Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

3401 - 3420 of 4442 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,871 Posts
I don't necessarily disagree. I was kind of fine with the RPI and then started liking KP a bit better because I do think there is more to just beating a 12-1 Georgetown team who refused to play ANYBODY in OCC.

I have absolutely no clue what the NET entails or how it is exactly calculated...but I will agree that it probably somehow benefits the P5 more than it does us...lol.

But this is the conundrum that is college sports now day..both basketball and football (moreso for basketball for sure). Pro sports there's no debate over who should at least get into the playoffs. The system is set up..win and in. But it is much easier to control at the pro level than at the college level. I mean...OSU or Oklahoma for that 4th spot? Flip a coin but someone is getting left out. 24-7 Dayton or 18-12 Syracuse? I really have no answer other than in the name of fairness you expand to like 120+ teams, play those first 1-2 games on someones home court and move on from there.

I'm really curious to see how this NET system works out. FYI, it will update daily. That being said, even under this system it is Wayyyyyyy Toooo early to take anything away. I mean, look at some of these teams ranked on this thing.
I think eventually to keep interest they're going to have to do this. I think the 36 conference champions should get byes into "round 1" after the 8 worst of the 36 play to reduce to 4 to get to 32. Then 64 at larges play for the final 32 spots. Use the computer at that point and seed them 1..64 and play at the home of the better seed. That's a nice round 100 schools. I think this will include enough mid-major teams and mediocre P5/6/7 teams to keep everyone happy.

If they don't move to include more, the mid-major conferences starting with #8 (usually the A10) on down have no incentive to maintain their level of competitiveness if it's not going to matter. Why bother? Already, 250 schools enter the season knowing that it all comes down to what they can do the 1st week of March. And quite honestly, that's sad. But if you say hey - if you're a top 100 school (give or take) you're getting into the Dance, there's a lot more incentive to schedule correctly and win games.

If you add in the .500 in-conference regular season requirement we've all talked about, and seed the S-curve prior to conference tourneys - we've solved college basketball postseason. But they have smarter people with better solutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,489 Posts
I'm liking Radford at #22 .
Went on the road and took down ND and Bill&Mary.
Played Duquesne close the whole game.

Hell, I don't even know where Radford is.

For all of December they have one home game.
Meanwhile during that month they visit Texas, Ohio, JMU, Clemson and Maryland.

That's a whole lot of buy $'s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,489 Posts
You do have to wonder what the NCAA is afraid of.
Why not just publish the formula completely instead of making people have to reverse engineer to figure it out.
Come on JP. Get to work!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,054 Posts
I was kind of fine with the RPI and then started liking KP a bit better because I do think there is more to just beating a 12-1 Georgetown team who refused to play ANYBODY in OCC.

I have absolutely no clue what the NET entails or how it is exactly calculated...but I will agree that it probably somehow benefits the P5 more than it does us...lol.

But this is the conundrum that is college sports now day..both basketball and football (moreso for basketball for sure). Pro sports there's no debate over who should at least get into the playoffs. The system is set up..win and in. But it is much easier to control at the pro level than at the college level. I mean...OSU or Oklahoma for that 4th spot? Flip a coin but someone is getting left out. 24-7 Dayton or 18-12 Syracuse?

I'm really curious to see how this NET system works out. FYI, it will update daily. That being said, even under this system it is Wayyyyyyy Toooo early to take anything away. I mean, look at some of these teams ranked on this thing.
My thoughts remain the same with regard to why using NET is dumb in a broad sense:

1. The Conference Effect combined with consolidation of power (realignment) makes it impossible to use results-based metrics of “Who’d you play? Who’d you beat?” because it’s all predetermined by the inequity of conferences.

2. The only reason we are using “predictive metrics” is because of point 2.

3. On their own, Predictive Results are pointless and stupid when it comes to NCAA selection/seeding and should not be used. You Play. To Win. The Game. Hello.

You don’t take teams that “Should be good” and didn’t perform.


Like Flyer75 said, pro sports don’t do that. They use results. NCAA sports are the only ones who make other considerations besides “Did you win?"

