Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

61 - 80 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #61
Two things seem apparent to me:

1 - I'm surprised that the math wizards who run some of the metric sites haven't reverse engineered the NET to show exactly how it is being calculated. Would think they have enough data points by now to do this.

2 - In theory, if you were using NET, the at-large bids would end at NET 48. Right now that puts 2 at-large bids for the A10, and 1 for the AAC, and 2 for the ACC(!).

There will be a lot of nonsense (different nonsense every year) when they pick someone in the 50's, and leave out someone in the 40's. Hello this year's Syracuse.
1. There's not enough data points because there's no raw data being displayed anywhere in any kind for NET, and that means it's not just one unknown formula, it's actually THREE.


Take RPI as an example first: The RPI was published at the end of every season by the NCAA and it included raw data (aka, not 63rd in RPI, but RPI of .5655). Win percentage is obviously known. And you can figure out SOS by doing some work; and all Division I teams data is available. Opp SOS would be a lot more work but could be tabulated.

- If you had all four numbers, you can figure out the formula: RPI = (Win Pct + SOS + SOS + Opp SOS)/4

- If you don't have Opp SOS, you can figure it out from the other three numbers if you have the formula.

- If you're missing Opp SOS AND the formula, it would take two reports to figure it out, because you'd have two points for every team, and know the results between the two points, so how Win Pct, SOS got from Report A to Report B, so the formula would have to get Opp SOS and RPI from A to B, for every team exactly the same way. Easy to reverse engineer.


BUT WITH NET, we can get a raw number for four things: Net Efficiency, Win Pct, Adjusted Win Pct, Score margin.

That missing component is it's own formula we have ZERO data points for: The Team Value Index. We don't know the rankings within the TVI that awards "points" for beating 1 or losing to 353. We don't even know who is 1 and who is 353, or the algorith used to run it.


And we don't know the formula of how those first four very different numbers, and the TVI are adapted to make a similar looking set of numbers to combine with TVI for a final number.

By that, I mean Dayton:
Win Pct: .9130 (based on 0 to 1)
Adj Win Pct: .8990 (based on 0 to 1)
Net Efficiency: 0.226 (generally based on -0.5 to +0.5, but theoretically could be between -3 and +3).
MOV: 7.6957 (based on -10 to +10)

So you'd either need to convert Net Efficiency and MOV to something based on 0 to 1 like win pct; or I suppose you could simply use each team's ranking in the category.

Sorry to go full nerd on you, but it's a boring day at work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,776 Posts
1. There's not enough data points because there's no raw data being displayed anywhere in any kind for NET, and that means it's not just one unknown formula, it's actually THREE.
....................................

BUT WITH NET, we can get a raw number for four things: Net Efficiency, Win Pct, Adjusted Win Pct, Score margin.

That missing component is it's own formula we have ZERO data points for: The Team Value Index. We don't know the rankings within the TVI that awards "points" for beating 1 or losing to 353. We don't even know who is 1 and who is 353, or the algorith used to run it.
..................................

And we don't know the formula of how those first four very different numbers, and the TVI are adapted to make a similar looking set of numbers to combine with TVI for a final number.
But you do have "data points" and "raw numbers"...the first 4 items you noted. OK, you don't have the TVI, but it would seem with enough examples from the real world (hell, some of these guys run tens of thousands of simulations to come up with percentage possibilities of all kinds of things) you should (I think) be able to start coming to grips with your 5th item and the formula/algorithm that drives the NET number we see.

But...I do acknowledge your better understanding of it, and admit my confusion.
So I'll just keep having the Spiders improve everyone else's NET !!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #63
But you do have "data points" and "raw numbers"...the first 4 items you noted. OK, you don't have the TVI, but it would seem with enough examples from the real world (hell, some of these guys run tens of thousands of simulations to come up with percentage possibilities of all kinds of things) you should (I think) be able to start coming to grips with your 5th item and the formula/algorithm that drives the NET number we see.

But...I do acknowledge your better understanding of it, and admit my confusion.
I’m no math teacher, but it’s really simple reason why we can’t crack it (if only I can explain it clearly). When you solve for X, you move known data to the other side of the equation until you’re left with “X = ____”.

We know that WP, AWP, NE, MOV, TVI (with applied formula) = NET
So you’d move the unknowns to the same side: (WP, AWP, NE, MOV Formula) = NET - “TVI with formula applied.”

What you want to achieve is to make a formula that spits out a list of teams in the same order as NET, and we’re on the right track, right? And if we run next weeks’ data and it matches next week’s order of NET results, we solved it, right?

