Jim Phillips: ACC to meet about changing men's hoops narrative

[FRANKIEFAN]

This looks so small time and pathetic shame on everyone involved no need to draw this kind of attention when you consider how terrible the conference is in football. Whats our combined record against Notre Dame in regular season games again over the last 9 seasons? Remember ND isn't even good on the national scale. 0-30? They bumrushed our 3 best teams last year too.

Red really needs to hit the ground running and win year 1. I feel pretty good about it tbh watching guys like Tang at Kansas State gives me a good feeling. Don't care about the rest of the conference. I feel bad that we haven't done a better job pulling the ACC up but Syracuse at least more than held serve the last few times we've snuck into the dance.

 

[Niastri]

Maybe not in overarching sense but specifically regarding league this year, yes, yes he is. Many leagues play 20 games. Didn’t hurt the big East.

ACC was a bad league this year it happens. Just get better, the rest takes care of itself.

Right, nobody complained when essentially the same system gave us 12 bids and 2 number 1 seeds.

 

[FireballPhil]

So let's get this straight.
#1. I made it very clear with data that the ACC lagged very far behind the other conferences in OOC play. That's what killing the ACC (Actual performance) not the NET.

If they play well the NET will take care out of itself. If you play like **** the NET will take care of you too. It's not the NET's fault. It's the team not playing well.

#2. You said he's not wrong in blaming the NET with no data.

I'll assume you won't be able to provide data to show the ACC was even close to on par with the other conferences.

The biggest issue with the net as bees states is where the ranking comes from at the start of the season. One can logically argue the ACC beat the Big 10 head to head thus is the stronger conference-at least preseason. That should have reflected both in the net and in SOS and other metrics but that is clearly not the case. So the question remains upon what bias was the original rating set? It is no secret we stunk and lost games we should have won, but this isn't strictly an SU issue. How many Q1/Q2 wins would have truly been available if the net would have reflected these head to head non-conference tourneys? There would have been more for the ACC and less for the Big 10. This then waterfalls through the rest of the season.

I get it you a a huge NET fan, your posts clearly show that. But you must see that as is the case with anything, the net has flaws, in this case a really really big flaw. The entire net season is based upon the start and if the start is flawed so is the rest of the season. This isn't rocket science, it's simple math.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

The biggest issue with the net as bees states is where the ranking comes from at the start of the season. One can logically argue the ACC beat the Big 10 head to head thus is the stronger conference-at least preseason. That should have reflected both in the net and in SOS and other metrics but that is clearly not the case. So the question remains upon what bias was the original rating set? It is no secret we stunk and lost games we should have won, but this isn't strictly an SU issue. How many Q1/Q2 wins would have truly been available if the net would have reflected these head to head non-conference tourneys? There would have been more for the ACC and less for the Big 10. This then waterfalls through the rest of the season.

I get it you a a huge NET fan, your posts clearly show that. But you must see that as is the case with anything, the net has flaws, in this case a really really big flaw. The entire net season is based upon the start and if the start is flawed so is the rest of the season. This isn't rocket science, it's simple math.

Absolutely agree there shouldn't be a Q1 in November when teams haven't played 5 games.

I guess we are guaranteed a high NET next year even if we go 0-3 in Maui because those teams are Q1... great sounds awesome even if we are 2-3 before the ACC/B1G challenge.

 

[FRANKIEFAN]

Maybe not in overarching sense but specifically regarding league this year, yes, yes he is. Many leagues play 20 games. Didn’t hurt the big East.

ACC was a bad league this year it happens. Just get better, the rest takes care of itself.

This 100%.

Miami is doing well for a team that was in first place midseason.

The basement of the league is OK. BC/Ville/FSU two of those programs have been good recently. Even us with our coach staying way past his sell by were respectable.

Bad year but most of the conference is recruiting well and should get some wins in the portal. ACC will be fine. What a joke that the higher ups are crying publicly like this.

 

[jncuse]

The biggest issue with the net as bees states is where the ranking comes from at the start of the season. One can logically argue the ACC beat the Big 10 head to head thus is the stronger conference-at least preseason. That should have reflected both in the net and in SOS and other metrics but that is clearly not the case. So the question remains upon what bias was the original rating set? It is no secret we stunk and lost games we should have won, but this isn't strictly an SU issue. How many Q1/Q2 wins would have truly been available if the net would have reflected these head to head non-conference tourneys? There would have been more for the ACC and less for the Big 10. This then waterfalls through the rest of the season.

