Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

21 - 40 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,424 Posts
OK, so justify picking B/C over A/D. Or even teams E/F from urmite's post. If Team C (URI) was 2-2 in those Q1 games, I'd have picked them because their Q1/2 record would be 7-3, only team of the 4 at .500 in Q1. Even with the one Q3 loss. But they're 1-3 Q1 which percentage-wise is not as good as 4-8 or 3-4.

I'm not saying I like the result I got, but I thought it was pretty close to objective.

So argue for B/C.
Ok
Team A last 10, 4-6
Team B last 10, 7-3
Team C last 10, 9-1
Team D last 10, 6-4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
Thanks for the explanation JP, but I just don't see it. Purdue, Indiana, and Minnesota are 1-8, 1-7, 1-7 in Q1 games. Rutgers is 1-5 Q1. Their Q2 numbers are better but not great at 4-1,2-0, 4-2, 4-2. You've always said numbers like those just proves you can play a bunch of good teams and lose a bunch of games. As can anyone. By comparison, SLU is 1-3, 4-2, and 11-0 in Q3/4 games. So why is SLU not even being considered?
I don't disagree with you. I'm not saying it's right, I'm explaining why.

I also think a lot of the NET system is ridiculously flawed in the sense that it REALLY hammers people for bad losses.

I desperately want to see what the Bonnies NET would be if it only included games Osun played in. Because the difference between RPI and NET is 46 spots: 81 RPI, 127 NET.

NET has the Bonnies behind Pacific, who is 3-8 vs Q1/2/3 and 13-0 vs Q4. SOS 333 OOC, 189 overall.
Bona is 6-7 vs Q1-2-3, and 8-1 vs Q4, SOS 226 OOC, 109 overall.

So I really do not understand that, or how anyone can say NET is somehow better than RPI, or WTF has happened to college basketball.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,120 Posts
NET has the Bonnies behind Pacific, who is 3-8 vs Q1/2/3 and 13-0 vs Q4. SOS 333 OOC, 189 overall.
Bona is 6-7 vs Q1-2-3, and 8-1 vs Q4, SOS 226 OOC, 109 overall.

So I really do not understand that, or how anyone can say NET is somehow better than RPI, or WTF has happened to college basketball.
Unfathomable. It just seems like they crush you for Q4 losses. Which of course would favor the power cons because they have almost no landmines once conference play begins. Even a loss at Nebraska or at OkSU is going to be Q3 at worst.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,459 Posts
We're getting good separation of the top half from the bottom. The top half is mostly taking care of business. This is what will lead to multiple bids. VCU, Rhody, and Richmond are putting themselves into good position. SLU, and Duquesne are NIT teams right now, but could get into the mix if they can pull some upsets. Because of the injuries, it's probably too late for Bona, but they could still play themselves into the NIT.
 

·
Piker
Joined
·
9,050 Posts
We're getting good separation of the top half from the bottom. The top half is mostly taking care of business. This is what will lead to multiple bids. VCU, Rhody, and Richmond are putting themselves into good position. SLU, and Duquesne are NIT teams right now, but could get into the mix if they can pull some upsets. Because of the injuries, it's probably too late for Bona, but they could still play themselves into the NIT.
The game on Saturday is must see TV. I will be around for Bill's comments pre and post game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill Russell

·
Piker
Joined
·
9,050 Posts
Duquesne @ Bona on Saturday is must see TV. I will be around for Bill's comments pre and post game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,763 Posts
I don't disagree with you. I'm not saying it's right, I'm explaining why.

I also think a lot of the NET system is ridiculously flawed in the sense that it REALLY hammers people for bad losses.

I desperately want to see what the Bonnies NET would be if it only included games Osun played in. Because the difference between RPI and NET is 46 spots: 81 RPI, 127 NET.

NET has the Bonnies behind Pacific, who is 3-8 vs Q1/2/3 and 13-0 vs Q4. SOS 333 OOC, 189 overall.
Bona is 6-7 vs Q1-2-3, and 8-1 vs Q4, SOS 226 OOC, 109 overall.

So I really do not understand that, or how anyone can say NET is somehow better than RPI, or WTF has happened to college basketball.
The good news is we are up to 119 now and way ahead of Pacific but you are right. The NET smells funny. We are higher in all the other metrics on the team sheet:
20606

That gap has closed a bit the last couple weeks (it was much worse when we were in the 140's) but the fact remains NET is the worst look for us. I am glad it doesnt matter this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,120 Posts
How about Iowa State?
NET 75 RPI 121
1-8 Q1 2-4 Q2 1-0 Q3 5-1 Q4 0-7 on the road

Saint Louis
NET 76 RPI 51
1-4 Q1 4-2 Q2 4-0 Q3 7-0 Q4 5-2 on the road

FFS, I dare anyone behind the NET to explain how they got to their rankings. SLU is better against every single Q, has zero Q4 losses. They win on the road. This is so egregious it's criminal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
How about Iowa State?
NET 75 RPI 121
1-8 Q1 2-4 Q2 1-0 Q3 5-1 Q4 0-7 on the road

Saint Louis
NET 76 RPI 51
1-4 Q1 4-2 Q2 4-0 Q3 7-0 Q4 5-2 on the road

FFS, I dare anyone behind the NET to explain how they got to their rankings. SLU is better against every single Q, has zero Q4 losses. They win on the road. This is so egregious it's criminal.
Not that it changes anything, but where did you get those Quads?
Iowa State
2-11 Q1 2-1 Q2 0-0 Q3 5-1 Q4
Saint Louis
1-4 Q1 1-2 Q2 8-0 Q3 6-0 Q4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,120 Posts
RPI quads on On UDPride.

