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

[jncuse]

I'll provide some more context behind the tracking (See Post #2 and #4 - I will try to keep that as the extent of my "theory posts" on this topic. See post #5 for what I will try to limit this thread to.

I have created a spreadsheet with various links, data pulls, that make it fairly easy to track - I just need to update the scores. I will be updating about 5 various tables as the season progresses related to OOC win%, margin , record against top 6 conferences, % of games by quad, and the summary table below.

Here are the initial results through the end of last night. Difficulty is based on Average KP for now (which I am using to approximate NET as they run under similar principles) until the NET first get released and I will replace that as the source.

The lower the "difficulty" number the harder the schedule The average KP is pretty high right now for everybody as leagues play cupcakes for the most part. 82% of games to date would be classified as Q4, if we equate KP to NET. Only 7% Q1, 1% Q2, 9% Q3, and 82% Q4. Until more games get played in the tougher quads not going to bother showing those.

Results to Date (about 15% of total OOC games played)

Lots of games to be played especially competitive ones instead of the largely cupcakes to date.

B10 has clearly the best in the short sample of games so far. Difficulty is about average, and they have a clear lead in margin.

Very early for the ACC. but I would suspect we are more in line with others at this point in 24 vs 23 and 22. But that is a guess. The ACC has played the easiest of the schedules, although for the most part they are all easy. 72% of ACC games are against bottom half Q4 Teams.

B10 has clearly the best in the short sample of games so far. Difficulty is about average, and they have a clear lead in margin.

ACC, B12, and SEC are hanging close which is better than last year anyway. Would probably rank them as B12 #2, SEC #3 (despite the losses) then ACC #4, but they are close/

Real tough start for the Big East. They haven't played anybody above Q3 -- and their margins show a clear lag.

Only the MWC and Big East have lost two Q4 games.

I'm tracking the MWC because they have been relevant in # of bids the last few years. They had a great Q2 performance (W/L) wise last year. We will see how they do. Right now its not so good. That being said they had an impressive road win last night (New Mexico at UCLA)

 

[jncuse]

More of an explanation behind my tracking

General Things - You might not like the system (and there are flaws and holes), but its the way it is and need to be analyzed within the context

1) Why does Conference OOC Performance Matter?
20 of Syracuse's 31 total regular season games will be against ACC teams - which represents the majority of our competitive games. And those teams, will have 20 of its games against ACC teams that you play. Creates a circular effect. Its similar in all conferences - there is a circular effect caused by how well you do. But the conference that will benefit the most from this circular effect is the one that did the best in OOC... or vice versa if you didn't do well.

How the ACC does in OOC (good compared to the top 6 or bad compared to the top 6), could really matter if we are a bubble team
- It will make our NET better if it does good... or vice versa
- Q2 wins could sneak into Q1's, Q3's could sneak into Q2 if it does good... but vice versa if it does bad.
- Conference does good not much potential for Q3 losses... (and vice versa)

2) NET is heavily influenced by margin as its based on efficiency (points per possession for/against)
Margin relative to schedule strength drives NET much more than pure Wins and Losses. The quality of wins and losses drives your selection, which is why NET is not a direct "in" to the tournament --- but at the same time NET will drive the ability to improve how your wins look.

Its somewhat based in the fact that the only way you can effectively rank 365 teams with massive difference in schedule is to bring in margin.

Don't have to like it, but it is what is.

 

[hoopsupstate]

Tennessee is crushing Louisville at the YUM Center. Horrible defense and can’t rebound.

 

[jncuse]

ACC vs B12 (Why was the gap so huge in terms of metrics last year)
I never tracked margin by "quad" until this year (after looking at last year's results). And there is a reason for that as you will see below.

As we are all aware the B12 has dwarfed the ACC in terms of seeds to the NCAA tournaments for the past 2 years. Has done much better in terms of AVERAGE or MEDIAN NET by its members.

