BASKETBALL Assessing our standing among various peer groups (Warning: Long post)

[RandallThomason]

I've been tinkering with a way to measure how MT stands in comparison to various peer groups in men's basketball. There are 3 peer groups that to me seem pretty obvious:

1) Other C-USA schools
2) Non-Power 5 schools that also play FBS football (i.e. G-5 schools)
3) Schools in the state of Tennessee

What I came up with (and may still modify as I think more) is a 5-year rolling average that takes into account the results of the last 5 seasons and applies weights to those 5 seasons based on how recent the results are (i.e. performance during the 2015-16 season is weighted more heavily than the 2014-15 season, which is weighted more heavily than the 2013-14 season, and so on).

The formula gives points (or takes away points) based on a team's standing in the final regular season Pomeroy ratings of each season and then applies bonus points based on NCAA or NIT appearances, with increasing bonus points with each game won in either tournament (I omitted the other postseason tournaments not because I don't support their existence, but because there is too much variation among schools accepting bids to those tournaments for them to be meaningful in assessing performance). Receiving an NCAA Tournament bid is worth more than even winning the NIT. Obviously, advancing deep into the NCAA Tournament is substantially rewarded.

The maximum point total in the formula I am using is 240, which would be the result for a team that attained a top 10 regular season ranking AND won the NCAA championship in each of the last 5 years (a practically impossible score to attain). The minimum point total would be -20, which would be the result for a team that ranked worse than 300th in each of the last 5 years and had no NCAA or NIT appearances (there is a short list of schools nationwide that have a -20 score). A score of 0 essentially means a team is ranked in the 151-200 range every year but never gets a NCAA or NIT bid during the 5 year period.

After crunching the numbers for the last 5 seasons, here is how we stack up nationally and among the 3 peer groups identified above:

Nationally

Here is the national top 10, with point totals:

1) Kentucky: 122.99
2) Villanova: 120.50
3) Duke 118.40
4) Wisconsin 116.20
5) North Carolina 112.10
6) Michigan St. 101.75
7) Louisville 97.20
8) Kansas 97.00
9) Syracuse 94.70
10) Oklahoma 93.29

We rank 70th nationally with 20.68 points, just ahead of Davidson and just behind Georgia.

Now for our various peer groups:

Conference USA

1) Middle Tennessee 20.68
2) Louisiana Tech 10.88
3) UAB 10.24
4) Old Dominion 6.90
5) Western Kentucky 4.25
6) UTEP 3.69
7) Charlotte 0.36
8) Southern Miss -2.48
9) Marshall -4.14
10) FIU -5.00
11) North Texas -6.00
12) Rice -11.07
13) FAU -11.50
14) UTSA -13.45

So based on this formula, we top the list in C-USA over the last 5 years. Of course, by weighting the formula more heavily for the most recently completed season, conferences that only get 1 NCAA Tournament bid could see wide variations in ranking. The results above obviously shouldn't be construed to mean that we have been twice as good as Louisiana Tech (we've yet to even beat them in a game), but the results I think do show that we have the best 5 year track record of any of the programs in C-USA, particularly now with an NCAA Tournament win during that time span (UAB also has an NCAA Tournament win, but mediocre results prior to last year). Even if you weight all of the last 5 seasons equally, we still sit atop the conference over that span by a healthy margin.

Non-Power 5 Schools that play FBS Football

Not surprisingly, AAC schools that are traditionally stronger in basketball top this list. We check in at a very respectable 10th among this group of 62 schools.

1) UConn 76.25
2) San Diego State 49.40
3) Cincinnati 46.90
4) BYU 32.55
5) Memphis 29.75
6) SMU 29.00
7) Temple 25.35
8) Tulsa 24.80
9) New Mexico St. 23.25
10) Middle Tenn 20.68

Schools within Tennessee

1) Memphis 29.75
2) Vanderbilt 27.10
3) Tennessee 23.11
4) Middle Tennessee 20.68
5) Belmont 16.10
6) Chattanooga 2.85
7) ETSU -4.22
8) Austin Peay -4.55
9) Tennessee Tech -5.70
10) Tennessee State -7.00
11) Lipscomb -9.60
12) UT-Martin -9.75

Obviously, we are in a tight battle with Belmont to be the next in line behind the "big 3" in-state. The fact that we have won an NCAA Tournament game and Belmont has not is a big boost for us against them head-to-head in this analysis.

