An Analysis of Power Conference NCAA Invitations, 1999-2007

by Truzenzuzex on Mar 15, 2008 7:32 PM EDT in Basketball Comment 29 comments

First things first. 99% of this analysis was done by one of our members here, johnr. John did an outstanding job, and because this requires considerable analysis of a significant dataset, John put in a huge amount of work to get this done. I did nothing but compile it and put it up here. This is interesting stuff, so take a long look and thank John for all his hard work and effort. He has most definitely earned it.

John was wondering what the sort of "minimum standard" was for a Big 6 (BCS) team to get into the NCAA tournament in terms of out of conference record. What he did was compile a list of all the BCS team's records over the last 9 years and create a scatterplot chart of the spreadsheet. He used Ken Pomeroy's site (thanks, Ken) to obtain the won-loss data, and utilized an online statistical tool called Stata to produce some of the graphics. For the sake of clarity, I am going to post both of them with attendant explanations. Some of them will show the same thing, but because of technical issues, it will be easier for me simply to show them all and explain them rather than just post one and try to explain it.

So without further ado, here we are:

The second graph, which has "jitter" applied to show more of the teams (obviously, many teams are at the same data points and overwrite each other) is below. Note that the legend is reversed -- red X is in and blue diamond is out in this graph:

Caveats:

The non-conference record for all teams includes NCAA and conference tournament games.
The conference record does not include the SEC tournament, EXCEPT in the case of the 2008 Kentucky data point indicated above. The line I have drawn at .75 indicates Kentucky's regular season record so that you can properly compare it with the rest of the teams.

John's Conclusions:

Courier-Journal online (in Feb) said that since the SEC went to 12 teams and two divisions in 1991-92, every eligible team with a conference record of 10-6 or better has reached the NCAA Tournament.
The 2007 Final Four records book indicates that since 1985: - the most losses of any team admitted at-large is 14 - the fewest wins of any team admitted at-large is 16 - the lowest win pct of any team admitted at-large is .533 (16-14)
I analyzed the win-loss and tourney invitation records of the 620 power conference teams from the 9 seasons ending 1999 to 2007. (A serious weakness of my data is that the season win-loss records actually include post-season play. The strength of the data is the size and comprehensiveness of the data set.)
The most striking thing in the data graphic is how rarely a power conference team finishes with a winning conference record and a losing non-conference record...and even more rarely with a conference win pct better than 70%.
I found that:
- Only two teams (out of 620) from the 6 power conferences both finished below .500 in non-conference play, and finished above .700 in conference play
- They were Texas 1999 & Michigan State 2004. Both got into the tourney. 1999 Texas 19-13 13-3 (6-10) [made tourney, AT LARGE 7 SEED] 2004 Mich St 18-12 12-4 (6-8) [made tourney, AT LARGE 7 SEED]
- Texas finished 1st in their conference play that season. Michigan State was tied for second.
- 1999 Texas went 18-11 for the season, 19-12 after conf tourney, and 19-13 overall
- 2004 Michigan State went 17-10 for the season, 18-11 after conf tourney, and 18-12 overall - note: thus, both lost in conf tourney and received at-large bids
- Another team finished exactly .500 in conference, and .69 in non-conference play: 2002 Wisconsin 19-13 11-5 (8-8) [MADE TOURNEY, AT LARGE 8 SEED ]
- Wisconsin finished tied for 1st in conf play
- Wisconsin 2002 went 18-11 for the season, 18-12 after conf tourney, and 19-13 overall
There are 3 other teams who had winning conf records (>.500 & .<700) and losing non-conf records: 2006 Stanford 16-14 11-7 (5-7) [DID NOT MAKE TOURNEY] 2005 Indiana 15-14 10-6 (5-8) [did not make tourney] 2001 Georgia [made tourney] Georgia 2001 finished season at 16-13, 16-14 after conf tourney, 16-15 overall.
In those 9 seasons, there were 167 teams that finished with 11 or more wins in conference. Of these, only two failed to get a bid: 2003 Georgia 19-8 11-5 (8-3) [DID NOT MAKE TOURNEY -- ineligible!] 2006 Stanford 16-14 11-7 (5-7) [DID NOT MAKE TOURNEY] --> NIT? Stanford 2006 finished the season 15-12, was 15-13 after conf tourney, 16-14 overall.
I recently posted to ASeaofBlue regarding the similarities to 2008 Kentucky of the 2004 Michigan State and 1999 Texas squads, including early season performance and other weaknesses.
BOTTOM LINE: - No power conference team since at least 1999 has finished with a conference win pct greater than .700 and failed to make the NCAA tournament, regardless of non-conference performance. (Actually, the threshold is .650, not .700. No team with a conf pct >.650 has failed to make the tourney, except 2003 Georgia, who self-imposed a "no post season play" penalty for NCAA violations. That's a 100% record of inclusion for eligible teams, based on 154 teams total.
What about prior to 1999? http://www.bostonsportshub.com/bubble2.htm (retrieved several weeks ago) says: - since 1995, 91% of teams that finished above .500 (262 of 289) in one of the six top conferences (excluding automatic qualifiers) were invited to the tourney.
Between 1995 and 2006, only 6 teams from one of these major conferences finished 4 games above .500 in conference and were not invited. West Virginia (11-7 in 1997) Nebraska (10-6 in 1999) Boston College (10-6 in 2003) Seton Hall (10-6 in 2003) Colorado (10-6 in 2004) Indiana (10-6 in 2005).
The data seem to be about the weight of conference performance being greater than non-conference. However, it also is a proxy for closing the season strong. It shows that winning after New Years is important.
DATA SOURCES AND CAVEATS
- I used data from Ken Pomeroy.
- I did not control/clarify for automatic-bids (unfortunately).
- W-L records may include post-season play (unfortunately).
- I excluded current Big East teams for the seasons prior to their entry into the Big East.

