• 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

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
 
Is there anyone that graphically displays Kenpom or NET rankings over time? Would be interesting to be able to visually see movement in the rankings.
 
DeacsATS said:
Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do with my ween, tucked or untucked, to defend this.

My only explanation is that they started the year #24 in KP and have been destroying teams lately in conference play.

But yeah, they are not impressive.
Click to expand...
Just one note here is that while most metrics out there have preseason stuff baked in, NET doesn't have that at all. It's just this season's effiency numbers with an adjusted "team value index" to provide some resume-based stuff into the ratings.
 
If you're doing Bracketology for a living/serious hobby, then you should really reset it at least once a week. Eventually you get anchored down and your baseline is off, leading to some wonky H2H comps.

For instance: comparing Pitt and Wake's resume/metrics/analytics, there is no excuse why they are 40 spots ahead of us.
 
It seems by this point in the season the original rankings should mean shit but there is still heavy bias in Kenny Pom
 
Another question I had is: Are the number of Q1/Q2 etc teams in an individual conference fairly set once conference play starts? Because for every team that rises in the rankings in conference play, other teams in the conference have to be falling.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
FWIW and the major caveat here is that Dayton has the type of resume that isn't likely to be rewarded as Wake saw last year. Decent metrics and bad record against Q1 teams. This is why the committee also uses other factors beyond NET ranking to select the field.
Click to expand...
Yep. This is where the focus on Q1/etc wins comes in. Those are a shorthand for who have you beaten. The downside to shortcuts like that is the committee members, who are supposed to be “experts” by the end of their process — may not be experts in this or all that nuanced depending on who is on the committee. The danger is they then use them as a crutch rather than a tool — I think that’s what caused us to get shafted last year and is a flaw in committee/group decision making.

I don’t believe we are even competing with Dayton for a bid this year so I’m not worried about being behind them at present (or even at the end). And if we get to 12-8/13-7 I doubt we’d still trail them anyways.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
It seems by this point in the season the original rankings should mean shit but there is still heavy bias in Kenny Pom
Click to expand...
He used to have them all phased out by the end of January, but I'm not sure if that's still the case. Here's his discussion from a few years ago on the impact preseason ratings have and why he keeps them baked in for the duration he does:


"Now that nearly every team has played at least 10 games, one might think we have enough data to form an accurate assessment of any team based on what they have done on the court this season. Then why still have the influence of pre-season ratings in the current ratings? Because you actually don’t have enough data to work with. The opinion one had of a team before the games started being played still has some predictive value."

"Without preseason influence at this time of year [late December], you can be nearly certain that a team that has overachieved relative to the initial ratings would be overrated. Likewise, a team that has dramatically underachieved would be almost certain to see its rating improve. That is to say, the ratings would be biased without preseason influence.

And this is because a dozen games are not enough to get an accurate picture on a lot of teams, especially when most of those games involve large amounts of garbage time. That’s not to say there isn’t a lot of value in the games that have been played. The fact that the preseason ratings are only given 2-3 games worth of weight at this point is an indication of that. Teams that have deviated substantially from their preseason ratings are almost surely not going to revert to that preseason prediction. But what’s nearly as certain is that a team’s true level of play is closer to their preseason prediction than their performance-to-date suggests."
 
Haros said:
By this point the preseason bias is just about down to zero. Should be 0.0 in the coming days.
Click to expand...
Yeah if the time table is still the same phasing wise, I think the impact of preseason numbers is probably about the equivalent of one game if not less at this point. Although looking at a couple teams in Torvik/KP v. NET, it may be a little more. Florida Atlantic is a fascinating case. Top 30-40 in everything, but 12th in NET. Again, this doesn't really matter because FAU has 13 more games and will either continue playing like a top 15 team like NET has or won't, but still an interesting one.
 
FWIW, and this has already been identified in previous discussions, Dayton had a bunch of injuries to start the year. They are a far better team than their analytical rankings suggest (according to Torvik Dayton is #37 since January 1; WF is #32), but the A-10 sucks, and Dayton's OOC record was poor; so, they aren't getting in the NCAAT unless the Flyers win the A-10, which is likely a one bid league this year. That said, Dayton is a very good team, and will probably play like a top 40 team the rest of the way.

FWIW, here is Torvik's top 11 since January 1:

1. Bama
2. St. Mary's
3. Texas A&M (they play Florida tonight, and you might want to invest in A&M at home right now)
4. UCLA
5. Houston
6. TN
7. Iowa State
8. Colorado
9. Boise State
10. Creighton
11. NC State
 
Not Bracketology related, but I feel like UCLA has been under-the-radar all year from an exposure standpoint.
 
Hell I think Nate Silver did an analysis a few years ago showing that it would still be valuable to never remove preseason ratings at all even across professional sports that have a far greater sample size. Obviously you don't want this in the NET, but I'm sure Vegas wants to have that included since we're really not dealing with massive sample sizes even if we feel like 30 basketball games is a lot of data.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
All of these math nerd rankings are straight fucking incel virgin pocket protector dry humping trash.

www.ncaa.com

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 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.
Click to expand...

By invoking Ween, I'm thinking you want Ocean Man to get his Voodoo Lady, but they will just tell you to Piss Up a Rope
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Not Bracketology related, but I feel like UCLA has been under-the-radar all year from an exposure standpoint.
Click to expand...
Agree, and it's weird because they are a blue-blood program, and return several key pieces from a team that almost won the NCAAT two years ago: Tyger Campbell, Jaimie Jaquez, while Jaylen Clark and David Singleton played roles. In this day and age, when everyone whines about the turnover and lack of continuity, UCLA is the rare elite team that has solid roster stability and a great coach.
 
I believe someone mentioned St. Marys recently as an example of metrics sucking, but they seem to be very good this year. Watched some of their game against LMU and they're super talented. Bennett's defense is ridiculous to play against.
 
Dopes love to crap on St. Mary's because they aren't a traditional basketball power and they play in the WCC. Randy Bennett may be the best coach in the nation, and he keeps ramping up their talent level. Yes, they haven't made a final 4 run.... yet, but they are legit. Last year, St. Mary's embarrassed Indiana in the NCAAT, before losing to UCLA, who is also really good. Tournament results are so random because of the one and done format; so, St. Mary's will never get much respect (except from analytics nerds) until they pull an NCAAT run. This could be the year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top