.

It has been reported in earlier threads that the number of Non-P5 FB teams that have finished in the Final AP Top 25 has doubled since 2014.

.

Now, it has become clear that a parallel trend has also been observed for men's basketball.

The trend is clearest when plotted as a moving average.

"moving average: a succession of averages derived from successive segments (typically of constant size and overlapping) of a series of values."

Non-P5 and Non-Big East Teams:

Year:.........Average # of Non-P5 MBB teams in the Final AP Top 25:

2014-16.....MEAN=4.00
2015-17.....MEAN=3.67
2016-18.....MEAN=4.00
2017-19.....MEAN=6.00
2018-20.....MEAN=6.00

These data show that the number of non-P5 and non-Big East basketball teams in the Final AP Top 25 increased by 50% - - from a mean of 4 non-P5 top 25 MBB teams between 2014 and 2016 to a mean of 6 non-P5 MBB teams between 2017 and 2020.

....................................................................................................

All Non-P5 Teams (including Big East teams):

Years:........Average # of Non-P5 MBB Teams in Final AP Top 25:

2014-2016: MEAN=7.00
2015-2017: MEAN=6.33
2016-2018: MEAN=6.67
2017-2019: MEAN=8.00
2018-2020: MEAN=9.00

NOTE: There were 10 non-P5 MBB teams in the 2019 Final AP Top 25.

These data show that the number of non-P5 MBB teams (including Big East teams) in the Final AP Top increased by 38.8% - - from a mean of 6.67 non-P5 top 25 MBB teams between 2016 and 2018 to a mean of 9 non-P5 MBB teams between 2018 and 2020.


.

Notably, these trends have taken longer than the trends in the FB data took to become evident, and they haven't been quite as dramatic. However, it is equally noteworthy that the same overall, upward, multi-year, trend was obtained, whether or not the Big East teams were counted among the non-P5 teams in the analysis. Further, the trends in the basketball rankings data are consistent - and convergent - with similar trends in the football rankings data.

.

Q: What is the broader significance of these data?

A: The data suggest that the same kinds of factors that have contributed to improved FBS rankings may have also contributed to improved D1 MBB rankings in the years following the P5 split.

--These findings are of particular interest because they tend to disconfirm the hypothesis that the quality of play by the P5 FB and BB programs would far surpass that of the the non-P5 BB and FB programs, as a result of the disproportionate surge in broadcasting revenues that have been distributed to the P5 schools.

--If anything, the data tend to support the contrary hypothesis, i.e., that in the domain of athletics, it may be advantageous to be "lean and mean."

Q: Do the FB or MBB data suggest that these trends are likely to continue?

A: No - - that's just one of several possibilities. It's equally possible that the trends will quickly level off, or that they will enter a cyclic phase, with periodic increases and decreases.

Q: Is there any evidence of such cycles and trends in the data?

A: There hasn't been a regular cycle, but there have been occasional peaks and troughs through the years, ranging between 12 teams from current non-P5 schools (before 1970) and between 2 teams from current non-P5 schools (in 2001).

--In addition, there has been a broad downward trend in the number of teams from current non-P5 schools in AP Top 20 and Top 25 lists between 1949 and 2020.

--Thus, the upward trend in the data between 2016 (4 non-P5 teams in the Final Top 25) and 2020 (10 non-P5 teams in the Final Top 25) has run in the opposite direction of the broader historical trend.

.
A review of the BB seasons going back to the late 1970s shows that:

--In the years leading up to 1990, when the AP Top 20 was expanded to the newer AP Top 25, the number of teams from current non-P5 schools in the Final AP Top 20 lists from that era ranged from 3 to 8.

----For example, in 1988:

------There was an AP Top 20, not an AP Top 25

------The teams from current non-P5 schools that were in the Final 1988 AP Top 20 were:

#1 Temple; #11 Bradley; #12 UNLV; #13 Wyoming; #15 Loyola-Marymount; #18 Xavier; & #19 BYU

.

--In the years since 1990, when the AP Top 20 was expanded to the AP Top 25, the number of teams from current non-P5 schools in the Top 25 lists have ranged from 2 (2001) to 9 (2019)

--The average number of teams from current non-P5 schools did not increase much when the Top 20 was expanded to a Top 25. Instead, either 4 or all 5 of the 5 new slots in the Top 25 list generally went to P5 teams.

.

