Inter-conference records among the majors

[nelsonmuntz]

View attachment 115353

It is strange that given college sports’ long history of favoritism towards certain schools and conferences, and the SEC mostly face planting in the CFP despite conventional wisdom being that they dominate that sport, that it is impossible for you to consider that maybe the SEC is overrated in basketball too.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

How is the SEC 35-41 vs. the other majors yet currently has a rating that is the third highest KenPom of any conference in the last 8 years. How is that possible?

No one has been able to explain this.

 

[3rdbass]

I think this thread needs to be closed. It was a joke to begin with and now is just bickering with Nelson who is too stubborn to listen.

 

[3rdbass]

I think this thread needs to be locked. It was a joke to begin with and now is just bickering with Nelson who is too stubborn to listen

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think this thread needs to be locked. It was a joke to begin with and now is just bickering with Nelson who is too stubborn to listen

Why was it a joke to begin? This thread contains several analyses and a discussion of a series of models that have a very important impact on UConn's basketball program, and these discussions do not appear to exist anywhere else on the internet.

Your posts fall into two categories: 1) you like a certain player or team, or 2) you don't like a certain player or team. Thanks for your contributions to the Boneyard.

 

[FightOnCT]

I have never fully trusted any of these models as even if there is no true bias towards or against any specific schools or conferences, there will be some inherent bias in how certain things are weighed. Whoever created any of these models logically would have placed more or less value on pace of play, defensive efficiency, overall scoring, etc based on personal preferences.

The final straw for me was late last season when one of these (I believe Kenpom) had Duke's 24-25 squad rated higher than our 23-24 team. I believe they also rated the Virginia and Baylor title teams higher than our 23-24 team. We'd win at least 90% of the head to head matchups against any of them.

KenPom’s adjusted net ratings (the +/- numbers) aren’t meant to be compared across other years. They simply represent how much that team would be favored over the average team (0.00) in that year specifically.

There was a notoriously massive falloff last year after the top 6 or so which explains why Duke, Auburn, etc. had such massive numbers compared to ours. Florida’s rating was about the same as ours in 2024 and they barely beat 2025 UConn.

 

[pepband99]

No one has been able to explain this.

The amount of people who just can't get KenPom in this thread is amazing.

First off - the ratings for conferences throw out ~1/2 of the conference, in all likelihood, since they only rate teams expected to finish .500 or better in conference.

Looking at W/L is also just wrong for KenPom, so stop comparing it to the (wrong per above) OOC W/L record. It's an efficiency rating. Heavily summarized, if you do better against the expected KenPom spread, win or lose, you go up. If you do worse, you go down. It's really not hard.

Also - saying thing like "rewards teams for running up the score" is a bit misleading, too. By rating the expected results, it only compares to what that team was supposed to do to an opponent. A 30 pt win, if you were expected to win by 40, you go down.

My guess - there are probably a couple of outliers that are driving the results, but the RPI would have those, too (e.g. would be CCSU beating BC).

If you actually want to constructively discuss this, and I have time, I could probably find the key data points that are driving this.

Also - just to add - KenPom's early season rankings have some weight to last year's ranking, which was historically high for the SEC. It's likely almost completely sunsetted now, but that could have driven the numbers up eartier in the season.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The amount of people who just can't get KenPom in this thread is amazing.

First off - the ratings for conferences throw out ~1/2 of the conference, in all likelihood, since they only rate teams expected to finish .500 or better in conference.

Looking at W/L is also just wrong for KenPom, so stop comparing it to the (wrong per above) OOC W/L record. It's an efficiency rating. Heavily summarized, if you do better against the expected KenPom spread, win or lose, you go up. If you do worse, you go down. It's really not hard.

Also - saying thing like "rewards teams for running up the score" is a bit misleading, too. By rating the expected results, it only compares to what that team was supposed to do to an opponent. A 30 pt win, if you were expected to win by 40, you go down.

My guess - there are probably a couple of outliers that are driving the results, but the RPI would have those, too (e.g. would be CCSU beating BC).

If you actually want to constructively discuss this, and I have time, I could probably find the key data points that are driving this.

Also - just to add - KenPom's early season rankings have some weight to last year's ranking, which was historically high for the SEC. It's likely almost completely sunsetted now, but that could have driven the numbers up eartier in the season.

