• 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!

Consolidated Bracketology Thread 3/12/23 updates

Wakeforest22890 said:
The NET uses two things to rank teams:

1. Adjusted efficiency (how many points per possession you scored in a game adjusted for the strength of your opponent) and
2. Something called Team Value Index which gives you additional points for winning games based on opponent and location

I don't really know where this fits in the "there's too much playing like you're supposed to" involved in the ratings but just figured I'd repost that.

Most of the metric out there just focus on number 1, so at least in the NET you get a boost for actually winning games
Click to expand...

Why those two?
 
I guess since points per possession is the best indicator of how good a team is and then you want to reward teams who actually win games?
 
DeacLaw05 said:
Ohio State wins their first game in 56 days. That is a quality, quality Quad 1 loss for Illinois.
Click to expand...
Ohio State is such a weird extreme. I don’t know what the hell happened to them but that’s wild and like Wake 2006 on steroids. Using Torvik, because we can segment the season by date:

Through January 7, ranked #9.
Since that date, ranked #131.
Them being in the 60s is just the combination of those two periods, and fine, whatever.

It does raise a couple of questions from there:
1) should data be trended, weighting more recent results more?
2) is the Committee sophisticated enough to adjust and not actually count those as Quad 1 wins;
3) why do we delineate on quads anyways?

The last bit is that NET isn’t a ‘ranking system’ in the sense that if Ohio St is at 65 tomorrow they’d be ahead of Wisconsin at 70 in the tournament pecking order. They won’t be. They aren’t making the tournament. They weren’t ahead of Clemson in the tournament pecking order before yesterday despite being ahead in NET. So in that sense, I care a lot less about whether they’re misranked or not.

It is a ranking system in the sense of trying to identify who can beat ‘good’ teams, rather than ‘deserving’ teams. Often the same, but sometimes different. And the version of Ohio State since the turn of the year isn’t a good team either and shouldn’t be treated as such — so it is one of those weird quirks that hopefully has a lot more perceived outrage than actual impact, but who knows.
 
People are way too hung up on the NET considering it is only one metric of many. It’s not like the committee just fills out the at large bids based solely on who is higher ranked in the NET
 
BeachBumDeac said:
People are way too hung up on the NET considering it is only one metric of many. It’s not like the committee just fills out the at large bids based solely on who is higher ranked in the NET
Click to expand...

NET is the official NCAA metric, right?
 
Haros said:
It is in the exact same way that RPI was before. But they didn’t just go down a sheet of RPI and put teams in either.
Click to expand...
RPI at least made some fucking sense. Some. Net fucking sucks as a "model". Won't matter much as our guys have not earned their way into the tourney and have their backs against the wall.
 
Haros said:
It is in the exact same way that RPI was before. But they didn’t just go down a sheet of RPI and put teams in either.
Click to expand...

Right. But it doesn’t mean RPI wasn’t very important and worth all the discussion.
 
Similar in that sense. Both poor as standalone metrics for who should get in the tournament. I think NET is an improvement that’s harder to game, but still lacking if you wanted to use it as a proxy for who gets in. So luckily it’s not used in that sense.
 
On quads, our complaint being in the ACC has been that once you get to conference play, it’s all circular. There’s no way for a conference to improve its standing as one team going up means another goes down.

I’ve said this one other place but I think that’s intentional. And it’s meant to favor the major conferences by giving them a ton of chances for Quad 1 wins as they all beat each other while limiting the number of chances for lower conference teams to pick up big wins as the season goes on. The Big Ten and Big 12 (and SEC last year) are prime examples of this working as intended.

It’s supposed to benefit the ACC as well, but we’ve shot ourselves in the foot. We’ve just had so many bad non conference losses and bad teams pull the conference ratings down that it’s had the opposite effect the last couple of years. Hopefully the conference gets back to where that benefits us soon.
 
Feels like beating BC is a ticket to the NIT, even with a loss at Syracuse— but I have no idea how the NIT field is stacking up.
 
We're #84 in NET. Last year, UVa (68) and Oregon (76) were the only unseeded major conference NIT teams. I think we need at least two wins to make the NIT.
 
Yesterday's example of the flagrant stupidity of NET:

 
Ryan Odom coaches Utah State. Wouldn't be shocked to see him in the ACC in the next couple of years.
 
Utah State can shoot the piss out the ball. Isn’t that the phrase someone used to describe Michael Wynn?

I am not saying they would win the ACC but their offense looks strong.
 
Penn State may have just locked up a bid that does not include a trip to Dayton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top