Where are you finding NET quads? Of course NET quads are set by NET rankings, right? Worthless IMO, because you'd have a road win at Iowa State being a Q1 win as of today. Comical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
RPI quads on On UDPride.

Where are you finding NET quads? Of course NET quads are set by NET rankings, right? Worthless IMO, because you'd have a road win at Iowa State being a Q1 win as of today. Comical.
There is no way I would argue for NET, but using jersey numbers to determine rank would be better than RPI...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
RPI quads on On UDPride.

Where are you finding NET quads? Of course NET quads are set by NET rankings, right? Worthless IMO, because you'd have a road win at Iowa State being a Q1 win as of today. Comical.

I assume that is what the committee will be handed...

And I find this site has the best visual representation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,120 Posts
There is no way I would argue for NET, but using jersey numbers to determine rank would be better than RPI...
Thanks for the link, mite.

I completely disagree with the quoted statement though. RPI doesn't have what looks like built-in power conference bias. The NET is eerily close to ESPN BPI. Hmm. Also, RPI seems to be placing some P5 also-rans more appropriately, like telling us Nebraska and NW'ern suck. Iowa St and KS St. are not good. ND, UNC, VT. Yet these teams are consistently ranked inexplicably higher in NET. Which compounds the NET values and you have the old RPI conference effect all over again. Only now it's even worse.

I can't figure out what the tendencies favor, because there are some instances where P5 NET is lower than RPI. But in the non-power conferences, in particular A10, a lot of squads are well below RPI with NET. Davidson puzzles me, RPI 122, NET 96. Based on performance, not potential, 122 seems about right. Is there a recency bias? I don't like advanced metrics, I don't like predictive rankings, I could care less your efficiency numbers. RPI measures results. W/L and how those W's and L's did, are the only stats I need to see. Are you winning? Are the teams you beat winning? Because guess what - in the P5's, I'll keep picking on Iowa State - you aren't winning, and the teams you manage to beat aren't winning either. Yet you're #75?

This move towards predictive analytics ruins something like the NCAAT, because it's stat geek talk. Put winners out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,693 Posts
RPI quads on On UDPride.

Where are you finding NET quads? Of course NET quads are set by NET rankings, right? Worthless IMO, because you'd have a road win at Iowa State being a Q1 win as of today. Comical.
You can get the NET Quads from Warren Nolan.


75 Iowa State: Overall 9-13, Q1 2-11, Q2 2-1, Q3 0-0, Q4 5-1, Road 0-7, Neutral 1-2.
76 Saint Louis: Overall 16-6, Q1 1-4, Q2 1-2, Q3 8-0, Q4 6-0, Road 5-2, Neutral 1-1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Thanks for the link, mite.

I completely disagree with the quoted statement though. RPI doesn't have what looks like built-in power conference bias. The NET is eerily close to ESPN BPI. Hmm. Also, RPI seems to be placing some P5 also-rans more appropriately, like telling us Nebraska and NW'ern suck. Iowa St and KS St. are not good. ND, UNC, VT. Yet these teams are consistently ranked inexplicably higher in NET. Which compounds the NET values and you have the old RPI conference effect all over again. Only now it's even worse.

I can't figure out what the tendencies favor, because there are some instances where P5 NET is lower than RPI. But in the non-power conferences, in particular A10, a lot of squads are well below RPI with NET. Davidson puzzles me, RPI 122, NET 96. Based on performance, not potential, 122 seems about right. Is there a recency bias? I don't like advanced metrics, I don't like predictive rankings, I could care less your efficiency numbers. RPI measures results. W/L and how those W's and L's did, are the only stats I need to see. Are you winning? Are the teams you beat winning? Because guess what - in the P5's, I'll keep picking on Iowa State - you aren't winning, and the teams you manage to beat aren't winning either. Yet you're #75?

This move towards predictive analytics ruins something like the NCAAT, because it's stat geek talk. Put winners out there.
RPI was too simplistic. I was glad it didn't go to the extreme, by giving a high RPI to someone who was 11-0 with opponents who we 115-7 ...in Div III. All wins aren't equal, and neither are all your opponent's wins.

NET is too mysterious and seems to have too many aspects that are overweighted.

My interpretation has always been that RPI or NET show how much credit you get for an opponent while advanced metrics show how difficult getting that credit will be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,120 Posts
RPI was too simplistic. I was glad it didn't go to the extreme, by giving a high RPI to someone who was 11-0 with opponents who we 115-7 ...in Div III. All wins aren't equal, and neither are all your opponent's wins.

NET is too mysterious and seems to have too many aspects that are overweighted.

My interpretation has always been that RPI or NET show how much credit you get for an opponent while advanced metrics show how difficult getting that credit will be.
Non-D1 are factored out in RPI, so if you're 11-0, you wouldn't be getting credit for beating teams that were a combined 115-7. They'd be 0-11 (all losses to you).

NET is way too mysterious. Until they publish it, I still consider it cartel-like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Non-D1 are factored out in RPI, so if you're 11-0, you wouldn't be getting credit for beating teams that were a combined 115-7. They'd be 0-11 (all losses to you).

NET is way too mysterious. Until they publish it, I still consider it cartel-like.
In the minds of P5 teams, RPI does include Non-D1. Since they think of Non-P5 wins as Non-D1...:rolleyes:
 
21 - 40 of 85 Posts
Top