Non-Conference SOS

[jncuse]

Non-Conference SOS.

There are five primary factors to separate the bubble as per NCAA guidelines, in order of importance (but note
they are all primary). This has been shown on a few broadcasts recently. I would like to find the source online.

Quality of Wins -
Performance away from Home -
Non-Conference SOS -
Individual Team Rankings - (not only RPI)
Head to Head against other bubble teams

You will note that all of the above measure your performance in some manner and how you did except for one -- Non Conference SOS. By itself that number means nothing in terms of measuring a team's performance. A good number means tells us nothing about whether the team is good or not.

So why is it emphasized? The committee has said before that it has omitted teams or rewarded teams that were on the bubble for setting themselves up with challenging schedules, or alternatively not setting themselves up with one.

The Non-Conference SOS is not a measure of how you played. It's a frog sticker or a stick. Something that can be arbitrarily used to punish or reward a team without having to determine who is the better team. A school like Rhode Island or Wake -- you played well enough to at least get on the bubble and you did what we asked. Here is your GET OUT OF JAIL pass. Team X is also on the bubble, but played 8 religious and directional schools - GO TO JAIL.

While our ranking is not very good it is not absolutely terrible either. So I only gave it one sad face when we compare it to others. And even if the number is low, we have tried to make it better in recent years with several home and away's with former Big East Teams. It was more a case of bad luck this year. So i don't think we get whacked because of this factor because we tried.

Sometimes for a team to get the froggy sticker there has to be a partner that deserves to be whacked (which should not be us). So let's hope that is not the case. But if you see Wake Forest or Rhode Island make it on Selection Sunday you will know what likely put them over the top.

 

[pearl31]

I hear ya, and agree... but I find it ridiculous that teams get "credit" just for playing good teams and losing to them - I mean, why not put Long Beach State in the tourney then?

 

[Chris02M]

i think its kinda a tiebreaker if the 2 teams are equal in their eyes then non conf sos is looked at

 

[jncuse]

 

[jncuse]

i think its kinda a tiebreaker if the 2 teams are equal in their eyes then non conf sos is looked at

That's all it should be, and you may very well be correct. Didn't seem to be a factor last year.

But I have seen some years where the committee member seems to focus on this concept entirely when discussing why a bubble team did not make it. My concern is they use it as a "tiebreaker" to separate 6 or 7 teams. How hard to they really try to identify who is better before they use this bailout which is not a performance measure in itself.

I just don't like that this is listed as a primary factor in the first place.

 

[orange79]

I know it's RPI, but we are ranked 179 in non-conf SOS.

 

[Madbiker]

I know it's RPI, but we are ranked 179 in non-conf SOS.

OOC SOS = #179

Thanks to:
Colgate #292
S. Carolina St #281
Cornell #280
North Florida #235

Too many dogs on the OOC schedule. Really bad dogs that drive down SOS. We need to be aware of this in scheduling. If we're going to be a mid pack ACC team, need to get these RPI killing dogs off the schedule and get more of the #150 types.

 

[Chris02M]

OOC SOS = #179

Thanks to:
Colgate #292
S. Carolina St #281
Cornell #280
North Florida #235

Too many dogs on the OOC schedule. Really bad dogs that drive down SOS. We need to be aware of this in scheduling. If we're going to be a mid pack ACC team, need to get these RPI killing dogs off the schedule and get more of the #150 types.

2 of those are annual teams and 1 was a part of brooklyn classic tourney field

 

[Fat tire 13]

2 of those are annual teams and 1 was a part of brooklyn classic tourney field

Yeah, Colgate and Cornell aren't going anywhere. #1 and #2 in terms of times faced. Even if it hurts us in RPI, nice to keep a little tradition in there.

 

[jncuse]

As I said above, I think we are above the part of getting whacked for not trying now. Series with away games against UConn, Georgetown, Nova, St. John's. show that we have tried to improve it. The numbers don't bear it out, but we have tried to improve it.

So while we may not get whacked down, we still have to worry about a few teams being rewarded for it.

(The above is all speculative theory based on my observations)

 

[Chris02M]

it will be much higher next year with kansas on the schedule

 

[jncuse]

Should have added Michigan St to this list back on Feb 27.

