St. John's 40th best program of past 50 years

SJU61982

Well-known member
 ... well, tied for 40th with Florida and St. Joseph's.

Per ESPN:

Editor's Note: Using a point system devised by the ESPN Stats & Information department, ESPN.com is counting down the 50 most successful programs of the past 50 years. A running list of the top 50 can be found here. For an explanation of the scoring system, read our intro.

T-40. St. John's (197 points)

Positives: The Johnnies boast six All-American players, two of them being first-teamers. In the heady decade spanning 1983-92, they ranked 11th in our system, ahead of champions in that span like Michigan and NC State.

Negatives: No Big East regular-season titles since 1992. In the same time span, St. John’s has just one Sweet 16 trip and 10 losing seasons.

Did you know? St. John’s collected nearly a third (60) of its overall point total in the four seasons that Chris Mullin was on campus. In the 27 seasons since his graduation, the school has amassed just 64 combined points.

Rank by the decade
1962-69: 26 (T-40th)
1970-79: 35 (T-46th)
1980-89: 105 (12th)
1990-99: 45 (43rd)
2000-present: -14 (T-279)

50 in 50 Starting Five (1962-present)

G – Mark Jackson (1983-87)
G/F – Chris Mullin (1981-85)
F – Malik Sealy (1988-92)
F – Walter Berry (1984-86)
F – Sonny Dove (1964-67)


Which is St. John's best team of the past 50 years?


2%
1982-83 (28-5, NCAA Sweet 16)
96%
1984-85 (31-4, NCAA national semifinals)
3%
1985-86 (31-5, NCAA second round)
(Total votes: 115)
Top options off the bench
Felipe Lopez (1994-98)
Reggie Carter (1977-80)
Ron Artest (1997-99)

50 in 50 coach: Lou Carnesecca (1965-70, 73-92)

Best teams (1962-present)
1982-83 (28-5, NCAA Sweet 16)
1984-85 (31-4, NCAA national semifinals)
1985-86 (31-5, NCAA second round)

--Nick Loucks and Brett Edgerton contributed to this post. 



And here's how they scored it:

SCORING SYSTEM
Conference title - 5 points
For best win percentage in regular season regardless of division. Independents that finished ahead of two major conference champions in final AP poll received credit.
Conference tournament title - 3 points
Independents that finished ahead of two major-conference champions in final AP poll received credit.
Win percentage
80 percent and above = 4 points, 60-79 percent = 2 points, 35.1-49.9 percent = minus-2 points, less than 35 percent = minus-4 points.
No. 1 seed - 2 points
Started in 1979.
NCAA tournament berth - 1 point

NCAA 1st-rd. win as 12-16-seed - 1 point
Started in 1979 for 12-seeds only, 1985 for seeds 12-16.
Losing in second round - 3 points
Started in 1985, every team had to win a game to advance to Round of 32.
Sweet 16 loss - 5 pts
Started in 1975, every team had to win at least once to advance to Sweet 16.
Elite Eight loss - 10 pts

National semifinal loss - 15 points

Title game loss - 20 points

National title - 25 points

NIT title - 1 point

First-team All-American - 3 points

Second-team All-American - 2 points

Player taken in NBA's top 10 - 2 points
Started in 1966, common draft.
Vacated season - minus-2 points
Any season where wins were vacated.
Sanctions
TV ban = minus-1 point, postseason ban = minus-2 points, probation = minus-1 point, loss of financial aid = minus-1 point, recruiting violation = minus-1 point, show-cause action = minus-2 points.
First, the basics: Awarding "prestige points" is highly skewed toward NCAA tournament success. That's the barometer fans hold their players and coaches to, and we did the same. Advance further in the Big Dance and your point total rises exponentially, with an NCAA crown bringing in 25 points.

Don't fret: Regular seasons count, too. Win at least a share of your conference's title and you got five points. (Don't worry, independents; if you finished the final AP poll ahead of two major-conference champions, you got credit.) Conference tourney titles (read: automatic bids) are worth three points. Same rules apply to independents for those, too.

To account for the shorter seasons in the 1960s and '70s, a major improvement over the previous ranking is that we now look at a team's season win percentage to award points, and not 20- and 30-win thresholds. Finishing with a win percentage greater than .800 earned that season's squad four points. Those finishing between .600 and .799 got two. And as we all know, a 6-23 season stings a lot worse than a 14-15 one, so we scaled the negative points there, too (under .350 equals a minus-4 while a percentage between .351 and .499 meant minus-2.)

There are other little perks in there that are pride points for programs. No. 1 seeds. First- or second-team consensus All-Americans. Top-10 NBA draft picks. First-round upsets over top-four seeds in the NCAA tournament. Postseason NIT titles. All are worth something.