Additional Comments:

Another thing I found remarkable is how few teams in this 9-year period have actually found themselves above .600 in conference and below .500 out of conference. Obviously, that is tilted quite a bit by the inclusion of post-season tournament and NCAA tournament games, but even if you move the X-axis up to .600, the number is still very small.

Kentucky finds itself in a rather unique situation. but if history since 1999 holds, it would be extraordinary in the extreme for Kentucky not to be invited to the tournament. It just doesn't happen at .700 (let alone .75) in a power conference.

Update [2008-3-16 12:10:58 by Truzenzuzex]: From ESPN Bubble Watch, we have this. A lot of hedging there, but they are coming out in favor of UK getting in. But there sure isn't a lot of conviction there.

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

UK Is IN

I don't see how UK can be left out.

by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 15, 2008 7:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Invite

The date is very interesting. I am surprised at the consistency of the "general rule of thumb" that is chatted about as bracket time comes up.

I also am surprised that ----

The data seem to be about the weight of conference performance being greater than non-conference. However, it also is a proxy for closing the season strong. It shows that winning after New Years is important.

Thus the expection that strong conference play can load in the favor of an invite for a team playing out like Kentucky (with today's exception).

Thanks...the work and effort show in the product. I wonder if your analysis had any trends in seeding choices? Getting in is important of course but the seed often seems random or at least subjective. I don't envy those who have to finally put the names to the slots tomorrow.

Here's hoping we are in at a 12 or so.

Thanks johnr

by CAWebb on Mar 15, 2008 8:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

thanks

Thanks, CAWebb, for your comments. I didn't look at seeding, and don't have it in the data spreadsheet. That would be fun! (Ha.) But right now, I think I need to take a shower and eat something, instead....and maybe return some phone calls....

by johnr on Mar 15, 2008 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the effort

John. That's the kind of effort reminiscent of our beloved 08 Cats. Always love them stats.

by bluecrip on Mar 15, 2008 8:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

1985, 1987, 2000, 2002

Each year was 1st round SEC tourney loss.

16-12 (85). 18-10 (87). 22-9 (2000). 20-9 (2002).

Avg record = 19-10.

