[Cracked Sidewalks] Advanced Ranking of top 150 college basketball teams for 2014 based on; 1, 'solid roster,' 2, spots open for recruits, and 3, if they can keep NBA prospects

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

Advanced Ranking of top 150 college basketball teams for 2014 based on; 1, 'solid roster,' 2, spots open for recruits, and 3, if they can keep NBA prospects

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (bamamarquettefan1)

You can check out the 2013 preseason Value Add rankings anytime by going to www.valueaddbasketball.com and putting "2013" in the year field and "team" in the main search field.  However, in light of some very good observations in response to my 2014 rankings, I went through a systematic appraisal of the three main elements that will project how good each team should be in 2014.

The first step is adding up the projected Value Adds of everyone currently expected to be on the 2014 roster for all teams.  Players who have either signed already, or still have eligibility left and are NOT expected to be drafted after the 2013 season.  When we count just those players, Arizona has the best roster going into 2014, Memphis is second and Marquette is third.  Here is the first part of the chart that will grow throughout this piece:

2014 Rankings / players expected on roster 
Team2014 rosterRnk1[/tr]

Arizona	53.57	1
Memphis	49.64	2
Marquette	45.06	3
Iowa	40.11	4
California	39.77	5
Providence	39.77	6
Notre Dame	39.21	7
Virginia	36.47	8
Stanford	36.12	9
Indiana	35.69	10
Arkansas	35.06	11
Texas	34.82	12
Maryland	33.83	13
Georgetown	32.78	14
Alabama	32.63	15
Florida	32.58	16
North Carolina St.	32.54	17
Michigan St.	32.12	18
Nevada Las Vegas	31.82	19
Kansas	31.76	20

Of course this isn't the whole picture.  Kentucky is the 113th best team based just on this part of the equation, because four of their players are expected to leave in the 2013 draft and they have not yet signed most of their class for next year as they can wait until late to take several of the top 20 players.  In order to get a grasp on how much value each team would likely get from the 2013 recruits they are currently chasing (freshman in 2014 Value Add), I first looked at what the expected Value Add was for players based on their ESPN Rating.

This early in the recruiting season any 2013 recruit with a rating of 64 or higher will actually project to add Value, as ESPN increases recruits ratings throughout their high school career.  For example, right now there are only 6 players with a 96 or higher rating, while in the end ESPN averages giving a 96 or higher to 55 players per class.  Likewise there are currently just 283 recruits from the 2014 class with a 70 or higher and by the end ESPN averages giving 1,069 recruits per class a 70 or higher.  So if a recruit is a 70 right now, he will very likely end up ranking between 80 and 90, but here is the likely Value Add for players based on their ESPN rating as of September:

ESPN 9/30/2012Value add[/tr]

96	8.0
95	7.0
94	6.0
93	5.5
92	5.0
91	4.5
90	4.0
89	3.5
88	3.1
87	2.8
86	2.5
85	2.2
84	2.1
83	2.0
82	1.9
81	1.8
80	1.7
79	1.6
78	1.5
77	1.4
76	1.3
75	1.2
74	1.1
73	1.0
71	0.9
72	0.8
70	0.7
69	0.6
68	0.5
67	0.4
66	0.3
65	0.2
64	0.1
63	0.0

While I have been using a place holder to measure upcoming freshman classes, a critic pointed out in my last post that I was not accounting for how many open roster spots each team had to fill in recruitment.  To address this hole, I listed out the number of spots each team has to fill for next year.  I then looked up the uncommitted 2013 recruits (would be freshmen in 2014 season in Value Add) showing an interest in each team, and I basically assumed the team would get one in five of the kids at which they had a shot.  So if a team had 4 spots to fill I assumed they would get the 3rd best recruit they were after, the 8th best, the 13th best and the 18th best - though I had to estimate the curve when I got past the players that actually showed up in the ESPN data search.

