This is a very interesting read and makes a compelling argument. This guy has a blog as well, but I linked the reddit because of the responses if people care to read through them. One person tried to make the argument that the Net has a cap on blowout games, but another pointed out that a representative on the committee had that cap lifted several weeks ago.
B12 computer tricksters?
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
Also, I did a comparison of B10 tournament teams vs B12 tournament teams. There's a site that gives both the Net rating and RPI rating. I know, RPI right? However it's interesting to see the disparity in each metric for the B12 and not so much for the B10. More evidence of what the B12 is doing?
Purdue
Net: 11-3
RPI: 10-3
Illinois
Net: 5-6
RPI: 4-6
Northwestern
Net: 4-6
RPI: 4-6
Nebraska
Net: 4-6
RPI: 3-6
Wisconsin
Net: 4-8
RPI: 4-8
Michigan St
Net: 3-8
RPI: 3-9
Pretty close to one another right? Because the B10 didn't game the system the way the B12 did. Now look at the disparity of the B12 teams.
Houston
Net: 13-3
RPI: 7-2
Iowa St
Net: 8-6
RPI: 3-4
Kansas
Net: 7-8
RPI: 7-5
Baylor
Net: 9-8
RPI: 4-6
Texas Tech
Net: 5-8
RPI: 4-3
BYU
Net: 6-7
RPI: 4-6
Texas
Net: 5-9
RPI: 3-8
Kansas is the outlier here.
Purdue
Net: 11-3
RPI: 10-3
Illinois
Net: 5-6
RPI: 4-6
Northwestern
Net: 4-6
RPI: 4-6
Nebraska
Net: 4-6
RPI: 3-6
Wisconsin
Net: 4-8
RPI: 4-8
Michigan St
Net: 3-8
RPI: 3-9
Pretty close to one another right? Because the B10 didn't game the system the way the B12 did. Now look at the disparity of the B12 teams.
Houston
Net: 13-3
RPI: 7-2
Iowa St
Net: 8-6
RPI: 3-4
Kansas
Net: 7-8
RPI: 7-5
Baylor
Net: 9-8
RPI: 4-6
Texas Tech
Net: 5-8
RPI: 4-3
BYU
Net: 6-7
RPI: 4-6
Texas
Net: 5-9
RPI: 3-8
Kansas is the outlier here.
The NET doesn’t use adjusted efficiency, just raw efficiency. That’s why you can manipulate it so easily. Schedule lots of bad teams and beat them by 30, makes your per possession efficiency look great.
None of this is a conspiracy or in question. It’s just the reality of the system and specific conferences have been gaming it for multiple years. Which they should be doing. It’s not their fault the NCAA is dumb and arrogant and didn’t just use KenPom or Torvik.
The RPI was also easy to manipulate just in different ways.
None of this is a conspiracy or in question. It’s just the reality of the system and specific conferences have been gaming it for multiple years. Which they should be doing. It’s not their fault the NCAA is dumb and arrogant and didn’t just use KenPom or Torvik.
The RPI was also easy to manipulate just in different ways.
KenPom actually has a similar issue as the Net. I'm not as familiar with Torvik.
It doesn't bother anyone that they have teams that will get higher seeds than they deserve?
First of all, to act like the league is vastly overrated due to non-con scheduling is silly. We don't need computers to tell us that adding Houston to an already-stout league is going to result in a pretty solid conference. Especially when teams like BYU, Tech, Iowa St, etc turned out to be much better than expected.
Second, it's possible that programs are doing this intentionally but it's also possible that it's coincidental. It shouldn't shock anyone that programs like UCF, BYU, Cincinnati, TCU and TT didn't schedule murderers row.
Second, it's possible that programs are doing this intentionally but it's also possible that it's coincidental. It shouldn't shock anyone that programs like UCF, BYU, Cincinnati, TCU and TT didn't schedule murderers row.
Last edited:
Of course it bothers people. @coryfly and I were griping about this in early January in the ACC thread.
But there’s nothing I can do about it.
And no, KenPom is opponent adjusted.