Each year = NCAA bid.

2008 no different.

by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 15, 2008 8:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Tennessee

CHOKES AGAIN!!!!! Goodbye Rockycrap!!!!!

by bluecrip on Mar 15, 2008 8:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

2003 Georgia

I thought I'd point out again that the one team in the scatterplot with a conference record better than 65% was Georgia 2003, who pulled themselves from the tournament, as discussed in this article (which called them "a lock" to get in):
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/news/2003/03/10/georgiasuspends_harrick_ap/

It's just a coincidence that I'm posting an ugly story about the 'Dawgs today....

by johnr on Mar 15, 2008 9:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

editing

oops. I meant to say the one team in the scatterplot .... that did not make the tourney...

by johnr on Mar 15, 2008 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice

I had been wondering for a while how unique UK's non-con/conf split was historically, now I know.

I think the one thing to take from this is that UK's particular situation this season is so rare, that no one can say definitively if they are in or out.

As johnr has demonstrated, UK's profile this season isn't entirely unprecedented for gaining an at-large berth, but you have to be careful. Two teams is a small sample size to use for comparison, and there are a lot of other variables to consider when comparing teams across different seasons.

Frankly, after the loss to Georgia, I'm nervous about UK's chances with the upsets that have occurred in other tournaments. Temple winning the A-10 and UNLV winning the Mountain West means that BYU and probably St. Joe's will get at-larges. I'm also concerned that Illinois will have a shot to win the Big 10, taking up another bid.

Looking for a rock to wind a piece of string around.

by JLeverenz on Mar 15, 2008 9:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Coury

I would like to see some spiffy analysis of Coury playing the first 3 minutes every game for no apparent reason. It's like a cigar in the wrong place. Seriously can anyone give me an explanation other than he works hard in practice.

by modcpa on Mar 15, 2008 9:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

oh oh!

someone has a great potential explanation of this on here the other day...but I can't remember who it was! He/she said something like it was to test out how tightly the refs were going to be calling it, to know how to play Perry, since it's so important he not get in foul trouble...something like that. They explained it better than I doing : ) It was a nice theory, and the most logical explanation I have heard (beyond coach is just being superstitious). I'm not especially bothered by Coury starting if that's what GIllispie thinks is best, but I too have trouble buying that is it TOTALLY just that "he works harder in practice" thing.

Would the smart person I've forgotten the name of like to lay claim to their brilliant theory now??

by blue kentucky girl on Mar 15, 2008 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No

by Ken Howlett on Mar 15, 2008 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what happens

to the CATS if georgia wins this thing. are we still a lock to get in. this is turning out to be the worst 24 hours that the CATS could have had happen.

by i got the blues on Mar 15, 2008 10:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't know about you..

but this is the one scenario I just didn't see happening. There is no way I see six SEC schools getting in. I hope I'm wrong on that. Tenn, Ark, Miss. St, and Vandy are in. I also think KY is in UNLESS GA wins tomorrow. If so, I think they would replace us.

Wow, I just depressed myself even more.

by KYLegacy on Mar 15, 2008 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Win three games in less than 30 hours?

No way. Of course, I thought MSU had 'em tonight, and I was wrong. But I think, no matter what Felton put in their water, tomorrow breaks their 3-game streak. They play 8 guys, and they HAVE to run out of gas.

by CW on Mar 16, 2008 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm somewhat...

...speechless after viewing the amount of work that went into this post. Incredible.

I agree w/ most posters that Kentucky should be in, but stranger things have happened.

I want it too much to feel comfortable come Selection Show. Our RPI freefalling to 62 isn't helping my blood pressure either.

by Clandestine on Mar 15, 2008 10:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice work and analysis.

