Conference Assessment with RPI and Quad 1 to 4 wins

[DefenseBB]

While researching the NET-RPI ranking thread, I did a review of the Quad 1 through 4 records for each of the top 40 NET/RPI schools by conference. The P5 plus Big East dominate the top 40 NET/RPI rankings. What is interesting is how many games the conferences play against significantly lesser stature schools.
For example, the 7 Top 40 SEC schools have played 50 games against Quad 1, 29 games against Quad 2, 37 games against Quad 3 and an appalling 41 games against Quad 4. That is an average of 6 games of Quad 4 opponents each for the 7 teams in the TOP 40. And yes, we know LSU is leading that with 9 games. So, while some have stated that Kim didn't know her roster (even I listed that as a caveat) to still schedule 9 (NINE!) games in Quad 4 is still really pathetic and was the most of any P5+1 school. Mississippi was second with 8 games against Quad 4. UConn has ZERO games against Quad 4....

When the various analytics review "conference strength" they review the whole conference and where the bottom teams rank. By this measure, the PAC-12 is #1 in Massey and Warran Nolan while the Big Ten is considered #5 (Big East is #6). The Big Ten is being dragged down by Rutgers, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Northwestern and their NET/RPI rankings. However, when you look at the top teams (NET/RPI top 40), the Big Ten excels. They have 7 teams in the NET Top 40 and have the best Quad 1 record at 33-19. Next best is ACC with 36-31 for their 7 teams. The PAC-12 with their 8 teams is a pedestrian 24-27 and the SEC is a pathetic 21-29. Thank goodness for SC being 7-0 in Quad 1 otherwise-YIKES. The top-end school ranking in my view would be (based on Quad 1/2 records)
1. Big Ten 2. ACC 3. Big East 4. PAC-12 5. SEC 6. Big 12
Without further ado, here are the stats.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

While researching the NET-RPI ranking thread, I did a review of the Quad 1 through 4 records for each of the top 40 NET/RPI schools by conference. The P5 plus Big East dominate the top 40 NET/RPI rankings. What is interesting is how many games the conferences play against significantly lesser stature schools.
For example, the 7 Top 40 SEC schools have played 50 games against Quad 1, 29 games against Quad 2, 37 games against Quad 3 and an appalling 41 games against Quad 4. That is an average of 6 games of Quad 4 opponents each for the 7 teams in the TOP 40. And yes, we know LSU is leading that with 9 games. So, while some have stated that Kim didn't know her roster (even I listed that as a caveat) to still schedule 9 (NINE!) games in Quad 4 is still really pathetic and was the most of any P5+1 school. Mississippi was second with 8 games against Quad 4. UConn has ZERO games against Quad 4....

I have been following WBB relatively closely since the mid 1990's. Playing numerous awful teams has largely been a given.

Teams that were aiming for tournament runs, under the old RPI system, were urged to schedule bottom teams from good conferences and top teams from awful conferences. This is the basic way to game the RPI, I'm not exactly sure how it works when you "try" to game the NET.

For the teams that didn't have the potential for a tourney run - but wanted to get in - lots of wins was often a ticket. It didn't always work, but it didn't stop teams from trying.

Geno - so far as I know - has never really played bottom feeders out of conference; he did play more mid-range when his conference was tougher. Vivian in her early years - and for many years - played a relatively tough schedule (there were years where the old Strength of Schedule was top 10); as her success waned the schedule became increasingly abysimal.

Here in Arizona it is a mixed bag. Adia talks about upgrading but says a lot of teams are not really interested in making the west coast swing, as has been discussed before. She has played some teams from weaker conferences that are not horrible, but she has also played some real bottom feeders. I would very much like to see the schedule upgraded.

 

[visitingcock]

Dawn plays a number of Quad 4 teams against HBCs and in-state smaller schools as part of engaging the community and paying travel money to the schools she wants. This was the weakest schedule we’ve had in years. Folks didn’t wanna play us (like Tobacco Road).

 

[Bone Dog]

Dawn plays a number of Quad 4 teams against HBCs and in-state smaller schools as part of engaging the community and paying travel money to the schools she wants. This was the weakest schedule we’ve had in years. Folks didn’t wanna play us (like Tobacco Road).

I think when it comes to scheduling the current juggernaut (whether it’s SC as now, or UConn or Stanford, as it has been in other years) there’s probably a torturous calculation that goes on for opposing coaches. Losing to the juggernaut doesn’t really cost them and it could be good exposure for their players. Of course, it could also be demoralizing. It’s probably a tough call no matter when it comes knocking.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I think when it comes to scheduling the current juggernaut (whether it’s SC as now, or UConn or Stanford, as it has been in other years) there’s probably a torturous calculation that goes on for opposing coaches. Losing to the juggernaut doesn’t really cost them and it could be good exposure for their players. Of course, it could also be demoralizing. It’s probably a tough call no matter when it comes knocking.

Exactly. Your better teams have a certain amount of demoralization to think about, but largely will benefit from playing the elite team(s). I think it is a tough call.

For significantly lesser teams, that are going to get pasted, there is still a balance. There is really no benefit (except possibly financial, as in the South Carolina comment) for the team. They can see how much slower they are (for example) watching on TV, they don't have to experience it. Yet the teams often line up and do it, for a certain amount of exposure.

 

[visitingcock]

Exactly. Your better teams have a certain amount of demoralization to think about, but largely will benefit from playing the elite team(s). I think it is a tough call.

For significantly lesser teams, that are going to get pasted, there is still a balance. There is really no benefit (except possibly financial, as in the South Carolina comment) for the team. They can see how much slower they are (for example) watching on TV, they don't have to experience it. Yet the teams often line up and do it, for a certain amount of exposure.

Many of the players on the lesser teams enjoy the exposure. They like that they are playing in front of (sometimes) huge Crowds in big arenas, possibly televised by the Ocho. The top players on the lesser teams want to measure their individual performances. Oft times guards can have decent performances - not so much for Bigs. And they like to meet players who may play in the WNBA.

 

[Cats-F10]

The results by Conference in the opening Table are interesting for a preliminary view of the Strength of Schedule and the Ranking, but the resolution is a problem because of the use of 4 arbitrarily chosen groups (Quads). I prefer computer rankings such as Massey that do not impose this artificial limitation. Margin of victory is another variable. Massey’s calculations indicate that the Pac-12 and ACC are currently the top and second ranked conferences, for both ranking and SOS.

A threshold of the top 40 teams has been used to construct the opening Table. A threshold can also be applied using Massey, although the outcome will depend heavily on the threshold used (e.g. top 40 teams, top 16 teams, top half of a Conference), as well as how the results are evaluated. Following are two examples comparing the above Table with Massey’s rankings for the ACC and the Pac-12.

The top 47% of teams in the ACC (7 of 15) has been compared to the top 67% of teams in the Pac-12 (8 of 12) in the opening Table. When this is done, the implied SOS and ranking of the ACC is higher than that of the Pac-12. I think a better way to compare the two Conferences would be to add the next 3 teams in the ACC so that the top 67% of teams from both Conferences are compared. When this is done using Massey’s data, the average projected SOS of the Pac-12 is higher than that of the ACC. Similarly, the average ranking is higher for the Pac-12.