Are you arguing that the ratings in KenPom are based on a team's performance against KenPom's ratings? That makes the model even more useless than I thought. Actually, that is not what the model is doing, but I wanted to mock your explanation.

All the efficiency models reward teams for running up the score. They don't care if a basket is scored with 5 seconds left in a 50 point win or is the first basket of the game in a 50 point win. As a result, teams that want to improve their NET need to pour it on. The SEC and Big 12 have proved this for the last couple of years.

KenPom does not throw out half the conference for his conference ratings.

Finally, if you like the model, no one is stopping you from using it however you want. I am simply saying efficiency models, as currently constructed, should not be used for selection or seeding of the NCAA Tournament field.

 

[dennismenace]

There has been a lot of criticism of the Big East, including quite a few on this board comparing the league to a mid-major, so I put together this analysis

Below are the interconference records between the leagues (Updated for all games).

	ACC​	Big East​	Big 10​	Big 12​	SEC​
ACC		5-4​	3-10​	15-11​	16-13​
Big East	4-5​		10-7​	7-7​	7-3​
Big 10	10-3​	7-10​		8-8​	6-10​
Big 12	11-15​	7-7​	8-8​		6-15​
SEC	13-16​	3-7​	10-6​	15-6​
Total	38-39​	22-28​	31-31​	45-32​	35-41​
Average Games vs. Majors	4.28​	4.55​	3.44​	4.81​	4.75​

I put this together using ChatGPT, which wasn't great at this kind of search, so I had to do a lot of manual adjustments and I may have missed a couple of games.

That data supports the Big East being ranked #5 out of the majors, but it doesn't really support the huge gap we are seeing between the leagues in KenPom and Torvik. I think the margin of victories and buy games early in the season are making a difference, along with the fact that KenPom has a big preseason projection in that model which remains a factor into January. The SEC's current +19 would be one of the strongest all time conference ratings on KenPom, which is odd for a conference that has a losing record against the other majors, and a large and growing collection of ugly losses. It is also strange that the Big 12 is not the #1 league in every ranking.

I would expect to see the Big East creep up in the computer ratings, cutting the gap between them and the higher ranked conferences, as their solid number of P5 games per team and games against mid-majors start to flow through strength of schedule of opponents, while a lot of the low-major blowouts by SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 schools will lose value as the season wears on. This should help UConn on the margin, as its conference strength of schedule improves over the course of the season. The underlying rating in all the computer models gets pretty tight once you get past the top 15 or so teams, so even a minor improvement in the second degree SOS can make a big difference in the ranking. I don't think we are going to bump a bunch of games into Quad 1's, but we should see more Quad 2's than it appears we have today, and I think 5 bids is a reasonable projection unless Butler face plants.

Very nice analysis. I'll think about this every time I watch the talking heads on tv and podcasts. They certainly have the staff to do this kind of research but I guess it just doesn't fit the narrative (propaganda). Good to use by coaches to show the bias and how not to buy into a lot of empty bloviating by talking heads. I'll start by taking our staff over all others. Player potential (talent and depth) is in the same neighborhood especially when superior coaching is added. Now we just have to stay reasonably healthy and fine tune while character is being built in the BE rock fights through Jan-Feb. Nothing can stop us but ourselves. I can hear that locomotive engine and whistle in the distant background.

 

[dennismenace]

In the end it comes down to rings and banners. That is called consistent results. 21st century belongs to who?

 

[pepband99]

Are you arguing that the ratings in KenPom are based on a team's performance against KenPom's ratings? That makes the model even more useless than I thought. Actually, that is not what the model is doing, but I wanted to mock your explanation.

All the efficiency models reward teams for running up the score. They don't care if a basket is scored with 5 seconds left in a 50 point win or is the first basket of the game in a 50 point win. As a result, teams that want to improve their NET need to pour it on. The SEC and Big 12 have proved this for the last couple of years.

KenPom does not throw out half the conference for his conference ratings.

Finally, if you like the model, no one is stopping you from using it however you want. I am simply saying efficiency models, as currently constructed, should not be used for selection or seeding of the NCAA Tournament field.