My gut says we are in. If not, the committee will have some explaining to do in my eyes. I don't see how you can leave out the number 2 team in the SEC East, especially with a 12-4 record. I just don't see it happening. We are in, I believe it.

by hoopchi on Mar 15, 2008 11:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

UK in intangibles

Wow, John, what a great scatterplot. Interesting how a picture is often worth 1,000 words when attempting to explain a complex situation.
I still think - and even stronger with the data right in front of us - that the Cats are in, and it would be very unusual to be left out.
For every secret Cat-hater on the committee who might vote against them every time, and every fence sitter who might be swayed to go along, there must be a dozen or so more who will vote the stats, and take the Cats.
Seriously, put yourself in a committee member's shoes for a second or two, and think about it:

The Cats bring an army of fans with them wherever they go;
The Cats command a large TV viewing audience;
The Cats bring out the best in their opponents, getting an "A" game from whoever meets them in the Big Dance, year in, year out;
The Cats attract a lot of attention from those who ordinarily back other teams, but whose teams are either not in Dancing at all or not Dancing at that particular time slot;
The Cats are on a streak of consecutive NCAA appearances that should not end without really good reason - and this season's ups and downs do not provide anyone a legitimate reason;
The Cats this year include all kinds of extra drama, in that their previous coach left suddenly, a new coach was hired that was not really anyone's first or even second pick, the team suffered some really awful early losses, but rebounded to score some serious wins and nearly upset No. 1 ...
The Cats have been playing an exciting brand of basketball recently - much of today's game excepted - which will further drive interest ...

On the other hand, I can surely see why a few here and there would, either out of sheer Cat hatred or for reasons of parity or supposed equitability, think that other teams deserve a chance to Dance, and the Cats somehow lost their usual automatic bid. But I don't think there are enough of these to make the case.

What I really FEAR is the real intangible: this year's Cinderella. The one myth that outshines all others at the Big Dance is the Little School That Could - and whoever that turns out to be this year is the one school I could see catching the eyes of enough committee members to keep the Cats home.

However, I don't see Cinderella coming out of the SEC Tournament this year, does anyone? I can't see inviting any SEC team in favor of leaving the Cats at home, thanks to the Blue's SEC record.

But the right amount of buzz and the right storybook plot and characters might bring some smaller school's squad face-to-face with the Cats on the committee's table, and who knows what could happen then.

Of course, some voters might see a little bit of Cinderella in our Cats this year ... if Coury would get hot for one game, that might do it!

I cannot account for Smooth's uneven game, nor DJ's timidly passing on wide open looks, nor Perry's apparent retreat from the low post, nor the lack of time from several on the bench today - but that doesn't bother me.

The one thing that scares me to death is Cinderella (not the band, the myth) ... who do you think She will be this year, and does She keep the Cats off the Dance floors?

by Way2blue4SorryFairWeatherFew on Mar 16, 2008 1:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I was just looking over these graphs and....

my head exploded! Seriously, my intelligence and pride were hurt upon analyzing this stuff. Kudos to the effort and understanding it took to create this barrage of numbers and information. It is way beyond my ability to grasp at this current hour and with my current alcohol intake, that is for sure. Although these numbers are probably way more accurate than my gut, my gut says despite the formulas and mathematical wizardry, we need to be Arkansas fans tomorrow, or we are looking at a sixth SEC team in an already crowded field of teams vying for an NCAA tourney bid. Mathematics told me that when Swansey released that shot, there was no way it was going in, but my gut said otherwise and then my mouth said, "$@#@". Kentucky's luck has definitely not proven strong this weekend and I cannot approach tomorrow without the old method of hoping for the best but expecting the worst. We have been treated like dogs from our own conference this weekend.... what makes us think that a "neutral" selection committee will show this scrappy, blue collar KY team (whom I adore, by the way) any love at all? I hope so, I am just not expecting it. Again, no disrespect to the graphs and numbers, they just don't make me feel any better. Beer on the other hand, well...

I need a Sea of Blue because I am surrounded by Tennessee orange!

by sleepytimetea on Mar 16, 2008 1:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Six from SEC

...I, too, am hoping Georgia loses today, for I fear the committee will refuse to give the SEC 6 bids. Isn't that unfair? If 5 teams deserve at large bids on Sunday morning, should't a surprise Georgia automatic berth result in "bumping" the weakest team who was otherwise getting an automatic berth?

