SEC and Efficiency Ratings (i.e. KenPom and NET) | Page 3 | The Boneyard

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

auror said:
Because 4 won and 4 others were expected to lose by being lower seeds in the first round.
Expand ...

The Fifth Best Conference of All Time looks even worse if you dig into how its teams won or lost.
 
This is a thread about how the SEC obviously gamed the system. Only one poster has agreed that the Big East should look into gaming the system itself, and a handful of others didn’t complain and seemed otherwise neutral about the issue. The rest of you only complained about being in the Big East, proving once again that there is a contingent on this board that would rather see the Big East lose than UConn win.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
This is a thread about how the SEC obviously gamed the system. Only one poster has agreed that the Big East should look into gaming the system itself, and a handful of others didn’t complain and seemed otherwise neutral about the issue. The rest of you only complained about being in the Big East, proving once again that there is a contingent on this board that would rather see the Big East lose than UConn win.
Expand ...

No, most complained that you continue this forsaken thread, based on a wrong premise, and won't stop. This horse has been beaten and turned to glue.
 
pepband99 said:
No, most complained that you continue this forsaken thread, based on a wrong premise, and won't stop. This horse has been beaten and turned to glue.
Expand ...

The "I am right, and you are wrong" topic needs to be re-emphasized often. And I am not just talking about you, I am including several others.

Much of this board doesn't make any actual predictions and just snipes at other people's predictions. In DECEMBER, I posted multiple times that the SEC's efficiency numbers looked funky, and I circled back to that topic repeatedly, emphasizing that the game outcomes did not support the SEC's insanely high ratings in the efficiency rankings. I did this up to and through Selection Sunday. And I was right. Take out the wins over mid-majors or of teams that had major injuries, and the SEC really sucked in this tournament, proving that the whole league was overrated the entire season.

I am right, and you are wrong.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The "I am right, and you are wrong" topic needs to be re-emphasized often. And I am not just talking about you, I am including several others.

Much of this board doesn't make any actual predictions and just snipes at other people's predictions. In DECEMBER, I posted multiple times that the SEC's efficiency numbers looked funky, and I circled back to that topic repeatedly, emphasizing that the game outcomes did not support the SEC's insanely high ratings in the efficiency rankings. I did this up to and through Selection Sunday. And I was right. Take out the wins over mid-majors or of teams that had major injuries, and the SEC really sucked in this tournament, proving that the whole league was overrated the entire season.

I am right, and you are wrong.
Expand ...

Nope. Moving goalposts. You have continued to spout this nonsense about the SEC's ranking against prior years, which is wrong, and you've been called out on it repeatedly, and are both wrong AND refuse to answer. Answer the below, and we can continue.

pepband99 said:
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.
Expand ...
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
The "I am right, and you are wrong" topic needs to be re-emphasized often. And I am not just talking about you, I am including several others.

Much of this board doesn't make any actual predictions and just snipes at other people's predictions. In DECEMBER, I posted multiple times that the SEC's efficiency numbers looked funky, and I circled back to that topic repeatedly, emphasizing that the game outcomes did not support the SEC's insanely high ratings in the efficiency rankings. I did this up to and through Selection Sunday. And I was right. Take out the wins over mid-majors or of teams that had major injuries, and the SEC really sucked in this tournament, proving that the whole league was overrated the entire season.

I am right, and you are wrong.
Expand ...
SEC wasn't built to make a deep run in the tourney - they were full of teams that were 15-30 best in the country and this year there was a massive cliff in national team quality at about 12. They benefitted by having a good middle/bottom as it came to metrics. They ultimately may fallen about a win short of overall metrics with Tenn making their run. BTW, Barnes getting to 3 Elite 8's is quietly impressive.

NCAA tourney record not much different than the B12.

Not sure this one warrants constantly beating down.
 
pepband99 said:
No, most complained that you continue this forsaken thread, based on a wrong premise, and won't stop. This horse has been beaten and turned to glue.
Expand ...
Is there anyone on here who has to tell us he's right more than he does? Not just on this topic. It's everything. He's insufferable. That snow on the roof of your car thread was the worst. I can't even imagine what he's like in real life. I'd love to ask anyone in his family.
 