 

[obliterata]

Non-Conference SOS.

There are five primary factors to separate the bubble as per NCAA guidelines, in order of importance (but note
they are all primary). This has been shown on a few broadcasts recently. I would like to find the source online.

Quality of Wins -
Performance away from Home -
Non-Conference SOS -
Individual Team Rankings - (not only RPI)
Head to Head against other bubble teams

There was also another prominent factor this year that was mentioned by the Committee on the Selection Show and post-show interviews, it was how you did versus all the teams in the tournament. SU's 5-8 record vs the field was deemed not good enough and was a major reason for the exclusion.


I posted this previously, here's the record of various schools vs all the schools from multiple bid conferences in the field:

SU... 5-8 (.385)

MichSt 5-9 (.357) - 9 seed
KSt... 4-9 (.308)
Ark... 3-7 (.300) - 8 seed
Xav... 5-12 (.294)
WF... 4-10 (.286)
Miami 4-10 (.286) - 8 seed
SCar... 2-5 (.286) - 7 seed
USC... 2-6 (.250)
StM's.. 1-3 (.250) - 7 seed

Clearly this is a pro-SU stat that should be used in any discussion of bubble teams. Not only was SU better than many of the other teams on the bubble, they were better than half the 7 and 8 seeds plus 9th seeded Michigan State.

For some insane reason the Committee determined this was an anti-SU stat and declared so to the media, using it as one of the main reasons why no Orange bid. As far as I know they were never questioned further about it.

If they can turn a simple statistic like this upside-down to suit their needs, their evaluation and judgment of all data cannot be trusted.

 

[jncuse]

There was also another prominent factor this year that was mentioned by the Committee on the Selection Show and post-show interviews, it was how you did versus all the teams in the tournament. SU's 5-8 record vs the field was deemed not good enough and was a major reason for the exclusion.


I posted this previously, here's the record of various schools vs all the schools from multiple bid conferences in the field:

SU... 5-8 (.385)

MichSt 5-9 (.357) - 9 seed
KSt... 4-9 (.308)
Ark... 3-7 (.300) - 8 seed
Xav... 5-12 (.294)
WF... 4-10 (.286)
Miami 4-10 (.286) - 8 seed
SCar... 2-5 (.286) - 7 seed
USC... 2-6 (.250)
StM's.. 1-3 (.250) - 7 seed

Clearly this is a pro-SU stat that should be used in any discussion of bubble teams. Not only was SU better than many of the other teams on the bubble, they were better than half the 7 and 8 seeds plus 9th seeded Michigan State.

For some insane reason the Committee determined this was an anti-SU stat and declared so to the media, using it as one of the main reasons why no Orange bid. As far as I know they were never questioned further about it.

If they can turn a simple statistic like this upside-down to suit their needs, their evaluation and judgment of all data cannot be trusted.

I heard the committee chair speak to a few sources and I never heard that stat.

I don't doubt that he said it. But you have to remember he has been discussing countless statistics for various teams. It's easy for him to say something incorrect when he is citing something.

I really doubt there is some conspiracy. Nor is there any real inconsistency. There is not only one factor for selection. Our resume this year was very different than last year.

 

[jdubs30]

Committee gave us a break last year and dealt with a lot of backlash - they didn't want to do it again and we weren't a sure fire tournament team, so they had their chance.

At the end of the day, besides being 10-8 in the ACC and having 6 top 50 wins - there was nothing positive on our resume. There were way more negatives.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Committee gave us a break last year and dealt with a lot of backlash - they didn't want to do it again and we weren't a sure fire tournament team, so they had their chance.

At the end of the day, besides being 10-8 in the ACC and having 6 top 50 wins - there was nothing positive on our resume. There were way more negatives.

The committee deals with backlash every year over they did and did not let in.

Literally every year.

 

[blust2i3d4]

Yeah, Colgate and Cornell aren't going anywhere. #1 and #2 in terms of times faced. Even if it hurts us in RPI, nice to keep a little tradition in there.

We shouldn't schedule SC State and North Florida. The good replacement will be bottom/middle teams from Atlantic 10, or Albany, Buffalo, Stony Brook or Vermont.

