Albrecht, I have watched way, way more Maryland basketball than I ever thought I would beginning with the fall of 2007 when my older daughter first enrolled in Maryland’s journalism program. Jen has always been a crazed sports fan, especially basketball (she is now a moderator on Maryland’s SBNation board), and conversations with her have required that I keep up with Maryland hoops. Maybe Maryland will continue to be a high level finisher in the Big Ten, though the Terps will lose either 4 or 5 starters depending on Trimble, and have a good, but not great, recruiting class coming in, but Maryland was a mediocre or less team for Turgeon’s first 3 seasons in College Park, and would have been whether they were in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, or any other power 5 conference.
I don’t have the time to go back and look it up either, but then, I am not the one disputing the data given in the analysis.
I can tell you that, according to my notes, here are some of Wisconsin’s players rankings:
Dekker 12, Koenig 111, Hayes 145, Kaminsky 218, Brust 191, Dukan 200 and Gasser 207, Jackson 201, Showalter 239 and Dearring 254. That was from their 2015 runner-up team.
You might be right but the prior couple years before Maryland joined there were still some questionable B1G teams that made the tourney. Iowa made that play in game against Tennessee, OSU a 10-8 B1G team lost to Dayton round 1, an 8-10 Illinois made the tourney and actually won a tourney game they did have a 22-12 overall record but a losing record in conference doesn’t speak well of a team imo. Turgeon had an 8-10 team in the ACC one year and made the NIT semis, another year 9-9 didn’t even get them in the NIT. I agree they were mediocre but there was some mediocre B1G teams that got a tourney berth as well.
Questionable teams make the tourney every year from every major conference. What’s your point?
You said that “[m]aybe Maryland is actually going to be a high level finisher in the B1G not having to face the likes of Duke/UNC/Virginia/Syracuse…” You do realize, don’t you, that Syracuse joined the ACC during Maryland’s last year in conference? So they didn’t play Syracuse for 2/3 ACC years used in the rankings. Also, UVa was mediocre for the first 2 years used in this ranking.
Did you actually look at the ACC for those 3 years? It was bad. UNC was good in 2012, and then fell off for the next 2. Duke suffered huge 1st round upsets during 2 of those 3 years. The ACC was simply not good. Maryland’s numbers actually look better because they were playing in a bad conference.
For comparison, PSU had only two guys in the top 100 over the whole period (one at 50, the other at 95), and only two more guys in the top 150. Pritzl, Happ, and Illikaine were in the top 100, 150 and 150 respectively, in addition to those guy you mentioned. So I think Wiscy got more top 25, 100 and top 150 guys than PSU. And even when you look at ITH’s numbers, PSU comes in averaging 57 and Wiscy 70, but it’s the percentile rank that seems so low. So I maintain that the recruiting rankings list, while interesting, is not the most useful measuring stick. I’d be more interested to see number of top 50 and 150 guys, something like that.
2017 class is crucial assuming there’s a legitimate trend in that spreadsheet.
You do know that year Syracuse went to the ACC they were #4 in the country when Maryland faced them. So yes adding a top 5-10 team in the country would naturally knock a team down a peg.
UNC fell off for the next 2 years? They were 12-6 and 13-5 those last 2 seasons Maryland was in the ACC. Obviously 25-11 isn’t that god though. Duke 27-9 those final 2 seasons, Virginia also 27-9 those 2 years. You could make the case the ACC wasn’t great but don’t make statements saying UNC fell off those 2 years.
I think the recruiting ranking probably needs to be adjusted for quantity somehow. Michigan’s 107 stands out because of only one prospect and I’m guessing some of the other >100 rankings are similar (i.e. Wisconsin’s 2014 class was ranked 120th because it was only Ethan Happ).
You make bad points. It matters little what Syracuse was ranked when they played Maryland that one time, because Syracuse wasn’t even in the league for the first two years. So Maryland’s mediocrity was barely impacted by Syracuse. It isn’t as if they played 6 times during those 3 years.
Yes, UNC fell off. Their record is unimpressive insofar as it was a result of playing in a bad conference. The tournament committee saw right through it, giving them an 8 and 7 seed, respectively, in those 2 years. The seedings were justified, as they lost in the second round each year. In the year prior and the 2 years after, UNC was a 1 seed, a 4 seed, and a 1 seed. So, yes, UNC certainly did fall off for those 2 years.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to prove by listing conference records for those teams. My argument is that the conference was bad. So if the “top” teams had good conference records, it means absolutely nothing. Again, Duke lost to a 15 and a 14 seed in 2 of those years. They obviously weren’t that good.
To go back and quote the article:
For Maryland and Rutgers, we had to use their conference wins in other leagues. For Rutgers, it didn’t matter too much. For Maryland, using ACC wins may have actually given a slight boost given that the Big Ten ranked ahead of the ACC in KenPom for each season affected (2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14).
That is exactly what I found in the past. There have been years when a school took only one player, but he was a 5 star and their class finished ranked 90+, strictly due to small class size.
OTOH … Five five-stars still needs to be regarded as better than 1 five-star, so it is a tricky situation.
Like I said initially, recruiting class rankings is of small value in this analysis.
I actually always thought the big ten was better because it’s deeper. Now the acc is stacked so maybe not anymore but for years the acc was just top heavy. Big ten was very deep.
So I maintain that the recruiting rankings list, while interesting, is not the most useful measuring stick.
On this point we agree. It would make more sense to take the sum of player rankings divided by number of recruits for an average ranking. But, my larger point is that recruiting success is of little value in this analysis.
Wow UNC fell off you would never dare say that of a Michigan basketball team coached by Beilein as evidenced how you have protected him the past couple years. Yep and Michigan lost to a 13 seed in one of those same years. Michigan obviously wasn’t that good right…
You guys keep comparing random examples to try to make your point. Neither really makes any sense. KenPom is probably the best measurement of conference strength and as referenced above the Big Ten was tougher than the ACC those years.
Your flailing attempts to salvage a losing argument are hilarious. The bottom line is that your original premise (that Maryland was actually better than their ranking indicated because they played in the ACC for 3 years) is laughably–and unsurprisingly–dead wrong. Yet, rather than accept that and move on, you’ve decided to double down on your original argument? Pure comedic gold.
Agreed. Instead of rankings they should compile each players 247 composite score and then either take the total or the average per player. I can see the merits in either looking at total, average or both, But the rankings method is too subject to being skewed by large or small classes.