• 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

Pilchard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought. Mick Cronin is only 51. He was at UC starting when he was about 35. In other words, UC had the DR-dream young coach, literally born in Cincinnati. He was successful but they ran him off and now he's doing a great job at UCLA.
 
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.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
Are all these mathematical models fixed year to year or fluid?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s what I was asking but it seems like a system that as more data is added to it every season, every game, then it could have continual improvement from every possible metric.
 
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.
 
The only question I have for KP is how he "adjusts" OE and DE from the raw numbers. It's obviously based on where the other team is rated (i.e. OE of Wake vs. DE of Clemson), but no clue what that dataset is comprised of/how he came to that adjustment.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This year's Model Diagnostics per KP.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    45.1 KB · Views: 33
WF had two blowout losses on the road against two decent teams. This makes the metrics men sad.

We have been great at home. We need to basically run the table at home to have a chance, which I think we can do. That alone gets us 12 wins, or drop 1 and have to beat at ND. Either way, ND away seems like a must.

Then win 1 away game from this batch: Pitt, Duke, Miami, State, Cuse. That is a tough stretch. That would be 14 wins and almost certainly a top-4 ACC spot and NCAA bid.
 
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...
This.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They aren’t 40 spots apart is the answer.

#36 is a 9-seed.
Last team in is #46 (12 seed)
Then Lunardi gives all the lower Auto Bids spots 47-68 (so he can hype up 68 team brackets).


Wake 8 teams out puts us around #54-55 on a normal system.

And then I’d guess a fresh side by side vs Pitt closes that gap in both directions.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL at the notion of "Joey Brackets" putting in more than a modicum of work prior to late February.

He's still on autopilot texting updates to some low level flunkie in the bowels of ESPN in Bristol, CT
 
does NET get better as the year goes on?

doesn't rely on any preseason inputs a la KP, right?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
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
Click to expand...
We would beat all of them right now on a neutral floor.

Only tough games would be Charleston, Florida and Va. Tech.
 
How the fuck are we not projected in right now? That makes zero sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top