Pitt's Capel goes after Big 12 and efficiency ratings

[7774]

SVP's One Big Thing: Gaming college basketball NET rankings

Clemson Tigers coach Brad Brownell isn't happy about how Big 12 teams approach out-of-conference scheduling. Does he have a point? SVP investigates.

www.espn.com

You act like I made this up. Everyone outside of Big 12 fanboys and trolls are pointing out that the Big 12 does this.

I'm not acting like you're making up the narrative, it's just that you can look at the data and easily see that the narrative is not actually true. And the reason everyone is talking about it is because the ACC made it up. SVP doesn't have any clue what he's talking about, but a coach in a conference that's important to ESPN financially started crying about it, so he's talking about it.

Do you ever notice that all these people who cry about it never provide any specific examples? Why do you think that is? I've asked you multiple times to tell me what the strategy is and provide an example. You just respond to me with other stuff.

 

[UConnJim]

Remember when the SEC hired Mike Tranghese in 2016 as a consultant to improve SEC basketball? It seems to have worked. The ACC's problem is Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, and Notre Dame as well as UNC and Duke to some extent are down. Because the ACC is down, teams like Pitt have to schedule tougher OOC games to get better metrics.

 

[auror]

If all it took to juice your NET is to play 300+ teams and lose to your major conference opponents in nonconf, why isn't Merrimack top 30? All their conference mates play a lot of 300+ games, too. NEC is juicing.

 

[bendm]

There is no way to cap the boost running up the score on bad teams gives to a team's efficiency numbers.

but it's still only 5 or 6 games out of 30. are you saying those games count for more than 15-20% of their efficiency ranking?

The B12 invited this scrutiny by playing the softest OOC schedule of all 32 D1 leagues.

how though? the big12 scheduled the third most games against other power conference after the BE and SEC and ACC and performed the best in those games.

Big 12: 30-24 = 54 games
Big East: 27-23 = 50
SEC: 37-32 = 69
ACC: 29-31 = 60
Big Ten: 24-26 = 50
Pac-12: 13-24 = 37

i hate the big12 more than any conference other than the BIG but not about this

 

[storrsroars]

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%)

Not that it means much of anything, but the B12 cleaned up on the SEC so far, 10-2, while going only 3-9 vs ACC, as Capel pointed out. B12 was 8-8 vs BE, 5-2 vs PAC, and 4-3 vs B1G.

 

[cullaville]

While Stamford branch -UConn rounds out the AAC

Do they still have a team? I know there was one in the seventies but I thought the Stamford Branch stopped having a team.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

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

Actually SMU would be in the top half of the ACC this year.
Former AAC teams might win the Big East and the Big 12 this year .
Even a couple of AAC dregs like UCF and Cinncy we’re competitive in the great B12
For a league that couldn‘t play basketball mzybe it was better than their 2016 Champ getting a 9 seed .. then playing the overall number 1 in the second round .

Like the old Mafia Don in Pritzi’s honor
“ I forget nothing and forgive nothing “
To the ACC and B12 who rejected
us;
In the word’s of Petruchio
“A Plague on both your houses “

​

 

[storrsroars]

Do they still have a team? I know there was one in the seventies but I thought the Stamford Branch stopped having a team.

I was there from 74-76. I was on the baseball team and helped start up a hockey club, but there was no hoops. I can't even imagine that branch having a hoops team. If they did, it would've been all white shooting guards as there wasn't much in the way of height or athleticism in that student body.

 

[7774]

Not that it means much of anything, but the B12 cleaned up on the SEC so far, 10-2, while going only 3-9 vs ACC, as Capel pointed out. B12 was 8-8 vs BE, 5-2 vs PAC, and 4-3 vs B1G.

Yeah this is just another ACC scam. When you look at the details, it's 3 ACC wins against the 2 B12 teams tied for last place. Another 2 against a couple of teams in a 3 way tie for 8th. Credit to Duke and UNC, they won games they should have won, and Virginia Tech got an excellent win against Iowa State. Aside from that it's pretty meh. You know a great way to have a good record against the B12? Not play any games against Houston or Kansas, which is what happened. These idiots are acting like they played the B12-ACC challenge and won 9-3.

 

[cullaville]

I was there from 74-76. I was on the baseball team and helped start up a hockey club, but there was no hoops. I can't even imagine that branch having a hoops team. If they did, it would've been all white shooting guards as there wasn't much in the way of height or athleticism in that student body.

There was a team in the seventies. I was a team member the 76 -77 season. Practices and home games were at Wright Tech and we played the other branches, Norwalk Tech and CC and some other community colleges. I disagree with the athleticism comment.

 

[freescooter]

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.

LOL. HE’s just mad he didn’t think of it first. The problem is these metrics don’t and can’t account for

"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.

well from the sound of things that is in the works. The NCAA is apparently looking at 96 and 80 team options. You know they ain’t doing it to get more A10 teams in there. Plus they want to short circuit FOX’s exploration of a plan to have a post season tourney with the best of the uninvited from FOX affiliated leagues. Sort of an Alternate NIT. Just what we need. So we could have the NCAA Tournament, the Tournament Formally Known As NIT, which will become the Mid-Major Invitational plus the odd ACC TEAM (I think) Tournament, and the FOX Teams That Are Not That Good But It We Can Get A Few Knuckleheads to Watch So It’s Better Than Monster Trucks Team Championship.

If those are the plans, why not just make the NCAA an Open event. The 1-354 game will be can’t miss tv. Or Give the top 128 teams get a bye. Imagine the battle to be 128 instead of 129. One benefit would be even DePaul could get a bid.

 

[Scrutineer]

We all know very well that the seed doesn't matter. It's how you're playing at tournament time.

