|
|
05-11-2020, 01:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,099
Thanks: 2,201
Thanked 5,170 Times in 2,285 Posts
|
|
"New" NET Calculation
|
05-11-2020, 02:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 14,788
Thanks: 10,086
Thanked 10,502 Times in 4,704 Posts
|
|
Ok chief, tell me if I will like this more than last years. Kinda feels like more leverage for the teams that drink each other's bath water. (BE).
|
Mad Props to San Diego Flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-11-2020, 02:26 PM
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Dayton
Posts: 6,733
Thanks: 673
Thanked 4,320 Times in 2,124 Posts
|
|
Translation, Dayton, St Mary's & San Diego St performed far too well for Duke's liking, so we're going to adjust until Coach K either retires or his satisfied
|
17 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Medford For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
BeckysTXA (05-11-2020), Bill McPeek (05-11-2020), CE80 (05-11-2020), ClaytonFlyerFan (05-11-2020), CT Flyer (05-11-2020), CvilleFlyer (05-11-2020), EliteEight (05-11-2020), Flyer Dave (05-11-2020), IAFlyer (05-11-2020), Jeff (05-11-2020), Lifelong Flyer Fan (05-11-2020), MikeFlyer (05-11-2020), San Diego Flyer (05-11-2020), Sea Bass (05-11-2020), Southwest (05-12-2020), UDEE79 (05-11-2020), udflyerhoops2 (05-11-2020) |
05-11-2020, 02:34 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,811
Thanks: 1,600
Thanked 2,909 Times in 1,405 Posts
|
|
If the NCAA wanted to be transparent about this change, they would provide the NET rankings with the current system side-by-side with the rankings using the proposed system, and they would do it for each of the years since the NCAA adopted the NET ranking system. Then we would know how the two systems compare and who benefit from this change. But alas, this is the NCAA and transparency is not high on their list of values or priorities.
|
3 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to frisco flyer For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-11-2020, 03:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,425
Thanks: 6,783
Thanked 6,123 Times in 4,169 Posts
|
|
If there is no transparency, which there is not, this just seems pointless.
|
Mad Props to ud2 For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-11-2020, 04:18 PM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Miamisburg OH
Posts: 3,711
Thanks: 2,155
Thanked 2,118 Times in 1,054 Posts
|
|
If a Tree Falls In a Forest
does it make a sound? If a changed NET formula is applied in a season that does not occur does anyone care?
|
Mad Props to Alberto Strasse For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-11-2020, 05:27 PM
|
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Springboro
Posts: 2,415
Thanks: 2,209
Thanked 2,761 Times in 1,129 Posts
|
|
It is a little fishy that they are changing it after UD and SDSU were rated so high in the NET this year.
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to springborofan For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-11-2020, 05:41 PM
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Vernon, NJ
Posts: 4,658
Thanks: 1,875
Thanked 1,181 Times in 578 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by springborofan
It is a little fishy that they are changing it after UD and SDSU were rated so high in the NET this year.
|
Yeah......how'd that happen?
|
05-11-2020, 05:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 13,583
Thanks: 1,835
Thanked 17,095 Times in 5,100 Posts
|
|
"to increase accuracy..."
Yeah thats about as open-ended as it gets. Who determines that? What determines that? How do you know if you failed to reach it? Sounds like vague buzz words to me.
__________________
Hot shooting hides a multitude of sins.
Make everyone else's "one day" your "day one".
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Chris R For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-11-2020, 05:56 PM
|
|
General of the Air Force
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shiloh, OH
Posts: 8,411
Thanks: 2,350
Thanked 4,994 Times in 2,668 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Medford
Translation, Dayton, St Mary's & San Diego St performed far too well for Duke's liking, so we're going to adjust until Coach K either retires or his satisfied
|
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Posted via Mobile Device
|
05-11-2020, 06:00 PM
|
|
General of the Air Force
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shiloh, OH
Posts: 8,411
Thanks: 2,350
Thanked 4,994 Times in 2,668 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Chris R
"to increase accuracy..."
Yeah thats about as open-ended as it gets. Who determines that? What determines that? How do you know if you failed to reach it? Sounds like vague buzz words to me.
|
I believe the translation is, “to ensure that more 14-loss P5 teams finish in the Top 50”.