I'm going to maintain the database for future seasons to update the rankings at the end of each season. With the 5-year rolling average, our 2012 NIT team will fall out of the database next year and our bonus points for winning an NCAA Tournament game this year will become slightly less influential in the final ranking.

To me, this process provides a good moving picture of how we stack up nationwide and against meaningful peers.

 

[SpaceRaider]

It's interesting. I guess the fact that we've had sustained success and no coaching change is key.

I wish there was a way to quantify national perception.

 

[RandallThomason]

It's interesting. I guess the fact that we've had sustained success and no coaching change is key.

I wish there was a way to quantify national perception.

I think the only true way to quantify perception would be to take a poll of the general public. I wanted the formula to reward a good combination of sustained on-court performance and reward the best performances on the biggest stages (which are the moments when public perception is largely shaped):

I think the public's perception of a program is going to be based largely on:

1) Postseason appearances and success (VCU, Creighton, Gonzaga, Wichita State for example)
2) One or two great players associated with the program (i.e. Steph Curry at Davidson or Karl Malone at Louisiana Tech)
3) Some singularly great achievement in the history of the program (UTEP winning the 1966 national for example)

Our season in 2015-16 was not markedly better than Louisiana Tech's season and it was actually worse than UAB's season, but on the biggest stage we cashed in (C-USA Tournament and the NCAA Tournament), so to the casual fan our perception skyrocketed in comparison to the rest of the conference this year.

My guess is that in a poll of public perception of the basketball programs, C-USA's top 7 would be (in some order): UAB, WKU, Louisiana Tech, Charlotte, UTEP, ODU, and MT. I imagine we would rank below most if not all of those other 6 programs. Hopefully we can continue performing at a level that will move us up that pecking order. The past 5 years show that we are making great inroads.

 

[RaiderDawg78]

....

I think the public's perception of a program is going to be based largely on:

1) Postseason appearances and success (VCU, Creighton, Gonzaga, Wichita State for example)
2) One or two great players associated with the program (i.e. Steph Curry at Davidson or Karl Malone at Louisiana Tech)
3) Some singularly great achievement in the history of the program (UTEP winning the 1966 national for example)

I agree with you 100%.

We have a GREAT chance to change public perception this next season. If we can build on the Michigan State upset, i.e., make the NCAA tourney again as a 5 to 12 seed and maybe win a game or 2 this next go around, then people will start looking at us as like the non-P5 schools you mentioned. If we don't capitalize this following year, we run the risk of being categorized with Valporasio, Hampton, & Lehigh - a one-hit wonder.

 

[FranklinRaider315]

Good stuff. There is a lot of good college basketball played in the State of Tennessee.

 

[dukewayne]

Nice work. Good geek-out for MT basketball.

Good point about MT making good progress or "inroads" the last 5 years. I think the Mich St win put the exclamation point on that progress.

After a little time since the season ended, some time for reflection has been allowed. It almost seems like the MT teams from 3 or 4 years ago would have been the likely team to get a big dance upset win. Although, a good NIT run and an at-large bid was certainly breaking into new levels for MT basketball in, say, the modern era. Not to take away anything from this year's team obviously.

What is now the season before this past season was clearly the rebuilding season. That season provided hope for the future with that great C-USA tourney run to end the season after a barely above average season of rebuilding. This past season saw the team struggle through adversity seemingly throughout the whole season. Loss of players before the season started. Struggles to have a healthy PG or a PG at all. Lack of depth at C & PF. While it would be obvious to MT fans, there are/were a few really talented players on the team. It seems that outside of our program, no one really much noticed the talented players this season. Did MT even have any 2nd Team All-Conf players to finish the season? I know none were on the 1st team list. I can see Potts being overlooked since he was an improving Soph who did miss a couple of weeks. Upshaw should have been in contention for 1st team IMO. Harris was underrated, possibly because he was technically playing as a center when he is a more natural PF. IMO, Harris should have been a 2nd team all conf pick. Irregardless, the team just kept fighting for wins.

