Is the bottom of the B1G much stronger than it was last season?

[FeliSilvestris]

That's what some of you have been saying, right?
Apparently if you look at the RPI you get that impression. But the RPI (and to a lesser extend other ranking systems) can be fooled by piling up wins against cup cakes...especially if one's cupcakes do relatively well (by beating even weaker teams).

A better way to assess how the bottom of the conference is doing vs last season is by looking at their record against top teams. To do this, I use Sagarin, which is readily available. I suppose other reasonable ranking systems would yield similar results.

The B1G bottom 4 teams against the top 25, 2016 vs 2017 (per Sagarin)

2016
Illinois 2 7
Penn State 2 5
Minnesota 1 5
Rutgers 0 6
Combined 5 23 = 18% win %

2017 (so far)
Illinois 0 4
Penn State 0 4
Nebraska 1 4
Rutgers 0 3
Combined 1 15 = 6% win %

Obviously, the bottom of the B1G is doing MUCH WORSE this year against the top 25 (using Sagarin ranking).

At least by this measure, the bottom of the B1G is *NOT* stronger this season.

 

[Wrestlerneverdiesasacatfan]

Rutgers,PSU, Nebraska can beat anybody on any day! Loaded conference with 2-3 sweet sixteen teams.

 

[DkeCat]

That's what some of you have been saying, right?
Apparently if you look at the RPI you get that impression. But the RPI (and to a lesser extend other ranking systems) can be fooled by piling up wins against cup cakes...especially if one's cupcakes do relatively well (by beating even weaker teams).

A better way to assess how the bottom of the conference is doing vs last season is by looking at their record against top teams. To do this, I use Sagarin, which is readily available. I suppose other reasonable ranking systems would yield similar results.

The B1G bottom 4 teams against the top 25, 2016 vs 2017 (per Sagarin)

2016
Illinois 2 7
Penn State 2 5
Minnesota 1 5
Rutgers 0 6
Combined 5 23 = 18% win %

2017 (so far)
Illinois 0 4
Penn State 0 4
Nebraska 1 4
Rutgers 0 3
Combined 1 15 = 6% win %

Obviously, the bottom of the B1G is doing MUCH WORSE this year against the top 25 (using Sagarin ranking).

At least by this measure, the bottom of the B1G is *NOT* stronger this season.

Cherry-picking stats. Why top-25? Top-50 will show a much better record for 2017 vs 2016 (by my guess), and I would say the top-50 is a bunch of very good teams as well.

Or if you are going to reference sagarin, why not just look at their ratings (which account for how good a team is across the board). Wouldn't be surprised if the lowest team in 2017 is higher/close to the highest team in 2016.

Plus, lot of other issues just doing a straight compare as you have - sure you are aware.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Cherry-picking stats. Why top-25? Top-50 will show a much better record for 2017 vs 2016 (by my guess), and I would say the top-50 is a bunch of very good teams as well.

Or if you are going to reference sagarin, why not just look at their ratings (which account for how good a team is across the board). Wouldn't be surprised if the lowest team in 2017 is higher/close to the highest team in 2016.

Plus, lot of other issues just doing a straight compare as you have - sure you are aware.

Can't we just let Feli and Wrassler respond to each other in a vacuum?

 

[hdhntr1]

That's what some of you have been saying, right?
Apparently if you look at the RPI you get that impression. But the RPI (and to a lesser extend other ranking systems) can be fooled by piling up wins against cup cakes...especially if one's cupcakes do relatively well (by beating even weaker teams).

A better way to assess how the bottom of the conference is doing vs last season is by looking at their record against top teams. To do this, I use Sagarin, which is readily available. I suppose other reasonable ranking systems would yield similar results.

The B1G bottom 4 teams against the top 25, 2016 vs 2017 (per Sagarin)

2016
Illinois 2 7
Penn State 2 5
Minnesota 1 5
Rutgers 0 6
Combined 5 23 = 18% win %

2017 (so far)
Illinois 0 4
Penn State 0 4
Nebraska 1 4
Rutgers 0 3
Combined 1 15 = 6% win %

Obviously, the bottom of the B1G is doing MUCH WORSE this year against the top 25 (using Sagarin ranking).

At least by this measure, the bottom of the B1G is *NOT* stronger this season.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again. I am still waiting (but not holding my breath) for when you find yours.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Cherry-picking stats. Why top-25?

Because there is more or less consensus on the top 25 (not so easy to get that high by manipulating the schedule or anything else). If the bottom is truly stronger that should show in match-ups against the top 25. If it is stronger than last year, it should do better against the top 25 than it did last year (certainly NOT worse!!).
It isn't. Not even close.

