SEC and Efficiency Ratings (i.e. KenPom and NET)

[RuffRuff]

Why would I want to watch a sub-.500 team that got blown out against most good teams? Do we want good games between deserving teams, or do we want to just be explicitly a farm system for the NBA?

Also, I remember the names or faces and moments from those mid-major victories. What Bryce Drew or Ali Farokhmanesh or—dare I say it, Steph Curry—did as mid majors was far more interesting and lasting in my March Madness memory bank than what a great pro prospect like Kevin Durant did in the tournament.

To each their own, though.

Tis the issue though, today Steph would have transferred up.

I'm thinking more on behalf of the general public. My sense is that they'd rather see better players/teams than a cinderella hopeful that can't compete. I had zero confidence at all they'd be able to win Sat/Sun and it played out.

 

[Scrutineer]

Michigan played Duke in Feb this year, there were a few games.

Catch with Pitino's model, which turns over year after year, is that new players in his system take awhile to figure it out. Not sure what the best strategy is for Rick's model, but I might try and schedule those games so he has a little more time.

It does make you wonder in the long run, with MM's already phasing out, the BE getting so few bids, if it's the P4's way of saying, we don't need these guys anymore.

Your last paragraph capsulized where we are today. The B1G and SEC are using their revenue to drive up player costs to where the lesser leagues cannot compete do it'll all be over by 2030 at this rate.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Michigan played Duke in Feb this year, there were a few games.

Catch with Pitino's model, which turns over year after year, is that new players in his system take awhile to figure it out. Not sure what the best strategy is for Rick's model, but I might try and schedule those games so he has a little more time.

It does make you wonder in the long run, with MM's already phasing out, the BE getting so few bids, if it's the P4's way of saying, we don't need these guys anymore.

Which P2 program are you going to switch to, and when will you switch?

 

[SubbaBub]

We rant about this in football all the time. Conferences bring money, conferences bring attention and media coverage. They bring nothing else in terms of a program winning championships. The idea that you can use a numerical model that can predict outcome, let alone parse groups of similar profiles with the inputs they use is nonsense.

The teams that win most of their games are good. The teams that beat other teams that win most of their games are really good. Gaming the non-conference games that include a handful of meaningful good vs good inter-conference matchups isn't enough data to declare anything. St Johns got smoked in the non-con, yet here they are after beating us twice, who did win a bunch of meaningful games early.

It's all a smokescreen for clicks, not meaningfully better than the AP poll.

 

[RuffRuff]

Which P2 program are you going to switch to, and when will you switch?

Zero - I'd be a casual fan of the sport at best. Listen man, like you, I took a lot of pride in the BE. I would be all UConn, but a very, very close second was all other BE teams. Nowadays, if you're holding onto that, you will be disappointed annually.

 

[John]

Which P2 program are you going to switch to, and when will you switch?

Clockwork.

 

[uconnfan68]

I started a thread three months ago about the interconference records compared to the power ratings, and questioned why the SEC was so highly rated when the actual game results would indicate a much less impressive conference.

KenPom had the SEC at +19.46 going into the tournament, making it the 5th best conference of all time for KenPom, going back to the late 90's.

Does this look like the 5th best conference of all time? There were several homages to KenPom's brilliance as a predictive model. Did KenPom predict that the 5th best conference of all time would fall flat on its freaking face? My theory Is that the SEC was overrated in the efficiency ratings because it ran up the scores against the bad teams on its schedules. I am open to other explanations for how the efficiency ratings systematically overrated SEC teams.

But, but, but... football

 

[nelsonmuntz]

But, but, but... football

Overrating the SEC is worse in football.

 

[RuffRuff]

Which P2 program are you going to switch to, and when will you switch?

When you stop talking about the SEC nonstop.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The Fifth Best Conference of All Time is down to one team, who only survived because Iowa State was missing its best player.

 

[caw]

I don't quite get this, I thought everyone knew the SEC was down this year after being fantastic last year. The B12 and B10 were the best conferences this year.

 

[auror]

I don't quite get this, I thought everyone knew the SEC was down this year after being fantastic last year. The B12 and B10 were the best conferences this year.

All depends on what you're measuring and why. If you're talking about title contenders and deep run teams, we knew the SEC was weak (they had 1 team expected to make the E8 and that team lost but another team made it). If you're talking about extremely deep conference that was tough to go .500 in, yeah the SEC was really good.

 

[willie99]

What is your suggestion to fixing the metrics then?

Understanding that they are merely a tool, just part of the equation. The eye test, talent, coaching, history and results vs the very best teams are far more important than losing to a highly rated team that lost to other highly rated teams

WINNING MATTERS

 

[pepband99]

For the 10,001st time, a 40 point win over a 340 ranked team counts for a lot more than a 25 point win over a 339 ranked team.

So? Based on the metrics, it should. This doesn't prove anything.

What doesn't seem to get to you is this one thing: Metrics-wise, the "Conference rankings" is just a random group of only half the teams. If you get good numbers amongst the upper half of your conference, regardless of head to head or anything else, you're "better," but it really doesn't mean much. It's made even worse by these mega conferences with unbalanced schedules, as "going .500 in a conference" isn't even an equivalent measure of anything any more.

If you want to gripe at the metrics, that's your gripe: Stop ranking conferences by this arbitrary measure. But it's still sort of pointless, as teams that have a conference schedule that includes more of the lower half will still be evaluated game to game, like everyone else.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So? Based on the metrics, it should. This doesn't prove anything.