For most of the season, it seemed like MT just could not put together a complete game. So many games appeared to be MT fighting to pull out a win after struggling for most of one half. A few good games were when MT played a great half and 10 mins of the other half. It seemed that MT could be really incredible if they put together a complete game. And boy did they prove that at just the precise right time in the 1st rd of the Big Dance. Signs of that offense were showing up the last few games of the season i.e. conf tourney win vs Marshall.

All of that rambling to say this season almost seemed unlikely considering the adversity the team had to overcome. Also, it wasn't one of those seasons where MT had only 2 or 3 losses and an RPI of 38 for most of the season. The team fought and hung in there somehow someway which suggests they just did not quit! Perhaps that explains the team being overlooked in conf play accolades, yet the team somehow survived to end up with a favorable 2 seed for the conf tourney. From there, the coaches and players seemed to come up with gameplans and execution that took a Final Four team from the tourney's dominate conf (ACC) to end MT's run in the 2nd. What tremendous success.

Hopefully, MT can replace the departing players with some exceptional talent. I think all of us are hoping that MT can capitalize on the recent success with a good boost in talent with the incoming players. It would be nice if MT could parlay this success into a season where MT is the frontrunner for the conf championship and is a part of the at-large conversation.

 

[MTFNBY5]

Randall: I can't imagine the time you spent on this project; and you did this for all 351 D-1 BkB schools? As someone who got my MBA at MT back when computers used punch-cards and statistics class students relied on mechanical calculators which were rented from Batey's Office Supply downtown I can say I am impressed with not only your dedication to MT athletics but your computing, math, and statistical skills. I would love to see the formulas used in your research.

Posters who remember my posts from prior to the last five years; back when we were languishing with a 130+ range RPI; will remember my hope, dream, desire, and fondest wish for MT men's BkB was to separate from the other eight in-state mid-majors and approach becoming one of Tennessee's Big 4 college basketball teams. Your analysis has MT in 4th place and closer to 3 than to 5. That corresponds, in general, with where our RPI has been running for the last 5 years, as does your 70 place national standing. I couldn't be more excited. IMHO the MT men's basketball program needs to reflect the size of the school, the fact that we have D-1 FB, and that we have moved up (debatable as to BkB) in conferences twice from our OVC days. We are getting there.

I'm not asking for any more work from you, Randall, but it would be interesting to see where we were five years ago. Back before Dendy and the JUCO trio started our 123-49 5 yr. run which culminated in the late-season seven game winning streak with a conference tourney championship and what is arguably the biggest win in school history. As far as in-state rankings based on my failing memory I assume we would be somewhere mid-pack of the nine in-state mid-majors in the years prior to '11-'12.

As to public perception I would suggest that there are two distinct elements. There is national perception which seems to be what you are talking about. No doubt it would be great to be thought of nationally in the same light as a VCU or Gonzaga. More exposure on ESPN and national sports talk, more articles in USA-Today etc., and a much easier time getting rankings and even tournament bids. All hugely important. But I would suggest that local perception is somewhat separate and of equal importance. What we are thought of in Columbia, Franklin, Lebanon, Winchester, etc. etc. (if we are though of at all) is perhaps more important at this stage of our growth. What those in the area media and those potential fans think of the program is paramount. Do we deserve more media coverage? Is the team worthy of me driving an hour to check it out this season?

If we can build upon the recent accomplishments by continuing to have some success in important games (Power schools, NCAA tournament (and NIT), against area schools, conference tournaments, etc.) and by growing the fan base the future will be bright. I can't wait for next season. I'm expecting a little uptick in the excitement level in The Murph.

 

[RandallThomason]

I agree with you 100%.

We have a GREAT chance to change public perception this next season. If we can build on the Michigan State upset, i.e., make the NCAA tourney again as a 5 to 12 seed and maybe win a game or 2 this next go around, then people will start looking at us as like the non-P5 schools you mentioned. If we don't capitalize this following year, we run the risk of being categorized with Valporasio, Hampton, & Lehigh - a one-hit wonder.