Instead of going from a broken old system to a broken new, convoluted, full of redundancies and paradoxes, and secret system.


Just fix what was wrong with the broken old system.

What I proposed was a system built on the old one, which instead of taking mostly SOS/Conference effect plus some wins into account, literally used a historical “Bubble Resume” benchmark and gave everyone a score relative to the cut line for WHAT WE WANT from an NCAA team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,054 Posts
Oh, two more random (repeat) thoughts.

-- and BTW, the CFP is a cartel. You've got a team on one of the longest win streaks in the last 30 years, going undefeated two years in a row... and the highest they've been in their system was NINTH.

The BCS & CFP were both created to "Settle it on the Field." But it's only actually worked TWICE in TWENTY FIVE YEARS.

What they've done is added the "Basketball Problem" of committees and metrics to what didn't have that problem. I can fix the CFP and make it totally work and fair and accomplish the goal:

The CFP will create a bowl bracket for all the teams tied with the fewest amount of losses at the end of conference championship games. The end.

The BCS didn't work because you had TWO TEAMS who needed to settle it only twice.
The CFP doesn't work because you have had FOUR TEAMS who needed to settle it ONCE and it was the BCS era.

Going to an 8-team playoff won't settle it because there's never exactly 8 teams tied for the fewest wins and a playoff gauntlet will leave ONE TEAM with the best record in football and undisputed champs.



And secondly, if they just tweaked the old RPI formula according to "What's the real goal here? Start with a blank piece of paper and act like you're telling someone who just heard about sports how you should decide who's in the playoff bracket" they'd be fine.

If you just went a quick, down and dirty 40% Win Pct, 30% SOS, 30% Opp SOS...

You wouldn't include seven BCS teams seeded 8 to 11. Those seven went 1-6 in their first games (with only win being against each other in an 8-9 game, with the winner getting DEMOLISHED in Round 2).

You'd have one BCS team and six teams from conferences 7-12 in their place.
Loyola would jump from an 11 seed to a 6 seed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
Oh, two more random (repeat) thoughts.

-- and BTW, the CFP is a cartel. You've got a team on one of the longest win streaks in the last 30 years, going undefeated two years in a row... and the highest they've been in their system was NINTH.

The BCS & CFP were both created to "Settle it on the Field." But it's only actually worked TWICE in TWENTY FIVE YEARS.

What they've done is added the "Basketball Problem" of committees and metrics to what didn't have that problem. I can fix the CFP and make it totally work and fair and accomplish the goal:

The CFP will create a bowl bracket for all the teams tied with the fewest amount of losses at the end of conference championship games. The end.

The BCS didn't work because you had TWO TEAMS who needed to settle it only twice.
The CFP doesn't work because you have had FOUR TEAMS who needed to settle it ONCE and it was the BCS era.

Going to an 8-team playoff won't settle it because there's never exactly 8 teams tied for the fewest wins and a playoff gauntlet will leave ONE TEAM with the best record in football and undisputed champs.



And secondly, if they just tweaked the old RPI formula according to "What's the real goal here? Start with a blank piece of paper and act like you're telling someone who just heard about sports how you should decide who's in the playoff bracket" they'd be fine.

If you just went a quick, down and dirty 40% Win Pct, 30% SOS, 30% Opp SOS...

You wouldn't include seven BCS teams seeded 8 to 11. Those seven went 1-6 in their first games (with only win being against each other in an 8-9 game, with the winner getting DEMOLISHED in Round 2).

