Inter-conference records among the majors | Page 2 | The Boneyard
.-.

Inter-conference records among the majors

nelsonmuntz said:
There is one more P5 vs. P5 game, Illinois vs. Missouri, which is tonight. With the rest of the schedule pretty much locked in, we have a pretty good picture of how many teams each conference will get. No league is dominant enough this year that sub .500 teams in conference play will get a lot of leeway, so a good rule of thumb is: "how many teams from the league would get a bid with a .500 record in conference play?"

There are 37 at-large bids plus 5 conference champions = 42 bids.

Start with teams ranked 40 or higher in the NET:

SEC: 8 (Vanderbilt, Georgia, LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky)
Big 12: 7 (Iowa State, Arizona, BYU, Texas Tech, Houston, UCF, Kansas)
Big 10: 9 (Nebraska, Michigan, Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana, UCLA, USC, Iowa, Illinois)
ACC: 8 (Duke, UNC, Virginia, Miami, Louisville, SMU, Clemson, NC State)
Big East: 4 (UConn, Seton Hall, St. Johns, Villanova)

That is 36 bids that these conferences have a high confidence of getting as of Christmas. I could be off by 1, but something really weird would have to happen for any of the conferences above to be 2 off from my prediction above.

Some of the teams listed above won't make it, but they will likely get replaced by another team from the conference. For example, if Texas finishes with a winning record, it means that one of the SEC teams listed above had a losing record, and probably took itself out of a bid. Weird stuff can happen, like 2 years ago when Seton Hall was terrible OOC and finished with a winning record in league play, but those are exceptions.

Close: Auburn (43), Baylor (42), California (44), Butler (46), Ohio State (49)

Depending on how many mid-majors get bids, there are another 2-3 bids from among the "close" teams. Again, some of these may swap out if a Wisconsin or TCU does well in league play. .500 in league play puts these teams right on the bubble. The Big East has a slight advantage here because Butler is less exposed to the "marginal Zero Sum Game" problem, where as a conference stretches towards the middle of its standings, someone has to finish .500 or with a losing record. Butler is not really in the middle of the standings, and it also doesn't have a deep top of the league that gives a lot of teams in the league 4 or 6 automatic losses.

Others of note:

Gonzaga (5), Utah State (17), St. Louis (25), St. Mary's (24), Tulsa (41), Yale (45), McNeese (47), Boise (48)

Gonzaga is the only team on this list that is a lock to get a bid if it doesn't win its conference tournament because none of them other than Gonzaga have quality wins. For now, I am assuming that the mid-majors get 2 at-large bids, but that is a conservative assumption. Zero mid-major at-large bids is a real possibility.
Expand ...
Thank you for this detailed analysis!

Regarding the under .500 P5 qualifiers, I fully expect the Big 12 to get a couple sub .500-- and perhaps well under .500 (in conference) -- teams in the tournament.
 
pepband99 said:
It’s literally in the header above the ranking.
Expand ...
You're misinterpreting what it is saying. It's a mathematical calculation, an "expected team", not the actual team that will go .500 or the median team. The bad teams are included in the calculation, and how likely a team is to beat them has a proportional impact on the conference rating with every other team. It's better than a straight average because it doesn't skew, but it has more data than a median.

"There are some other useful changes as well. The strength of schedule rating is now more fair. After a through search, I’m now using an implementation of Jeff Sagarin’s WIN50 method.3 The SOS figure represents the strength of team that would be expected to win half its games against the team’s schedule. It is handy because it minimizes the effect of outliers on the SOS calculation while allowing everyone’s SOS value to be compared on the same scale.

If a team plays mostly tough opponents, then the SOS rating isn’t as sensitive to the quality of the bad teams it plays. Whether Texas played Central Connecticut instead of UTSA last season wouldn’t have changed its SOS much. Flip this principle for a team that has mostly bad opponents on its schedule. Mostly this won’t have a big impact, but under the previous method, which used a simple average of its opponents’ ratings, whether you played the 350th- or 351st-best team in 2013 would have had far-too-serious implications on one’s SOS.

The same method is also used to rate conferences. A conference’s rating is the strength of team that would be expected to go .500 against a round robin schedule. This, too, reduces the effect of outliers. For instance, the Mountain West jumps from 12th to 10th in 2015 as the effect of #349 San Jose State is reduced."
 
Anyone else find it funny that the numbers posted in this thread to try to prove that the Big East is not doing as badly as many are saying actually show that the Big East is clearly the worst major conference this season?
 
auror said:
You're misinterpreting what it is saying. It's a mathematical calculation, an "expected team", not the actual team that will go .500 or the median team. The bad teams are included in the calculation, and how likely a team is to beat them has a proportional impact on the conference rating with every other team. It's better than a straight average because it doesn't skew, but it has more data than a median.

