Pitt's Capel goes after Big 12 and efficiency ratings

[nelsonmuntz]

Capel goes after Big 12 scheduling and metrics, and I agree with him. I don't agree with a lot of what he said, especially his ACC comments, but overall it was a good rant.

I always thought efficiency ratings were stupid because a conference doing what the Big 12 did this year was completely predictable. There was nothing wrong with the RPI.

 

[AD DB Burner]

He has no business going on a rant about big 12 scheduling with this non-con schedule.

 

[willie99]

Funny, K was best at manipulating the RPI. He would play a number 150, not a number 250, and Dook and the entire ACC would benefit.

Yes, any metrics can be manipulated.

I think the most important metric is your record against teams that can actually beat you. I have been saying this for 20+ years.

Beating cupcakes is meaningless. 150, 250, 300... it doesn't matter. You're supposed to beat them badly, especially at home. Thinking those games decide who's best is a joke

 

[pj]

We had the Clemson coach saying the same thing a few days ago. Seems like the ACC is worried about bids/tournament credits and has distributed talking points to coaches.

 

[7774]

Capel goes after Big 12 scheduling and metrics, and I agree with him. I don't agree with a lot of what he said, especially his ACC comments, but overall it was a good rant.

I always thought efficiency ratings were stupid because a conference doing what the Big 12 did this year was completely predictable. There was nothing wrong with the RPI.

The Big 12 isn’t doing anything. This is all made up. You can just look at the data and see that. The ACC is just crying because their teams aren’t very good.

 

[Poe]

The ACC coaches need to stfu and stop whining. The Big 12 isn’t doing anything wrong, they didn’t put the ACC’s out of conference schedules together.

 

[Ha Who]

What is the ACC?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

The good thing for the ACC is that next year powerhouse programs Stanford SMU and California are joining.

 

[Jaydumo20]

The good thing for the ACC is that next year powerhouse programs Stanford SMU and California are joining.

While Stamford branch -UConn rounds out the AAC

 

[dennismenace]

"The bottom line is we need to get more teams in the tournament." No, you and the ACC need to be more competitive to improve the quality of your basketball product. Never was there so much money swallowed up with such mediocre results as P5 men's basketball.

 

[bendm]

Capel goes after Big 12 scheduling and metrics, and I agree with him.

i thought this was debunked by @auror. Beating up on 5 or 6 Q3-4 teams by 20+ slightly inflates efficiency measurements but that's just one component of NET and it hurts your resume.

the big12's performance against the other power conferences is much more significant and they had the best OOC record against other power conferences:

Big 12: 30-24 (55.6%)
Big East: 27-23 (54.0%)
SEC: 37-32 (53.6%)
ACC: 29-31 (48.3%)
Big Ten: 24-26 (48.0%)
Pac-12: 13-24 (35.1%)

 

[Inyatkin]

Say he gets his way and more teams are in the tournament. So what? Are they going to win anything? Their record over the course of a season says no. So what's the point?
It's not anyone else's fault the ACC is bad now.

 

[Hey Adrien!]

The Big 12 isn’t doing anything. This is all made up. You can just look at the data and see that. The ACC is just crying because their teams aren’t very good.

This.

Big 12 simply is a better conference and also do a better job scheduling quality non-conference teams.

Neither Pitt nor Clemson is particularly good, so it’s weird to see both coaches taking this route. Like, just be better. Don’t lose.

 

[auror]

It's clear Capel has like a 20% understanding of the NET (people tell him there's margin of victory involved) and somehow even less understanding of the selection process. This seems like a problem if you're a D1 basketball coach.

"I wish that was not the only thing that determined, wish there were some human beings that looked and watched and saw and really studied and picked who makes the tournament, not just going by computers and numbers and stuff. "

This is literally what happens.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

i thought this was debunked by @auror. Beating up on 5 or 6 Q3-4 teams by 20+ slightly inflates efficiency measurements but that's just one component of NET and it hurts your resume.

the big12's performance against the other power conferences is much more significant and they had the best OOC record against other power conferences:

Big 12: 30-24 (55.6%)
Big East: 27-23 (54.0%)
SEC: 37-32 (53.6%)
ACC: 29-31 (48.3%)
Big Ten: 24-26 (48.0%)
Pac-12: 13-24 (35.1%)

There is no way to cap the boost running up the score on bad teams gives to a team's efficiency numbers. This was always the problem with using efficiency numbers.

But look at it from the other perspective. The Big 12 is clearly doing this with their scheduling. Are people arguing that the Big 12 is wrong about the math?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The Big 12 isn’t doing anything. This is all made up. You can just look at the data and see that. The ACC is just crying because their teams aren’t very good.

The Big 12 clearly has a scheduling philosophy that it is advising its teams to follow, and it is working. Are you saying you are smarter than the statisticians at the Big 12? You should call them and tell them they are wrong.

 

[auror]

I always thought efficiency ratings were stupid because a conference doing what the Big 12 did this year was completely predictable. There was nothing wrong with the RPI.

RPI has us 10th this year, Dayton 4th, Utah St 8th, and Syracuse 32nd.