I will use Duke as the example for this 2nd step.  Duke only ranked 32nd based on the players they already have committed through the 2014 season, with 27.84 in Value Add.  However, assuming they get one of the top 5 recruits currently considering them that should add 6 in Value Add (under R1 below for 1st Recruit), then another 5.0 in Value Add for their 2nd recruit, then 4.0, 3.5, 2.5 and 2.4 since they have six spots to fill.  When you add what they will likely get from recruits, Duke shoots all the way from 27.84 to 51.24 and moves from the 32nd best roster to the 3rd best roster ahead of Marquette - which is "full" with no spots open for a new recruit.  Of course, we know there are roster changes and MU could end up with a big recruit next year, but right now we are just filling empty spots.  Here is our new Top 20 once we divide up the uncommitted recruits among the schools they are considering.

Team2014 rosterRnk1R1R2R3R4R5R6likely recrRnk2[/tr]

Arizona	53.57	1	6	0					59.57	1
Memphis	49.64	2	2.5						52.14	2
Duke	27.84	32	6	5	4	3.5	2.5	2.4	51.24	3
Marquette	45.06	3							45.06	4
Kansas	31.76	20	7	3.5	2				44.26	5
Notre Dame	39.21	7	1.3	1.2	0.8	0.4			42.91	6
Providence	39.77	6	1.7	0.7					42.17	7
North Carolina	28.29	30	6	3.1	2.4	2.3			42.09	8
Georgetown	32.78	14	4.5	2.2	2				41.48	9
California	39.77	5	1.6	0	0				41.37	10
Iowa	40.11	4	0.6	0					40.71	11
Texas	34.82	12	3.5	2.2					40.52	12
Florida	32.58	16	4.5	1.6	0.7				39.38	13
Stanford	36.12	9	1.8	0.2					38.12	14
Virginia	36.47	8	1.6						38.07	15
Louisville	29.95	24	3.5	1.6	1.4	1.2			37.65	16
Michigan St.	32.12	18	2.5	1.3	1.2				37.12	17
Connecticut	31.58	21	3.5	1.2	0.7				36.98	18
Alabama	32.63	15	2.5	1	0.7				36.83	19
North Carolina St.	32.54	17	2.5	0.9	0	0	0		35.94	20

Which leads us to the final step, considering whether or not the NBA prospects leave for the pros.  Up until now we assume that Noel, Goodwin, Poythress and Harrow all leave Kentucky for the NBA draft in 2013.  If all of them leave, then even with the expected great recruiting class again next year, Kentucky only has the 24th best team in the country with 35.03.  With UCLA taking the top recruit from them this year and everyone going to the NBA, they are going to have to have some of those four decide to stay for 2014.  If all four were to stay, then Kentucky projects to shoot all the way up to a 63.5 Value Add to pass Arizona.

As you look down the list, in addition to the three teams already ahead of Marquette after step two, another 15 teams would pass Marquette IF all of their NBA prospects decide to skip the draft and stay for the 2014 season - so Marquette could drop as far as 19th in a worse case scenario.  However, it is pretty safe to assume that at least a majority of these prospects will take the paycheck and enter the draft.  The beauty of the 2014 season for Marquette is that even if they do not get another recruit, they are loaded AND do not have anyone on the roster projected to be drafted so they will have a much easier time keeping the team together.  In the end we can assume a few of these 15 teams manage to keep their NBA prospects on campus for another year, but if Marquette is not hit with injuries or transfers, they are likely to end up much closer to 4th than to 19th in the country.  Here are the top 150 teams in the land for the 2014 season (see Rnk3 at the right), and where each of them rank if they lose their NBA prospects (Rnk2) and if they don't get any more recruits with Value Add (Rnk3).
Team2014 rosterRnk1R1R2R3R4R5R6likely recrRnk2Add NBA if stayIf stayRnk3[/tr]