And what about those moments schools would love to forget? NCAA sanctions or a season decimated by vacated wins? Like our college football Prestige Rankings from 2009, we used a sliding scale for the relative harshness of the different penalties. Any season with a vacated win was a minus-2. Same for a postseason ban and the dreaded "show cause" penalty. Varying penalties like TV bans, loss of financial aid, recruiting scholarships lost and other probations were minus-1 each.

Because of changing times since the early 1960s, our historical formula has some natural flaws. With the expanding nature of NCAA tournament fields and the fact that seeding 
 
Sorry for the double post, but I thought I'd provide a link to the running list (I believe they are doin #50-36 today):

 http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/tag/_/name/50-in-50-series
 
 Just saw this a few minutes ago. Goes without saying but if you take away the Norm era we are in the top 25. Without the Norm era however, we may not be in the position we are in today.
 
FWIW, if you go there now, they've replaced Reggie Carter as a "top option off the bench," with George Johnson taking over. 
 
From one time top 5 all time wins to #40 most successful program , right behind Weber State. You may disagree with the methodology, but wat is striking is:

How far we have fallen! 
 
 It will all change over the next 10 years. We're moving back up, but it does show the neglect that our program had been the victim of for about 2 decades.
 
Shameful. Disgraceful. Thanks to all you Harrington apologists who served to almost destroy this program. And you know who you are. You don't deserve to revel in the turnaround and impending success we will achieve.
 
Shameful. Disgraceful. Thanks to all you Harrington apologists who served to almost destroy this program. And you know who you are. You don't deserve to revel in the turnaround and impending success we will achieve.[/quote


Got to agree with you. How far we have fell. You can praise Fr Harrington as to improved appearance of the campus for a slight increase in the academic standing. But I just can not forgive him for what he has done to the basketball program
 
Shameful. Disgraceful. Thanks to all you Harrington apologists who served to almost destroy this program. And you know who you are. You don't deserve to revel in the turnaround and impending success we will achieve.



I agree Harry is the culprit ....hope he retires asap!  
Harry ruined the st.j's spirit :blink:
 
From one time top 5 all time wins to #40 most successful program , right behind Weber State. You may disagree with the methodology, but wat is striking is:

How far we have fallen! 
 

Top five, they were top 3 at the beginning of the Big East. Kentucky ,Kansas, St,John's, Carolina and down and down they went.
 
 It will all change over the next 10 years. We're moving back up, but it does show the neglect that our program had been the victim of for about 2 decades.

Agree, it's been a frustrating two-decade experience with a few exceptions ('98-'99, '99-'00, and Lavin's first year in 2010-11), especially for us old-timers who saw us go from #3 in wins into a deep, deep downward spiral following Looie's retirement (which many, if not most, of us were calling for at the time).

But what's important is what lies ahead; so let's stop beating our heads against the wall over what might have been. It happened, and as awful as it was, it's time to move on. Everything in life is cause & effect, and if it took Jarvis & Norm regimes to get us a Steve Lavin, so be it. Let's look forward, not backward (except for those really good memories we all share). The future is very bright.
 
Shameful. Disgraceful. Thanks to all you Harrington apologists who served to almost destroy this program. And you know who you are. You don't deserve to revel in the turnaround and impending success we will achieve.[/quote


Got to agree with you. How far we have fell. You can praise Fr Harrington as to improved appearance of the campus for a slight increase in the academic standing. But I just can not forgive him for what he has done to the basketball program
 

Credit FH with the 40% of student body that is Pell eligible, overall academically inferior, and non Catholic. Credit FH with a commensurately huge increase in non-Catholic Asian student boltering the academic standing of the University. In total, credit FH for a decline to 40% of the student body at a Cahtolic Univerity being Catholic.
 
 It will all change over the next 10 years. We're moving back up, but it does show the neglect that our program had been the victim of for about 2 decades.

Agree, it's been a frustrating two-decade experience with a few exceptions ('98-'99, '99-'00, and Lavin's first year in 2010-11), especially for us old-timers who saw us go from #3 in wins into a deep, deep downward spiral following Looie's retirement (which many, if not most, of us were calling for at the time).

But what's important is what lies ahead; so let's stop beating our heads against the wall over what might have been. It happened, and as awful as it was, it's time to move on. Everything in life is cause & effect, and if it took Jarvis & Norm regimes to get us a Steve Lavin, so be it. Let's look forward, not backward (except for those really good memories we all share). The future is very bright.
 

Well said and what we have to look forward to.
Meanwhile I don't agree with ESPN's assessment however. But then again
they put more stock on the present, as does most media.
 
Back
Top