Big 12 Manipulation

[Sean Miller Fan]

Both Brad Brownell and Jeff Capel called out the Big 12 for stratetic scheduling manipulation for NET. Capel went so far as to say, without saying, that the commissioner was involved. Of course, the ACC is run by part-time folks who work at Bojangles full-time so they have no idea WTF they are doing.

Honestly, I haven't looked at what the B12 is doing. What I can tell you is they have 4 legit Final Four contenders. The ACC has 2. 4 through 14 are no better than ACC 3 through 11. B12 15 and 16 are probably better than ACC 12-15.

Its a better league, yes. But are they strategically manipulating and why cant the ACC do that? The ACC is 9-3 vs the B12? Is Oklahoma really better than Syracuse? Is Texas Tech really better than Pitt? BYU did beat NC St but the game was neck and neck until the last few minutes when BYU and won by 9. The 2 teams are even but BYU is a 6 seed and NC St isnt in the convo.

 

[Dointhatrag]

We apparently manipulated the wrong big 12 team this year

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Both Brad Brownell and Jeff Capel called out the Big 12 for stratetic scheduling manipulation for NET. Capel went so far as to say, without saying, that the commissioner was involved. Of course, the ACC is run by part-time folks who work at Bojangles full-time so they have no idea WTF they are doing.

The funny thing is that the people who think that they manipulated the system think they did it by doing exactly the opposite of what you said that schools should do to manipulate the system.

 

[Franb]

The funny thing is that the people who think that they manipulated the system think they did it by doing exactly the opposite of what you said that schools should do to manipulate the system.

How is a system that encourages teams to run up the score every chance they get, good for college basketball? Maybe these coaches should make that their emphasis, and get the system changed.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The funny thing is that the people who think that they manipulated the system think they did it by doing exactly the opposite of what you said that schools should do to manipulate the system.

I haven't looked at it but Capel quoted a Stanford Steve tweet where he showed how bad the B12 OOC schedules were. Capel and Brownell were saying that the B12 deliberately played very weak OOC schedules and deliberately ran up the score in those games. I wouldn’t think playing weak teams would help you but it helped Pitt this year as we beat the spread in thise first 4. This is an entirely different manipulation strategy than what the Mountain West does.

 

[MorningCoffee13]

Saw something the other day that if you scheduled a weak team and NET (or whatever) estimated you would beat them by 30 and then you beat them by 50 you got more NET brownie points.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

He’s getting rightfully dragged for this. Especially the last one

 

[Upg bobcat]

It sounds like the Big 12 scheduling is a lot like what Pitt did for years under Dixon. And it worked pretty good for us, at least at the time.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

It sounds like the Big 12 scheduling is a lot like what Pitt did for years under Dixon. And it worked pretty good for us, at least at the time.

Or what the guy with the #344 ranked non conference did this year…

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

He’s getting rightfully dragged for this. Especially the last one

I dont think people understand what he's saying. Pitt scheduled like a Big 12 team I guess. He didnt say they didn't. But the other ACC teams did not, I'm guessing. Haven't checked.

I think we all agree that the teams below the Big 12 Top 4 and below the ACC Top 2 are all the same. But NET doesn't show that.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Or what the guy with the #344 ranked non conference did this year…

Yeah well it’s not his fault that Missouri and OSU were foisted on him. And yeah he lost to Missouri, but staying on topic, the subject is schedule strength.

And frankly when you get below, say 120, the teams should all count the same…because if you’re a legit P6 school, you should be any of those teams with your eyes closed and it should matter if it’s by 5 points or 50. So congrats to the team with the ##225 schedule strength. I’m sure it was sooooo much better than Pitt’s.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

I dont think people understand what he's saying. Pitt scheduled like a Big 12 team I guess. He didnt say they didn't. But the other ACC teams did not, I'm guessing. Haven't checked.

I think we all agree that the teams below the Big 12 Top 4 and below the ACC Top 2 are all the same. But NET doesn't show that.

Bingo.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

I dont think people understand what he's saying. Pitt scheduled like a Big 12 team I guess. He didnt say they didn't. But the other ACC teams did not, I'm guessing. Haven't checked.

I think we all agree that the teams below the Big 12 Top 4 and below the ACC Top 2 are all the same. But NET doesn't show that.

Telling you bro, my SMF type idea of all conferences taking a 7-10 day hiatus in Feb, (like all the pro soccer leagues do to allow players to go play international duty, or to go play in a Cup competition), so that schools can go out and schedule OOC games as they see fit, is a ratings boost for the networks and would go a long way toward identifying the schools and conferences that deserve bids.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

It sounds like the Big 12 scheduling is a lot like what Pitt did for years under Dixon. And it worked pretty good for us, at least at the time.