Kentucky	12.33	113	7	6	2.5	2.4	2.4	2.4	35.03	24	Noel, Goodwin, Poythress, Harrow	63.5	1
Arizona	53.57	1	6	0					59.57	1		59.57	2
North Carolina	28.29	30	6	3.1	2.4	2.3			42.09	8	McAdoo, Hairston, Bullock	59.44	3
Memphis	49.64	2	2.5						52.14	2	Thomas	57.51	4
Texas	34.82	12	3.5	2.2					40.52	12	McClellan, Kabongo	57.38	5
UCLA	26.77	36	4.5	2.2					33.47	26	Muhammad, Anderson, Smith	57.1	6
Indiana	35.69	10							35.69	21	Zeller. Olapido	56.84	7
Georgetown	32.78	14	4.5	2.2	2				41.48	9	Porter	53.56	8
Ohio St.	24.59	41	4.5	1.8	1.6				32.49	30	Craft, Thomas	51.69	9
Duke	27.84	32	6	5	4	3.5	2.5	2.4	51.24	3		51.24	10
Michigan	28.91	29	1.8	1.7	1.6	1.3			35.31	22	Burke, Hardaway	51.13	11
Michigan St.	32.12	18	2.5	1.3	1.2				37.12	17	Dawson, Payne	50.85	12
Louisville	29.95	24	3.5	1.6	1.4	1.2			37.65	16	Dieng, Blackshear	50.75	13
North Carolina St.	32.54	17	2.5	0.9	0	0	0		35.94	20	Brown. Leslie	48.75	14
Arkansas	35.06	11							35.06	23	Young	46.73	15
Florida	32.58	16	4.5	1.6	0.7				39.38	13	Young	45.91	16
Connecticut	31.58	21	3.5	1.2	0.7				36.98	18	Napier	45.61	17
Alabama	32.63	15	2.5	1	0.7				36.83	19	Releford	45.3	18
Marquette	45.06	3							45.06	4		45.06	19
Maryland	33.83	13							33.83	25	Stoglin, Len	44.35	20
Kansas	31.76	20	7	3.5	2				44.26	5		44.26	21
Notre Dame	39.21	7	1.3	1.2	0.8	0.4			42.91	6		42.91	22
Baylor	22.08	58	3.5	0	0				25.58	51	Austin, Heslip	42.58	23
Pittsburgh	23.01	52	2	0.2					25.21	54	Adams, Patterson	42.28	24
Syracuse	18.02	77	4.5	2.2	1.2	1.1	1	0.9	28.92	39	Fair, Carter-Williams	42.25	25
Providence	39.77	6	1.7	0.7					42.17	7		42.17	26
California	39.77	5	1.6	0	0				41.37	10		41.37	27
Nevada Las Vegas	31.82	19	0.7	0.5	0.4	0			33.42	27	Moser	40.81	28
Iowa	40.11	4	0.6	0					40.71	11		40.71	29
Colorado	29.72	25							29.72	33	Roberson	39.49	30
Oklahoma St.	29.07	27	2.3	0.7	0.3	0			32.37	31	Nash	39.3	31
Stanford	36.12	9	1.8	0.2					38.12	14		38.12	32
Virginia	36.47	8	1.6						38.07	15		38.07	33
St. John's	18.26	76	3.5	1.3	0.9	0.6			24.56	58	Harrison	34.99	34
Tennessee	22.65	53	2.2	1.4					26.25	47	Stokes	33.68	35
Houston	31.48	22	0.9	0.4	0.2				32.98	28		32.98	36
Georgia Tech	30.19	23	1.6	1.1					32.89	29		32.89	37
Missouri	21.01	60	1.6	0.3					22.91	64	Pressey	31.75	38
West Virginia	29.43	26	1.5						30.93	32		30.93	39
Texas A&M	26.13	38	2.3	1.1					29.53	34		29.53	40
Wisconsin	24	46	1.7	1.2	1	0.8	0.6		29.3	35		29.3	41
New Mexico	28.11	31	1	0.1	0				29.21	36		29.21	42
Villanova	27.49	33	1.6	0					29.09	37		29.09	43
Texas Tech	28.98	28							28.98	38		28.98	44
Iowa St.	27.24	34	0.7	0					27.94	40		27.94	45
Saint Joseph's	10.19	133	1	0.2	0	0			11.39	124	Galloway, Aiken	27.91	46
Creighton	15.69	86	0.6	0	0				16.29	88	McDermott	27.85	47
Purdue	26.99	35	0.4						27.39	41		27.39	48
Xavier	26.44	37	0.9	0	0	0			27.34	42		27.34	49
