Maryland's 2003 and 2004 teams examples of why Palm's "Top 200 record" criteria is flawed
Written by: jpudner@concentricgrasstops.com (bamamarquettefan1)
Like many Maryland teams throughout the years, Marquette has played one of the toughest schedules in the country, but warmed up with a bunch of non-top 200 teams.
In 2003 and 2004, Maryland went only 14-9 and 12-11 against Top 200 teams, respectively, and away from home vs. the Pomeroy Top 25 barely missed going 0-11 due to two one-point wins to finish 2-9. However, in 2004 the Terrapins played in by far the best conference in the country AND scheduled Wisconsin (#5 Pomeroy), Gonzaga (#15), Florida (#24) and West Virginia.
The 2004 Maryland squad had the most similar schedule and results to the current Marquette squad of any team since Pomeroy starting his page in 2003. Even if MU wins three of four to close the season, they would be a virtually identical 12-12 against Top 200 teams and they have lost their first six road games against Top 25 teams. However, like the Terrapins, MU played in by far the best conference in the country AND scheduled Duke (#2), Wisconsin (#6), Vanderbilt (#25) and Gonzaga (#49).
And because of the weak Top 200 record and road losses to good teams, Jerry Palm has MU out of the tournament. The good news is he is in the minority, as Forecast RPI gives MU a 9-seed based on the Dance Card criteria that has been within one seed 85% of the time. Most analysts like Mike Miller at NBC Sports (see his quote from Cracked Sidewalks) have MU somewhere in between the two, around a 10- or 11-seed.
(http://http://www.rpiforecast.com/bracket.html) (http://beyondthearc.nbcsports.com/2011/02/15/marquettes-record-far-better-than-you-think/) (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/bubble-watch)
http://www.rpiforecast.com/bracket.html
http://beyondthearc.nbcsports.com/2011/02/15/marquettes-record-far-better-than-you-think/
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/bubble-watch
Jerry Palm has done more for sports analysis than anyone, but I believe these two criteria (can’t beat good teams on the road and Top 200 record) would be dangerous criteria.
1. MU is one of the best teams away from home even if they have lost close road games vs. the Top 25. Based on Sagarin ratings, MU is one of the best 35 teams in the country away from the Bradley Center (86.2 rating) and one of the best 35 teams in the country at the Bradley Center (85.9 rating). MU is 3-6 on the road only because of six single-digit road losses to RPI top 25 teams. This season teams have lost by double digits in 67% of all trips to RPI top 25 teams and won only 9% of the time, so if you are going to start disqualifying teams like Marquette for single digit losses at Top 25 teams then no one is going to schedule the out-of-conference games that the NCAA and fans want.
2. MU’s record vs. the Top 200. Yeah but … if MU finishes 12-12 vs. the Top 200 that would make them 3-11 vs. the Top 25 (one of only 10 teams with three such wins) and 9-1 against 26th to 200th. I believe Jerry Palm is introducing a dangerous criteria, because basically he is disqualifying MU and MSU for playing seven and five (respectively) of their creampuff games against non-top 200 teams instead of teams rated, say, 175th. MU averaged winning those games 91-62 and MSU by 83-57, so to follow that logic, if MU had beaten six teams ranked 150th to 200th by 20 points instead of beating teams below 200th by 30 points, they’d be easily in the tournament with a 19-11 mark vs. the Top 200.
I believe you must keep the focus on how tough the big games are, not whether you schedule Arkansas State (just inside the Top 200) instead of Mississippi Valley State (just outside the Top 200).
Oh, and how tournament worthy did those two Maryland teams prove to be after their brutal schedules that started by warming up with non-Top 200 teams and going 2-9 vs. good road teams and barely .500 vs. Top 200 teams?
In 2003, Maryland (14-9 vs. Top 200) beat an NC Wilmington team with a much better 13-6 mark vs. the Top 200, then a Xavier squad with a much better 20-5 mark to make the Sweet 16, before losing by two points vs. Michigan State to just miss the Elite 8.
In 2004, Maryland (12-11 vs. Top 200) stunned Wake Forest, NC State and Duke to take the ACC tournament and then beat a UTEP team with a much better 18-7 mark vs. the Top 200 before losing by two points to defending national champion Syracuse to just miss consecutive Sweet 16s despite an overall regular season record of 26-20 vs. the Top 200.
Maryland’s victims played tougher creampuffs (top 200), but Maryland played much tougher big games.
Not suggesting Marquette is ready to compete for the Big East title (2.79% chance of winning according to Forecast RPI), but if you throw everyone’ creampuffs out and focus on the brutal rest of the schedule, I believe MU like those Maryland teams is a solid NCAA pick.