Mock this. Everything you posted is wrong. Stay with your precious RPI, which had only one goal (ironically not rewarding weak schedules, and thus, blowouts), and didn't end up doing it very well.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

	ACC​	Big East​	Big 10​	Big 12​	SEC​
ACC		5-4​	3-10​	15-11​	16-13​
Big East	4-5​		10-7​	7-7​	7-3​
Big 10	10-3​	7-10​		8-9​	6-10​
Big 12	11-15​	7-7​	9-8​		6-15​
SEC	13-16​	3-7​	10-6​	15-6​
Total	38-39​	22-28​	32-31​	45-33​	35-41​
Avg. Games vs P5	4.28​	4.55​	3.50​	4.88​	4.75​

There was a Big 10 vs. Big 12 game on 12/29. This should be final. As before, the totals summarize down.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

As the efficiency ratings and RPI have become more seasoned with additional games, the results are fairly consistent across NET, Torvik, KenPom and RPI. The Big 10 and Big 12 are essentially tied, followed by a gap then the ACC, followed by a smaller gap, then the Big East, followed by a huge gap then the MWC, WCC, A10 and everyone else, with the mid majors clumped pretty close. The efficiency ratings and RPI do not meaningfully disagree on the vast majority of leagues.

Then there is the SEC. The efficiency ratings, and particularly KenPom, believe this year’s SEC is one of the strongest leagues in college basketball history, but the RPI has it at #5 this season. As I show in the post above this, the SEC has a losing record against the other majors, and a quick skim of its teams’ schedules shows a lot of cupcakes. #5 or or maybe #4 league seems about right, but the efficiency ratings love it.

So as I asked above, why is the SEC #1 by a large margin when its actual wins and SOS would indicate a more modest conference ranking?

 

[John]

As the efficiency ratings and RPI have become more seasoned with additional games, the results are fairly consistent across NET, Torvik, KenPom and RPI. The Big 10 and Big 12 are essentially tied, followed by a gap then the ACC, followed by a smaller gap, then the Big East, followed by a huge gap then the MWC, WCC, A10 and everyone else, with the mid majors clumped pretty close. The efficiency ratings and RPI do not meaningfully disagree on the vast majority of leagues.

Then there is the SEC. The efficiency ratings, and particularly KenPom, believe this year’s SEC is one of the strongest leagues in college basketball history, but the RPI has it at #5 this season. As I show in the post above this, the SEC has a losing record against the other majors, and a quick skim of its teams’ schedules shows a lot of cupcakes. #5 or or maybe #4 league seems about right, but the efficiency ratings love it.

So as I asked above, why is the SEC #1 by a large margin when its actual wins and SOS would indicate a more modest conference ranking?

 

[auror]

As the efficiency ratings and RPI have become more seasoned with additional games, the results are fairly consistent across NET, Torvik, KenPom and RPI. The Big 10 and Big 12 are essentially tied, followed by a gap then the ACC, followed by a smaller gap, then the Big East, followed by a huge gap then the MWC, WCC, A10 and everyone else, with the mid majors clumped pretty close. The efficiency ratings and RPI do not meaningfully disagree on the vast majority of leagues.

Then there is the SEC. The efficiency ratings, and particularly KenPom, believe this year’s SEC is one of the strongest leagues in college basketball history, but the RPI has it at #5 this season. As I show in the post above this, the SEC has a losing record against the other majors, and a quick skim of its teams’ schedules shows a lot of cupcakes. #5 or or maybe #4 league seems about right, but the efficiency ratings love it.

So as I asked above, why is the SEC #1 by a large margin when its actual wins and SOS would indicate a more modest conference ranking?

This is what I said up-thread about the SEC:

There's likely some ratings inertia with the SEC from last year, but also the SEC has no team anywhere near as bad as Utah. The SEC currently has all 16 teams within the KenPom top 100 and 12 within the top 50 (Big 12 has 8).

It's 12 in the top 52 now, and most of the pre-season ratings have been phased out. 11 in the top 53 of the NET (Texas is a lot worse in NET). As discussed, KenPom rates conferences based on the expected strength of a team needed to go .500 in conference play based on a round robin schedule. The algorithm spits out around the 35th ranked team for the SEC, low 40s for Big 12/Big Ten, low 50s for ACC, and mid-50s for Big East.

Big 12 has 9 of their teams in the top 53. 7 of 16 schools outside of the top 65. SEC has 3 outside the top 65, and their worst school (South Carolina at 90) is 38 spots better than the Big 12's worst school (Utah at 128). If you did just a straight average (and not the win50 method), Big 12 is 47.6, SEC is 39.7.

