Summit Power Rankings...

[TeaJackrabbit]

Just a quick, not very well thought out rant...

1.) ORU - The king of the Summit. Have the recognition, the solid bball program and a baseball power. Men's hoops are on TV, have name coach, have star alums and have been Goliath slayers. Women's hoops should be very good for the next 3+ years as well.

2.) SDSU - I am trying to be honest here. I know Summit doesn't sponsor football but still, we have a top 15 FCS program that can in no way be ignored. That football team is coming off yet another ranked season, not to mention playoff appearance, the women's bball program is 2-2 in league titles/NCAA appearances, the men's hoops team has a top-60 recruiting class and a very bright future and the baseball team are conference champs.

3.) NDSU - Going through a slump for now. But the men's team has already won a conference title and represented in the NCAA Tourney. The women's team is solid and the football program, though currently down, has already been ranked #1 in their short time in the FCS. Women's softball also best in conference.

4.) Oakland - Men's and women's hoops have been very good for awhile. Men's hoops have finished top three 9 of the last 10 years. Baseball is king of conference and legit in all D1.

5.) IUPUI - Men's hoops has been solid and with their name and coach Hunter they even have somewhat of a household name...which is valuable.

The following five is a big dropoff...

6.) USD - Uh-oh, I can already hear it. No baseball program but I see both hoops programs and even fball to be respectable right away. Let's face it, it doesn't take much to be 6th in Summit.

7.) WIU - Football team has been good up until last year. I give bball team a decent shot to turn it around.

8.) IPFW - Up and coming men's program that could have an okay year next year.

9.) SUU - Get the nod over the Roos simply b/c they have fball. Still dreaming if they think the Big Sky or anyone else wants them.

10.) UMKC - I have hope for their bball programs. But like IPFW, SUU and even IUPUI and WIU, I doubt any of them ever get much of a following at all.

UND - It wasn't long ago that UND fball won the D2, the women's hoops team was very good and men's hoops were at least decent-to-pretty good. Can they happen once they get established in a conference?

[zooropa]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

Oakland's baseball program isn't that great. You meant to give those accolades to ORU, right?

Do agree that it's something like this:

ORU
SDSU
NDSU

Oakland


IUPUI


everybody else.

And if you factor academic performance into the mix, it's:

SDSU
Oakland

NDSU
ORU
WIU

Everybody else

[filbert]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

Interested as always in quantitative evidence, I looked at this question (athletic power, I'm assuming) two ways:

First, I took the finishes of the schools in the Men's and Women's All-Sports awards for the three years that the 10-team league existed--awarding a #1 finish in the all-sports standings with 10 points, and 1 point for a #10 finish--then took the six finishes, added them together, yielding:

45 - Oral Roberts
39 - Oakland
39 - SDSU
36 - NDSU
36 - Western Illinois
32 - Southern Utah
16 - UMKC
15 - IUPUI
11 - IPFW
2 - Centenary

Next, I selected two men's and two women's sports that I judged to have the largest fan interest: men's and women's basketball, baseball, and volleyball. Again, 10 points for a #1, 1 point for a #10 finish:

83 - Oral Roberts
76 - NDSU
74 - SDSU
73 - Oakland
60 - IPFW
58 - UMKC (does not sponsor baseball)
52 - IUPUI
45 - Western Illinois
37 - Southern Utah (did not sponsor volleyball until 2009-10)
24 - Centenary

These two, taken together, would support, I think, viewing Oral Roberts as the big dog in the Summit League.

Oakland, SDSU, NDSU are indisputably in the upper division of the conference on a consistent basis and they are very, very closely bunched--not much separation between these three. Any of the three can, in any particular year pull off a conference championship in almost any conference sport in which they compete--at least, any sport that these schools choose to be really competitive in. These are definitely the "haves," not the "have-nots" of the conference.

I'd pick out Western Illinois and Southern Utah as the middle class of the Summit, athletically. I don't think either one are actually that far away from consistently competing with at least OU, SDSU, and NDSU for upper-tier finishes, but their recent, relative lack of success in the spectator sports causes me to--for the time being--place them a step behind those three other schools. WIU's and SUU's overall athletic programs are competitive, and several of their non-revenue sports are consistently at the top of the conference standings. I think in any particular year these schools are a threat to move up into the upper tier, and on occasion steal a championship from the top four. Even their bad years will probably not be complete, finish-#9-or-#10-in-the-Commissioner's-Cup disasters. Of the two, I suspect WIU has the greater potential upside, but that's a pretty subjective opinion on my part.

Overall, it looks to me like UMKC, IPFW, and IUPUI represent the lower tier of the Summit League. The top-to-bottom weakness of these athletic programs is, IMHO, somewhat masked by an emphasis on the revenue/spectator sports at these schools to the detriment of the non-revenue sports. Of these, my impression is that UMKC is in the best position to make a move upwards--they have a lot of unexploited potential and I think they may have a good AD now, so I would not be surprised to see a general improvement in the quality of UMKC athletic programs. I don't know as much about IPFW or IUPUI, but of the two, I have the better general feeling about IPFW. IUPUI, quite honestly, worries me a bit. I don't have warm fuzzy feelings of great stability from the Jaguars.

