MVC Flagships (1997-2013)

[SB Shock]

Based on the Period of 1997 to 2013 [This period was chosen because this was the start of the period with this stable 10 members.

First Place
SIU - 5
CU - 3
WSU - 2
ISUR - 2

2nd Place
CU - 7
WSU -4

3rd Place
ISUR - 4
MSU - 3
SIU - 3
UNI -2
WSU - 2
CU -1

Top Play-In Teams
DU - 14 times (82%)
ISUB - 10 times (58%)
EU - 8 times (47%)

Capture2.JPG
Capture1.JPG

Capture3.JPG

[SB Shock]

Capture4.JPG

[SB Shock]

General Comments on Trends

CU has made their living staying solid, not great.

Teams on the Rise: WSU, UNI, CU

Teams on the Decline: SIU, MSU, BSU

Teams Consistently Bad: ISUB, Drake

[RoyalShock]

Ross Perot, is that you?



;)

[WuDrWu]

What does Top 2 mean? If it means either 1st or 2nd, or just 2nd, I think the number is off.

WSU was 2nd in 12-13, 10-11, 09-10, 04-05 & 03-04 at least.

[SB Shock]

What does Top 2 mean? If it means either 1st or 2nd, or just 2nd, I think the number is off.

WSU was 2nd in 12-13, 10-11, 09-10, 04-05 & 03-04 at least.

Top 2 - would be better described as 2nd Place [I went and changed it]. I used the MVC final finish order, so some of those year you quote you are correct they were tied for 2nd, but when tie breakers applied finished lower.

[ShockerFever]

How does NCAA success in that time period compare?

[SB Shock]

How does NCAA success in that time period compare?

Idk. It would probably have to be researched.

[jdmee]

How does NCAA success in that time period compare?

Ranked by #16s, #32s, #Bids

SIU 6 NCAA (02-07) 3 R32 (02,05,07) 2 S16 (02,07)

UNI 5 NCAA (04,05,06,09,10) 1R32 (10) 1 S16 (10)
*WSU 3 NCAA (06,12,13) 1 R32 (06) 1 S16 (06)
BU 1 NCAA (06) 1 R32 (06) 1 S16 (06)
MSU 1 NCAA (99) 1 32 (99) 1 S16 (99)

*CU 9 NCAA (99-03,05,07,12,13) 3 R32 (99,02,12)
In St 3 NCAA (00,01,11) 1 R32 (01)
Il St 2 NCAA (97,98) 1 R32 (98)

DU 1 NCAA (08)
UE 1 NCAA (99)

*Pending this years results

[shocka khan]

Great analytics. Nice job, SB Shock!

[DoubleJayAlum]

I think your numbers are out of whack just a bit. I suspect that may be due to the way you've handled ties. For example, if two teams tie for a conference title, it is a shared title (i.e., they are both considered "first place").

[ShockTalk]

How does NCAA success in that time period compare?

Ranked by #16s, #32s, #Bids

SIU 6 NCAA (02-07) 3 R32 (02,05,07) 2 S16 (02,07)

UNI 5 NCAA (04,05,06,09,10) 1R32 (10) 1 S16 (10)
*WSU 3 NCAA (06,12,13) 1 R32 (06) 1 S16 (06)
BU 1 NCAA (06) 1 R32 (06) 1 S16 (06)
MSU 1 NCAA (99) 1 32 (99) 1 S16 (99)

*CU 9 NCAA (99-03,05,07,12,13) 3 R32 (99,02,12)
In St 3 NCAA (00,01,11) 1 R32 (01)
Il St 2 NCAA (97,98) 1 R32 (98)

DU 1 NCAA (08)
UE 1 NCAA (99)

*Pending this years results

What value you place on each "level" of performance is subjective to your own perceived value.

For example: 1 point for each appearance, 1 additional point for R32, 2 additional points for S16 and so on. If a team makes it to the R32 is 2 points, S16 is 4 points, E8 7. From @jdmee:'s list:

SIU: 13 points
CU: 12 points
UNI: 8 points
WSU: 6 points
MSU: 4 points
BU: 4 points
IN St: 4 points
Ill St: 3 points
DU: 1 point
UE: 1 point

Some have done more with less, others less with more. I would consider what SIU did as a good balance of # of bids + good performance within those bids.

[jdmee]

What value you place on each "level" of performance is subjective to your own perceived value.

For example: 1 point for each appearance, 1 additional point for R32, 2 additional points for S16 and so on. If a team makes it to the R32 is 2 points, S16 is 4 points, E8 7. From @jdmee:'s list:

SIU: 13 points
CU: 12 points
UNI: 8 points
WSU: 6 points
MSU: 4 points
BU: 4 points
IN St: 4 points
Ill St: 3 points
DU: 1 point
UE: 1 point

Some have done more with less, others less with more. I would consider what SIU did as a good balance of # of bids + good performance within those bids.

I would like to see how each teams winning percentage compares to the expected winning percentage. I just need to find the time to do the research.

I also wouldn't count making the NCAA Tourney as success in the NCAA Tourney. That is more conference success. Liberty at 15-20 will most likely lose their first round game. Do we count that as NCAA Tournament success or Big South Tournament success.

[SB Shock]

I think your numbers are out of whack just a bit. I suspect that may be due to the way you've handled ties. For example, if two teams tie for a conference title, it is a shared title (i.e., they are both considered "first place").

Valid point on how to handle ties. It not really an issue for 1st place since there was only 2 instances in 17 years that No 1 was tied. Now had wsu not chocked against evansville this tear i might handled it differntly :)

Where it really made a difference was on the lower end. If I considered ties it actually rewarded bottom feeders and things were a little more muddled on that end.

Another think lacking in the metric is it didn't handle overall record -which should be considered. So with the data jdmee provided there could be another v2

[jdmee]

I used the following site for the seed matchups. It's from 2006 so the data is a little old. If there is better data out there I'll update the numbers.

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney06/insider/news/story?id=2353126

I will list the school, the expected results and the actual results from the NCAA tournament.

Better than expected (0.5 more wins than expected)
BU .369-2.631 2-1 Better than expected, but small sample size
MSU .776-2.224 2-1 Better than expected, small sample size
SIU 4.466 - 6.534 5-6 Better than expected

About what was expected
IL St .911-2.089 1-2. About what was expected
In St .925-.3.075 1-3 About what was expected
UE .298-.702 0-1
WSU 1.606-2.394 2-2 Helps that 11s are 2-0 over 7s.

Worse that expected (0.5 less wins than expected)
CU 4.673-6.327 3-8 Worse than expected.
DU .679-.321 0-1 Worse than expected, but small sample size
UNI 2.827-4.173 2-5