SEC is #1 by a large margin in KenPom because the algorithm thinks they have a lot of really good teams and an extremely good depth through the conference.

Torvik has cumulative conference WAB as one of the measurements on his site, so we can see what a good resume metric has for the conferences (something better than RPI). In that, he has the Big 12 #1 at +1.0 WAB, and then the SEC and Big Ten tied at 0.5 WAB, ACC at basically net 0 and BE at -0.27, then a big gap to the rest of the conferences.

So to answer your question: Why does KenPom have SEC #1 when their record doesn't indicate they should be #1? Because KenPom isn't measuring their record quality, just projecting current/future strength. The Big 12 has the best resume and that lines up with your high major records.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This is what I said up-thread about the SEC:

It's 12 in the top 52 now, and most of the pre-season ratings have been phased out. 11 in the top 53 of the NET (Texas is a lot worse in NET). As discussed, KenPom rates conferences based on the expected strength of a team needed to go .500 in conference play based on a round robin schedule. The algorithm spits out around the 35th ranked team for the SEC, low 40s for Big 12/Big Ten, low 50s for ACC, and mid-50s for Big East.

Big 12 has 9 of their teams in the top 53. 7 of 16 schools outside of the top 65. SEC has 3 outside the top 65, and their worst school (South Carolina at 90) is 38 spots better than the Big 12's worst school (Utah at 128). If you did just a straight average (and not the win50 method), Big 12 is 47.6, SEC is 39.7.

SEC is #1 by a large margin in KenPom because the algorithm thinks they have a lot of really good teams and an extremely good depth through the conference.

Torvik has cumulative conference WAB as one of the measurements on his site, so we can see what a good resume metric has for the conferences (something better than RPI). In that, he has the Big 12 #1 at +1.0 WAB, and then the SEC and Big Ten tied at 0.5 WAB, ACC at basically net 0 and BE at -0.27, then a big gap to the rest of the conferences.

So to answer your question: Why does KenPom have SEC #1 when their record doesn't indicate they should be #1? Because KenPom isn't measuring their record quality, just projecting current/future strength. The Big 12 has the best resume and that lines up with your high major records.

In other words, the SEC runs up the score on bad teams.

 

[auror]

In other words, the SEC runs up the score on bad teams.

Using Torvik to filter performance, we can take a look.

This season, 5 of their teams have been better against good teams (Q1+Q2 games), 4 have been about the same against both types, and 7 have been significantly better against worse teams (Q3+Q4 games).


Kentucky, A&M, Missouri, and Ole Miss are driving most of the effect. Vanderbilt has been excellent in their toughest games.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Using Torvik to filter performance, we can take a look.

This season, 5 of their teams have been better against good teams (Q1+Q2 games), 4 have been about the same against both types, and 7 have been significantly better against worse teams (Q3+Q4 games).


Kentucky, A&M, Missouri, and Ole Miss are driving most of the effect. Vanderbilt has been excellent in their toughest games.

LSU is #42 in KenPom right now after losing to South Carolina at home, despite Depaul being its second best win. South Carolina had no wins over teams in the top 188 coming into night. South Carolina is 69.

There is an SEC bias in KenPom. I don't need to hear the other side of the argument anymore.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Texas has a nice win over KenPom #33 NC State. Its next best win is #257 Southern. Texas is 53 in KenPom. What does an SEC have to do to get knocked out of the Top 80?

According to KenPom, the 2025-2026 SEC is not just the best conference this year, it is one of the best conferences in the history of college basketball. That is utterly ridiculous.

 

[pepband99]

Ironically, Texas' game against us (an 8 point loss on the road) is one of the data points holding them up the most. But you keep harping on about wins and losses.

The SEC's kenpom ranking isn't even that out of line to past #1s, so i also don't know what you're looking at there.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Ironically, Texas' game against us (an 8 point loss on the road) is one of the data points holding them up the most. But you keep harping on about wins and losses.

The SEC's kenpom ranking isn't even that out of line to past #1s, so i also don't know what you're looking at there.

Why shouldn't I harp about wins and losses? Is there some other objective of a basketball game? Do you think it is a fashion show or a spelling bee?

