McDAA as a Measure

[orange2win]

There has been lots of discussion recently about SU's performance in the NCAA tournament, so I decided to take a look at which programs have been successful in attracting McDAA players. The teams with best players usually win. The McDAA program has been around since 1977 and SU has played in 29 NCAA tournaments since then.

I broke the schools into four groups, which I called Elite (30 or more captures); Strong (10 to 29); Decent (1 to 9) and WEAK (zero recruits).

Only five schools fall into the Elite group. UNC (62), Duke (53), Kentucky (52) Kansas (32) and UCLA (30).

In the Strong category there were 24 schools. SU heads the list with 19, which includes two transfers (Walker & Walton).

In the Decent category there are 78 schools.

The remaining D1 schools are listed as WEAK, meaning they have never secured a single McDAA recruit ever, Fair to say, Elite and Strong college programs, which are stacked with 4 Star and higher recruits, should never lose to one of these teams in the NCAA tournament

This is the SU record. We have lost to Elite and Strong teams 12 times (no shame there). We have lost to decent teams 9 times, which is okay and have lost to no team once - which is super.

The problem with our record is that we have lost to WEAK teams on 6 occasions - over 21% of the time. These include UNC Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Penn, Navy, Vermont and Butler. Also, Richmond and Massachusetts have only ever secured 1 McDAA player and so fall at the bottom of the decent teams. This is but one measure, but the data speaks for itself. We are a great program, but underperform in the NCAA tournament.

 

[sufandu]

There has been lots of discussion recently about SU's performance in the NCAA tournament, so I decided to take a look at which programs have been successful in attracting McDAA players. The teams with best players usually win. The McDAA program has been around since 1977 and SU has played in 29 NCAA tournaments since then.

I broke the schools into four groups, which I called Elite (30 or more captures); Strong (10 to 29); Decent (1 to 9) and WEAK (zero recruits).

Only five schools fall into the Elite group. UNC (62), Duke (53), Kentucky (52) Kansas (32) and UCLA (30).

In the Strong category there were 24 schools. SU heads the list with 19, which includes two transfers (Walker & Walton).

In the Decent category there are 78 schools.

The remaining D1 schools are listed as WEAK, meaning they have never secured a single McDAA recruit ever, Fair to say, Elite and Strong college programs, which are stacked with 4 Star and higher recruits, should never lose to one of these teams in the NCAA tournament

This is the SU record. We have lost to Elite and Strong teams 12 times (no shame there). We have lost to decent teams 9 times, which is okay and have lost to no team once - which is super.

The problem with our record is that we have to WEAK teams on 6 occasions - over 21% of the time. These include UNC Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Penn, Navy, Vermont and Butler. Also, Richmond and Maccachusetts have only ever secured 1 McDAA player and so fall at the bottom of the decent teams. This is but one measure, but the data speaks for itself. We are a great program, but underperform in the NCAA tournament.

I like the idea of correlating the amount of talent to success. Do you have any idea how other schools have compared with who they've lost to?

 

[Sgt Cuse]

The problem with our record is that we have to WEAK teams on 6 occasions - over 21% of the time. These include UNC Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Penn, Navy, Vermont and Butler. Also, Richmond and Maccachusetts have only ever secured 1 McDAA player and so fall at the bottom of the decent teams. This is but one measure, but the data speaks for itself. We are a great program, but underperform in the NCAA tournament.

Thanks for the work but I don't see how you drew your conclusion with the data in isolation.

Wouldn't UNC's, Dukes, and UK's losses almost always come to lower rated teams. So, by the same analysis wouldn't you say they are underperformers too? I know Duke just lost to Lehigh, that had to be a weak loss.

Actually, you are speaking for the data. You are the one calling 21% underperforming. It doesn't say anything to me yet.

But I wouldn't have guessed that SU was sixth in McDs. That's a lot higher than I expected. But why would you count Walton, he never made it.

 

[Cusefannotindc]

Shouldn't the measure be performance with McDAA's on a team? The Vermont and Butler loses were both teams with zero McDAA's on them.

And what about comparing Experience vs. Talent. One could assume that the "weak" or midmajors are more senior laden teams, while McDAA's would be expected to be more talented but less experienced. (What is the average number of years a McDAA spends in school?)

 

[PeteCalvin]

I like the idea of correlating the amount of talent to success. Do you have any idea how other schools have compared with who they've lost to?

For all the talent KU has brought in, they have lost some stinkers over the years. Roy could never win one at KU with everything he had. Self won one, but had some help from the bball gods with that.

