BASKETBALL College Basketball 5-Year Rolling Average Rankings (Updated for 2018)

[RandallThomason]

Some of you may recall my similar posts in prior years, but I track a 5-year weighted rolling average to rank all Division 1 college basketball teams to try to get a picture of our overall standing in the sport with a wider lens to look through than just the most recently completed season.

The formula I use ranks teams based on their regular season performance in each of the past five seasons, and then applies bonus points based on NCAA/NIT appearances and results during those five seasons. The most recently completed season is weighted the highest, with descending weights applied for each season in the last five years. For this rankings period, the oldest season under consideration is the 2013-14 season.

At the end of last year, for the 5-year window spanning the 2012-13 season through the 2016-17 season, we ranked 51st nationally. For this rankings period, our 2013 NCAA at-large team is no longer under consideration and in its place is this year's NIT team. Accordingly, our ranking this year dropped 7 spots to 58th nationally.

Below are excerpts of the updated rankings following last night's NCAA championship game. As a default, I always measure us against other C-USA schools, other G-5 conference schools (i.e. non-Power conference schools that also play FBS football), and other schools in the state of Tennessee.

Here is the breakdown of those segments:

National Top 25
1) Villanova
2) North Carolina
3) Kansas
4) Kentucky
5) Gonzaga
6) Duke
7) Michigan
8) Wisconsin
9) Michigan State
10) Virginia
11) Oregon
12) Arizona
13) Florida
14) West Virginia
15) Xavier
16) Oklahoma
17) Syracuse
18) Wichita State
19) Purdue
20) Notre Dame
21) Louisville
22) Cincinnati
23) Baylor
24) Butler
25) UCLA

MT ranks 58th nationally, just ahead of USC and just behind New Mexico State.

C-USA rankings (national ranking in parentheses):
1) Middle Tennessee (58)
2) Old Dominion (119)
3) Louisiana Tech (120)
4) Marshall (122)
5) UAB (128)
6) Western Kentucky (133)
7) UTEP (191)
8) Charlotte (252)
9) FIU (257)
10) Rice (269)
11) UTSA (271)
12) North Texas (279)
13) Southern Miss (290)
14) FAU (294)

State of Tennessee Rankings (National ranking in parentheses):
1) Tennessee (46)
2) Middle Tennessee (58)
3) Vanderbilt (62)
4) Belmont (105)
5) Memphis (109)
6) East Tennessee State (117)
7) Lipscomb (171)
8) Chattanooga (180)
9) Austin Peay (231)
10) Tennessee State (234)
11) Tennessee Tech (247)
12) UT-Martin (260)

G-5 Top 20 Rankings (National ranking in parentheses):
1) Cincinnati (22)
2) Connecticut (33)
3) San Diego State (40)
4) SMU (49)
5) Nevada (55)
6) New Mexico State (57)
7) Middle Tennessee (58)
8) Houston (60)
9) Buffalo (64)
10) BYU (65)
11) Georgia State (79)
12) Boise State (84)
13) Tulsa (90)
14) Temple (93)
15) Memphis (109)
16) Fresno State (112)
17) Louisiana-Lafayette (116)
18) Old Dominion (119)
19) Louisiana Tech (120)
20) Marshall (122)

I will probably post some additional analysis in this thread later, and I can slice and dice the data in such a way to formulate a listing based on any other grouping that any of you might be interested in.

I always enjoy seeing how these rankings shift over time. Even though we dipped 7 spots in this update, we are top 60 in the country, best in C-USA, #2 in Tennessee, and #7 among G-5 peers. That is pretty strong.

 

[SpaceRaider]

good stuff

 

[RandallThomason]

Some other notes of interest. As a whole, C-USA teams improved by an average of 3 spots per team when comparing rankings from the 2013-2017 rankings period to the 2014-2018 rankings period.