"There are some other useful changes as well. The strength of schedule rating is now more fair. After a through search, I’m now using an implementation of Jeff Sagarin’s WIN50 method.3 The SOS figure represents the strength of team that would be expected to win half its games against the team’s schedule. It is handy because it minimizes the effect of outliers on the SOS calculation while allowing everyone’s SOS value to be compared on the same scale.

If a team plays mostly tough opponents, then the SOS rating isn’t as sensitive to the quality of the bad teams it plays. Whether Texas played Central Connecticut instead of UTSA last season wouldn’t have changed its SOS much. Flip this principle for a team that has mostly bad opponents on its schedule. Mostly this won’t have a big impact, but under the previous method, which used a simple average of its opponents’ ratings, whether you played the 350th- or 351st-best team in 2013 would have had far-too-serious implications on one’s SOS.

The same method is also used to rate conferences. A conference’s rating is the strength of team that would be expected to go .500 against a round robin schedule. This, too, reduces the effect of outliers. For instance, the Mountain West jumps from 12th to 10th in 2015 as the effect of #349 San Jose State is reduced."
Expand ...
Err ok.

So I took it originally that it was everyone that was projected to go under 500 was eliminated.

And it’s actually for 500 against a round robin.

So the big east is the least skewed. The bigger conferences more so. But it’s still very very close.
 
PRHusky said:
Anyone else find it funny that the numbers posted in this thread to try to prove that the Big East is not doing as badly as many are saying actually show that the Big East is clearly the worst major conference this season?
Expand ...
There is no debate or question from anyone in this board on whether the Big East this year is the weakest of the major conferences. It is obvious in the stats and also on the floor that we are in 5th place. With that said:

(1) the difference between the major conference and the Big East isn't as great as it made seem to be by the media and some here
(2) the difference between the Big East (5th out of 31) and the ACC/BIG/SEC is less than the difference between the Big East and the MWC (6th) and West Coast Conference (7th)
 
.-.
PRHusky said:
Anyone else find it funny that the numbers posted in this thread to try to prove that the Big East is not doing as badly as many are saying actually show that the Big East is clearly the worst major conference this season?
Expand ...

Anyone else find it funny that you are saying other posters are saying the exact opposite of what they actually said?
 
Very detailed and thorough analysis and debate. Had Tarris and Braylon been good to go AZ loses and the picture tilts.
 
pepband99 said:
Err ok.

So I took it originally that it was everyone that was projected to go under 500 was eliminated.

And it’s actually for 500 against a round robin.

So the big east is the least skewed. The bigger conferences more so. But it’s still very very close.
Expand ...

It's only the strength of schedule rating, not the team rating, that uses the WIN50 formula.

The WIN50 approach also takes away the impact of the best teams on your schedule. Your schedule strength is based on the strength at the middle of your schedule. Both strong and weak opponents are ignored in calculating SOS.
 
pj said:
It's only the strength of schedule rating, not the team rating, that uses the WIN50 formula.

The WIN50 approach also takes away the impact of the best teams on your schedule. Your schedule strength is based on the strength at the middle of your schedule. Both strong and weak opponents are ignored in calculating SOS.
Expand ...
Ignored is going too far. Your expected chance of beating the best or worst teams are still factored in equivalently as every other game. You may be thinking of Sagarin's central mean.
 
ecasadoSBU said:
Thanks for this analysis @nelsonmuntz

It's always good to hit the Big East haters and "Big East is mid-major" with the cold hard facts.

The Big East is a solid major/power league. Yes, its currently the 5th best league. But 5th is still pretty solid and should get 4-5 bids

P.S: Really pissed with the Johnnies dropping yesterday's game against UK. The Johnnies have been a big disappointment so far. Seton Hall ITOH has been a pleasant surprise
Expand ...
"They" will never get over what UConn did Charles Barkley's attempted public assault on the Big East and then Villanova Cementing it with 2 NCs in 3 years over true powerhouse teams.
 
pj said:
It's only the strength of schedule rating, not the team rating, that uses the WIN50 formula.

The WIN50 approach also takes away the impact of the best teams on your schedule. Your schedule strength is based on the strength at the middle of your schedule. Both strong and weak opponents are ignored in calculating SOS.
Expand ...
Err - no it isn't.

The header on the conference ranking is quite clear:

"Ranking of conferences by NetRtg of team expected to go .500 in conference play"

NetRtg is overall efficiency - aka the KenPom ranking.
 
