[CTcard]

If there's so much parity in the men's game, why aren't we sharing it? Why is it we've managed to finish among the top 68 teams in the country only once in seven seasons? If the men's game is defined by parity, we're sub-par.

Well, there's 351 division 1 basketball programs, so being in the top 68 is certainly above average.

On the other hand, there are far fewer Power 5 teams (65 I think?). These teams have definite competitive advantages and make the tournament at a far higher rate. I am not exactly sure what that rate is, but probably close to 50%.

Perhaps the easiest measure of Dawkins overall versus a Power 5 median is his in conference record is 62-71 or a 47% winning percentage - just ender 50/50.
In his favour would be that his in-conference records having been inching upwards: 42-37, 53%. Either way fairly close to average.

[CTcard]

If there's so much parity in the men's game, why aren't we sharing it? Why is it we've managed to finish among the top 68 teams in the country only once in seven seasons? If the men's game is defined by parity, we're sub-par.

Well, there's 351 division 1 basketball programs, so being in the top 68 is certainly above average.

On the other hand, there are far fewer Power 5 teams (65 I think?). These teams have definite competitive advantages and make the tournament at a far higher rate. I am not exactly sure what that rate is, but probably close to 50%.

Perhaps the easiest measure of Dawkins overall versus a Power 5 median is his in conference record is 62-71 or a 47% winning percentage - just ender 50/50.
In his favour would be that his in-conference records having been inching upwards: 42-37, 53%. Either way fairly close to average.