• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2023-24 Wake Forest Basketball Season - 21-14 (11-9) - KP#29 / NET#43

Ultimately Georgia Tech and Nevada’s NET rankings are based on an entire body of work, and the 1 close result between those teams is only so meaningful.
 
And even being close, it ended up at 8. Would probably be 9.5 on a neutral court tomorrow. So not all that different.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I think you are overly trivializing the “probability difference” between Q1 and Q3 opponents. There is no way to evaluate schedule difficulty without making arbitrary distinctions, and as much as you might disagree with the 4 quadrant system, it’s almost certain that whatever method you would prefer is just as arbitrary. Say you do away with quadrants - do you average opponents NET to determine overall schedule difficulty, then you could argue that averages are skewed at the margins, and so on. Do you create more quadrants? Less?
Click to expand...

If I’m designing the system, I do away with the Quad system altogether. The NET already accounts for schedule strength (as does KP, Torvik, etc) and the NET also has the secret adjustment for wins. So by also looking at “Quad 1” record, we’re double counting the impact of wins over good teams.

But we’re probably not going to do away with Quad 1 wins, because human beings like to look at simple stats. There are still ways we could tweak the system.

1. We could and should ignore the H2H impact of any particular game on the corresponding NET positions of both participants. Example - WF beat VPI. How strong is VPI? We should evaluate VPI vs every other team in the country while ignoring the WF-VPI result. If at the end of the year, VPI is 33rd in NET, but would have been top 30 if you exclude the WF game, that’s a Q1 win for WF. Similarly, if Louisville ends up near the Q3-Q4 border, Miami could potentially have a Q4 loss while others who played UL could get Q3 credit (for example). That’s impossible to do manually but it would be easy to program.
2. We could increase the number of breakpoints such that each set of teams are more similar than what we currently see.
3. We could have a “wins adjustment” where we give credit to wins based on the relative strength of each team (again, in theory we’re already doing this in the NET although the exact formula is a secret). If I’m designing the “wins adjustment” I’m giving credit directly corresponding to the relative strength of every team, 1-362.

All easy to implement ideas and all better than, oh congrats, you got to play the #25 team and after you beat them, they’re still top 30.
 
DeacInVermont said:
Bracket Watch!

Still in the last 4 out with UVA directly behind. Interestingly, Miami and VaTech are two of the last four in.
Click to expand...

I can sort of see Miami (even though that loss to UL was horrific) but how in the world is VT in any brackets at this point??
 
PhDeac said:
As opposed to 20 games for seeding in the conference tournament?

I assume an all-play tournament would have several play-in rounds before getting to the round of 64.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in my head, you get it to 256 so it takes 8 games to win it all... But maybe you get it down to 128 or 64 before everyone remaining is involved.

Not worth really digging into specifics because it is never going to happen.

Maybe we just go to 96 soon and that works out fine. I used to be very much against expanding the field, but now I feel like the difference between solidly in and narrowly out is pretty tiny.
 
thatguy2016 said:
If I’m designing the system, I do away with the Quad system altogether. The NET already accounts for schedule strength (as does KP, Torvik, etc) and the NET also has the secret adjustment for wins. So by also looking at “Quad 1” record, we’re double counting the impact of wins over good teams.

But we’re probably not going to do away with Quad 1 wins, because human beings like to look at simple stats. There are still ways we could tweak the system.

1. We could and should ignore the H2H impact of any particular game on the corresponding NET positions of both participants. Example - WF beat VPI. How strong is VPI? We should evaluate VPI vs every other team in the country while ignoring the WF-VPI result. If at the end of the year, VPI is 33rd in NET, but would have been top 30 if you exclude the WF game, that’s a Q1 win for WF. Similarly, if Louisville ends up near the Q3-Q4 border, Miami could potentially have a Q4 loss while others who played UL could get Q3 credit (for example). That’s impossible to do manually but it would be easy to program.
2. We could increase the number of breakpoints such that each set of teams are more similar than what we currently see.
3. We could have a “wins adjustment” where we give credit to wins based on the relative strength of each team (again, in theory we’re already doing this in the NET although the exact formula is a secret). If I’m designing the “wins adjustment” I’m giving credit directly corresponding to the relative strength of every team, 1-362.