I get it you a a huge NET fan, your posts clearly show that. But you must see that as is the case with anything, the net has flaws, in this case a really really big flaw. The entire net season is based upon the start and if the start is flawed so is the rest of the season. This isn't rocket science, it's simple math.

Did you reallyjust tell me its not rocket science, and its simple math. And I don't understand what's going on because of that.
And your entire argument is based on some14 game sample of data between the ACC and the big Ten.

I actually showed the data above but will do it again post after post.

Prepare yourself to get owned.

 

[Owens guy]

Winning obviously helps your NET score but it’s not as simple as saying ACC teams just needs to win more non conference games. Smart scheduling makes a difference by increasing your lowest possible NET score & also increasing your highest potential NET score.

Simplified - don’t schedule many games that could only hurt you. Give yourself better opportunities to win Q1 & Q2 games that if you lose won’t hurt as much.

 

[rrlbees]

Please go find out and report back.

So you don’t know either.

 

[MSOrange]

I said he’s not wrong and the question I asked was if the NET starts out with a predetermined rating.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/12/05/first-net-rankings-college-basketball-2022-23

The NCAA released its NET rankings for the first time this season Monday with a familiar name at the top of the men’s list. Houston, which sits at No. 1 in both the AP and coaches polls, tops the first NET release after an 8–0 start. Because the NET is an analytically based ranking that doesn’t include any preseason forecasting the way KenPom does, there tend to be a few early outliers.

 

[jncuse]

The biggest issue with the net as bees states is where the ranking comes from at the start of the season. One can logically argue the ACC beat the Big 10 head to head thus is the stronger conference-at least preseason. That should have reflected both in the net and in SOS and other metrics but that is clearly not the case. So the question remains upon what bias was the original rating set? It is no secret we stunk and lost games we should have won, but this isn't strictly an SU issue. How many Q1/Q2 wins would have truly been available if the net would have reflected these head to head non-conference tourneys? There would have been more for the ACC and less for the Big 10. This then waterfalls through the rest of the season.

I get it you a a huge NET fan, your posts clearly show that. But you must see that as is the case with anything, the net has flaws, in this case a really really big flaw. The entire net season is based upon the start and if the start is flawed so is the rest of the season. This isn't rocket science, it's simple math.

POST #2

There are 3 main flaws in your post

#1) Poor application of the transitive party in a league (the "NCAA") of 6 or 7 main conferences.
Just because League A beat League B, it doesn't mean League A is better than League B because they both have to play League C,D,E,,G in several more games

#2) The ACC/Big challenge was 14 games.
The ACC played 146 other OOC games. The BIG played 138 other OOC games.
You are basing conclusions based on 14 games rather than everything else which is very problematic.
The data is out there and I have tracked it.

Thankfully the ACC did well in the BIG challenge otherwise the OOC would have been a total disaster.

#3) Your assumption that I don't know this stuff, and you do because I don't understand simple math. Even though I have been tracking conference OOC for at least 15 years on various boards in November and December (do you want me to pull up old posts on here since I have been a member). I fully understand the implications of your performance on RPI and NET before this.

Of course the NET is not perfect. But its not just throwing out random garbage showing one league as much better than the other. It generally tracks performance fairly well which I will show with actual data.

 

[CuseIn282xx]

The ACC has had 5 teams in the tournament each of the last two years. That the league sucks is public knowledge. That changes need to be made is pretty evident. Ever fire anyone? I have. It's not done willy nilly.

Several times. Not just from RIF, but for cause. RIFs are not fun. But when done for cause, it feels good to take out the trash. You're making the organization a better place. Sometimes much better.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Phillips be like "hey so can y'all just be better at basketball again? or what?"

 

[jncuse]

Phillips be like "hey so can y'all just be better at basketball again? or what?"