Guys, you may find this hard to believe, but jumping back another decade, it turns out that there were 12 teams from current non-P5 schools in the:

Final 1970 AP Top 20:

#3 St. Bonaventure
#4 Jacksonville
#5 New Mexico State
#8 Marquette
#12 Houston
#13 Penn
#14 Drake
#15 Davidson
#16 Utah State
#17 Niagara
#18 Western Kentucky
#19 Long Beach State

NOTE: This was not an aberration. In 1949, there were 12 such teams (from current non-P5 schools) in the AP Top 20. In 1953 and 1960, there were 10 such teams, and in 1951 and 1971, there were 11.

.

However, there have never been more than 10 teams from current non-P5 teams in the Final AP Polls since the AP Top 20 was expanded to the current AP Top 25 (since 1990.

Q: Let me get this straight: Does this mean that there have actually been actually been fewer teams from current non-P5 schools in the Final AP Top 25 lists since 1990 than there were in the years before 1990, when there was an AP Top 20, and not an AP Top 25 list?

A: That is correct. It was not at all uncommon for 10, 11, or 12 teams in the Final AP Top 20 lists to be from the current non-P5 schools, but there were never more than nine teams from the current non-P5 schools in any of the Final AP Top 25 lists between 1990 and 2019.

.

These data show that the P5 conferences have worked out quite a nice arrangement for themselves (i.e., gamed the system) through the years. There were only 8 (40%) teams from current P5 schools in the Final AP Top 20 in 1949. Since 1990, the number of Final Top 25 teams from current P5 schools has ranged between 15 (60%) and 23 (92%).

To summarize the trends since 1949, when the AP polls first began, there were more teams from the non P-5 schools in the AP Top 20 from 1949 through the early 1970s than there have been since the early 1970s.

The non-P5 schools then began to dominate the AP Top 20 and Top 25 lists, and they continued to do so until 2016.

What we have seen since 2016 has been an apparent reversal of this trend.

It will be interesting to see how long this upward trend will continue.

(01-18-2021 11:05 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

It has been reported in earlier threads that the number of Non-P5 FB teams that have finished in the Final AP Top 25 has doubled since 2014.

.

Now, it has become clear that a parallel trend has also been observed for men's basketball.

The trend is clearest when plotted as a moving average.

"moving average: a succession of averages derived from successive segments (typically of constant size and overlapping) of a series of values."

Non-P5 and Non-Big East Teams:

Year:.........Average # of Non-P5 MBB teams in the Final AP Top 25:

2014-16.....MEAN=4.00
2015-17.....MEAN=3.67
2016-18.....MEAN=4.00
2017-19.....MEAN=6.00
2018-20.....MEAN=6.00

These data show that the number of non-P5 and non-Big East basketball teams in the Final AP Top 25 increased by 50% - - from a mean of 4 non-P5 top 25 MBB teams between 2014 and 2016 to a mean of 6 non-P5 MBB teams between 2017 and 2020.

....................................................................................................

All Non-P5 Teams (including Big East teams):

Years:........Average # of Non-P5 MBB Teams in Final AP Top 25:

2014-2016: MEAN=7.00
2015-2017: MEAN=6.33
2016-2018: MEAN=6.67
2017-2019: MEAN=8.00
2018-2020: MEAN=9.00

NOTE: There were 10 non-P5 MBB teams in the 2019 Final AP Top 25.

These data show that the number of non-P5 MBB teams (including Big East teams) in the Final AP Top increased by 38.8% - - from a mean of 6.67 non-P5 top 25 MBB teams between 2016 and 2018 to a mean of 9 non-P5 MBB teams between 2018 and 2020.


.

Notably, these trends have taken longer than the trends in the FB data took to become evident, and they haven't been quite as dramatic. However, it is equally noteworthy that the same overall, upward, multi-year, trend was obtained, whether or not the Big East teams were counted among the non-P5 teams in the analysis. Further, the trends in the basketball rankings data are consistent - and convergent - with similar trends in the football rankings data.

.

Q: What is the broader significance of these data?

A: The data suggest that the same kinds of factors that have contributed to improved FBS rankings may have also contributed to improved D1 MBB rankings in the years following the P5 split.

--These findings are of particular interest because they tend to disconfirm the hypothesis that the quality of play by the P5 FB and BB programs would far surpass that of the the non-P5 BB and FB programs, as a result of the disproportionate surge in broadcasting revenues that have been distributed to the P5 schools.

--If anything, the data tend to support the contrary hypothesis, i.e., that in the domain of athletics, it may be advantageous to be "lean and mean."

Q: Do the FB or MBB data suggest that these trends are likely to continue?

A: No - - that's just one of several possibilities. It's equally possible that the trends will quickly level off, or that they will enter a cyclic phase, with periodic increases and decreases.

