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

[dasher]

Completely agree. Fire him yesterday. Can't undo the PR damage done by this.

LOL What? No one notices this. This has caused no damage.

 

[MadNY3]

The B1G had a similar meeting a few years ago and the B1G encouraged their members to schedule tougher & avoid scheduling too many teams with likely bad NET rankings.

The ACC can complain about using relying on the NET too much but they need to embrace it too.

That’s a memo versus a meeting that becomes ESPN.com news item #1.

 

[rrlbees]

The net it’s the same for everyone. doesn’t discriminate, it’s straight math. Schedule good and win.

That’s why this rant by commish is BS . The committee uses the net only as a component. If it was strictly about net a team like uconn was a 2 seed. Not a 4 Texas a+m was a 5 not a 7.

It just strikes as a losers lament.

Is it? The one thing I have never found is definitively whether everyone starts with a predetermined rating. Media have asked and best I can find is that the ncaa won’t answer.

 

[CousCuse]

Maybe the commissioner could do a tic-tok video with some AD's and coaches.

 

[CuseIn282xx]

LOL What? No one notices this. This has caused no damage.

It's a public admission by the guy in charge that basically the ACC sucks right now. You don't do that in public. End of story. End of job.

 

[Otto'd]

Is it? The one thing I have never found is definitively whether everyone starts with a predetermined rating. Media have asked and best I can find is that the ncaa won’t answer.

Yeah that’s the one thing I forgot to disclose, it has a super secret formula component that is designed to only penalize the ACC.

 

[dasher]

It's a public admission by the guy in charge that basically the ACC sucks right now. You don't do that in public. End of story. End of job.

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.

 

[dasher]

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

 

[Otto'd]

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

And don’t forget Pitt. And forget BC. They've been a joke for 30 years.

 

[OCESIP]

the ACC was mediocre, but if the tournament is an indicator the SEC and Big 10 weren't all that better.

 

[kingtidge]

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

True dat.

 

[rrlbees]

Yeah that’s the one thing I forgot to disclose, it has a super secret formula component that is designed to only penalize the ACC.

Do you know the answer or just want to make silly comments?

 

[jncuse]

The issue this year and last year as well:
- Too many bad teams compared to other power conferences - this year it really hurt that Louisville, Florida St, and Syracuse did bad OOC. But it wasn't only them.
- Not enough dominant teams getting elite or higher # of Q1 OOC wins.

But if we want to run down the metrics:

#1. Awful OOC winning % compared to the top 3 conferences, and well behind the Big East, despite having not having a harder SOS. In terms of win% they were not even close to the elite 3 conferences.

#2. #6 in OOC quality wins (not even close to the top). Actually only about half of the freaking Pac-12. In fact only 2 of the 9 wins were "elite" q1a wins. (top half Q1 criteria). Well behind those that dominated the top seed lines.

OOC Q1 Wins
Big 10 - 26
Big 12 - 23
SEC - 20
PAC - 17
Big East - 13
ACC - 9

#3. #5 in OOC Bad losses.
Big 12 - 2
Big 10 - 6
Big East -8
SEC - 11
Pac 12 - 17
ACC - 18

Looking at both #2 and #3 together.

Big 12 - 23 High Quality OOC Wins, 2 OOC Bad losses
Big 10 - 26 vs 6
SEC - 20 vs 11
Big East - 13 vs 8
Pac 12 - 17 vs 17
ACC - 9 vs 18

The system rewards conference OOC - you can argue that it rewards too much. But ACC benefited from the same damn system before because you know why - not because it freaking gamed the NET or the RPI. Because they played better!!!

Fact of the matter is the ACC was on par with the PAC 12 and very close to the MWC and not that far ahead of the Conference USA in OOC performance metrics. Those were the peers in OOC performance this year.

Its not learning how to play the NET. It's actually winning games, and not losing crappy games. There was actually no way to "RIG" the NET OOC this year such that the ACC would do better on Selection Sunday No mathemetician would be able to find that solution this year because the teams were not ******* good enough. It's not hard.

And its not only just Louisville and Florida St. 6 ACC teams had 2 or more bad losses in OOC. Other than the P12, no other conference had more than 2 teams (there may have been one with 3)

ACC was #7 in OOC Net, much closer to the MWC and CUSA in those metrics than the 3 teams that dominated the seed lines.

ACC was #6 in OOC RPI

 

[dasher]

And don’t forget Pitt. And forget BC. They've been a joke for 30 years.

But they took B.C. for a Boston trip. Not for their hoops. Pitt, a little more so but still, no tournament success.

 

[HOFCeluck]

KenPom top 25

sec 3

big 12 4

Big 10 3

PAC 2

ACC 1


I blame the NET imo

 

[jncuse]

Do you know the answer or just want to make silly commenis ts?

The formula is not some magical super sauce.

Don't win a whole bunch key games in OOC than the other power conferences, and don't lose a whole bunch more in OOC than the other conferences.


You can argue that the NET ends up being too influenced by how well a conference does in ACC. But the reason that Syracuse got in the tournament with records of 8-10 in the ACC, and 9-9 (plus a first round loss) is simply because the ACC performed a whole bunch better in OOC back then.

