Listed below are the Genius Preseason Top 30 for 2011-12. For those of you new to Genius, it is a computer-generated rating system that takes into account all the results of all teams throughout the season. Genius POTENTIAL is the main rating that people follow, as it predicts actual point value differentials between all teams using calculations virtually identical to the primary systems used by Las Vegas and top sports publications to set game point spreads.
The preseason ratings listed here are based on three things: last year’s final Genius POTENTIAL rating, the number of returning starters, and the quality of the returning starters…i.e. returning your 12th best guy is not nearly as important as returning your 2nd best guy.
If you are a math person and want all the painful details, you can read about them below the ratings:
Genius Preseason Top 30
| Team |
IndMat.com |
Genius |
Final 2010 |
Returnees |
% quality returning |
|
|
1 |
Perry Meridian |
1 |
108.19 |
106.66 |
9 |
65.8% |
|
2 |
Crown Point |
2 |
108.16 |
105.87 |
10 |
67.9% |
|
3 |
Evansville Reitz |
12 |
97.68 |
83.28 |
12 |
87.1% |
|
4 |
Hamilton Southeastern |
10 |
93.80 |
77.22 |
13 |
91.2% |
|
5 |
Evansville Mater Dei |
5 |
89.25 |
105.89 |
6 |
37.1% |
|
6 |
Center Grove |
11 |
89.18 |
78.67 |
11 |
80.5% |
|
7 |
Cathedral |
15 |
88.39 |
71.15 |
12 |
91.0% |
|
8 |
Roncalli |
3 |
84.90 |
88.69 |
10 |
59.5% |
|
9 |
Yorktown |
7 |
84.59 |
88.03 |
8 |
57.7% |
|
10 |
Penn |
4 |
84.52 |
90.06 |
8 |
54.8% |
|
11 |
Mishawaka |
9 |
83.01 |
81.74 |
9 |
65.4% |
|
12 |
Jennings County |
17 |
82.64 |
76.83 |
10 |
72.8% |
|
13 |
Greenfield-Central |
82.50 |
64.82 |
13 |
92.8% |
|
|
14 |
Merrillville |
6 |
81.68 |
78.17 |
11 |
70.8% |
|
15 |
Franklin |
13 |
81.03 |
82.34 |
9 |
61.8% |
|
16 |
Ben Davis |
79.73 |
64.99 |
12 |
87.5% |
|
|
17 |
New Palestine |
19 |
74.24 |
53.84 |
13 |
96.5% |
|
18 |
Bellmont |
8 |
73.30 |
85.02 |
8 |
46.2% |
|
19 |
New Castle |
18 |
73.18 |
65.81 |
11 |
76.1% |
|
20 |
South Bend Clay |
73.10 |
73.97 |
9 |
62.4% |
|
|
21 |
Elkhart Memorial |
71.99 |
66.73 |
12 |
74.4% |
|
|
22 |
Lowell |
71.82 |
49.74 |
14 |
100.0% |
|
|
23 |
Jimtown |
70.74 |
72.17 |
9 |
61.6% |
|
|
24 |
Danville |
69.55 |
58.96 |
11 |
80.6% |
|
|
25 |
Lawrence North |
16 |
69.08 |
83.08 |
6 |
40.8% |
|
26 |
Garrett |
68.99 |
53.91 |
12 |
88.0% |
|
|
27 |
Southmont |
68.72 |
56.96 |
12 |
83.4% |
|
|
28 |
Westfield |
68.63 |
72.22 |
9 |
58.6% |
|
|
29 |
Fountain Central |
68.53 |
47.63 |
13 |
97.2% |
|
|
30 |
South Adams |
68.53 |
67.56 |
11 |
67.3% |
How were these ratings calculated?
The basic formula used was this:
Amount of returning quality in the context of the team’s final rating last year PLUS (expected improvement for an average returning starter TIMES number of returning starters) PLUS (expected contribution for an average new starter TIMES number of new starters).
Each team was analyzed, member by member, to determine what “rank” of starters are returning–best, second best, third best, etc.
Some statistics used:
Percentage of team points scored against “equal” competition for each position level on a team:
1. 13.9%
2. 11.8%
3. 10.1%
4. 8.8%
5. 7.8%
6. 7.3%
7. 6.9%
8. 6.6%
9. 6.1%
10. 5.5%
11. 4.9%
12. 4.2%
13. 3.5%
14. 2.8%
Expected improvement in percentage of team points for an average starter: 2.2%
Expected percentage of team points scored for a new starter: 3.3%
Average number of returning starters from a previous season’s final Top 30: 8.78
Average percentage of returning quality from a previous season’s final Top 30: 57.8%
Weaknesses in the ratings:
No consideration was given to the quality of incoming freshmen or the level of program depth. These are rather large variables. Program depth plays a huge role in maintaining a top level from year to year. This system could not predict that Carmel, for example, will probably be near the top 30 despite losing it’s top 10 guys from last year. Or that Penn had a “varsity 2″ from last year that projects at around a Top 30 level on its own–meaning its expected contribution from new starters will be well above “normal”. On the flip side, a less-established program might have 12 starters coming back, but not as much practice partner depth or injury replacement depth–meaning the projected improvement per returnee is probably lower than the system projects.
Final comments:
These projections will be far from perfect, but they will do very well at predicting success for some underrated programs and at exposing a couple of overrated teams. I’m not sure if Reitz and HSE will be in the top 5 at the end, but I do expect they’ll be firmly in the top 10. Also, there are a couple of IndianaMat preseason top 20 teams that are outside this list. I think we’ll find that despite their returning 9 or 10 starters, their lack of returning much star power and the fact that they may have been a bit overrated last year will see them perform at a lower level than mainstream ratings might predict.
