Big 10/ACC Challenge: Breaking down the myth of better metrics

The Big 10 got nine NCAA Tournament bids, the ACC five, two of those by the skin of their teeth, in what was framed a down year for the league from mid-November on.

Supposedly, the reason the Big 10 had value, and the ACC didn’t, was because of the two conferences’ records in non-conference games.

Interesting narrative.

The truth: a bit more complicated.

On the aggregate, the ACC, going into Selection Sunday, had a 100-50 (.667 winning percentage) mark in non-conference games; the Big 10, 109-31 (.779 winning percentage).

Clear advantage there goes to the B1G.

Diving deeper, the ACC record was against a tougher non-conference schedule: the ACC had an average OOC strength of schedule at 166.7, the Big 10, 189.1.

And then, look at who ran up the wins, and their SOS.

For instance, there’s Minnesota, which went 9-0 out of conference against a schedule ranked 294th.

And Purdue, which went 11-0 against a schedule ranked 228th.

Iowa was 10-1 against a schedule that ranked 269th.

Indiana was 9-1 against a schedule that ranked 308th.

The knock on Wake Forest (10-1, NCSOS: 343) and Virginia (6-4, NCSOS: 137) was either weak scheduling or poor non-conference showing.

Then, explain Rutgers (6-5, NCSOS: 298).

The Big 10 has a reputation built around Tom Izzo (Michigan State was 9-2 with an NCSOS at 26) and Wisconsin (9-1 with an NCSOS at 42) playing tough schedules in November and December.

Truth is, nine of the conference’s 14 programs had NCSOS ratings in the 200s and 300s.

Six of the 15 programs in the ACC had NCSOS numbers in the 200s and 300s.

Even so, the metrics – KenPom, BPI, Sagarin, T-Rank, KPI – loved the Big 10 because of what we were told it did in November and December, and the metrics then reinforced their love come conference season, boosting everybody from 1-14 because they were playing each other every night.

I’ve been saying since mid-January that I would love to know what the Big 10 did to game the system, with the idea that what it did was schedule better and win more in the season’s first two months.

I don’t know that there’s anything here for the ACC to learn, except that we need to get a look at the programming going into the algorithms.

Story by Chris Graham