The SEC's current +18.94 is the 6th highest conference rating in the history of KenPom, going back to the 1996-1997 season. Look at the team's schedules. The league is not that good compared to other leagues, and the results prove it. RPI says it is the 4th best league (it pulled a little ahead of the Big East), and looking through the schedules, it feels like the 4th or 5th best league. So why do the efficiency ratings so disproportionately point in the other direction?

Conference RPI - 2026 Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

2026 Men's College Basketball Conference RPI (Rating Percentage Index): A Ranking of Every Conference Based on the Average RPI of the Teams in Each Conference

www.warrennolan.com

 

[auror]

Why shouldn't I harp about wins and losses? Is there some other objective of a basketball game? Do you think it is a fashion show or a spelling bee?

The SEC's current +18.94 is the 6th highest conference rating in the history of KenPom, going back to the 1996-1997 season. Look at the team's schedules. The league is not that good compared to other leagues, and the results prove it. RPI says it is the 4th best league (it pulled a little ahead of the Big East), and looking through the schedules, it feels like the 4th or 5th best league. So why do the efficiency ratings so disproportionately point in the other direction?

Conference RPI - 2026 Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

2026 Men's College Basketball Conference RPI (Rating Percentage Index): A Ranking of Every Conference Based on the Average RPI of the Teams in Each Conference

www.warrennolan.com

You can harp on wins and losses, just don't do it in relation to a predictive metric that doesn't factor in wins and losses at all.

"This team's resume is bad, why doesn't this metric that doesn't care about wins and losses reflect that?"

We've explained it to you 30 times, but you're intentionally obtuse about it. Adjusted scoring margin is more predictive than resume wins and losses for predicting future wins and losses. That's a fact. It's very well established over decades and thousands of games. That includes the games against bad teams, because it's harder and takes a better team to win by 50 than it is by 40 and by 30, etc. Metrics add techniques and adjustments to refine the raw scoring margin to make it even more predictive. So when you say "the results prove it", you're suggesting that we trust less information that is less predictive, only because it is more relevant to you. But the sample sizes are way too small in those games that "prove it".

The win/loss performance has been that of the 4th best league, as pointed out by RPI and WAB and other resume metrics. The performance as a whole indicates it's better than that, and the models that are the best at predicting how good the teams actually are suggest that over a larger sample it will likely move up and improve in those resume models.

Your point as I see it is that the collective performance hasn't justified the KenPom ratings. Whereas what the best data we have is actually telling you is that the win/loss performance hasn't lived up to how good the teams actually are. Resume and predictive metrics haven't aligned because the sample sizes are too small.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You can harp on wins and losses, just don't do it in relation to a predictive metric that doesn't factor in wins and losses at all.

"This team's resume is bad, why doesn't this metric that doesn't care about wins and losses reflect that?"

We've explained it to you 30 times, but you're intentionally obtuse about it. Adjusted scoring margin is more predictive than resume wins and losses for predicting future wins and losses. That's a fact. It's very well established over decades and thousands of games. That includes the games against bad teams, because it's harder and takes a better team to win by 50 than it is by 40 and by 30, etc. Metrics add techniques and adjustments to refine the raw scoring margin to make it even more predictive. So when you say "the results prove it", you're suggesting that we trust less information that is less predictive, only because it is more relevant to you. But the sample sizes are way too small in those games that "prove it".

The win/loss performance has been that of the 4th best league, as pointed out by RPI and WAB and other resume metrics. The performance as a whole indicates it's better than that, and the models that are the best at predicting how good the teams actually are suggest that over a larger sample it will likely move up and improve in those resume models.

Your point as I see it is that the collective performance hasn't justified the KenPom ratings. Whereas what the best data we have is actually telling you is that the win/loss performance hasn't lived up to how good the teams actually are. Resume and predictive metrics haven't aligned because the sample sizes are too small.

As I have said more than 30 times, the only way scoring margin separates from wins and losses at a conference level is if teams are systematically running up the score on bad teams.

That does not reflect superior teams, it reflects coaching decisions to game a flawed metric.

And winning by 50 is not harder than winning by 30 when you are playing a grossly inferior team. There are teams on the UConn women’s schedule that Geno could beat by 100 points but only beats by 50. Would UConn by a better team if it ran up the score?

