BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Basketball

Topic: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Topic: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Author

Message

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:01:28 PM

Warning:

Long Post Ahead

tl;dr - skip to Analysis, post 9 below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background:

A few weeks ago I made a post talking about the decline in talent across the board in the MAC and how the league of 2016 felt like the SWAC of 10-20 years ago (note: I used the SWAC as a random example of a "bottom tier" NCAA conference - no specific reason for the comparison). I also hypothesized that the 1-and-done nature of many P5 guys (which creates a trickle down effect because those schools are constantly forced to replenish their rosters with recruits leaving less to go elsewhere), the AAU circuit and recruiting causing less and less athletes to fly under the radar or slip through the cracks as well as conference realignment have all been contributing factors to the decline of non-P5 schools across the board.

That was followed by the on-going discussion about "how to get an at-large bid" where I highlighted the need to change the national perception of your school - and how we are NOT doing that well enough currently to even be in the at-large discussion.

Due to the above I said that even if the MAC gets rated somewhere in the 12-14 range by KenPom and RPI etc - that the mid-majors have really become further subdivided into tiers and we are NOT in that top tier of mid-majors anymore (which hurts our perception and at-large chances) and as such we're effectively more similar to the 25th ranked conferences (a perennial 1-bid also-ran league) than we are to a top 6/8/10 conference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objective:

In order to test my hypothesis and see how the MAC ranked I decided to dig into some cold hard statistics.

The statistics I looked at were total # of NCAA tournament bids by conference (since the goal is to get to at-large consideration annually) and NCAA units (number of NCAA tournament games played) which equals $$ for the conference. This money, though obviously only one piece of the basketball budget puzzle, is an apples-to-apples comparison for all conference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis:

The NCAA pays out to conferences a portion of their revenue from the tournament each year (roughly 60%). The amount they award each conference is divided into "units" where 1 unit = 1 NCAA tournament game played, and is awarded on a rolling 6-year total. (i.e. the payout in 2016 is the sum total from years 2011-2016, the payout in 2015 is from 2010-2015 etc.) So - every conference is guaranteed at least 1 bid per year - which over 6 years would count as 6 units minimum. Each conference can divide up this amount to their member schools however they want, though the vast majority just divide it up equally to all schools (so take the MAC $ and divide by 12 to see what we got in a given year).

To associate a dollar amount to each unit I used the 2014 tournament values (since I have those figures) of $1.666667 million per unit.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/03/20/how-a-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/sports/ncaa-money /

I then decided to look at how the bids and money dispersed varied over the years to give some longer-term perspective on how the conferences really stack up.

NCAA bids and games played by conference were tabulated from wikipedia from 2016 back to 2005. This allowed me to see payouts for the last 7 years. (2010 payout counts 2005-2010 up to 2016 payout counting 2011-2016).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NCAA_Division_I_Men%27...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources of error/limitations:

The revenue for each NCAA tournament changes year to year (increasing every year) so the total $ amount won't be correct since I'm just using the 2014 season for all years (to give a rough dollar amount estimate) - but the bids and units WILL be correct.

I'm not positive how the NCAA handles when teams who earned the units change conferences (example - Butler moving Horizon to A10 to Big East) whether during the remainder of the 6 year window if it stays with the conference where the units were earned or if it follows the school to the new conference. My gut tells me it's the latter but for this analysis (for ease of calculation) I kept it with the conference affiliation when the units were earned (so Horizon gets 6 years of Butler's Natl Championship run etc).

The American conference didn't exist until 2011 - being formed form the old Big East. Not sure how the NCAA handled their payouts those first few years until they got 6 years of history (Forbes article says they got paid based on the old Big East units). As such - their payout units for this analysis are probably artificially low during those first few years. Similarly the "new" Big East gets paid out based on the new schools and not a continuation of their old schools as this analysis shows - so the Big East is probably artificially inflated a bit here. Same deal with the Summit not coming into existence until 2006 - so they are also probably artificially too low.

