The Power Five Misery Index

Status
Not open for further replies.
#26      
EJ33
Second and Chalmers said:
Here would be my defense of my methodology:

1. First and foremost, this was easily compilable using Wikipedia. I have neither the time nor the math skills to make some intricate five-factor regression that would tell us essentially the same thing.

2. Like I said, this is about us moreso than the Illini. I actually got the inspiration for this on a treadmill at my gym a few Saturdays ago as I saw people in Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, etc t-shirts walk by me. And I was thinking about how the measure of success in a fan's life is really being able to hold victories over your rivals. You could express the Illini's failure in a lot of ways, but the most emotionally resonant one is that we never have the upper hand on our peer institutions whose fans surround us every day. That's where the above .500 conference record came from. But then it also seemed like it was hard to define non-bowl/tournament seasons as successes, which also had the benefit of eliminating seasons where teams are in NCAA jail, which seemed like they shouldn't count because they don't feel like they "matter".

"Mattering". That's what I'm driving at. Sports is fun when your team matters. It sucks when they don't.

(EDIT: Another reason I didn't think of. Doing it any other way would throw the balance between Football/Basketball out of whack.)
Click to expand...

Nice work.

Underneath all of this is the fact that we haven't had good coaching quality for years. Tepper, Turner, Zook, Beckman - where are these guys working now? Weber is middling along at KSU and Groce is on a very hot seat.
 
#27      
jrichisamazing
FiveStar said:
I think this is a fair representation. I would implore those who disagree with the "narrative" to compile their own data and put it up so we can see both sides.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the narrative, but I think clumping basketball and football together for a school like Illinois is a bit harsh. We've been relevant in basketball every season under Groce except last year. I think other fans still respect us in basketball, but definitely not football. But basketball is just as painful as football right now because most of us expect to be more than relevant. We should be in the top 4 every year.
 
#29      
ballislife17
I agree that the metrics used were chosen to fit a narrative. You discount tournament appearances when we don't have an above conference record? The B1G is a national basketball powerhouse and teams who go .500 in conference can be top 25 at the end of the year. Obviously, I would like some more sweet 16s as well, but you can't argue that you didn't want to make the Illini look worse in basketball than they actually have been.

To go back to my Rutgers example, they have not made the tournament since 1991, and their best conference record was 6-12, one game better than our worst in your timeframe. So while we haven't met your criteria for two seasons where we made the NCAA tournament, we have definitely mattered significantly more.

I would be considerably more interested in the data if you were to count a tournament appearance in basketball as a relevant season. I think that is completely fair due to all the attention the tournament receives. Everyone and their mother fills out a bracket, and most do some degree of research into the teams in the tournament beforehand. Due to all of this I would argue that a team who makes the tournament is more nationally relevant than a 7-5 football team who goes 5-3 in conference which would be included in your model.
 
#30      
Second and Chalmers
ballislife17 said:
I would be considerably more interested in the data if you were to count a tournament appearance in basketball as a relevant season. I think that is completely fair due to all the attention the tournament receives. Everyone and their mother fills out a bracket, and most do some degree of research into the teams in the tournament beforehand. Due to all of this I would argue that a team who makes the tournament is more nationally relevant than a 7-5 football team who goes 5-3 in conference which would be included in your model.
Click to expand...

Everything you need is on that spreadsheet. Go get 'em. Let this be open-source and collaborative.
 
#31      
JDHalfrack
Again, my only gripe is your persistent reasoning that Basketball and Football or the only two intercollegiate sports. As far as football and basketball go, we've been pathetic, you're right. But we're SO much more than just those two sports.
 
#32      
Second and Chalmers
JDHalfrack said:
Again, my only gripe is your persistent reasoning that Basketball and Football or the only two intercollegiate sports. As far as football and basketball go, we've been pathetic, you're right. But we're SO much more than just those two sports.
Click to expand...

I respect that way of thinking, and I mean no disrespect to the efforts of our other athletes.

I would say, though, that I would trade national titles in every other sport offered by the University for a trip to the second weekend in basketball or a top 20 recruiting class in football, and so would every single person on this board, including you. That is just the reality of it.

I would also note that with the exception of Men's Gymnastics, a sport which currently has a grand total of 16 teams competing at varsity level across all divisions of the NCAA, Illinois has won just one national championship in any sport since 1958 (Tennis in 2003).

Just since I'm Mr. Data, let's take a look:

Non-Revenue NCAA Championships Since 1958:
26 - Maryland
24 - Iowa
19 - Wisconsin
17 - Minnesota, Penn State
14 - Indiana
10 - Michigan
9 - Ohio State
8 - Michigan State
7 - Northwestern
6 - Nebraska
3 - Purdue
1 - Illinois

(In addition to Men's Gymnastics, I also didn't count Bowling or Fencing, which also have barely any teams, and Trampoline because it's not an NCAA sport anymore, I don't know what that is, and it sounds like it's just a specialty of Men's Gymnastics. Nice try, Michigan.)