 

[auror]

As I have said more than 30 times, the only way scoring margin separates from wins and losses at a conference level is if teams are systematically running up the score on bad teams.

That does not reflect superior teams, it reflects coaching decisions to game a flawed metric.

And winning by 50 is not harder than winning by 30 when you are playing a grossly inferior team. There are teams on the UConn women’s schedule that Geno could beat by 100 points but only beats by 50. Would UConn by a better team if it ran up the score?

Your first sentence is just wrong. The sample size even at a conference level for just non-conference games is not enough for the resume and predictive metrics to converge because each game contains only 1 datapoint. Something like Florida losing 3 games against top 10 teams by a combined 11 points makes a huge impact even on conference-wide WAB and it is basically the difference between a handful of shots being different. If that happens to even a few teams in a conference, your results metrics are drastically different than your predictives. Resume metrics for a conference have like 200 datapoints, and predictive metrics have 15,000 (the data points are not 1:1 valued the same, but the point is made).

Yes, it is harder to win by 50 than 30 even against a grossly inferior team. The data backs this up. Your feelings on it not being true doesn't make it false. Sorry. There will be game outliers where a team really steps off the gas, but it is valuable for the models to include them on the whole, and they improve the predictiveness of the model. On the men's side, there are a handful of games that fall into that super extreme mismatch variety, and the models have methods to account for that.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You are wrong about 50 vs 30.

Fun fact: SEC football went 2-8 in bowls against non-SEC schools, and one of those wins was over Tulane. Are you sticking with your position that there is no chance the SEC is overrated and simply gaming the ratings?

 

[7774]

You are wrong about 50 vs 30.

Fun fact: SEC football went 2-8 in bowls against non-SEC schools, and one of those wins was over Tulane. Are you sticking with your position that there is no chance the SEC is overrated and simply gaming the ratings?

Your brain believing teams can just basically set their margin of victory against weaker teams is so hilarious.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Another example of how the NET and KenPom is skewed:

Butler (50 NET, 58 KenPom) is 4-7 against Q1 (2-4) and Q2 (2-3). 8-0 against the rest.

Some SEC "bubble" teams:

Tennessee (25, 23): 4-6 (2-5, 2-1). 8-0 vs. rest
Auburn (34, 30): 4-7 (3-6, 1-1). 8-0
Texas (43, 41): 3-7 (3-5, 0-2). 7-1
LSU (48, 42): 2-5 (1-4, 1-1). 11-1
Texas A&M (42, 36): 4-4 (2-3, 2-1). 11-0

Other than Indiana ((37,38), 1-7 (0-6, 1-1). 11-0) and maybe Ohio State (35,35) a little, I can't find another example of a ridiculously inflated NET/KenPom combo outside of the SEC. The ACC, Big 12 and most of the Big 10 stats look about right. As inflated as the NETs are for the SEC, the KenPoms are worse.

Butler has similar Q1/Q2 W-L and overall records, and a better top win (Virginia) than any of those teams other than Tennessee, who is not a bubble team but I included to show how absurdly the SEC efficiency stats are inflated.

Here are the Top 5 KenPom conference ratings OF ALL TIME:

2025 SEC: 22.09 (14 of 16 went to dance, 2 1's, 2 2's, 9 of 16 were 8 seeds or better, dominated non-conference, Florida won NC)
1997 ACC: 21.37 (9 team league, Duke, UNC and Wake (Tim Duncan) were top teams, 6 teams went to NCAAs)
2004 ACC: 20.32 (9 teams, Duke, 6 went to NCAAs)
2017 Big 12: 19.81 (Kansas 1 seed, Baylor, WVU and Iowa State really good, 6 of 10 went to dance)
2026 SEC: 19.27 (losing overall record vs. other majors, no teams in top 13 in AP or coaches. Only 2 teams in the league (Georgia, LSU) don't have 3 or more OOC losses)

Think of all the powerhouse years that the other majors have had over the last almost 30 years, and then ask why the 2026 SEC is the #5 Conference OF ALL TIME. The NET has a problem, and the KenPom model has a big problem.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Another example of how the NET and KenPom is skewed:

Butler (50 NET, 58 KenPom) is 4-7 against Q1 (2-4) and Q2 (2-3). 8-0 against the rest.