The decision to only go back to 2005 was entirely arbitrary. Not trying to cherry pick data points. I could very easily keep going back to extend this analysis if somebody wanted me to, but thought going back 12 tournaments and 7 years of payouts was sufficient for this analysis to compare "recent" success of the conferences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results: See subsequent posts.

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:01:56 PM

2016 Payouts (years 2011-2016)
Conference: (Bids/Units/Dollars)

1. Big Ten: (40 / 102 / $170 M)
2. Big East: (43 / 96 / $160 M)
3. ACC: (32 / 93 / $155 M)
4. Big 12: (37 / 75 / $125 M)
5. SEC: (23 / 64 / $106.667 M)
6. Pac 12: (28 / 59 / $98.333 M)
7. Atlantic 10: (24 / 45 / $75 M)
8. Mountain West: (18 / 28 / $46.667 M)
9. American (13 / 23 / $38.333 M)
10. Missouri Valley: (10 / 23 / $38.333 M)
11. West Coast: (11 / 22 / $36.667 M)
12. Colonial: (8 / 16 / $26.667 M)
13. Conference USA: (8 / 11 / $18.333 M)
14. Horizon: (6 / 11 / $18.333 M)
15. Atlantic Sun: (6 / 10 / $16.667 M)
16t. Sun Belt: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
16t. Ivy: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
16t. Southland: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
16t. MEAC: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
20t. Ohio Valley: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. Mid-American: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. Patriot: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. America East: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. Big West: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
25. MAAC: (7 / 7 / $11.667 M)
26t. Big South: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
26t. Northeast: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
26t. Summit: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
29t. WAC: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
29t. Southern: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
29t. SWAC: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
29t. Big Sky: (6 / 6 / $10 M)

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:02:24 PM

2015 Payouts (years 2010-2015)
Conference: (Bids/Units/Dollars)

1. Big Ten: (38 / 101 / $168.333 M)
2. Big East: (46 / 99 / $165 M)
3. ACC: (31 / 81 / $135 M)
4. Big 12: (37 / 75 / $125 M)
5. SEC: (24 / 68 / $113.333 M)
6. Pac 12: (23 / 53 / $88.333 M)
7. Atlantic 10: (24 / 45 / $75 M)
8. Mountain West: (21 / 33 / $55 M)
9. West Coast: (12 / 24 / $40 M)
10. Missouri Valley: (9 / 21 / $35 M)
11. American (9 / 18 / $30 M)
12. Colonial: (8 / 17 / $28.333 M)
13. Horizon: (6 / 16 / $26.667 M)
14. Conference USA: (9 / 11 / $18.333 M)
15. Ivy: (6 / 10 / $16.667 M)
16t. Atlantic Sun: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
16t. MEAC: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
16t. Ohio Valley: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
16t. Mid-American: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
20t. Sun Belt: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. Southland: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. America East: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
23t. MAAC: (7 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. WAC: (7 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. Patriot: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. Big West: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. Big South: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. Northeast: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. Summit: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. SWAC: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
31t. Southern: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
31t. Big Sky: (6 / 6 / $10 M)