I would love to see the university make some kind of aggressive move this offseason to invest in the basketball program. Becoming a program along the lines of the top tier non-Power 5s like Gonzaga, Wichita State, VCU, etc. doesn't just happen by chance. Those universities made heavy financial commitments for many years to bring their programs forward. Our basketball program facilities are lagging behind even our C-USA rivals (WKU, UAB, UTEP, ODU, etc.), much less the best non-Power 5 programs in the country. The iron is hot right now for men's basketball. I really want to see us strike at the university level and pour some additional resources into our facilities and other program supporting initiatives.

 

[MTLynn]

How much more money does Kermit need to recruit the players he wants?

If a "heavy financial commitment" is the key to success then every power 5 school would be better than every non power school in every sport.

If improving facilities equated to winning then MT baseball should be at an all time high

 

[RandallThomason]

Randall: I can't imagine the time you spent on this project; and you did this for all 351 D-1 BkB schools? As someone who got my MBA at MT back when computers used punch-cards and statistics class students relied on mechanical calculators which were rented from Batey's Office Supply downtown I can say I am impressed with not only your dedication to MT athletics but your computing, math, and statistical skills. I would love to see the formulas used in your research.

Thanks, but it wasn't as much of a time commitment as you might think. I chose the Pomeroy ratings as the starting point because you can easily export the ratings from his website. So it wasn't hard at all to build a database of all the teams and their regular season results for the last 5 years. The most time consuming aspect was going back and getting all of the NCAA and NIT results from those seasons, and then trying to develop a point system that made sense for how to evaluate teams during that 5 year span. The formulas themselves are not very complicated. I just gave points to each team based on what ranking they had at the end of the regular season and then applied bonus points for NCAA/NIT appearances and victories. Each team has a gross point total for each of the seasons, and then I weighted those point totals based on when the season occurred. Pivot tables in Excel did all of the sorting and filtering for me.

I'm not asking for any more work from you, Randall, but it would be interesting to see where we were five years ago. Back before Dendy and the JUCO trio started our 123-49 5 yr. run which culminated in the late-season seven game winning streak with a conference tourney championship and what is arguably the biggest win in school history. As far as in-state rankings based on my failing memory I assume we would be somewhere mid-pack of the nine in-state mid-majors in the years prior to '11-'12.

Without actually doing the work, I would guess that for the 5 year period between the 2006-07 season and 2010-11 season, we would have ranked about 170th nationally in a similar analysis.

 

[RandallThomason]

How much more money does Kermit need to recruit the players he wants?

If a "heavy financial commitment" is the key to success then every power 5 school would be better than every non power school in every sport.

If improving facilities equated to winning then MT baseball should be at an all time high

I'm not basing my comment on anything having to do with Kermit Davis. What I want is to build the infrastructure for a program that can be successful almost regardless of who is coaching. My only point is that right now is the best opportunity in my lifetime to make a big push for real improvements to the structural components supporting the program. Let's capitalize on that.

Facilities are not the only variable that leads to success, but it most certainly is a significant one.

 

[dukewayne]

I haven't heard much on any facilities wishlist for basketball unlike football where an indoor practice facility is desperately needed. Be that as it may, the infrastructure improvement to The Murphy Center a couple of years ago would seem to help with cost control of future improvements. That infrastructure overhaul was one of those things that was really costly, but the improvements weren't necessarily eye catching. With that needed foundation, if you will, it would seem that The Murph would be in good shape for some nice improvements.

 

[AustinLewis]

I would love to see the university make some kind of aggressive move this offseason to invest in the basketball program. Becoming a program along the lines of the top tier non-Power 5s like Gonzaga, Wichita State, VCU, etc. doesn't just happen by chance. Those universities made heavy financial commitments for many years to bring their programs forward. Our basketball program facilities are lagging behind even our C-USA rivals (WKU, UAB, UTEP, ODU, etc.), much less the best non-Power 5 programs in the country. The iron is hot right now for men's basketball. I really want to see us strike at the university level and pour some additional resources into our facilities and other program supporting initiatives.

It's interesting the three non-Power 5 basketball powerhouses you listed are not FBS football schools. When you don't have to worry about financially supporting a FBS football, it opens your discretionary money to be spent on MBB (as in the case of Gonzaga, Witchita State, VCU).