Posted via Mobile Device
|
Mad Props to T-Bone 84 For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-11-2020, 06:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,099
Thanks: 2,201
Thanked 5,170 Times in 2,285 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Chris R
"to increase accuracy..."
|
Translation- so 3 of the top 4 (GON,DAY,SDU) are never non P5 and BE schools.
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basket...l-net-rankings
Last edited by ud69; 05-11-2020 at 08:06 PM..
|
05-11-2020, 07:05 PM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Piqua
Posts: 1,758
Thanks: 39
Thanked 1,082 Times in 469 Posts
|
|
Who is that who has been saying for a couple years now that soon the NCAA March Madness will consist of teams from only the P5/BE Conferences?.....the rest of the minions to NIT
OR.....Flyers can drop down to D2 and average 3,300 per game at UD Arena
OR.....enlarge Welcome to 95,000 and move up to D1 football.
|
05-11-2020, 08:05 PM
|
|
General of the Air Force
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,041
Thanks: 8,802
Thanked 8,557 Times in 3,702 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Piqua Flyer '66
Who is that who has been saying for a couple years now that soon the NCAA March Madness will consist of teams from only the P5/BE Conferences?.....the rest of the minions to NIT
OR.....Flyers can drop down to D2 and average 3,300 per game at UD Arena
OR.....enlarge Welcome to 95,000 and move up to D1 football.
|
only if we played ______ at __________ court on _________ day
|
Mad Props to ClaytonFlyerFan For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-11-2020, 10:18 PM
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,406
Thanks: 866
Thanked 6,301 Times in 3,004 Posts
|
|
So did they make it "better"? Who knows. Your guess is as good as mine.
|
05-12-2020, 12:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,776
Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 3,138 Times in 795 Posts
|
|
I am sure there will be some questioning by some of the big names in the media. All they would have to do is do a comparison of what was published this year with how it would have looked under the new formula. It ain't brain surgery unless they have already done that and are afraid of the pushback.
|
05-12-2020, 06:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,425
Thanks: 6,783
Thanked 6,123 Times in 4,169 Posts
|
|
I assume this is an accurate summation from Lunardi.
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...-rankings-tool:
It was announced Monday that the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET), which replaced the long-standing Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) in August 2018, has been reduced to two components from its original five for the 2020-21 season.
The two remaining components are Team Value Index (TVI) and adjusted efficiency. Gone are winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin.
The best way to think of TVI and adjusted efficiency may be with a pair of questions: Who did you play and how did you play? RPI was primarily a measure of the "who," whereas the first iteration of NET was a reasonable attempt at measuring the "how." This newly revised and still undisclosed NET formula appears to be an attempt to combine the two, while retaining an increased emphasis on the "how" and perhaps eliminating some of the less-than-credible early-season NET releases.
With the precise calculations kept confidential, we are left for now to compare metrics in the public domain. From my seat, the best "comp" for TVI will be ESPN's strength of record (as part of its Basketball Power Index, or BPI). The top public efficiency ratings in college basketball remain those of the inimitable Ken Pomeroy, or KenPom.
|
05-12-2020, 06:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 13,583
Thanks: 1,835
Thanked 17,095 Times in 5,100 Posts
|
|
How can any metric not factor in winning? Isn't that the most important part of the game? Isn't that why we all watch? Perhaps winning % needs weighed lighter or heavier, but to completely dismiss it altogether sounds a lot like inside lobbying for those 16-12 (8-12) power conference schools to slide in on deep state machine-learning Googlist metrics.
__________________
Hot shooting hides a multitude of sins.
Make everyone else's "one day" your "day one".
|
Mad Props to Chris R For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-12-2020, 06:52 PM
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 4,032
Thanks: 5,564
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,328 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Chris R
How can any metric not factor in winning? Isn't that the most important part of the game? Isn't that why we all watch? Perhaps winning % needs weighed lighter or heavier, but to completely dismiss it altogether sounds a lot like inside lobbying for those 16-12 (8-12) power conference schools to slide in on deep state machine-learning Googlist metrics.
|
Exactly right! I have been saying for a few years now that winning in college basketball has been completely devalued as long as you win at least 50% of your games. It is the only sport that I know of that winning is not the main component.
As I've always said, I get that there are 353 teams in D1 so I understand the need to quantify who you play as part of the equation because not every win or loss is the same. BUT you also can't just say we played a lot of good teams close so we must be good....there has to be more value on actually winning the game, not just coming close! In the current system college coaches can no longer say there aren't moral victories because there actually are in college basketball.