.-.
The SEC tunes up a bunch of directional low majors last night, and its KenPom rating actually improves to one of the all time high conference ratings. Just playing the dreck it played last night should hurt the league given how high its rating currently is.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The SEC tunes up a bunch of directional low majors last night, and its KenPom rating actually improves to one of the all time high conference ratings. Just playing the dreck it played last night should hurt the league given how high its rating currently is.
Expand ...
I'm too cheap to pay for KenPom. Do you have the conference ratings for the top 6 leagues.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The SEC tunes up a bunch of directional low majors last night, and its KenPom rating actually improves to one of the all time high conference ratings. Just playing the dreck it played last night should hurt the league given how high its rating currently is.
Expand ...
If there is gamesmanship in the system regarding metrics, we should simply follow suit. Some of these teams have figured it out as well - Zags, StM.
 
South Carolina beat Albany and Tennessee beat a South Carolina State team that is 0-14 against D1 opponents, and their KenPom ratings went up, along with the SEC overall, despite the SEC have a historically high KenPom rating going into tonight. How can two games against two putrid opponents like this improve the conferences rating when it is already sky high?

Seton Hall beat a Top 200 Marquette team on the road and its rating went down.

I am starting to question whether KenPom has a "house effect" bias for certain conferences. The model is a black box, so there is no reason to trust it.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
South Carolina beat Albany and Tennessee beat a South Carolina State team that is 0-14 against D1 opponents, and their KenPom ratings went up, along with the SEC overall, despite the SEC have a historically high KenPom rating going into tonight. How can two games against two putrid opponents like this improve the conferences rating when it is already sky high?

Seton Hall beat a Top 200 Marquette team on the road and its rating went down.

I am starting to question whether KenPom has a "house effect" bias for certain conferences. The model is a black box, so there is no reason to trust it.
Expand ...
I don't really know either. I know Kenpom's formula moves teams around based on performance vs. expectations, but I'm not sure what his algorithm's expectations were for these games

I think you need to pay to see them, but looking at the spreads on ESPN as a proxy:
  • SC was favored by 19.5 and won by 29 (+9.5)
  • Tennessee was favored by 44.5 and won by 51 (+6.5)
  • Seton Hall were underdogs by 1.5 and won by 6 (+7.5)
Not sure why all 3 teams wouldn't move up
 
In RPI, which doesn't reward power conferences for running up the score on terrible teams, the conferences are ranked:

1) Big 10
2) Big 12
3) Big East
4) ACC
5) SEC

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 www.warrennolan.com
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
In RPI, which doesn't reward power conferences for running up the score on terrible teams, the conferences are ranked:

1) Big 10
2) Big 12
3) Big East
4) ACC
5) SEC

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 www.warrennolan.com
Expand ...
Do you really think the BE is better than the SEC? Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky (already beat our second best team), Vandy, Bama.

I don’t get it. Are we comparing each conferences worst teams? Do we care South Carolina is worse than DePaul?
 
RuffRuff said:
Do you really think the BE is better than the SEC? Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky (already beat our second best team), Vandy, Bama.

I don’t get it. Are we comparing each conferences worst teams? Do we care South Carolina is worse than DePaul?
Expand ...
he's making a nice cherry pie for New Years Eve
 
RuffRuff said:
Do you really think the BE is better than the SEC? Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky (already beat our second best team), Vandy, Bama.

I don’t get it. Are we comparing each conferences worst teams? Do we care South Carolina is worse than DePaul?
Expand ...
In Nelson's world everything is roses. He even thinks his farts smell like roses.
 
RuffRuff said:
Do you really think the BE is better than the SEC? Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky (already beat our second best team), Vandy, Bama.

I don’t get it. Are we comparing each conferences worst teams? Do we care South Carolina is worse than DePaul?
Expand ...

You and @HooperScooper , among many others, have repeatedly compared the Big East to mid majors. You are wrong.

I have addressed your need to constantly make this comparison elsewhere, but happy to revisit if you want.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
You and @HooperScooper , among many others, have repeatedly compared the Big East to mid majors. You are wrong.

I have addressed your need to constantly make this comparison elsewhere, but happy to revisit if you want.
Expand ...
I’ve never said that. Not even once. As a matter of fact all I’ve basically done is post articles. I’m not on here saying how bad the Big East is this year. Go complain to Mike Anthony, Dave Borges, the ESPN writers, the CBS Sports writers, etc. I’m sure they’ll listen to your drivel.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
I am starting to question whether KenPom has a "house effect" bias for certain conferences. The model is a black box, so there is no reason to trust it.
Expand ...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
314
Guests online
3,380
Total visitors
3,694
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,375
Messages
4,477,643
Members
10,351
Latest member
XF Support s2LH


Top Bottom