Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
One team Michigan State passed was Miami who lost at home to the 215th best team in the country. So I'd say in comparison, a six point road loss to a top 50 team looks better!
That’s an extreme example. So is this - one team wins every game they play against inferior competition, but wins by less than they should and one team loses every game they play against superior competition but loses by less than they should. NET rewards the losing team for losing by less than they are supposed to and penalizes the winning team for winning by less than they should have. Make that make sense.So if the worst team in the country plays a road game at the best team and loses 104-103 in triple OT, they should just stay at the bottom?
Where were we -3.5? Vegas line was -6.5 at the tip and Wake in the metrics (so not including either team's injuries) had Wake as an 11 point favorite. Notre Dame, since they've lost a lot of games - even though they've been close - is even worse in the NET (183rd now) than metrics (roughly in the 140s). So Wake would've needed to win by even more than 11 in all likelihood based on where the team are in the NET to break even (without considering teams moving around us)Wake Forest, at -3.5, beats Notre Dame by 8. We fall from 80 to 84 in the NET, and Irish jump up from 193 to 190. This system is pure trash.
The ACC is getting killed by 200ish and 300ish teams that have much more talent than their record. Does anybody think Maryland Eastern Shore goes into Miami and wins last night?One team Michigan State passed was Miami who lost at home to the 215th best team in the country. So I'd say in comparison, a six point road loss to a top 50 team looks better!
How does that not make sense to you? Simplifying it a little, but if you're "supposed" to win a game by X that is based on your ranking in the system. So if you're "supposed" to win by 10 as the 25th ranked team and win by 2 then you're going to drop a little because you didn't play like the 25th ranked team "should have" played at that point.That’s an extreme example. So is this - one team wins every game they play against inferior competition, but wins by less than they should and one team loses every game they play against superior competition but loses by less than they should. NET rewards the losing team for losing by less than they are supposed to and penalizes the winning team for winning by less than they should have. Make that make sense.
I mean we're at sample size almost 30 now. These ACC teams have had ample opportunity to prove they aren't where their rating are and they've largely failed to do so. I mean I think after this week the bottom five teams in the ACC (not counting VT since their metrics are much better) have a total of 6 wins against the top 10 in the ACC.The ACC is getting killed by 200ish and 300ish teams that have much more talent than their record. Does anybody think Maryland Eastern Shore goes into Miami and wins last night?
It’s not so much that it doesn’t make sense…I mean I get it in theory, but there’s way too much of a ranking bias regarding the margin of victory and/or defeat in NET. It should be a data point, but NET swings way too wide the common sense mark for me to take it seriously.How does that not make sense to you? Simplifying it a little, but if you're "supposed" to win a game by X that is based on your ranking in the system. So if you're "supposed" to win by 10 and as the 25th ranked team and win by 2 then you're going to drop a little because you didn't play like the 25th ranked team "should have" played at that point.
UMES and Florida State neutral court pick em you have to bet $100 who are you placing the bet on? How about FSU -3?I mean we're at sample size almost 30 now. These ACC teams have had ample opportunity to prove they aren't where their rating are and they've largely failed to do so. I mean I think after this week the bottom five teams in the ACC (not counting VT since their metrics are much better) have a total of 6 wins against the top 10 in the ACC.
I mean teams play vastly different schedules. Alcorn State is 12-3 in the SWAC and West Virginia is 5-11 in the Big 12. Nobody thinks Alcorn State should be ranked higher just because they have a better conference record.It’s not so much that it doesn’t make sense…I mean I get it in theory, but there’s way too much of a ranking bias regarding the margin of victory and/or defeat in NET. It should be a data point, but NET swings way too wide the common sense mark for me to take it seriously.
We’re really at a point in athletics where we reward the losing team for losing by less than they should have and are penalizing the team that actually wins the game only because they won by less than they should have? Huh? That means you can have, all things being equal, a team with a losing record in a conference be ranked higher in NET than a team with a winning record all because of the point spread with their respective wins/losses? That’s ridiculous and I assure you, that anyone who thinks differently is in the vast minority.
I mean not taking these specific teams into account because the spreads would be different than a pick em or anything (but also taking the spirit of your question at face value) I'll say that I'd probably bet on the more talented team personally, but that at the same time if you think there's value to be made overall in these types of matchups go ahead and find some and fire off in Vegas. I doubt we've discovered some big secret here on the message boards.UMES and Florida State neutral court pick em you have to beat $100 who are you placing the bet on? How about FSU -3?
Same for Louisville and Charleston Southern.
Of course not. But, to use your example, should a team in the same conference be ranked higher than another team if they have more losses but simply lost by less than they were supposed to in those losses and the team with a winning record won by less than they were supposed to?I mean teams play vastly different schedules. Alcorn State is 12-3 in the SWAC and West Virginia is 5-11 in the Big 12. Nobody thinks Alcorn State should be ranked higher just because they have a better conference record.
I mean it all just depends on what we're ranking the teams for. Are we saying who has the best chance to win today if these two teams played on a neutral court or are we ranking for a tournament selection? Since the NET is the latter, I think there should be tweaks made than JUST straight KP or Torvik or Sagarin, but there are. Also, the committee uses the NET as a guideline, not as a bright line rule. That's why Rutgers in the 80s in NET made it last yearOf course not. But, to use your example, should a team in the same conference be ranked higher than another team if they have more losses but simply lost by less than they were supposed to in those losses and the team with a winning record won by less than they were supposed to?
Where were we -3.5? Vegas line was -6.5 at the tip and Wake in the metrics (so not including either team's injuries) had Wake as an 11 point favorite. Notre Dame, since they've lost a lot of games - even though they've been close - is even worse in the NET (183rd now) than metrics (roughly in the 140s). So Wake would've needed to win by even more than 11 in all likelihood based on where the team are in the NET to break even (without considering teams moving around us)
So if the worst team in the country plays a road game at the best team and loses 104-103 in triple OT, they should just stay at the bottom?