Power five and consistency in WCBB

[UcMiami]

I made a somewhat joking comment about how the Pac 12 had learned from the Big 12 and SEC the advantage of losing conference games to each other in terms of 'respect' from rankings and the NCAA tournament committee. But there is some seriousness to the comment in regard to all the Power 5 conferences but especially those three and this year the ACC as well.

There are very few teams (and coaches) that give consistent effort throughout a season. Undefeated teams are very rare unless you have Uconn on your jersey and even Uconn has occasional blips. The majority of even very good teams year in and out have very up and down efforts and sleep walk through a few games. If the competition is really dreadful, they still win. If it is decent, it comes down to the last few minutes and ... sometimes they lose.

When I look at the Power conferences most years I see a lot of teams that tank up on cupcakes in OOC games that helps the conference RPI and even the good teams then lose a few conference games to really mediocre teams which makes the mediocre team look much better to rankers and the NCAA. There is too much attention payed to 'good wins' assigned to those mediocre teams that really should be identified as 'bad losses' instead for the good teams.

Uconn's conference foes are unfortunate in that they play the most consistent good team over the last 2 decades. We can count on 1 hand the bad loses Uconn has had during that run when they were a true final 4 contender (and even when they were not.) St John's 5 years ago and Stanford this year being the only ones that come to mind. Look at the consistent top 5 or top 10 teams over the same period and you see a few bad losses each year that really help the teams they lose to in evaluators' eyes.

Respect to Baylor, ND, Stanford especially for typically taking care of their business when they should. Stanford is having a down year and ND had their first 'bad loss' in the last four years this year, but they have been the most consistent teams beyond Uconn.

 

[triaddukefan]

Duke averages a bad loss every other year. This year it was Boston College.... 2012 it was NC State in the ACC quarters, 2010 it was BC AND UNC on their senior night... 2009 it was HARTFORD So thats 5 "bad" losses in the past 7 years. A bad loss to me is one to an unranked foe. A pretty amazing stat that shows Duke's consistency is with yesterdays win.... it marked the 18th straight season with at least 10 conference wins. The next longest streak is UNC-CH with 2 (unless you count ND)

 

[Wbbfan1]

There are very few Power 5 Teams that have a consistent reasonable OOC Schedule on a Yearly basis. IMHO they are Duke, Lady Vols, Stanford, Notre Dame Texas and of course UConn who's not a Power 5 Team. I'm sure there are others that I'm overlooking but these come to mind. We'll have to see what Duke does going forward since they no longer want to play UConn, will they be weakening their OOC Schedule.

My definition of reasonable is probably different then most. My first criteria is are you scheduling games against teams that are historically better or equal to your team and there's a good chance you'll lose the game(s). How many games are you playing against teams equal to or better then your team, the more the merrier. If you're a Maryland and Baylor who are traditionally a Top 10 team, then your OOC Schedule should include other team(s) that are in the Top 10 on an annual basis. Maryland did play Notre Dame this year, but no other ranked team. If your team is traditionally ranked in the Top 25 then its inexcusable to have an OOC Strength of Schedule that's in the 100's or lower. If it is, then your gaming the system to build up wins and then rely of your conference schedule to build up your overall SOS and do enough to qualify for the Tournament. Georgia and Iowa St. do this on an annual basis and there are others.

I'm not advocating that teams that are building a program should attempt to schedule games against UConn or one of the other traditional elite team if they're not ready. But I am advocating to schedule games against Top 15-25 teams or one of the good non Power 5 teams such as George Washington, Dayton, Green Bay Wisconsin, Marist and other similar teams. These good non power 5 conference teams have a difficult time getting good teams to play them.

Coaches should be using their OOC Schedule to challenge their team and to get ready for Conference Play. They should not be using their OOC Schedule for their own Resume Building by getting wins against teams that can't compete with them. Unfortunately for WBB so many coaches do the latter.

 

[UcMiami]

Triad - I think for a team that aspires to be in the top 10, any loss to a team below #15 is bad and a team that is considered a contender for a #1 seed a loss outside the top 10 is bad.
Unfortunate the quality of WCBB is such that when you get outside those ranges, the best teams should be hammering those teams and if they aren't, then they are playing poorly or 'down' to their competition. That is why looking at ranked teams in the SEC always bothers me - they are consistently trading wins with equally mediocre conference mates.
Early season is one thing, but by December teams should have worked out the kinks of their 'new' teammates.