Candidly, I'm struggling with Iowa State. Sure, they are 8th in the NET but that's because they bludgeoned bad teams in the non-conference and then won home games against Big 12 teams that likely have an inflated NET. They also had a non-conference SOS of 317 and have only 2 wins away from home over tourney teams. They are definitely a good team but I don't think that's a 2 seed resume. It's more like a 3rd or maybe even 4th seed resume.
Maybe, I don't know. But I definitely wouldn't say it's an egregious wrongdoing if they get a 2.
Wins: Houston, KU (when they were healthy), BYU, Texas Tech, OU, @ TCU, @ Texas, @ Cincinnati, Iowa by 25. Pretty good set of wins and no bad losses. Nearly won the conference.
I also don't think there's a big difference between a 2 and a 3. If a team's overrated, they're not going far anyway. And if they're underrated, a seed line won't matter.
Your NET rank is not impacted by the NET rank of the teams you play.
So the statement “”won home games against teams with a likely inflated NET,” the inflated NETs don’t matter when it comes to Iowa State’s NET.
It does, of course, matter for the Quad sorting system.
I don't think that's accurate. Let me know if you think I'm overlooking something. This is from the NCAA website:
The 2023-24 men's basketball season marks the sixth season of the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) rankings, which replaced the RPI prior to the 2018-19 season as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams. In May 2020, the NCAA announced there will be changes made to the NCAA Evaluation Tool to increase accuracy and simplify it by reducing a five-component metric to just two.
The remaining factors include the Team Value Index (TVI), which is a result-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home, as well as an adjusted net efficiency rating. The adjusted efficiency is a team’s net efficiency, adjusted for strength of opponent and location (home/away/neutral) across all games played. For example, a given efficiency value (net points per 100 possessions) against stronger opposition rates higher than the same efficiency against lesser opponents and having a certain efficiency on the road rates higher than the same efficiency at home.
They said that, yes. But it’s either a very very small adjustment, or they just didn’t do it. Lots of people smarter than the NCAA talking about this.
Are you comparing the Net Rankings to the RPI? There's a very noticeable difference. Utah State is 7th in the RPI, and 32nd in the NET. Drake is 9th in the RPI, and 47th in the NET.
The Net Rankings aren't that much different from all the other metrics. There's no huge discrepancy, IMO. Here are the teams in the Big 12 that are in the top 50.
Net Rankings
1. Houston
9. Iowa State
12. BYU
14. Baylor
18. Kansas
24. Texas
30. Texas Tech
40. TCU
41. Cincinnati
43. Oklahoma
BartTorvik
1. Houston
7. Iowa State
13. Kansas
17. Baylor
18. BYU
19. Texas
29. Texas Tech
35. TCU
42. Oklahoma
44. Cincinnati
KenPom
1. Houston
12. Iowa State
14. Baylor
16. BYU
18. Kansas
23. Texas
25. Texas Tech
33. TCU
40. Oklahoma
41. Cincinnati
BracketMatrix
1. Houston
6. Iowa State
9. Baylor
12. Kansas
17. BYU
27. Texas Tech
31. Texas
34. Oklahoma
36. TCU
I don't think there's a huge difference between the top third of the ACC and the top third of the Big 12. It's been noted that the ACC went 9-3 versus the Big 12. But, the Big 12 also went 10-2 against the SEC, which is widely seen as the 2nd best conference this year... ACC also went 12-18 against the SEC. And the ACC was 20-8 (71.4%) in Quad 3 games, while the Big 12 was 26-1 (96.3%). The Bottom half of the ACC is what's really holding back this league in terms of the computer rankings. UNC, Duke, Clemson, Wake, and UVA can hold their own against top 25-50 teams.
I don't think that record tells us much about the top portion of either league. The ACC went 2-1 vs the top 7 of the Big 12. Wins were Duke over Baylor and VT over Iowa St. Most of those wins were upper/middle ACC teams vs Big 12 bottom-feeders.
Honestly, I think the Big 12 has a bunch of really good teams. So they deserve to have a bunch of teams in the field.
But when you do compare the NET vs something like KenPom, you can see some subtle differences with teams like Iowa State, BYU, and Texas, teams that really embraced the “beat bad teams by a lot” model. And those subtle differences start to be more impactful for teams in the 60s.