 

[JoeySimz]

Non-Conference SOS.

There are five primary factors to separate the bubble as per NCAA guidelines, in order of importance (but note
they are all primary). This has been shown on a few broadcasts recently. I would like to find the source online.

Quality of Wins -
Performance away from Home -
Non-Conference SOS -
Individual Team Rankings - (not only RPI)
Head to Head against other bubble teams

You will note that all of the above measure your performance in some manner and how you did except for one -- Non Conference SOS. By itself that number means nothing in terms of measuring a team's performance. A good number means tells us nothing about whether the team is good or not.

So why is it emphasized? The committee has said before that it has omitted teams or rewarded teams that were on the bubble for setting themselves up with challenging schedules, or alternatively not setting themselves up with one.

The Non-Conference SOS is not a measure of how you played. It's a frog sticker or a stick. Something that can be arbitrarily used to punish or reward a team without having to determine who is the better team. A school like Rhode Island or Wake -- you played well enough to at least get on the bubble and you did what we asked. Here is your GET OUT OF JAIL pass. Team X is also on the bubble, but played 8 religious and directional schools - GO TO JAIL.

While our ranking is not very good it is not absolutely terrible either. So I only gave it one sad face when we compare it to others. And even if the number is low, we have tried to make it better in recent years with several home and away's with former Big East Teams. It was more a case of bad luck this year. So i don't think we get whacked because of this factor because we tried.

Sometimes for a team to get the froggy sticker there has to be a partner that deserves to be whacked (which should not be us). So let's hope that is not the case. But if you see Wake Forest or Rhode Island make it on Selection Sunday you will know what likely put them over the top.

Does a lot if this have to do with the fact that our "stronger" non-conference opponents all ended up weaker than they traditionally are and much weaker than predicted?

For example, wasn't Uconn ranked preseason? And Georgetown and Monmouth close to the top 25-35? Iirc, St.john's was supposed to have a lot better year too. So if those teams end up even a bit closer to their preseason rank we, would we have a more favorable sos?

Seems like teams who played opponents that ended up with a higher rpi benefit from sos stat regardless of win or loss. Makes no sense to me. It's not like we filled up on cupcakes like some tourney teams. Playing in the ACC should override that non-conference sos.

 

[obliterata]

I heard the committee chair speak to a few sources and I never heard that stat.

I don't doubt that he said it. But you have to remember he has been discussing countless statistics for various teams. It's easy for him to say something incorrect when he is citing something.

I really doubt there is some conspiracy. Nor is there any real inconsistency. There is not only one factor for selection. Our resume this year was very different than last year.

I did give thought to the"he misspoke" angle but given the situation I don't think he did and I know it was mentioned somewhere else in the media too.

At about the 3 minute mark the Chairman says "how did you do against teams that are in the tournament" in response to why SU didn't get in (he also mentions one of the legit reasons too, road record):

 

[bpo57]

There was also another prominent factor this year that was mentioned by the Committee on the Selection Show and post-show interviews, it was how you did versus all the teams in the tournament. SU's 5-8 record vs the field was deemed not good enough and was a major reason for the exclusion.


I posted this previously, here's the record of various schools vs all the schools from multiple bid conferences in the field:

SU... 5-8 (.385)

MichSt 5-9 (.357) - 9 seed
KSt... 4-9 (.308)
Ark... 3-7 (.300) - 8 seed
Xav... 5-12 (.294)
WF... 4-10 (.286)
Miami 4-10 (.286) - 8 seed
SCar... 2-5 (.286) - 7 seed
USC... 2-6 (.250)
StM's.. 1-3 (.250) - 7 seed

Clearly this is a pro-SU stat that should be used in any discussion of bubble teams. Not only was SU better than many of the other teams on the bubble, they were better than half the 7 and 8 seeds plus 9th seeded Michigan State.

For some insane reason the Committee determined this was an anti-SU stat and declared so to the media, using it as one of the main reasons why no Orange bid. As far as I know they were never questioned further about it.

If they can turn a simple statistic like this upside-down to suit their needs, their evaluation and judgment of all data cannot be trusted.

