Monday, April 16, 2012

Could Marquette have most balanced team in 2012-13; and another 3-seed?

Since I ran the initial projections for next year's rankings hours after the national championship, a good number of things have settled out with high school players choosing colleges and college players deciding to go pro or stay. After Brew's excellent piece on the good job MU is doing to schedule to get a better shot at a high seed, I was thrilled to rerun the numbers and see Marquette shoot up to a 3-seed.

In addition, several fans pointed out in the projections that the big problem was that a top recruit that was saddled on the bench for a year someplace like Kentucky should still project out to be a strong player was given his chance – rather than to repeat his ZERO. So I ran a simply “Kentucky conversion,” making every player who was in the Rivals 150 either of the last two years project out to at least the Value Add we would have expected from them as a freshman.

While Kentucky predictably jumped way up to No. 10 in the country pending four big recruits they are still pursing, the fund surprise when I ran the numbers as that Marquette jumped from the mid-30s to No. 11 as one of only two teams (besides Baylor) with 12 top 1000 players. In fact, if Trent Lockett is truly signing with MU, it would actually nudge us slightly ahead of Kentucky for No. 10:


RankPlayerHtYrOffDefPG/PerTot
153Davante Gardner6'8"Jr3.74-1.130.004.87
319Jamil Wilson6'7"Jr1.92-1.640.003.56
326Vander Blue6'4"Jr2.43-1.09 3.52
457Todd Mayo6'3"So2.25-0.610.002.86
524Junior Cadougan6'1"Sr0.16-0.951.502.61
528Jamail Jones6'6"Jr1.77-0.80 2.57
607Juan Anderson6'6"So1.61-0.72 2.33
676Chris Otule6'11"Jr0.01-2.08 2.09
831T.J. Taylor6'3"So1.17-0.52 1.69
844Steve Taylor6'7"Fr1.16-0.52 1.68
938Jake Thomas6'3"Sr1.490.00 1.49
967Jamal Ferguson6'3"Fr0.99-0.44 1.43
1043Trent Lockett6'4"Sr1.290.000.001.29
1314Derrick Wilson6'0So0.26-0.710.000.97
1501Aaron Durley6'9"Fr0.43-0.19 0.63
 Total with Lockett     32.97
 Total with Durley     32.31

Not only is Baylor the only team to team to match Marquette’s 12 in the top 1000 (Baylor also has 4 top 100 players), but Michigan State is the only other team with 11 and Indiana is the only other team with 10. So while Marquette will not be the best team in the country next year, we could go from having the second best duo in the country to potentially having the most balanced team in the country. In fact, before being stuck with one of the worst BCS teams in the country the last couple of years, Lockett was a top 1000 player as a freshman at Arizona State in a season that Pomeroy says most closely mirrors Wesley Matthews freshman campaign.

Of course, the one problem with this much balance is that it will likely filter down to an 8-man rotation. So what we are really saying is not that Marquette will end the season with 12 or 13 players in the top 1000, but that with 13 players capable of doing it we have a lot of chances for a few players to step up and be top 200 players, and a few more to step up and be top 500 players, etc. A team with only five top 500 players and no others in the top 1000 can fall apart much quicker if two of their players have off years.

We are close to setting up a separate database so you can pull up all these players, but for now I’ll give you the rest of the run of which teams would be seeded where in the NCAA tournament, or make the NIT based on the total projected Value Add they have right now. Since Kentucky is the one team still in the mix for four of the top freshmen, I split the difference with them and assumed they would get two of their final targets.

All caps indicates the automatic NCAA bid for being the top team in their conference:




RankTeamConfProj TotSeed
1INDIANAB1047.301
2BAYLORB1241.691
3NOTRE DAMEBE37.511
4UCLAP1235.931
5LouisvilleBE35.582
6NORTH CAROLINA ST.ACC34.802
7Michigan St.B1034.012
8Ohio St.B1033.812
9TexasB1233.703
10KENTUCKYSEC32.673
11MarquetteBE32.313
12FloridaSEC32.153
13MEMPHISCUSA31.784
14ProvidenceBE31.744
15PittsburghBE31.404
16MissouriSEC31.294
17MinnesotaB1030.225
18CREIGHTONMVC29.745
19SyracuseBE29.515
20DukeACC29.395
21GeorgetownBE29.056
22WisconsinB1028.866
23CaliforniaP1228.706
24NEVADA LAS VEGASMWC28.686
25Iowa St.B1228.377
26North CarolinaACC28.127
27MichiganB1028.017
28Oklahoma St.B1227.957
29GONZAGAWCC27.488
30TennesseeSEC27.418
31MarylandACC27.278
32ArizonaP1227.228
33KansasB1226.939
34ArkansasSEC26.699
35Kansas St.B1226.629
36ConnecticutBE26.429
37IowaB1026.2410
38SAINT JOSEPH'SA1026.1010
39StanfordP1225.9710
40TempleA1025.4910
41New MexicoMWC25.3211
42Illinois St.MVC24.5411
43VillanovaBE24.2911
44MississippiSEC24.2011
48VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTHCAA23.7212
51DAVIDSONSC23.4012
45ColoradoP1224.1112-PI
46Virginia TechACC24.0712-PI
47La SalleA1023.8412-PI
49RichmondA1023.7012-PI
59HARVARDIvy22.7113
60SOUTH DAKOTA ST.Sum22.3713
61OHIOMAC21.4013
68SOUTH CAROLINA UPSTATEASun19.9013
72BUCKNELLPat19.0414
74BELMONTOVC18.9014
80BUTLERHorz18.2514
83UTAH ST.WAC17.7614
87VERMONTAE17.3315
88DENVERSB17.2815
95LOYOLA MDMAAC16.6515
96ROBERT MORRISNEC16.2915
136MONTANABSky12.1816
149SAVANNAH ST.MEAC10.4416
150LONG BEACH ST.BW10.4316-PI
183STEPHEN F. AUSTINSlnd6.9116-PI
187NC ASHEVILLEBSth6.6916-PI
194TEXAS SOUTHERNSWAC6.3116-PI
50Oregon St.P1223.54NIT
52AlabamaSEC23.27NIT
53San Diego St.MWC23.26NIT
54NorthwesternB1023.10NIT
55RutgersBE23.08NIT
56OklahomaB1222.93NIT
57West VirginiaB1222.80NIT
58St. LouisA1022.80NIT
62Colorado St.MWC21.35NIT
63Miami FLACC21.28NIT
64HoustonCUSA21.23NIT
65VirginiaACC20.85NIT
66St. Mary'sWCC20.83NIT
67Texas TechB1220.10NIT
69Northern IowaMVC19.60NIT
70DrexelCAA19.27NIT
71AkronMAC19.04NIT
73XavierA1018.97NIT
75South CarolinaSEC18.77NIT
76St. John'sBE18.73NIT
77MassachusettsA1018.72NIT
78LehighPat18.66NIT
79Georgia TechACC18.33NIT
81Seton HallBE18.03NIT
82Washington St.P1217.98NIT
84Murray St.OVC17.65NIT
85South FloridaBE17.55NIT
86ValparaisoHorz17.40NIT
89Central FloridaCUSA17.24NIT
90North TexasSB17.12NIT
91PurdueB1017.04NIT
92Middle TennesseeSB16.89NIT

No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer: We welcome alternative opinions on CrackedSidewalks. However, this is not an open forum without moderation. If what you post fails to be intelligent or productive, we reserve the right to remove your comment from publication without hesitation.

Anonymous comments will be scrutinized.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by forum participants on this web site do not necessarily reflect the CrackedSidewalks Team.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.