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:02:49 PM

2014 Payouts (years 2009-2014)
Conference: (Bids/Units/Dollars)

1. Big East: (47 / 112 / $186.667 M)
2. Big Ten: (38 / 98 / $163.333 M)
3. Big 12: (36 / 80 / $133.333 M)
4. ACC: (32 / 74 / $123.333 M)
5. SEC: (22 / 61 / $101.667 M)
6. Pac 12: (23 / 53 / $88.333 M)
7. Atlantic 10: (24 / 46 / $76.667 M)
8. Mountain West: (20 / 31 / $51.667 M)
9. West Coast: (11 / 22 / $36.667 M)
10. Horizon: (7 / 18 / $30 M)
11t. Missouri Valley: (8 / 17 / $28.333 M)
11t. Colonial: (8 / 17 / $28.333 M)
13. American (7 / 15 / $25 M)
14. Conference USA: (9 / 12 / $20 M)
15t. Ivy: (6 / 10 / $16.667 M)
15t. Ohio Valley: (6 / 10 / $16.667 M)
17t. Atlantic Sun: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
17t. Mid-American: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
19. MAAC: (7 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. MEAC: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. Sun Belt: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. Southland: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. America East: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
24. WAC: (7 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. Patriot: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. Big West: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. Big South: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. Summit: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
25t. SWAC: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
30t. Northeast: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
30t. Southern: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
30t. Big Sky: (6 / 6 / $10 M)

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:03:17 PM

2013 Payouts (years 2008-2013)
Conference: (Bids/Units/Dollars)

1. Big East: (51 / 125 / $208.333 M)
2. Big Ten: (36 / 91 / $151.667 M)
3. Big 12: (35 / 84 / $140 M)
4. ACC: (30 / 72 / $120 M)
5. SEC: (25 / 56 / $93.333 M)
6. Pac 12: (25 / 53 / $88.333 M)
7. Atlantic 10: (21 / 42 / $70 M)
8. Mountain West: (20 / 30 / $50 M)
9. West Coast: (12 / 23 / $38.333 M)
10. Horizon: (7 / 19 / $31.667 M)
11. Conference USA: (9 / 17 / $28.333 M)
12. Colonial: (8 / 17 / $28.333 M)
13. Missouri Valley: (8 / 16 / $26.667 M)
14. Sun Belt: (7 / 11 / $18.333 M)
15. Ohio Valley: (6 / 10 / $16.667 M)
16. MAAC: (7 / 9 / $15 M)
17t. Ivy: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
17t. Mid-American: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
17t. Southern: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
20t. Atlantic Sun: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. MEAC: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
22. WAC: (7 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. Southland: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. America East: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. Patriot: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. Big South: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. SWAC: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. Northeast: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
29t. Big West: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
29t. Summit: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
29t. Big Sky: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
32. American (3 / 3 / $5 M)

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:03:43 PM

2012 Payouts (years 2007-2012)
Conference: (Bids/Units/Dollars)

1. Big East: (49 / 118 / $196.667 M)
2. Big 12: (34 / 86 / $143.333 M)
3. Big Ten: (35 / 85 / $141.667 M)
4. ACC: (33 / 76 / $126.667 M)
5. SEC: (27 / 64 / $106.667 M)
6. Pac 12: (26 / 59 / $98.333 M)
7. Atlantic 10: (18 / 33 / $55 M)
8. Mountain West: (17 / 27 / $45 M)
9. Horizon: (8 / 22 / $36.667 M)
10. West Coast: (11 / 20 / $33.333 M)
11. Conference USA: (9 / 19 / $31.667 M)
12. Colonial: (9 / 18 / $30 M)
13. Missouri Valley: (8 / 13 / $21.667 M)
14. Sun Belt: (7 / 11 / $18.333 M)
15. MAAC: (7 / 10 / $16.667 M)
16. Ohio Valley: (6 / 10 / $16.667 M)
17. WAC: (8 / 9 / $15 M)
18t. Mid-American: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
18t. Southern: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
20t. Ivy: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
20t. Big South: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
22t. MEAC: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
22t. Southland: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
22t. America East: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
22t. Patriot: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
22t. SWAC: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
22t. Northeast: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
28t. Atlantic Sun: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
28t. Big West: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
28t. Summit: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
28t. Big Sky: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
32. American (2 / 2 / $3.333 M)