HooperScooper said:
Is there anyone on here who has to tell us he's right more than he does? Not just on this topic. It's everything. He's insufferable. That snow on the roof of your car thread was the worst. I can't even imagine what he's like in real life. I'd love to ask anyone in his family.
Expand ...
It's a really wild flag - not sure how important it is that the SEC isn't as good as it's metrics for months. If we want to talk conspiracy, I find the awful refereeing in the NC much more relevant. You have a view there HS? I don't complain about refs much, that one was abysmal.
 
RuffRuff said:
It's a really wild flag - not sure how important it is that the SEC isn't as good as it's metrics for months. If we want to talk conspiracy, I find the awful refereeing in the NC much more relevant. You have a view there HS? I don't complain about refs much, that one was abysmal.
Expand ...
I hardly ever complain about refs. It does me no good. The national championship game was very strangely reffed. That's as far as I'm going.
 
pj said:
When did tooting one's own horn, bragging, and gloating become a moral imperative?
Expand ...

This thread is actually about a handful of posters digging in hard on a position they were wrong about all season. They are they ones embracing stupidity as a “moral imperative” because they do not want to acknowledge I was right.

The SEC was wildly overrated in the efficiency rankings all season long and these handful of posters are unwilling to admit they are wrong about it.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
This thread is actually about a handful of posters digging in hard on a position they were wrong about all season. They are they ones embracing stupidity as a “moral imperative” because they do not want to acknowledge I was right.

The SEC was wildly overrated in the efficiency rankings all season long and these handful of posters are unwilling to admit they are wrong about it.
Expand ...
To me, based on seeding, the SEC kinda did what they were supposed to do other than Florida losing to Iowa. That is offset by Texas making a run to the S16 and Tenn to the E8. I'm not really sure where they underperformed otherwise. They had a lot of lower seeds in the tourney.

1 Florida - 32 - under
3 Tenn - E8 - exceeds
4 Ark - S16 - meets
4 Bama - S16 - meets
5 Vandy - 32 - meets
7 Kentucky 32 - meets
8 Georgia 64 - under
10 Mizzou 64 - exceeds
10 Texas A&M 32 - exceeds
11 Texas - S16 - exceeds

If you do the math, they actually exceeded seeding by 1-2 games. I think you have to give this one up. Florida flaked out, but otherwise they did ok.
 
Last edited:
nelsonmuntz said:
This thread is actually about a handful of posters digging in hard on a position they were wrong about all season. They are they ones embracing stupidity as a “moral imperative” because they do not want to acknowledge I was right.

The SEC was wildly overrated in the efficiency rankings all season long and these handful of posters are unwilling to admit they are wrong about it.
Expand ...

Every year a conference is said to be wildly overrated in the computer rankings. For two decades it was the B1G. Now the SEC has greatly expanded their basketball budgets and the conference has a much higher average quality. The B1G also is benefiting from the NIL era.

The relative computer rankings of conferences are highly impacted by a small number of nonconference games early in the season, and by a culture of running up scores in those games. So it's easy for the computers to mis-predict strength in March based on games in November and December.

Being right in second-guessing a computer ranking is not some tremendous accomplishment. And being wrong in supporting the computer ranking is not some embarrassing failure.

But your dispute is not even about the computer rankings. It's on a meta-level of whether others will acknowledge your rightness and admit their wrongness. Who cares? Does every Internet conversation need to resolve with a consensus agreement over who was right and who was wrong?
 
pj said:
Every year a conference is said to be wildly overrated in the computer rankings. For two decades it was the B1G. Now the SEC has greatly expanded their basketball budgets and the conference has a much higher average quality. The B1G also is benefiting from the NIL era.

The relative computer rankings of conferences are highly impacted by a small number of nonconference games early in the season, and by a culture of running up scores in those games. So it's easy for the computers to mis-predict strength in March based on games in November and December.

Being right in second-guessing a computer ranking is not some tremendous accomplishment. And being wrong in supporting the computer ranking is not some embarrassing failure.

But your dispute is not even about the computer rankings. It's on a meta-level of whether others will acknowledge your rightness and admit their wrongness. Who cares? Does every Internet conversation need to resolve with a consensus agreement over who was right and who was wrong?
Expand ...

I wasn't second guessing it, because that would mean I did it after the season was over. I was pointing out it was wrong in DECEMBER. Everyone is welcome to check a calendar to see where December falls during a college basketball season. The model has a problem, which I have pointed out for years, and it is being exploited. It manifested itself this year with the SEC, and to a lesser extent the Big 12.