It just goes to show that having the talent isn't everything and sometimes that "talent" really doesn't meet the expectations. UNC should have a bazillion titles based on the "talent" metric. Yet, they don't. Michigan had perhaps one of the best starting Five's in college bball history, and they never brought home the gold. Coach K has 4 NC's, and a boatload of FF appearances to bolster his numbers, so he may be the one coach who has gotten the best runs out of the talent he had...and as well he should have. His cabinets have always been full. Teams with multiple MIckey D's (over 3) should be in the Final Four every other year. Duke is probably the only program that can say that. Maybe Kansas and UNC too. If not for PayCal, UK would be suffering through a very long drought of FF appearances, although Tubby wasn't reeling in the big fish like UK was used to having under Pitino.

UK over the past three years is probably the best example of what great talent can and can't accomplish. Three years ago they have John Wall, Cousins, etc., and can't get past a 1 McD in WVA. This season they go all the way. The difference? Balance. They had players who were not only great talents, but complimented each other's strengths and weaknesses. Cal could recruit 5 Micky D's a year for the next decade and never get a team that plays this well together again.

The reason the SU teams of 2010 and 2012 were so successful is because they were talented, had balance and played well together. Losing a key player each of those seasons offset that balance (and depth).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that having a dearth of Micky AA's on your team will help get you near your goal most of the time, but won't necessarily guarantee that you bring the trophy home. There are so many talented players out there now that the field has changed. Some blossom in college, some regress. It's all a crap shoot. You have to identify the right talent and then blend it. Good coaching is as important as ever.

 

[sufandu]

For all the talent KU has brought in, they have lost some stinkers over the years. Roy could never win one at KU with everything he had. Self won one, but had some help from the bball gods with that.

It just goes to show that having the talent isn't everything and sometimes that "talent" really doesn't meet the expectations. UNC should have a bazillion titles based on the "talent" metric. Yet, they don't. Michigan had perhaps one of the best starting Five's in college bball history, and they never brought home the gold. Coach K has 4 NC's, and a boatload of FF appearances to bolster his numbers, so he may be the one coach who has gotten the best runs out of the talent he had...and as well he should have. His cabinets have always been full. Teams with multiple MIckey D's (over 3) should be in the Final Four every other year. Duke is probably the only program that can say that. Maybe Kansas and UNC too. If not for PayCal, UK would be suffering through a very long drought of FF appearances, although Tubby wasn't reeling in the big fish like UK was used to having under Pitino.

UK over the past three years is probably the best example of what great talent can and can't accomplish. Three years ago they have John Wall, Cousins, etc., and can't get past a 1 McD in WVA. This season they go all the way. The difference? Balance. They had players who were not only great talents, but complimented each other's strengths and weaknesses. Cal could recruit 5 Micky D's a year for the next decade and never get a team that plays this well together again.

The reason the SU teams of 2010 and 2012 were so successful is because they were talented, had balance and played well together. Losing a key player each of those seasons offset that balance (and depth).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that having a dearth of Micky AA's on your team will help get you near your goal most of the time, but won't necessarily guarantee that you bring the trophy home. There are so many talented players out there now that the field has changed. Some blossom in college, some regress. It's all a crap shoot. You have to identify the right talent and then blend it. Good coaching is as important as ever.

Yeah, that's why I was curious what the numbers were, based on orange2win's thinking. We can't conclude how good or bad Syracuse has been until we see the comparisons. I'm too lazy to figure them out myself.

 

[thebigeast44]

Here's the list of McDAA's since 1977 and the list of NCAA champions all time:

http://statsheet.com/bhsb/mcplayers_by_college

http://espn.go.com/high-school/boys.../2012-mcdonald-all-american-game-boys-rosters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Champions

I've included the second link as the first link has not updated for 2012 yet.

IMHO, I do not agree with the OP's thought that this is a good way to determine our tournament success. There are too many other factors involved.

However, one fact is true: in the last 30+ years only one team has won a national championship without a McDonald's AA and that was Maryland in 2002. So if you want to win one, you had better have at least one and preferably more McDAA's on your roster. And there is a major correlation with the schools that are high on the list of McDAA's recruited and those teams that have won championships.

JB managed to get to the championship game twice having only one McDAA on his team. I can just imagine what he could have done if SU was able to attract the number of McDAA's the elite schools attract. One can dream, one can dream...

Let's Go Orange!!!

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

There has been lots of discussion recently about SU's performance in the NCAA tournament, so I decided to take a look at which programs have been successful in attracting McDAA players. The teams with best players usually win. The McDAA program has been around since 1977 and SU has played in 29 NCAA tournaments since then.

I broke the schools into four groups, which I called Elite (30 or more captures); Strong (10 to 29); Decent (1 to 9) and WEAK (zero recruits).

Only five schools fall into the Elite group. UNC (62), Duke (53), Kentucky (52) Kansas (32) and UCLA (30).