Q: Is there any evidence of such cycles and trends in the data?

A: There hasn't been a regular cycle, but there have been occasional peaks and troughs through the years, ranging between 12 teams from current non-P5 schools (before 1970) and between 2 teams from current non-P5 schools (in 2001).

--In addition, there has been a broad downward trend in the number of teams from current non-P5 schools in AP Top 20 and Top 25 lists between 1949 and 2020.

--Thus, the upward trend in the data between 2016 (4 non-P5 teams in the Final Top 25) and 2020 (10 non-P5 teams in the Final Top 25) has run in the opposite direction of the broader historical trend.

No such thing as P5 in any sport other than FBS football!

(01-24-2021 10:26 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  No such thing as P5 in any sport other than FBS football!

While the term "P5" isn't used very often when discussing other sports, but the 5 P5 conferences have special "A5" rules and privileges which extend across all sports. So, whether they're called "P5" or "A5," they are P5/A5 baseball conferences and P5/A5 volleyball conferences, etc.

In basketball, the term "Major 7" is used because the Big East is generally considered the equal of the P5 basketball conferences, and the AAC is fortunate enough to be included under the rubric of the Major 7, as well - - as long as it remains competitive.

UPDATE:

As of 1/31/21, there are 7 non-P5 teams in the NET top 25:

#2 Gonzaga (WCC; 17-0)
#4 Houston (AAC; 13-1)
#7 Villanova (BEC; 11-1)
#9 Drake MVC; 13-0)
#15 Colgate (PC; 6-1)
#19 Boise St. (MWC; 13-2)
#25 Loyola (Chicago) (MVC; 11-3)

*9 (30%) of the NET top 30 teams are non-P5 teams.

*20 (33.3%) of the NET top 60 teams are non-P5 teams.

Fourteen (29.8%) of 47 teams with a consensus-projected seed of #11.0 or higher at bracketmatrix.com are non-P5 teams. Five are BEC teams; 3 MWC; 2 A10; 2 WCC; 1 AAC; 1 MVC.

(01-24-2021 10:35 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 10:26 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  No such thing as P5 in any sport other than FBS football!

While the term "P5" isn't used very often when discussing other sports, but the 5 P5 conferences have special "A5" rules and privileges which extend across all sports. So, whether they're called "P5" or "A5," they are P5/A5 baseball conferences and P5/A5 volleyball conferences, etc.

In basketball, the term "Major 7" is used because the Big East is generally considered the equal of the P5 basketball conferences, and the AAC is fortunate enough to be included under the rubric of the Major 7, as well - - as long as it remains competitive.

I agree with you on this, Jed. However, and as I have noted before, I don't think the term "Major 7" is commonly used. I have seen (including recently) ESPN and other media refer to AAC men's basketball as a "major" conference. And I strongly consider American men's hoops "major" (though not "power").

I also think it's important to note (and I have done so multiple times on this board) that though the Big East offers "power" men's basketball, it is not a "power" league in a broad sense.

I think this year is going to see a regression for the mid-major leagues in the rankings

(01-31-2021 11:01 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 10:35 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 10:26 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  No such thing as P5 in any sport other than FBS football!

While the term "P5" isn't used very often when discussing other sports, but the 5 P5 conferences have special "A5" rules and privileges which extend across all sports. So, whether they're called "P5" or "A5," they are P5/A5 baseball conferences and P5/A5 volleyball conferences, etc.

In basketball, the term "Major 7" is used because the Big East is generally considered the equal of the P5 basketball conferences, and the AAC is fortunate enough to be included under the rubric of the Major 7, as well - - as long as it remains competitive.

I agree with you on this, Jed. However, and as I have noted before, I don't think the term "Major 7" is commonly used. I have seen (including recently) ESPN and other media refer to AAC men's basketball as a "major" conference. And I strongly consider American men's hoops "major" (though not "power").

I also think it's important to note (and I have done so multiple times on this board) that though the Big East offers "power" men's basketball, it is not a "power" league in a broad sense.

True.

I usually only hear the term "Major 7" late in the season, when the commentators and journalists start talking about the mid-majors vs. the P5, BEC, and AAC, when it's easier to lump them together and refer to them as the "Majors", the "Major 7," or the "High Majors."

I only use the term "Major 7" in response to people who refer to the AAC as a "mid-major" conference, because there are 7 conferences that aren't considered "mid-majors," and the AAC is one of them.

Regarding the Big East, it's true that they aren't a "power conference," because they don't have NCAA "autonomy" status, and in addition, their basketball programs only generate ~ half as much revenue as the power conference basketball programs tend to generate.