KenPom Ratings By Conference:

[dukedevilz]

Nebraska should still be an easy win for a solid team. I think it's pointless to compare bottom-feeders in regard to schedule strength.

But my point was that it's absurd to claim that it's easier to maintain a top 15 ranking when two-thirds of your games are vs top 15-ish teams. Do you disagree?

Sure, if you're one to take Kenpom as gospel, some of the Big 10 schedules look pretty brutal. But I don't think this is the year to take Kenpom as gospel, if ever.

Why is it pointless to compare bottom-feeders? Nobody in the Big Ten gets 6 games like that. They're not playing Nebraska 6 times.

The big 10 has been getting a lot of hype. I'm ready to see if they can take care of business once the madness starts. I'm not ready to say for sure one way or another that they are ahead of the Big 12. When you compare each of the top teams schedules, they are similar in a way. Looking at WVU schedule next to teams like Illinois, Iowa, I don't know how anyone can say for sure which is the better team. Also having watched those teams a good bit, the eye test doesn't exactly make one team stand out above the other either.

Duke has improved a lot but are they really deserving of #35 just from recent play? I didn't know Kenpom went by that.

Like I said, Duke's losses have all been close. It's the same reason why Auburn started last season 22-2 and was only ranked 31st. They had a lot of close wins - and their two losses were both brutal. We're probably a top 25 team if the season started three weeks ago. That's not the case, of course. As it stands, Duke probably won't make the tournament. But, KenPom isn't reflective of results; it's a predictive model.

Big 12 didn't look overly impressive against the SEC. They had same nice wins, but many thought they would win 7 games or so. Texas Tech was very lucky to win. OU was fortunate that Bama missed, I don't know, 7 or 8 bunnies in the final 10 minutes. Baylor was the only one that had a convincing win, and it was against a lowly Auburn team. Maybe the Big 10 is overrated. We'll see. I've watched both conferences a lot closer than the ACC this year, and the analytics and my eye both tell me that the Big 10 is a little better.

 

[ExitFlagger]

It not a perfect system, of course. And obviously a smaller OOC season means the sampling error is going to be larger than normal. Loyola is probably deserving of a 7-9 seed. They're not a top 15 team, IMO. I'd have West Virginia ahead of Wisconsin. But, not ahead of Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, or Iowa. It's not obvious to me that West Virginia is better than Purdue. Those two teams are fairly evenly matched, IMO. I might give a slight edge to WVU.

If you average KenPom, Sagarin, and BartTorvik, here are how the schools would be ranked.

Big 10
Michigan: 2.3
Iowa: 4.7
Illinois: 6.0
Ohio State: 7.3
-----------------------
Wisconsin: 12.7
Purdue: 16.0
Rutgers: 26.7
Maryland: 27.0
Indiana: 38.3
------------------
Penn State: 47.0
Michigan State: 54.3
Minnesota: 57.3
Northwestern: 74.0
Nebraska: 104.7

Big 12
Baylor: 3.0
West Virginia: 13.7
Kansas: 15.7
-------------------------
Texas Tech: 21.7
Texas: 22.3
Oklahoma: 30.7
OKlahoma State: 33.3
------------------------------
TCU: 104.3
Iowa State: 148.0
Kansas State: 168.7

I've broken the conference up into thirds. The Big Ten clearly wins the top third and bottom third of those two respective conferences. Not particularly close, as Big Ten is beating the Big 12 in every position there. The middle third of the conferences is debatable. Very debatable. So, Big Ten is more front-loaded. And the Big 12 has three very obvious weak links at the bottom. The middle of the Big 12 is quality, and any one of those schools in the middle has Sweet 16 potential. Overall, the Big 12 really only has an argument in the middle of the conference. And it's not like that would be a significant advantage over the Big 10.



The way Duke is playing lately, that's probably about right. KenPom rankings don't reflect results, of course. It's more indicative of scoring margins, simply adjusted for SOS. Duke loses close games. We're 3-8 in single-digit games - and 8-1 in games that are decided by 10 points or more.