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:04:09 PM

2011 Payouts (years 2006-2011)
Conference: (Bids/Units/Dollars)

1. Big East: (48 / 114 / $190 M)
2. Big 12: (32 / 78 / $130 M)
3. Big Ten: (35 / 77 / $128.333 M)
4. ACC: (32 / 75 / $125 M)
5. SEC: (29 / 69 / $115 M)
6. Pac 12: (28 / 68 / $113.333 M)
7. Atlantic 10: (16 / 29 / $48.333 M)
8. Mountain West: (15 / 24 / $40 M)
9. Horizon: (8 / 23 / $38.333 M)
10. Colonial: (10 / 22 / $36.667 M)
11. Conference USA: (9 / 22 / $36.667 M)
12. Missouri Valley: (10 / 18 / $30 M)
13. West Coast: (9 / 18 / $30 M)
14. WAC: (9 / 10 / $16.667 M)
15. Sun Belt: (7 / 10 / $16.667 M)
16t. MAAC: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
16t. Ohio Valley: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
16t. Southern: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
19t. Ivy: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
19t. Big South: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
19t. Southland: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
19t. Northeast: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
23t. Mid-American: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. Patriot: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. SWAC: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. Big Sky: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
27t. Atlantic Sun: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
27t. Big West: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
27t. Summit: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
27t. MEAC: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
27t. America East: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
32. American (1 / 1 / $1.667 M)

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:04:34 PM

2010 Payouts (years 2005-2010)
Conference: (Bids/Units/Dollars)

1. Big East: (43 / 104 / $173.333 M)
2t. Big 12: (33 / 80 / $133.333 M)
2t. Big Ten: (33 / 80 / $133.333 M)
4. ACC: (33 / 79 / $131.667 M)
5. Pac 12: (28 / 68 / $113.333 M)
6. SEC: (29 / 67 / $111.667 M)
7. Conference USA: (11 / 30 / $50 M)
8. Atlantic 10: (14 / 24 / $40 M)
9. Mountain West: (14 / 21 / $35 M)
10. Missouri Valley: (12 / 21 / $35 M)
11. Horizon: (8 / 20 / $33.333 M)
12. West Coast: (10 / 19 / $31.667 M)
13. Colonial: (8 / 14 / $23.333 M)
14. WAC: (10 / 12 / $20 M)
15. Sun Belt: (7 / 10 / $16.667 M)
16t. MAAC: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
16t. Southern: (6 / 9 / $15 M)
18. Big West: (7 / 8 / $13.333 M)
19t. Ohio Valley: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
19t. Ivy: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
19t. Northeast: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
19t. Patriot: (6 / 8 / $13.333 M)
23t. Big South: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. Southland: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. Mid-American: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. SWAC: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. Big Sky: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
23t. America East: (6 / 7 / $11.667 M)
29t. Atlantic Sun: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
29t. MEAC: (6 / 6 / $10 M)
31. Summit: (5 / 5 / $8.333 M)
32. American (0 / 0 / $0 M)

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:10:48 PM

Analysis:

Total Payouts (years 2010-2016)
Conference: (Bids/Units/Dollars)

1. Big East: (327 / 768 / $1,280 M)
2. Big Ten: (255 / 634 / $1,056.667 M)
3. Big 12: (244 / 558 / $930 M)
4. ACC: (223 / 550 / $916.667 M)
5. SEC: (179 / 449 / $748.333 M)
6. Pac 12: (183 / 413 / $688.333 M)
-------------------------------------------------
7. Atlantic 10: (141 / 264 / $440 M)
-------------------------------------------------
8. Mountain West: (125 / 194 / $323.333 M)
9. West Coast: (76 / 148 / $246.667 M)
10. Missouri Valley: (65 / 129 / $215 M)
11. Horizon: (50 / 129 / $215 M)
12. Conference USA: (64 / 122 / $203.333 M)
13. Colonial: (59 / 121 / $201.667 M)
--------------------------------------------------
14. Sun Belt: (46 / 67 / $111.667 M)
15. Ohio Valley: (42 / 64 / $106.667 M)
16. Ivy: (42 / 62 / $103.333 M)
17.* American (35 / 62 / $103.333 M) * - See errors/limitations above
18. MAAC: (47 / 59 / $98.333 M)
19. WAC: (54 / 58 / $96.667 M)
20. Mid-American: (42 / 58 / $96.667 M)
21t. Southern: (42 / 54 / $90 M)
21t. Southland: (42 / 54 / $90 M)
21t. Atlantic Sun: (42 / 54 / $90 M)
24. MEAC: (42 / 53 / $88.333 M)
25t. Patriot: (42 / 51 / $85 M)
25t. Big South: (42 / 51 / $85 M)
25t. America East: (42 / 51 / $85 M)
28. Northeast: (42 / 50 / $83.333 M)
29. Big West: (43 / 48 / $80 M)
30. SWAC: (42 / 48 / $80 M)
31. Big Sky: (42 / 44 / $73.333 M)
32. Summit: (41 / 44 / $73.333 M)