But yes, in general the data does seem like all these formulas probably don’t do enough to differentiate between regular bad teams vs the really really terrible teams.
The sample size is always going to be extraordinary low when you're talking about the top third of a league, usually 5 teams, and there are maybe 4-5 quality opponents that teams play in the OOC season. We overreact all the time. Kind of crazy to reach conclusions based off of some 20-25 games.
Pac 12 has a reputation for being among the worst P6 conferences. In 2021 no one in the Pac-12 was higher than a 5 seed. I made the remark that they had several quality teams that could easily make the Sweet 16 without calling it an upset. And that's what happened. 4 teams in the Sweet 16. The ACC doesn't have depth. That's what separates us from the Big 12 or SEC. And I'm not saying that our top 4-5 teams are as good - I just don't think the gap is huge. UNC could absolutely win it all. Duke, Clemson, and Wake are good enough to win 2+ games. Our ceiling is limited because we're looking at 5 teams max in the tournament. But, the teams that get in, minus maybe UVA, are good enough to make decent runs.
BYU and Texas as projected 5 and 8 seeds seems about right. Texas has all the talent in the world. And they could be a scary potential 2nd Round matchup for a 1 seed. I think I get the idea, which is a fair point. Essentially 90-95% of their respective resumes comes from just beating other teams in the conference. Beating sub-200 and sub-300 teams obviously doesn't tell us anything.
Iowa State is the one team where I pause a little bit. They might be overvalued on the seed line. Defense is incredible. Tamin Lipsey is a bad dude and he will steal your lunch pail without flinching. But, their offense is frustrating. And if they have one of those 5 minute cold spells against a decent 7 seed, it could spell trouble.
These games are tough. Could have a bunch of single-point scores.
6- St. John's
5- Xavier
4- TCU
3- Ohio State
2- UNLV
1- USC
6- St. John's
5- Xavier
4- TCU
3- Ohio State
2- UNLV
1- USC
Nobody is saying that it's only because they didn't play a tough OOC. That's not what they are saying at all.
The Reddit link makes the case that the Big 12 is highly overrated, and the only reason I saw was the alleged manipulation of the NET. What else is it based on?
Yeah, I think his conclusion at the end is a bit off. I think the B12 is close to the B10. I do not think the BE is better than either. The BE has 3 really good teams and a couple decent ones, but the bottom drops off hard. The SEC IMO is the deepest conference, however much like the B10 has been in years past, they may be deep but I don't know how many true contenders they have.
I just don't think the B12 is the best conference like they have been in years past, but they aren't bad by any means.
As I stated in another thread. I'd place conferences like this:
SEC
B12
B10
BE
P12
I'm just wondering what you're basing this on. Eye test? Everyone knew the Big 12 would be good before the season, so I don't think they needed to prove it by scheduling murderers row in the non-con.
The SEC is the league that has something to prove. It's allegedly been a far better conference in recent years, yet they've done little in the tourney and usually not much in non-con. 3-16 vs ranked teams this year. It's a solid league this year, but I think they have plenty to prove before we crown them the top league.
100% the eye test. I've watched multiple teams multiple games. Especially the top teams. Just don't think there's anything special there that other conferences don't also have. I will admit though that it can be tough to really judge because conferences play different styles. There just didn't seem to be much offensive firepower as compared to the SEC. Many of the games I watched were super sloppy. Surprisingly so.
I don't disagree about the SEC, although just because your conference is considered better doesn't mean you have all of the best teams. It just means top to bottom it's the most balanced as well as being good. It doesn't necessarily mean it has the best team.
I've had to re-evaluate after some tourney results. I've been surprised and even realized I completely left a conference out.
BE
ACC
SEC
B10
B12
P12
Edit: Had to re-adjust
Last edited:
LOL. So you evaluate conferences purely by what a few of their teams do in the first few rounds of the tourney?
Makes sense.
It's splitting hairs a bit and the separation is slight, but to a degree you can. If games are close, that's one thing and doesn't really tell you much, but if teams from a conference top to bottom over or under perform according to expectations, it's more telling.
For example, everyone was thinking the ACC wasn't nearly as good this year as it's been in history, but they are proving to be much better than expected.
