Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
GMU speaks to the strength of the conference this season. 11-2 OOC. And now they look terrible in A10. But they went 11-2. Not the stiffest OOC but their losses were at MD and at TCU. Win at Nebraska and ODU.

That's what we need. Sorry to say but Bonnies have to stop losing the Q3/4 games. The conference is on a rebound. Even the bottom half have good OOC wins if not a good OOC record. That's how you boost the conference effect [and expose the NET].
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,248 Posts
100% Correct.

But we're one post player away from being 17-4, 9-2 OOC instead of 15-8, 7-5. Be that Osun being available, or having someone who could fill in and not suck. Tell you what, though, if we get a post, we should be able to wreck shit next year and in 2021-22.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
Not to belabor this too much but you are what you are. Depth IMO is a key component in being a great team. Just like losing to NU wo Adams was a reflection of what we were at the time, we are what we are wo Shoon. If your team relies on 1 guy thatmuch maybe you should get more depth.

Regardless things are looking up for A10. The NET needs to be published and they wont do it. The anomalies in NET v RPI show me it's not on the up and up. I want a results based tool for analysis. And as you said in the bubble convo, it needs to better ignore losses to majors rather than reward. If Iowa State loses 15 games against awesome teams, big deal. We can all lose 15 games to awesome teams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
Not to belabor this too much but you are what you are. Depth IMO is a key component in being a great team. Just like losing to NU wo Adams was a reflection of what we were at the time, we are what we are wo Shoon. If your team relies on 1 guy thatmuch maybe you should get more depth.

Regardless things are looking up for A10. The NET needs to be published and they wont do it. The anomalies in NET v RPI show me it's not on the up and up. I want a results based tool for analysis. And as you said in the bubble convo, it needs to better ignore losses to majors rather than reward. If Iowa State loses 15 games against awesome teams, big deal. We can all lose 15 games to awesome teams.
I disagree with you guys about the NET. Today, 3 of the top 5 teams are not power conference teams, so it doesn’t necessarily hurt mid-majors. I will agree that the power conference teams have an advantage because they have more opportunities for good wins.

If Iowa State gets an at large bid that’s more on the committee than the NET. They have wins against 12 Seton Hall, 34 Alabama, 40 OK, 75 OK State and 82 KState. They also lost to 287 Alabama State. The NET is obviously not punishing them for losses against highly ranked teams, but they have a questionable resume.

JP mentioned Providence in another thread. They have noncon losses to teams ranked 127, 147, 153 and 305, but after the loss to Long Beach State they have wins against 66 Texas, 76 SJU, and 23 Creighton at home; and road wins at 64 DePaul, 18 Marquette and 19 Butler. Richmond is one spot ahead of Providence. UR doesn’t have the three Q1 road wins and the loss to 179 Radford sticks out like a sore thumb, but the Spiders have a neutral win against 33 Wisconsin and 36 URI and three less bad losses. They have almost identical profiles and the NET has them right next to each other.

San Diego State, Gonzaga and Dayton have played decent schedules despite not having the conference effect to rely upon. They have obscene win loss records and no bad losses.
I used KenPom’s efficiency numbers and Gonzaga would be ranked 2, SDST 4 and UD 6 in the efficiency metric component of NET. All three teams are in the top 5 in winning percentage. Together the only losses are to 4 Kansas, 16 Colorado and 32 Michigan.

Dayton doesn’t have a big marquee win but had a non-con SOS of 23 and has an overall SOS of 42. They have two neutral losses to 4 Kansas and 16 Colorado. The Flyers have home wins against 92,90,35 and 74; road wins against 85, 74 and 55; and neutral wins against 91, 79 and 39. Despite not having the marquee wins it looks like the NET rewards a resume with a lot of quality wins, especially the neutral and road wins.

The NET is all about winning. Bad losses are going to F up a resume - it doesn’t matter which conference. Not winning games that an at large team should win is going to F up a resume.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
I disagree with you guys about the NET. Today, 3 of the top 5 teams are not power conference teams, so it doesn’t necessarily hurt mid-majors. I will agree that the power conference teams have an advantage because they have more opportunities for good wins.
And it took absolutely ridiculous records to get those rankings. And the committee still but Baylor #1. It's right in front of your eyes, Jaffie! Smaller conferences, on the whole, good records, good RPI, poor NET. Power cons, mediocre records, mediocre RPI, better NET. So now, not only is the ranking system so obviously biased to the P's, you also have a committee who has already shown they're going to swap NET rankings for seeds if it's a P vs. non-P. And you're wrong about bad losses - they are only F'ing up your resume if you're in a non-P.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,331 Posts
And it took absolutely ridiculous records to get those rankings. And the committee still but Baylor #1. It's right in front of your eyes, Jaffie! Smaller conferences, on the whole, good records, good RPI, poor NET. Power cons, mediocre records, mediocre RPI, better NET. So now, not only is the ranking system so obviously biased to the P's, you also have a committee who has already shown they're going to swap NET rankings for seeds if it's a P vs. non-P. And you're wrong about bad losses - they are only F'ing up your resume if you're in a non-P.
BI55, the committee giving Baylor the number 1 seed has nothing to do with the NET.

RPI isn’t used so why even worry about it?

You guys can’t provide an example where “bad losses” haven’t hurt a P5’s NET. In fact, Providence is the perfect example where it has. They have a number of really good wins but are 58 because of 4 really bad losses.

The NET is looking at an opponent and giving more weight to a win with a team that is ranked higher than say another team that is not ranked as high but might have a better winning percentage. It’s going through a similar process with losses - losses to lower ranked teams are impacting a ranking more than losses to better ranked teams. In theory that’s the way it should be. I’m not arguing that the calculation doesn’t favor power conferences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,480 Posts
100% Correct.

But we're one post player away from being 17-4, 9-2 OOC instead of 15-8, 7-5. Be that Osun being available, or having someone who could fill in and not suck. Tell you what, though, if we get a post, we should be able to wreck shit next year and in 2021-22.
I don't get taking away 4 losses and adding 2 wins total, taking away 3 losses adding 2 wins A-10...
Unless it makes you so angry you can't math straight...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,248 Posts
Yeah, the math is tripping me up for three reasons:
1. Gannon. Non-Division I, don't count in NET/RPI math.
2. For some reason, Bonaventure's HTML game-by-game stats (which I used to get Net Efficiency stats from) is missing the UD loss. I'm guessing someone ran a report against UNRANKED teams and never set it back to ALL GAMES.
3. Ohio. Osun played in it and left injured and we lost.

Long story short, we'd have lost to UD, VCU and Buffalo using the same metric of "Net Efficiency with/without Osun" and possibly Ohio as well.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top