You can compare against the top-50 (per Sagarin or anyone else) and tell us what you get. But again, comparing against the top-25 is more reliable for the reasons given above.

 

[DkeCat]

Can't we just let Feli and Wrassler respond to each other in a vacuum?

Hah! Sometimes I venture over to the basketball boards and I just can't help myself when I should know better...

 

[winnetkat]

That's what some of you have been saying, right?
Apparently if you look at the RPI you get that impression. But the RPI (and to a lesser extend other ranking systems) can be fooled by piling up wins against cup cakes...especially if one's cupcakes do relatively well (by beating even weaker teams).

Minnesota & Rutgers were historically bad last year. For them, there were no cupcakes! The fact that every B1G team including Rutgers can beat cupcakes this year definitely shows that the bottom of the conference has improved...

 

[DkeCat]

Because there is more or less consensus on the top 25 (not so easy to get that high by manipulating the schedule or anything else). If the bottom is truly stronger that should show in match-ups against the top 25. If it is stronger than last year, it should do better against the top 25 than it did last year (certainly NOT worse!!).
It isn't. Not even close.

You can compare against the top-50 (per Sagarin or anyone else) and tell us what you get. But again, comparing against the top-25 is more reliable for the reasons given above.

"Because there is more or less consensus on the top 25 (not so easy to get that high by manipulating the schedule or anything else)" -- NOT how Sagarin works. No such thing as more consensus on the top 25.

"If the bottom is truly stronger that should show in match-ups against the top 25" - OR the top-50. Which it doesn't. 7-36 in 2017, 6-39 in 2016, slightly better in 2017 but pretty close

"If it is stronger than last year, it should do better against the top 25 than it did last year (certainly NOT worse!!)" - you've repeated yourself

If you want consensus and a repeatable methodology - just use the overall rankings, which takes into account all you mentioned (and a butt-ton more).

2017
72 Illinois
78 Penn State
83 Nebraska
131 Rutgers

2016
114 Illinois
121 Penn State
182 Minnesota
267 Rutgers
______________

Sidenote - bit hard, didn't I gents? Back to waiting on Micah...

 

[FeliSilvestris]

The fact that every B1G team including Rutgers can beat cupcakes this year definitely shows that the bottom of the conference has improved...

Not sure whether their OOC schedule is easier this year.
Regardless, if they are stronger this year they should do NOT WORSE against the top 25 than they themselves did last year!!

The OPPOSITE is happening.

By a large margin.

 

[hdhntr1]

That's what some of you have been saying, right?
Apparently if you look at the RPI you get that impression. But the RPI (and to a lesser extend other ranking systems) can be fooled by piling up wins against cup cakes...especially if one's cupcakes do relatively well (by beating even weaker teams).

A better way to assess how the bottom of the conference is doing vs last season is by looking at their record against top teams. To do this, I use Sagarin, which is readily available. I suppose other reasonable ranking systems would yield similar results.

The B1G bottom 4 teams against the top 25, 2016 vs 2017 (per Sagarin)

2016
Illinois 2 7
Penn State 2 5
Minnesota 1 5
Rutgers 0 6
Combined 5 23 = 18% win %

2017 (so far)
Illinois 0 4
Penn State 0 4
Nebraska 1 4
Rutgers 0 3
Combined 1 15 = 6% win %

Obviously, the bottom of the B1G is doing MUCH WORSE this year against the top 25 (using Sagarin ranking).

At least by this measure, the bottom of the B1G is *NOT* stronger this season.

And at bare minimum, you for got that IL beat us when we were just in or out of top 25. Plus didn't PSU just beat MD? And top 25 ratings were after the season when we ended up with more teams ranked. Plus it matters when and where you play a team. For example, at the beginning of the season IND was top 25 but after injuries...Get players back and it can be a different story.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

"Because there is more or less consensus on the top 25 (not so easy to get that high by manipulating the schedule or anything else)" -- NOT how Sagarin works. No such thing as more consensus on the top 25.

Most teams in the top 25 by a reputable ranking system are also in the top 25 by most others. That's what I meant. As you move outside the top, there is much more disagreement among the various rankings.
If the bottom is truly stronger than last year, it should show in match-ups against the top 25.

They are actually doing MUCH WORSE than last year against the top 25. And about the same against the top 50 (per your post). Neither fact is consistent with the claim that they are stronger this year.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

And at bare minimum, you for got that IL beat us when we were just in or out of top 25. Plus didn't PSU just beat MD?

