After noticing some teams were ranked notably lower or higher by the BPI quality metric, which is an ESPN property that appears on the official NCAA Team Sheets, I decided to dig in deeper to see if there was any correlation between those disparities and the media contracts for the teams that were helped or hindered by ESPN's metric. The results do not look like a coincidence.
https://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2022/02/bpi-should-be-removed-from-team-sheets.html
Interesting stuff Brew. It would be interesting to see if that pattern has been true for the past few years.
What is the FOX developed metric? The BEI - Big East Index
Just kiddin.
Great article.
After reading your article, in all seriousness, one of the data points in the secret sauce of the BPI formula must be "does the team have a ESPN contract".
This needs much wider distribution from the looks of it.
Quote from: Spotcheck Billy on February 10, 2022, 04:24:03 PM
This needs much wider distribution from the looks of it.
Absolutely does.
I think we've all suspected the possibility of something fishy, but seeing the numbers is eye-opening. Major props to brew for digging into this!
A few suggestions to further the investigation:
1. Look at past years, as mentioned by TAMU. ESPN/ACC/B1G/Big12/SEC defenders will cry "small sample size" if they see data limited to 21 teams.
2. Find a way to adjust for non-uniform distribution of team quality. Each system provides a rating for each team, and then orders them by that rating to give a ranking. For example, looking at Kenpom adjusted efficiency margin, Marquette (#24) is closer to #39 Indiana than #21 Ohio State. Additionally, teams closer to the "middle" are likely to have a wider disparity in rank than teams at the top or bottom, assuming the ratings follow something similar to a bell curve. Some disparities between Kenpom/Sagarin and BPI rankings are much easier (or harder) to explain than others.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 10, 2022, 03:41:28 PM
Interesting stuff Brew. It would be interesting to see if that pattern has been true for the past few years.
If I have time, I'll dig back further. Definitely more work, but could be worthwhile. Though honestly, even if it's a one year thing, the perception of impropriety would be enough that I think the NCAA would be better served doing away with BPI.
Kenpom significantly overvalued Wisconsin for years and the reason was clear. Any specifics with BPI and the teams you mentioned?
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 10, 2022, 03:35:00 PM
After noticing some teams were ranked notably lower or higher by the BPI quality metric, which is an ESPN property that appears on the official NCAA Team Sheets, I decided to dig in deeper to see if there was any correlation between those disparities and the media contracts for the teams that were helped or hindered by ESPN's metric. The results do not look like a coincidence.
https://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2022/02/bpi-should-be-removed-from-team-sheets.html
Tremendous job here Brew.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 10, 2022, 05:49:08 PM
If I have time, I'll dig back further. Definitely more work, but could be worthwhile. Though honestly, even if it's a one year thing, the perception of impropriety would be enough that I think the NCAA would be better served doing away with BPI.
Whether or not this is statistically significant deserves some scrutiny no doubt.
But if it's a one year thing, I disagree that they should remove the metric. What if the "one year thing" showed the opposite results? Favoring the Fox properties? Should they remove it then?
Just because something looks bad, it doesn't mean that it is bad.
Really interesting stuff - as others have mentioned, it would be interesting to see how this looked in previous years. What I do know is that there are not 42 teams better than Marquette.
Pac12 still has a TV deal with espn. How does that factor in?
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 10, 2022, 08:10:07 PM
Whether or not this is statistically significant deserves some scrutiny no doubt.
But if it's a one year thing, I disagree that they should remove the metric. What if the "one year thing" showed the opposite results? Favoring the Fox properties? Should they remove it then?
Just because something looks bad, it doesn't mean that it is bad.
Yeah. They should remove it regardless. There is a conflict of interest and it doesn't matter if it might be on the up and up.
When there is a conflict of interest the burden should be on the conflicted party to prove they are being ethical. So if espn wants to keep the BPI on the team sheets they need to be transparent and show the math behind the system so neutral parties can verify its legitimacy.
Quote from: MUpugnacity on February 10, 2022, 09:09:12 PM
Yeah. They should remove it regardless. There is a conflict of interest and it doesn't matter if it might be on the up and up.
When there is a conflict of interest the burden should be on the conflicted party to prove they are being ethical. So if espn wants to keep the BPI on the team sheets they need to be transparent and show the math behind the system so neutral parties can verify its legitimacy.