All easy to implement ideas and all better than, oh congrats, you got to play the #25 team and after you beat them, they’re still top 30.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly with all of this except 1. More data points is always better.
 
There is an argument that double counting wins over good teams is a feature of the current system. You want to be recognized as a "good team?" OK. Beat good teams and get rewarded.
 
Deaconblue said:
There is an argument that double counting wins over good teams is a feature of the current system. You want to be recognized as a "good team?" OK. Beat good teams and get rewarded.
Click to expand...
It's really even more than double counted:

1) You get the boost in your adjusted efficiency (assuming you're not also a top 15 or so team) since you performed well against a top team
2) You get the boost from the TVI (whatever this value is)
3) You get credit for a Q1 win
 
Honestly I think we should just do what college hockey does and use the NET like Pairwise. The obvious issue with that is that it takes out all nuance for injuries/waivers.

It does, however, take out the bias of the committee and avoid triple counting Q1 wins.

If they go this route then they have to release the formula for the NET though. If everybody knows what the formula is, then there's no excuses when you play a piss poor SOS and then wonder why you got left out. Even if the NET is flawed (which is definitely is because it's not perfect), then it's transparent and everybody knows what they need to be doing. That's what the MWC has figured out - schedule right, and win. They do both of those.
 
Cross Country also uses a straightforward system that is easily trackable, and all the coaches know that if you want an at-large bid, you need to go to big meets and beat good teams.
 
What if we count Q1 wins four or five times instead of 3 - you know, double-down and see if that improves things.
 
I propose a lottery. Everyone interested submits their name. Winner chosen gets to make the tourney of 64 brackets. Any criteria they want. Every blue blood is playing in the northeast? Done. MM's to the south? Absolutely. You want every team in your league? Yep. The worst 64 teams in net? You betcha. Next year billy from 4c is choosing only teams with bird mascots. He thinks his high school team is pretty good too. They deserve a shot.
 
8c4xhh.jpg
 
Morning all. One day away from Wake Forest-Virginia, which means another edition of both the BOTG Pod and our previews on BSD.

All your traditional stuff in the preview: game info, history, the metrics, roster analysis, my take, keys to the game and prediction. Plus, some notes on how this season is just beginning for Wake Forest. You can read all that here.

EP 23 of the BOTG Pod has a very special guest, Conor O'Neill, who joins me for 25 minutes of refs, replays, Alabama football, the metrics and, of course, Wake Forest basketball. That segment is sandwiched by my thoughts on the FSU game and my Virginia preview. Listen below:



As always, thanks for listening/reading!
 
EssexThayer said:
Morning all. One day away from Wake Forest-Virginia, which means another edition of both the BOTG Pod and our previews on BSD.

All your traditional stuff in the preview: game info, history, the metrics, roster analysis, my take, keys to the game and prediction. Plus, some notes on how this season is just beginning for Wake Forest. You can read all that here.

EP 23 of the BOTG Pod has a very special guest, Conor O'Neill, who joins me for 25 minutes of refs, replays, Alabama football, the metrics and, of course, Wake Forest basketball. That segment is sandwiched by my thoughts on the FSU game and my Virginia preview. Listen below:



As always, thanks for listening/reading!
Click to expand...

I would not mind this having its own thread. Easier to follow/update
 
deaconson said:
I would not mind this having its own thread. Easier to follow/update
Click to expand...
If folks are open to a BOTG thread, I'm certainly ok with making one. Being the new person/journalist, didn't want to change the flow of how things work here. But open to any ideas folks have. I'm incredibly appreciative of all the support from the OGBoards.
 
EssexThayer said:
If folks are open to a BOTG thread, I'm certainly ok with making one. Being the new person/journalist, didn't want to change the flow of how things work here. But open to any ideas folks have. I'm incredibly appreciative of all the support from the OGBoards.
Click to expand...
I 100% would like that!
 
I don't know why we'd need a separate BOTG thread. It's a good podcast that contributes to the ongoing discussion of each thread it's on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top