WbbFan - I agree in principle though a lot of schools have a few outside considerations - the biggest being from the AD cutting travel budgets and trying to maximize revenue from scheduling only home games - something I think UGA does periodically. Also some games come down to the politics of playing in-state schools. I believe Uconn always has a few slots in OOC that are 'home game' only and not home and homes, but generally they are pretty good that way.

 

[Bgillon]

Excellent analysis by Miami.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Though I'm not a big fan of SEC teams, two others who generally try to schedule a decent amount of challenging OOC games along with the turkeys are Vanderbilt and Florida, though sometimes the opponents don't live up to expectations as the year progresses, just as Stanford would not have appeared to be a Sagarin #17 team now when the schedules were originally made up.

As UConn fans, I'm not sure we appreciate the "probability factors" that go into most teams schedules and results. UConn has such a large gap in the power ratings over most teams that any team not in the top 15 doesn't seem at all threatening. But in most years recently for almost every other top 10 team outside of an ND or Baylor when they're at the top of their game, the mathematical probability for upsets will be a significant factor. These occur mainly on the road, and as UcM notes, this gives many of the otherwise lackluster P5 teams a chance to pick up those T50 wins with an almost guaranteed group of "home upsets" which are not really upsets at all when you factor in the home court advantage. The losses to #100+ teams or even #200 teams all get swept away by a seemingly impressive win over a T50 team that like many doesn't play well on the road.

Using the Massey Matchup and Prediction tools, you can see how frequently upsets can occur, even for UConn. The Huskies may be rated 17 points better than an opponent, but run the simulator and you will see that they still lose 1 out of 10 contests when they meet up. And lest you think the tool is not based on reality, quite the contrary, because Massey has built it on past results that uses regression-based formula to imitate what goes on in real life and many different situations. We may think that a team rated 10 points better than another should win almost all the time, but it doesn't work that way, and when you throw in the home-and-away factor versus the rankings or ratings, we sometimes get a muddled picture of what "should" have happened.

So last night should then #8 Sagarin team FSU lose to #16 UNC? Both Sagarin and Massey had FSU as a 3 point favorite on the road, but that's really almost 50-50 on the outcome, especially when you factor in that the top teams likely have a greater home court advantage than the average that Sagarin uses. So the only upset for FSU and UNC came from the idea that a #17 ranked team beat a #7 ranked team. The difference between the #10 team and #50 team in Sagarin is 11 points, so for almost all the Top 10 teams, there is going to be a pretty likely chance for an upset on the road when they are up against a T50 team.

 

[Wbbfan1]

Most schools play 10-12 OOC Games depending on the size of the conference and how many times they play each school in the conference. I completely understand scheduling three or four lower tier Division 1 schools that are in local geographic area. Its good for the small schools and it does help with budgets. Its the remaining 6-8 games that should be against schools equal to or better then you are. Scheduling home games against higher quality opponents should increase attendance as well as give the program some needed publicity. Lets face it, many AD's could give a rats about their WBB programs and/or have a different level of expectations then they do for the Football and Men's Basketball programs.

Triad - I think for a team that aspires to be in the top 10, any loss to a team below #15 is bad and a team that is considered a contender for a #1 seed a loss outside the top 10 is bad.
Unfortunate the quality of WCBB is such that when you get outside those ranges, the best teams should be hammering those teams and if they aren't, then they are playing poorly or 'down' to their competition. That is why looking at ranked teams in the SEC always bothers me - they are consistently trading wins with equally mediocre conference mates.
Early season is one thing, but by December teams should have worked out the kinks of their 'new' teammates.

WbbFan - I agree in principle though a lot of schools have a few outside considerations - the biggest being from the AD cutting travel budgets and trying to maximize revenue from scheduling only home games - something I think UGA does periodically. Also some games come down to the politics of playing in-state schools. I believe Uconn always has a few slots in OOC that are 'home game' only and not home and homes, but generally they are pretty good that way.