What doesn't seem to get to you is this one thing: Metrics-wise, the "Conference rankings" is just a random group of only half the teams. If you get good numbers amongst the upper half of your conference, regardless of head to head or anything else, you're "better," but it really doesn't mean much. It's made even worse by these mega conferences with unbalanced schedules, as "going .500 in a conference" isn't even an equivalent measure of anything any more.

If you want to gripe at the metrics, that's your gripe: Stop ranking conferences by this arbitrary measure. But it's still sort of pointless, as teams that have a conference schedule that includes more of the lower half will still be evaluated game to game, like everyone else.

The rankings of the conferences has a very practical effect of getting the higher ranked conferences more NCAA tournament bids and better seeds. Efficiency ratings are good for gambling, but for tournament selection.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I don't quite get this, I thought everyone knew the SEC was down this year after being fantastic last year. The B12 and B10 were the best conferences this year.

According to the efficiency ratings, the SEC was not just the best league this year, but one of the best leagues of all time. I will disagree with @auror that the SEC was deep or particularly tough to get a good record in. It was just another league. Missouri, Georgia, and Texas A&M are mediocre teams, and Missouri definitely did not deserve a bid. A case could also be made that at least Kentucky and Arkansas were overseeded. Texas beat NC State in the play in game and Tennessee beat a full strength Virginia. Every other SEC win in the tournament was either over a low or mid-major (Kentucky barely escaping Santa Clara) or a team that was missing one of its 2 best players (Tennessee/Iowa State, Alabama/Texas Tech, Texas/Gonzaga, Texas/BYU, and every other matchup between an SEC and major conference opponent was a loss, and most weren't close.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

All depends on what you're measuring and why. If you're talking about title contenders and deep run teams, we knew the SEC was weak (they had 1 team expected to make the E8 and that team lost but another team made it). If you're talking about extremely deep conference that was tough to go .500 in, yeah the SEC was really good.

It is funny that you clearly understand the math problem with efficiency ratings, and you are standing by them for use in tournament selection anyway.

 

[auror]

It is funny that you clearly understand the math problem with efficiency ratings, and you are standing by them for use in tournament selection anyway.

No, I don't understand "the math problem with efficiency ratings". I just understand what KenPom's specific conference rating measures, which does not reflect on the individual team ratings at all, but how he chooses to do other math to them (and his method has pros and cons).

The selection committee is not looking at the SEC's conference rating at all, so these are two very different lines of communication.

I want the efficiency ratings to be a piece of the teams overall resume used in conjunction with resume metrics.

 

[pepband99]

The rankings of the conferences has a very practical effect of getting the higher ranked conferences more NCAA tournament bids and better seeds. Efficiency ratings are good for gambling, but for tournament selection.

Prove that. It's just as easily (and more likely) that better ranked TEAMS get more bids. Conference bid counts are a byproduct of that.

I'm too lazy to do the legwork, since you won't read or cite it anyway, but I would bet that your hyperbolic "zOMG BEST CONFERENCE EVER, KENPOM SUCKS" schtick correlates with an overall efficiency gain in the sport overall this year. Meaning - this has always been a relative rating per-year. If the whole sport moves up, the highest teams/conferences should, too.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The #2 Big East team that had 4 losses against league opponents and lost to Creighton and Marquette, but just beat the dominant ACC champion who had ripped through its schedule, and the #2 Big East school didn’t even play one of its best games of the season.

The last team from the Fifth Best Conference of All Time got dumped trucked yesterday.

How did the efficiency stats work out?

 

[freescooter]

Tis the issue though, today Steph would have transferred up.

I'm thinking more on behalf of the general public. My sense is that they'd rather see better players/teams than a cinderella hopeful that can't compete. I had zero confidence at all they'd be able to win Sat/Sun and it played out.

I’m not so sure about mid-majors not competing. And they make the tournament interesting in any case. Don’t tell me you weren’t rooting for Siena.

And I think that mid-majors do get somewhat under ranked as metrics have become more important. End result is they have to play much higher seeds. 5-12 or 4-13 are tougher matchups than 7-10. Add in the 11 seed play-in games. Final note is that any seed above 8 is basically filler anyway. I’d rather see guys for whom it is a thrill to be there than a bunch of mediocre P4 teams. I’ve always said there should be a maximum number of bids per conference, and minimum record. So if you have a losing league record and finish in the second division, regardless of your metrics you should only get into the Tournament if you buy a ticket. And those would be minimum standards. I’d also give more value to the regular season so if you finish 10th and win your conference tournament you automatically go to the play in round.

 

[RuffRuff]

I’m not so sure about mid-majors not competing. And they make the tournament interesting in any case. Don’t tell me you weren’t rooting for Siena.

And I think that mid-majors do get somewhat under ranked as metrics have become more important. End result is they have to play much higher seeds. 5-12 or 4-13 are tougher matchups than 7-10. Add in the 11 seed play-in games. Final note is that any seed above 8 is basically filler anyway. I’d rather see guys for whom it is a thrill to be there than a bunch of mediocre P4 teams. I’ve always said there should be a maximum number of bids per conference, and minimum record. So if you have a losing league record and finish in the second division, regardless of your metrics you should only get into the Tournament if you buy a ticket. And those would be minimum standards. I’d also give more value to the regular season so if you finish 10th and win your conference tournament you automatically go to the play in round.

Of course I was routing for Siena.

It's been broken down - MM are so watered down talent wise, they really don't have a chance. Thurs/Friday will be a giant bore going forward.

You do wonder if there are ways to offer more bye's to top seeds

 

[Dibbie]

I don’t know anything about efficiency measurements, but I know Duke had the largest margin of victory and UConn won too many nail biters. Yet, the hardened team won in the same fashion, when they met to make it to the F4.