Tracking the ACC OOC vs Other Leagues (24/25)

[jncuse]

Head to Head Records
(also including Q1+Q2 games against non power conference teams)

Note these records below do not add up to .500, because Q1+Q2 teams from other conferences are actually 27-16 when facing these conferences. That seems really good but maybe its comparable historically.

The one reason MWC "hangs" here record wise is they tend not to play the toughest of the Q1 (Sched is lower at 63) and they also seem to protect their poor teams sched wise so that they don't play many of these games.

 

[jncuse]

And that's all of them!

 

[IthacaMatt]

Win % by Quad

I didn't show this table before as the sample of games for Q1, Q2 were small after the first few weeks.

View attachment 247337

Same story here. The SEC is well ahead of everybody else in quality games. Winning 67% of their Q1 and Q2 games, while the Big10 is next at 48%. The B12 is more in the same tier of the BE in quality games.

Excluding the MWC, the ACC is far behind in quality games. 31% vs the lowest of 41%.

The B12 does find a way to avoid bad losses.

Margin by Quad

View attachment 247338

This is the interesting that shows how the B12 hangs around at the top of the NET despite its quality games being suspect.

Note how far better the SEC is when games are tougher, but how the gap closes or swings the other way against cupcakes.
Q1 - 1.4 vs (6.2)
Q2 - 8.7 vs 1.5
Q3 - 19.2 vs 16.6
Q4Top - 23.5 vs 20.7
Q4 Bottom - 31.1 vs 33.2

Since both leagues have played 47% of their games against cupcakes, these Q4 games impact NET more than any other quad. It's why when you look at the overall number, the B12 is still close enough.

The B10 also gets a lot closer to the SEC when the games are easier, but its not quite as drastic.

But its fair to say that for the B12 its their dominance in these games that keeps them very relevant in NET. In fact if you look at Q1/Q2 games the B12 and the ACC are very similar in margins.

Thank you so much for the effort and the education. Really, really appreciate your efforts and analysis.

It's really disheartening as a fan to see so much of the post-season being decided in November by who beats the Q4 team by the biggest margin.

It's like the post-season bids per conference are already decided on the basis of who kicks cupcake butts by the most in November. This sucks.

 

[Niastri]

Thank you so much for the effort and the education. Really, really appreciate your efforts and analysis.

It's really disheartening as a fan to see so much of the post-season being decided in November by who beats the Q4 team by the biggest margin.

It's like the post-season bids per conference are already decided on the basis of who kicks cupcake butts by the most in November. This sucks.

Yup!

The NCAA created and relies on a metric that really doesn't do what it is supposed to do.

I didn't start to realize how bad it was until last season, but this thread's analysis by jncuse really drives home how stupid the NET rankings are.

He's doing critical analysis of something that just shouldn't matter as much as it does.

 

[jncuse]

Thanks to those who let me know they enjoyed this thread. I didn't create this thread to merely expose NET... certainly part of it was trying to figure out what was going on and note issues with NET as they came up. I think that was reason #3 for me But the main reasons in order, and sort of the findings to date are outlined below.

Reason #1 - I do want to track how conferences do in margin / NET because it is so paramount to the foundation of the NCAA tourney. In particular the ACC, because it is so paramount to Syracuse when we are a middling team. I was hoping the ACC would do better than last year, and I could show comparative data, but that point never came up.

Unfortunately, even though NET is flawed, there is no metric out there to make the ACC look good this OOC season. They have been really bad whether you look at W-L, quality games, head to head and margin.

Reason #2- I do legitimately want to know who is the best conference in OOC - by the metric that is most important for NET (margin), and various metrics beyond just NET, and also to see if the various views of performance align.

I think there is no doubt that it is the SEC. No matter how you look at the data, they all align with them being clearly the best -- be it margin / NET, win%, quality wins, head to head, they are far ahead of everybody. I dislike the SEC organization, and they have a big edge $ wise now, but if they get 11 teams in the tourney all the data here sort of supports it.

I think I was also able to successfully back up what 3 teams dominated in Margin and therefore NET - and will dominate in seeds (SEC, B10, B12). Now were those 3 conferences clearly the best taking NET out of the equation.

Reason #3 - Did margin / NET cause any issues this year in determining who was the best? Does the inherent flaw that NET relies so much on Q4 margin for data cause any problems this year?

Not for the SEC. Its clearly the best in quality games.
Unfortunately, not for the ACC. Were just not good, no matter how you look at it. We are closer to the B12 perhaps then NET suggests, but we are in that bottom tier with BE.
B10??? A little maybe. They seemed to extend their variances out a bit more in Q4.

But it clearly did for the B12 - I think I have been laying it out for a while in this thread, just like last year the B12 has a way of hammering bad teams better than others, even though they dont rank that strongly in quality game. I also dispelled the myth that they play them more often. All leagues schedule them, why does the B12 do better at it? That's a study in itself, that I would have to be bored to really do. Is it throughout the entire game.. or do they just do way better in the final 10-15 minutes compared to others? Play starters more? Play shorter bench?


Reason #4 - I did want to try to figure out a bit more about the MWC, and how they managed to do well in the NET era?

No real progress made here. The MWC has been bad this year in OOC, far worse than last year, and will have far less a presence in this tourney.

That being said I will try to explain what happened last year. I don't think its particularly dastardly. I think they do some tactical scheduling to help themselves, but the reason they did well last year was probably fairly simple. I'll explore it in another post below.

 

[ar inj]

Great stuff, JNCUSE. Much appreciated.

Hopefully, some day in the future, it will be more relevant to SU hoops, which makes your work and posts that much more impressive and appreciated.

 

[jncuse]

Impact of SEC dominating in OOC

I randomly picked the Kentucky and Clemson schedule, since that was one the ACC win. A win that Clemson may dearly need if it slips up a few times in the ACC.

And these Quads are as of today, before the NET "Grind" that happens in conference play when teams start to face each other... the SEC will have an upward grind and the ACC a downward grind.

Kentucky - 18 SEC Games
13 Q1 Games
4 Q2 Games
1 Q3 Game

Clemson - 20 ACC Games
5 Q1 Games
4 Q2 Games
11 Q3+Q4 Games

Every game in the SEC is a quality win opportunity. Half the games in the ACC are bad loss chances.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Impact of SEC dominating in OOC

Every game in the SEC is a quality win opportunity. Half the games in the ACC are bad loss chances.

Yeah, it's the first week of December. The season is barely underway, and it's already over.

 

[jncuse]

Updates as the third of 4 "tiers" of OOC play are about to completed... week 5 and 6.
I'll put the tables up tomorrow as week 6 is officially complete.

But the highlights (lowlights?) for the ACC are;
- Clearly now 5th behind the BE... they are about as close to the MWC as the BE. They are trending worse
- Won 20% of Q1 games (9W, 35L)
- Won 38% of Q2 games (9-15)
- Won 26% of Q1+Q2 games (18-50)
- 20-52 (against the other top conferences and Q1-Q2 games against schools from out of the conferences.
- 4-28 vs the SEC, 16-24 vs Others

The SEC dominance continues -- far greater than anything I have ever seen in OOC play --- you might be looking at a 12 team league. Or if there end up being 5 or 6 league bottom feeders in the SEC, you might have 8 teams on the top 4 seed lines.
- They have won 61% of Q1 games... no other conference has won more than 34% (ACC 20%)
- They have won 89% of Q2 games, next best is 57% (B10) (ACC 38%)
- They have won 72% of Q1+Q2 games, next best is 43% (B10) (ACC 26%)
- SEC is 63-19 (77%) against other top conferences or Q1+Q2 schools out of the top conference. They are 37-15 excluding the ACC. The next best conference in these games is the B10 at 49%. (ACC 28%)
- The SEC has 50 quality wins, 1 bad loss, No other conference has more than 23. ACC is 18 quality W, 10 bad losses,

Overall in terms of margin, which is relevant for NET the SEC is 16.3, B10 is 13.9, and B12 is 13.4. B12 keeps it status up due to enhanced performance in Q4 games. I'll post more on B12 in a single topic,

 

[MikeSU02]

Updates as the third of 4 "tiers" of OOC play are about to completed... week 5 and 6.
I'll put the tables up tomorrow as week 6 is officially complete.

But the highlights (lowlights?) for the ACC are;
- Clearly now 5th behind the BE... they are about as close to the MWC as the BE. They are trending worse
- Won 20% of Q1 games (9W, 35L)
- Won 38% of Q2 games (9-15)
- Won 26% of Q1+Q2 games (18-50)
- 20-52 (against the other top conferences and Q1-Q2 games against schools from out of the conferences.
- 4-28 vs the SEC, 16-24 vs Others

The SEC dominance continues -- far greater than anything I have ever seen in OOC play --- you might be looking at a 12 team league. Or if there end up being 5 or 6 league bottom feeders in the SEC, you might have 8 teams on the top 4 seed lines.
- They have won 61% of Q1 games... no other conference has won more than 34% (ACC 20%)
- They have won 89% of Q2 games, next best is 57% (B10) (ACC 38%)
- They have won 72% of Q1+Q2 games, next best is 43% (B10) (ACC 26%)
- SEC is 63-19 (77%) against other top conferences or Q1+Q2 schools out of the top conference. They are 37-15 excluding the ACC. The next best conference in these games is the B10 at 49%. (ACC 28%)
- The SEC has 50 quality wins, 1 bad loss, No other conference has more than 23. ACC is 18 quality W, 10 bad losses,

Overall in terms of margin, which is relevant for NET the SEC is 16.3, B10 is 13.9, and B12 is 13.4. B12 keeps it status up due to enhanced performance in Q4 games. I'll post more on B12 in a single topic,

Man this year can’t get much worse. Thanks for doing this.

NCAAT dream is basically dead before new years without an unprecedented turnaround.

 

[kirbivore]

If the SEC ends up tying or beating the record 11 teams in this season's tournament let's see if the committee works a little harder to avoid unnecessary same conference 2nd round matchups unlike the lazy committee of 2011 did to the Big East.

 

[Lukeyloo]

Updates as the third of 4 "tiers" of OOC play are about to completed... week 5 and 6.
I'll put the tables up tomorrow as week 6 is officially complete.

But the highlights (lowlights?) for the ACC are;
- Clearly now 5th behind the BE... they are about as close to the MWC as the BE. They are trending worse
- Won 20% of Q1 games (9W, 35L)
- Won 38% of Q2 games (9-15)
- Won 26% of Q1+Q2 games (18-50)
- 20-52 (against the other top conferences and Q1-Q2 games against schools from out of the conferences.
- 4-28 vs the SEC, 16-24 vs Others

The SEC dominance continues -- far greater than anything I have ever seen in OOC play --- you might be looking at a 12 team league. Or if there end up being 5 or 6 league bottom feeders in the SEC, you might have 8 teams on the top 4 seed lines.
- They have won 61% of Q1 games... no other conference has won more than 34% (ACC 20%)
- They have won 89% of Q2 games, next best is 57% (B10) (ACC 38%)
- They have won 72% of Q1+Q2 games, next best is 43% (B10) (ACC 26%)
- SEC is 63-19 (77%) against other top conferences or Q1+Q2 schools out of the top conference. They are 37-15 excluding the ACC. The next best conference in these games is the B10 at 49%. (ACC 28%)
- The SEC has 50 quality wins, 1 bad loss, No other conference has more than 23. ACC is 18 quality W, 10 bad losses,

Overall in terms of margin, which is relevant for NET the SEC is 16.3, B10 is 13.9, and B12 is 13.4. B12 keeps it status up due to enhanced performance in Q4 games. I'll post more on B12 in a single topic,

 

[jncuse]

We haven't done good enough in OOC play for the ACC schedule to really impact us.. I think we probably need to go 15-5 in conference to even get back in the bubble discussion and let's be realistic

But for teams like Pitt, Clemson, SMU, Louisville, even UNC. that have solid enough NETS now, and at least one quality win in OOC play, it could be a problem.

Going 12-8 in the ACC could be a problem for any of those teams.

I'll take SMU as an example - they are 9-2, NET of 40, with a couple of wins against bubble/NIT level teams in LSU and Washington St. Losses at Butler and Miss St. Nothing great, but nothing really bad either. I can't see a scenario that they get in with a 12-8 record in the ACC. They may well need to go 14-6 to clear the bar.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Yeah I just want to make the acc tournament. That's a risk now.

 

[MikeSU02]

We haven't done good enough in OOC play for the ACC schedule to really impact us.. I think we probably need to go 15-5 in conference to even get back in the bubble discussion and let's be realistic

But for teams like Pitt, Clemson, SMU, Louisville, even UNC. that have solid enough NETS now, and at least one quality win in OOC play, it could be a problem.

Going 12-8 in the ACC could be a problem for any of those teams.

I'll take SMU as an example - they are 9-2, NET of 40, with a couple of wins against bubble/NIT level teams in LSU and Washington St. Losses at Butler and Miss St. Nothing great, but nothing really bad either. I can't see a scenario that they get in with a 12-8 record in the ACC. They may well need to go 14-6 to clear the bar.

We just need to take care of our own house first at this point. It's so deflating to see how bad the ACC is in bball.

 

[Sbucketball]

We haven't done good enough in OOC play for the ACC schedule to really impact us.. I think we probably need to go 15-5 in conference to even get back in the bubble discussion and let's be realistic

But for teams like Pitt, Clemson, SMU, Louisville, even UNC. that have solid enough NETS now, and at least one quality win in OOC play, it could be a problem.

Going 12-8 in the ACC could be a problem for any of those teams.

I'll take SMU as an example - they are 9-2, NET of 40, with a couple of wins against bubble/NIT level teams in LSU and Washington St. Losses at Butler and Miss St. Nothing great, but nothing really bad either. I can't see a scenario that they get in with a 12-8 record in the ACC. They may well need to go 14-6 to clear the bar.

I doubt 15-5 in the ACC would even get us on the bubble. ACC is terrible. Of course it depends on who's the 15 and who's the 5. How many Q1 opportunities do we even have -- 3? And at least 1 q1 game is not winnable. We're not climbing out of this hole.

 

[jncuse]

Current Bracket Matrix by League (which is an as if now assessment)

SEC - 14 teams in (1 first 8 out)
Big 10 - 10 teams in (2 first 8 out)
Big 12 - 9 (3)
Big East - 4 (0)
ACC - 4 (0)
WCC - 2 (0)
Mountain West - 2 (0)
Atlantic 10 - 1 (1)

Probably follows how the conferences have done "margin wise". Big 12 is getting boosted by how they do better than others in the Q4 games. There is a big gap between the SEC and anybody, but you have to put in 68 teams.

 

[jncuse]

I doubt 15-5 in the ACC would even get us on the bubble. ACC is terrible. Of course it depends on who's the 15 and who's the 5. How many Q1 opportunities do we even have -- 3? And at least 1 q1 game is not winnable. We're not climbing out of this hole.

You might be right, I might be right (I'm just talking about getting in the heart of the discussion, possibly not clearing the line)

In the end 15 wins is a totally unrealistic scenario for Syracuse, so its not worth spending any time debating.

 

[Sbucketball]

You might be right, I might be right (I'm just talking about getting on the bubble line, not clearing it).

In the end 15 wins is a totally unrealistic scenario for Syracuse, so its not worth spending any time debating.

Honestly we're fortunate these horrible ACC years coincide with horrible Syracuse years. Doesn't affect us making the tournament because we aren't good enough anyway, and it makes our record more respectable. Unless of course the ACC collapses or doesn't become competitive again, in which case it's bad.

 

[jncuse]

I decided to compare the SEC 24/25 OOC vs the Big East in 2011, when the BE got 2011 teams to see how close they would be. If all teams are considered from both leagues it will not be close.



The table below only has the 11 Big East Teams that made the tournament, and excludes the 5 teams that missed (including 3 bad ones). The SEC hangs right in there comparing using all 16 teams in the metrics - they really don't have a bad team. The two conferences are close only if you exclude the 5 bottom feeders of the Big East.

Obviously the new system greatly tilts towards the SEC (and they were already trending up in the late 10's), so by all means dislike the system and hate the SEC. But based on performance alone, they do deserve to get the 11-13 bids they will get. If This is probably the best OOC performance by any league ever... and it probably is not that close either.

As stated above this is SEC 2025 (all teams) vs BE 2011 (top 11 of 16 teams). It doesn't have the 5 bottom feeders I'll update all the teams later.

Don't get me wrong the BE 2011, when I show all the data is still very strong, and would be the clear #1 this year (excluding the SEC)