Oregon St.	25.6	40	1.4	0	0				27	43		27	50
South Carolina	24.39	43	2	0.6					26.99	44		26.99	51
Gonzaga	14.48	95	1.1	0.2	0.1	0	0	0	15.88	91	Pangos	26.96	52
Rutgers	22.49	54	2.2	1.6	0.4	0.2			26.89	45		26.89	53
Louisiana St.	23.92	48	1.7	0.7	0.3				26.62	46		26.62	54
San Diego St.	18.46	72	1.3	0.6	0.4	0.3	0		21.06	69	Franklin	26.61	55
Harvard	25.78	39	0.4	0					26.18	48		26.18	56
Seton Hall	23.89	49	1.6	0.4	0				25.89	49		25.89	57
Illinois	23.1	51	1.6	0.5	0.4				25.6	50		25.6	58
Virginia Tech	22.18	56	1.6	0.7	0.5	0.3	0.2		25.48	52		25.48	59
Oklahoma	22.17	57	2.3	0.4	0.3	0.2			25.37	53		25.37	60
Northwestern	13.76	101	1.4	0	0	0	0		15.16	99	Sobolewski	25.19	61
Mississippi	24.41	42	0.5	0.2	0				25.11	55		25.11	62
Virginia Commonwealth	23.99	47	0.8	0.1					24.89	56		24.89	63
DePaul	22.49	55	1.6	0.8					24.89	57		24.89	64
Richmond	24.05	45	0.2	0	0	0	0	0	24.25	59		24.25	65
La Salle	23.43	50	0.8	0	0	0	0	0	24.23	60		24.23	66
Southern California	19.02	69	1.6	0.4	0.2				21.22	68	Dedmon	24.16	67
South Carolina Upstate	24.07	44	0	0	0	0	0		24.07	61		24.07	68
Minnesota	21.63	59	1.4	0.3					23.33	62		23.33	69
Kansas St.	19.47	65	1.4	1.1	0.8	0.5			23.27	63		23.27	70
Georgia	10.82	122	1.5	0.1	0	0	0		12.42	115	Caldwell-Pope	22.6	71
Oregon	19.51	64	1.6	0.6	0.2	0	0		21.91	65		21.91	72
North Texas	9.55	140	0.8	0.6	0.4				11.35	125	Mitchell	21.76	73
Wake Forest	20.74	61	0.6	0.1					21.44	66		21.44	74
Southern California	17.74	79	1.6	1.1	0.4	0.3	0.2	0.1	21.44	67		21.44	75
Vermont	20.35	62	0.2	0	0	0	0		20.55	70		20.55	76
Auburn	19.33	67	1.2						20.53	71		20.53	77
Denver	20.08	63	0.4	0	0	0	0	0	20.48	72		20.48	78
Texas El Paso	19.15	68	0.7	0.4					20.25	73		20.25	79
Mississippi St.	18.54	71	1.5	0.2	0	0			20.24	74		20.24	80
Drexel	10.67	125	0.7	0.2	0	0	0	0	11.57	122	Massenat	20.13	81
Clemson	19.42	66	0.7						20.12	75		20.12	82
St. Mary's	18.3	74	0.7	0.5	0.3	0.1	0	0	19.9	76		19.9	83
Washington St.	18.28	75	1.2	0.2	0	0			19.68	77		19.68	84
Fresno St.	18	78	0.7	0.5	0.3	0.1	0	0	19.6	78		19.6	85
Wichita St.	18.41	73	0.9	0.1	0				19.41	79		19.41	86
Illinois St.	18.86	70	0.4	0.1	0	0	0		19.36	80		19.36	87
Massachusetts	10.55	127	0.9	0	0	0	0	0	11.45	123	Williams	19.29	88
Florida St.	12.81	110	2	0.5	0.4	0.2	0.1	0	16.01	90	Miller	19.08	89
Brigham Young	16.32	83	2.2						18.52	81		18.52	90
Northern Iowa	6.83	165	0.4	0					7.23	162	Tuttle	17.94	91
UAB	17.49	80	0.4	0	0				17.89	82		17.89	92
Washington	10.09	134	1.6	0	0	0	0	0	11.69	120	Wilcox	17.83	93
Cleveland St.	17.29	81	0.1	0					17.39	83		17.39	94
Tulsa	16.25	84	0.8	0.3	0	0	0		17.35	84		17.35	95
Utah St.	7.98	155	0	0	0	0			7.98	156	Medlin	17.31	96
Central Florida	15.67	87	1.3	0	0	0			16.97	85		16.97	97
South Dakota St.	16.83	82	0	0	0	0			16.83	86		16.83	98
Penn St.	14.64	92	1.6	0.1					16.34	87		16.34	99
Butler	16.01	85	0	0					16.01	89		16.01	100