Having been to Diddle (I can't say the same for the other gyms), Diddle is certainly more aesthetically pleasing, fresh (thanks to the early 2000s renovation, and the luxury boxes along the top of the arena increase per-game revenue, but from a functional standpoint, Diddle and Murphy Center are on par. I would also argue that the four C-USA sister schools with better facilities have a stronger basketball tradition than MT.

In a dream world, MT would have a multi-purpose indoor facility, end zone facility for football, and they would have just announced a major renovation to the Murphy Center that would include the addition of luxury suites (additional revenue stream). But we live in a real world where extra money is limited and any surplus must be saved or utilized for the construction of an indoor facility for football/indoor track.

It takes a few years (or a few nice runs) to establish a tradition of excellence that encourages boosters to donate to the levels needed for these top-tier facilities. Right now, MT simply doesn't have the tradition in basketball.

 

[RandallThomason]

With basketball season almost here, I wanted to revisit this thread and update it with some new data. Over the summer/fall, I went back and pulled data dating back to the 01-02 season and completed 5-year rolling average rankings (with a few slight formulaic changes but nothing major) for every 5-year period beginning from 2002 - 2006 and ending with 2012 - 2016.

Here is MT's standing during each of those 5-year periods:

As is evident in the graph, it wasn't until the 2011-12 season that we started a real ascent. Backing that season up with an even stronger one in 2012-13 pushed us into the top 80, and last year's great showing rebounded us back upward following a rebuilding year.

In looking at the rankings that existed after the 5-year period ending in 2006, I thought it would be interesting to see which programs had improved the most over the last decade. The below table shows the 30 programs in college basketball that improved the most spots from the 2002-2006 5-year rolling ranking to the 2012-2016 5-year rolling ranking. MT ranks 29th on this list, having improved from 165th to 71st during that time period (94 total ranking spots of improvement). Look to the Dakotas for the most drastic improvement in college basketball:

There are 9 schools that have ranked in the top 25 during every individual 5-year rolling period since 2002-06 (10 total rankings periods). Of note on this list, only Michigan State, Duke, and Wisconsin have failed to achieve a No. 1 overall ranking during any single 5-year period. These programs are the truly elite of the last 15 seasons:

The next list shows an additional 14 schools that have ranked in the top 50 during every individual 5-year rolling period since 2002-06 (excludes the 9 schools listed above that have ranked in the top 25 during every period). Of note on this list, all 14 schools have peaked with a top 20 ranking during at least one individual period, and only Notre Dame has failed to reach the top 15 during an individual period. Conclusion: If you expect to be a consistent top 50 team, you should have a ceiling of reaching the top 10-20.

There are an additional 21 schools that have ranked in the top 100 during every rankings period during this analysis. This is the rankings group that I aspire the program to be in on a consistent basis. We have been ranked in the top 100 in each of the last 4 rankings periods, and hopefully can keep extending that streak. Listed by team followed by their best ranking and their worst ranking during all of the rankings periods, these schools have achieved a top 100 ranking during each of the last 10 5-year rankings periods: Oklahoma State (12 - 60), Tennessee (15 - 62), Oklahoma (11 - 64), Maryland (19 - 66), Vanderbilt (32 - 66), Butler (4 - 71), BYU (24 - 73), Stanford (25 - 78), Northern Iowa (36 - 79), Illinois (4 - 80), Indiana (22 - 86), Wichita State (11 - 86), Creighton (30 - 88), Alabama (24 - 89), Michigan (11 - 90), California (38 - 92), Florida State (29 - 93), San Diego State (16 - 97), Minnesota (45 - 98), Purdue (16 - 98), Virginia (13 - 100).

And finally, I thought it would be interesting to compare MT at its best with other schools at their worst. Stated differently, how many schools at their worst have still been better than MT at its best? MT's best 5-year ranking in this overall analysis is 71st (achieved during the most recently completed 5 seasons). There are 28 schools that have been ranked higher than 71st during every 5-year period of this analysis. Ideally, this list would get shorter and shorter with each passing year:

 

[SpaceRaider]

love this thread and your posts Randall

 

[MTsumner92]

We have a chance to surpass all three this year.

 

[RandallThomason]

love this thread and your posts Randall

Thanks Space. Likewise to you. Here's to some exciting basketball this season.