Subscribe!
Follow me on twitter

The good stuff


At other venues...
  • ESPN.com ($)
  • Deadspin
  • Slate

  • Strategy
  • Whether to foul up 3 late
  • The value of 2-for-1’s

  • Philosophy
  • Brady Heslip’s non-slump
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • A treatise on plus-minus
  • The preseason AP poll is great
  • The magic of negative motivation
  • The lack of information in close-game performance
  • Why I don’t believe in clutchness*

  • Fun stuff
  • The missing 1-point games
  • Which two teams last lost longest ago?
  • How many first-round picks will Kentucky have?
  • Prepare for the Kobe invasion
  • Predicting John Henson's free throw percentage
  • Can Derrick Williams set the three-point accuracy record?
  • Play-by-play Theater: earliest disqualification
  • Monthly Archives

  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • July 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003

  • RSS feed

    The new Big East by the numbers

    by Ken Pomeroy on Monday, February 17, 2014


    The Villanova/Creighton game yesterday was a demonstration of trade-offs. In their first matchup, Jay Wright elected to play what has become normal Villanova defense during his tenure. In a gross oversimplification, this involves taking away the paint and hoping his opponent missed three-point shots. Creighton made 21-of-35 attempts and scored a whopping 1.45 points per possession in that contest.

    In yesterday’s game, the Wildcats tried to take away the three, limiting Creighton to 15 attempts. With all the space inside the arc, Creighton made a high percentage of its twos (25-of-38) and got to the free-throw line 26 times compared to 14 in the first meeting. The end result was a wash. The Bluejays scored 1.47 points per possession in Omaha.

    No need to rehash the details any more than that, but the trade-offs angle also applies to the Big East, who dropped eight teams and added three for this season. The conference seems to get treated as a second-class citizen in terms of prestige this season. The perception of the Big East is that there’s some sort of a difference between the “old” version and the current version.

    In a previous world, “BCS conference” became synonymous with “power conference”, but now, that’s just sloppy. Despite the lack of football-playing schools, there’s really not much difference at all between the old and new Big East, at least if you evaluate the conference from top to bottom. Here’s a look at the old vs. new using this season’s ratings.

          Old configuration            Current configuration
     Rk              AdjO   AdjD   Rk               AdjO    AdjD   
      9 Villanova   119.3   95.5    9 Villanova    119.3    95.5   
     34 St. John's  110.3   95.6   34 St. John's   110.3    95.6   
     50 Marquette   109.1   96.7   50 Marquette    109.1    96.7   
     56 Providence  110.4   98.9   56 Providence   110.4    98.9   
     61 Georgetown  109.9   99.0   61 Georgetown   109.9    99.0
     93 Seton Hall  107.7  100.9   93 Seton Hall   107.7   100.9   
    162 DePaul      106.0  105.8  162 DePaul       106.0   105.8   
                            
      5 Syracuse    118.4   93.5    4 Creighton    125.8    99.1   
      6 Louisville  116.5   92.3   40 Xavier       114.0    99.6   
     14 Pitt        114.3   93.9  109 Butler       104.5    99.6   
     20 UConn       113.8   95.8         
     25 Cincinnati  107.8   91.5               
     86 Notre Dame  111.7  104.0               
    181 Rutgers     106.1  107.6               
    194 S. Florida  101.9  104.5               
                            
        AVERAGE     110.9   98.4 .7985             111.7   99.1 .7990    
           
    

    While the conference certainly misses the presence of Louisville and Syracuse, among others, Rutgers and South Florida are both significantly worse than they were last season and their exit from the league helps its overall strength. Notre Dame’s departure actually provides a bit of a boost this season, as well.

    This isn’t the only way to evaluate conference strength, but it does shed some light on the relative merits of the new and old configurations. One might not care whether Rutgers and USF are merely below average or awful in the grand scheme of things. This is the conundrum of comparing the Big Ten to the Big 12. How much do you care about TCU being one of the worst teams in a power conference?

    The other complicating factor in this comparison is the size of the conference. The old version of the Big East would have five more teams and thus five more chances to produce a high-level squad. It would have had 9-11 teams in the NCAA tournament compared to the 4-6 from the current configuration.

    The current Big East is extremely unlikely to send two teams to the Elite Eight, and may not even get multiple teams to the Sweet Sixteen. But in terms of overall strength from top to bottom, there’s hardly a difference between the new version and old version. If the Creighton/Villanova game didn’t generate the same interest as Louisville/UConn, that’s a mistake, because based on the collective skill on the floor, it deserved as much attention if not more.