UNC losing doesn't help their case, but it was a close game to the end. I picked Alabama to win that game because they have played a very tough schedule and were battle tested, but UNC had their chances to win.
Last edited:
You apparently have a grievance with my conclusions. What's the issue you have with it?
It's fair to draw the conclusion that the ACC was better than most thought, but that's about it.
BE #1 because their three teams have done exactly what was expected?
And having the SEC or B10 above the Big 12, even based solely on the tourney, is a laugh.
Honestly, I wasn't sure who to put as the top conference, but I had to pick someone.
As far as the placement of the B12. I mean common man. The proof is in the pudding.
Two 6-11 upsets. Three blow outs. Houston was lucky to win their last game. Heck, even Iowa St should have been blown out last night if Illinois could make a FT.
I guess we will see how Houston does going forward.
Like I said though, if games are close, that's one thing, but almost half of your teams get bounced by blow outs AND you have several teams losing to double digit seeded teams.
A team that lost by three "should have" been blown out. Seems rational.
The Big 12 wasn't blown out in half their games. It was a few games of many, and no one should've been shocked by KU losing handily to Gonzaga without their best player. The only real embarrassment for the Big 12 was BYU losing to Duquesne.
Meanwhile, you had Auburn losing to Yale, Kentucky to Oakland, and 6 seed South Carolina blown out by an 11 seed. With two more first round losses. And somehow that league has proven to be better than the Big 12? Make it make sense.
If I used your logic, I could say the Big East sucks because they have only three teams that advanced in the tourney. That would obviously be a dumb conclusion, but it's just as dumb to argue that it's proven to be the best league because their three tourney teams have done exactly what was expected (mostly by beating double digit seeds). Most of that league was not that good.
And the Big 10 has proven nothing other than their top two teams are solid, as we already knew.
I'm fine with saying the Big 12 was a little overrated by some, but it was still a very solid and deep league, and the conference schedule was a grind. The strength of the conference was the depth of quality teams. I don't think anyone was expecting 2 or 3 teams in the final 4.
Illinois missed 14 free throws man. Yes they absolutely should have been blown out.
Well to be fair, I have the SEC only slightly better. Yes those losses happened to the SEC, but they also have Alabama beating a 1 seed. The Yale loss was a 2 point game. The Kentucky loss was a bad one for sure, but again, it was a close loss. South Carolina was blown out by an Oregon team that was under seeded because they struggled with injuries and under performed a lot of the season. They were finally healthy and playing well, going on to win the P12 tournament.
The B12 has no quality win of any sort at this moment like the SEC does, AND they have all of those bad losses that I mentioned as well. which these factors are the differentiators for who I placed over whom at this time.
The B12 had 8 teams in. 3 lost in blow outs and should/could have been a 4th.
Now I don't think the Kansas loss says as much about the B12 as a whole, especially with the injury factor, but you also can't completely ignore it.
No, that wouldn't mirror my logic at all since the BE to this point has avoided any upsets. In fact, not only have they avoided upsets, most of their wins have been convincingly. So actually, the BE performance to this point backs up where I have them. I have to really scratch my head here in the logic you just tried to use.
Which is why I have them placed 3rd. Our 2nd place team just beat the B12 2nd place team (and should have been a blowout). Purdue has looked sharp so far but have a good test today.
Wisconsin was the only real disappointment, but I think they had a shit draw IMO. James Madison was a better team than a 12 seed.
Nebraska lost a toss up game seed wise and their shooting didn't show up.
Northwestern was down two starters, so I think they played well considering.
Michigan St played as expected.
Little to no let downs in regards to the B10, and I have them 3rd...
Here's the issue. The B12 played almost nobody outside of themselves. Take away who Baylor and Kansas played and the B12 played almost nobody. Houston's toughest OOC game was Dayton. There was very little to judge the conference against. This tournament has been the first real test and it isn't going well for them.
I can say similar things about many B10 teams which is why I've never tried to push them much beyond a middle of the pack conference.
Like I've said before, the differences in conferences are slight. I don't think it's worth getting so worked up over it.