Just using Sagarin's data. Top 25 per Sagarin is NOT the same as top 25 per AP or coaches. If you want to use the AP top 25 (or any other) you have to do it for the bottom teams for both seasons and see what you get.

 

[hdhntr1]

"Because there is more or less consensus on the top 25 (not so easy to get that high by manipulating the schedule or anything else)" -- NOT how Sagarin works. No such thing as more consensus on the top 25.

"If the bottom is truly stronger that should show in match-ups against the top 25" - OR the top-50. Which it doesn't. 7-36 in 2017, 6-39 in 2016, slightly better in 2017 but pretty close

"If it is stronger than last year, it should do better against the top 25 than it did last year (certainly NOT worse!!)" - you've repeated yourself

If you want consensus and a repeatable methodology - just use the overall rankings, which takes into account all you mentioned (and a butt-ton more).

2017
72 Illinois
78 Penn State
83 Nebraska
131 Rutgers

2016
114 Illinois
121 Penn State
182 Minnesota
267 Rutgers
______________

Sidenote - bit hard, didn't I gents? Back to waiting on Micah...

So basically, last year a loss to any of those teams would be considered a bad loss and help to keep a team out of NCAA while this year only a loss to Rutgers wioud fall into that category and even that only barely and if they get a couple more wins even that would not be considered bad.

 

[DkeCat]

Most teams in the top 25 by a reputable ranking system are also in the top 25 by most others. That's what I meant. As you move outside the top, there is much more disagreement among the various rankings.
If the bottom is truly stronger than last year, it show show in match-ups against the top 25.

They are actually doing MUCH WORSE than last year against the top 25. And about the same against the top 50 (per your post). Neither fact is consistent with the claim that they are stronger this year.

Of course there will be noise as you go further down the list. Doesn't take into account that Sagarin top-50 teams are still pretty damn good.

And to your statement about "much worse". With the dataset you presented, I can't argue. It's just a non-sequitur when talking about how good teams really are. (btw - go to top-35 - which there can reasonably be consensus on. Maryland is 3-2 against those teams for example - which massively shifts the small sample you are looking at.

If you are really curious on this answer, look no further than sagarin rankings that I posted above. Sagarin takes into account top-25 wins, top-50 wins and a heck of a lot more. Shows the bottom is MUCH BETTER than last year.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

So basically, last year a loss to any of those teams would be considered a bad loss and help to keep a team out of NCAA while this year only a loss to Rutgers wioud fall into that category

If the committee does the same analysis I have done, they will conclude the same: B1G bottom this year is actually WEAKER (certainly NOT stronger) than the bottom was last year.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Maryland is 3-2 against those teams for example - which massively shifts the small sample you are looking at.

Maryland has nothing to do with this discussion. They neither are, nor were last season a B1G bottom team.

 

[DaCat]

You can't argue with Felix Sylvester. He has all the answers. They may be the wrong answers, but his strategy is to win by sheer volume of words and posts. Felix the Cat has it all figured out.

 

[hdhntr1]

Of course there will be noise as you go further down the list. Doesn't take into account that Sagarin top-50 teams are still pretty damn good.

And to your statement about "much worse". With the dataset you presented, I can't argue. It's just a non-sequitur when talking about how good teams really are. (btw - go to top-35 - which there can reasonably be consensus on. Maryland is 3-2 against those teams for example - which massively shifts the small sample you are looking at.

If you are really curious on this answer, look no further than sagarin rankings that I posted above. Sagarin takes into account top-25 wins, top-50 wins and a heck of a lot more. Shows the bottom is MUCH BETTER than last year.

And Neb also beat MD.

If the committee does the same analysis I have done, they will conclude the same: B1G bottom this year is actually WEAKER (certainly NOT stronger) than the bottom was last year.

Don't wait for him to see things the way most people would look at them. His underlying theme is NU is not good enough and he goes through unbelievable gyrations to try to "prove"it.

 

[hdhntr1]

Maryland has nothing to do with this discussion. They neither are, nor were last season a B1G bottom team.

No but this year two BIG bottom teams have beaten them and they were ranked top 25 so it has plenty to do with this discussion

 

[DkeCat]

Maryland has nothing to do with this discussion. They neither are, nor were last season a B1G bottom team.

Huh? Apparently you missed my point about how arbitrary your dataset is?

 

[FeliSilvestris]

No but this year two BIG bottom teams have beaten them and they were ranked top 25 so it has plenty to do with this discussion

Lookat the Sagarin ranking (link in OP). Maryland is NOT in the Sagarin top 25.
Like I said, if you want to use the AP or coaches top 25 go ahead. But do it consistently for the B1G bottom 4 teams, this and the previous season.

