Louis Gossett Jr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 12,977
- Reaction score
- 6,898
Are all these mathematical models fixed year to year or fluid?
Like do they change the metrics each year, or do they reset the metrics at the start of the year?Are all these mathematical models fixed year to year or fluid?
Like do they change the metrics each year, or do they reset the metrics at the start of the year?
The NET is self-contained every year. They changed the way the ratings worked a couple years ago to eliminate everything except Team Value Index and Net Efficiency as the two formulas that matter.
KP and Torvik may make slight tweaks to the formulas they use, but neither has made any wholesale changes that they clued the community into in years.
This year's Model Diagnostics per KP.Yeah I can't speak for Torvik but I know KP has provided a lot of updates in the past about how he is constantly evaluating the numbers and cross-referencing expected outcomes from his numbers to actual results over the course of years: i.e. does a team with 70% win probability based on his ratings actually win approximately 70% of the time.
This.All of these math nerd rankings are straight fucking incel virgin pocket protector dry humping trash.
DI Men's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com
Get NCAA college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today Coaches poll and the NCAA NET Rankings.www.ncaa.com
Look at Dayton -- they are somehow 62 in the NET, 7 spots ahead of Wake. They have ZERO wins against ranked teams, ZERO Q1 wins, ZERO Q2 wins, one less win than Wake and one more loss. Also we played a common opponent, Wisconsin, to whom they lost at home and we beat on the road.
Fucking trash. It is indefensible. One of you nerds untuck your ween and please defend.
They aren’t 40 spots apart is the answer.More on the Pitt v. Wake comparison. No reason in the world Pitt should be 40 spots above Wake, as mentioned and I suspect that coming in blind if the selection were today they wouldn't be. Here are the teamsheets:
Wake: 69th NET; 39th KPI, 42nd SOR; 62nd BPI, 71st KP, 64th Sagarin
Pitt: 57th NET; 34th KPI, 49th SOR; 61st BPI, 62nd KP, 57th Sagarin
Pitt is 3-2 against Q1 and Wake is 2-3.
Both teams should be on the bubble and somehow Pitt is a projected 9 seed with Wake next four out.
Again, Lunardi's stuff doesn't matter right now but this is some weird stuff only really explained by him doing a shift up and down from priors rather than taking a fresh look at numbers and starting from scratch.
The only question I have for KP is how he weights deez nuts.
LOL at the notion of "Joey Brackets" putting in more than a modicum of work prior to late February.Again, Lunardi's stuff doesn't matter right now but this is some weird stuff only really explained by him doing a shift up and down from priors rather than taking a fresh look at numbers and starting from scratch.
We would beat all of them right now on a neutral floor.Numbers, can you explain why the following teams are ahead of us in the NET despite ZERO Q1 wins?!?!:
Boise - 20th
Utah State - 34th
Kent State - 38th
Charleston - 43rd
UCF - 44th
Florida - 48th (0-6!!!!)
North Texas - 49th
Virginia Tech - 54th
Oral Roberts - 60th
Dayton - 62nd
Liberty - 68th
Doesn't matter because they aren't seeding the tournament this week, WF was projected "in" for all of February last year, and where did that get us?How the fuck are we not projected in right now? That makes zero sense.
There are (at least) 36 at-large teams ahead of us.How the fuck are we not projected in right now? That makes zero sense.