That's the key - just win more games and lose less in OOC. Have your best be better, and have less awful teams. Its not a NET manipulation exercise. Its not a blame the NET Exercise,

 

[rrlbees]

The formula is not some magical super sauce.

Don't win a whole bunch key games in OOC than the other power conferences, and don't lose a whole bunch more in OOC than the other conferences.


You can argue that the NET ends up being too influenced by how well a conference does in ACC. But the reason that Syracuse got in the tournament with records of 8-10 in the ACC, and 9-9 (plus a first round loss) is simply because the ACC performed a whole bunch better back then.

That's the key - just win more games and lose less. Have your best be better, and have less awful teams. Its not a NET manipulation exercise. Its not a blame the NET Exercise,

That doesn’t answer my question either. So I’ll just assume nobody knows.

 

[jncuse]

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

The Big East refugees have not kind to the ACC. I would also add Pitt as a fairly big disappointment.

Boston College was very strong entering the ACC -- obviously no one would expect them to stay at that level they were in that Troy Bell / Dudley era for very ong, but they could be expected to at least have good years every now and then. But nope.

Syracuse has clearly not been at their prior level.

Louisville has been on and off, but not quite were they were before. And obviously the sanctions and this last year were a disaster.

Pitt was declining a bit at the end of the Big East, but they could have been expected to have been better given where they were between 2000-2010.

Notre Dame and Viriginia Tech overall have probably met expectations,.

 

[SWC75]

The conferences need to get together to integrate the non-conference an conference schedules so that reputations created in November and December don't determine March seedings. There should be a 'challenge' against another top conference once a month for four months from November to February.

 

[jncuse]

That doesn’t answer my question either. So I’ll just assume nobody knows.

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.

 

[jncuse]

The conferences need to get together to integrate the non-conference an conference schedules so that reputations created in November and December don't determine March seedings. There should be a 'challenge' against another top conference once a month for four months from November to February.

I certainly agree with this. It would be fairer for the tournament, and I think I would increase viewership during sometimes a conference season that sometimes gets a little boring.

At the end of the day by far the fairest way to judge a conference, is how well it does against others. How it plays against itself can't really show how its better or worse than others.

I think its fine that the system rewards the best conferences in OOC, because its ultimately the most objective approach. Perhaps find a way to tweak so the reward is not as huge. But the obvious answer if the NCAA really wants it, is to spread the OOC over the year.

Not sure if it would made the ACC look any better this year, but it would be better for all.

 

[rrlbees]

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 care of it 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.

As I said, you can hate the system that rewards strong OOC play as a conference and boosts in conference Q1 and Q2 win opportunities to the best performing OOC conferences. But that system was also key in even allowing Syracuse into the tournament in 2016 and 2018 - I didn't Syracuse fans or the ACC questioning it then.

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

 

[kingtidge]

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

Please go find out and report back.

 

[jncuse]

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

Regarding the pre-determined rating, some background before addressing NET in #2 below.

KenPom is perhaps the most respected predictive team ranking forumula out there -- hell Vegas moved its gambling odds years back to metrics that more closely followed KP.

KenPom ratings don't start at "scratch" at the beginning of the year. He uses some formula looking at prior year play and what is coming on. Its not 100% accurate, but once 5 to 7 games are played. the current year data is connected enough that the impact of pre-season rankings is becoming quite irrelevant. And by the time OOC starts, preseason rankings zero impact - all data is connected on current year play. It would be the same for BPI which is part of NET.


#1) The RPI had no predetermined rating - it started from scratch each year, which created some insanity early on until teams and data started connecting more.

#2) The NET would probably have some pre-determined element to start the year, because it uses BPI as part of its formula (a predictive power metric like KP). BPI, like KP. does have a formula to rate teams to start the year that would wash it outself out as current year data connects. But the predictive power system metrics aren't dominating the NET formula - we still see some early nonsense in the NET. like the RPI, when data is not connected enough.

At the end of the day there really is no pre-determined factor here that influences anything. The BIG, the BIG 12, the SEC all had the best NET's as a conference, and they also clearly had the best OOC results.

-------

But in terms of what he said.

a) What exactly was he right about? Play well as a group or play like **** the NET will respond to you in either direction.

It can be argued it does it too much for those within the P6 conferences that do really well OOC and vice versa hurts those too much that do poorly. But still its not the NET that's killing you. Its conference performance.

b) He claimed we should use more eye test. In theory the "eye test" argument always sounds great, but its so subjective, impossible to implement fairly, and let's be honest about when the eye test is used. The eye test argument is only used when objective data ... actual W's and L's, don't support your case.

c) He said something about the 20 game schedule which was absoluite nonsense. If your conference is strong or on par with the others, the 20 game schedule is great. It gives you more quality games and win opportunities.

d) I don't think final conclusions should be done on how your top teams do in the tournament. Can't be ignored (its part of the equation), but it certain;y can't be overemphasized either. Lots of fairly random stuff happens in a one and done.

 

[jncuse]

I assume the commissioner is a very smart guy and he has contact with people who know the system quite well.

He knows its not the NET (at least directly) that is causing the ACC to get reduced seeds. Or the lack of an eye test. Or the 20 game schedule.

He knows it because of vastly underwhelming performance OOC compared to the BIG, B12, SEC and Big East. And of course, since he's a smart guy, he's not going to say that's the reason.