No surprise, Marshall made the biggest improvement, climbing 88 spots from 210th nationally to 122nd, on the strength of this year's NCAA Tournament appearance and first round victory over Wichita State. Here's the rest of the movement of C-USA teams, in order of improvement:

1) Marshall (210 to 122) +88 spots
2) WKU (167 to 133) +34 spots
3) UTSA (299 to 271) +28 spots
4) North Texas (302 to 279) +23 spots
5) Old Dominion (139 to 119) +20 spots
6) FAU (298 to 294) +4 spots
7) Rice (266 to 269) -3 spots
8) FIU (252 to 257) -5 spots
9) Middle Tennessee (51 to 58) -7 spots
10) UAB (120 to 128) -8 spots
11) Louisiana Tech (106 to 120) -14 spots
12) UTEP (165 to 191) -26 spots
13) Southern Miss (259 to 290) -31 spots
14) Charlotte (193 to 252) -59 spots

There have now been a total of 13 rankings periods, and the following represents every C-USA team's best ranking and worst ranking in any single rankings period:

1) UAB (Best: 40, Worst: 128)
2) WKU (48, 167)
3) ODU (50, 139)
4) MT (51, 189)
5) Charlotte (62, 252)
6) Southern Miss (70, 290)
7) UTEP (76, 191)
8) Louisiana Tech (98, 229)
9) North Texas (114, 302)
10) Marshall (119, 210)
11) Rice (149, 286)
12) UTSA (166, 299)
13) FAU (221, 298)
14) FIU (240, 296)

This list shows that C-USA has at least 8 teams that can be top 100 nationally if they have their program performing well. Alternatively, there are also 7 teams that can approach a 300 ranking when they are struggling. Clearly the dregs are the two Florida schools, as even at their peak performance in the last 15 years, FIU and FAU are outside the top 200 nationally.

All 14 schools' best ranking during the scope of this analysis comes out to an average ranking of 107. In theory, if C-USA could get every program operating at its peak level, that would represent a ceiling for the league of perhaps reaching as high as 7th nationally in the ranking of conferences (the seventh ranked conference in the most recent rankings period has an average team ranking of 116). Obviously, it's not practical for the league to have every program performing at peak level. It's no secret that the bottom tier teams need to up their performance to decrease the spread between the top C-USA teams and the worst C-USA teams. Ideally, I'd like to see the league reach a point where every school can at least generally be in the top 200, with at least 3 or 4 teams being in the top 100 any given year.

 

[C-Bow]

Damn. Good stuff, Randall.

 

[dukewayne]

Outstanding.

You are right. In basketball, FAU and FIU are really dragging down the conference as a whole. Even improving to just be closer to 200 rather than closer to 300 would help.

In a conference that ended up having outstanding teams in MT, Marshall, WKU plus a couple others, you would think these programs would be putting some serious pressure on the CUSA HQ and the FxU schools to improve their program. All of our programs were hurt in the postseason because of the dregs of the conference. They don't even have to be in the top 100, but at least they could try to stay out of the 300s. That should go for all C-USA schools.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

Outstanding.

You are right. In basketball, FAU and FIU are really dragging down the conference as a whole. Even improving to just be closer to 200 rather than closer to 300 would help.

In a conference that ended up having outstanding teams in MT, Marshall, WKU plus a couple others, you would think these programs would be putting some serious pressure on the CUSA HQ and the FxU schools to improve their program. All of our programs were hurt in the postseason because of the dregs of the conference. They don't even have to be in the top 100, but at least they could try to stay out of the 300s. That should go for all C-USA schools.

I see what your thinking but honest question...if FAU/FIU are closer to 200 do we get an NCAA bid?

 

[dukewayne]

Not necessarily, especially this past year when the rigged committee threw off any pretenses of fairness and objectivity. My point wasn't so much trying to assert one specific outcome this postseason such as MT getting an at-large bid had the dregs of C-USA been closer to 200 instead of 300. I do suggest an overall better RPI rating might have helped even if only slightly. I do think seeding could be effected. I think all 3 of the C-USA teams in the NCAA and NIT were at least one seed lower than they should have been placed. I'm more generally trying to assert that a better RPI and conference RPI just might help C-USA programs in overall matters of postseason bids and seeds rather it be NCAA or NIT.

In the coming seasons, I do not even know how much consideration the RPI will be given. This season, an open, fair, and somewhat objective selection process seemed to give way to almost a totally rigged pro-P6 agenda driven system. If non-P6 conferences ever do get fair consideration in the future, C-USA has the potential and should be one of the conferences seriously in contention for an at-large bid. C-USA more consistently establishing itself in the top 10 or 11 ranked conferences would likely help the cause.