• 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?

Yeah, the NIT is only really good for giving your team more games. I don't think the extra practices matter much at this point in the season. And if you're done playing, with the portal in full swing, you can get right to putting together your roster for next season.

I don't think Xavier and Texas A&M were good this season because they got the experience of playing in the NIT Championship last year... They were going to be good anyway.
 
I would have liked to see some of the younger players get more PT in the NIT. I was excited to watch more games. But I don't think we need to put out a whiny statement. Clemson is in a position to put out a whiny statement being the first team out. ACC commish should be pushing back hard as well.
 
TheReff said:
Maybe they ought to check KenPom and BartTorvik to see where we actually rate nationally before they make foolish statements that we should be in the NIT when we are sitting around 88-90. We have about 36 teams in KP not taken who are ranked ahead of us not counting any of those regular season champs that automatically get to go.

We lose to the likes of Loyola Marymount & LSU, we need to take the consequences.
Click to expand...
You keep writing this, but it makes it appear that you are uninformed regarding the NCAA and NIT selection process. It is clear that number of wins/losses matters very little (same with conference record), and that selections are driven by NET ratings. The NET does not factor in win percentage, rather, it looks at offensive and defensive efficiency and makes adjustments based on location of the game (home/away/neutral).
 
I mean record certainly plays a role. Ohio State is 52 in NET and isn’t playing anywhere at 16-19
 
There’s no reason to be mad about the snub based on the existing criteria , which is 95% the NET— the head of the selection committee indicated there is no eye test anymore, and no subjectivity— just metrics. A couple of weeks ago PH posted that with our NET being above the worst NETs selected last year—we were likely out—it was very simple and correct.
 
donaldross said:
Where is the call for change amongst ourselves.

We play in the worst facility in college basketball and give our NIL hoops pool almost nothing. The fault remains squarely with us. We lose because we choose to continue to make horrific decisoons

You can’t suck for 7 coaches and 3 ADs and blame them. The fault is our own.
Click to expand...
You suck Tar Heel cock, STFU.
 
Rafi said:
You keep writing this, but it makes it appear that you are uninformed regarding the NCAA and NIT selection process. It is clear that number of wins/losses matters very little (same with conference record), and that selections are driven by NET ratings. The NET does not factor in win percentage, rather, it looks at offensive and defensive efficiency and makes adjustments based on location of the game (home/away/neutral).
Click to expand...

I have no data to dispute this but, if true, this has been taken to the point of near absurdity. I get that a computer is less biased (theoretically) than a human committee but when its algorithm completely disregards wins and losses, something needs to be adjusted. My 2 cents.
 
TexasDeac1 said:
There’s no reason to be mad about the snub based on the existing criteria , which is 95% the NET— the head of the selection committee indicated there is no eye test anymore, and no subjectivity— just metrics. A couple of weeks ago PH posted that with our NET being above the worst NETs selected last year—we were likely out—it was very simple and correct.
Click to expand...
I need somebody smarter and I guess with a more philosophical bent than me to explain why the part in bold is desirable.
 
The Saturday we hosted UVA and we were all amped up. That was the moment we either stepped up and got back to relevance or not. And we did not. Mediocre team in a mediocre conference. The ACC tournament was pretty gross to watch.

It's really tough to convince me ACC basketball (or in general) is better now than it was when we had 9 teams and a Friday-Sunday tournament.
 
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.
TheAbster said:
I have no data to dispute this but, if true, this has been taken to the point of near absurdity. I get that a computer is less biased (theoretically) than a human committee but when its algorithm completely disregards wins and losses, something needs to be adjusted. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...
 
Rafi said:
You keep writing this, but it makes it appear that you are uninformed regarding the NCAA and NIT selection process. It is clear that number of wins/losses matters very little (same with conference record), and that selections are driven by NET ratings. The NET does not factor in win percentage, rather, it looks at offensive and defensive efficiency and makes adjustments based on location of the game (home/away/neutral).
Click to expand...
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).
 
I am sure there is some subjectivity in super weird cases/dealing with injuries.

Why the hell would we want a bunch of committee folks trying to "eye test" the difference between Rutgers/Clemson/Nevada, when they have probably seen a total of 20 mins combined from all 3 of those teams during the regular season.

It's like everybody on here saying we would crush Iona, or Oral Roberts, or FAU. How the hell would people even know that? I watch a ton of college basketball and barely saw those teams play very much. When I did, they were absolutely dominant. I doubt folks on here can discern based on a small sample size who should make the tournament using the eye test.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
The Saturday we hosted UVA and we were all amped up. That was the moment we either stepped up and got back to relevance or not. And we did not. Mediocre team in a mediocre conference. The ACC tournament was pretty gross to watch.

It's really tough to convince me ACC basketball (or in general) is better now than it was when we had 9 teams and a Friday-Sunday tournament.
Click to expand...
Right, and Wake wound up where they always were in the metrics - between 70-90 basically all season. A bunch of people on here thought the metrics and analytics were wrong because "Wake is better than that". No, no we weren't.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
The Saturday we hosted UVA and we were all amped up. That was the moment we either stepped up and got back to relevance or not. And we did not. Mediocre team in a mediocre conference. The ACC tournament was pretty gross to watch.

It's really tough to convince me ACC basketball (or in general) is better now than it was when we had 9 teams and a Friday-Sunday tournament.
Click to expand...
This is spot on.

I don't think there is anyone in the world arguing that ACC basketball is better now, the 9 team conference was the best of times.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
The Saturday we hosted UVA and we were all amped up. That was the moment we either stepped up and got back to relevance or not. And we did not. Mediocre team in a mediocre conference. The ACC tournament was pretty gross to watch.

It's really tough to convince me ACC basketball (or in general) is better now than it was when we had 9 teams and a Friday-Sunday tournament.
Click to expand...
Correct. The same game we played with ZERO discipline down 2 points on several occasions. Ran down and jacked up threes with tons of time left. The lack of situational awareness on multiple occasions this season gives me some concern. And NO I'm not saying fire Forbes.
 
The good old boy eye test is so far superior to nerds and advanced stats. People pushing advance stats should still be shoved in a locker somewhere, this is what happens when people stop bullying nerds....

Kidding kidding kidding....
 
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
 
And people here can defend NET as a rating system all they want but it does not withstand the common sense test. Total crap.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I mean record certainly plays a role. Ohio State is 52 in NET and isn’t playing anywhere at 16-19
Click to expand...
Correct, which is why I wrote that selections are "driven by the NET." It is not the sole metric, but it appears to be the clearly preferred metric and is the starting point for considering each team. If you don't have a good NET, you are unlikely to get in (except for Rutgers and others last year).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top