How in the world does the Big 10 show so well on computer metrics/Why so much better than the ACC?

[panther.fan]

I don't like Big 10, but want to put my bias aside and ask a serious question. How in the world is the Big 10 so highly regarded on computer metrics and why are they looked at as so much better than the ACC (even this year). I have watched a few games, and it literally seems like the conference of mediocrity. A bunch of average teams, beating up on each other, yet a lot of them are "locks" in the tournament, due to good net scores, SOS scores. Ohio State has a good net score, with a terrible record. (and them and Minnesota are bad teams). I just don't mathematically get why this is the case. Seems like a bunch of Syracuses, VTs, and UNCs in that conference to me. I see Purdue as a top 15 team, but probably not a top 4.

I also don't understand why the conference as a whole is so much higher than the ACC. Didn't the ACC win the Big Ten challenge 8-6? If you want to say both conferences are mediocre, ok, but that is not the public perception apparently. Literally none of this makes sense!

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

The computers are programmed by humans; humans contracted by the media, to be precise. And the media that dictate the algorithms know that the B1G has a billion fans/viewers. Find the user specs and you’ll have your answer.

 

[SteelBowl70]

Everything is based on non conference winning percentage. bIg has second highest. After that it’s a closed system and no feedback to make corrections. Once that bias is baked into the system, there’s no way to change it until the post-season and then it’s too late. Then by continuing to beat on each other, they get rewarded with quality wins and losses. When the dust settles tonight, second place record will be 12-8. 12th place may be 9-11 and still on the bubble.

Top 6 ACC teams all won their BIG challenge games and NC State didn’t play. ND beat MSU by 18. Yet 14 wins in ACC doesn’t lock you into the tournament while 8-11 Wisconsin is on the bubble.

 

[Pitt2006]

Everything is based on non conference winning percentage. bIg has second highest. After that it’s a closed system and no feedback to make corrections. Once that bias is baked into the system, there’s no way to change it until the post-season and then it’s too late. Then by continuing to beat on each other, they get rewarded with quality wins and losses which is all a facade. When the dust settles tonight, second place record will be 12-8. 12th place will be 9-11 and still on the bubble.

Top 6 ACC teams all won their BIG challenge games and NC State didn’t play. ND beat MSU by 18. Yet 14 wins in ACC doesn’t lock you into the tournament while 8-11 Wisconsin is on the bubble.

Clemson beat both Iowa and PSU. Our loss to Michigan did not count in those results.

 

[DT_PITT]

The computers are programmed by humans; humans contracted by the media, to be precise. And the media that dictate the algorithms know that the B1G has a billion fans/viewers. Find the user specs and you’ll have your answer.

Do you really think the algorithm is set up to favor the Big 10?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Do you really think the algorithm is set up to favor the Big 10?

The conspiracy theories are flying fast and furious now.

If someone wants to know the real reason, how about this. First of all, Purdue is clearly better than anyone in the ACC. It's not even close. Secondly, the Big Ten has one crappy team, Minnesota. The ACC has Notre Dame and Louisville and Florida State and Boston College and Georgia Tech. And if you throw Syracuse into that mix, there are six ACC teams worse than the second worst Big Ten team.

The bottom of the ACC is absolutely dragging down the rest of the conference. Because the bottom of the ACC isn't just one or two teams. It's five or six.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

ACC is bad. Let's not kid ourselves. We're probably closer to .500 in some of the stacked ACC iterations from yesteryear.

Still think November/December matters way too much to these formulas, though.

 

[SteelBowl70]

ACC is bad. Let's not kid ourselves. We're probably closer to .500 in some of the stacked ACC iterations from yesteryear.

Still think November/December matters way too much to these formulas, though.

The pre-conference games are played when most teams are still forming and are overvalued. After that, the conference strengths are fixed. Playing the last 2/3 of games in a closed system makes it challenging to pick a national tournament field.

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

The conspiracy theories are flying fast and furious now.

If someone wants to know the real reason, how about this. First of all, Purdue is clearly better than anyone in the ACC. It's not even close. Secondly, the Big Ten has one crappy team, Minnesota. The ACC has Notre Dame and Louisville and Florida State and Boston College and Georgia Tech. And if you throw Syracuse into that mix, there are six ACC teams worse than the second worst Big Ten team.

The bottom of the ACC is absolutely dragging down the rest of the conference. Because the bottom of the ACC isn't just one or two teams. It's five or six.

Nah bruh. The Rooneys funded NET.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

Do you really think the algorithm is set up to favor the Big 10?

