When I developed the efficiency page, the idea was that it would replace the power ratings. Last season, I didn’t really notice much difference in the accuracy of the efficiency versus the power ratings, but I wasn’t using the adjusted pythagorean scheme on the efficiency data, either.<\/p>\n
If you’ve been checking both pages over the past few weeks, you’ve probably noticed that the rankings on the efficiency page have made a lot more sense. With that in mind, I’d thought I’d jot down some unusual conference favorites that adjusted pythagorean had on Wednesday. Maybe it will provide a good laugh in March, or maybe it will give me the impetus to finally ditch the power ratings.<\/p>\n
A-10: Xavier (even before last night’s win at St. Joe’s).
\nBig Ten: Illinois, with Indiana a close second.
\nBig XII: Texas by a lot, but Colorado is a comfortable second.
\nBig East: Villanova, with Pitt second.
\nBig South: Winthrop is so far ahead of its competition, they should go undefeated.
\nCAA: George Mason.
\nHorizon: Butler.
\nMAC: Miami (East), Toledo (West).
\nMVC: Missouri State.
\nMo. West: Air Force, with BYU a suprising second.
\nPac-10: Arizona, with Washington State 3rd?
\nSEC: Florida (East), LSU (West).
\nWAC: Utah State.<\/p>\n
Line o’ the Night<\/b><\/u><\/p>\n When I developed the efficiency page, the idea was that it would replace the power ratings. Last season, I didn’t really notice much difference in the accuracy of the efficiency versus the power ratings, but I wasn’t using the adjusted pythagorean scheme on the efficiency data, either. If you’ve been checking both pages over the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/729"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=729"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/729\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=729"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=729"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=729"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} FG 3pt FT Reb\n Min M-A M-A M-A O-T A F S TO BLK Pts<\/b>\nEric Hicks 34 9-17 0-0 2-3 12-15 0 3 1 0 1 20\nResult: Win.<\/b> Cincinnati 82, DePaul 60.<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"