Centenary obviously could not in general compete in the Summit League, and their reclassification out of D-I is for the best both for the school and the conference.

As for USD, I would be quite surprised if they do not enter the conference at least in the middle tier. Their lack of sponsorship of three men's sports--soccer, tennis, and baseball will hurt them in the all-sports standings, though (SDSU only fails to support men's soccer, for contra-example). They'll have to make up some of that on the women's side, and the competition with ORU, Oakland, NDSU, SDSU, and even WIU and SUU won't make that easy.

I think it will be a dogfight (if you'll forgive the stretch at a mascot pun) between the Coyotes and the Leathernecks to move up to the level of consistent upper-tier Summit League school in the first few years of USD's membership.

So, my judgment of Summit League Power:
Oral Roberts - Top of the Class

Consistent Upper Tier (alphabetically):
NDSU
Oakland
SDSU

Consistent Middle Class:
Southern Utah
Western Illinois

Consistent Lower Tier (alphabetically):
IPFW
IUPUI
UMKC

We'll see beginning in 2011-12:
USD

[zooropa]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

I took the finishes of the schools in the Men's and Women's All-Sports awards for the three years that the 10-team league existed--awarding a #1 finish in the all-sports standings with 10 points, and 1 point for a #10 finish--then took the six finishes, added them together, yielding

Assuming 10th place finishes in both categories, all three years, the lowest score possible should be 6.

Yet Centenary has 2.

I mean we all know they're bad, but are they so bad that they deny mathematical analysis?

[filbert]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

Assuming 10th place finishes in both categories, all three years, the lowest score possible should be 6.

Yet Centenary has 2.

I mean we all know they're bad, but are they so bad that they deny mathematical analysis?

It's possible I suck at math before Saturday morning coffee . . .
But since I foolishly deleted rather than saved my spreadsheet, it will be one of life's little mysteries, won't it?

[zooropa]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

It's possible I suck at math before Saturday morning coffee . . .
But since I foolishly deleted rather than saved my spreadsheet, it will be one of life's little mysteries, won't it?

I think you should add academics to the mix.

Combine the rankings in the commissioner's cup with the rankings in the commissioner's list of academic excellence.

That should show SDSU & Oakland as being pretty close at the top.

Or maybe I'll do that.

[zooropa]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

Did a quick review of the Commissioner's List & the Commissioner's cup and added up the points from each, over the past three seasons.

To avoid giving extra weight to the the academic awards, I adjusted the academic awards to the scale of the Commissioner's Cup (e.g. ORU had 109 points in the Commissioner's Cup, Oakland had 202 academic all-league award winners, thus the academic all league numbers were divided by 1.85 in order for Oakland's 202 points to be worth 109 points in the calculations.)

Here are the totals for 2007 to 2010:

                        2008       2009       2010 Cumulative
------------------------------------------------------------- 
South Dakota State       201     177.44     208.96      587.4
Oakland               177.21        193      201.5     571.71
Western Illinois      197.91     165.21     174.91     538.02
North Dakota State    166.64     152.49     167.12     486.25
Oral Roberts          159.01     144.58     173.21     476.81
Southern Utah         147.82      134.5     153.16     435.49
IPFW                     132      85.55     132.03     349.58
UMKC                  104.19      87.44     133.78      325.4
IUPUI                   93.5      89.21     136.15     318.85
Centenary              92.95      74.32     111.82     279.08

[filbert]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

Did a quick review of the Commissioner's List & the Commissioner's cup and added up the points from each, over the past three seasons.

To avoid giving extra weight to the the academic awards, I adjusted the academic awards to the scale of the Commissioner's Cup (e.g. ORU had 109 points in the Commissioner's Cup, Oakland had 202 academic all-league award winners, thus the academic all league numbers were divided by 1.85 in order for Oakland's 202 points to be worth 109 points in the calculations.)

Here are the totals for 2007 to 2010:

                        2008       2009       2010 Cumulative
------------------------------------------------------------- 
South Dakota State       201     177.44     208.96      587.4
Oakland               177.21        193      201.5     571.71
Western Illinois      197.91     165.21     174.91     538.02
North Dakota State    166.64     152.49     167.12     486.25
Oral Roberts          159.01     144.58     173.21     476.81
Southern Utah         147.82      134.5     153.16     435.49
IPFW                     132      85.55     132.03     349.58
UMKC                  104.19      87.44     133.78      325.4
IUPUI                   93.5      89.21     136.15     318.85
Centenary              92.95      74.32     111.82     279.08

You want to try again with the explanation of what your academic adjustment was? Me be confusered.

[zooropa]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

ORU won the Commissioner's Cup with 109 pts. in 2010.

Oakland had the highest number of Academic All-League awards with 202 in 2010 (SDSU had 201).

So, how do you keep the academic all-league numbers from overshadowing the commish cup numbers?

Convert the academic all league numbers to the same scale as the commissioner's cup.

