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.
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.