The people who are denying this obvious problem fall into two general categories:

1) keyboard warriors who will never admit they are wrong just because, and
2) Big East haters who will vociferously refute any shred of data that does not confirm their bias that the Big East is a mid-major conference.

It is useful to identify these types of posters for future debates so that the rest of us can better assess their credibility.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I wasn't second guessing it, because that would mean I did it after the season was over. I was pointing out it was wrong in DECEMBER. Everyone is welcome to check a calendar to see where December falls during a college basketball season. The model has a problem, which I have pointed out for years, and it is being exploited. It manifested itself this year with the SEC, and to a lesser extent the Big 12.

The people who are denying this obvious problem fall into two general categories:

1) keyboard warriors who will never admit they are wrong just because, and
2) Big East haters who will vociferously refute any shred of data that does not confirm their bias that the Big East is a mid-major conference.

It is useful to identify these types of posters for future debates so that the rest of us can better assess their credibility.
Expand ...
3) Those that don't care about this silly, beaten down topic of irrelevance and find one poster carrying on and on with it weird
 
RuffRuff said:
To me, based on seeding, the SEC kinda did what they were supposed to do other than Florida losing to Iowa. That is offset by Texas making a run to the S16 and Tenn to the E8. I'm not really sure where they underperformed otherwise. They had a lot of lower seeds in the tourney.

1 Florida - 32 - under
3 Tenn - E8 - exceeds
4 Ark - S16 - meets
4 Bama - S16 - meets
5 Vandy - 32 - meets
7 Kentucky 32 - meets
8 Georgia 64 - under
10 Mizzou 64 - exceeds
10 Texas A&M 32 - exceeds
11 Texas - S16 - exceeds

If you do the math, they actually exceeded seeding by 1-2 games. I think you have to give this one up. Florida flaked out, but otherwise they did ok.
Expand ...

You are using the outcomes of the overseeding, which typically involve beating a low major in the first round, as justification for the high seeding. Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia were overseeded, and would have had earlier exits if they were seeded appropriately. Missouri did not belong in the tournament, and Texas A&M should have been in a play-in game.

It is not just the outcomes that are problematic, but also how the SEC teams played. Almost every SEC win over a major program was the result of a major injury on the team that lost (BYU, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Gonzaga). Kentucky needed a miracle to survive the first round. Mizzou did not exceed. Arkansas defeated Hofstra and High Point to get to the Sweet 16.

Look at some of the exits when these SEC teams finally played a competitive opponent. Texas A&M lost by 31. Kentucky lost to an Iowa State team missing one of its best players by 19. Arkansas by 21. Tennessee lost by 33. Georgia lost by 25 to St. Louis. These looked like 1/16 games. Even Missouri was not that competitive in the second half, Miami just never stepped on their neck.

The 2026 SEC was the FIFTH BEST CONFERENCE OF ALL TIME according to KenPom, and dominated the NET too. If you want to refute my argument, go through every conference since KenPom started analyzing games in the late 90's, and compare this year's SEC to the top 30 over that period to show how the 2026 SEC was the FIFTH BEST CONFERENCE OF ALL TIME.

If you can't do that, then why don't we all just admit that the efficiency ratings have serious problems that should be addressed, or they shouldn't be used for tournament selection and seeding.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
You are using the outcomes of the overseeding, which typically involve beating a low major in the first round, as justification for the high seeding. Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia were overseeded, and would have had earlier exits if they were seeded appropriately. Missouri did not belong in the tournament, and Texas A&M should have been in a play-in game.

It is not just the outcomes that are problematic, but also how the SEC teams played. Almost every SEC win over a major program was the result of a major injury on the team that lost (BYU, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Gonzaga). Kentucky needed a miracle to survive the first round. Mizzou did not exceed. Arkansas defeated Hofstra and High Point to get to the Sweet 16.

Look at some of the exits when these SEC teams finally played a competitive opponent. Texas A&M lost by 31. Kentucky lost to an Iowa State team missing one of its best players by 19. Arkansas by 21. Tennessee lost by 33. Georgia lost by 25 to St. Louis. These looked like 1/16 games. Even Missouri was not that competitive in the second half, Miami just never stepped on their neck.

