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

[OrangePA]

This conference sucks. Get us out

Ugh

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Meanwhile, the ACC Women have three teams in the Elite 8.

 

[tptcuse]

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.

View attachment 226377

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.

You're clearly just winging it with these opinions.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You can absolutely game the NET rankings. You are better off playing a middling non P6 team on the road than you are playing a middling P6 team.

The NET cares about your record and where you played, not so much who you played. That is why these non P6 teams have great NET rankings. The have great records OOC so in conference losses aren’t a big deal.

The fact that we played 24 of 32 games (75%) against P6 teams does not matter. When you play that many you are bound to have slip ups. Doesn’t matter how bad the other team is, you have no breaks.

If we reduced our P6 OOC and played a favorable road non P6, we would have been on the bubble because of our NET.

 

[two3zone]

You can absolutely game the NET rankings. You are better off playing a middling non P6 team on the road than you are playing a middling P6 team.

The NET cares about your record and where you played, not so much who you played. That is why these non P6 teams have great NET rankings. The have great records OOC so in conference losses aren’t a big deal.

The fact that we played 24 of 32 games (75%) against P6 teams does not matter. When you play that many you are bound to have slip ups. Doesn’t matter how bad the other team is, you have no breaks.

If we reduced our P6 OOC and played a favorable road non P6, we would have been on the bubble because of our NET.

You can’t lose at home against Colgate and Bryant and be on the bubble without some impressive wins.

We only played 3 OOC games against p6 teams and you want to eliminate them?

Just get team better and everything falls in place. Scheduling has been the least of our issues the past decade, talent and coaching have been the issue.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

You can’t lose at home against Colgate and Bryant and be on the bubble without some impressive wins.

We only played 3 OOC games against p6 teams and you want to eliminate them?

Just get team better and everything falls in place. Scheduling has been the least of our issues the past decade, talent and coaching have been the issue.

Are the non P6 teams playing 3 OOC? Some play zero and get rewarded for it. But the bigger issue is playing 21+ ACC games a year.

 

[rrlbees]

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.

Not to interrupt your rant but as an FYI the commissioner didn’t pull the wool over my eyes. Lol. Nothing he said changed my thoughts one way or another.

 

[two3zone]

Are the non P6 teams playing 3 OOC? Some play zero and get rewarded for it. But the bigger issue is playing 21+ ACC games a year.

Who’s getting rewarded for it?

 

[Cusefan69]

Jncuse I can't help but feel that you have an opinion here that you wish to share but you seem to be holding back. Don't hold back my man! Talk to us.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Who’s getting rewarded for it?

You can get a Top 40 NET ranking by going 9-2 OOC having played TWO DII teams and 0.0 P6 teams. Now the teams who play you in conference get credit for playing a Top 40 team.

 

[Cusefan0307]

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.

Everybody hated the RPI too. And that was with good reason. It was an awful metric not based on how you played, but how good your opponents opponents were!

 

[two3zone]

You can get a Top 40 NET ranking by going 9-2 OOC having played TWO DII teams and 0.0 P6 teams. Now the teams who play you in conference get credit for playing a Top 40 team.

Can you get top 40 by losing to Bryant and Colgate?

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Can you get top 40 by losing to Bryant and Colgate?

Yes as that Top 40 team had worse losses.

This has nothing to do with SU. It is about the NET. Playing two D2 teams and zero P6 teams should hurt you. Going 7-2 OOC against non P6 DI teams should kill you.

 

[two3zone]

Yes as that Top 40 team had worse losses.

This has nothing to do with SU. It is about the NET. Playing two D2 teams and zero P6 teams should hurt you. Going 7-2 OOC against non P6 DI teams should kill you.

And if you have those losses but beat great teams then it’s probably deserved. Problem is you have two bad losses and beat nobody that’s even decent then what do you expect? Who had two worse losses and beat nobody decent and was in the top 40?

 

[HOFCeluck]

Yes as that Top 40 team had worse losses.

This has nothing to do with SU. It is about the NET. Playing two D2 teams and zero P6 teams should hurt you. Going 7-2 OOC against non P6 DI teams should kill you.

I feel like you have a specific team in mind, and if that’s the case you should say who so we can put the record in context.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I feel like you have a specific team in mind, and if that’s the case you should say who so we can put the record in context.

The team/s shouldn’t matter. I can use a half dozen other examples. The name on the jersey shouldn’t matter. A weak OOC schedule is ok under the NET as long as you win. Blind resume OOC shouldn’t going 7-2 OOC vs non P6 make it nearly impossible to be a Q1 team? Instead you get to be a Top 40 team and any team you play in conference now gets a Top 40 game making their Ws and Ls look better.

 

[Sherman20]

Honestly, this is Syracuse and the Villes fault. We have not given what the ACC thought when they brought us both in.

Scandals (our dumb one and Louisville’s salacious ones) damaged both programs. I thought Mack would get it going again at Louisville but things went sideways. JB had a few good years but his age and complacency eventually caught up with him.

 

[Trueblue25]

Wildhack has some winning to do now that he’s cemented Dino in Football as his guy and transitioned Boeheim out.