So, despite all their faceplants, the SEC was better than the Big 12 this season because one of their 14 teams beat a 1 seed in the tourney. Okey doke. I'm convinced.
The logic is that you're making a judgment on the entire league based on a few teams. Which no reasonable person would do, especially when all they've done is beat average or worse teams.
All kinds of excuses for the Big 10, while not mentioning that several Big 12 teams were depleted. Excuses about JMU and Oregon being underseeded (didn't really look like it the next round), while not acknowledging that NC State or others were underseeded.
Believe whatever you want, but the fact that you don't see your own double standards is funny.
Last edited:
Who gives a rip about conference performance in the tournament? Do you guys actually want your conference to perform well?
Assuming they aren't playing UL or IU, I want every single SEC team that is playing in the tourney to get curbstomped. Absolutely humiliated. Does UK get some type of banner for Bama beating UNC last night?? What if Tennessee actually gets to a FF this yr, does UK get some type of credit for that?
Assuming they aren't playing UL or IU, I want every single SEC team that is playing in the tourney to get curbstomped. Absolutely humiliated. Does UK get some type of banner for Bama beating UNC last night?? What if Tennessee actually gets to a FF this yr, does UK get some type of credit for that?
I just don't understand this sentiment. I'm not rooting for them to win it all, but at the same time, I don't want them to look like they don't belong.
What does Purdue get out of the Big 10 performing well in the tourney, or looking like they belong? Does it help Purdue win more games? Does it make Purdue play better? Does Mackey Arena hang a banner signifying how far the Big 10 went in the tourney?
I remember back when UK went to 4 FF in 5 yrs (2011-2015)...all you heard about from other fans was how the SEC sucks. To which my response was "Cool, let the SEC continue to suck. I will keep enjoying trips to the FF."
Aside from UL and IU, historically speaking, UKs biggest rivals are in the SEC. Under no circumstance do I want UF, or UT, or Arky, or Auburn, or Bama, etc winning games in the tournament. I hate all those schools with a passion. Their success in no way, shape, or form, benefits UKs basketball team.
I have always found the conference honking obsession to be so strange.
First of all, I don't care that much. I just think the logic in this thread is silly.
Second, why did you spend all season defending the SEC and bashing leagues like the ACC?
A. The ACC does suck
B. Stating the SEC is better then the ACC is a fact, in the same way the Big 12 is better then the SEC. I will defend things that are true.
C. I want the SEC to crash and burn in the tournament, and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if UK was the lone rep from the SEC every single season
D. Points A,B, and C can all be true at the same time.
I'm open to being convinced. What face plants are you referring to that are so much worse than what the B12 has done?
Look, I think we can both agree that there's several ways to view a conference. Which is deepest, which is most top heavy, which has more teams capable of making a run. Which has more strength from the middle up, etc. Everyone is going to view each conference a little differently than the next guy.
IMO there isn't any one correct metric. The best way to judge a conference IMO is on several things. How good are the top teams/team? How have teams fared vs other good teams (outside of their conference), and of the teams that make post season play, how do they perform? Conference play is conference play. Teams will beat other teams based on familiarity with one another. Pre AND post conference play is more important ways to truly judge a league. Which is what made judging the B12 so hard.
I mentioned earlier that Houston's best game OOC was Dayton.
Iowa St lost to the only team OOC that they played that made the tournament. (not counting Grambling St)
Texas Tech played nobody
BYU played nobody
Texas played UConn and Marquette and lost both games handily
Only good team TCU played was Clemson and they got handled.
Baylor played and beat Auburn, Florida, but lost badly to Michigan St and lost to Duke
Kansas played the toughest OOC schedule for the B12 beating Kentucky, Tennessee, and UConn and losing to Marquette. Without these wins, the B12 has/had nothing to really point to showing they had a good record vs other teams to prove their worth.
So, in short, Kansas was carrying the torch for the B12 and unfortunately, one team's success isn't enough to pass over onto the rest of the conference.
What B12 teams were depleted? I wasn't aware of this outside of Kansas.
What double standards? Point them out. I'm not unwilling to be convinced otherwise. However, my views on the B12 have been substantiated so far by their tourney performance.
Similar threads