The 2026 SEC was the FIFTH BEST CONFERENCE OF ALL TIME according to KenPom, and dominated the NET too. If you want to refute my argument, go through every conference since KenPom started analyzing games in the late 90's, and compare this year's SEC to the top 30 over that period to show how the 2026 SEC was the FIFTH BEST CONFERENCE OF ALL TIME.

If you can't do that, then why don't we all just admit that the efficiency ratings have serious problems that should be addressed, or they shouldn't be used for tournament selection and seeding.
Expand ...
Yeah, they were definitely not the 5th best conference of all time - that I'll agree with you on. That is a joke if so. Maybe a thorough conference, but not a great one by any means.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I wasn't second guessing it, because that would mean I did it after the season was over. I was pointing out it was wrong in DECEMBER. Everyone is welcome to check a calendar to see where December falls during a college basketball season. The model has a problem, which I have pointed out for years, and it is being exploited. It manifested itself this year with the SEC, and to a lesser extent the Big 12.

The people who are denying this obvious problem fall into two general categories:

1) keyboard warriors who will never admit they are wrong just because, and
2) Big East haters who will vociferously refute any shred of data that does not confirm their bias that the Big East is a mid-major conference.

It is useful to identify these types of posters for future debates so that the rest of us can better assess their credibility.
Expand ...

Oh boy - you timed your nostradamus-like analysis of this metric wrongly - at the end of the OOC schedule. Amazing skill.

BTW - you are #1, since you're pegging everyone into one slot.
 
I think Charles Barkley already anointed Burn

Seth Davis is sticking with the Zags for the 30th straight year. Always remember, UConn cannot win a National Championship with Taliek Brown as their PG

A few talking heads are predicting we're gonna lose, because our team is tired, because they won 5 games in 5 nights in 2011. It takes a while to recover dontchaknow

"It's the body of work" people. It's rather simple math (which would explain why St John's can't win anything, it's the math that stumps them)
 
pepband99 said:
Oh boy - you timed your nostradamus-like analysis of this metric wrongly - at the end of the OOC schedule. Amazing skill.

BTW - you are #1, since you're pegging everyone into one slot.
Expand ...

I was pointing out a metric was flawed after it had the SEC as one of the best conferences of all time despite having a losing record against the other major conferences. You are correct that my “insight” was fairly obvious. The question is why did so many like yourself debate me on this for the next four (and counting) months?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I was pointing out a metric was flawed after it had the SEC as one of the best conferences of all time despite having a losing record against the other major conferences. You are correct that my “insight” was fairly obvious. The question is why did so many like yourself debate me on this for the next four (and counting) months?
Expand ...

Because, for the 1000th time:
it had the SEC as one of the best conferences of all time
Expand ...

...this is wrong. It's not a year-on-year measure, and is just as influenced by the average team being worse (lack of upsets in the tournament proves this out pretty well, I think), as it is by an arbitrary rating of HALF of one conference.
 
.-.
HooperScooper said:
Does that mean after August 31 we won't have any more posts from Nelson?
Expand ...
HS, anything going on yet with the 27 class HS recruiting? Amazing how the timeline with these kids pushes further and further back. By now, you'd be hearing stuff - nowadays I guess it's not until the summer and falls. Is Uconn even poking around? Looking like the 27 class may be even weaker than 26.
 
RuffRuff said:
HS, anything going on yet with the 27 class HS recruiting? Amazing how the timeline with these kids pushes further and further back. By now, you'd be hearing stuff - nowadays I guess it's not until the summer and falls. Is Uconn even poking around? Looking like the 27 class may be even weaker than 26.
Expand ...
Probably the same as last year. I don't think we heard much until the summer AAU season. Seems anyone they offered before that they didn't get very far with. When did they offer Landrew and County? When did they offer Mullins and Reibe the year before that?
 
HooperScooper said:
Probably the same as last year. I don't think we heard much until the summer AAU season. Seems anyone they offered before that they didn't get very far with. When did they offer Landrew and County?
Expand ...
We came in late on both, signed Landrew in early Oct.

County was early Nov.

Apparently the 27 class even weaker than 26, so not sure how top programs will prioritize. It's not like the 25 class,

 
Don’t know who we’d actually prioritize with the portal and possible 5th year addition on the horizon. Maybe Keita, but our 2 current centers are probably long-term as is.

It’s not just a UConn thing, feels like I’ve heard nothing on next year’s class at all
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,600
Messages
4,584,973
Members
10,495
Latest member
rONIn


Top Bottom