2023 needs some W’s, our athletics perception is reaching dangerous territory on the shaky potatoes chart

 

[two3zone]

The team/s shouldn’t matter. I can use a half dozen other examples. The name on the jersey shouldn’t matter. A weak OOC schedule is ok under the NET as long as you win. Blind resume OOC shouldn’t going 7-2 OOC vs non P6 make it nearly impossible to be a Q1 team? Instead you get to be a Top 40 team and any team you play in conference now gets a Top 40 game making their Ws and Ls look better.

The teams and context absolutely do matter, just name a team the games the NET the way your describing.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The teams and context absolutely do matter, just name a team the games the NET the way you’re describing.

I said you can game the system. Wasn’t saying a bunch of teams are doing so.

Pick any Top 50 non P6 team and look at their OOC joke of a schedule. If an ACC team went 12-8 in conference and had Nevada’s or Utah State’s OOC schedule and record, they would be punished. Shouldn’t the standard be the same?

 

[two3zone]

I said you can game the system. Wasn’t saying a bunch of teams are doing so.

Pick any Top 50 non P6 team and look at their OOC joke of a schedule. If an ACC team went 12-8 in conference and had Nevada’s or Utah State’s OOC schedule and record, they would be punished. Shouldn’t the standard be the same?

Ok, but who has gamed the system? That’s all I’m asking.

 

[Madbiker]

Commish: ACC will meet to alter hoops narrative

After the ACC got just five bids to the men's tournament, commissioner Jim Phillips said he will met with his league's coaches and ADs to be more "proactive" about changing the narrative of the conference.

www.espn.com

So the answer to getting more ACC teams in the tourney is ... wait for it ... better lobbying. Duh.
Guess that's a whole lot easier than getting better players.

 

[FireballPhil]

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.

Okay I was gonna be done and let you just be a fool but for some reason i just can't help myself. I guess it is the part of me that always wants to see people improve and get better.

Being able to track statistics and actually understand how statistics work in real life applications is two totally different things. You may feel you have a good handle on this but your statement "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." shows you have zero idea of how these actually play out.

Before I go any further let me state that I work in the meat packing industry, which is a business that uses statistics every single day. There is a lot of money made and lost when people follow or don't follow where the numbers lead you and react accordingly. Those that don't pay attention to them don't retain their jobs for very long. Statistics are very easy to chart, and data can be collected in multiple ways, it can also be manipulated in various ways.

The bottom line is that most of these need a solid baseline. In the meat industry every day is like the start of a new season. How you start each day, in our company even how you start each shift is critical to the overall success (money making ability) of the plant. The real truth is the further into the day you wait to make any changes the smaller the overall impact becomes. This is exactly opposite of your view that the data roll off as games are played. Data doesn't just roll off, it is incorporated and combined give you a bigger picture. But that bigger picture doesn't always give you the truthful picture. You get this by other reports giving you actual total bodies of work. Inevitably this leads to a category that we call "unaccounted for" because the two numbers never show the exact same picture.

I am getting a bit offtrack so let's just use giveaway as an example since it runs fairly close to the NET. When you go to the store and buy a prepackaged package of luncheon meat it may say on the package it is 1 pound. If you took the meat out of the package and weighed it and it came to 1.1 pounds then congratulations, you just hit the jackpot and my company just lost money. Potentially a lot of money. If we start the day giving away .1 pound every single package over the entire course of the day assuming no corrections were made we end up giving away hundreds of pounds of meat. To help avoid this we use statistics derived from various sources throughout the run. If the first statistical check shows we are running heavy, a change to the process must occur. If you do and the next check is good, the average of those two checks drop the amount of lost product in half. If you wait until the third check before you make the change you only drop the amount of lost product by a third. In other words the longer you wait in the process to make a change the less overall change you statistically show.

Now change this to a bball season. If you start 9-0 then you have a pretty good average to start the year right? If you then start to lose a couple games then your average begins to come down but very slowly. The question really is how good are those 9 teams that each team played and how do you compare them? Whoever programs the NET has a predispositioned bias because someone has to start a ranking somewhere. Quadrants are assigned, perhaps incorrectly. As games, the season progress there are indeed corrections made and it does start to show more accurate data. The longer season, the more games played now as compared to years ago actually do help metrics such as the NET and make it more accurate, but it takes a very long time. This is no different if I am not getting the changes on the giveaway needed at my plant I can take more readings and basically force the system to show a downward trend. It is all simple math. The problem becomes when I have accounting run a simple pounds in versus pounds out report there can be a very big difference between the two. That "unaccounted" factor now comes into play.

I get that this is a simplified, perhaps even "dummied down" example because it is a bit more complicated than this because of other outside factors but this is a good example of how metrics are great but must be used with a grain of salt, knowing that there are built in biases and never truly show the true full picture. The NET is a great tool, and by all means continue doing all your research and tracking. But please don't show your ignorance or assume you are the only one who understands your metrics or how they work. There are a lot of people out there whose livelihoods depend on understanding, interpreting, and reacting to what the data shows. Learn to read between the lines.

 

[OrangePA]

Commish: ACC will meet to alter hoops narrative

After the ACC got just five bids to the men's tournament, commissioner Jim Phillips said he will met with his league's coaches and ADs to be more "proactive" about changing the narrative of the conference.

www.espn.com

ACC back in the Final Four - again.

 

[MSOrange]

ACC back in the Final Four - again.

That's good but the overall conference was still bad. It's a 15 team conference.