If Phillips wanted to complain about something he could say -- "Look the system really rewards the power 6 conference(s) that does best in OOC, and hurts the power 6 conference(s) that don't do nearly as well. We benefitted from that same system in the past, and now we are hurt by it because our teams really played very poorly OOC. The system needs to be tweaked so that the P6 conference that does well OOC (like we did in the past) gets rewarded a bit less, and the P6 conference that really struggles (like we did this year) gets more benefit of the doubt".

He knows exactly why they are struggling with seeds right now. But of course he won't come out and say the ACC really struggled this year -- that would make him and the ACC look stupid -- so he throws some shade at the "NET", the "20 game schedule", and the ultimate copout when the numbers are bad "The lack of an eye test".

 

[OptimusOtto]

Absolutely agree there shouldn't be a Q1 in November when teams haven't played 5 games.

I guess we are guaranteed a high NET next year even if we go 0-3 in Maui because those teams are Q1... great sounds awesome even if we are 2-3 before the ACC/B1G challenge.

Pretty sure this past year was the last year of ACC/B1G and next year we’re matched with the SEC.

 

[Col. Bleep]

The big "problem" for the ACC is that the "superstar" teams...Duke and UNC...were not the great "unbeatable" this year. That undercuts the entire conference and takes away from the other teams that beat them during the season.

Too bad.

Everyone needs to get better because as the current NCAA tournament shows...there is huge parity around the country. A lot of good teams.

All the ACC teams need to get better and the Orange need to be at the top of that list when it comes to big improvement. As someone else pointed out...it's not like SU has been pulling it's weight and added something to the conference.

 

[jncuse]

The biggest issue with the net as bees states is where the ranking comes from at the start of the season. One can logically argue the ACC beat the Big 10 head to head thus is the stronger conference-at least preseason. That should have reflected both in the net and in SOS and other metrics but that is clearly not the case. So the question remains upon what bias was the original rating set? It is no secret we stunk and lost games we should have won, but this isn't strictly an SU issue. How many Q1/Q2 wins would have truly been available if the net would have reflected these head to head non-conference tourneys? There would have been more for the ACC and less for the Big 10. This then waterfalls through the rest of the season.

I get it you a a huge NET fan, your posts clearly show that. But you must see that as is the case with anything, the net has flaws, in this case a really really big flaw. The entire net season is based upon the start and if the start is flawed so is the rest of the season. This isn't rocket science, it's simple math.

POST #3

This is the data that I accumulated and posted around Selection week.
Only tweaked the formatting a bid, and added the overall OOC Win%.

It tracks the overall performance of conferences in OOC play, and it clearly shows that the ACC was dominated by the elite power conferences this year.

You will also see there is zero mention of NET. I'm not a "huge lover of NET". I'm a huge lover of understanding and tracking the W's and L's and how they impact things. Big difference there. For you to insult my lack of knowledge by saying its all NET based shows you were not tracking things like I do. Because it was obvious the ACC was behind

NET only comes into play when determining if an OOC win is Q1-Q4. As this is all OOC stuff, its going to cause a random small disturbance that could be equally good or bad but both to a minor degree. It would not change things very much. But since as you say "its simply math" I assume you understand this basic statistical principle. Or I could give you the list of teams in each group, and since you watch the games it would pass your eye test as well.

Overall Win % (OOC)
Note the ACC did not have a significantly higher OOC than the other power conferences. It actually may have been lower - I just eyeballed the NC SOS on KP and did not calculate the average. But I can if you want.

Big 12 - .830
Big 10 .757
SEC - .731
Big East - 683
ACC .675
P12 .634

Not good for the ACC. The leaders in this metric are the B12, BIG, and the SEC - those who dominated in terms of # of lines and seeds.

To give you context if we wanted to look at a 162 game baseball season the Big10 wins 122 games... the ACC wins 109 games. Its a sizable difference

Q1 Wins (OOC)
BIG 16
Big12 15
SEC 14
P12 9
BE 9
ACC 7

ACC is clearly behind in this.
Once again the leaders in this metric are the BIG, B12, and the SEC.

In terms of elite (top half Q1 wins) its even worse for the ACC. They get 2 while the other 5 top conferences averaged 7.2

Q1+Q2 Wins (OOC)
SEC 31
B12 30 (with 10 teams!!)
Big10 24
ACC 21
P12 18
Big East 16

On a per team basis the ACC is last at 1.4. Its well behind the SEC, B12, and the BIG who dominated the bracket.

