Here's the only takeaway from Van Pelt (Linus's uncle?) :
Case in point: the Big 12 is the best basketball conference. That's my opinion, I believe it to be a fact.
The amount of butthurt from countless people about
- Thread starter dahliaclone
- Start date
Here's the only takeaway from Van Pelt (Linus's uncle?) :
Case in point: the Big 12 is the best basketball conference. That's my opinion, I believe it to be a fact.
Number of teams in Top 30 NET (average kenpom SOS rank):
Atlantic 10: 1 (85)
ACC: 4 (41)
Big 10: 4 (16)
Big 12: 5 (36)
Big East: 3 (35)
MWC: 4 (51)
Pac 12: 1 (19)
SEC: 6 (34)
WCC: 2 (133)
How is the Big 12 gaming this exactly?
Atlantic 10: 1 (85)
ACC: 4 (41)
Big 10: 4 (16)
Big 12: 5 (36)
Big East: 3 (35)
MWC: 4 (51)
Pac 12: 1 (19)
SEC: 6 (34)
WCC: 2 (133)
How is the Big 12 gaming this exactly?
As Jay Wright said, his best coaching decision was never coaching a game at Hilton.
Hi. Just came up out of the basement - down there since about New Years', doing, well, you know, manipulating the NET ratings. Actually came up to order more Twinkies and Twin Bings, but noticed Clemson's Coach Brad is upset about how the Big 12 is manipulating NET. It was me, not Brett "X Yormark", not school presidents, nor ADs, nor coaches, nor players, nor NIL collectives.
I have an idea. If Coach Brad has more time for analysis, take a look at K-State Coach Jerome. Curious about him. Rumor is he is about to sign a movie concept deal entitled "I See Huddle Spies." And what about all those dance party videos of him dancing to a fictional train song named after a river in Indiana? Future job there?
Anyway, I think some of you Big 12 fans will be really happy with the NET manipulations as the tournament gets going.
so... what exactly is the accusation here? because to my understanding, metrics take into account not only how you played but also who and where you played. we just as easily could have had some metric disasters if the team laid an egg and squeaked by a couple of 300+ teams in Hilton.
are they mad that TJ kept his foot on the gas against non con light weights, left starters in until the late minutes of those games, and blew them out by 30+ instead of 20? is that what ISU is being accused of? running up the score for the sake of metrics? it is not TJ or ISU or the Big 12s fault that metrics take into account margin of victory.
are they mad that TJ kept his foot on the gas against non con light weights, left starters in until the late minutes of those games, and blew them out by 30+ instead of 20? is that what ISU is being accused of? running up the score for the sake of metrics? it is not TJ or ISU or the Big 12s fault that metrics take into account margin of victory.
You don't have any control over the conference portion of your schedule. There's always going to be slight variance within the league but, by and large. every league schedule within the league is the same.
There's a reason non-con versus total is called out in all the metrics and is part of the selection criteria.
Our first two teams under TJ didn’t have the offense to bury scrub teams, this one does, metrics see a value…because there is a value.
Exactly. Our conference schedule is automatically elite for 12 straight years. Every other conf schedule is generally dog$hit in comparison.
It’s absurd to think big 12 teams must all have the toughest non conf in addition to the toughest conf schedules.
Absurd.
League play will be a meat grinder so I guess the talking heads seem to think your non-conference should be 50% top 25 teams also? BTW, NET is just one tool the selection committee uses. The ESPN idiots, and a lot of fans, think it is THEE selection tool. It's more of tie breaker or dispute breaker for committee disagreements about seeding. One of like a dozen factors, not the ranker. It irks the ESPN's and some conferences that they don't get to overrule the committee based on their own personal bias.
The answer is the big 12 plays bad teams in the non conference. Other leagues play bad teams during the conference season
But all the metrics have pretty well played out that the top 2/3rds of the Big 12 are Q1 quality. You don't see some odd statistical outliers at this point sneaking in as Q1. That's the issue I have with saying they "gamed the system". All the metrics seem to pretty much agree on where the various Big 12 teams fall.
I'm not arguing that the league isn't fantastic. It is and it will be rewarded and evident in selection/seeding.
they gamed the system by purposefully exceeding the factors that the metrics are calculating.
on a related note, the metrics are factoring the qualitative measures of a successful basketball teams.
The Clemson coach should propose a relegation system so he doesn’t have so many @$$ teams on his conf schedule…of course that would mean Clemson would have been relegated many years.
Called “style points” for the eye test in CFB, but frowned on when ISU does it in MBB, okay.
And there in lies the problem for the talking heads and fans of other conferences. All these metrics don’t allow for the same level of back room BS that favors certain leagues in CFB. How can you control the narrative and outcomes if you are relying heavily on data and not the CFB Illuminat.