So where the rubber meets the road, the MAC ranks #20 out of 32 over the last 7 years combined (Year by year rank of 23/23/18/17/17/16/20). The MAC was 1 of only 14 conferences to not receive a single at-large bid for the entire time span from 2005-2016 (which again puts us ranked 19th or worse out of 32). Squarely in the middle of the �bottom tier� of D1 � and as I suspected, much closer to the bottom (SWAC only 16M/10 units different over 7 years) than to the top tier of mid-majors even (343M away from A10, 105M away from Colonial).

The Atlantic 10 is head and shoulders the best �mid-major� with those I grouped 8-13 all within 125M or so of each other (and at least 100M above the �bottom tier�) making up the second solid tier of traditional mid-majors. This is where we ultimately need to/should be � but we�re not even close.

Being ranked #20 creates a perception problem (which is rooted in reality) � which leads to no at-large bids where we play for one weekend in March for our 1 freebie bid just like the rest of those other bottom tier leagues.
Missing out on those hundreds of millions of dollars affects every facet of the program � from recruiting budgets to try and land those athletes to help us improve, to facilities (also helps with recruiting) to hiring and keeping good coaches.

OU_Country
General User

Member Since: 12/6/2005
Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County
Post Count: 8,320

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 2:43:50 PM

Thanks for the research. Something fascinating about this analysis is that some within this board think it is beneath us to play Ohio Valley, Horizon, and others, when in fact they've recently done better than the MAC in the tournament.

The other side of the argument is the side related to comparing RPI, etc. That would be interesting to put alongside this to see where the MAC stands compared to other mid-major conferences.

Jeff McKinney
Moderator

Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,047

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 3:20:38 PM

The MAC rates better than Zgraff's criteria of NCAA payouts on RPI, Sagarin and Kenpom.

Why is the MAC doing worse an NCAA payouts than on other indicators of performance?

Other than Ohio, no MAC team has won an NCAA gam for a long time, right?

GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,920

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 3:24:19 PM

Jeff McKinney wrote:

CMU in 2003. Since the turn of the century only Kent, CMU and Ohio.

Last Edited: 3/21/2017 3:25:54 PM by GoCats105

UpSan Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,792

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 3:35:05 PM

Jeff McKinney wrote:

Right, essentially what this comes down to is NCAA Tournament performance, which hasn't been good for the MAC. Many other mid-major conferences have outperformed the MAC in this way. I think the reason the MAC shows up better than many of these other conferences in rating systems is depth. There usually are only a couple bad teams each year in the MAC. This year was a prime example with so many teams finishing close together. I think other conferences have far more bottom-dwellers on a regular basis. This fact also helps make it more likely that one of the best teams wins the conference tournament (facing fewer challenges) and represents those conferences in the NCAA tournament.

Jeff McKinney
Moderator

Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,047

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 3:38:01 PM

I notice the Summit is at or near the bottom of Zgraff's ratings, yet the Summit has been pretty good on other indicators for several years now.

It seems that level of overall performance for a conference does not necessarily coincide with NCAA success and payouts. How should that be addressed?