If you're willing to acknowledge that Kenpom's ranking of Loyola is way off, you have to be willing to acknowledge it could be way off for others too.

To start the year, several Big 12 teams were in the Kenpom top 10. They all fared well in the non-con and have feasted on the bottom-feeders in the league while beating each other up. A formula that would drop them significantly seems off.

Also, even if all those rankings are legit, would you rather play two games vs Baylor or one vs Michigan?

 

[dukedevilz]

If you're willing to acknowledge that Kenpom's ranking of Loyola is way off, you have to be willing to acknowledge it could be way off for others too.

To start the year, several Big 12 teams were in the Kenpom top 10. They all fared well in the non-con and have feasted on the bottom-feeders in the league while beating each other up. A formula that would drop them significantly seems off.

Also, even if all those rankings are legit, would you rather play two games vs Baylor or one vs Michigan?

It could be, sure. The reason for Loyola is more obvious, though. They play at a very slow tempo and they've only had 5 games against top 100 teams. So, their sample size against quality competition is incredibly small. Just about all of the Big 10 teams have had 15-20 games against top 100 teams.

Oklahoma State getting swept by TCU certainly doesn't help. OU got blown out by Xavier - and recently lost to Kansas State. The other 5 schools are all in KenPom's top 25.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Are you serious with this?

The Big 12 has 6 teams in the current ESPN power rankings, and OU just fell out after being top 10 for weeks. Each of these teams play twice.

The schedule hasn’t done anyone in the league any favors. It’s done the opposite. Each team has at most a handful of games vs teams that aren’t high-quality. And wins over those teams do nothing for a team's ranking.

The Big 10 is the deeper league, partly due to having more teams. But that doesn’t make their schedules harder. If the tourney-caliber teams played each other twice, they would be.

Yes I am serious with this. Ratings have the B10 teams higher than most of the B12. There are more B12 teams ranked in the AP and Coaches because they aren't being knocked off as frequently by equally talented opponents.

I watched the Kansas game vs Baylor for example and IMO Kansas' win had more to do with Baylor not playing well than Kansas playing great. Don't get me wrong, Kansas is a really good team, but IMO there are 4-5 better B10 teams.

 

[Big ol arms]

Why is it pointless to compare bottom-feeders? Nobody in the Big Ten gets 6 games like that. They're not playing Nebraska 6 times.



Like I said, Duke's losses have all been close. It's the same reason why Auburn started last season 22-2 and was only ranked 31st. They had a lot of close wins - and their two losses were both brutal. We're probably a top 25 team if the season started three weeks ago. That's not the case, of course. As it stands, Duke probably won't make the tournament. But, KenPom isn't reflective of results; it's a predictive model.

Big 12 didn't look overly impressive against the SEC. They had same nice wins, but many thought they would win 7 games or so. Texas Tech was very lucky to win. OU was fortunate that Bama missed, I don't know, 7 or 8 bunnies in the final 10 minutes. Baylor was the only one that had a convincing win, and it was against a lowly Auburn team. Maybe the Big 10 is overrated. We'll see. I've watched both conferences a lot closer than the ACC this year, and the analytics and my eye both tell me that the Big 10 is a little better.

Some of Dukes losses haven't been all that close. Several by 7 or more. All but 1 of WVU losses is by 5 or less, including the Gonzaga loss. Kansas was the only team that beat us by more than 5 points. Yet Kenpom has us ranked 17th. Yeah we had some close wins, like against iowa state but also plenty of really good wins on the road.

 

[dukedevilz]

Some of Dukes losses haven't been all that close. Quite a few by 7 or more. All but 1 of WVU losses is by 5 or less, including the Gonzaga loss. Kansas was the only team that beat us by more than 5 points. Yet Kenpom has us ranked 18th.

You're forgetting about close wins, though. In conference play, Duke actually has a higher scoring margin than West Virginia. Weaker competition, sure. But, the reason we remain relatively high is we tend to win our games by double-digits - whereas we lose our conference games by single digits. We're 6-0 in the ACC in double-digit games - and 3-6 in games decided by 7 points or less.

At any rate, this isn't really a discussion about Duke. It's meant to compare the Big 12 and the Big 10. The Big 10 has better teams up front, clearly better teams at the bottom. The middle third of the league is relatively close. Hard to objectively say the Big 12 is better. Obviously things can change. Is KenPom perfect? No, but it has a pretty solid track record over time. There's a reason why Vegas doesn't deviate too far from KenPom's spreads.

 

[fluoxetine]

Something to remember about strength of schedule, at least in relation to wins and losses, is that it is relative. Consider
(A) you have to play against the
#149, #150, and #151 teams

(B) you have to play against rhe
#1, #150, and #299 teams

Which schedule is tougher? Well if you are the #2 team then schedule (B) is much tougher. But if you are the #298 team then schedule (B) is easier.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Why is it pointless to compare bottom-feeders? Nobody in the Big Ten gets 6 games like that. They're not playing Nebraska 6 times.



Like I said, Duke's losses have all been close. It's the same reason why Auburn started last season 22-2 and was only ranked 31st. They had a lot of close wins - and their two losses were both brutal. We're probably a top 25 team if the season started three weeks ago. That's not the case, of course. As it stands, Duke probably won't make the tournament. But, KenPom isn't reflective of results; it's a predictive model.

Big 12 didn't look overly impressive against the SEC. They had same nice wins, but many thought they would win 7 games or so. Texas Tech was very lucky to win. OU was fortunate that Bama missed, I don't know, 7 or 8 bunnies in the final 10 minutes. Baylor was the only one that had a convincing win, and it was against a lowly Auburn team. Maybe the Big 10 is overrated. We'll see. I've watched both conferences a lot closer than the ACC this year, and the analytics and my eye both tell me that the Big 10 is a little better.

But a good team should beat the bottom-feeders of both leagues. Whether they win by 5 or 25 doesn't matter.

The Big 10 doesn't play 6 games vs crappy teams, but they play plenty vs mediocre teams. And they don't play 12 games vs teams in the current top 20.

 

[fluoxetine]

The bottom feeders definitely matter. You have to remember that these teams aren’t quite as bad as people think. If you are a mid-tier team in either conference (think like 30-35th best team overall) you are barely favored on the road against a team like Northwestern but you might be favored by 8 against Kansas St. That’s a big difference in winning percentage.

A lot of times these conference arguments sort of come down to how you define it (which is better a conference with 11 good teams or one with 3 great teams?) but in 2021 I don’t think there is really any argument to be made that the Big Ten isn’t the strongest conference going by the observed results. Granted, the sample size is smaller than usual.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Yes I am serious with this. Ratings have the B10 teams higher than most of the B12. There are more B12 teams ranked in the AP and Coaches because they aren't being knocked off as frequently by equally talented opponents.

I watched the Kansas game vs Baylor for example and IMO Kansas' win had more to do with Baylor not playing well than Kansas playing great. Don't get me wrong, Kansas is a really good team, but IMO there are 4-5 better B10 teams.

And many would say there are 4-5 better Big 12 teams than KU, until recently anyway.

I just don't get how you conclude that they aren't being knocked off as frequently by equally talented opponents.

Even if the top of the Big 10 is better, you aren't playing every team twice. Would you rather play Michigan and Northwestern or Baylor twice?

KU has played 14 games vs the current top 20. More than half their damn schedule. Michigan has played two. TWO.

 

[dukedevilz]

But a good team should beat the bottom-feeders of both leagues. Whether they win by 5 or 25 doesn't matter.

The Big 10 doesn't play 6 games vs crappy teams, but they play plenty vs mediocre teams. And they don't play 12 games vs teams in the current top 20.

Dude, come on. Getting essentially 6 byes is a HUGE deal. Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, and Northwestern only had Nebraska once. So, half of the big 10 gets exactly one sub-100 opponent. Meanwhile, the 7 notable schools in the Big 12 all get 6 sub-100 opponents. That's a huge discrepancy. There's a reason why every single Big Ten school has a strength of schedule in the top 20. KenPom, BartTorvik, Sagarin... all three have every single Big Ten school's SOS in the top 20.

 

[ExitFlagger]

The bottom feeders definitely matter. You have to remember that these teams aren’t quite as bad as people think. If you are a mid-tier team in either conference (think like 30-35th best team overall) you are barely favored on the road against a team like Northwestern but you might be favored by 8 against Kansas St. That’s a big difference in winning percentage.

A lot of times these conference arguments sort of come down to how you define it (which is better a conference with 11 good teams or one with 3 great teams?) but in 2021 I don’t think there is really any argument to be made that the Big Ten isn’t the strongest conference going by the observed results. Granted, the sample size is smaller than usual.

I haven't denied that the Big 10 is the deeper and stronger overall league. I just don't think that necessarily equates to a tougher schedule than the Big 12's round robin.

I think several Big 12 teams have played tougher schedules than many Big 10 teams.

 

[ExitFlagger]

Dude, come on. Getting essentially 6 byes is a HUGE deal. Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, and Northwestern only had Nebraska once. So, half of the big 10 gets exactly one sub-100 opponent. Meanwhile, the 7 notable schools in the Big 12 all get 6 sub-100 opponents. That's a huge discrepancy. There's a reason why every single Big Ten school has a strength of schedule in the top 20. KenPom, BartTorvik, Sagarin... all three have every single Big Ten school's SOS in the top 20.

But it's no big deal to play half your games vs teams that will have high seeds in the tourney? I'd say that has a little more impact on your record than having more mediocre teams than garbage teams on the schedule. We're looking at this from the perspective of a quality team, right? Quality teams should beat teams ranked 100 or 60. Northwestern may be 30+ spots higher than Nebraska on Kenpom, but if you're Michigan, you should beat both, right?

Their SOS is high because there are very few true cupcakes on the schedule. That's fine, but if I have the choice between playing four games vs elites + four bad teams, vs 2 games vs elites and 6 vs average teams, give me option B.

 

[ExitFlagger]

This has kind of gotten away from my original point though. Which was that it's far from easy to stay ranked in the top 15 in the Big 12. The games vs the bottom-feeders do nothing for your ranking, and every other game is vs a team that will have a high seed in the tourney. You have to have a lot of good wins to stay in the top 15. Hence, KU has arguably the best set of wins in the country but fell out of the rankings a few weeks ago.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Also, even if all those rankings are legit, would you rather play two games vs Baylor or one vs Michigan?

WTF kind of question is this? lol. Yes give me two hard games vs one.

In seriousness though, like we said, there are 5 teams in the B10 tougher than the #2 team in the B12 in regards to the metrics. Yes, everyone has to play Baylor twice in the B12, but you also get to play all those sub 100 teams twice too.

 

[fluoxetine]

I haven't denied that the Big 10 is the deeper and stronger overall league. I just don't think that necessarily equates to a tougher schedule than the Big 12's round robin.

I think several Big 12 teams have played tougher schedules than many Big 10 teams.

Bartorvik has a measure of strength of schedule that I think is pretty close to what you are going for here: Elite Loss%. Basically it is what % of games an "elite" team would be expected to lose against the schedule. I am not sure the definition of "elite"

The Big Ten schedules by elite loss %
Penn St 44% - #1
Northwestern 42% - #2
Indiana 42% - #3
Michigan St 40% - #4
Illinois 40% - #5
Nebraska 39% - #7
Minnesota 39% - #8
Ohio St 39% - #9
Wisconsin 38% - #10
Rutgers 38% - #11
Purdue 37% - #13
Iowa 37% - #14
Maryland 36% - #15
Michigan 35% - #19
Average 39%

The Big 12 schedules by elite loss %
Iowa St 40% - #6
Kansas 35% - #17
West Virginia 35% - #20
Oklahoma St 34% - #22
Oklahoma 33% - #31
Texas 33% - #32
Kansas St. 32% - #34
Texas Tech 32% - #36
TCU 32% - #42
Baylor 28% - #59
Average 33.4%

 

[Boilermaker03]

But a good team should beat the bottom-feeders of both leagues. Whether they win by 5 or 25 doesn't matter.

The Big 10 doesn't play 6 games vs crappy teams, but they play plenty vs mediocre teams. And they don't play 12 games vs teams in the current top 20.

Depends. Are you talking about the top 20 in rankings or top 20 in metrics? For example, it's possible for some B10 teams to play 12 games vs the top 15 in the metrics. 8 games vs the top 10.

The B12 only has 1 team in the top 10 in the metrics and only 3 in the top 20.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Bartorvik has a measure of strength of schedule that I think is pretty close to what you are going for here: Elite Loss%. Basically it is what % of games an "elite" team would be expected to lose against the schedule. I am not sure the definition of "elite"

The Big Ten schedules by elite loss %
Penn St 44% - #1
Northwestern 42% - #2
Indiana 42% - #3
Michigan St 40% - #4
Illinois 40% - #5
Nebraska 39% - #7
Minnesota 39% - #8
Ohio St 39% - #9
Wisconsin 38% - #10
Rutgers 38% - #11
Purdue 37% - #13
Iowa 37% - #14
Maryland 36% - #15
Michigan 35% - #19
Average 39%

The Big 12 schedules by elite loss %
Iowa St 40% - #6
Kansas 35% - #17
West Virginia 35% - #20
Oklahoma St 34% - #22
Oklahoma 33% - #31
Texas 33% - #32
Kansas St. 32% - #34
Texas Tech 32% - #36
TCU 32% - #42
Baylor 28% - #59
Average 33.4%

Ha ha. Iowa > Kansas

#confirmed @Kansas fans

 

[ExitFlagger]

WTF kind of question is this? lol. Yes give me two hard games vs one.

In seriousness though, like we said, there are 5 teams in the B10 tougher than the #2 team in the B12 in regards to the metrics. Yes, everyone has to play Baylor twice in the B12, but you also get to play all those sub 100 teams twice too.

Like I said, KU has played 14 games (54% of their schedule) vs AP top 20 teams. Michigan has played 2. If you think that replacing the likes of K-State and TCU with Minnesota and Northwestern makes their schedule tougher, that's your call. I don't.

I know you guys (naturally) want to dismiss the human polls in favor of Kenpom, but the fact is that any team that's playing really well is going to break into the top 20 by this point.

 

[fluoxetine]

FYI the missing top 20 schedules by elite loss percentage that are not from the Big Ten or Big 12:

Kentucky 38% - #12
South Carolina 36% - #16
Florida 35% - #18

 

[Boilermaker03]

And many would say there are 4-5 better Big 12 teams than KU, until recently anyway.

I just don't get how you conclude that they aren't being knocked off as frequently by equally talented opponents.

Even if the top of the Big 10 is better, you aren't playing every team twice. Would you rather play Michigan and Northwestern or Baylor twice?

KU has played 14 games vs the current top 20. More than half their damn schedule. Michigan has played two. TWO.

You're getting too hung up on the fact that the B10 is a bigger conference thus we don't play all teams twice. For example, some teams in the B10 will only play the bottom feeders once and all the toughest teams twice. In the B12 every single team (besides the bottom feeders themselves of course) gets to play at least 6 games vs opponents you should beat. Many times when you play a team only once, you only get them on the road. I just think there is a lot more to this than you realize.

I'd argue that playing Michigan and one of Ohio St/Iowa/Illinois is just as bad as playing Baylor twice. I'd absolutely rather play Iowa St (158), Kansas St (183) and TCU (125) vs Northwestern (71), Minnesota (58) and Nebraska (109).

 

[fluoxetine]

FYI according to Torvik rankings again, and using neutral court for simplicity, Kansas' winning percentage against:

K State = 91.5%
TCU = 80.4%
Minnesota = 66.4%
Northwestern = 74%

Replacing 4 games against the former with 4 games against the latter nets you 0.63 additional wins.

 

[Boilermaker03]

But it's no big deal to play half your games vs teams that will have high seeds in the tourney? I'd say that has a little more impact on your record than having more mediocre teams than garbage teams on the schedule. We're looking at this from the perspective of a quality team, right? Quality teams should beat teams ranked 100 or 60. Northwestern may be 30+ spots higher than Nebraska on Kenpom, but if you're Michigan, you should beat both, right?

Their SOS is high because there are very few true cupcakes on the schedule. That's fine, but if I have the choice between playing four games vs elites + four bad teams, vs 2 games vs elites and 6 vs average teams, give me option B.

Umm, until recently the B10 had two #1 seeds, a number 2 seed and a 3 seed. That's potentially 8 games vs teams in the top 3 seed lines.

Will be interesting to see how things end up with seedings. For example, I don't get how Texas is being projected as a 4 seed and Purdue a 6 when Purdue is higher in all the metrics as well as having a better record vs quad 1 teams. Then you have the fact that Texas has only played 5 road games and Purdue has played 11.

 

[Boilermaker03]

But it's no big deal to play half your games vs teams that will have high seeds in the tourney? I'd say that has a little more impact on your record than having more mediocre teams than garbage teams on the schedule. We're looking at this from the perspective of a quality team, right? Quality teams should beat teams ranked 100 or 60. Northwestern may be 30+ spots higher than Nebraska on Kenpom, but if you're Michigan, you should beat both, right?

Their SOS is high because there are very few true cupcakes on the schedule. That's fine, but if I have the choice between playing four games vs elites + four bad teams, vs 2 games vs elites and 6 vs average teams, give me option B.

You're playing in option B. The B10 is option A

 

[duckboy33]

KenPom ratings for teams that made the Final Four since 2010:

2019:
Virginia - 1st
Michigan State - 3rd
Texas Tech - 5th
Auburn - 11th

2018:
Villanova - 1st
Michigan - 7th
Kansas - 9th
Loyola Chicago - 31st

2017:
Gonzaga - 1st
North Carolina - 3rd
Oregon - 10th
South Carolina - 24th

2016:
Villanova - 1st
North Carolina - 2nd
Oklahoma - 10th
Syracuse - 27th

2015:
Kentucky - 1st
Wisconsin - 2nd
Duke - 3rd
Michigan State - 15th

2014:
Florida - 3rd
Wisconsin - 5th
Kentucky - 13th
UConn - 15th

2013:
Louisville - 1st
Michigan - 4th
Syracuse - 9th
Wichita State - 17th

2012:
Kentucky - 1st
Ohio State - 2nd
Kansas - 4th
Louisville - 17th

2011:
Kentucky - 7th
UConn - 10th
Butler - 36th
VCU - 53rd

2010:
Duke - 1st
West Virginia - 5th
Butler - 12th
Michigan State - 20th

 

[Boilermaker03]

Like I said, KU has played 14 games (54% of their schedule) vs AP top 20 teams. Michigan has played 2. If you think that replacing the likes of K-State and TCU with Minnesota and Northwestern makes their schedule tougher, that's your call. I don't.

I know you guys (naturally) want to dismiss the human polls in favor of Kenpom, but the fact is that any team that's playing really well is going to break into the top 20 by this point.

What?? Michigan has played 3 games vs the AP top 10. Again, you're too hung up on AP rankings too. You keep poo pooing the games vs your bottom feeders claiming that they don't help you. Well, of course they do. That's 6 games you can play with little to no chance of losing that game. You don't have that kind of night off in the B10 which is why so many B10 teams have been ranked and then unranked throughout the season.

 

[fluoxetine]

The human rankings are pretty terrible IMO. Like in general. I haven't looked at this week's poll specifically.

fluoxetine rankings are where it's at.

 

[ExitFlagger]

KenPom ratings for teams that made the Final Four since 2010:

2019:
Virginia - 1st
Michigan State - 3rd
Texas Tech - 5th
Auburn - 11th

2018:
Villanova - 1st
Michigan - 7th
Kansas - 9th
Loyola Chicago - 31st

2017:
Gonzaga - 1st
North Carolina - 3rd
Oregon - 10th
South Carolina - 24th

2016:
Villanova - 1st
North Carolina - 2nd
Oklahoma - 10th
Syracuse - 27th

2015:
Kentucky - 1st
Wisconsin - 2nd
Duke - 3rd
Michigan State - 15th

2014:
Florida - 3rd
Wisconsin - 5th
Kentucky - 13th
UConn - 15th

2013:
Louisville - 1st
Michigan - 4th
Syracuse - 9th
Wichita State - 17th

2012:
Kentucky - 1st
Ohio State - 2nd
Kansas - 4th
Louisville - 17th

2011:
Kentucky - 7th
UConn - 10th
Butler - 36th
VCU - 53rd

2010:
Duke - 1st
West Virginia - 5th
Butler - 12th
Michigan State - 20th

I'm assuming these are post-tourney numbers. Anyone who makes a deep run will get a huge boost.

Not really sure what this would prove anyway. Looks like the average year has had a few teams that were ranked highly by basically every metric and a few who weren't.

 

[duckboy33]

I'm assuming these are post-tourney numbers. Anyone who makes a deep run will get a huge boost.

Not really sure what this would prove anyway. Looks like the average year has had a few teams that were ranked highly by basically every metric and a few who weren't.

It wasn’t meant to prove anything. I just thought it was fun to look at.

 

[ExitFlagger]

You're getting too hung up on the fact that the B10 is a bigger conference thus we don't play all teams twice. For example, some teams in the B10 will only play the bottom feeders once and all the toughest teams twice. In the B12 every single team (besides the bottom feeders themselves of course) gets to play at least 6 games vs opponents you should beat. Many times when you play a team only once, you only get them on the road. I just think there is a lot more to this than you realize.

I'd argue that playing Michigan and one of Ohio St/Iowa/Illinois is just as bad as playing Baylor twice. I'd absolutely rather play Iowa St (158), Kansas St (183) and TCU (125) vs Northwestern (71), Minnesota (58) and Nebraska (109).

But who cares? A good team should sweep all of them. I know that Michigan lost to Minnesota, but that's a bad loss by any metric.

 

[ExitFlagger]

What?? Michigan has played 3 games vs the AP top 10. Again, you're too hung up on AP rankings too. You keep poo pooing the games vs your bottom feeders claiming that they don't help you. Well, of course they do. That's 6 games you can play with little to no chance of losing that game. You don't have that kind of night off in the B10 which is why so many B10 teams have been ranked and then unranked throughout the season.

Michigan's played 2 games vs the current top 20.

KU has 8 losses yet, as of yesterday, they led the country in quad 1 wins. They've played more quad 1 games than anyone. Their worst loss is to Kenpom #36, which is a 6-loss team that's currently ranked #17 in the AP.

If that adds up to "not many games vs teams at their talent level, easy to stay ranked high, blah blah".....then I don't know what to tell you.

I guess, in your minds, playing a billion games vs teams that will earn high tourney seeds is offset by playing six vs weak teams. Sure, sure.

 

[VulvHa]

The human rankings are pretty terrible IMO. Like in general. I haven't looked at this week's poll specifically.

fluoxetine rankings are where it's at.

Gotta admit, I look at your rankings every Monday. Also, the AP poll is clearly sht and everyone knows it.