It's only a potential conflict if this is more than a one year thing. Otherwise it's a one year anomaly.
And I'm not even sure it's a conflict anyway. How does ESPN benefit from this?
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 11, 2022, 04:55:23 AM
It's only a potential conflict if this is more than a one year thing. Otherwise it's a one year anomaly.
And I'm not even sure it's a conflict anyway. How does ESPN benefit from this?
Are you asking how ESPN benefits from boosting the profiles of teams that are signed to ESPN and not Fox?
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 10, 2022, 08:10:07 PM
Whether or not this is statistically significant deserves some scrutiny no doubt.
But if it's a one year thing, I disagree that they should remove the metric. What if the "one year thing" showed the opposite results? Favoring the Fox properties? Should they remove it then?
Just because something looks bad, it doesn't mean that it is bad.
To the question, yes, because the perception of bias and potential conspiracy just stirs a pot that could be avoided by simply removing BPI (there are 2 resume metrics, why do they need 3 quality ones?) or replacing BPI with T-Rank, Haslametrics, or EvanMiya, all of which provide a comparable data point without contractual complications.
The choice is between perception of bias and no perception of bias. For the sake of transparency and the satisfaction of both fans and NCAA member institutions, why not take the contractual issues out when there's no need to have them there?
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 11, 2022, 04:55:23 AM
It's only a potential conflict if this is more than a one year thing. Otherwise it's a one year anomaly.
And I'm not even sure it's a conflict anyway. How does ESPN benefit from this?
Fact vs appearance. Obviously, a factual conflict of interests would be immensely damaging. But the appearance of a conflict can be damaging as well if there's any doubt cast on outcomes.
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 11, 2022, 04:55:23 AM
It's only a potential conflict if this is more than a one year thing. Otherwise it's a one year anomaly.
And I'm not even sure it's a conflict anyway. How does ESPN benefit from this?
If their teams are in the NCAA tournament? Marketing. People remember March, so the next year, if a viewer's choice is between two ACC teams on ESPN that made the field or two MWC teams on FS1 that didn't but might have been better teams, which are they watching? If you're looking for a game to watch on your tablet, do you pick the game with the Belmont team you watched win a First Four game or the Colorado State team that would've been better metrically if not for BPI but was playing in the NIT the same night?
We know that ESPN has tampered with leagues. We know ESPN worked with Pitt and Syracuse to undermine the Big East and benefit the ACC. Why wouldn't they be willing to do the same to get their contractual partners tourney credits that are worth millions of dollars to those leagues and more exposure and marketing for the teams they put on the air from November to March?
Whether it's the reality or not, the reality we know is bad enough the the perception of impropriety should be avoided.
We are talking about two separate things here and I think the problem Fluffy is having is the tendency of the initial article - and some of the responses to it - to conflate those two issues.
Issue One: Appearance of impropriety and the possibility of a conflict of interest. That issue is wholly independent of the data provided. The premise is simple: ESPN has a financial stake in which teams make the tournament and which teams do not. For the sake of avoiding that conflict of interest, any metric supplied by ESPN should be removed.
Issue Two: The factual analysis of one year of data leading to the insinuation (conclusion) that ESPN is skewing their data to their financial benefit. That data is, in my humble opinion, statistically irrelevant. It would be like flipping a coin three times, it landing on heads three times, and then deducing that heads is more likely than tails.
I think the data is interesting. At the very least it warrants further investigation. But I also think it's a bit unfair to use one year of data to try to prove ESPN is acting in bad faith.
Now, let me be clear. I would not be surprised that a farther dive would begin to corroborate that initial assumption, but right now we don't have it.
On the other hand, regardless of the data, the mere fact that ESPN has a financial stake in which teams do well and which teams do not, creates in my opinion a perception and appearance of impropriety that should be eliminated. I just won't go so far as to say that this year's data standing alone supports my opinion.
Quote from: MUCam on February 11, 2022, 07:10:30 AM
Issue One: Appearance of impropriety and the possibility of a conflict of interest. That issue is wholly independent of the data provided. The premise is simple: ESPN has a financial stake in which teams make the tournament and which teams do not. For the sake of avoiding that conflict of interest, any metric supplied by ESPN should be removed.