Wrong. Because our formula isn’t SUPPOSED to equal NET. It’s SUPPOSED to equal NET - “TVI with formula applied.”

If our formula’s results match the NET results, TVI must be "Zero," or "the same for everyone." Or have an inverse relationship with NET (TVI goes down, NET goes up).

But that can't be true because of common sense. No system is going to think everyone's tied, and always output zero. And we know if your TVI is better, your NET is better, because the NCAA said so.

You don’t need Google to make you an algorithm if you can get the exact same data from Win Pct, Adjusted Win Pct, Net Efficiency and MOV. It’s way more likely that the effects of what we DO KNOW carry the LEAST weight, and NET is basically “slightly adjusted TVI”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,776 Posts
At the risk of being more stupid, don't we have a 5th "known"...the NET.
So, in looking at a team who moves from 35 to 30 between 2 releases of the NCAA NET, we could:
1 - look at the 4 known factors
2 - look at the movement of the NET
3 - decide what the TVI must be to make the (4 factors plus a TVI) = the new NET.

We might not know what the algorithm is that creates TVI, but calculating a few times using my example above might give us an answer as to whether it is a constant.

Oh well, I'll give up on all this. Thanks for the response.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
No worries.

The issue is that in all likelihood, the TVI is the most important factor.

What we do know (win pct, adj win pct, NE and MOV) is all just clever ways of saying "they won."

In order to out-score your opponent, you need to get more points per possession than they do, because basically, both teams are going to have the same number of possessions (not always exact, but within 2 possessions per game, because you literally take turns with the ball!). So if you're positive in Net Efficiency in one game, you basically won.

If your MOV is positive, you won. If your win pct goes up, you won. So all we really know about this, is that the teams that win are at the top.

If the NCAA gave us TVI, we could probably simply ignore the rest. The TVI is going to be the most important component.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #66
But let's end math class and go back to ripping all the terrible P5 teams who don't deserve bids!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,117 Posts
What a prick. You're 10th place in your conference. Maybe beat someone other than Minnesota and Nebraska on the road.

Indiana is good, not great. Of the teams in the B1G, they had one of the less impressive OOC schedules and their good win, FSU, was of course at home.

Sure, build up your team, make your case, you should do that, it's your job. You don't have to insult everyone else in the process. Reminds me of Chris Mack saying the A10 is no Big East. Cemented prick status then, and Archie did on Saturday as well.
 

·
Piker
Joined
·
9,031 Posts
What a prick. You're 10th place in your conference. Maybe beat someone other than Minnesota and Nebraska on the road.

Indiana is good, not great. Of the teams in the B1G, they had one of the less impressive OOC schedules and their good win, FSU, was of course at home.

Sure, build up your team, make your case, you should do that, it's your job. You don't have to insult everyone else in the process. Reminds me of Chris Mack saying the A10 is no Big East. Cemented prick status then, and Archie did on Saturday as well.
I mean when you really think about it why do they leave for these jobs? Money and upward mobility but when I think about it I believe it is because they can "game" the system. They have a built-in recruiting profile due to the school and conference alone with a built-in schedule that will allow selection consideration even under mediocrity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1105

·
Piker
Joined
·
9,031 Posts
Oh and the Miller rant about Lunardi. I do not get it. Lundardi actually had his scrub Indiana team in the field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,423 Posts
I mean when you really think about it why do they leave for these jobs? Money and upward mobility but when I think about it I believe it is because they can "game" the system. They have a built-in recruiting profile due to the school and conference alone with a built-in schedule that will allow selection consideration even under mediocrity.
Archie said that it was impossible to recruit in the A10 and Dwayne Cohill said that Archie told him that he was too good for Dayton to recruit.

I’m sure that Archie is feeling it from the fan base. Plus, Grant having Dayton in the top 5 and being a serious contender for NCOY has to be eating away at him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,423 Posts
What a prick. You're 10th place in your conference. Maybe beat someone other than Minnesota and Nebraska on the road.

Indiana is good, not great. Of the teams in the B1G, they had one of the less impressive OOC schedules and their good win, FSU, was of course at home.

Sure, build up your team, make your case, you should do that, it's your job. You don't have to insult everyone else in the process. Reminds me of Chris Mack saying the A10 is no Big East. Cemented prick status then, and Archie did on Saturday as well.
“Strength of Record” must be the 2020 “Eye Test”
 

·
Piker
Joined
·
9,031 Posts
Archie said that it was impossible to recruit in the A10 and Dwayne Cohill said that Archie told him that he was too good for Dayton to recruit.

