Ken knows what he’s talking about
KenPom ranks all D-I programs and yes DUKE is No. 1
- Thread starter Quavarius
- Start date
Not surprisingly, the blue bloods are on top. Some are a dirtier shade of blue than others.
To do his accurately, you have to start in 1829 when uk won their first title, stop during the Billy G years, start back up, omit the N.I.T. Season, then start back up. That’s really the only fair way to do it
Genuine question ... why is a huge percentage of the bottom schools on this list historically black colleges?
I don’t know much about HBC basketball programs.. I know they are usually in little conferences, but there are a lot of colleges in little conferences.. are they usually really bad at basketball?
I don’t know much about HBC basketball programs.. I know they are usually in little conferences, but there are a lot of colleges in little conferences.. are they usually really bad at basketball?
Lack of financial resources, which means they have to play powerhouse D-I programs for paychecks to support other programs at the college. Some have pulled off upsets recently, but with the travel combined with the teams they have to play, they usually carry 10-12 losses into their Conference season. This also explains why they usually have 14-16 records during the NCAA Tournament. So, the entire conference is doing this to fund their other programs. We have the luxury of counting wins and losses and those schools are just as proud of losing because they won financially.
Lol It’s all in how you manipulate the numbers. If you went back one more year to 96 UK won that title. It would have put UK in the number one spot.As Kensucky and UNCheat fans weep
I believe the thing we can all agree is Duke and Kentucky are at the top of the mountain. Everyone else is below. Two really great programs.
A more reasonable complaint might be that by starting with 1997, you eliminate all of Wooden's UCLA, all but 1 year of Dean Smith's UNC, nearly all of Bobby Knight's Indiana, and so on.
Personally I don't care. Pomeroy did the work, so he gets to start where he wants to start.
Yea and you have to start somewhere. I think ‘97 is a pretty good place to start because the game was still somewhat similar then and now (3pt line, really athletic players, same blue blood teams as now, etc.).. when you go back to the 80’s and before, you’re talking about a completely different game than we have now.
We got there with a pristine reputation. You guys got there ignominiously.
Sorry but it's the truth. Your program is as disreputable as they come, historically speaking.
Maybe that's an easy thing to gloss over for many Kentucky fans. For many of the rest of us... not so much.
Last edited: