@ESPNLunardi: I've been reluctant to wade into the "Big 12 is gaming the system" debate, primarily because it's impossible to know (and those who insist they know are simply more insistent than they are correct). He...…
threadreaderapp.com
I've been reluctant to wade into the "Big 12 is gaming the system" debate, primarily because it's impossible to know (and those who insist they know are simply more insistent than they are correct). Here's what we actually do know:
• There are seven Big 12 teams with a non-conference schedule rankings worse than 300.
• Those seven teams played 32 games against the bottom 100 teams in Division I (more specifically the bottom 112 teams, NET 251-362, but you get the idea).
• The expected margin of victory in those games given the respective strength of the teams involved would be, on average, 28.8 points per game.
• The actual margin of victory in the 32 games was 32.6 points per game.
• Five of the games (3 from Iowa State and 2 from BYU) resulted in a 50+ point spread. Without those outliers, the average MOV in our sample drops to 28.4 points per game (essentially an "as expected" outcome).
• The NET doesn't exclude the extreme blowouts, nor should it.
Bottom line: Is it reasonable to conclude that five games--out of almost 400 played by Big 12 teams this season--are enough to skew the whole system? I'm not smart enough to know that answer, but I think most unbiased observers would say it's unlikely.
Anecdotally, as one who closely tracks NET each day, my sense is that MOV-related offensive and defensive efficiencies have a greater influence this year. But I can't prove it and it surely isn't a large enough factor to result in twice as many bids for one league over another.
Truly "gaming the system" went out with the RPI, which measured 'who you played' way more than 'how you played.' NET is a vast improvement, and it actually tracks quite well with other respected ranking systems. It is also designed to measure teams, not conferences.
Our job--and the Commitee's job--is to spot the outliers and adjust accordingly. That's why teams on the bubble with awful schedules generally get banged. The trick is not to be a bubble team to begin with, and the trick to that is to be better at basketball.
P.S.: I also never said Wake Forest (or any ACC team) has recruited poorly. I've simply reported the steep decline in seeding for ACC teams in the NET era. This could be related to recruiting, coaching, resources, the weather or uniforms. Who knows?
What is indisputable is that the ACC is the best college basketball conference of all time. That is hasn't been the past five years is also indisputable. And any coach would tell you it comes down to players. So don't shoot the messenger.
Thanks for reading. Back to bracketology...
www.ncaa.com