Q3+Q4 Losses (Bad Losses) OOC

ACC 18
P12 17
SEC 11
Big East 8
B10 - 6
B12 - 2

Hey finally something the ACC dominated in (along with the P12). Unfortunately its the wrong category to dominate in. Per team it does better than the P12, who nobody considers good

And you will note the B10 and the B12 do very good in this metric

And its not just Florida St and Louisville The rest of the league loses 11 bad games - 6 teams in the ACC in fact lost two bad games.

Ratio of Good Wins vs Bad Losses
Big 12 - 30 vs 2
B10 - 24 vs 6
SEC - 31 vs 11
Big East - 16 vs 8
ACC - 21 vs 18
P12 - 18 vs 17

This clearly shows the dominance of the B12, B10, SEC over the ACC and the P12.

Based on the above I'm not sure why the ACC is questioning why they are getting far less seeds than those 3 conferences,

ITS NOT THE NET - ITS THE WINS AND LOSSES. To claim my statements are only based on NET and not observing results is absurd. There is a reason the ACC started where it did in January -- and it wan't the NET throwing out jibberish, The NET was reflecting what happened on the floor.

 

[FireballPhil]

POST #2

There are 3 main flaws in your post

#1) Poor application of the transitive party in a league (the "NCAA") of 6 or 7 main conferences.
Just because League A beat League B, it doesn't mean League A is better than League B because they both have to play League C,D,E,,G in several more games

#2) The ACC/Big challenge was 14 games.
The ACC played 146 other OOC games. The BIG played 138 other OOC games.
You are basing conclusions based on 14 games rather than everything else which is very problematic.
The data is out there and I have tracked it.

Thankfully the ACC did well in the BIG challenge otherwise the OOC would have been a total disaster.

#3) Your assumption that I don't know this stuff, and you do because I don't understand simple math. Even though I have been tracking conference OOC for at least 15 years on various boards in November and December (do you want me to pull up old posts on here since I have been a member). I fully understand the implications of your performance on RPI and NET before this.

Of course the NET is not perfect. But its not just throwing out random garbage showing one league as much better than the other. It generally tracks performance fairly well which I will show with actual data.

Not gonna get into a pissing match here. I am to old to be petty and get hurt feelings because someone doesn't agree with me. Quite simply I don't care if you agree with me or not. It is entirely up to you to make up your mind. Congrats on standing by your belief.

But one last time:

your #1 proves exactly what people are trying to tell you. Yes they are going to play multiple teams from other conferences through the rest of the season, and the net will adjust accordingly. However it adjusts from the bias of whoever programmed the net initially. This is the only point everyone is trying to make and you simply chose to overlook it and base the correctness of the net on this imperfection.

your #2 is simply restating your #1. Most people agree that until someone comes out and says how the initial rankings are inputted, it makes sense to use these inter-conference games to set a definitive baseline upon which the remainder of the games can be based off of. The NET will then reflect the correct changes based on actual results of the games your correctly said would be played.

And finally your #3. I do apologize if anyone gave you the impression that you don't know your stuff, especially me. I understand you have placed-for better lack of a term- your faith in all things NET. Although I and many others respect the NET we also see issues with it that no one has yet answered. The NET is a useful tool, but not the only tool. Setting rankings and thus quadrants based off what appears to be a flawed (again because no one has answered the concerns, if they did it could be more highly valued to all) metric. And further basing seedings and invites based upon this alone- or great majority of the weight from- brings questions.

I am curious though to see if a study is done after this season based upon tourney results. Even though it is one and done tourney I am curious to know how the quadrants would be with hindsight.

 

[jncuse]

Not gonna get into a pissing match here. I am to old to be petty and get hurt feelings because someone doesn't agree with me. Quite simply I don't care if you agree with me or not. It is entirely up to you to make up your mind. Congrats on standing by your belief.

But one last time:

your #1 proves exactly what people are trying to tell you. Yes they are going to play multiple teams from other conferences through the rest of the season, and the net will adjust accordingly. However it adjusts from the bias of whoever programmed the net initially. This is the only point everyone is trying to make and you simply chose to overlook it and base the correctness of the net on this imperfection.

your #2 is simply restating your #1. Most people agree that until someone comes out and says how the initial rankings are inputted, it makes sense to use these inter-conference games to set a definitive baseline upon which the remainder of the games can be based off of. The NET will then reflect the correct changes based on actual results of the games your correctly said would be played.