I have two issues with this. Just because there is a *perceived* conflict of interest, that doesn't mean a conflict of interest actually exists. Potential conflicts can be disclosed, but don't necessarily have to require action, if the data shows no statistical significance over time.
I also question how much ESPN would actually benefit by this supposed conflict of interest. Let's say that an ESPN team and a Fox team are on the bubble together and the ESPN team gets in. Or a couple Fox teams look underseeded and ESPN teams look overseeded. How does that materially benefit ESPN? Are they going to get more eyeballs next year, and thus charge more for advertisements, if Notre Dame makes the tournament and Creighton does not? Ditto if Nova ends up a 4-seed while Illinois is a 3-seed?
I just don't see the material benefit from ESPN's POV.
Quote from: MUCam on February 11, 2022, 07:10:30 AM
Issue Two: The factual analysis of one year of data leading to the insinuation (conclusion) that ESPN is skewing their data to their financial benefit. That data is, in my humble opinion, statistically irrelevant. It would be like flipping a coin three times, it landing on heads three times, and then deducing that heads is more likely than tails.
I think the data is interesting. At the very least it warrants further investigation. But I also think it's a bit unfair to use one year of data to try to prove ESPN is acting in bad faith.
I agree with this. I asked this yesterday, but what if the data showed the opposite and "overranked" the Fox schools? Would we still be suggesting its removal? I think that's doubtful.
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 11, 2022, 07:49:39 AM
I have two issues with this. Just because there is a *perceived* conflict of interest, that doesn't mean a conflict of interest actually exists. Potential conflicts can be disclosed, but don't necessarily have to require action, if the data shows no statistical significance over time.
I also question how much ESPN would actually benefit by this supposed conflict of interest. Let's say that an ESPN team and a Fox team are on the bubble together and the ESPN team gets in. Or a couple Fox teams look underseeded and ESPN teams look overseeded. How does that materially benefit ESPN? Are they going to get more eyeballs next year, and thus charge more for advertisements, if Notre Dame makes the tournament and Creighton does not? Ditto if Nova ends up a 4-seed while Illinois is a 3-seed?
I just don't see the material benefit from ESPN's POV.
I agree with this. I asked this yesterday, but what if the data showed the opposite and "overranked" the Fox schools? Would we still be suggesting its removal? I think that's doubtful.
This is the way I lean.
I simply think BPI isn't very good and should be replaced for that reason.
However, this is still an interesting piece by Brew. It's worth exploring
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 11, 2022, 06:23:58 AM
If their teams are in the NCAA tournament? Marketing. People remember March, so the next year, if a viewer's choice is between two ACC teams on ESPN that made the field or two MWC teams on FS1 that didn't but might have been better teams, which are they watching? If you're looking for a game to watch on your tablet, do you pick the game with the Belmont team you watched win a First Four game or the Colorado State team that would've been better metrically if not for BPI but was playing in the NIT the same night?
I think this is extremely tenuous. Do you really think people are going to watch one game versus another because it involves one of the last teams picked in the NCAA versus the NIT? I would think that is WAY down on the list for why people chose what game to watch.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 11, 2022, 06:23:58 AM
We know that ESPN has tampered with leagues. We know ESPN worked with Pitt and Syracuse to undermine the Big East and benefit the ACC. Why wouldn't they be willing to do the same to get their contractual partners tourney credits that are worth millions of dollars to those leagues and more exposure and marketing for the teams they put on the air from November to March?
Whether it's the reality or not, the reality we know is bad enough the the perception of impropriety should be avoided.
Tampering with leagues has a clear material benefit for ESPN. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
If Fox or CBS had a metric on the team sheet, it would be just as problematic in my opinion. All it takes is this lining up once to create a bad look.
Further, T-Rank is more respected and referenced by non-ESPN national media and doesn't have this type of conflict. Why not just use that instead of one with contractual conflicts of interest? Or Haslametrics or EvanMiya?
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 11, 2022, 08:13:16 AM
If Fox or CBS had a metric on the team sheet, it would be just as problematic in my opinion. All it takes is this lining up once to create a bad look.
Further, T-Rank is more respected and referenced by non-ESPN national media and doesn't have this type of conflict. Why not just use that instead of one with contractual conflicts of interest? Or Haslametrics or EvanMiya?