The cheese stands alone. Again. This is of course deeply correlated with our failures in the revenue sports, both in terms of money and the school's reputation as a sporty, jock-friendly place. And keep in mind, Illinois' advantage as the flagship school of a population heavy state presents a bigger advantage in the non-revenue sports than it does in football and basketball.

Every bad school thinks their non-revenue sports are better. This is an illusion created by the fact that the only coverage of non-revenue sports you see comes from your favorite school's in-house media. Our golf and men's tennis teams are the equivalent of our Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl appearances, gleaming beacons of hope floating in a sea of failure.
 
#33      
LisaMarie
ballislife17 said:
I agree that the metrics used were chosen to fit a narrative. You discount tournament appearances when we don't have an above conference record? The B1G is a national basketball powerhouse and teams who go .500 in conference can be top 25 at the end of the year. Obviously, I would like some more sweet 16s as well, but you can't argue that you didn't want to make the Illini look worse in basketball than they actually have been.

To go back to my Rutgers example, they have not made the tournament since 1991, and their best conference record was 6-12, one game better than our worst in your timeframe. So while we haven't met your criteria for two seasons where we made the NCAA tournament, we have definitely mattered significantly more.

I would be considerably more interested in the data if you were to count a tournament appearance in basketball as a relevant season. I think that is completely fair due to all the attention the tournament receives. Everyone and their mother fills out a bracket, and most do some degree of research into the teams in the tournament beforehand. Due to all of this I would argue that a team who makes the tournament is more nationally relevant than a 7-5 football team who goes 5-3 in conference which would be included in your model.
Click to expand...

Syracuse made the Final Four in an irrelevant season.
 
#34      
Second and Chalmers
LisaMarie said:
Syracuse made the Final Four in an irrelevant season.
Click to expand...

They aren't in a Power Five conference anymore, but UConn won a national title in an irrelevant season. Several coaches got fired for relevant seasons (my favorite is Rick Neuheisel the year we beat them in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl).

Data is imperfect. Feel free to do better. Seriously, I'd love to see a different spin on this.

They say that if you torture statistics long enough, they'll tell you anything. Statistics will die for their country before they'll tell you that Illinois athletics hasn't been horrible.
 
#36      
BananaShampoo
Second and Chalmers said:
I respect that way of thinking, and I mean no disrespect to the efforts of our other athletes.

I would say, though, that I would trade national titles in every other sport offered by the University for a trip to the second weekend in basketball or a top 20 recruiting class in football, and so would every single person on this board, including you. That is just the reality of it.

I would also note that with the exception of Men's Gymnastics, a sport which currently has a grand total of 16 teams competing at varsity level across all divisions of the NCAA, Illinois has won just one national championship in any sport since 1958 (Tennis in 2003).

Just since I'm Mr. Data, let's take a look:

Non-Revenue NCAA Championships Since 1958:
26 - Maryland
24 - Iowa
19 - Wisconsin
17 - Minnesota, Penn State
14 - Indiana
10 - Michigan
9 - Ohio State
8 - Michigan State
7 - Northwestern
6 - Nebraska
3 - Purdue
1 - Illinois

(In addition to Men's Gymnastics, I also didn't count Bowling or Fencing, which also have barely any teams, and Trampoline because it's not an NCAA sport anymore, I don't know what that is, and it sounds like it's just a specialty of Men's Gymnastics. Nice try, Michigan.)

The cheese stands alone. Again. This is of course deeply correlated with our failures in the revenue sports, both in terms of money and the school's reputation as a sporty, jock-friendly place. And keep in mind, Illinois' advantage as the flagship school of a population heavy state presents a bigger advantage in the non-revenue sports than it does in football and basketball.

Every bad school thinks their non-revenue sports are better. This is an illusion created by the fact that the only coverage of non-revenue sports you see comes from your favorite school's in-house media. Our golf and men's tennis teams are the equivalent of our Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl appearances, gleaming beacons of hope floating in a sea of failure.
Click to expand...

Jeebus. I knew it was bad but not THAT bad. :eek: However, we are the kings of almost reaching the pinnacle but not quite making it. I can think of a few examples just in recent years: Men's Gymnastics, Women's Volleyball (NC Match Loss), Men's Golf (just last year, in fact), Men's Tennis, '05 Men's Basketball... Those are just off the top of my head. :tsk: Which is worse, never being relevant, or always being good but never quite good enough?
 
#37      
Hoppy2105
Second and Chalmers said:
They aren't in a Power Five conference anymore, but UConn won a national title in an irrelevant season. Several coaches got fired for relevant seasons (my favorite is Rick Neuheisel the year we beat them in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl).

Data is imperfect. Feel free to do better. Seriously, I'd love to see a different spin on this.

They say that if you torture statistics long enough, they'll tell you anything. Statistics will die for their country before they'll tell you that Illinois athletics hasn't been horrible.
Click to expand...

Freaking cracked up at that. You have a way with words, Sir, a wonderful way with words.
 