And finally your #3. I do apologize if anyone gave you the impression that you don't know your stuff, especially me. I understand you have placed-for better lack of a term- your faith in all things NET. Although I and many others respect the NET we also see issues with it that no one has yet answered. The NET is a useful tool, but not the only tool. Setting rankings and thus quadrants based off what appears to be a flawed (again because no one has answered the concerns, if they did it could be more highly valued to all) metric. And further basing seedings and invites based upon this alone- or great majority of the weight from- brings questions.

I am curious though to see if a study is done after this season based upon tourney results. Even though it is one and done tourney I am curious to know how the quadrants would be with hindsight.

Good timing on the post.
You should have noted I put post #2 on that post and that I said more data was coming in further posts.

Well post #3 already came before you replied. Check it out you might learn how bad the ACC really was this year. They were not even close to the others.

As I have said none of my analysis is based on "loving NET"... its based purely on tracking OOC Wins and Losses and how they influence wins and ultimately in conference Q1 and Q2 wins. But keep up with that narrative that I love NET.

Oh, and its not over. Post #4 will come up shortly to show that all my observations are based on performance not "Loving NET". I simply understand what drives NET.

 

[jncuse]

The biggest issue with the net as bees states is where the ranking comes from at the start of the season. One can logically argue the ACC beat the Big 10 head to head thus is the stronger conference-at least preseason. That should have reflected both in the net and in SOS and other metrics but that is clearly not the case. So the question remains upon what bias was the original rating set? It is no secret we stunk and lost games we should have won, but this isn't strictly an SU issue. How many Q1/Q2 wins would have truly been available if the net would have reflected these head to head non-conference tourneys? There would have been more for the ACC and less for the Big 10. This then waterfalls through the rest of the season.

I get it you a a huge NET fan, your posts clearly show that. But you must see that as is the case with anything, the net has flaws, in this case a really really big flaw. The entire net season is based upon the start and if the start is flawed so is the rest of the season. This isn't rocket science, it's simple math.

POST #4

You seem to be obsessed with the fact that the ACC went 8-6 vs the BIG in the challenge. As I said you can't use the transitive property to evaluate everything.

Here's the problem - the ACC plays 144 other OOC games, and the BIG plays 138. What happens in those games matters as well. Quite a bit more than those 14 games.

As I mentioned above its great the ACC did well in the Challenge because it made the terrible OOC at least more digestable.

Record vs P6 (including the BIG/ACC Challenge)
Big 10: 29-30 (49%)
ACC : 24-32 (43%)

On a whole the B10 is comfortably ahead if you consider all the

Record vs P6 (excluding the Challenge)
Big 10 - 22-21 (51%)
ACC - 16-26 (38%)

This should make it pretty clear why you shouldn't be obsessed with a 14 game sample. Because the 42 other games against power conferences were not good
(Note the BIG went 6-5 against the ACC in non challenge games

Other Data in OOC Games outside of the Challenge
If you want the data including the challenge see post #3.
This is simply meant how foolish it is to rely on a sample of games that make up less than 10% of your overall OOC games. and only 25% of your total games against top conferences.

Other Games: BIG 138, ACC 144
Q1 Wins : BIG 14, ACC 3
Q1+Q2 Wins: BIG 19, ACC 10
Bad Losses: BIG 4, ACC 18
Win% - BIG 79%, ACC 69%

The BIG is so far ahead in those other 138 games that its not even comparable between the two league this year. Yes the ACC went 13-12 overall against the BIG, but it only provides a dent on the data above and in Post #3. The leagues were not close.

 

[two3zone]

KenPom top 25

sec 3

big 12 4

Big 10 3

PAC 2

ACC 1


I blame the NET imo

I blame the refs.

 

[jncuse]

your #1 proves exactly what people are trying to tell you. Yes they are going to play multiple teams from other conferences through the rest of the season, and the net will adjust accordingly. However it adjusts from the bias of whoever programmed the net initially. This is the only point everyone is trying to make and you simply chose to overlook it and base the correctness of the net on this imperfection.