 

[storrsroars]

The B12 invited this scrutiny by playing the softest OOC schedule of all 32 D1 leagues. But that's not actually the problem I'd be most concerned with. Where Capel is right is in the effect the NET has in deciding to not rest starters, whether in a blowout win or blowout loss. Playing your subs shouldn't be penalized. That sucks for everyone, the coaches, the players, the fans.

That said, Pitt got swept by Syracuse. That's embarrassing. Capel has pretty good talent, probably better than Clemson and maybe even Wake Forest. Had Capel done his job and won at Clemson, not get blown out at Wake, and at least split with Cuse, he might not be compelled to say much of anything as Pitt would already be projected as a 9 or 10 seed.

 

[7774]

The Big 12 clearly has a scheduling philosophy that it is advising its teams to follow, and it is working. Are you saying you are smarter than the statisticians at the Big 12? You should call them and tell them they are wrong.

They don't have a strategy just because you say they have one. Provide evidence.

 

[auror]

The B12 invited this scrutiny by playing the softest OOC schedule of all 32 D1 leagues. But that's not actually the problem I'd be most concerned with. Where Capel is right is in the effect the NET has in deciding to not rest starters, whether in a blowout win or blowout loss. Playing your subs shouldn't be penalized. That sucks for everyone, the coaches, the players, the fans.

Other metrics have things to mitigate situations like this (Haslam has analytically final, Torvik uses average lead throughout the game so the final margin isn't as important, etc.).

We don't know for sure if NET includes any of these mitigation strategies, but if it doesn't, the NCAA should incorporate something and spread that news so that coaches can literally rest easily. Either way, playing your starters to the end increases risk of injury and minutes load fatigue, so it's a consideration coaches need to make individually for a marginal increase in NET. Which again, is more important for your opponents than for yourself.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Let's look at some simple math. Last year the Big 12 was the greatest conference in the history of conferences too. How did it do in the tournament?

WVU - 9 seed - First round exit to 8 seed Maryland
Baylor - 3 seed - second round exit to 6 seed Creighton
Kansas State - 3 seed - Final 8 loss to 9 seed FAU
Iowa State - 6 seed - First round loss to 11 seed Pitt
Texas - 2 seed - Final 8 loss to 5 seed Miami
Kansas - 1 seed - Second round loss to 8 seed Arkansas
TCU - 6 seed - second round loss to 3 seed Gonzaga

Every team but WVU and TCU lost to a lower seed, and the Big 12 didn't register a single win over a better seeded team in the entire tournament. Despite having 4 of the top 12 seeds, the Big 12 only put 2 teams in the second weekend and none in the Final Four.

It looks like the Big 12 was overseeded across the board, which means the conference's scheduling philosophy is working.

 

[Tenspro2002]

RPI has us 10th this year, Dayton 4th, Utah St 8th, and Syracuse 32nd.

I have huge futures bets on Dayton and Utah State, so I say let's go back to the RPI with all deliberate speed!

 

[7774]

Let's look at some simple math. Last year the Big 12 was the greatest conference in the history of conferences too. How did it do in the tournament?

WVU - 9 seed - First round exit to 8 seed Maryland
Baylor - 3 seed - second round exit to 6 seed Creighton
Kansas State - 3 seed - Final 8 loss to 9 seed FAU
Iowa State - 6 seed - First round loss to 11 seed Pitt
Texas - 2 seed - Final 8 loss to 5 seed Miami
Kansas - 1 seed - Second round loss to 8 seed Arkansas
TCU - 6 seed - second round loss to 3 seed Gonzaga

Every team but WVU and TCU lost to a lower seed, and the Big 12 didn't register a single win over a better seeded team in the entire tournament. Despite having 4 of the top 12 seeds, the Big 12 only put 2 teams in the second weekend and none in the Final Four.

It looks like the Big 12 was overseeded across the board, which means the conference's scheduling philosophy is working.

I'm going to move past the hilarious fact that you're using a 1 year sample size as evidence of something, and just ask again, what is their strategy?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The B12 invited this scrutiny by playing the softest OOC schedule of all 32 D1 leagues. But that's not actually the problem I'd be most concerned with. Where Capel is right is in the effect the NET has in deciding to not rest starters, whether in a blowout win or blowout loss. Playing your subs shouldn't be penalized. That sucks for everyone, the coaches, the players, the fans.

That said, Pitt got swept by Syracuse. That's embarrassing. Capel has pretty good talent, probably better than Clemson and maybe even Wake Forest. Had Capel done his job and won at Clemson, not get blown out at Wake, and at least split with Cuse, he might not be compelled to say much of anything as Pitt would already be projected as a 9 or 10 seed.

Pitt is a bubble team, and I don't think anyone, including Capel, would argue otherwise. The point is that if the tournament was selected today, the Big 12 would probably get 9 bids, and is going to get incredible seeds, and I am not the only one wondering why that is the case.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Capel is a terrible messenger because this clearly just sounds like sour grapes from the coach of an underperforming bubble team, but it is worth examining how the Big XII is able to get 8 teams in the top 30 every year, which feeds circular logic about their tough schedule and every game is a marquee matchup (which basically means every team gets major credit for a win and every loss is a "good loss").

It's not just a result of their OOC winning percentage, which is only slightly better than other top conferences.