Maybe during the NCAA tourney we should choose to move the 32 teams that had the best wins/losses to the 2nd round, not necessarily who won the games because some of the teams that lost may have actually played better than some who won. One 5 seed who is favored by KenPom by 16 only beats a 12 by 1 point but a 13 seed who is a 19 pont dog by KenPom but only loses to a 4 seed by one. So lets move the 13 to the next round instead of the 5 seed because their loss is better than the 5 seed's win.
Last edited by CT Flyer; 05-12-2020 at 06:56 PM..
|
05-12-2020, 06:54 PM
|
|
General of the Air Force
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shiloh, OH
Posts: 8,411
Thanks: 2,350
Thanked 4,994 Times in 2,668 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Chris R
How can any metric not factor in winning? Isn't that the most important part of the game? Isn't that why we all watch? Perhaps winning % needs weighed lighter or heavier, but to completely dismiss it altogether sounds a lot like inside lobbying for those 16-12 (8-12) power conference schools to slide in on deep state machine-learning Googlist metrics.
|
When teams are selected for The Dance based on “birthright”, then the “who” is more a function of the Conference affiliation than it is of the won/loss record.
Posted via Mobile Device
|
05-12-2020, 07:23 PM
|
|
Flyer Volleyball Superfan. Almost 8,000 Posts To Prove It.
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,439
Thanks: 5,114
Thanked 5,354 Times in 2,462 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by Chris R
How can any metric not factor in winning? Isn't that the most important part of the game? Isn't that why we all watch? Perhaps winning % needs weighed lighter or heavier, but to completely dismiss it altogether sounds a lot like inside lobbying for those 16-12 (8-12) power conference schools to slide in on deep state machine-learning Googlist metrics.
|
I’d like to know all the people from Google who worked on this and what universities they attended...just to make sure there was no bias from the programmers-data collectors and non-P5 institutions were represented fairly.
|
05-12-2020, 07:38 PM
|
|
General of the Air Force
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Shiloh, OH
Posts: 8,411
Thanks: 2,350
Thanked 4,994 Times in 2,668 Posts
|
|
Originally Posted by CT Flyer
Exactly right! I have been saying for a few years now that winning in college basketball has been completely devalued as long as you win at least 50% of your games. It is the only sport that I know of that winning is not the main component.
As I've always said, I get that there are 353 teams in D1 so I understand the need to quantify who you play as part of the equation because not every win or loss is the same. BUT you also can't just say we played a lot of good teams close so we must be good....there has to be more value on actually winning the game, not just coming close! In the current system college coaches can no longer say there aren't moral victories because there actually are in college basketball.
Maybe during the NCAA tourney we should choose to move the 32 teams that had the best wins/losses to the 2nd round, not necessarily who won the games because some of the teams that lost may have actually played better than some who won. One 5 seed who is favored by KenPom by 16 only beats a 12 by 1 point but a 13 seed who is a 19 pont dog by KenPom but only loses to a 4 seed by one. So lets move the 13 to the next round instead of the 5 seed because their loss is better than the 5 seed's win.
|
Over the years, I’ve gotten so disgusted with the arguments for including middling teams in The Dance, primarily on the basis of Conference affiliation. The arguments used to go something like this:
Q-Georgetown was selected for the tournament this year, despite the fact that they had an 18-12 record. Why were they selected?
A-They played a very tough schedule. I mean, they played UConn! They played Syracuse! They played Seton Hall!
Q-OK, then who did UConn play?
A-They played Syracuse! They played Seton Hall! They played...
And around and around we went (and still go).
Posted via Mobile Device
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to T-Bone 84 For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
05-13-2020, 04:42 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 13,583
Thanks: 1,835
Thanked 17,095 Times in 5,100 Posts
|
|
Since W/L is no longer factored, SOS/efficiencies will run the show. And guess who has a built-in mechanical advantage to play strong SOSs based on league affiliation, and infinite buy-games to pad efficiencies?
Sure feels like the NCAA is on the path to developing a ranking where the finish line is the starting point. From there, back-fill it with a mathematical model to substantiate the grades.
Name any other sport where rankings or championships are at play and winning/losing is entirely irrelevant. I cant think of one.
__________________
Hot shooting hides a multitude of sins.
Make everyone else's "one day" your "day one".
|
2 UDPriders Offer Mad Props to Chris R For This Totally Excellent Post:
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|