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 3:39:35 PM

Jeff McKinney wrote:

The MAC rates better than Zgraff's criteria of NCAA payouts on RPI, Sagarin and Kenpom.

I started doing this analysis since OU_Country asked for it above. Certainly you are going to be correct though - we'll rank better there. I'll provide exactly where we stack up once I'm done.

To me that says the bottom of our league might not be statistically as bad as some of the other bottom tier leagues - but the top of our league isn't any better than theirs either. After all the NCAA record used in the above analysis is using the Ohio's, Kent's, Akron's and Buffalo's of the world.

Jeff McKinney wrote:

Why is the MAC doing worse an NCAA payouts than on other indicators of performance?

Other than Ohio, no MAC team has won an NCAA gam for a long time, right?

Absolutely. And that's the rub. Nobody but Ohio has won a single game in the last 12 years (from my analysis) - I believe CMU with Kaman in 2003 is correct as the last non-Ohio MAC NCAA win, but that's 15 years ago now. That's a LONG and sustained track record of awful.

And let's be honest - there's a reason why I said this was a "where the rubber meets the road" analysis instead of going the RPI/KenPom route initially. At the end of the day would you rather be talking about NCAA tournament bids/at-large bids, NCAA wins and literally tens to hundreds of millions of extra $ for the athletic budgets, or - would you rather point to a computer and say "but that statistical model says we're better than that."?

giacomo
General User

Member Since: 11/20/2007
Post Count: 2,624

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 3:46:59 PM

Good points all around. The numbers are staggering in favor of the top 10 conferences in dollars. They should NEVER to lose to a mid-major, but they do. The only thing we can control is to play the P5 and try to win some of those games. We have to play on the road. Don't grouch about not getting an at-large bid if you won't do this.

greencat
General User

Member Since: 3/12/2005
Post Count: 2,055

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 4:13:47 PM

I think expanding might be important. Not schools like Marshall and Temple that join and then bolt... something different.

Back when WKU was getting back into football there was talk of trying to expand in that direction by getting WKU and MTSU into the MAC which obviously never got far. Here comes the part that is going to be unpopular...

Take a school like North Alabama for example... longtime D-2 football power. They are going D-1 in football soon. Georgia State in the heart of Atlanta added football. UNC-Charlotte added football. Kennesaw State (near Atlanta) added football. The ones who are in a stopover in 1-aa (football) can move up to full D-1 in a few years. Georgia Southern and Appy went full D-1... it is not unusual for it to happen. Also more experienced programs who have seen good years in sports in the past (East Carolina, Southern Miss, etc.) might be ripe for the picking.

These conferences all now have 14 football playing schools iirc:
AAC
ACC
Big Ten
C-USA (13?)
SEC

The MAC has room for two more schools. Or more. Other conferences aren't finished expanding. It's something to think about anyway.

Last Edited: 3/21/2017 4:16:03 PM by greencat

OUVan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 4:22:41 PM

The MAC isn't going to fare well in this type of analysis because the conference just hasn't had that one dominant team. The league as a whole fares well in comparison to a lot of the conferences that are ranked higher than us in Graff's model but we just haven't had a great team where most of those conferences have. So we do fairly well in November and December and then fail in March.

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 4:31:16 PM

OUVan wrote:

There could be some validity to that - though I'd want to look at our Nov/Dec OOC record against "good" teams (where you draw that line/threshold is going to be subjective, but required in order to avoid over-valuing scheduling and winning against cupcakes) and compare it to the other conferences before agreeing.

The problem, even assuming that's true, is that March is the time that actually counts in NCAA basketball. It's when teams/conferences get notoriety and recognized (the perception problem again). And it's literally money time (like 4th Qtr/Playoffs in NBA) to fund the athletic budgets.