Boise St.	15.28	88	0.5	0	0	0			15.78	92		15.78	101
Texas Christian	14.75	91	0.8	0.1	0	0	0		15.65	93		15.65	102
Vanderbilt	14.1	98	1.4	0	0	0	0	0	15.5	94		15.5	103
Cincinnati	13.16	105	1.8	0.4	0	0	0		15.36	95		15.36	104
St. Louis	14.63	93	0.7	0	0	0	0	0	15.33	96		15.33	105
Northeastern	14.6	94	0.6	0	0	0	0	0	15.2	97		15.2	106
Quinnipiac	15.1	89	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	15.2	98		15.2	107
Wagner	15.06	90	0	0	0	0	0	0	15.06	100		15.06	108
Wisconsin Green Bay	9.38	144	0	0	0	0	0	0	9.38	145	Brown	14.77	109
Akron	14.33	96	0.4	0	0	0	0	0	14.73	101		14.73	110
Arizona St.	13.72	103	0.7	0	0	0			14.42	102		14.42	111
North Dakota St.	14.14	97	0	0	0	0			14.14	103		14.14	112
Florida Gulf Coast	14.02	99	0	0	0	0	0		14.02	104		14.02	113
George Mason	12.9	108	1.1	0	0	0	0		14	105		14	114
Loyola Marymount	13.82	100	0	0	0	0			13.82	106		13.82	115
Miami FL	10.3	132	1.8	1.4	0.2	0.1	0	0	13.8	107		13.8	116
UC Santa Barbara	13.75	102	0	0	0	0	0	0	13.75	108		13.75	117
Rhode Island	13.01	106	0.5						13.51	109		13.51	118
Robert Morris	13.35	104	0	0	0	0			13.35	110		13.35	119
Temple	11.53	116	1.5	0	0	0	0		13.03	111		13.03	120
Mercer	12.99	107	0	0	0	0	0		12.99	112		12.99	121
Charlotte	11.28	119	1.6	0	0	0	0		12.88	113		12.88	122
Southern Methodist	12.83	109	0	0	0				12.83	114		12.83	123
Nevada	5.21	186	0.1	0	0				5.31	184	Burton	12.52	124
Tulane	12.38	111	0	0	0	0			12.38	116		12.38	125
Marshall	12.34	112	0	0	0	0	0	0	12.34	117		12.34	126
Davidson	12.03	114	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	12.13	118		12.13	127
Delaware	11.98	115	0	0	0	0	0	0	11.98	119		11.98	128
Boston College	11.4	117	0.2	0					11.6	121		11.6	129
San Diego	11.35	118	0	0	0	0	0	0	11.35	126		11.35	130
Ohio	10.79	123	0.3	0	0	0	0	0	11.09	127		11.09	131
Arkansas Little Rock	11.06	120	0	0	0	0	0	0	11.06	128		11.06	132
Nebraska	9.67	137	0.9	0.4	0	0	0	0	10.97	129		10.97	133
Indiana St.	10.87	121	0	0	0	0			10.87	130		10.87	134
Drake	10.63	126	0.2	0	0	0	0	0	10.83	131		10.83	135
Southern Mississippi	10.76	124	0	0	0	0	0		10.76	132		10.76	136
Dayton	10.55	128	0.1	0	0	0	0		10.65	133		10.65	137
Northern Colorado	10.55	129	0	0	0				10.55	134		10.55	138
St. Francis NY	10.45	130	0	0	0	0	0	0	10.45	135		10.45	139
Louisiana Tech	10.38	131	0	0	0	0	0		10.38	136		10.38	140
Utah	9.5	142	0.7	0	0	0			10.2	137		10.2	141
College of Charleston	9.6	138	0.3	0	0	0	0	0	9.9	138		9.9	142
Old Dominion	9.84	135	0	0	0	0	0		9.84	139		9.84	143
Towson	9.75	136							9.75	140		9.75	144
Georgia Southern	8.15	153	1.4	0.2	0	0	0		9.75	141		9.75	145
Long Beach St.	9.58	139	0	0	0	0	0	0	9.58	142		9.58	146
Buffalo	9.54	141	0	0	0	0	0	0	9.54	143		9.54	147
Manhattan	9.48	143	0	0	0	0	0	0	9.48	144		9.48	148
Detroit	1.66	199	0.9	0	0	0	0	0	2.56	197	McCallum	9.42	149
Cal St. Northridge	9.28	145	0	0	0	0			9.28	146		9.28	150