(http://http://www.rpiforecast.com/bracket.html) (http://beyondthearc.nbcsports.com/2011/02/15/marquettes-record-far-better-than-you-think/) (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/bubble-watch)
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/02/marylands-2003-and-2004-teams-examples.html
All good points.
However, I think there is more to the 2004 team. That 2004 Maryland team also beat North Carolina, North Carolina State, Florida, Wisconsin, etc prior to beating Wake Forest, NC State (again), and Duke in the ACC final. They also swept Virginia that year along with lighter weights like Clemson.
I think MU squeaks in, but I don't see a MU victory in 2011 of the likes that Maryland had over UNC, or NC State twice...that's three top 10 victories per Ken Pom...we have ZERO. In fact, for top 15 we only have one..and that's #15 Syracuse.
Also note that the ACC that year was #1 in Ken Pom, as you noted. The Big East this year is #2 per Ken Pom, so we're not even the strongest league using the same rating system.
Finally, we're 9-11 against top 200 teams right now but that is skewed. We're 3-10 against the top 25 and 6-1 vs 51 to 200 (actually 6-0 with 76 through 200 and 0-1 vs 26 through 50). That's using RPI numbers. Now, go and see how Maryland was in 2004 in that same criteria. Maryland finished 15-11 against the top 200. We're projected to finish 10-12. For top 25 RPI, they finished 7-9. MU is 3-10.
One other major difference. Maryland's RPI was 18 that year. Marquette is looking at 70.
Agreed with your points that MU is definitely a notch below that Maryland team. As you cite, we have three wins vs. Top 25 while they had three vs. Top 10, etc.
But I still believe it does show that Top 200 really is not a good stat to put any weight on which is where I feel Palm is a little off here - back to the point that MD did beat three teams in the NCAA with much better Top 200 records - and hey, using that he still only has us a few spots out, so hopefully we are good.
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on February 21, 2011, 01:17:40 AM
Agreed with your points that MU is definitely a notch below that Maryland team. As you cite, we have three wins vs. Top 25 while they had three vs. Top 10, etc.
But I still believe it does show that Top 200 really is not a good stat to put any weight on which is where I feel Palm is a little off here - back to the point that MD did beat three teams in the NCAA with much better Top 200 records - and hey, using that he still only has us a few spots out, so hopefully we are good.
In talking to Jerry in the past, I really believe he just puts the top 200 out there because it's part of his "Nitty Gritty" breakdown that he does. He's often told me that the top 100 is where the gravy is and the top 200 is really there to make sure you haven't lost to anyone 101 to 200. Those are all "bad losses".
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 21, 2011, 01:19:38 AM
In talking to Jerry in the past, I really believe he just puts the top 200 out there because it's part of his "Nitty Gritty" breakdown that he does. He's often told me that the top 100 is where the gravy is and the top 200 is really there to make sure you haven't lost to anyone 101 to 200. Those are all "bad losses".
When the NCAA tournament committee picks the teams, i do wonder how much weight the committee puts on having a socalled bad loss/two of them or not having any compared to how much weight they put on what they determine are good or great wins?
If say a bubble team has one terrible loss against a really bad team and also has an upset win vs a top 5-10 team, are each given roughly the same pro/negative weight to where the two games basically cancel out each other? Or is more weight given to the huge win?
Also, do they put much weight at all on a team like Marquette which pretty much has been in the game in all of their losses, including vs some really good teams away from home or is a loss basically considered a loss regardless if you lost by 18 or 3 points?
Maryland's 2003 and 2004 teams examples of why Palm's "Top 200 record" criteria is flawed
Written by: jpudner@concentricgrasstops.com (bamamarquettefan1)
Like many Maryland teams throughout the years, Marquette has played one of the toughest schedules in the country, but warmed up with a bunch of non-top 200 teams.
In 2003 and 2004, Maryland went only 14-9 and 12-11 against Top 200 teams, respectively, and away from home vs. the Pomeroy Top 25 barely missed going 0-11 due to two one-point wins to finish 2-9. However, in 2004 the Terrapins played in by far the best conference in the country AND scheduled Wisconsin (#5 Pomeroy), Gonzaga (#15), Florida (#24) and West Virginia.
The 2004 Maryland squad had the most similar schedule and results to the current Marquette squad of any team since Pomeroy starting his page in 2003. Even if MU wins three of four to close the season, they would be a virtually identical 12-12 against Top 200 teams and they have lost their first six road games against Top 25 teams. However, like the Terrapins, MU played in by far the best conference in the country AND scheduled Duke (#2), Wisconsin (#6), Vanderbilt (#25) and Gonzaga (#49).