You'd have one BCS team and six teams from conferences 7-12 in their place.
Loyola would jump from an 11 seed to a 6 seed.
You can make football 95% fair by inviting the 5 conference champs, best G5 champ, and 2 wild cards. Don't win your league? Too bad, you had a fair chance. Other G5 leagues? There has never been more than one G5 team in a season that was really top level. Barring a major upset, the field this year would be; Bama, ND, Ohio St., OU, Washington, UCF, Clemson, and Georgia. No one left out would really have a legit gripe. If a Clemson, lost to a crap Pitt team, shame on them, they would have to compete with Georgia for the last wild card. Left out? Should have won your league.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,915 Posts
You can make football 95% fair by inviting the 5 conference champs, best G5 champ, and 2 wild cards. Don't win your league? Too bad, you had a fair chance. Other G5 leagues? There has never been more than one G5 team in a season that was really top level. Barring a major upset, the field this year would be; Bama, ND, Ohio St., OU, Washington, UCF, Clemson, and Georgia. No one left out would really have a legit gripe. If a Clemson, lost to a crap Pitt team, shame on them, they would have to compete with Georgia for the last wild card. Left out? Should have won your league.
This is exactly what 99.9% of fans are saying and for the life of me, they won't do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,915 Posts
To keep this NET thing going:


UDPride™
@UDPride

The NET is less than 6hrs old and Ive already found numerous errors just in H/A/N alone. Imagine how many dozens, 100s, or even 1000s of errors are buried in efficiency stats based on actual boxscores... @danaONeilWriter @JonRothstein @GaryParrishCBS @theAndyKatz @eamonnbrennan

I'm not a super fan of UDPride but read his whole rant...its pretty good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
It is way too early to release the NET rankings. I do think Norlander had a point. Once we have more data, it might look better but shit, that first pass looks terrible.


We need to get JP in front of the NCAA to present his ideas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,054 Posts
You can make football 95% fair by inviting the 5 conference champs, best G5 champ, and 2 wild cards. Don't win your league? Too bad, you had a fair chance. Other G5 leagues? There has never been more than one G5 team in a season that was really top level. Barring a major upset, the field this year would be; Bama, ND, Ohio St., OU, Washington, UCF, Clemson, and Georgia. No one left out would really have a legit gripe. If a Clemson, lost to a crap Pitt team, shame on them, they would have to compete with Georgia for the last wild card. Left out? Should have won your league.
Why do you NEED an eight-team playoff? There's not 8 teams who can claim they are the best. You're not trying to create a PLAYOFF CHAMPION like a pro sports league does.

This is the problem: People are arguing about "Who's Number 4" for the playoff bracket, when the discussion needs to be "Who can make a legitimate claim they're the best team in college football?"

Right now, there are four teams who can claim they're the best: Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, UCF.

You can say UCF isn't the fourth-best team. But they're one of four teams with a claim. You can't say Ohio State has a claim and UCF doesn't. The "They're only undefeated because the American is weak" argument only works IF YOU DIDN'T LOSE TO 6-6 PURDUE (who lost to Eastern Michigan, BTW). You can't say Oklahoma (3-1 vs winning teams) is the best team in the land when UCF is 3-0 and has a higher margin of victory vs teams 6-6 or worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
Why do you NEED an eight-team playoff? There's not 8 teams who can claim they are the best. You're not trying to create a PLAYOFF CHAMPION like a pro sports league does.

This is the problem: People are arguing about "Who's Number 4" for the playoff bracket, when the discussion needs to be "Who can make a legitimate claim they're the best team in college football?"

Right now, there are four teams who can claim they're the best: Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, UCF.

You can say UCF isn't the fourth-best team. But they're one of four teams with a claim. You can't say Ohio State has a claim and UCF doesn't. The "They're only undefeated because the American is weak" argument only works IF YOU DIDN'T LOSE TO 6-6 PURDUE (who lost to Eastern Michigan, BTW). You can't say Oklahoma (3-1 vs winning teams) is the best team in the land when UCF is 3-0 and has a higher margin of victory vs teams 6-6 or worse.
Just going undefeated shouldn't be enough. Why play anyone tough if one loss kills you? If winning your league means nothing, then just go back to the old polls system, and give Bama the title every year. Everyone knows they're the best team every year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,054 Posts
To keep this NET thing going:


UDPride™
@UDPride

Imagine how many dozens, 100s, or even 1000s of errors are buried in efficiency stats based on actual boxscores...
My God, I just thought of the common things I've seen from stat crews that could affect your efficiency stats.

