Ken Pomeroy’s Theory that the SEC Is Overrated Is Aging Well

We’re tracking two things with 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 by site and by session.

This is all extremely small-sample stuff, and with the exception of the Mountain West teams—who have struggled for much more than one postseason—it’s perfectly fair to write it all off. We don’t know if there’s meaning here or not, and if there is, it might be too temporary to be of any use. Last year, ACC teams would have performed well by this measure. This year, they’re performing closer to the average. A few things to note:

• WCC teams look great through three games, which is surprising given the accusations kenpom overrates Gonzaga. Their games have come against teams from the SEC (Georgia), Big West (UC Riverside), and WAC (Utah Valley). We’ve only seen one WAC team play, but SEC and Big West teams are low on this list. Maybe WCC teams are underrated. Maybe they’ve had a good draw.
• Big East teams pop as well, which is interesting given UConn’s dominance the last two years and even Seton Hall’s NIT championship last spring. Creighton covered handily against an ACC team. Xavier covered against an SEC team. St. John’s covered handily against a team from the Summit League. Even if the SEC and Summit League teams really are badly overrated, ACC teams are at least close to even by this measure. Is the Big East more competitive this year than it appears? Pomeroy did imply the talent level is decently level across the power leagues.
• It’s interesting to see the Big Ten teams so high on the list, given the league’s March reputation. They played against a Big Sky team (Montana), a Big South team (High Point), and a team from the Big West (UC San Diego). The Big South is a one-game league, but both the Big Sky and Big West are low on this list, and actually lower if you exclude the games their teams played yesterday against teams from the Big Ten. So, take that one with an extra grain of salt, but at the same time, the Big Ten’s reputation wasn’t hurt by yesterday’s action.

I’m curious about the Big Sky, and I’ll be curious about the WAC. There was so much focus last season around BPI incorporating elevation as a variable and BPI offering a poor impression of the Mountain West. People got really mad about that. Those same people may have overrated the Mountain West? Mountain West teams really do routinely struggle in March. Given kenpom has to mostly go off of November and December when comparing conferences, here are three possible explanations. These are not the only possible explanations, but they’re three that come to mind:

1. Kenpom could underrate the effect of elevation on home-court advantage when the visiting team isn’t used to playing at altitude. Kenpom’s home-court advantage metric is based on conference games, and I’m not sure how heavily it’s incorporated into single-game projections.
2. Teams who play at elevation could be better-conditioned early in the season, thereby overperforming at neutral-site MTE’s.
3. Travel in these leagues could wear teams down, as could the combination of living at elevation and living in the cold.

The first two explanations are reasons kenpom could overrate the Mountain West in January and carry that overrating through to April. The third is a reason the teams in these leagues could actually get worse—relative to the rest of the country—as the season goes on. The third seems most specious on the surface, given these leagues aren’t exclusively cold-weather, elevated leagues. But then again, San Diego State’s the only Mountain West team who’s done anything in March lately, so…*shrug*?

As for totals:

• In Providence yesterday, the four games went under–push–over–under against the kenpom total.
• In Denver, the four games went under–over–over–under.
• In Wichita, the four games went under–over–under–over.
• In Lexington, the four games went over–under–over–under.

In short? Nothing to see, from what we can tell. We were curious about overs because the NIT’s seen so many, and we pinpointed ball inflation as a possible cause based on comments from Mark Titus this week on Pardon My Take. (Titus relayed an anecdote from a Wilson employee, saying he was told the squishiness of this particular ball can lead inflaters to think the ball is less inflated than it is, and that they can then overinflate it, making it bounce harder against the rim.) Across yesterday, final totals were 1.5 points lower per game than their kenpom estimate. Eight games went under the kenpom total, seven went over, and one met the total exactly. There was not only no correlation by site, but in no single session did both games go over or under the total. If this were a larger sample and the ball was the only independent variable, you’d be led to believe The Inflater was watching the way it bounced on the rim in one game and adjusting the PSI accordingly for the next.

**