I'd much rather stink in Nov/Dec and get bids/wins/$ in March than the other way around.

bigtillyoopsupsideurhead
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Location: Cincinnati
Post Count: 1,925

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 4:40:15 PM

OUVan wrote:

Exactly. You have to account for some outliers. I don't think the Horizon is a better league than the MAC just because they had Butler. 2-10 the MAC is a much better conference and I don't think you can deny that, but throw in Butler (when they were there) and it's not even close.

Tournament wins are a big deal to individual schools, but definitely not the best way to evaluate a conference overall.

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 4:48:36 PM

bigtillyoopsupsideurhead wrote:

OUVan wrote:

Agree with a lot of that. Same could be said about WCC with Gonzaga. Problem is - even if the computers and the eye test say MAC teams 2-10 are better than Horizon teams 2-10 - that league still acquired over $100M more dollars over the last 7 years to divide up among member schools. That's $15M per season or an extra $1-$2 M per university.

Don't think an extra 1-2 million dollars a year for 7 years will help a school like Wright St or Valpo or NKU so that they can recruit guys further away/longer/more, build that nicer weight room/practice facility/video room/travel accommodations or use that to pay to hire or keep a coach? Do that over time and they won't be ranked lower than our schools for long. That's real money schools like OU, Akron, Kent, Ball St are losing out on in favor of those Horizon schools - even if it was only because of Butler.

OU_Country
General User

Member Since: 12/6/2005
Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County
Post Count: 8,320

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 5:04:49 PM

greencat wrote:

I've thought for a year or so that the idea of adding teams should be explored. And while football drives the public opinion and TV for now, it can't be just big football driving the decisions. It needs to be a school that actually fits in all sports. And it can't be a geographical disaster to add teams. The MAC is a bus league for the most part, and in my opinion it needs to remain that way, so I'd say no to North Alabama only for that reason. WKU would be a fantastic addition in my opinion. MTSU, Charlotte, App State would be as well.

Jeff McKinney
Moderator

Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,047

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 5:08:55 PM

I don't want to hijack the thread, but look where schools with limited resources but yet try to be big time in both football and basketball fare...CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt...not that well. Mtn West and American can pull it off because they have more money overall. If national prominence is a major goal, it might be wise to consider shifting more resources into basketball and less than football.

Do you really think that the appearances in major bowls by NIU and Western do that much for the long term national prominence of the MAC?

Increasing MAC basketball budgets might be the major part of improving what ZGraff points out.

GraffZ06
General User

Member Since: 1/5/2005
Location: Dayton, OH
Post Count: 1,913

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 5:28:30 PM

I'd like to think we could get enough athletes and coaches to compete in basketball at a higher level again. It's going to either take a Butler/Gonzaga-esque run for 1 school or a concerted effort to devote resources to hoops for multiple schools to get there. Results so far just aren't cutting it.

With respect to schools with limited resources trying to be "big time" in D1 football - I couldn't agree with you more Jeff. Makes a bunch more sense to devote those resources to basketball like schools in Horizon, MVC, A10, Colonial have.

It would be interesting to do a study on how much $ the league makes for every WMU bowl game appearance - compared to how much it costs to get football programs to that level, and then side by side compare that to how much $ the league could make by having a handful of NCAA tournament teams that win some games each year - compared to how much it would cost to get the hoops programs to that level.

bornacatfan
General User

Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,706

Status: Offline

RE: Just how bad is the MAC - a statistical reality check

Posted: 3/21/2017 6:04:12 PM

Just a thought off Greencat's post. When Butler left the Horizon, they left their shares with the conference. I do not know if they picked up a share of the Big East pool

THe main thing for any mid is to advance and sequester shares. Butler advanced the Horizon and got shares for the conference that they are still living off.

never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Winter comes and asks how you spent your summer.....

The game loves and rewards those who love and reward the game

Showing Replies:	1 - 25 of 41 Posts
Jump to Page:	1 \| 2 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics

There are 257 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

254 Guests
3 Registered Users:
	Steve Ragan, JimLurker34, shabamon

There are no other users looking at this page.