I mean, this is what Zeise was saying on the radio the other day. Jamie is doing what he’s always done. And there’s nothing wrong with that. If you’re not doing it, then it’s malpractice.

Btw, the facts say that Pitt’s OOC is in the 300’s. But that doesn’t mean that the B12 can’t be called out for being ranked #32 out of #32 on OOC schedule strength.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I mean, this is what Zeise was saying on the radio the other day. Jamie is doing what he’s always done. And there’s nothing wrong with that. If you’re not doing it, then it’s malpractice.

Btw, the facts say that Pitt’s OOC is in the 300’s. But that doesn’t mean that the B12 can’t be called out for being ranked #32 out of #32 on OOC schedule strength.

And as you said, if your non-con SOS is 225, is that really that much better than 344? Nobody is good beyond team 150 or so.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

I mean, this is what Zeise was saying on the radio the other day. Jamie is doing what he’s always done. And there’s nothing wrong with that. If you’re not doing it, then it’s malpractice.

Btw, the facts say that Pitt’s OOC is in the 300’s. But that doesn’t mean that the B12 can’t be called out for being ranked #32 out of #32 on OOC schedule strength.

Of course Zeise is doing that. He’s obsessed with Dixon and still trying to justify being the leader of the move on from Jamie crowd.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

And as you said, if your non-con SOS is 225, is that really that much better than 344? Nobody is good beyond team 150 or so.

Yes. It’s an aggregate of the teams you played so it’s quite literally 119 spots better.

Just beat mizzou

 

[Ski11585]

Of course Zeise is doing that. He’s obsessed with Dixon and still trying to justify being the leader of the move on from Jamie crowd.

Zeise sucks.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

Zeise sucks.

Haha I am friends with Paul, but his takes often do suck

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Of course Zeise is doing that. He’s obsessed with Dixon and still trying to justify being the leader of the move on from Jamie crowd.

He was praising Dixon for doing whatever any responsible leader of a program should do.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Telling you bro, my SMF type idea of all conferences taking a 7-10 day hiatus in Feb, (like all the pro soccer leagues do to allow players to go play international duty, or to go play in a Cup competition), so that schools can go out and schedule OOC games as they see fit, is a ratings boost for the networks and would go a long way toward identifying the schools and conferences that deserve bids.

I've had many ideas over the years. The ACC/SEC Challenge is fine but I'd also do an ACC/Big 12 one in February like the B12/SEC used to do. The only difference is I'd schedule the games about 2 weeks out so you get like teams playing each other.

The other idea is to have all the P5 conferences get together and play the same OOC schedule. 3 games vs cupcakes. Then 8 vs the other P5s, which includes holiday tournaments. Instead of playing Purdue-Fort Wayne, we play Purdue. Instead of playing South Carolina State, we play South Carolina. Instead of playing North Carolina Agriculture & Technology, we play Texas Agriculture & Military. Instead of playing FGCU, play UCF. You can still play Canisius, Binghamton, and Jacksonville. That's more than enough. If everyone does this, there wont be this great fear of losing too many OOC games. 17-16 could get you in.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Saw something the other day that if you scheduled a weak team and NET (or whatever) estimated you would beat them by 30 and then you beat them by 50 you got more NET brownie points.

Yeah, you do. Just like if you are "supposed to" beat them by 30 and you win by 20 your NET will go down.

This has all been completely obvious since the first day that they announced what the NET was. Are there really people that still don't understand this? If there is anyone who works for or coaches a college basketball team and they didn't have this figured out from day one they should be fired for being so damned stupid.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I haven't looked at it but Capel quoted a Stanford Steve tweet where he showed how bad the B12 OOC schedules were. Capel and Brownell were saying that the B12 deliberately played very weak OOC schedules and deliberately ran up the score in those games. I wouldn’t think playing weak teams would help you but it helped Pitt this year as we beat the spread in thise first 4. This is an entirely different manipulation strategy than what the Mountain West does.

You said that the way to game the system was to play D2s instead of low level D1s, because there is no upside to playing low level D1s. You claimed, falsely, that that was why the Mountain West teams frequently play D2s. And yet now you think that the Big 12 is gaming the system. And how are they doing it? By playing a lot of low level D1s.

It is theoretically possible that the MWC has figured out how to game the system by refusing to play low level D1s, and it is theoretically possible that the Big 12 has figured out how to game the system by playing a ton of low level D1s, but it is absolutely NOT possible for both of those to be true.

And for the record, I say "theoretically" because in reality, neither one of those two things games the system. One of, maybe even THE, best games Pitt has played this year for their NET ranking was against the absolutely awful NC A&T. But beating a bad Canisius by 11 absolutely hurt our NET ranking.

Because it isn't about whether or not you play a good team or a bad team, it's about whether you play better or worse than you were expected to. And you can play better against a bad team, and you can play worse against a bad team, and you can do the same while playing a good team. It isn't about the other guys, it's about how well you play.

You want to game the system, play better. Not play better against bad teams or play better against mediocre teams or play better against good teams, play better all the time. When we started playing better our NET ranking got better. That's not a coincidence, that's exactly the way that it's designed to work.

Play better.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

I dont think people understand what he's saying. Pitt scheduled like a Big 12 team I guess. He didnt say they didn't. But the other ACC teams did not, I'm guessing. Haven't checked.

I think we all agree that the teams below the Big 12 Top 4 and below the ACC Top 2 are all the same. But NET doesn't show that.

This is correct. Scott Van Pelt did a piece on this the other night. When all the teams schedule like this, and all the teams beat up their non-conference weaklings, it increases their NET and then makes their conference schedule that much better on paper. He went through a bunch of details, and there's no question that it helps them.

I'm glad these coaches are calling them out. Now maybe people will look into it more and question these quad numbers.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

This is correct. Scott Van Pelt did a piece on this the other night. When all the teams schedule like this, and all the teams beat up their non-conference weaklings, it increases their NET and then makes their conference schedule that much better on paper. He went through a bunch of details, and there's no question that it helps them.

I'm glad these coaches are calling them out. Now maybe people will look into it more and question these quad numbers.

I’m just glad people like ESPN are actually calling them out for it…because as we read on these boards everyday, there’s this broad anti ACC conspiracy that everyone else in college sports is in on. Lol

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You said that the way to game the system was to play D2s instead of low level D1s, because there is no upside to playing low level D1s. You claimed, falsely, that that was why the Mountain West teams frequently play D2s. And yet now you think that the Big 12 is gaming the system. And how are they doing it? By playing a lot of low level D1s.

It is theoretically possible that the MWC has figured out how to game the system by refusing to play low level D1s, and it is theoretically possible that the Big 12 has figured out how to game the system by playing a ton of low level D1s, but it is absolutely NOT possible for both of those to be true.

And for the record, I say "theoretically" because in reality, neither one of those two things games the system. One of, maybe even THE, best games Pitt has played this year for their NET ranking was against the absolutely awful NC A&T. But beating a bad Canisius by 11 absolutely hurt our NET ranking.

Because it isn't about whether or not you play a good team or a bad team, it's about whether you play better or worse than you were expected to. And you can play better against a bad team, and you can play worse against a bad team, and you can do the same while playing a good team. It isn't about the other guys, it's about how well you play.

You want to game the system, play better. Not play better against bad teams or play better against mediocre teams or play better against good teams, play better all the time. When we started playing better our NET ranking got better. That's not a coincidence, that's exactly the way that it's designed to work.

Play better.

The MWC is certainly gaming. Is the Big 12? I dont know but probably. How could they both be gaming by doing different things? Easy.

The MWC teams suck. Have you seen them? There's a reason they always bow out early unless you are San Diego State and beat a 12, 13, 1, 6, and 9 on your way to the title. Easiest route ever. The MWC cant risk playing Q4s because they arent good enough to win them all by 30. The B12 is much better so they can beat the spread in all those games. The MWC's path is to limit Q4s and play winnable road games which boost you if you win but dont kill you if you lose. There's multiple ways to game. The ACC chooses not to because they have idiot leadership.

 

[TD_6082]

Of course Zeise is doing that. He’s obsessed with Dixon and still trying to justify being the leader of the move on from Jamie crowd.

He doesn't have to justify it. Jamie's last 5 years gave Pitt 5 sub-.500 conference bubble type teams that went home the first weekend or failed to make the tourney. Whatever anyone's opinion is about moving on from that, that type of program isn't exactly something most fans want to support.

 

[MorningCoffee13]

Yeah, you do. Just like if you are "supposed to" beat them by 30 and you win by 20 your NET will go down.

This has all been completely obvious since the first day that they announced what the NET was. Are there really people that still don't understand this? If there is anyone who works for or coaches a college basketball team and they didn't have this figured out from day one they should be fired for being so damned stupid.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The MWC is certainly gaming. Is the Big 12? I dont know but probably. How could they both be gaming by doing different things? Easy.

The MWC teams suck. Have you seen them? There's a reason they always bow out early unless you are San Diego State and beat a 12, 13, 1, 6, and 9 on your way to the title. Easiest route ever. The MWC cant risk playing Q4s because they arent good enough to win them all by 30. The B12 is much better so they can beat the spread in all those games. The MWC's path is to limit Q4s and play winnable road games which boost you if you win but dont kill you if you lose. There's multiple ways to game. The ACC chooses not to because they have idiot leadership.

You have to be a billionaire, right? Because you know that Big 12 teams are going to cover the point spread any time they play a bad team. And you can tell five minutes into every game whether or not Pitt is going to win or lose. Given that, you've got to be the greatest bettor in the history of the world, making pretty much however much money you want to make any time you want to make it.

So you have to be a billionaire. Well, either that or a moron, one or the other.

 

[UptownPrivileges]

Jamie Dixon was master of scheduling wins vs minor league conference champs, until wagner bear him

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You have to be a billionaire, right? Because you know that Big 12 teams are going to cover the point spread any time they play a bad team. And you can tell five minutes into every game whether or not Pitt is going to win or lose. Given that, you've got to be the greatest bettor in the history of the world, making pretty much however much money you want to make any time you want to make it.

So you have to be a billionaire. Well, either that or a moron, one or the other.

I would be if it wasnt for Dementia Joe

 

[cruzer]

Both Brad Brownell and Jeff Capel called out the Big 12 for stratetic scheduling manipulation for NET. Capel went so far as to say, without saying, that the commissioner was involved. Of course, the ACC is run by part-time folks who work at Bojangles full-time so they have no idea WTF they are doing.

Honestly, I haven't looked at what the B12 is doing. What I can tell you is they have 4 legit Final Four contenders. The ACC has 2. 4 through 14 are no better than ACC 3 through 11. B12 15 and 16 are probably better than ACC 12-15.

Its a better league, yes. But are they strategically manipulating and why cant the ACC do that? The ACC is 9-3 vs the B12? Is Oklahoma really better than Syracuse? Is Texas Tech really better than Pitt? BYU did beat NC St but the game was neck and neck until the last few minutes when BYU and won by 9. The 2 teams are even but BYU is a 6 seed and NC St isnt in the convo.

So the argument is that they are intelligently working the system and we aren't? So whose fault is that?

 

[PittPanther44]

Both Brad Brownell and Jeff Capel called out the Big 12 for stratetic scheduling manipulation for NET. Capel went so far as to say, without saying, that the commissioner was involved. Of course, the ACC is run by part-time folks who work at Bojangles full-time so they have no idea WTF they are doing.

Honestly, I haven't looked at what the B12 is doing. What I can tell you is they have 4 legit Final Four contenders. The ACC has 2. 4 through 14 are no better than ACC 3 through 11. B12 15 and 16 are probably better than ACC 12-15.

Its a better league, yes. But are they strategically manipulating and why cant the ACC do that? The ACC is 9-3 vs the B12? Is Oklahoma really better than Syracuse? Is Texas Tech really better than Pitt? BYU did beat NC St but the game was neck and neck until the last few minutes when BYU and won by 9. The 2 teams are even but BYU is a 6 seed and NC St isnt in the convo.

BYU couldn’t beat Duquesne,

Texas Tech is struggling with that NC State team we handled easily 12 days ago.

College basketball is a quick game. Teams can beat other teams in a short game. That’s why an Oakland can beat Kentucky. And it’s also why you should schedule tough in the OOC. Law of averages is you have an “impressive” win or two, esp if you are good. Then come March, that will impress some committee Jamoke that ain’t watched ball all year.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

BYU couldn’t beat Duquesne,

Texas Tech is struggling with that NC State team we handled easily 12 days ago.

College basketball is a quick game. Teams can beat other teams in a short game. That’s why an Oakland can beat Kentucky. And it’s also why you should schedule tough in the OOC. Law of averages is you have an “impressive” win or two, esp if you are good. Then come March, that will impress some committee Jamoke that ain’t watched ball all year.

Texas didnt look good vs a bad Colorado State team. I will say I thought Texas Tech was a decent team. The problem is that the committee doesnt watch games. NCSU and TT were close the whole 1st Half but early on it was easy to see NCSU had the better team. So why was TT seeded so high? Well, because the B12 crushed a bunch of Q4s so every game is a Q1. TCU is lucky they get an auto MWC W.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

ACC now 10-3 vs B12.

That’s a .770 winning %.

This doesn’t happen by accident.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

ACC now 10-3 vs B12.

That’s a .770 winning %.

This doesn’t happen by accident.

The ACC's leadership is so bad. They need to come up with a non-conference scheduling strategy as a league. The MWC and B12 have done it. The Big East has indicated they will do it. Pitt is better than 20 at-large teams in this field. Syracuse and VT weren't thought of but they are no worse than some of these teams, especially the MWC teams. Boise was 0-2 against the ACC. Colorado State had a close win over BC.