- Despite some resistance by some here, in 22/23 the B12 absolutely crushed the ACC in OOC performance in terms of wins and losses. Just had to look at Q1 and Q2 games (wins and win%), and bad losses (which the ACC had lots) and the B12 did so much better in OOC. It was easy to see by simply looking at quality of wins and losses in Q1/Q2 and bad losses. A league with 10 teams (B12) had 30 good wins... the ACC with 15 teams only had 21 good wins. The Big 12 had 2 bad losses... the ACC had 18 bad losses (coming from 8 different teams)

- In 2023/2024, it wasn't clear by win/loss performance in Q1 and Q2 games why the B12 was so positively viewed compared to the ACC by NET. I would try to run W/L analysis at times like the prior year comparing the two, to quell the concerns, and it was not successful like the prior year. The B12 was a tad better in quality games... they had less bad losses, but nowhere near as big a gap as the earlier year. So why were they so positively viewed by NET compared to the ACC - almost to the same extent as the prior year? See below.

Comparing the ACC/B12 in 2023/2024

To better understand what happened in 23/24, so I can apply things better moving forward, I dug deeper in to quad games and margins. Not just wins and losses.

The first big misconception I found is that the B12 was benefitting because of garbage scheduling compared to the ACC. Fact is the ACC and B12 both play a cupcake heavy schedule. The B12 played 54% of its games against Q4 - the ACC 48%. In terms of the real "cupcakes" sub 260 NET, the ACC actually played more at 32% vs 28%.

But in a margin system, if 50% of the games are against cupcakes, then about 50% of the possessions OOC by both leagues are against cupcakes. As flawed as it is performance in these Q4 games, due to the sheer number of them, they become the most important factor in determining which league played best in OOC under NET. And every conference wins these games (ACC 95%, B12 96%). It comes down to margin as the separator.

So here is what happened margin wise Q4 games last year.
Q4 (260-365)
Big 12 - 30.6
ACC - 23.4

Q4 (160-260)
Big 12 - 20.8
ACC - 15.0

Basically a variance of about 6 points per game in Q4 games between the B12 and ACC. Might think 6 points is nothing, but its about 8.5 points / 100 possessions. In terms of KP, which largely parallels NET, that is the difference between a team that is #30 and #90 last year.!!!!

Part of that 6 points is probably because the B12 was better (you will see from the Q1-Q3 they were somewhat better). But part of this could be running up the score which is not good for basketball at all, but that is another discussion for getting rid of NET. Either way, it becomes clear that margin in Q4 games becomes really important for the ACC or any conference

So here is the data in Q1 to Q3 games. You will see the gap in performance between the conferences is much lower. Not like it was in the year before

Q1 Top Half
Big 12 (26 games) - 38% wins, -4.1 margin
ACC (39 games) - 33% wins, -7.3 margin

Q2
Big 12 (23 games) - 52% win, 1.0 margin
ACC (21 games) - 52% wins, 0.5 margin

The differences in win% in Q1 and Q2 are not significant between the two. You can see the B12 is better, but not much. The gap starts to really get wide in Q3 where the margin becomes 14.6 for the B12 vs ACC was 9.1. And then it becomes significant at Q4 - in part sure the B12 was better - but were they better at running up the score as well inentioanlly?. Maybe. But at the end of the day the ACC plays half its games against cupcakes like most of the leagues. It has to do well in these games compared to others. It makes NET very flawed, but it's necessary to monitor Q4 margin, as well as Q1+Q2 performance, to see how well you are doing. Again not arguing the merits for it, but just saying what it is.

 

[jncuse]

Anyway post #2 and #3 were the theory. And that will be the extent of those type posts in this thread by me anyway. I'll tend to refer to them and that;s about it.

Really the focus of this thread will be posting results tables (like in post #1) and analyzing them and that is it.

Game discussions or posting of results are always welcome. That being said Orange Extreme monitors that well and has consistent concise threads each week for ACC games, so that will probably get more eyeballs there.

 

[Cheriehoop]

St John’s vs Quinnipiac 48-43 with 17 minutes left in the 2nd half after the Johnnie’s scored 5 points straight when it was tied.

 

[jncuse]

St John’s vs Quinnipiac 48-43 with 17 minutes left in the 2nd half after the Johnnie’s scored 5 points straight when it was tied.

St Johns did end up pulling out a comfortable win, but I’m sure did not want to be tested like that.


That being said the Big east had another tough result. Seton Hall also lost to Fordham. A q3/q4 type loss. The tough start for the Big East continues.

Seton Hall, Butler and Nova with bad losses already . Add DePaul who will inevitably lose some bad games.

 

[jncuse]

END OF WEEK 1 UPDATE

Here is the updated summary table at the end of the first week of play. You will see how margins have gone down across the board since my last update (post #1) as well as difficulty. Teams tended to test themselves a "bit" more in their second games.

Reminder - The lower the "Difficulty" number, the harder the schedule is. The difference between 209 and 251 is about 3 points.

My current ranking from a "NET" perspective, which is primarily margin.

#1. B10/SEC... B10 is 21.7 margin. But a "209" team is about 2 points better than a "231" team, so that makes them close. Practically one could argue this ranks the SEC too high, and this would seem fair, but again relative margin really matters for the NET.
#3. B12.
#4. ACC
#5. Big East
#6. MWC (well back)

I could snip a whole bunch of tables relating to Win% by Quad, Margin by Quad, % Games by Quad, performance against other top conferences (head to head), but those samples are still all very small to have any meaning since 75% of games are "Q4".

Tidbits
- Majority of games are still Q4. Went down from 82% in post 1, to 75% now. Will be about 50% by OOC end so quality games are coming. ACC is currently at 79%
- The Big East has yet to play a Q1 or a Q2 game. Every other conference has had at least 3.such games.
- Q4 margin rankings (relevant since best base for comparison as of now)
B12 - 28.1
B10 - 26.9
SEC - 24.9
ACC - 22.9
Big East - 16.6
MWC - 11.8

- Quality Wins (Q1 as of now) per conference - Big 12-3, SEC -2, B10 - 1, ACC-1, MWC-1, Big East - 0.

Looks like we will have a barrage of Q4 type games to start the week again. Looking forward to the better matchups.

 

[jordoo]

jncuse, Thank you for tracking this!

 

[jncuse]

jncuse, Thank you for tracking this!

As I mentioned above margin has such an impact on NET and teams plays so many cupcakes, that the only way to really track OOC play is by tracking margin -- instead of quality games.

And one can more than validly argue that this is a not a great way (in fact a bad way) to rank teams or the downward impact from OOC into conference play. But that's the system, so that is why I am monitoring it.

 

[jncuse]

Mid Week #2 Update

As most teams have played one game between Monday-Wednesday I updated the results.
Unfortunately this last set of games, especially in the NET Margin world, have been a setback for the ACC.

As a reminder the lower the difficulty number the tougher the schedule.

In terms of pure margin the gaps have got a little wider with every conference (B12 from 2.0 to 6.1), (B10 from 4.1 to 4.6) (SEC from 2.3 to 4.4). The ACC didn't really lose many games (fell from 88% to 87% win %), but just a lot of games where they win anywhere from 2 to 15 points against poorer opponents. Its Q4 win margin fell from 22.9 to 20.3 -- a sizable drop.

I would like to update a similar table as above for all OOC last season as a point of reference, but not sure if I will have time, beyond what I already did for ACC vs B12 last year. That being said right now the ACC has a margin gap of 6.1 with the B12... last year's was 6.8. And schedule adjusted (equating the schedules of both) we are probably behind where we ended vs the B12 last year.

My ranking right now.
1. B12
2. SEC
3. B10
4. ACC
5. Big East
6. MWC

I'd say B12/SEC are very close. B10 is clear #3. ACC and BE battle for #4/#5. MWC is not really close at all. I'd like to see the comparable for the MWC last year if I can get to it.

Various Tidbits

- The Big East has yet to play a Q1 or Q2 game. B12 has 8, SEC 7, B10 7, ACC 6 -- and the Big East 0.
- Q4 Games are still 72% of total games so they still impact things the most so far. Here is the margin in those games by conferece
B12 30.0, B10 24.7, SEC 24.4, ACC 20.3, BE 18.3, MWC 13.0
The B12 seems to thrive in these games. I do wonder if they internally have something to tell its teams to push harder. But unlike last year, very early, they are doing better in tougher matchups as well.

- Records in Q1/Q2 games - Best win% is B12 at 63% (5-3), We are at 1-5. B10 is the worst at 1-6. Big East has 0 zero such games amazingly.

- Records vs other top conferences - Best is B12 at 5-1. SEC is 4-3. ACC is 1-3. B10 is 1-4. MWC is 2-1.

 

[jncuse]

As an aside the WCC may be better than the MWC this year -- in the last year of relevance for both conferences, as parts of each league split off into the P12. I haven't tracked them, but I do know Basketball Reference's SRS has them ahead of the MWC. While Washington St and oregon St are not great (both around KP 100) they do reduce the % of bottom feeders in that league

 

[jncuse]

First night where most of the conferences had most teams test themselves.

It was a bit below average night for the ACC., maybe Ok. Disappointing if the goal is to gain ground on the top 3 (or at least close the gap that has been created.

4-4 overall , and 3-4 in non cupcake games.

In terms of non-cupcake type games tonight:
SEC - 3-1
B12 - will go 0-3 or 1-2
ACC : 3-4
BE : 2-1
B10 - Either 5-2 or 4-3.

Tables likely updated after Sunday, although I will be getting busy shortly and need to get a life.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

 

[Lukeyloo]

This is great work, jncuse ! Do you have the data on who are the biggest offenders dragging down the ACC so far? And are we the worst? lol

 

[jncuse]

I'll post an update shortly.
But I found a really odd stat - the power conferences I am following are a combined 1-10 (1-7 excluding MWC) in Q1.Q2 matches against non power conference schools (those losses include to Gonzaga, St. Mary's, North Texas, VCU, Memphis, Santa Clara, Dayton, UCSB)

 

[jncuse]

This is great work, jncuse ! Do you have the data on who are the biggest offenders dragging down the ACC so far? And are we the worst? lol

We are one of the guilty. I would rank us as the #2 most guilty behind BC. But the difference between #2 and #6 is not that much. All similar margins, but we have the softest schedule of the 5.

The ACC doesn't have a Louisville from 23 or 24 to drag us down. No one is close to as bad as them. But its more the fact that there are 6 modestly performing schools holding us down.

I would have to go with BC hurting us the most (impact of 25 point loss) on a small sample, causing them to have a negative margin overall against an average schedule.

The one good thing with the ACC this year is they are not incurring bad losses at the level of years prior. Cutting it close though, which is hurting the margin game. The one exception to date is Georgia Tech losing to North Florida.

 

[jncuse]

End of Week 2 Update

Not overly positive for the ACC.

Note the lower the difficulty number, the tougher the schedule.
Team NET's are still approximated by KP until NET is released.

The two conferences that seem to be headed to the top in the NET world are SEC and B12

Practically the SEC has been the far better conference when you consider quality games. The B12 is hanging on, not because it plays more Q4 games, but because it dominates Q4 teams better than others. (More data below). SEC has done way better against Q1/Q2 teams and against the other top conference.

I'll put B10 in #3.

The ACC and BE are pretty much in a tie for #4 and #5. BE has a better margin but there schedule is way worse. Big East has had the worst schedules so far by a decent amount. BE has all the anomalies right now - its done well in intra-power games, and in Q1/Q2... but both in very small samples. It also has by far the most bad losses. ACC is doing poorly against other power conferecens, in Q1/Q2, but unlike the BE is avoiding bad losses.

MWC is far back in #6. I'm tracking them only because of their past success.

Other Info
Records against other top conferences
SEC 10-5
BE 4-2
MWC 3-3
B10 6-7
B12 5-6
ACC 5-10

Records in Q1/Q2 games
BE 4-1
SEC 8-6
B12 5-8
B10 5-9
ACC 4-11
MWC 2-6
This isn't close to .500 total because as noted in post above, these conferences are 1-10 against other conferences in such games. hard to imagine.

Bad Losses
MWC 7
Big East 5
SEC, ACC 1
B10, B12 0

65% of games to date are still Q4 - outlier is Big East at 79%, while everybody else is at 58-66%
All conferences have played between 21-24% of their games against Q1/Q2 except one. The outlier again being the Big East at only 12%.

 

[Sbucketball]

We are one of the guilty. I would rank us as the #2 most guilty behind BC. But the difference between #2 and #6 is not that much. All similar margins, but we have the softest schedule of the 5.

The ACC doesn't have a Louisville from 23 or 24 to drag us down. No one is close to as bad as them. But its more the fact that there are 6 modestly performing schools holding us down.

I would have to go with BC hurting us the most (impact of 25 point loss) on a small sample, causing them to have a negative margin overall against an average schedule.

The one good thing with the ACC this year is they are not incurring bad losses at the level of years prior. Cutting it close though, which is hurting the margin game. The one exception to date is Georgia Tech losing to North Florida.


View attachment 246904

For NET, would it have been worse to win by 2 in regulation than win by 8-9 in 2OT?

 

[Niastri]

For NET, would it have been worse to win by 2 in regulation than win by 8-9 in 2OT?

"Overtime games
Overtime games are assigned a 1-point victory margin, regardless of the actual score"

Source: Google AI

So... Yes, it would have been better to squeak it out in regulation by any score greater than 1 point.

The overtime did give the core rotation more playing time together, so that's a bonus.

 

[dollarbill44]

It's very clear the SEC-ACC challenge is huge for the ACC to boost it's profile before conference season.

We have an opportunity this week to attone for our slow start. Two wins would be most helpful.

 

[jncuse]

"Overtime games
Overtime games are assigned a 1-point victory margin, regardless of the actual score"

Source: Google AI

So... Yes, it would have been better to squeak it out in regulation by any score greater than 1 point.

The overtime did give the core rotation more playing time together, so that's a bonus.

Interesting, I would have thought it would have been 9, but you have it sourced. One of the variances between KP and NET, but in the whole scheme of things its not much of an impact. At the end of the day that 1 (or 8 point difference if looked at the other way) is not going to matter much.

What will matter more for our individual NET, is that a #35 type team would have about 60-70 point margin total against those teams (rough guess)... instead of the 7 points we have. So that's a 60 point variance or so Drastically hurts our individual NET.

That being said if we somehow start winning against good teams we can overcome our individual NET.
What is hurting us though is that we will be brought down by the overall quality of the ACC which will reduce Q1/Q2 win opportuniites.

 

[jncuse]

It's very clear the SEC-ACC challenge is huge for the ACC to boost it's profile before conference season.

We have an opportunity this week to attone for our slow start. Two wins would be most helpful.

That would be helpful from an optics view and margin as well, but a lot of damage has been done about 25-30% of the way through games. The gap in margin is significant to date.

The problem is that margin's drive NET (from a conference view OOC) more than pure wins and losses - especially Q4 margins, since its so many of the total games. See post #4 -- and also the post below.

 

[Sbucketball]

"Overtime games
Overtime games are assigned a 1-point victory margin, regardless of the actual score"

Source: Google AI

So... Yes, it would have been better to squeak it out in regulation by any score greater than 1 point.

The overtime did give the core rotation more playing time together, so that's a bonus.

Makes sense, thanks.

 

[jncuse]

Final post for Week 2 Update
B12 doing its thing again like last year. Not playing more cupcakes than others (42% instead of 41%) for Q4 bottom teams, but destroying them more than others.

It should be noted that Q1, Q2 and Q3 are relatively small sample sizes so they could possibly swing around. But just looking at current trans.

If we look at Q1, Q2, Q3 games the ACC is pretty much hanging with the B12 in the margin game. But they are far behind in Q4 margin. And the SEC is ahead of the B12 in all of those Q1, Q2, Q3 games -- except Q4 margin. But the B12 is ahead in Q4 margins. All the conferences have similar schedule makeup (Q4 % = ACC 64%, B12, 64%, SEC 58%)

Leads me to the same conclusion I found last year. Its not that the B12 plays more cupcakes (generally). Its that they dominate them more than other teams in those cupcake games. Even if they don't do much better in higher status games. You do have to wonder if its a tactical strategy employed by the league to ask its members to really push in those games. Especially the more hapless opponents at the Q4 bottom,

That being said as we learned from Lemoyne its not always that easy to squash these teams. So I would say a good part of it is just being better than the ACC... but I suspect part of it is tactical as well.