I believe the numbers produced, whatever they are, can and will be manipulated to invite as many schools that will bring in higher ratings as can be reasonably justified. Many ACC and other conference schools can’t deliver what many B1G schools can. SEC schools can deliver for football but not necessarily hoops. But B1G schools are fanatical and grotesque in their numbers and will watch in equally grotesque numbers. So, if they have several decent schools (largely based on their beating each other, as the poster noted above…a false basis, but produces the math necessary). If it’s determined too many of them might dilute viewership they’d reduce it. Then maybe one of the others from the ACC or wherever that is next desirable and on the bubble might have the random numbers that get them in.

You know the drill from there. The mere selection then generates controversy…why so many of this, why not enough from that, this random number should have been regarded better than that random number for this team, blah blah.

It’s nonsense, history shows the eye test is at least as good to assemble a quality field… but this crap creates jobs: stat geeks and their web sites, talking heads on the selection show debating and berating each selection and seed, driving further viewership (and radio listenership) on all other sports stations until the games start. Grizzled ink stain columnists, braying like jackarses in print and radio interviews, giving partisan defense of their local schools (we’ll see none of the sort in Pgh, but it happens every where else). Money, money, money rolls in. Maximize the dollars. The B1G had that on its side.

So, anything but fairness is the objective here. It’s a business. If they calculate Penn States massive cult following would deliver far more viewership dollars than a probably more deserving B12 team, they’ll find a number to justify it.

And the tournament will occur and the brackets filled and exciting last second finishes and confetti and the world keeps turning.

 

[DT_PITT]

I believe the numbers produced, whatever they are, can and will be manipulated to invite as many schools that will bring in higher ratings as can be reasonably justified. Many ACC and other conference schools can’t deliver what many B1G schools can. SEC schools can deliver for football but not necessarily hoops. But B1G schools are fanatical and grotesque in their numbers and will watch in equally grotesque numbers. So, if they have several decent schools (largely based on their beating each other, as the poster noted above…a false basis, but produces the math necessary). If it’s determined too many of them might dilute viewership they’d reduce it. Then maybe one of the others from the ACC or wherever that is next desirable and on the bubble might have the random numbers that get them in.

You know the drill from there. The mere selection then generates controversy…why so many of this, why not enough from that, this random number should have been regarded better than that random number for this team, blah blah.

It’s nonsense, history shows the eye test is at least as good to assemble a quality field… but this crap creates jobs: stat geeks and their web sites, talking heads on the selection show debating and berating each selection and seed, driving further viewership (and radio listenership) on all other sports stations until the games start. Grizzled ink stain columnists, braying like jackarses in print and radio interviews, giving partisan defense of their local schools (we’ll see none of the sort in Pgh, but it happens every where else). Money, money, money rolls in. Maximize the dollars. The B1G had that on its side.

So, anything but fairness is the objective here. It’s a business. If they calculate Penn States massive cult following would deliver far more viewership dollars than a probably more deserving B12 team, they’ll find a number to justify it.

And the tournament will occur and the brackets filled and exciting last second finishes and confetti and the world keeps turning.

Hmmm ... I can't say I agree.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The conspiracy theories are flying fast and furious now.

If someone wants to know the real reason, how about this. First of all, Purdue is clearly better than anyone in the ACC. It's not even close. Secondly, the Big Ten has one crappy team, Minnesota. The ACC has Notre Dame and Louisville and Florida State and Boston College and Georgia Tech. And if you throw Syracuse into that mix, there are six ACC teams worse than the second worst Big Ten team.

The bottom of the ACC is absolutely dragging down the rest of the conference. Because the bottom of the ACC isn't just one or two teams. It's five or six.

BC and Syr are no worse than PSU, Rutgers, etc. Put those teams in the B10 and they are right there for a bid. The ACC does have 3 of the worst coached teams of all time (Lou, ND, FSU) which has pulled down the league.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

BC and Syr are no worse than PSU, Rutgers, etc. Put those teams in the B10 and they are right there for a bid. The ACC does have 3 of the worst coached teams of all time (Lou, ND, FSU) which has pulled down the league.

I actually kinda agree. I would add that Wake would be a tourney lock if they were in the B1G.

fSU, Louisville, GT and maybe ND are pretty bad though and bring our league down, and Pitt’s NET.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

I actually kinda agree. I would add that Wake would be a tourney lock if they were in the B1G.

fSU, Louisville, GT and maybe ND are pretty bad though and bring our league down, and Pitt’s NET.

I agree, but I just find it ridiculous that it is being used as a way go say a 10-10 big ten team is vastly superior to a 14-6 ACC team

 

[pittchagg]

The conspiracy theories are flying fast and furious now.

If someone wants to know the real reason, how about this. First of all, Purdue is clearly better than anyone in the ACC. It's not even close. Secondly, the Big Ten has one crappy team, Minnesota. The ACC has Notre Dame and Louisville and Florida State and Boston College and Georgia Tech. And if you throw Syracuse into that mix, there are six ACC teams worse than the second worst Big Ten team.

The bottom of the ACC is absolutely dragging down the rest of the conference. Because the bottom of the ACC isn't just one or two teams. It's five or six.

Florida State was in a one possession game with Purdue late into the second half when they played.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

Hmmm ... I can't say I agree.

Well, like the Beatles joke last night you didn’t get, maybe you’ll eventually understand.

Just having fun. Big fan.

 

[Franb]

Do you really think the algorithm is set up to favor the Big 10?

Why do they call it the Big 10, when there are 14 teams in the conference? Media conspiracy!!!

 

[DT_PITT]

Well, like the Beatles joke last night you didn’t get, maybe you’ll eventually understand.

Just having fun. Big fan.

I still don't get the Beatles joke! To be honest, I don't think anyone did!!

 

[BucosRule]

If Rutgers or Wisconsin gets in after these performances, there needs to be an investigation!!!

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I actually kinda agree. I would add that Wake would be a tourney lock if they were in the B1G.

fSU, Louisville, GT and maybe ND are pretty bad though and bring our league down, and Pitt’s NET.

Does anyone really watch NW, Rutgers, Iowa, etc and say "wow, there's no way VT, Syracuse, and Wake can compete with these teams?"

Everyone knows I think the ACC is trash. But I'm telling you that this year the B10 is no better and Im surprised by that.

If the ACC and B10 was one league, Purdue would be one level. Miami, Duke, UVa, maybe IU are on the next level. Then, Pitt, NC St, VT, Wake, BC, PSU, Rut, Mich, Wis, Iowa, Illinois are all on the same level. Put Syr and Wake and VT in the B10 and they load up on Q1 and Q2 wins and make the NCAAT because every game is Q1 and Q2

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

BC and Syr are no worse than PSU, Rutgers, etc.

To be fair though, the only reason that you think that is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[TD_6082]

I'm not big on

BC and Syr are no worse than PSU, Rutgers, etc. Put those teams in the B10 and they are right there for a bid. The ACC does have 3 of the worst coached teams of all time (Lou, ND, FSU) which has pulled down the league.

BC lost to Maine, Tarleton, and New Hampshire. They lost by 21 to both Nebraska and Villanova.

Syracuse lost to Colgate, St. John's, and Bryant. They also lost to Illinois 73-44.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I'm not big on

BC lost to Maine, Tarleton, and New Hampshire. They lost by 21 to both Nebraska and Villanova.

Syracuse lost to Colgate, St. John's, and Bryant. They also lost to Illinois 73-44.

Quinton Post didnt play in those losses. He is one of the better bigs in the country. Syracuse has played below its talent level.

 

[TD_6082]

Quinton Post didnt play in those losses. He is one of the better bigs in the country. Syracuse has played below its talent level.

That's no excuse to lose all of those games, and be non-competitive against mediocre P6 teams.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

That's no excuse to lose all of those games, and be non-competitive against mediocre P6 teams.

Still should win without him but that's a very big loss.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

That's no excuse to lose all of those games, and be non-competitive against mediocre P6 teams.

Didn’t you make every excuse on the planet when stallings lost to Duquesne, and blamed artis being out?

 

[TD_6082]

Didn’t you make every excuse on the planet when stallings lost to Duquesne, and blamed artis being out?

No. I didn't watch Pitt basketball at all when Stallings was at Pitt. I quit watching Pitt closely sometime around 2012 or 2013. It was a bad product and why torture yourself watching it?

I'm a Pitt football fan first and foremost. And while I like Pitt basketball, there are a few other teams I like more and follow a little more closely for different reasons (UVA, Kentucky, Alabama). ...I have a soft spot for Auburn. I feel bad for Bruce Pearl everytime I enter in JPJ arena and walk past his Championship trophy/nets.

 

[BballinsiderfromPitt]

No. I didn't watch Pitt basketball at all when Stallings was at Pitt. I quit watching Pitt closely sometime around 2012 or 2013. It was a bad product and why torture yourself watching it?

I'm a Pitt football fan first and foremost. And while I like Pitt basketball, there are a few other teams I like more and follow a little more closely for different reasons (UVA, Kentucky, Alabama). ...I have a soft spot for Auburn. I feel bad for Bruce Pearl everytime I enter in JPJ arena and walk past his Championship trophy/nets.

Absolutely no irony in the ending of your first paragraph and the beginning of your second…

 

[TD_6082]

Absolutely no irony in the ending of your first paragraph and the beginning of your second…

LoL. It's not like watching UVA or Kentucky has been a picnic lately.

 

[303vND]

The computers are programmed by humans; humans contracted by the media, to be precise. And the media that dictate the algorithms know that the B1G has a billion fans/viewers. Find the user specs and you’ll have your answer.

GREAT ANSWER!!!

 

[KennyHeisman8]

No. I didn't watch Pitt basketball at all when Stallings was at Pitt. I quit watching Pitt closely sometime around 2012 or 2013. It was a bad product and why torture yourself watching it?

I'm a Pitt football fan first and foremost. And while I like Pitt basketball, there are a few other teams I like more and follow a little more closely for different reasons (UVA, Kentucky, Alabama). ...I have a soft spot for Auburn. I feel bad for Bruce Pearl everytime I enter in JPJ arena and walk past his Championship trophy/nets.

Bad product? No wonder you seem clueless. The teams with Lamar were very very good

 

[TD_6082]

Bad product? No wonder you seem clueless. The teams with Lamar were very very good

Yes. It was a bad product. Pitt spent over a decade building a pretty damn good brand. That was all pretty much lost by the time they entered the ACC.

For starters, for a program with Pitt's previous success, the OOC schedule was disgraceful. Very little to look forward to until conference play began.

The team no longer contented for conference championships. They weren't that fun to watch & the tourney performances were abysmal.

Add some perspective. That kind of program might attract the casual fan on the way up, but it also drives them away when the program starts to decline. The change in conference wasn't really welcome at the time either (at least for hoops) but that was a move that had to be made.

 

[pittchagg]

Yes. It was a bad product. Pitt spent over a decade building a pretty damn good brand. That was all pretty much lost by the time they entered the ACC.

For starters, for a program with Pitt's previous success, the OOC schedule was disgraceful. Very little to look forward to until conference play began.

The team no longer contented for conference championships. They weren't that fun to watch & the tourney performances were abysmal.

Add some perspective. That kind of program might attract the casual fan on the way up, but it also drives them away when the program starts to decline. The change in conference wasn't really welcome at the time either (at least for hoops) but that was a move that had to be made.

I don’t think the OOC was that bad. In the three years that Dixon was here in the ACC, you had Texas Tech and Stanford in Brooklyn, Penn State in the B1G challenge, and Cincinnati at MSG in year one, the Maui invitational with San Diego State and Kansas State and @ Indiana in year two, and then the cool Gonzaga game in Japan that got cancelled and home vs. Purdue in year three. Even the Stallings non-cons weren’t bad.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

As said before, it's not complicated. The Big 10 is 115-37 against other conferences where the ACC is 108-52. We were one game better head to head but had some much worse losses as a conference.

The Big 10 was 87-2 against what I'd call minor and mid-major conferences.

The ACC had 6 losses against the Atlantic 10 and America East alone, 2 against the Sun Belt, and 1 each against the MAC, Metro, Colonial, Horizon, and Patriot. That's an extra 12 bad losses.

Some of those losses were to truly bad teams -- Louisville to Wright State and Bellarmine; Florida State by Siena, Stetson, and Troy; Boston College to Maine and New Hampshire; Notre Dame to St. Bonaventure; Syracuse to Bryant; Clemson to Loyola of Chicago(!) Clemson is supposed to be one of our good teams. but they lost by 18 to a 10-20 Loyola-Chicago ranked 268th in NET. Losses to teams that are like 200-300th in the country are bad enough, but some were also by double digits which is truly a NET killer.

The Big 10 may crap the bed yet again in the NCAA tournament -- I hope so -- but the ACC is more than a step back from where it used to be, and needs to recruit and retain talent better.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

Yes. It was a bad product. Pitt spent over a decade building a pretty damn good brand. That was all pretty much lost by the time they entered the ACC.

For starters, for a program with Pitt's previous success, the OOC schedule was disgraceful. Very little to look forward to until conference play began.

The team no longer contented for conference championships. They weren't that fun to watch & the tourney performances were abysmal.

Add some perspective. That kind of program might attract the casual fan on the way up, but it also drives them away when the program starts to decline. The change in conference wasn't really welcome at the time either (at least for hoops) but that was a move that had to be made.

Absolutely clueless

 

[NTOP]

LoL. It's not like watching UVA or Kentucky has been a picnic lately.

My "Like" was a mistake. UVA is as good as any BIG10 team.....and this is a down year for them.

 

[TD_6082]

My "Like" was a mistake. UVA is as good as any BIG10 team.....and this is a down year for them.

Possibly. The Big 10 is not very good at the top.

UVA hasn't won a tourney game since the night they cut the nets down in Minneapolis. I think they can get by packing light this year too.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Do you really think the algorithm is set up to favor the Big 10?

Yes,

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I tried to look at the AP preseason poll to see if a conference got a "head start" and surprisingly I really couldn't. I think one thing that has killed the ACC is FSU was ranked in the top 25, Louisville in the "others receiving votes". But then you would think some of that should be mitigated by well, our success over those programs.

The only thing I can gather is the NET overemphasizes playing Quad 1 or 2 games, not necessarily winning them.

 

[DT_PITT]

Yes,

Why would they?