Some SEC "bubble" teams:

Tennessee (25, 23): 4-6 (2-5, 2-1). 8-0 vs. rest
Auburn (34, 30): 4-7 (3-6, 1-1). 8-0
Texas (43, 41): 3-7 (3-5, 0-2). 7-1
LSU (48, 42): 2-5 (1-4, 1-1). 11-1
Texas A&M (42, 36): 4-4 (2-3, 2-1). 11-0

Other than Indiana ((37,38), 1-7 (0-6, 1-1). 11-0) and maybe Ohio State (35,35) a little, I can't find another example of a ridiculously inflated NET/KenPom combo outside of the SEC. The ACC, Big 12 and most of the Big 10 stats look about right. As inflated as the NETs are for the SEC, the KenPoms are worse.

Butler has similar Q1/Q2 W-L and overall records, and a better top win (Virginia) than any of those teams other than Tennessee, who is not a bubble team but I included to show how absurdly the SEC efficiency stats are inflated.

Here are the Top 5 KenPom conference ratings OF ALL TIME:

2025 SEC: 22.09 (14 of 16 went to dance, 2 1's, 2 2's, 9 of 16 were 8 seeds or better, dominated non-conference, Florida won NC)
1997 ACC: 21.37 (9 team league, Duke, UNC and Wake (Tim Duncan) were top teams, 6 teams went to NCAAs)
2004 ACC: 20.32 (9 teams, Duke, 6 went to NCAAs)
2017 Big 12: 19.81 (Kansas 1 seed, Baylor, WVU and Iowa State really good, 6 of 10 went to dance)
2026 SEC: 19.27 (losing overall record vs. other majors, no teams in top 13 in AP or coaches. Only 2 teams in the league (Georgia, LSU) don't have 3 or more OOC losses)

Think of all the powerhouse years that the other majors have had over the last almost 30 years, and then ask why the 2026 SEC is the #5 Conference OF ALL TIME. The NET has a problem, and the KenPom model has a big problem.

don't question things that are intentional.

 

[pepband99]

Another example of how the NET and KenPom is skewed:

Butler (50 NET, 58 KenPom) is 4-7 against Q1 (2-4) and Q2 (2-3). 8-0 against the rest.

Some SEC "bubble" teams:

Tennessee (25, 23): 4-6 (2-5, 2-1). 8-0 vs. rest
Auburn (34, 30): 4-7 (3-6, 1-1). 8-0
Texas (43, 41): 3-7 (3-5, 0-2). 7-1
LSU (48, 42): 2-5 (1-4, 1-1). 11-1
Texas A&M (42, 36): 4-4 (2-3, 2-1). 11-0

Other than Indiana ((37,38), 1-7 (0-6, 1-1). 11-0) and maybe Ohio State (35,35) a little, I can't find another example of a ridiculously inflated NET/KenPom combo outside of the SEC. The ACC, Big 12 and most of the Big 10 stats look about right. As inflated as the NETs are for the SEC, the KenPoms are worse.

Butler has similar Q1/Q2 W-L and overall records, and a better top win (Virginia) than any of those teams other than Tennessee, who is not a bubble team but I included to show how absurdly the SEC efficiency stats are inflated.

Here are the Top 5 KenPom conference ratings OF ALL TIME:

2025 SEC: 22.09 (14 of 16 went to dance, 2 1's, 2 2's, 9 of 16 were 8 seeds or better, dominated non-conference, Florida won NC)
1997 ACC: 21.37 (9 team league, Duke, UNC and Wake (Tim Duncan) were top teams, 6 teams went to NCAAs)
2004 ACC: 20.32 (9 teams, Duke, 6 went to NCAAs)
2017 Big 12: 19.81 (Kansas 1 seed, Baylor, WVU and Iowa State really good, 6 of 10 went to dance)
2026 SEC: 19.27 (losing overall record vs. other majors, no teams in top 13 in AP or coaches. Only 2 teams in the league (Georgia, LSU) don't have 3 or more OOC losses)

Think of all the powerhouse years that the other majors have had over the last almost 30 years, and then ask why the 2026 SEC is the #5 Conference OF ALL TIME. The NET has a problem, and the KenPom model has a big problem.

Still don't get that Kenpom doesn't rate W/L, eh?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Still don't get that Kenpom doesn't rate W/L, eh?

Still don’t get that you have been still justifying KenPom’s use for tournament selection every time you defend it?