Yesterday was a big day for the Mountain West’s legitimacy, so while we’re mostly going to talk about the Big Ten, first let’s credit two Mountain West teams. Colorado State and New Mexico both played good games of basketball, and while it’s easy to poke holes in Colorado State’s win over Memphis, those critiques will fade with time. In the big picture, these teams needed these wins, and while we’d rarely encourage a fan to cheer for their team’s rivals, other MWC schools needed to see these wins as well. If they didn’t, already bad numbers would worsen, and the likelihood of a 2026 selection reckoning was going to increase. That’s a memory now. Mountain West teams are 2–2 on the tournament. Colorado State and New Mexico got their victories. It doesn’t matter whom the Rams beat.
We’re tracking two things about final scores this March, and we’re using kenpom to track them. The first, provoked by Pomeroy’s own column explaining why his algorithm probably overrates the SEC, is how much each conference is over or underperforming its kenpom spreads in the NCAA Tournament and the NIT. The second, provoked by ongoing discussions over the basketball used in these tournaments, is how totals are performing. Is the ball too inflated? When? Where? Why?
To address the totals, since that’s quicker: Yesterday was a huge day for kenpom unders. Ten games went under their kenpom total. Only four went over. (Two hit the total exactly.) The average game missed the kenpom total by 7.3 points. Combined with Thursday’s results and those of the (over-heavy) First Four, we’re seeing totals 2.6 points lower per game than their kenpom prediction. Today’s games are back at the Thursday sites, so if it’s about who’s doing the inflating and the same inflaters inflate every time at a given site, maybe 2.6 is too big a number. But handicappers would probably be justified right now in using a number 2 or 2.5 points lower than kenpom’s total as their starting point.
NIT games, meanwhile, are averaging regulation totals 6.0 points higher than their predictions. This is surprising given what we’re seeing in the NCAA Tournament. Is the whole trend meaningless? Did the NIT see bigger numbers, especially on Tuesday, because coaches had less time to gameplan for their opponents? Is the NIT seeing more end-of-game fouling, maybe because games are a little bit closer? We don’t know what to expect today for totals in Chattanooga and Fairfax. We don’t know whether we should expect anything noteworthy at all.
As for the spreads: Here’s what we’ve seen so far among leagues who’ve played three or more games.
| Conference | KP Spread W’s | KP Spread L’s | KP pt. diff. |
| Big Ten | 7.5 | 0.5 | 11.50 |
| WCC | 3 | 1 | 10.75 |
| MVC | 2.5 | 0.5 | 6.67 |
| Big 12 | 6 | 2 | 5.13 |
| Big East | 4 | 2 | 4.67 |
| SoCon | 2 | 2 | -0.25 |
| ACC | 3.5 | 4.5 | -0.38 |
| CUSA | 2 | 2 | -0.50 |
| SEC | 6 | 8 | -3.07 |
| AAC | 1 | 3 | -3.50 |
| A-10 | 3 | 4 | -6.71 |
| MWC | 2 | 3 | -7.00 |
| Big West | 1.5 | 2.5 | -9.00 |
That’s quite the number at the top.
It’s impressive for a group of teams to win all their games. It’s more interesting that seven of the eight teams in question here overperformed against expectations.
Pomeroy said the SEC was probably overrated, and he said that talent is comparable across the power conferences. We took this to mean some of the power conferences must be underrated, and because of previous years’ results, we identified the ACC and Big East as candidates. The Big 12? We could see it. It was the best conference for quite a few years, then lost that title rather suddenly. We weren’t sure how realignment shaped that, but at a gut level, we were open to the Big 12.
The Big Ten? That wasn’t one we expected.
As we keep saying, this is a tiny sample. One great game by one single team or one terrible game by a different single team can send multiple conferences’ perceptions way off track. We’re not saying to expect eleven extra points out of every Big Ten team today. But so far this month, there’s more compelling evidence that the Big Ten is overrated by kenpom than there is that anyone else is over or underrated. Now, we see if it holds.
Some more thoughts:
- Back when Richard Pitino coached Minnesota, I got the idea from some Big Ten players that he was a bit of a laughingstock around the league. Remember: He didn’t leave Minnesota by choice. Credit to him for growth and redemption in Albuquerque. It’s easy to forget that coaches can get better and worse over time.
- This was not an exciting first round, and that’s fine. We’ve wanted powerhouses back in college basketball, and we may be getting them. There’d optimally be a little bit of chaos, but the nice thing about a lack of chaos is that it makes future chaos matter more. We don’t want sports to resemble Plinko.
- Should we be concerned about the high-major/mid-major gap? I don’t think so. Not yet. Remember when UConn was “bad for women’s basketball”? Others figured out how to compete. Remember when the Dodgers were so good that they’d ruined baseball? They’ve only won two World Series in the last 35 years. College basketball has lacked dynasties lately, and when it’s found them, those dynasties have lacked serious rivals. Great seasons like 2015 had separation at the top but also competition within that separation. I’m skeptical that we’re headed for a great national championship this year, especially with Houston and Duke on the same side of the bracket, but if we get it, we should enjoy it and not overreact yet to fears that NIL is ruining the competitive balance. Competition finds a way.
**
