The article outlines a ranking system for men's NCAA basketball champions since the expansion to 64 teams, celebrating the milestone's 40th anniversary. It emphasizes using a numerical scoring approach that accounts for various factors, including seed ranking, regular and conference season performance, overall win percentage, tournament path difficulty, dominance during the tournament, and talent level. While the scoring system aims to provide an objective analysis, it acknowledges the inherent subjectivity, particularly in evaluating talent. The piece highlights the debates that such rankings inevitably spark.
For such a monumental task, I tried to tether myself to some objective guideposts, creating a numerical scoring system as a starting point.
If you're among the best teams ever, you'd likely have earned a top seed in your given year.
Winning this event earned an extra bonus. Teams that did not have a chance to play a conference tournament received half credit.
This measure was by far the most subjective. Was this roster loaded with stars and future NBA standouts?
Collection
[
|
...
]