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2012/10/advanced-ranking-of-top-150-college.html

[brewcity77]

ESPN just revamped their rating system but did not update it retroactively. If you are basing expected ratings on past years, your model will be flawed.

[bamamarquettefan]

ESPN just revamped their rating system but did not update it retroactively. If you are basing expected ratings on past years, your model will be flawed.

Thank you for the catch!  Luckily the table is correct since it was based on how many had each ranking this year, and where they historically end up based on their corresponding class rank.  I did have to rewrite a paragraph explaining it due to your catch however, as I had noted the wide difference between past years and this year, but assumed the ratings just went up throughout the year until you let me know it is the actual scale that changed.  Thanks for letting me make the post accurate!

This is actually a very good development that they've updated this scale - it flows much better into Value Add.

[Jay Bee]

Thanks for the update... I'll send you an email on some other thoughts/comments this morning, but here's one to consider.. want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly:

I *believe for actual value add results, you're adding PG PER of 2.50 to each team.

For projected value add, I can understand using PG PER for player-vs-player ratings, but it appears that not all teams have been allocated 2.50, which causes an inconsistency between team measurement that is not based on 'real' data/projections.

For example, for 2013 Nevada Las Vegas I'm seeing a total of 1.00 PG PER being added to reach a team score of 34.29.  For 2013 Baylor it appears to be 2.50 PG PER to get to 35.21.

If we even out the PG PER, which would seem to be appropriate since 2.50 PG PER (again, I *believe*) is going to be added to every team, UNLV leaps over Baylor in the rankings.

[bamamarquettefan]

Yes, you are right on that once the season starts the PG PER is always 2.5 total for a team, and that would be a logical adjustmen
I don't do it now however, because my theory is that if a team loses their main two point guards lets say, and does not have point guards coming in, that overall the Value Add of the other players will not progress quite as much as would normally be the case.

Therefore, right now a team that has all of it's PG play back (2.5), and adds two strong PG recruits (some come in with a 0.5 PG, though the database I'm sorry is behind due to a logistical issue), then they could even end up with 3.5.  The team that has lose almost all PG play might only have 0.5 in PG PER.  My gut is still that - while the Value Add is slighly misdistributed among the team members - that actually the team with more strong point guard place actually is more likely to end up with slightly higher overall Value Add even though once the season starts the PG PER itself will in fact be 2.5 for each team.

I know that's clear as mud, but to use your example, my guess is that UNLVs players would actually project to end up with just 31.79 of Value Add plus the 2.5 PG PER for the same total of 34.29, even though the projection on paper is now 33.29 + 1.0 = 34.29.

There will never be a way to show whether or not my gut is correct though, so readjusting to 2.5 each in all the projections could just as well be right.