SO FEW PEOPLE know how to use Deadball Rebounds and Team Rebounds, and that is going to have a pretty large effect on possession numbers.

Half winding down, buzzer-beater attempt, misses. There's seven ways to stat that and two can be correct:

Shot comes in actual flow of offense:
1. Shot, Missed, Offensive Rebound (Wrong)
2. Shot, Missed, Defensive Rebound (Wrong)
3. Shot, Missed, Deadball Rebound (Correct)

Shot is a heavy cause the clock is at zero:
4. Shot, Missed, Offensive Rebound (Wrong)
5. Shot, Missed, Defensive Rebound (Wrong)
6. Shot, Missed, Deadball Rebound (Wrong)
7. (Nothing, it's not a shot)

In your Points Per Possession stats:
1 and 2 add one possession to the team with the ball.
5 adds one possession to the team with the ball AND one possession to the other team.
4 adds TWO possessions to the team with the ball.

3, 7 add no extra possessions.

But here's the thing with scenario 7. If my team grabs a rebound with 3 seconds left 80 feet from their offensive basket, I'm actually going to wait the three seconds before crediting the rebound and I'm calling that a DEADBALL instead of a player rebound if my team has any NCAA hopes at all.



And that's an issue. The way stats are done can manipulate the efficiency, depending on how they do efficiency stats. I don't know WHERE they are pulling the data from.

When an offensive rebound occurs, that's a continuation of the possession, not a new possession. Actual data says the possession ends with a MAKE, DEFENSIVE REBOUND or TURNOVER.

But people like Ken Pom don't actually GET the data files of the games. They calculate PPP by estimating possessions from a formula:

0.96*[(Field Goal Attempts)+(Turnovers)+0.44*(Free Throw Attempts)-(Offensive Rebounds)]

Well, if you're a GREAT offensive rebounding team, your possession estimate is going to be higher than your actual possessions.

So if there's a series of tip-in/put-back attempts (not catch and shoot, I'm talking "guys batting the ball.") It behooves you to sit back, watch and call that ONE rebound, ONE putback and citing "they didn't have control until the last one."

And of course, it doesn't behoove you to call it the same both ways. If you're on DEFENSE, you call that 6 OR and 6 missed shots... you're improving your Defensive Efficiency (when estimates are used).

Same thing with paint floaters when there's a guy under the basket and the ball hits a defender. Home scorers would call that a block and offensive board to get their post a block.

If it happens to you, call it a disrupted lob pass and reduce your possessions in the estimates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,054 Posts
Just going undefeated shouldn't be enough. Why play anyone tough if one loss kills you? If winning your league means nothing, then just go back to the old polls system, and give Bama the title every year. Everyone knows they're the best team every year.
1. Because the cartel saying "Just going undefeated isn't enough, you have to beat good teams" can, and are, simply ELIMINATING 60 teams from CFP contention by saying "no" to scheduling games with them.

It's not like the pros, where the league sets the schedule. The Yankees & Red Sox can't refuse to play the Tampa Bay Rays and then say "Oh, you went 120-40 vs Baltimore, Kansas City, Minnesota and Detroit? Well you didn't beat US, so we're in the playoffs and you're not."


2. Non-Conference scheduling is 3 out of 12 games. No one plays anyone out of conference anyway. The BCS pays weak teams to come get whooped. Those teams finish 3-9.

So the BCS beats three OOC 3-9 teams, six 5-7 conference teams.
UCF beats three OOC 5-7 teams and six 3-9 conference teams.

Then they say "well, 64 teams have slightly higher decimal places on their SOS." Everyone talks about SOS RANKINGS: Notre Dame is 20th in SOS, UCF is 71st. Huge difference, right?

No one ever compares the RAW data:
Notre Dame (.5784, 75-55 Opp W-L). Average opponent: 6.25 wins, 4.6 losses
UCF (.5264, 62-57 Opp W-L) Average opponent: 5.6 wins, 5.2 losses

On average, both teams are beating 6-5 opponents.
 
3401 - 3420 of 4442 Posts
Top