 

[DkeCat]

And Neb also beat MD.

Don't wait for him to see things the way most people would look at them. His underlying theme is NU is not good enough and he goes through unbelievable gyrations to try to "prove"it.

Thanks, hdhntr. I guess I will chalk it up as agreement when he/she completely ignores my post and instead decides to (incorrectly) focus on a tangent.

For what its worth - always think it is good to have a counter to my (and others) more purple-tinted view - so long as it is grounded in some reality.

 

[DkeCat]

Lookat the Sagarin ranking (link in OP). Maryland is NOT in the Sagarin top 25.
Like I said, if you want to use the AP or coaches top 25 go ahead. But do it consistently for the B1G bottom 4 teams, this and the previous season.

and if you go 10 sports further in Sagarin - of which there is just as much consensus - your arguments get blown up - which is what we are pointing out to you.

AHHHH SUCKED IN AGAIN BACK TO FOOTBALL BOARD AHHHHH

 

[FeliSilvestris]

and if you go 10 sports further in Sagarin - of which there is just as much consensus - your arguments get blown up

They are doing MUCH WORSE against the top 25. and (per YOU) about the same as last year against the top 50. Neither measure by itself supports their alleged improvement. Both COMBINED mean they are in fact worse than they were last season.

 

[ThatkidfromHolland]

If the committee does the same analysis I have done, they will conclude the same: B1G bottom this year is actually WEAKER (certainly NOT stronger) than the bottom was last year.

Which I'm glad the committee doesn't use this analysis. I hope they use a little common sense. If you actually watch big ten basketball on a yearly basis you'd see that this year there aren't any real cupcakes/chalk it up as wins. Closest you can get is rutgers and their offensive rebounding and hustle makes it so they could pull an upset. The big ten isn't as top heavy but there's a lot of parity and personally I think it's so much more fun that way. (I could be biased cuz NU is having a great season) You can cherry pick stats all you want but there's over . There are over 300 teams in college basketball. So only saying how you did against the top 25 is really silly.

(Ik I took the bait but all this negativity without proper backing had me a little pisssd off.)

 

[EagerFan]

Using the Felis System(tm), I note that the bottom of the conference in 2016 lost all games played against the eventual Tournament champion where as the bottom of the conference in 2017 has not lost a single game against the eventual Tournament champion.

In addition, the bottom of 2016 lost two games the opening night of the Big Ten tournament whereas the entirety of the bottom of 2017 have yet to lose a single game in the big Ten tournament this year.

It is therefore incontrovertible fact, using the Felis System (tm), that this year's bottom of the conference is much stronger than it was last year.

 

[DkeCat]

You can't argue with Felix Sylvester. He has all the answers. They may be the wrong answers, but his strategy is to win by sheer volume of words and posts. Felix the Cat has it all figured out.

Edit: deleted my response - too petty

 

[Walker Fan]

Too bad FS has eyes that are useless. If he can't figure out that PSU is better with a top 10-15 recruiting class, that Rutgers is better with Sanders and a better coach and UNL is better and has beat Purdue and some quality teams and even UofI beat VCU which is a solid team and unfortunately, NU then he can't be helped. Yes, Iowa beat UNC last year early in the season. If they played that game 10 times, UNC wins 9 times. Yes, MSU lost by 1 or 2 in the first game of the season v. Arizona in Hawaii and to 2 lousy teams in KU and Duke and yes, UW lost to Creighton and UNC. Oh yeah, UNL and UM lost to a UCLA squad which is filled with pros. There is nothing to be gleaned from the non-conference, except that NU had one of the best non-conference wins in the Big 10 v. Dayton which destroys your anti-NU premise.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Too bad FS has eyes that are useless. If he can't figure out that PSU is better with a top 10-15 recruiting class, that Rutgers is better with Sanders and a better coach and UNL is better and has beat Purdue and some quality teams and even UofI beat VCU which is a solid team and unfortunately, NU then he can't be helped.

Which proves what?
If last year's "bottom" was weaker than this year's, HOW ON EARTH did they manage to do THREE TIMES BETTER against the top 25 than this year's has done (and about as well against the top 50)???

 

[Bwm57]

Can't we just let Feli and Wrassler respond to each other in a vacuum?

Like their own private version of The Truman Show.
Actors hired to respond to their posts, it could go on for years.

 

[mikewebb68]

I can tell by just watching the games that the bottom of the BIG is FAR superior to the bottom of the BIG last year. Since Feli doesn't actually watch games, he cannot discern this.