In my opinion, no team that is currently considered in worse "rank" on the bubble watch should move ahead of Kentucky based on a Georgia win. If so, that is patently unfair.

by johnr on Mar 16, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately,

If UGA makes it and UK is excluded, how would anybody know that the two are related? I.e., how would we know that UK would be in if UGA wasn't? On top of that, how would we know that it was because they were from the same conference, rather than UK simply being team #64 before UGA makes it?

Again, I expect UK in no matter what happens to UGA, so it's not something I'm sweating. But if UGA makes it and UK happens to be left out, there's simply no way we'll know the relationship between the two.

by Hooper on Mar 16, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unbelievable

Johnr epitomizes why UK fans are the best in land. Go Arkansas and go Pelphrey! No way UGA prevents us form getting a bid. Right? Hey Guys... Right? Seriously the man who owns Tubby Smith, Dennis Felton, isn't going to doom us again. Right?

Pins-and-needles until Sunday. By the way, if we didn't haven't UK on the front of our jersey, would we even be worried at this point?

I've never been a bigger fan of Arkansas since... well, never.

by Thomas Hunt Morgan on Mar 16, 2008 3:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nervous also

Like was posted above... this is the only scenario I can see that would exclude us from the tourney. If Georgia wins, then I'm afraid we've hit our "cap" of 5 teams for the SEC. I dont' see them taking 6 from our conference.

We are all John Pelphry fans today!!!

"Pins-and-needles until Sunday. By the way, if we didn't haven't UK on the front of our jersey, would we even be worried at this point?"

If you want my sarcastic, pessimistic first knee-jerk response to that... I'd say no, we wouldn't be nervous because without the UK on the front of the jersey we'd be a lock to be out. As much as I think our conference regular season record argues for us to be in, I also think there are other factors that play into it. Much the same way that I think if it weren't Arizona with a losing conference record but a huge SOS and RPI, they'd be a lock to be out instead of a bubble.

by chirop1 on Mar 16, 2008 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have that same feeling, but

I know in the past, the committee has stated that they do not look at how many teams a conference gets in and only compare the strengths and weaknesses among each of the bubble teams. I can't help that feeling though that Georgia, might just knock us out if they beat Arkansas. On the positive side, Joe Lunardi's latest bracket does not have us listed as one of the last 4 teams in and we are a 10 seed. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bracketology

by cthom on Mar 16, 2008 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

UK Is IN

NCAA takes the best At Large teams who played best late in the season.

UK meets both criteria.

by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 16, 2008 10:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Still nervous

I believe that we'll be in... but I am not 100% confident like I was 24 hours ago. However, if we do get in... this could work in our favor and bump us down into that 11 or 12 slot that we all want!!!

by chirop1 on Mar 16, 2008 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

UK Is IN

Not even on the bubble. There are 2 or 3 that R.

by FortyYearCatFan on Mar 16, 2008 11:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Weak SEC??

to the argument: UK doesn't deserve credit for going 12-4 in conference because of a weak SEC this year.

Answer:
I. No major conference team in the past 10 years has won 70% of their games in conference and failed to be invited to the Dance.

II. UK has won 70% of their games this year AGAINST THE SEC EAST

III. The SEC East is not weak.

(If Georgia beats Arkansas....)
How ironic would it be if the Committee decides that "because (and specifically and only because) the SEC East is so tough that they are sending 3 of 6 teams to the Big Dance, UK will not be invited at 12-4 because they play in a weak conference."

Also, if my math is right, UK would have a winning record this year against SEC teams who made the tournament.

by johnr on Mar 16, 2008 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

UK is 0.500 without UGA,

at 3-3. 1-1 against UT, 1-1 against Vandy, W against Arkansas, and L against MSU.

With UGA (and without the tournament game), they're 5-3. So if UGA does win, UK would indeed have a .500 record against all SEC teams in the tourney. But they're 0.500 against teams without autobids for winning the SEC tourney. Not that it matters much either way. It's still a respectable showing.

by Hooper on Mar 16, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs