To maximize rankings - and NCAA selection - the AAC needs to minimize the number of games the top programs have vs the bottom feeders. Currently, it's not a huge deal as there are only 2 teams we don't play twice. And it seems the AAC has been trying to take care of the top programs. We skip Tulsa and ECU this year, and Houston skips Tulsa and USF. But next year, it will be even more important when we increase membership to 14 schools.

One option...If we stick with an 18-game conference schedule and we play everyone at least once - that means we only get 5 schools 2x. The AAC could base it upon prior year's NET. For example, based on today, we would be paired with
19 - FAU
63 - UNT
73 - UAB
96 - Charlotte
100 - Tulane
(Funny that there's not much tradeoff with the top 3 we're adding vs what we're losing - but the bottom certainly gets softer.)

An outside the box option...not sure if it's legal with the NCAA...Simply don't play some of the schools during the regular season. Leave a few schools off the schedule altogether. For example, Memphis could avoid playing 2 Quad 4 games - #284 Tulsa and #318 UTSA. And they could add 2 more Q2-Q3 games like #115 Temple and #130 Wichita.

Further outside the box...Schedule a mid-season neutral court event where the top half plays each other and the bottom half plays each other. Not a tourney, just 1 or 2 games for every program at one of the many NBA arenas within our footprint.

Also, we need to get a non-conference hype event going. If we can't get it with the power conferences, then vs the MWC or A10 or Sun. Our top half vs theirs.

(01-31-2023 10:49 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  To maximize rankings - and NCAA selection - the AAC needs to minimize the number of games the top programs have vs the bottom feeders. Currently, it's not a huge deal as there are only 2 teams we don't play twice. And it seems the AAC has been trying to take care of the top programs. We skip Tulsa and ECU this year, and Houston skips Tulsa and USF. But next year, it will be even more important when we increase membership to 14 schools.

One option...If we stick with an 18-game conference schedule and we play everyone at least once - that means we only get 5 schools 2x. The AAC could base it upon prior year's NET. For example, based on today, we would be paired with
19 - FAU
63 - UNT
73 - UAB
96 - Charlotte
100 - Tulane
(Funny that there's not much tradeoff with the top 3 we're adding vs what we're losing - but the bottom certainly gets softer.)

An outside the box option...not sure if it's legal with the NCAA...Simply don't play some of the schools during the regular season. Leave a few schools off the schedule altogether. For example, Memphis could avoid playing 2 Quad 4 games - #284 Tulsa and #318 UTSA. And they could add 2 more Q2-Q3 games like #115 Temple and #130 Wichita.

Further outside the box...Schedule a mid-season neutral court event where the top half plays each other and the bottom half plays each other. Not a tourney, just 1 or 2 games for every program at one of the many NBA arenas within our footprint.

Also, we need to get a non-conference hype event going. If we can't get it with the power conferences, then vs the MWC or A10 or Sun. Our top half vs theirs.

Actually, playing a bottom feeder is to our advantage if we blow them out. It will boost our NET ranking. Looking at the data, it's clear that blowing out a team (no matter the quadrant) carries more weight than barely beating a Q1 as it all folds into NET efficiency which is quadrant agnostic and weighted very heavily in the final calculation. For clarity, by blowing out, my implication is 20 or more points. That will dramatically increase the NET efficiency metric in our favor.

To help illustrate my point, let's take FAU whom you reference above. They're currently sitting at 19 in the NET and they aren't loaded up with "quality" wins.



How about the MWC? Let's look at Boise State. Also not loaded up with "quality" wins and they even have a "horrible" Q4 loss, but they're sitting pretty at at 21 in the NET.



Clearly the strength of schedule matters very little in achieving a NET rating under 25. The key to hacking the NET in our favor is to schedule a ton of bottom feeders and killing them. If we can do that, we'll find ourselves advantageously ranked compared to how we've been doing it. It all boils down to NET efficiency which, as documented by the NCAA, only factors points in a game with no distinction regarding opponent strength.

I'm talking more about selection, and not necessarily the NET. I guess to test your theory, we will need to track that all the way through Selection Sunday. We've been told for years that Q4 wins don't help, and losses kill you. We've been told that it's all about how many Q1-Q2 games you play.

Of course, it's wishy-washy criteria based upon the program. They leave themselves wiggle room to pick who they want to pick, and use whatever criteria fits the narrative. If selection was strictly aligned with the NET, then they wouldn't need a committee and it would be straightforward seeding based upon the rankings.

(01-31-2023 12:49 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I'm talking more about selection, and not necessarily the NET. I guess to test your theory, we will need to track that all the way through Selection Sunday. We've been told for years that Q4 wins don't help, and losses kill you. We've been told that it's all about how many Q1-Q2 games you play.

Of course, it's wishy-washy criteria based upon the program. They leave themselves wiggle room to pick who they want to pick, and use whatever criteria fits the narrative. If selection was strictly aligned with the NET, then they wouldn't need a committee and it would be straightforward seeding based upon the rankings.

We are also told that margin of victory is capped at ten points, but then they slip in an unlimited reward for blowouts through the NET efficiency calculation and fail to mention the loophole aside from publishing a formula (in smaller text in a tweet of all things) that they know nobody will pay attention to. I'm not sure why you would separate the NET from selection as it is the primary sorting tool for selection. Of course they give themselves another out by stating they rely on KenPom among other things, but those teams referenced above aren't necessarily bottoming out there either. Boise State is at 26 and FAU is at 38.

I believe they structured the NET in the way they did for one very important reason: television (including digital streaming) ratings which is the key factor in negotiating optimal media rights contracts. Let's look at it logically. What makes for exciting basketball? High scoring and fast paced games. Even the NBA is on board as they continue to change the rules to facilitate scoring over everything else. What else drives ratings? Showcasing teams that have the largest fan bases. Which teams have the largest fan bases? The P5 teams of course, with the exception of the few dominant schools that have a heritage of deep tournament runs (e.g. Gonzaga.) Evaluating the ecosystem, separated from emotion and purely on the basis of driving revenue, it's all very logical and makes perfect sense.

So how do we make ourselves more attractive and garner a better seat at the table? Well, one thing would be growing the fan base which dovetails into the NCAA's NET strategy. If we're blowing teams out and running a fast offense that scores a bunch of points, we're providing an exciting product. We go up in the NET. We also begin to attract more fans with that visibility and reputation for being a dominant program. There's nothing but upside to this approach, and I believe we'll be rewarded in the tournament for it. Let's not forget the point of this entire exercise, that is to entertain people.

We tested the waters this season with a respectable SOS this year and we're not seeing dramatic improvements in our situation. Our SOS is 63 in the NCAA. Houston, sitting at 1 in the NET, didn't even crack the top 50 for SOS. Guess where they are? They're lower than us with a SOS of 79. Clearly our strategy wasn't that effective. Tennessee is 2 in the NET with a SOS of 52. Saint Mary's is 6 in the net with a SOS of 145. Clearly SOS means very little in how teams are evaluated in the NET, and the risk to reward isn't worth it if we can elevate our ranking by blowing out the cupcakes.

Or you could have the Mike Arensco prioritize basketball the same way he prioritized football when one of our conference members were doing good. He pushed for the P6 campaign, and ended up being a failure because he witnessed 3 programs walked out in front of his eyes. He rode us (Memphis) and UCF's like crazy telling the media that we're a great conference in football. The AAC is not good in basketball because he doesn't have great coaching staffs at certain schools. Will it be tough to get 4-5 AAC schools in the NCAA tournament? Yes. but getting 4-5 schools should be a goal that is honestly realistic. Ever since the AAC has been in existence, South Florida has lost at least 10 conference games each season. So far this season, the Bulls have 7 losses. I do understand that conference teams would have bad teams, every conference has that. But dang, at least send a memo to USF (and other schools) administration staff to at least be competitive.

The SEC did a great job of prioritizing coaching staffs as a reason to increase teams in tournament play, and it's worked. Sankey made sure the institutions need to hire great coaching. In 2013, the SEC only had 3 teams in the tournament. In 2015, they had 5 teams reached the tournament. In 2017, they had 6 teams. In 2019, they had 7 teams reached the NCAA tournament.

Will the AAC be close to the SEC in basketball? No, there's not a chance. However, there aren't even close to the Big East. There's a reason why the American is not in discussion as a "top 6 conference" in basketball, and some people have the Mountain West/A-10 as a better conference than the AAC. That should be more alarming than trying to adjust scheduling to help teams. If we're going to do that (which I do understand the reasoning behind it), then that should be a red flag to begin with.

Up the non conference a bit and we'll be fine. No need for the gimmicks. Also, keep it at 18 conference games.

I think our schedule this year is exactly what we need to be doing.

And after this year we have no business in the dance unless we win our conference tournament anyway

(01-31-2023 03:23 PM)GoDownSwinging Wrote:  Or you could have the Mike Arensco prioritize basketball the same way he prioritized football when one of our conference members were doing good. He pushed for the P6 campaign, and ended up being a failure because he witnessed 3 programs walked out in front of his eyes. He rode us (Memphis) and UCF's like crazy telling the media that we're a great conference in football. The AAC is not good in basketball because he doesn't have great coaching staffs at certain schools. Will it be tough to get 4-5 AAC schools in the NCAA tournament? Yes. but getting 4-5 schools should be a goal that is honestly realistic. Ever since the AAC has been in existence, South Florida has lost at least 10 conference games each season. So far this season, the Bulls have 7 losses. I do understand that conference teams would have bad teams, every conference has that. But dang, at least send a memo to USF (and other schools) administration staff to at least be competitive.

The SEC did a great job of prioritizing coaching staffs as a reason to increase teams in tournament play, and it's worked. Sankey made sure the institutions need to hire great coaching. In 2013, the SEC only had 3 teams in the tournament. In 2015, they had 5 teams reached the tournament. In 2017, they had 6 teams. In 2019, they had 7 teams reached the NCAA tournament.

Will the AAC be close to the SEC in basketball? No, there's not a chance. However, there aren't even close to the Big East. There's a reason why the American is not in discussion as a "top 6 conference" in basketball, and some people have the Mountain West/A-10 as a better conference than the AAC. That should be more alarming than trying to adjust scheduling to help teams. If we're going to do that (which I do understand the reasoning behind it), then that should be a red flag to begin with.

Quote:However, there aren't even close to the Big East.

It is important for basketball to be P6? That's adorable. Plus you are blaming him when USF and UCF have always sucked at basketball.

He ended up being a failure? On what planet? He elevated the conference so much that we had a much better contract than any other G5 and so much so that 3 teams were plucked by the Big 12. You are judging him because he couldn't pull $25 million per year in tv money?

You are using the $EC as a comparison? Now you are getting completely weird.

(01-31-2023 03:51 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Up the non conference a bit and we'll be fine. No need for the gimmicks. Also, keep it at 18 conference games.

It's not a gimmick and you're fooling yourself. It's the strategy that all of the top teams follow. Huge blowout wins have the largest impact on NET ranking. Look at the data yourself if you don't believe me. It's there.

Everyone is always crying about how we're screwed by the NCAA and they never respect us. Well you know what we've been doing wrong? We don't blow teams away. Fix that and we fix the issue of struggling with our NET ranking year in and year out.

(01-31-2023 03:52 PM)Tigerspartan Wrote:  I think our schedule this year is exactly what we need to be doing.

And after this year we have no business in the dance unless we win our conference tournament anyway

Believe what you will. The key to being respected, having a high NET ranking, and getting a good seed in the tournament boils down to avoiding bad losses and having a lot of blowout games. You don't want to go too light on the Q1 opportunities if it can be helped, but Q2 and Q3 teams are best avoided if possible. A loss there really hurts compared to a Q1 loss, and a Q2 or Q3 win doesn't help much unless it's a blowout which is why it's better to schedule a Q4 instead.

The data tells the tale. You're always free to check it for yourself, but I'm confident I'm not wrong.

I do think we need some creative thinking - not necessarily gimmicks. We need to up the profile of the league. It's not as bad as many - here and nationally - think it is. And it is being undervalued by the metrics. The question is how do we get the metrics up?

I'm not convinced it's as simple as more blowouts. That would definitely help, but there are plenty of exceptions to that rule. I think one way is to certainly increase the number of Q1 opportunities for the teams who have a shot at a bid.

Here's the YTD data ratio of games played in each quadrant for the different groupings of NET ranked teams:

Grouping Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Top 50: 34% 19% 17% 30%
Next 100: 17% 16% 27% 40%
Next 100: 12% 13% 27% 48%
Bottom 113: 10% 11% 25% 53%

The top 50 grouping plays the highest % of Q1 and Q2 games, and the lowest % of Q4 games. And it trends downward/upward from there.

(01-31-2023 05:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I do think we need some creative thinking - not necessarily gimmicks. We need to up the profile of the league. It's not as bad as many - here and nationally - think it is. And it is being undervalued by the metrics. The question is how do we get the metrics up?

I'm not convinced it's as simple as more blowouts. That would definitely help, but there are plenty of exceptions to that rule. I think one way is to certainly increase the number of Q1 opportunities for the teams who have a shot at a bid.

Here's the YTD data ratio of games played in each quadrant for the different groupings of NET ranked teams:

Grouping Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Top 50: 34% 19% 17% 30%
Next 100: 17% 16% 27% 40%
Next 100: 12% 13% 27% 48%
Bottom 113: 10% 11% 25% 53%

The top 50 grouping plays the highest % of Q1 and Q2 games, and the lowest % of Q4 games. And it trends downward/upward from there.

How is it a gimmick? Your table proves my point. Do you think those top 50 teams are playing Q4 games in their conference? Of course not, they're primarily OOC specifically because that's the winning strategy. The Q1 and Q2 games primarily come from conference play because of the feedback loop created when the conference follows the strategy I outlined. As you go down the tiers, most of those teams aren't blowing anyone out, so of course they're trending to the bottom.

Are you starting to see how the data correlates to exactly what I'm saying? It's an inverse bell curve at the top. Do you think that's just random happenstance? The value is in winning Q1 games (bonus is a Q1 loss doesn't hurt so much) and blowing out Q4 cupcakes. Q2 and Q3 are not worth it, but are unavoidable if anticipated Q1 teams slip down or as a result of conference play. That's how you elevate your program in the NET, and all of the successful teams do it that way.

Edit: Of course it's not entirely about blowouts. Having more Q1 wins places you higher over a team with less. That's common sense. What I'm saying is that the largest factor is the blowout wins. Look at any middling team that's similar to us but ranked substantially higher. The only variant is they all have significant blowout wins. Look at the data and get back to me if you think that's not fact.

I'm posting this to reformat the table so it's easier to parse. Notice how the top 50 plays substantially less Q3 games than the rest of the field but are still heavy on the Q4 games? Why would that be? Why are the top 50 teams playing 30% of their games against competition that's so far "beneath" them it's simply absurd?

Of course they will have more Q1 and Q2 games as an artifact of being in their conference - overwhelmingly P5 - benefiting from the feedback loop (or built-in gimmick if it makes you guys feel better) which results in more "quality" games by default. All of this is by design, and we aren't taking advantage of the system like everyone else, so we pay the price for it every single year.

(01-31-2023 03:51 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Up the non conference a bit and we'll be fine. No need for the gimmicks. Also, keep it at 18 conference games.

I don’t think we can up it much more than we did this season

(01-31-2023 05:50 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 03:51 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Up the non conference a bit and we'll be fine. No need for the gimmicks. Also, keep it at 18 conference games.

I don’t think we can up it much more than we did this season

And we're hovering at 40 for our efforts when teams with lesser schedules are better than 20. What's the point in doing it the hard way when nobody else is? Is that what we want? To be on the fringe year after year and hoping the bubble doesn't pop?

It's not a gimmick when all of the top teams are doing it. It's called the recipe for success.

(01-31-2023 03:52 PM)Tigerspartan Wrote:  after this year we have no business in the dance unless we win our conference tournament anyway

I think that's a pretty bad hot take!

FAU is currently ranked #19 in AP polls and #19 in the NET. What would the betting odds say about a game between the Tigers and FAU on a neutral court right now?

If we had road games against UNT and UAB this week, they'd be Q2 games.

It wasn't too distant of a past that Wichita St. was a perennial tournament team and doing damage. They will be back to their winning ways soon. SMU went to the dance in 2017 and 2015 (Almost beat UCLA in that controversial goaltending call). Temple won the AAC regular season in 2016. I know they aren't great this year, but played us tough and beat Houston.

In our last season of CUSA(2012-2013) the best two teams in the standings behind us were Southern Miss and UTEP and finished in KenPom 61 and 114 respectively. Including the Tigers, I think there are 8 teams that will be in the league next year and are ranked about that or better.

Our bottom feeders will most certainly be bad, but it could be a 3 bid league in a good year for the new look basketball AAC. I think it's more likely to be a 2-4 bid league more often than not, than a 1 bid league year in and year out like the old CUSA. We were heads and shoulders above anyone else back then, but it's very easy to imagine two at large tourney teams and a third AAC team getting hot in the conf tournament.

The METS and JETS won the championship in 69

(01-31-2023 05:28 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 05:13 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  I do think we need some creative thinking - not necessarily gimmicks. We need to up the profile of the league. It's not as bad as many - here and nationally - think it is. And it is being undervalued by the metrics. The question is how do we get the metrics up?

I'm not convinced it's as simple as more blowouts. That would definitely help, but there are plenty of exceptions to that rule. I think one way is to certainly increase the number of Q1 opportunities for the teams who have a shot at a bid.

Here's the YTD data ratio of games played in each quadrant for the different groupings of NET ranked teams:

Grouping Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Top 50: 34% 19% 17% 30%
Next 100: 17% 16% 27% 40%
Next 100: 12% 13% 27% 48%
Bottom 113: 10% 11% 25% 53%

The top 50 grouping plays the highest % of Q1 and Q2 games, and the lowest % of Q4 games. And it trends downward/upward from there.

How is it a gimmick? Your table proves my point. Do you think those top 50 teams are playing Q4 games in their conference? Of course not, they're primarily OOC specifically because that's the winning strategy. The Q1 and Q2 games primarily come from conference play because of the feedback loop created when the conference follows the strategy I outlined. As you go down the tiers, most of those teams aren't blowing anyone out, so of course they're trending to the bottom.

Are you starting to see how the data correlates to exactly what I'm saying? It's an inverse bell curve at the top. Do you think that's just random happenstance? The value is in winning Q1 games (bonus is a Q1 loss doesn't hurt so much) and blowing out Q4 cupcakes. Q2 and Q3 are not worth it, but are unavoidable if anticipated Q1 teams slip down or as a result of conference play. That's how you elevate your program in the NET, and all of the successful teams do it that way.

Edit: Of course it's not entirely about blowouts. Having more Q1 wins places you higher over a team with less. That's common sense. What I'm saying is that the largest factor is the blowout wins. Look at any middling team that's similar to us but ranked substantially higher. The only variant is they all have significant blowout wins. Look at the data and get back to me if you think that's not fact.

The gimmick comment was not directed at scheduling for analytics. It was in reply to Squid who brought it up. And I believe he directed it at my OP - which is fair - and not quadrant scheduling blowouts. No one that I've seen is really arguing that with you.

I'm just pointing out that there is more to it than just blowouts. We have to minimize our Q4 games. They don't help and they are used against us if we happen to lose.

(01-31-2023 05:49 PM)msu35 Wrote:  I'm posting this to reformat the table so it's easier to parse. Notice how the top 50 plays substantially less Q3 games than the rest of the field but are still heavy on the Q4 games? Why would that be? Why are the top 50 teams playing 30% of their games against competition that's so far "beneath" them it's simply absurd?

Of course they will have more Q1 and Q2 games as an artifact of being in their conference - overwhelmingly P5 - benefiting from the feedback loop (or built-in gimmick if it makes you guys feel better) which results in more "quality" games by default. All of this is by design, and we aren't taking advantage of the system like everyone else, so we pay the price for it every single year.

Code:

NET Rank Q1  Q2  Q3  Q4
-------- --- --- --- ---
1-50     34% 19% 17% 30%
51-151   17% 16% 27% 40%
152-252  12% 13% 27% 48%
253-363  10% 11% 25% 53%

Well half the college basketball teams qualify as Q4 games at home. So that's why there are so many games in that category - even for Top 50 teams.

There is no denying that top teams in the NET play more Q1 and Q2 games, and play fewer Q4 games. Now the "feedback loop" has some to do with that. But their scheduling also does. That's what I'm focused on.

I think if we cut out all Q2 and Q3 games and moved them to Q4 games, it would be disastrous for us - even if we blew them out.

And thanks for the coding. If anyone has guidance for that, I'd appreciate it.