I’m sure that Archie is feeling it from the fan base. Plus, Grant having Dayton in the top 5 and being a serious contender for NCOY has to be eating away at him.
When Grant was at VCU he told Preston Knowles to go to Louisville.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #78
We should stop rewarding losing to good teams, and stop changing math formulas just to help 10th place teams of BCS leagues get in. The idea that the committee weights how hard a conference is to be in is absolutely stupid.

The Big Ten voted to add Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers (and Nebraska), who beat Indiana four times.

The Big Ten voted to expand to 20 games instead of a single-round robin; and that's why Indiana has losses to Maryland, Ohio State, Purdue and Wisconsin TWICE instead of once.

The Big Ten voted to expand the members and schedule to sell their network so they could rake in more cash.

The Big Ten picked difficulty over access. Why should the committee accommodations for the Big Ten because their 10th place team was hurt by their own decisions?

If the Big Ten is too hard for you, join the fucking MAC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #79
Your annual JPI Bracketology

(Conf Leader)
(* Conf Champ)

LOCKS
1 - Kansas (B12), Gonzaga (WCC), Baylor, Dayton (A10)
2 - SDSU, Fla St (ACC), Duke, Maryland (B10),
3 - Kentucky (SEC), Louisville, Hall (BE), Nova
4 - Auburn, Creighton, Oregon (P12), Ohio St
5 - Virginia, Ohio St, Butler, Mich St
6 - Penn St, Michigan, BYU, UTAH ST (MWC*)
7 - USC, Colorado, Wisconsin, Arizona,
8 - Marquette, Florida, LSU, SMC
9 - Iowa, West Virginia, Illinois, Arizona St,

== BUBBLE ==

10 - ETSU (SoCon*), Providence, No Iowa, Richmond,

11 - Houston (AAC), Oklahoma, Rutgers

11 - FIRST FOUR: Rhode Island, Stanford

12 - FIRST FOUR: Xavier, Texas

12 - SFA (SLC), Akron (MAC), Liberty (A-SUN),

13 - Yale (IVY*), Vermont (AmEast), NM St (WAC), Belmont (OVC*),

14 - ND State (Summit), Hofstra (CAA), Wintrhop (BSC*), No Tex (CUSA),

15 - Little Rock (SBC), E Wash (Big Sky), Bradley (MVC*), No Kentucky (HL),

16 - Colgate (PAT), UC Irvine (BWC)
16 - FIRST FOUR: Siena (MAAC), Robert Morris (NEC), Prairie View (SWAC), NC Central (MEAC)


FIRST FOUR OUT: Texas, UCLA, Cincinnati, Wichita St,
NEXT FOUR OUT: Texas Tech, Indiana, Boise St, Saint Louis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,529 Posts
Your annual JPI Bracketology

(Conf Leader)
(* Conf Champ)

LOCKS
1 - Kansas (B12), Gonzaga (WCC), Baylor, Dayton (A10)
2 - SDSU, Fla St (ACC), Duke, Maryland (B10),
3 - Kentucky (SEC), Louisville, Hall (BE), Nova
4 - Auburn, Creighton, Oregon (P12), Ohio St
5 - Virginia, Ohio St, Butler, Mich St
6 - Penn St, Michigan, BYU, UTAH ST (MWC*)
7 - USC, Colorado, Wisconsin, Arizona,
8 - Marquette, Florida, LSU, SMC
9 - Iowa, West Virginia, Illinois, Arizona St,

== BUBBLE ==

10 - ETSU (SoCon*), Providence, No Iowa, Richmond,

11 - Houston (AAC), Oklahoma, Rutgers

11 - FIRST FOUR: Rhode Island, Stanford

12 - FIRST FOUR: Xavier, Texas

12 - SFA (SLC), Akron (MAC), Liberty (A-SUN),

13 - Yale (IVY*), Vermont (AmEast), NM St (WAC), Belmont (OVC*),

14 - ND State (Summit), Hofstra (CAA), Wintrhop (BSC*), No Tex (CUSA),

15 - Little Rock (SBC), E Wash (Big Sky), Bradley (MVC*), No Kentucky (HL),

16 - Colgate (PAT), UC Irvine (BWC)
16 - FIRST FOUR: Siena (MAAC), Robert Morris (NEC), Prairie View (SWAC), NC Central (MEAC)


FIRST FOUR OUT: Texas, UCLA, Cincinnati, Wichita St,
NEXT FOUR OUT: Texas Tech, Indiana, Boise St, Saint Louis
Texas is last in? And first out?
 
61 - 80 of 85 Posts
Top