And because of the weak Top 200 record and road losses to good teams, Jerry Palm has MU out of the tournament. The good news is he is in the minority, as Forecast RPI gives MU a 9-seed based on the Dance Card criteria that has been within one seed 85% of the time. Most analysts like Mike Miller at NBC Sports (see his quote from Cracked Sidewalks) have MU somewhere in between the two, around a 10- or 11-seed.
RPI Forecast (http://www.rpiforecast.com/bracket.html)
Beyond The Arc @ NBC Sports (http://beyondthearc.nbcsports.com/2011/02/15/marquettes-record-far-better-than-you-think/)
CBS Sports (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/bubble-watch)
Jerry Palm (http://twitter.com/jppalm) has done more for sports analysis than anyone, but I believe these two criteria (can’t beat good teams on the road and Top 200 record) would be dangerous criteria.
1. MU is one of the best teams away from home even if they have lost close road games vs. the Top 25. Based on Sagarin ratings, MU is one of the best 35 teams in the country away from the Bradley Center (86.2 rating) and one of the best 35 teams in the country at the Bradley Center (85.9 rating). MU is 3-6 on the road only because of six single-digit road losses to RPI top 25 teams. This season teams have lost by double digits in 67% of all trips to RPI top 25 teams and won only 9% of the time, so if you are going to start disqualifying teams like Marquette for single digit losses at Top 25 teams then no one is going to schedule the out-of-conference games that the NCAA and fans want.
2. MU’s record vs. the Top 200. Yeah but … if MU finishes 12-12 vs. the Top 200 that would make them 3-11 vs. the Top 25 (one of only 10 teams with three such wins) and 9-1 against 26th to 200th. I believe Jerry Palm is introducing a dangerous criteria, because basically he is disqualifying MU and MSU for playing seven and five (respectively) of their creampuff games against non-top 200 teams instead of teams rated, say, 175th. MU averaged winning those games 91-62 and MSU by 83-57, so to follow that logic, if MU had beaten six teams ranked 150th to 200th by 20 points instead of beating teams below 200th by 30 points, they’d be easily in the tournament with a 19-11 mark vs. the Top 200.
I believe you must keep the focus on how tough the big games are, not whether you schedule Arkansas State (just inside the Top 200) instead of Mississippi Valley State (just outside the Top 200).
Oh, and how tournament worthy did those two Maryland teams prove to be after their brutal schedules that started by warming up with non-Top 200 teams and going 2-9 vs. good road teams and barely .500 vs. Top 200 teams?
In 2003, Maryland (14-9 vs. Top 200) beat an NC Wilmington team with a much better 13-6 mark vs. the Top 200, then a Xavier squad with a much better 20-5 mark to make the Sweet 16, before losing by two points vs. Michigan State to just miss the Elite 8.
In 2004, Maryland (12-11 vs. Top 200) stunned Wake Forest, NC State and Duke to take the ACC tournament and then beat a UTEP team with a much better 18-7 mark vs. the Top 200 before losing by two points to defending national champion Syracuse to just miss consecutive Sweet 16s despite an overall regular season record of 26-20 vs. the Top 200.
Maryland’s victims played tougher creampuffs (top 200), but Maryland played much tougher big games.
Not suggesting Marquette is ready to compete for the Big East title (2.79% chance of winning according to Forecast RPI), but if you throw everyone’ creampuffs out and focus on the brutal rest of the schedule, I believe MU like those Maryland teams is a solid NCAA pick.
(http://http//www.rpiforecast.com/bracket.html) (http://beyondthearc.nbcsports.com/2011/02/15/marquettes-record-far-better-than-you-think/) (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology/bubble-watch)
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/02/marylands-2003-and-2004-teams-examples.html
Quote from: CrackedSidewalksSays on February 21, 2011, 07:15:06 AM
I believe you must keep the focus on how tough the big games are, not whether you schedule Arkansas State (just inside the Top 200) instead of Mississippi Valley State (just outside the Top 200).
Great post!
Another thought about the passage above ... if the committee adopted Palm's philosophy that game with teams above RPI 200 should be treated as negative events (like a loss) on the schedule, it fundamentally could change D1 basketball. Power conferences would stop scheduling them causing them to be separate from the rest of D1, think D1aa like football. Once separated, it is then easy to shut them out of the NCAA tourney and turn it into just the power conferences competing for the title.
Games with team above RPI 200 should continue to be treated as they are now, as non-events on the schedule. Then teams will continue to schedule them for revenue purposes. They should not be treated as negative events like Palm appears to do.