#38      
Serious Late
BananaShampoo said:
Jeebus. I knew it was bad but not THAT bad. :eek: However, we are the kings of almost reaching the pinnacle but not quite making it. I can think of a few examples just in recent years: Men's Gymnastics, Women's Volleyball (NC Match Loss), Men's Golf (just last year, in fact), Men's Tennis, '05 Men's Basketball... Those are just off the top of my head. :tsk: Which is worse, never being relevant, or always being good but never quite good enough?
Click to expand...

Is it weird that I feel like we are both?
 
#39      
drwillini
The thing that has changed is basketball. Football has always been up and down. Thin recruiting classes but decent recruiting targets in football allow the occasional season where we have average big ten athletes with above average experience, and if we avoid injuries we can have a decent season. Always trying to catch lightning in a bottle. Those of us that are a bit older expect basketball to be much better than it has been in the last 10 years.
 
#40      
JDHalfrack
Second and Chalmers said:
Non-Revenue NCAA Championships Since 1958:
26 - Maryland
24 - Iowa
19 - Wisconsin
17 - Minnesota, Penn State
14 - Indiana
10 - Michigan
9 - Ohio State
8 - Michigan State
7 - Northwestern
6 - Nebraska
3 - Purdue
1 - Illinois
Click to expand...

I stand corrected...! :eek:
 
#41      
illini80
Well I guess S&C has explained something I have noticed, especially this year. I have become completely apathetic about Illini sports when I once lived game by game, and the off season was excruciating. I used to never miss a game and that was before DVR. Now I record every game and often don't even bother to watch the whole thing. It's just not fun anymore. Apparently being irrelevant will do that to you. Thanks for the analysis S&C. I have seen the enemy and he is us!

Long term I have hope that JW will get things turned around. Wake me when it's over.
 
#42      
Ransom Stoddard
A lot of great points here, but there's a common factor along a particular time frame.

Guenther.
 
#45      
IlliniOllie
JDHalfrack said:
Again, my only gripe is your persistent reasoning that Basketball and Football or the only two intercollegiate sports. As far as football and basketball go, we've been pathetic, you're right. But we're SO much more than just those two sports.
Click to expand...

Non-revenue sports are nice, and all, but it's like talking about graduation rates. Sure, they're a good thing to have, but the only fans who are talking about that stuff are the fans of bad major-sport teams.

And to go back to Second and Chalmers' other point, those non-revenue sports are worth very little as currency when you're dealing with other Big Ten fans.

"Yeah, well, how about our men's golf team? In your face, Ohio State!" :D
 
#46      
Bogey99
Second and Chalmers said:
Everything you need is on that spreadsheet. Go get 'em. Let this be open-source and collaborative.
Click to expand...

Interesting data. Ignoring conference records and just using NCAA/Bowl as the criteria, I noticed a few interesting things just quickly looking through the list (might have missed some):

--Wisconsin is the only school to go 18 for 18.
--Michigan State was right there with them until this year's football team
--Illinois is up to 6 with this methodology, ahead of some teams at 5 (Wake Forest, Oregon State, Colorado) and Washington State at the bottom with 4
--Longest current "losing" streak is -4 for Illinois, Rutgers and Mizzou, since Wake Forest ended their streak of -9 with this year's bowl game

Still paints an ugly picture for the Illini, but maybe not quite as bad as S&C's first look.
 
#47      
zoggle101
SOS! B1G is mega legit in both sports even when up against the other elite conferences.

The program puts players in the NFL in football.

We all know basketball plays a lot of tough OOC games.

The Jamar, JR things, and ML leaving a year too early for our liking played into some of the sub 22 win seasons. Not bringing in any legit Freshmen in 12 hurt too. Ridiculous injury plague. Things are trending up in both sports!
 
Last edited:
#49      
MadSeason
jrichisamazing said:
I don't disagree with the narrative, but I think clumping basketball and football together for a school like Illinois is a bit harsh. We've been relevant in basketball every season under Groce except last year. I think other fans still respect us in basketball, but definitely not football. But basketball is just as painful as football right now because most of us expect to be more than relevant. We should be in the top 4 every year.
Click to expand...

I don't think other fans respect us in basketball, although it's impossible to quantify. The last time I think we were relevant was 2006 which was long ago. Football in 2007 was the last time either sport was relevant nationally imo.

I think a lot of us, myself included live off our past glory in basketball. We have been off the scene for quite some time. I do believe the sleeping giant narrative is far more accurate for basketball though due to the ridiculous amount of basketball talent Illinois High Schools generally produce.

I totally buy into the Benji Wilson, Bruce Pearl and Bruce Weber curse keeping us from becoming a basketball blue blood. I haven't seen the opportunity in football.
 
#50      
mattcoldagelli
OrangeSoda said:
So by your standards the 2012 season where we took down Gonzaga, Indiana, and nearly beat Miami in round 2 was not relevant? Just because of a conference record? Not a fan of the standards.
Click to expand...

This is, in fact, the best evidence of how bad it has been. We no longer even recognize what relevance is.

At the Illinois I attended, "Almost winning a 2nd round game as a 7-seed" would be judged, at best, a forgettable season, and at worst, a failure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back