Non-conference scheduling raises important questions for coaches. Is it better to build confidence and momentum with an easier non-conference slate or is there more value in creating a tough schedule that forces the team to meet the challenge? There’s been much debate over the best strategy, but there isn’t much, if any, analysis to show the impact of these games. So, DribbleHandoff sought to answer the question: what is the impact of the non-conference schedule on conference performance? In this effort we’ve analyzed the impact of the non-conference schedule on conference win percentage using data from 2012-2018. Instead of looking at non-conference strength of schedule, this analysis uses the percentage of non-conference games that are tier A or B games (NonConAB%). On his site, Ken Pomeroy provides a game tier (A, B, or none) based on game location and opponent rank. In an article introducing the game tiers he wrote, “A game in Tier A represents a top 50 opponent adjusting for the location of the game, and Tier B is the same concept for a top 100 opponent. Beating the 90th-ranked team on the road is about as difficult as beating the 50th-best team on a neutral floor, which is roughly as difficult as beating the 20th-best team on one’s home floor.” Two teams can have a similar ranking in non-conference strength of schedule but play very different types of opponents. For example, Kentucky and Florida had the 44th and 46th toughest non-conference strength of schedules in 2018, according to KenPom. Yet 62% of Florida’s non-conference games were tier A or B games, while they made up just 38% for Kentucky. The correlation between NonConAB% and conference win percentage is modest, but it’s statistically significant. To further understand the relationship, we built a model while controlling for a team’s preseason KenPom rank. The model suggests that an increase of 24% in NonConAB% (3 games on a 13 game non-conference schedule) translates to an increase of 6% in conference win % or an extra win on an 18-game conference slate. Scheduling tougher games can actually make your team better. The buckets below further demonstrate the impact on conference win % by increasing NonConAB% split out by KenPom’s preseason rank. Many teams have the capacity to improve their NonConAB%, as the overall D1 rate of these games has remained constant at 30% over the last 7 years. Last season, 31 of KenPom’s top 100 preseason teams had a NonConAB% of 25% or less. Beyond the impact on conference performance, scheduling a higher percentage of A or B games has two additional benefits. Winning this type of game adds a high-quality win for an NCAA tournament resume. So far, the NCAA Tournament Committee hasn’t really punished teams for losing a game against a high-quality opponent. ESPN Bracketologist Joe Lunardi added, “The Committee has come to regard ‘good losses’ very highly. It’s almost impossible now to get an at-large bid with a weak non-conference schedule.” Additionally, top teams often pay lower ranked schools to play a home game for what they hope is an easy win. These ‘buy games’ offer an extra advantage for scheduling more A or B games. What’s better than winning a quadrant 1 or 2 game that improves the team’s performance in conference play, and being paid to do it? From a basketball strategy perspective there’s no reason not to play these games. Yes, coaches have voiced how difficult it is to schedule quality opponents, but it would be much easier if they were willing to go on the road. Look no further than a 2018 Final 4 team in Loyola Chicago. Referring to their buy game at Maryland this season, Head Coach Porter Moser said to Matt Norlander, "Here I am, a Final Four team, getting bought.” Moser may come around on this game by season’s end. He is getting paid to play a tier A game – it sounds perfect. Now just win the game to get the high quadrant win. Even if they don’t win their team may be better from playing it. There are other components to consider such as attendance related revenue and job security. Several head coaches mentioned that some coaches feel their job is safer with a higher win total regardless of their non-conference schedule difficulty. Multiple losses in non-conference play won't offset an extra win or two in conference play when a coach is on the hot seat. However, from a basketball strategy perspective, teams should be looking to increase their NonConAB%. Coaches should quickly lock in any tier A or B game, especially buy games. There is a true first mover advantage. Overall, this should improve the sport. While it’s a zero-sum game for this metric, the result of all teams taking advantage would lead to D1-wide improvement. Top teams looking to get A or B games will be forced to play more games against comparable competition or play more on the road. The improved competition is a win for fans, players, coaches, and the college game.
1 Comment
8/13/2022 09:49:30 am
hanks for sharing thedsc article, and more importantly, your personal experience mindfully using our emotions as data about our inner state and knowing when it’s better to de-escalate by taking a time out are great tools. Appreciate you reading and sharing your story since I can certainly relate and I think others can to
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
Archives
January 2020
|