 

[dukedevilz]

But who cares? A good team should sweep all of them. I know that Michigan lost to Minnesota, but that's a bad loss by any metric.

Minnesota has beaten Michigan, Ohio State, and Iowa. Which Big 12 bottom-dweller has beaten 3 top 10 teams?

 

[bMORE607]

Gotta admit, I look at your rankings every Monday. Also, the AP poll is clearly sht and everyone knows it.

Well almost everyone.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Michigan's played 2 games vs the current top 20.

KU has 8 losses yet, as of yesterday, they led the country in quad 1 wins. They've played more quad 1 games than anyone. Their worst loss is to Kenpom #36, which is a 6-loss team that's currently ranked #17 in the AP.

If that adds up to "not many games vs teams at their talent level, easy to stay ranked high, blah blah".....then I don't know what to tell you.

I guess, in your minds, playing a billion games vs teams that will earn high tourney seeds is offset by playing six vs weak teams. Sure, sure.

Michigan > Kansas

 

[ExitFlagger]

Ah, the trusty ol’ “everyone knows it” argument.

What’s so awful about the current AP poll? Having Wisconsin 25 vs 12 on Kenpom? Loyola at 20 vs 11? Both are lucky to be ranked at all.

Seems legit for Wisky to be top 12 despite being 1-6 vs the Kenpom top 25 with 9 total losses. Their lone win being Loyola.

 

[bMORE607]

Tom Brady broke this fool's psyche.

 

[fluoxetine]

Ah, the trusty ol’ “everyone knows it” argument.

What’s so awful about the current AP poll? Having Wisconsin 25 vs 12 on Kenpom? Loyola at 20 vs 11? Both are lucky to be ranked at all.

Seems legit for Wisky to be top 12 despite being 1-6 vs the Kenpom top 25 with 9 total losses. Their lone win being Loyola.

Like I said I haven't actually looked at this week's poll. In general though humans are not built to analyze a big dataset like the results of all the college basketball games and produce a coherent ranking. So they resort to crude heuristics that leads to overvaluation of raw W/L record, conference affiliation, name recognition, prior expectations, head-to-head matchups, etc. A good example from this season would be Michigan, which was waaay underranked in the polls long after it was clear that they were an elite team.

 

[Boilermaker03]

But who cares? A good team should sweep all of them. I know that Michigan lost to Minnesota, but that's a bad loss by any metric.

A bad loss? It's a quad 1 loss. Not sure how you think that's a bad loss. Besides, Minnesota was ranked at the time and playing at a high level. Michigan also was playing without one of their best players.

I'm not sure what happened to Minnesota but they fell off for sure.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Michigan's played 2 games vs the current top 20.

KU has 8 losses yet, as of yesterday, they led the country in quad 1 wins. They've played more quad 1 games than anyone. Their worst loss is to Kenpom #36, which is a 6-loss team that's currently ranked #17 in the AP.

If that adds up to "not many games vs teams at their talent level, easy to stay ranked high, blah blah".....then I don't know what to tell you.

I guess, in your minds, playing a billion games vs teams that will earn high tourney seeds is offset by playing six vs weak teams. Sure, sure.

I don't know where you're getting your data but Michigan has played 5 games vs the current top 25. Not sure why you were cutting it off at the top 20. As of tomorrow night, they will have played 3 vs the current top 10.

Kansas has not led the country in quad 1 wins as of yesterday. Played the most quad 1 games, yes, but not in wins. Kansas has 6 quad 1 wins. Michigan AND Illinois both have 8. Hell, Purdue has only 1 less quad 1 win than Kansas.

Early in the season the talk was that the B10 was going to send 12 teams to the NCAA tourney. I knew that wasn't possible because there would be a lot of teams getting knocked off by one another.

Michigan's schedule by Kenpom ranked opponents: Average of 56.3

Kansas' schedule by Kenpom ranked opponents: Average of 80 (I didn't count the NR team which would have been 300+ most likely)