• 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!

Has Coach Forbes or AD Currie Released A Statement Yet?

Haros said:
It’s not true. Wins/losses layer in on top of the efficiency stats. But we don’t know how large the adjustment is for wins/losses and to what it’s applied. And the lack of transparency around that causes fans to lose our collective minds.
Click to expand...
This is from ncaa.com: "With the changes announced in May 2020, the NET will no longer use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET."

You are correct that no one knows the NET formula, which is completely maddening since it has become so important for tournament decisions.
 
Rafi said:
This is from ncaa.com: "With the changes announced in May 2020, the NET will no longer use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET."

You are correct that no one knows the NET formula, which is completely maddening since it has become so important for tournament decisions.
Click to expand...

This is comical. Consult with a bunch of nerds who probably never played an organized sport in their lives and were last picked in dodge-ball!!
 
NCAA tournament committee enters the room to create the tournament bracket. One guy types: "ChatGPT, please create a 68 team bracket for the men's NCAA basketball championship based on the 2022-2023 basketball season; primary input = NET rating, secondary input = the ACC sucks." 30 seconds later the bracket is created. They spend the next 8 hours drinking coffee and talking about their stock portfolios. Then they come out and talk about how hard they worked to create an equitable bracket.
 
Haros said:
It’s not true. Wins/losses layer in on top of the efficiency stats. But we don’t know how large the adjustment is for wins/losses and to what it’s applied. And the lack of transparency around that causes fans to lose our collective minds.
Click to expand...
Well don't let that get in the way of a good complaint
 
I assume the margin of victory was "taken out" as a factor because adjusted efficiency basically already does that overall, and it was causing it to count twice?
 
socaldeac said:
How Va Tech got in over Wake makes little sense to me. Lost head to head, worse record in ACC, below .500 in ACC. More Quad 2,3,4loses than Wake. However, beat a bad Ok State for a Quad 1 and UVA. Also Wake and UNC only 1 game separates their overall and ACC record but our Net 90 and their NET 43. Seems like a bunch of BS
Click to expand...
1. UNC played a harder schedule than Wake did
2. Not that this is the end all be all, but Wake and UNC shared 13 common ACC games (meaning we both played them either at home or away). In those 13 games, UNC went 9-4 and Wake went 6-7. The scoring margin over those 13 games was UNC +88 and Wake's was +13. So for 13 of our 33 games, UNC fared 75 points better against the same competition. That's a pretty solid difference overall.
3. The difference overall between 43rd and 90th is meaningful in the context of making the tournament or not but the difference between teams in those two positions isn't that significant overall. UNC would be about a 4.5 point favorite on a neutral court which feels about right
 
I mean, we don't like the numbers/metrics/etc. because they're not favorable for us. I wasn't complaining when we were a #4 seed in 2004 despite going like 9-7 in the ACC and "only" having 19 total wins. We were a #4 seed because we were really good, the ACC was insanely competitive, and metrics like Kenpom reflected that.

To be clear, I'm not saying Kenpom would've been part of the selection criteria in 2004--I have no idea and highly doubt it, actually--but just making a general point that the numbers will like us when there's something on the court to like.
 
whoa didn't realize rutgers didn't make it. did any other power 5 team play as few tourney teams as we did? (obviously not a perfect metric, but probably a decent proxy for how the committee was thinking about SOS)
 
Yeah, I'm still pissed we missed the NCAA last year w/ a mid-30s KP. That felt like we got screwed (though I understand the logic for the snub).

This year, we just weren't very good. Fun to watch, perhaps... But not very good. Especially down the stretch.
 
KidA23 said:
I mean, we don't like the numbers/metrics/etc. because they're not favorable for us. I wasn't complaining when we were a #4 seed in 2004 despite going like 9-7 in the ACC and "only" having 19 total wins. We were a #4 seed because we were really good, the ACC was insanely competitive, and metrics like Kenpom reflected that.

To be clear, I'm not saying Kenpom would've been part of the selection criteria in 2004--I have no idea and highly doubt it, actually--but just making a general point that the numbers will like us when there's something on the court to like.
Click to expand...
I think it's clear based on the posts this year on various threads that folks here have a much higher opinion of the ACC than they should. And/or they think that other conferences also have teams as bad as the 5 bottom teams the ACC has, which is just not true at all.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
If only we had a local attorney posting on these boards that wasn’t giving $$$ to Cincinnati, we could have an NIL fund!
Click to expand...
I think I see Cincinnati in the NIT and not the NCAA. I thought he was the best coach in the nation? Best coach would have his team in NCAA and not losing to the likes of East Carolina
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
Is this true? I thought KP was pure efficiency, but NET factors in winning percentage (though we don’t know how much, since the NCAA keeps a lid on the actual formula).
Click to expand...
He does not know. KenPom and BartTovik have the same selection criteria that Lunardi is using and given to them by the Committee. All one has to do is starting looking at all three in February to see where teams are. Lunardi had Clemson as next four out and last four out for several weeks and he was correct.
 
KenPom uses an adjusted efficiency for opponent. If he just used raw efficiency it would result in some weird rankings. For example, Youngstown State is 5th in raw offensive efficiency, but 45th after adjusting. Grambling is 9th in raw defensive efficiency, but 89th after adjusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top