Thus I divided all the academic all-league numbers by 1.85 for 2010 (for instance) because 202/109 is 1.85. Therefore Oakland was awarded a '109' for having the most academic all-league winners. SDSU got 108.46, etc...

Per that system, there are, over the course of 3 years, 2300 points available for the commissioners cup and 2068.6 points awarded for the commissioner's list.

According to that discrepancy, academic numbers should be ratcheted up 11.1% to bring them to equivalency with the athletic scores, but I'm not going to do that.....

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

ORU won the Commissioner's Cup with 109 pts. in 2010.

Oakland had the highest number of Academic All-League awards with 202 in 2010 (SDSU had 201).

So, how do you keep the academic all-league numbers from overshadowing the commish cup numbers?

Convert the academic all league numbers to the same scale as the commissioner's cup.

Thus I divided all the academic all-league numbers by 1.85 for 2010 (for instance) because 202/109 is 1.85. Therefore Oakland was awarded a '109' for having the most academic all-league winners. SDSU got 108.46, etc...

Per that system, there are, over the course of 3 years, 2300 points available for the commissioners cup and 2068.6 points awarded for the commissioner's list.

According to that discrepancy, academic numbers should be ratcheted up 11.1% to bring them to equivalency with the athletic scores, but I'm not going to do that.....

"Was that a rhetorical question or do you want to do the math?"

"I want to do the math."

[filbert]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

ORU won the Commissioner's Cup with 109 pts. in 2010.

Oakland had the highest number of Academic All-League awards with 202 in 2010 (SDSU had 201).

So, how do you keep the academic all-league numbers from overshadowing the commish cup numbers?

Convert the academic all league numbers to the same scale as the commissioner's cup.

Thus I divided all the academic all-league numbers by 1.85 for 2010 (for instance) because 202/109 is 1.85. Therefore Oakland was awarded a '109' for having the most academic all-league winners. SDSU got 108.46, etc...

Per that system, there are, over the course of 3 years, 2300 points available for the commissioners cup and 2068.6 points awarded for the commissioner's list.

According to that discrepancy, academic numbers should be ratcheted up 11.1% to bring them to equivalency with the athletic scores, but I'm not going to do that.....

Something about this doesn't strike me right, but then I'm on the n-th beer after a fairly stressful day of minor storm damage cleanup (our glass patio table shattered on our deck after being pushed into the deck rail by a fairly large grill that was persuaded by hurricane-force winds to move a few feet south--the glass falling largely onto our landscaping rock and the lawn, requiring some fairly tedious glass recovery work--whine, whine, complain, complain).

So, on that basis . . . let's go with it . . .

[zooropa]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

Something about this doesn't strike me right

Well, the main problem is that the points in the commissioner's cup are awarded 'in competition' whereas the academic achievement side is an 'individual sport'. One school does not take points away from another school, whereas every school that finishes above last place takes one point away from every school behind it on the commissioner's cup.

[Hammersmith]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

Well, the main problem is that the points in the commissioner's cup are awarded 'in competition' whereas the academic achievement side is an 'individual sport'. One school does not take points away from another school, whereas every school that finishes above last place takes one point away from every school behind it on the commissioner's cup.

There's one other problem, but I don't see a way around it with the data available. I had a long post written up last night before my browser crashed, so I'm just going to try to summarize. You've chosen to use the number of students on the academic all-league teams as your basis for the academic rankings. But is that really the most accurate way, or even an accurate way at all? The Summit agrees that the percentage of students on the lists is a better indicator of academic achievement because that's what they've chosen to use for the new award(congrats on that guys).

Here's a scenario to illustrate:

School #1: 200 list-eligible students; 120 make the list, 80 do not; 60%
School #2: 150 list-eligible students; 105 make the list, 45 do not; 70%

By the standards you've chosen to use, school #1 is clearly superior to school #2 by 15 students. But school #1 had 35 more students who didn't make the list. Shouldn't that count for something?

Now, I realize the percentages have only started to be available this year, and only 6 of the 10 schools at that. The method you've chosen is probably the only one possible with the data publicly available, but I think it's too flawed to be any great help. I agree that academics should be factored in, but I don't think there's any way for us fans to accurately do that without hacking into the Summit's database and stealing the info.

JMHO, though.

[zooropa]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

By the standards you've chosen to use, school #1 is clearly superior to school #2 by 15 students. But school #1 had 35 more students who didn't make the list. Shouldn't that count for something?

True.

However, one could argue that the commissioner's cup is similarly flawed, in that a school that offers more sports will score more points (e.g. the four additional Summit sports that SDSU offers vs. NDSU), while achieving, in aggregate, a lower finish than another school (e.g. 5 second place finishes scoring more points total than 3 first place finishes).

As Twain said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

SDSU has more student athletes than any other Summit school, and (AFAIK) any other Valley school. That they've managed to achieve consistent academic recognition and (with a handful of exceptions) fielded very competitive teams is a real tribute to the AD staff. Hat's off to them.

[jackrabit1]

Re: Summit Power Rankings...

All this math! I knew there was a reason I majored in History at SDSU!