POST #5

I'm not ignoring it - its just total nonsense. The NET is not against the ACC this year because of some programming bias. There is no initial programing that influenes thing by Januar 1/ The data becomes connected over the course of the year, and as more games are played it starts to favour conferences who actually do the best.

The NET just didn't decide to favour the B12, SEC and BIG because of a programming issue. Or punish the ACC because of a programming issue. The W-L data, including quality wins and losses, is abundantly clear.

Note that none of this is me "Loving All things NET" -- its me merely understanding the drivers of NET.

But would now be an appropriate time to show the Conference NET as pulled from Warren Nolan. Nothing comes up as unexpected - it matches the win %, quality win and bad loss profiles of the conferences.

BBased on the data I provided in #3 the top league is not surpising and neither is #2 or #3
The placement of #5 to #7 is debatable but those leagues are clearly behind this year. There is some debate whether the MWC is gaming the NET -- they do find a way t typically schedule the best of smaller conferences and beat them (they have the most Q2 OOC wins of everyody)

 

[jncuse]

The big "problem" for the ACC is that the "superstar" teams...Duke and UNC...were not the great "unbeatable" this year. That undercuts the entire conference and takes away from the other teams that beat them during the season.

Too bad.

Everyone needs to get better because as the current NCAA tournament shows...there is huge parity around the country. A lot of good teams.

All the ACC teams need to get better and the Orange need to be at the top of that list when it comes to big improvement. As someone else pointed out...it's not like SU has been pulling it's weight and added something to the conference.

While I agree that you identified a very big problem for the ACC - lack of dominant teams providing elite wins for the conference, its not the biggest problem for them from my perspective.

The biggest problem was the abnormally high # of total crap teams it had this year. Those teams kill the metrics even more than lacking dominant teams. The ACC has had issues with dog teams, but it was worse this year than ever - in part because of some big names that stunk.

You might be able to get away with one - -but you can't get away with both.

 

[jncuse]

The biggest issue with the net as bees states is where the ranking comes from at the start of the season. One can logically argue the ACC beat the Big 10 head to head thus is the stronger conference-at least preseason. That should have reflected both in the net and in SOS and other metrics but that is clearly not the case. So the question remains upon what bias was the original rating set? It is no secret we stunk and lost games we should have won, but this isn't strictly an SU issue. How many Q1/Q2 wins would have truly been available if the net would have reflected these head to head non-conference tourneys? There would have been more for the ACC and less for the Big 10. This then waterfalls through the rest of the season.

I get it you a a huge NET fan, your posts clearly show that. But you must see that as is the case with anything, the net has flaws, in this case a really really big flaw. The entire net season is based upon the start and if the start is flawed so is the rest of the season. This isn't rocket science, it's simple math.

CONCLUSION

The commissioner of the ACC has managed to effectively pull the wool over your eyes - you, RLBees, and a few others.

Throw some shade at the NET, the "20 game" schedule and maybe people will not understand or notice the underlying drivers of the NET which are simply bad ACC performance. Obviously you didn't see how bad they were vs others, as you were busy blowing smoke about a 14 game sample

Your overriding concern seems to be that there is some programming bias that caused these results.
There is no initial programming bias. MSOrange posted to it above, Even if there is some initial rating on the "power element" of the NET formula (the BPI), like KP the initial ratings in BPI simply roll off as the data becomes connected after about half a dozen games are played. KP says it takes 8 games by all teams under his system for the initial factors to fully wear off.

I also should receive an apology for your claim that I am not understanding simple math. Its pretty clear who understands the system and who does not. Who understand simple math and statistics, and who can analyze it And the person who understands it, is not the person who was obsessed with 14 games in a sample of 160.

But I'm not expecting an apology, or even an acknowledgement of the posts that I showed what you wanted.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I wish we would go back to playing out of conference games in February. Has to be at least 15 years since that last happened, but it gives schools an opportunity midseason.

 

[JimBoston]

The ACC is going through coaching turnover at their best programs. What is surprising to me is that Duke, UNC, Louisville, and now Syracuse all hired new head coaches with no head coaching experience, but they all played basketball at their universities. In my opinion, that is a high risk strategy and one that blue blood programs don't need to take.