Hard to understand why this would be a meaningful metric as on the surface it can be very misleading. For instance, look at the last two teams on that list and look at who their losses were against.

 

[obliterata]

Hard to understand why this would be a meaningful metric as on the surface it can be very misleading. For instance, look at the last two teams on that list and look at who their losses were against.

I do think it has value, especially when judging teams on the bubble.

Although the schedules are very different for the teams that make the tournament it does give an indication of how you did when you faced the best teams in your conference and the country.

 

[jncuse]

Hard to understand why this would be a meaningful metric as on the surface it can be very misleading. For instance, look at the last two teams on that list and look at who their losses were against.

I have to agree with BPO here. I am not one who has an issue with USC getting in. They were borderline. But their top 50 record is heavily skewed by largely only playing top 15 teams.

They were hard to evaluate because they played high level teams in the top 50, but very few mid-level or bubble level teams due to the lack of depth in the Pac-12. They played a ton of crap teams in conference. Committee has no choice but to look at bad losses if they try to compare Syracuse and USC.

 

[jncuse]

I do think it has value, especially when judging teams on the bubble.

Although the schedules are very different for the teams that make the tournament it does give an indication of how you did when you faced the best teams in your conference and the country.

How many bubble teams would have done well if 75% of their matchups were against a #1 seed... or top 3 seeds?

Like any metric sometimes it's very important for some teams and gives off quality info. But for other teams that same metric does not tell the story. You need to scratch the surface.

But I do doubt that it was our performance against the tournament teams that did us in. There was other valid factors that did us in, I don't think they needed to make stuff up.

 

[obliterata]

I have to agree with BPO here. I am not one who has an issue with USC getting in. They were borderline. But their top 50 record is heavily skewed by largely only playing top 15 teams.

They were hard to evaluate because they played high level teams in the top 50, but very few mid-level or bubble level teams due to the lack of depth in the Pac-12. They played a ton of crap teams in conference. Committee has no choice but to look at bad losses if they try to compare Syracuse and USC.

USC performed better than SU OOC, no question. In conference they went 1-5 vs the top 3 in the Pac12 during the regular season, SU went 1-3 vs the top 3 in the ACC (UNC, Duke, Lou). Considering the strength of the ACC I think 10-8 SU is better than 10-8 USC. I know USC had to play more bad teams in the Pac12 and couldn't prove themselves vs better competition but that's the way it is.

SU had a better record vs the field, I know there are reasons for this and that SU has a built-in advantage playing in the ACC but it's still a fact. SU beat the ACC conference champion and what should've been a #1 seed but the Committee botched that too giving it to UNC instead because it was all decided before the ACCT was held. Considering SU's top 50 record and beating 3 top 10 teams ( ) I'm going to put more weight on the positives than the negatives.

 

[orangenirvana]

There was also another prominent factor this year that was mentioned by the Committee on the Selection Show and post-show interviews, it was how you did versus all the teams in the tournament. SU's 5-8 record vs the field was deemed not good enough and was a major reason for the exclusion.

I posted this previously, here's the record of various schools vs all the schools from multiple bid conferences in the field:

SU... 5-8 (.385)

MichSt 5-9 (.357) - 9 seed
KSt... 4-9 (.308)
Ark... 3-7 (.300) - 8 seed
Xav... 5-12 (.294)
WF... 4-10 (.286)
Miami 4-10 (.286) - 8 seed
SCar... 2-5 (.286) - 7 seed
USC... 2-6 (.250)
StM's.. 1-3 (.250) - 7 seed

Clearly this is a pro-SU stat that should be used in any discussion of bubble teams. Not only was SU better than many of the other teams on the bubble, they were better than half the 7 and 8 seeds plus 9th seeded Michigan State.

For some insane reason the Committee determined this was an anti-SU stat and declared so to the media, using it as one of the main reasons why no Orange bid. As far as I know they were never questioned further about it.

If they can turn a simple statistic like this upside-down to suit their needs, their evaluation and judgment of all data cannot be trusted.

This post is too good not to be a new thread. I wish everyone could read it. Even those who don't think Syracuse was good enough to be in the Tourney (completely fair) it demonstrates how full of it the committee chair is. And how little the media follows up incorrect statements.