Get Ready For Confusion! WAC Basketball Is Dropping Traditional Wins/Losses And Using A KenPom Formula For Conference Standings

Alright so there's a lot going on here. Yes wins and losses still matter just not in the traditional sense. You don't just look at the conference standings and see 14-4 vs 13-5 and assume the 14-4 is above them. That's because the WAC is using this new formula that is based on results vs who you play (h/t CBS): 

Wins and losses is a zero-sum result. But beating a top-50 team is a much bigger accomplishment than beating a team that rates somewhere in the 300s. The WAC's seeding initiative will reflect that reality. The algorithm will account for where games are played (at home, on the road, on a neutral court) and will be based on the NCAA's NET ranking, which is the selection committees' primary sorting tool for seeding and selecting the NCAA's basketball tournaments.

KenPom went on to say that margin won't matter (slightly different than NET) 

Confused yet? 

As for how the algorithm works, Pomeroy said each game is calibrated based on the chances of the 150th-best team in the country winning in that scenario. For example, if the 150th-best team had to face the top-ranked team, Pomeroy's algorithm, which is based on mountain ranges of historical data, suggests that Team 150 would have approximately a 2% chance of winning that game on the road, a 4% chance of winning on a neutral court and a 7% chance of winning at home. 

Every game has a valuation of 1.0, meaning that every game in a season will carry weight in the Résumé Seeding System and each result will add (with a win) or deduct (with a loss) from a team's season-long total.

Okay, this all makes sense except for one major factor and why I hate this. We're wanting the WAC to schedule better and reward them for wins in the nonconference for their conference standings. That makes no sense to me. The WAC is a 1-bid league. They don't get to pick who they play the majority of the nonconference. New Mexico State would love to play a bunch of decent teams. That's not always the case. So if Grand Canyon beats Arizona State, who then goes on to have a big year in the Pac-12, GCU has an improvement to win the WAC. IT MAKES NO SENSE! 

Advertisement

I'm all for unique scheduling and these 1-bid leagues trying to get their best team in the Tournament, but there are a couple things here. 1) This doesn't guarantee that. It doesn't even necessarily improve it all that much. The best team still has to win the WAC Tournament! 2) If that's the case why not go with what the WCC and other leagues do? Put the 1 seed as a double-bye to where they are automatically in the semifinals or finals. That's the ultimate goal of this and there's something teams can look at and figure out. 

I get that we want the most 'fair' standings when there is an unbalanced schedule in conference play. But rewarding teams for what they do in the nonconference isn't the answer. Do something like C-USA where they have flex scheduling late in the year and based on standings put teams in pods to help improve bids. 

I'm a KenPom guy. I like analytics. There's more than a place in the game for them. But this, this just doesn't make sense to me. There are better ways to improve making sure your best team makes the NCAA Tournament.