The ACC is not a good league and the middle of the road teams who want a bid are worried about their chances to get in, help the coach keep his job, help with TV ratings, recruiting, and all the business side of athletics.

All they needed to do was think about what UConn could have brought them and used their heads when they took Pitt and Louisville over UConn. The rivalry with Syracuse would have been good for the league and recruiting and if BCU had been able to hold up their end there'd be some good Northeast vibes to the league.

But they got caught up with the shiny object (ND), the promise of better football from teams that haven't measured up lately, and overlooked how Syracuse and BCU are like weak appendages hanging out at one end of their geography.

They had a chance to fix it last year but instead did the unthinkable by taking in Cal and Stanford along with SMU.

The B1G needs UConn in order to gain some credibility in basketball and they have enough teams for football already but that ship seems to be long out to sea.

 

[AD DB Burner]

Remember when the SEC hired Mike Tranghese in 2016 as a consultant to improve SEC basketball? It seems to have worked. The ACC's problem is Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, and Notre Dame as well as UNC and Duke to some extent are down. Because the ACC is down, teams like Pitt have to schedule tougher OOC games to get better metrics.

Pitt didn’t schedule tougher OOC games…

 

[dennismenace]

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.

Good analysis. Capel should read the Boneyard for a deeper all around study of the subject!

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I have one question:

If gaming the metrics is so easy, why didn't the ACC do it?

 

[Jaydumo20]

Do they still have a team? I know there was one in the seventies but I thought the Stamford Branch stopped having a team.

I'm not sure, but talking about Wright tech made me miss playing ball at Cubetta.

 

[UCFan1513]

Don't throw rocks if you live in a steaming dumpster fire

 

[freescooter]

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?

The problem with RPI was equally bad. Just different. It was overly reliant on Strength of Schedule and one result, still there in NET just less important, was that bad teams in good conferences got bumped a lot and good teams in weaker ones got penalized more. That still happens in NET just to a lesser degree.

Any of these metrics are useful in “bands.” The problem is people use them as if they were precise.

 

[ec33]

I cannot find the source (clickbait MSN article that successfully baited me) - but the numbers work out to 13 (26%) of the top 50 teams in the NET are in the bottom 15% of nonconference SOS.

Now a bunch of those teams are in the Big 12 - but that is not the point. Schools are definitely gaming the system.

As they likely should and I wish UConn would do better at picking cupcakes to reward themselves with a better NET and less worrying about HBCU schools.

Overall though, someone should likely do something about the NET to make it a better predictor.

 

[Inyatkin]

RPI was always bad. It was bad to the point that the committee went out of its way every year to say it's "just a tool" and not the end-all-be-all, which is fine because it rarely made sense. Not using it anymore is a good thing

 

[auror]

Any of these metrics are useful in “bands.” The problem is people use them as if they were precise.

There is no evidence that the committee uses the NET to be precise. Check this post and see where a team's actual NET ranking lies:

 

[Husky68]

I'd like to see someone do a retro analysis of last 25 years NCAA tournament results and see what factors were in play for teams that won or exceeded expectations. Think an important factor would be having UConn on the front of the jersey.

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

Is there a single point you can try to make without overbeating it to death? This year, the XII’s OOC strength was low. Last year it was high and guess what — the computers still showed them as the strongest conference. So maybe there was a conference wide move to abandon what was working for them and try something else, and maybe — just maybe — this year their schedules just happened to work out to be easier.

But I know your seeing more than one possible right answer will never happen so ….

 

[kobe]

 

[McLovin]

Cap MOV for any Q3 & 4 game at 15 points. Eliminate neutral site games outside of the MTE's / select events (Champion's Classic, Jimmy V, etc.) and require each team to be designated "home" or "away" for NET purposes, even if Baylor wants to play Purdue in Sioux Falls, SD. Put more weight on non-conference Q1 & Q2 wins.

Wouldn't solve all the issues with gaming the NET, but it would make it harder and also make basketball a better product (by incentivizing more non-con high major home & home series).

 

[pj]

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.

Isn't it the Big Ten's scheduling philosophy that is the best? Annually they get a lot of teams in and with high seeds, but underperform. The Big 12 does about as expected.

 

[kobe]

big 12 goes to 20 conference games next year so basically you can remove 28 buy games from the conference overall's ooc.

wonder what loser conferences will whine about then?

 

[Vowelguy]

1) the NET is one of about a dozen factors the committee uses
2) if you think the NET is so undervaluing your team, then show me a rating that where that’s not the case

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Is there a single point you can try to make without overbearing it to death? This year, the XII’s OOC strength was low. Last year it was high and guess what — the computers still showed them as the strongest conference. So maybe there was a conference wide move to abandon what was working for them and try something else, and maybe — just maybe — this year their schedules just happened to work out to be easier.

But I know you’re seeing more than one possible right answer will never happen so ….

I didn't realize there were so many Big 12 fanboys on this site.

It is not a coincidence when every school from a conference schedules the same way and then runs the score up on their bad opponents. BYU is the posterboy for this. They have 3 wins over teams in the top 167 of college basketball, and are 8-7 in conference, yet are 10 in the NET. But they are not the only one.

 

[auror]

I'd like to see someone do a retro analysis of last 25 years NCAA tournament results and see what factors were in play for teams that won or exceeded expectations. Think an important factor would be having UConn on the front of the jersey.

Every time this is done, it's basically just "Be very good at basketball on both ends of the court." The style doesn't necessarily matter, but offense is a little more important than defense. Playing fast is a little better than playing slow. Having a deep run NCAA experienced coach is better than not but not the end of the world (see Hurley). Having a good seed is generally important. Having both good guards and good bigs.