This is a follow-up to something I posted a couple of weeks ago. Now that the season is over, I've crunched the numbers on just how easy our schedule was, and how much benefit we gained from it. To start, here are the final team rankings:
For those who don't follow my rankings posts, a very quick explanation. I use a formula much like KenPom, except I combine offense and defense into one number, and compare that number to the league average. So each number here should be thought of as how much a team should expect to win or lose by against a perfectly average B1G team on a neutral court. I also only use league games in my rankings. However, experience tells me that my league SOS numbers and so forth will pretty much match up with what KenPom will tell you, anyway. Any difference is negligible. The primary difference is one of presentation.
Anyway, the following table shows just how much the unbalanced schedule hurt or helped each team. It figures out a team's Pythagorean winning percentage against an average schedule, and against the schedule actually faced, then multiplies the difference by 18 to measure how many wins each team was "gifted" (or robbed of!) by the schedule:
First, some limitations must be noted. I can't account, for example, for how teams might have been helped by schedule order. It might have helped IU, for example, to start with the easiest part of the schedule and end with the most difficult part. I can account, but choose not to, for various reasons, that different schools enjoy different levels of home court advantage. Home advantage is accounted for in my rankings, but it's a league-wide average, rather than an individualized rating.
Second, remember that it's normal for bad teams to have a more difficult SOS. Rutgers, for example, is the only team that doesn't get to play Rutgers. IU and MSU had the easiest schedules because they were the top two teams, only played each other once, and didn't have to play themselves. In other words, IU and MSU both played exactly one game against the top two teams in the league, while everyone else played between two and four.
Third, you'll note that the effect a team's schedule had on it's record does not rank the same as it's SOS. MSU and IU had the easiest schedules, but OSU, NW, and Nebraska all enjoyed more of a benefit from their SOS. This is because teams in the middle of the conference will enjoy a bigger advantage (or disadvantage) from a shift in SOS than teams at the edges. To give the most extremely example, Rutgers finished 1-17, but even if they were given the easiest possible B1G schedule, they still probably would have finished 1-17.
However, one conclusion, I think is very clear from this data: while the unbalanced schedule does result in real advantages and disadvantages, the difference is not enough to even remotely begin accepting any criticism of our championship as undeserved in any way. The only team to finish within 2 games of us was also the only team with an easier schedule than us, and of the teams that finished 3 games back, Wiscy had the hardest schedule, and even for them, the difference between IU's schedule and theirs was only worth about 1 full win.
Now, as a matter of policy, I'm still very much in favor of a true round robin. I don't like unbalanced scheduling. But these numbers have produced pretty much the exact same results as last year, and demonstrate that the unbalanced schedule is not nearly the factor in the final standings that many of us would naturally assume. If anyone still harbors any doubt about the "validity" of our title (and after finishing with two big wins, they shouldn't), I hope this post puts to bed any remaining doubts.
Code:
Rank Team Avg
1 MSU 12.05
2 Ind 9.43
3 Iowa 7.12
4 PU 7.02
5 Wiscy 5.83
6 Mary 5.12
7 UM 0.37
8 OSU -1.17
9 NW -1.37
10 Neb -1.45
11 PSU -6.74
12 Ill -7.51
13 Minny -9.98
14 RU -18.71Anyway, the following table shows just how much the unbalanced schedule hurt or helped each team. It figures out a team's Pythagorean winning percentage against an average schedule, and against the schedule actually faced, then multiplies the difference by 18 to measure how many wins each team was "gifted" (or robbed of!) by the schedule:
Code:
Team SOS Rank Pyth PythVsSOS SOSEffect SOSGames
NW -0.71 12 0.433 0.468 0.035 0.62
OSU -0.51 11 0.443 0.468 0.025 0.45
Neb -0.50 10 0.429 0.453 0.024 0.43
MSU -1.43 14 0.914 0.934 0.020 0.35
Ind -0.86 13 0.864 0.883 0.019 0.34
Ill -0.39 8 0.186 0.199 0.012 0.22
Minny -0.43 9 0.124 0.133 0.010 0.17
RU 0.59 4 0.024 0.022 -0.003 -0.05
UM 0.12 7 0.518 0.512 -0.006 -0.11
Mary 0.31 6 0.732 0.720 -0.012 -0.22
PU 0.55 5 0.798 0.780 -0.018 -0.33
Iowa 0.83 3 0.802 0.774 -0.027 -0.49
PSU 1.30 1 0.210 0.171 -0.039 -0.71
Wiscy 1.13 2 0.758 0.715 -0.043 -0.77Second, remember that it's normal for bad teams to have a more difficult SOS. Rutgers, for example, is the only team that doesn't get to play Rutgers. IU and MSU had the easiest schedules because they were the top two teams, only played each other once, and didn't have to play themselves. In other words, IU and MSU both played exactly one game against the top two teams in the league, while everyone else played between two and four.
Third, you'll note that the effect a team's schedule had on it's record does not rank the same as it's SOS. MSU and IU had the easiest schedules, but OSU, NW, and Nebraska all enjoyed more of a benefit from their SOS. This is because teams in the middle of the conference will enjoy a bigger advantage (or disadvantage) from a shift in SOS than teams at the edges. To give the most extremely example, Rutgers finished 1-17, but even if they were given the easiest possible B1G schedule, they still probably would have finished 1-17.
However, one conclusion, I think is very clear from this data: while the unbalanced schedule does result in real advantages and disadvantages, the difference is not enough to even remotely begin accepting any criticism of our championship as undeserved in any way. The only team to finish within 2 games of us was also the only team with an easier schedule than us, and of the teams that finished 3 games back, Wiscy had the hardest schedule, and even for them, the difference between IU's schedule and theirs was only worth about 1 full win.
Now, as a matter of policy, I'm still very much in favor of a true round robin. I don't like unbalanced scheduling. But these numbers have produced pretty much the exact same results as last year, and demonstrate that the unbalanced schedule is not nearly the factor in the final standings that many of us would naturally assume. If anyone still harbors any doubt about the "validity" of our title (and after finishing with two big wins, they shouldn't), I hope this post puts to bed any remaining doubts.