As I said, because potential or perceived conflicts of interest may not actually be conflicts of interest.
If BPI is shown over time to be a bad metric, then they should drop it. But if it is proven over the course of time to be a good metric, then they should continue to use it regardless of the ESPN connection.
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 11, 2022, 08:01:05 AM
I think this is extremely tenuous. Do you really think people are going to watch one game versus another because it involves one of the last teams picked in the NCAA versus the NIT? I would think that is WAY down on the list for why people chose what game to watch.
I think you're taking a narrow view of this. Do people chose to watch games based on who made the tournament last season? No. But that's far from the only impact this could potentially have.
More ESPN properties earning bids = more tournament credits = more money for the member schools = more resources to strengthen ESPN properties' programs over time = increased eyeballs to ESPN over time.
ESPN properties earning higher seeds = easier paths to Sweet 16s/Elite Eights/Final Fours = more tournament credits = more resources as previously discussed PLUS more preseason hype the following season for teams that make Final Fours and better. People don't care about who made the tournament the previous season when deciding what games to watch...but games featuring teams who made the Final Four the following season certainly get more eyeballs
ESPN properties earning bids/higher seeds = increased attractiveness to future recruits = ESPN properties strengthening over time = increased eyeballs to ESPN over time
These are just off the top of my head. You can also consider the negatives of each of these as well. In addition to benefitting their properties, they hurt their competitors' properties.
Of course ESPN would prefer that their properties make the tournament and go on deep runs, it's silly to think otherwise. Now this doesn't mean that BPI is some ESPN conspiracy to inflate their properties' resumes. But to suggest that they wouldn't benefit from their properties having more postseason success is illogical.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 11, 2022, 11:14:16 AM
I think you're taking a narrow view of this. Do people chose to watch games based on who made the tournament last season? No. But that's far from the only impact this could potentially have.
I was simply addressing the hypothetical that brew mentioned.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 11, 2022, 11:14:16 AM
More ESPN properties earning bids = more tournament credits = more money for the member schools = more resources to strengthen ESPN properties' programs over time = increased eyeballs to ESPN over time.
ESPN properties earning higher seeds = easier paths to Sweet 16s/Elite Eights/Final Fours = more tournament credits = more resources as previously discussed PLUS more preseason hype the following season for teams that make Final Fours and better. People don't care about who made the tournament the previous season when deciding what games to watch...but games featuring teams who made the Final Four the following season certainly get more eyeballs
ESPN properties earning bids/higher seeds = increased attractiveness to future recruits = ESPN properties strengthening over time = increased eyeballs to ESPN over time
These are just off the top of my head. You can also consider the negatives of each of these as well. In addition to benefitting their properties, they hurt their competitors' properties.
Of course ESPN would prefer that their properties make the tournament and go on deep runs, it's silly to think otherwise. Now this doesn't mean that BPI is some ESPN conspiracy to inflate their properties' resumes. But to suggest that they wouldn't benefit from their properties having more postseason success is illogical.
I thoroughly understand why ESPN would want "their schools" to perform better. I just think the link is pretty far-fetched. Manipulating the BPI to
...improve tournament probability and/or seeding to
...improve tournament credit payouts to
...create more resources to spend on basketball to
...create a better program over time to
...increase eyeballs to ESPN programs
is an incredibly inefficient way to accomplish this. Especially when tournament credits are a six year rolling average.
So again, I would like to see data from more than just one season. My guess is that you will find the results pretty much normalize over time. And if that is the case, I have zero problem with their use of BPI as a metric. The link between the metric and any perceived ESPN benefit is a pretty slight one. To the point that I am not even sure it is worth the effort.
I am surprised that anyone thinks that ESPN is some sort of journalistic entity. ESPN abandoned all independent sports news reporting a long time ago. I'm not sure anyone views them as a source of news and opinion without bias. For example, Jay Bilas declaring that UNC is without a doubt in the NCAA even though every projection had them out. Not even on the bubble.
That said, I'd do the same thing as them if I was management or an investor. They are in it for the money. The have a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to maximize profits and value. Independent and factual reporting and opinions will run in direct opposition to their main purpose. If they can promote 'their' teams regardless of facts or disparage and hurt the perception on non-ESPN teams, they will and they should.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 12, 2022, 11:21:28 AM
I am surprised that anyone thinks that ESPN is some sort of journalistic entity. ESPN abandoned all independent sports news reporting a long time ago. I'm not sure anyone views them as a source of news and opinion without bias. For example, Jay Bilas declaring that UNC is without a doubt in the NCAA even though every projection had them out. Not even on the bubble.