/End thread.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

I can tell by just watching the games that the bottom of the BIG is FAR superior to the bottom of the BIG last year.

OK, I get it now. This year they are FAR superior. Last year they just beat top 25 teams THREE TIMES more often.
Makes perfect sense!!!!!

 

[mikewebb68]

OK, I get it now. This year they are FAR superior. Last year they just beat top 25 teams THREE TIMES more often.
Makes perfect sense!!!!!

I know because I watch the games. You should try it sometime.

 

[Dugan15]

Felis asked: Is the bottom of the Big Ten stronger this year than last year? The unqualified answer: Yes.

Bottom 4 Big Ten teams - KenPom Average Rating - (#of Division 1 schools)

2002 - 125 (327)
2003 - 132.5 (327)
2004 - 129.5 (326)
2005 - 149.25 (330)
2006 - 119 (334)
2007 - 128.25 (336)
2008 - 151 (341)
2009 - 105 (344) ** Check out that delta from prior year.
2010 - 138.75 (347)
2011 - 69.5 (345) Iowa (88), Indiana (82), Minnesota (58), Northwestern (20-14 / 7-11) (50)
2012 - 116 (345)
2013 - 125.75 (347)
2014 - 92.5 (351)
2015 - 130.75 (351)
2016 - 184 (351) Rutgers (279), Minnesota (192), Penn State (140), Illinois (125)
2017 - 94 (351) Rutgers (132), Penn State (84), Nebraska (83), Illinois (77)

 

[DkeCat]

Huh? Apparently you missed my point about how arbitrary your dataset is?

Just revisited my posts from my post-foot surgery / vicodin haze -- is there a more Nerdwestern response than mine above?

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Felis asked: Is the bottom of the Big Ten stronger this year than last year? The unqualified answer: Yes.

Bottom 4 Big Ten teams - KenPom Average Rating - (#of Division 1 schools)

As I have mentioned several times, rankers can say what they want. But the rankings cannot possibly be more reliable than ACTUAL ON-FIELD RESULTS.
The actual results say that the bottom of the B1G has done THREE TIMES WORSE (by winning percentage) against the top 25 teams THIS season than the bottom of last season did. Someone else did the comparison against the top 50, and then this year's group did about the same as last season's. Both measures combined PROVE that this year's B1G bottom is NOT stronger but in fact WEAKER than last season's.

If last year's was weaker, HOW ON EARTH did they manage to beat the top 25 teams THREE TIMES MORE OFTEN (as measured by winning percentage) than this year's bottom????

 

[Windy City Cat Fan]

Maybe the top 25 is 3 times weaker. Or really - who cares.

 

[Gladeskat]

As I have mentioned several times, rankers can say what they want. But the rankings cannot possibly be more reliable than ACTUAL ON-FIELD RESULTS.
The actual results say that the bottom of the B1G has done THREE TIMES WORSE (by winning percentage) against the top 25 teams THIS season than the bottom of last season did. Someone else did the comparison against the top 50, and then this year's group did about the same as last season's. Both measures combined PROVE that this year's B1G bottom is NOT stronger but in fact WEAKER than last season's.

If last year's was weaker, HOW ON EARTH did they manage to beat the top 25 teams THREE TIMES MORE OFTEN (as measured by winning percentage) than this year's bottom????

COMPARING HOW MANY TIMES THE BOTTOM OF THE BIG TEN BEATS TOP 25 TEAMS IS A TRIVIAL, CHERRY-PICKED STAT! RATINGS SUCH AS SAGARIN RATINGS ASSESS THE ENTIRE SEASON, INCLUDING THOSE GAMES WHERE THE BOTTOM TEAMS LAID AN EGG! IT IS A MORE INCLUSIVE, WHOLISTIC MEASURE!!!!!!!

NO BASKETBALL ANALYST WOULD EVER PICK WINS OVER TOP-25 TEAMS OVER RATINGS BASED UPON PLAY OVER THE ENTIRE SEASON!

DUGAN12 CLEARLY SHOWED LAST SEASONS RATINGS FOR THE BOTTOM FOUR TEAMS WAS THE WORST OVER AT LEAST 16 SEASONS!!!

 

[FeliSilvestris]

COMPARING HOW MANY TIMES THE BOTTOM OF THE BIG TEN BEATS TOP 25 TEAMS IS A TRIVIAL, CHERRY-PICKED STAT!

Answer this: If last year's was weaker, HOW ON EARTH did they manage to beat the top 25 teams THREE TIMES MORE OFTEN (as measured by winning percentage) than this year's bottom????