The Big 12 is the new Big 10

For my CBB model I take raw data from a few sources, and adjust each game line for a host of factors. I use the CBB Kenpom game log, so when he added games back through 2004 I was able to load in a couple more years. Anyway, with seven years of back data to observe, I've come to the conclusion that the Big 12 might be more rigged than the Big 10.



The table below shows home team cover percentages versus my "adjusted spread" for in-coference games only. "Adjusted spread(s)" are my individually derived game lines with most adjustments made, but not all - so it's not razor precise but is usually within a half-point of my final line (w/out conference & arena adjustments). Part of what is buried in here is that observed HFA is worth 2-3% more in combined BCS conferences than the D1 average. Chalk that up to whatever you want - refs, thundering stadiums, more pressure, etc.

The Big 10 looks like it's getting less rigged, but the Big 12 still has ~4% worth of HFA I can't explain on an individual game basis. It's strange because I don't hear a ton of Big 12 referee bitching, granted I don't read many CBB blogs. Maybe it's refs or maybe it's got a few coaches who like to game rankings or just be mean SOBs and leave in LeMarcus McDunksalot for a few more minutes for a more emphatic win. I dunno.