Elite 8s, a bunch of regular season conference championships and a bunch of NCAA appearances. Of course, they'll also have a few of the 12-16 losses to knock them down. The Illini with a Championship game, Final 4 and an Elite 8 will probably be even higher.

My guess is Duke will rank the highest based on the criteria.

Are you saying MIZZOU is a better program than SLU?

[Cowboy]

- i agree with those that put forth that the criteria is weak

-if i read this correctly, if you are a 4 seed and lose in the first round, you net to a negative 1 point - if that is correct it is crazy imo

-if you are an 8 or 9 seed and lose the the 1 seed in the second round you get penalized, more crazy imo

-i think there is too much weight given to the star power player with the all american points, it is a team game and this is biased to the big schools (bcs)

-how is a ban from the tourney "worth" the same as a losing season? i guess only in media coverage

-i would factor coaching changes into the mix somehow as well

[MB73]

A couple things from the listings. First, they are from 1985 on. Yeah, we had some nice NIT runs in there but really you are talking about 4 dances in 23 years and no Sweet 16s. Not exactly a lot to brag on. 148 seems about right in that context.

Yes, its stupid that a regular season conference winner from the Southland that also goes on to win the conference tourney will get 9 points while the 2nd place team in a power conference that loses in the Sweet 16 will get only 6 points. There is no deny that.

As to Metz's comment about MU. They'll be ranked pretty high. They've had a couple Elite 8s, a bunch of regular season conference championships and a bunch of NCAA appearances. Of course, they'll also have a few of the 12-16 losses to knock them down. The Illini with a Championship game, Final 4 and an Elite 8 will probably be even higher.

My guess is Duke will rank the highest based on the criteria.

(waiting for Billiken Roy's tirade)

[tenthyearsenior]

- i agree with those that put forth that the criteria is weak

-if i read this correctly, if you are a 4 seed and lose in the first round, you net to a negative 1 point - if that is correct it is crazy imo

-if you are an 8 or 9 seed and lose the the 1 seed in the second round you get penalized, more crazy imo

-i think there is too much weight given to the star power player with the all american points, it is a team game and this is biased to the big schools (bcs)

-how is a ban from the tourney "worth" the same as a losing season? i guess only in media coverage

-i would factor coaching changes into the mix somehow as well

If this was best b-ball program, I would agree. I think you lose prestige when you are known as a team that chokes and you gain prestige when you have all-americans. I am surprised they didn't factor in signing McDonald all-americans.

[brianstl]

Are you saying MIZZOU is a better program than SLU?

This isn't Metz. This is the idiot that used to talk about not having a job, getting stoned all day, and gambling all the time.