In the Strong category there were 24 schools. SU heads the list with 19, which includes two transfers (Walker & Walton).

In the Decent category there are 78 schools.

The remaining D1 schools are listed as WEAK, meaning they have never secured a single McDAA recruit ever, Fair to say, Elite and Strong college programs, which are stacked with 4 Star and higher recruits, should never lose to one of these teams in the NCAA tournament

This is the SU record. We have lost to Elite and Strong teams 12 times (no shame there). We have lost to decent teams 9 times, which is okay and have lost to no team once - which is super.

The problem with our record is that we have to WEAK teams on 6 occasions - over 21% of the time. These include UNC Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Penn, Navy, Vermont and Butler. Also, Richmond and Maccachusetts have only ever secured 1 McDAA player and so fall at the bottom of the decent teams. This is but one measure, but the data speaks for itself. We are a great program, but underperform in the NCAA tournament.

Isn't the UNCC team the one with Cornbread. Beat player on the floor. One game we lost Sherman-Saunders sat our due to cold medicine he took and fear it would show up as an illegal drug in testing. Butler was a good team

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[longtimefan]

The problem with our record is that we have to WEAK teams on 6 occasions - over 21% of the time. These include UNC Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Penn, Navy, Vermont and Butler. Also, Richmond and Maccachusetts have only ever secured 1 McDAA player and so fall at the bottom of the decent teams. This is but one measure, but the data speaks for itself. We are a great program, but underperform in the NCAA tournament.

Among these weak teams--UNC-C had Cornbread Maxwell, who was a many-time NBA all-star. Navy had David Robinson, who is in the Hall of Fame. And Hayward may turn out to be a better pro than anyone we put on the floor against Butler that night.

In other words--how players are rated as they entered college is one thing. How good those players turned out to be after they made it to college is a better indicator of the quality of the teams they were playing for.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

Among these weak teams--UNC-C had Cornbread Maxwell, who was a many-time NBA all-star. Navy had David Robinson, who is in the Hall of Fame. And Hayward may turn out to be a better pro than anyone we put on the floor against Butler that night.

In other words--how players are rated as they entered college is one thing. How good those players turned out to be after they made it to college is a better indicator of the quality of the teams they were playing for.

I completely agree It's all about how they develop. That Butler team had 3 pros on it I believe. One thing SU staff is really good at is identifying talent before they blow up. (Real Melo, MCW, Davis before Kentucky snagged him, etc.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Here's the list of McDAA's since 1977 and the list of NCAA champions all time:

http://statsheet.com/bhsb/mcplayers_by_college

http://espn.go.com/high-school/boys.../2012-mcdonald-all-american-game-boys-rosters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Champions

I've included the second link as the first link has not updated for 2012 yet.

IMHO, I do not agree with the OP's thought that this is a good way to determine our tournament success. There are too many other factors involved.

However, one fact is true: in the last 30+ years only one team has won a national championship without a McDonald's AA and that was Maryland in 2002. So if you want to win one, you had better have at least one and preferably more McDAA's on your roster. And there is a major correlation with the schools that are high on the list of McDAA's recruited and those teams that have won championships.

JB managed to get to the championship game twice having only one McDAA on his team. I can just imagine what he could have done if SU was able to attract the number of McDAA's the elite schools attract. One can dream, one can dream...

Let's Go Orange!!!

You may not have to dream much longer. The recruiting has notched upward. SU is now going toe to toe with the big boys for the McDAAs and holding our own. Noel would help show the world not to count SU out.

Let's see what JB can do with talent thing evened out. Good time to be orange.

 

[baggerbob]

Michael Brown 1984 transferred to clemson Rodney Walker 1985 transferred to maryland.

 

[orange2win]

Some excellent comments here.

No, I did not do a check for the likes of Duke and UNC. It is quite a bit of work, but if I can find the time, it would be interesting to see. Still, Elite and Strong teams should rarely if ever lose to one of these WEAK teams. Even if a WEAK program has a strong - non McDAA - player on their team, they cannot be deep enough to overpower Elite and Strong teams.

Take SU. Every player on the current team was rated 4 Star or higher coming out of HS, except for Brandon and James, who were each 3 Star recruits. The other Strong teams such as Louisville, Indiana, Arizona, Ohio State, all operate the same way.

There are only 24 McDAAs per year, so they only provide an indicator of which programs are attracting the best HS players. As for the best college players, I believe the NBA draft is a better indicator. There 60 NBA draft picks per year. Over the last 37 years, JB has averaged 2.3 NBA pros on his teams. Enough I would think to get it done. Problem with the NBA draft picks as a measure, there is a three year time lag. For example, we will not know how many Pros were on this year's team unril 3 years from now.