College Basketball Power Ratings Question

[Frats]

I have a question for those of you that run your own college hoops power ratings. Do you invest the time to study and/or install ratings to those teams that are in the unlined conferences? Do you feel that it's beneficial having all the info that you can on the America East/MEAC/SWAC/etc? Or do you feel that the time spent on these conferences is wasted time that could be better spent elsewhere?

Last season was my first year running my own numbers, and I did spend the time on each of these conferences (and am doing it again this season). I got into a good discussion about it over the weeknd with someone that doesn't spend any time at all on these conferences. I think it's helpful both for when you get a team from a "lined" conference playing one of these teams (to see where the game landed in relation to the expectations), and for when those teams appear in a lined game (tournaments, TV games, random slow nights where books have been throwing up America East games, etc). The guy I spoke with felt that I was wasting time doing this research that could be much better spent focusing on those teams that will be playing lined games pretty much every time out.

What is the norm here? I thought that most people that did their own ratings would do it for all 300+ teams, but maybe I'm wrong. Just wanted to get some thoughts as we're on the brink of the season.

[Spektre]

I do it for all teams. My method works better with a "closed system" (ie no games played to undefined opponents)

[Nookx]

If you are good at handicapping the smaller conferences you can theoretically make more money then the major conferences.

[Frats]

If you are good at handicapping the smaller conferences you can theoretically make more money then the major conferences.

I'm not talking though about small conferences like the Big West and MAAC and Ivy where we'll see games lined every night. I'm talking about the Patriot league, Southland, MEAC, America East, SWAC, etc. Conferences where you'll see teams play lined games a handful of times each season. There are certainly good opportunities when those teams do show up in lined games, but is it worth the work that it takes to stay on top of them for ~5 months. Or is that time better spent putting more focus on those conferences that will get lined every time out.

[chunk]

You can be successful without them, but I can't speak to the possibility of missed opportunities because I've never included them. 190+ teams are enough to focus on for me.

[Frats]

You can be successful without them, but I can't speak to the possibility of missed opportunities because I've never included them. 190+ teams are enough to focus on for me.

Do you have any issues adjusting your ratings after games involving teams that you "include" against teams that you "exclude"? I like having the baseline expectation on the game so that I can adjust based upon the actual result, but don't know if it's absolutely necessary. And I certainly can't argue that we already have our hands full following the teams from "lined" conferences, what you're doing certainly makes sense. Thanks for the feedback, wondering what others think on this issue.

[CollegeOverUnder]

I run my own College Basketball Ratings and I no a good amount about the MEAC and SWAC but the Patriot and America East are a bit harder to line even though I still no enough to get away with a few bets when their games are lined. I don't really waste my time on the Patriot and America East though.

Ill back a game in the MEAC or SWAC though they are pretty easy to line if you sit down and look at the numbers

[Frats]

I run my own College Basketball Ratings and I no a good amount about the MEAC and SWAC but the Patriot and America East are a bit harder to line even though I still no enough to get away with a few bets when their games are lined. I don't really waste my time on the Patriot and America East though. Ill back a game in the MEAC or SWAC though they are pretty easy to line if you sit down and look at the numbers

If you don't mind sharing, I'm curious as to why you find the MEAC and SWAC easier to beat than the other conferences. I've personally had a very tough time with these conferences since there is so little information available, and they take such a beating in the non-conference schedule (especially the SWAC likes playing the big boys for $$$, and some of these teams just get pounded night in and night out). I personally find the AEC and Patriot easier due to geography (I'm in the northeast and have an easier time getting info on them), I'm wondering if you're more in the southeast (MEAC/SWAC territory).

[chunk]

Do you have any issues adjusting your ratings after games involving teams that you "include" against teams that you "exclude"? I like having the baseline expectation on the game so that I can adjust based upon the actual result, but don't know if it's absolutely necessary. And I certainly can't argue that we already have our hands full following the teams from "lined" conferences, what you're doing certainly makes sense. Thanks for the feedback, wondering what others think on this issue.

You can adjust you're ratings with just a cursory knowledge of the superfluous teams. Obviously, 1 game here or there will not have a large impact either way.

[357vegas]

Why not use SAGARIN RATING? I have used for year with great success.

[Pokerjoe]

If you're using a program which downloads data and generates a number, it's just as easy to use all the teams, no matter the level.

If your using hand-made ratings, it probably isn't possible or worthwhile to follow the un-lined schools, and so best, when a lined school plays an unlined team, to just use Sagarin as a proxy for that team's level.