That said, I'd do the same thing as them if I was management or an investor. They are in it for the money. The have a fiduciary responsibility to the stock holders to maximize profits and value. Independent and factual reporting and opinions will run in direct opposition to their main purpose. If they can promote 'their' teams regardless of facts or disparage and hurt the perception on non-ESPN teams, they will and they should.
Jay Bilas is a color commentator
Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 12, 2022, 11:21:28 AM
I am surprised that anyone thinks that ESPN is some sort of journalistic entity.
I don't think too many people hanging at the Al have this misconception. ESPN having its thumb on the scale is, as you say, expected. But the selection committee? We have to assume its impartiality. A suspect metric from a not-impartial entity being given any weight throws that out the window.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 12, 2022, 11:21:28 AM
Independent and factual reporting and opinions will run in direct opposition to their main purpose.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Either way we have our terrifying quote of the day.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on February 12, 2022, 11:41:34 AM
Jay Bilas is a color commentator
Exactly. He's an entertainer. He is paid to promote the ESPN brand. Anyone would be a fool to listen to him and expect intellectual honesty.
But I feel like if I watch national broadcasts of the NFL or NBA, the color commentators are not biased like ESPN. But maybe I'm being fooled.
Quote from: Oldgym on February 12, 2022, 12:00:15 PM
I don't think too many people hanging at the Al have this misconception. ESPN having its thumb on the scale is, as you say, expected. But the selection committee? We have to assume its impartiality. A suspect metric from a not-impartial entity being given any weight throws that out the window.
I totally agree. BPI should not be part of the equation. Didn't the AP request out of the matrix for the college football championship to preserve their integrity and independence years ago?
Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 12, 2022, 12:18:01 PM
Exactly. He's an entertainer. He is paid to promote the ESPN brand. Anyone would be a fool to listen to him and expect intellectual honesty.
But I feel like if I watch national broadcasts of the NFL or NBA, the color commentators are not biased like ESPN. But maybe I'm being fooled.
That's why I don't pay attention to who he says is or isn't in the tournament.
I mean, Dickie V would put 150 teams in the tournament on a yearly basis. People worry way too much about what announcers say or don't say.
Quote from: Uncle Rico on February 12, 2022, 12:27:09 PM
That's why I don't pay attention to who he says is or isn't in the tournament.
I mean, Dickie V would put 150 teams in the tournament on a yearly basis. People worry way too much about what announcers say or don't say.
You're smarter than the casual fan.
Dickie V would award the NC to Duke every year without playing a game if he could.
Look, I still watch ESPN, though not as much as I used too, but like you I understand the context and bias of what I hear.
To be fair, the ESPN evaluation is probably every bit as fair as the NYT's book rankings.
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on February 12, 2022, 01:26:00 PM
To be fair, the ESPN evaluation is probably every bit as fair as the NYT's book rankings.
LOL!!! NYT and 'fair' in the same sentence.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on February 12, 2022, 12:21:31 PM
I totally agree. BPI should not be part of the equation. Didn't the AP request out of the matrix for the college football championship to preserve their integrity and independence years ago?
"Integrity and indepdence?" LOL. No. The requested out because they wanted to preserve their own national championship declaration.
I mean, I don't know if there is a group of writers less "independent" than college football writers.
Quote from: Oldgym on February 12, 2022, 12:00:15 PM
I don't think too many people hanging at the Al have this misconception. ESPN having its thumb on the scale is, as you say, expected. But the selection committee? We have to assume its impartiality. A suspect metric from a not-impartial entity being given any weight throws that out the window.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Either way we have our terrifying quote of the day.
We have little data to presume that ESPN has their "thumb on the scale." At all.
Congrats to Dwayne Killings! As of this morning, UAlbany is ranked #1 in BPI.
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi
With twice as many points as Gonzaga!!!
Quote from: Uncle Rico on February 12, 2022, 11:41:34 AM
Jay Bilas is a color commentator
...and I thought he was some old "white" guy who played for Duke.