• 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!

MBB Game 33: ACCT Quarterfinal - #1 Seed Miami - Thursday Nooner - ESPN

It’s the difference between beating a) good teams; and b) deserving teams (based on resume). And not a ranking of tournament worthiness.

The overlap is large but not 100% and NET is supposed to highlight which teams have done the former. It also quantifies home court advantage, which fans/media say they do but really underestimate when looking at who beat who.

There are tons of issues with it, and partially because of that they’re not going to go straight down a list (nor should they). Otherwise you get Liberty in this year over Missouri/Providence/State/etc.
 
As Ph wrote, then what's the purpose of making it the official metric? And, in what metric was Rutgers better ranked than Wake?
I have no idea why they've chosen to endorse it as the "primary sorting tool." Although I'd posit that a lot of the ongoing criticisms here are pretty diametrically opposed: 1) I hate the NET system it sucks and the ratings are garbage, and 2) why does the NCAA have the NET as a primary tool if they aren't using it 1 for 1 (Rutgers over Wake sucks!).

Rutgers and Wake had roughly the same resume ranks last year. Wake was better in predictive metrics. Overall Wake v. Rutgers was a difficult head to head to sort out. Wake played a really easy schedule in general and lost most of their limited opportunities against top tier teams while beating almost all the bad teams. Rutgers played a ridiculously difficult schedule (conference wise) and won a lot of those many more opportunities that they had against top tier teams while losing to bad teams.
 
And I thought it was clear Wake had a better overall argument for the tournament than Rutgers last year. I thought several teams left out of the tournament did.
 
It’s the difference between beating a) good teams; and b) deserving teams (based on resume). And not a ranking of tournament worthiness.

The overlap is large but not 100% and NET is supposed to highlight which teams have done the former. It also quantifies home court advantage, which fans/media say they do but really underestimate when looking at who beat who.

There are tons of issues with it, and partially because of that they’re not going to go straight down a list (nor should they). Otherwise you get Liberty in this year over Missouri/Providence/State/etc.
Then why make a list that puts Liberty ahead of Missouri/Providence/State/etc if they're not going to include Liberty over those teams?

There should be a system that ranks teams based on their projected success in the tournament and use that to make the field and seed the teams. We've got enough data from past NCAA Tournaments to do this.
 
Then why make a list that puts Liberty ahead of Missouri/Providence/State/etc if they're not going to include Liberty over those teams?

There should be a system that ranks teams based on their projected success in the tournament and use that to make the field and seed the teams. We've got enough data from past NCAA Tournaments to do this.
well then Wake would never make the tournament
 
I have no idea why they've chosen to endorse it as the "primary sorting tool." Although I'd posit that a lot of the ongoing criticisms here are pretty diametrically opposed: 1) I hate the NET system it sucks and the ratings are garbage, and 2) why does the NCAA have the NET as a primary tool if they aren't using it 1 for 1 (Rutgers over Wake sucks!).

Rutgers and Wake had roughly the same resume ranks last year. Wake was better in predictive metrics. Overall Wake v. Rutgers was a difficult head to head to sort out. Wake played a really easy schedule in general and lost most of their limited opportunities against top tier teams while beating almost all the bad teams. Rutgers played a ridiculously difficult schedule (conference wise) and won a lot of those many more opportunities that they had against top tier teams while losing to bad teams.
Wake was significantly better in NET, kenpom, Torviq, overall record, conference record, etc. The only metric in which Rutgers was better was the NET quad system, which is just a completely arbitrary metric. I'm fine with using a metric like the NET as a data point, but do not create a new, arbitrary metric from that same metric. I don't see any other metric that got Rutgers in last year, except the quad system.
 
So, based on dook looking so good in the 1st half against pitt, Wake would have been in a world of hurt had we advanced.
 
Wake was significantly better in NET, kenpom, Torviq, overall record, conference record, etc. The only metric in which Rutgers was better was the NET quad system, which is just a completely arbitrary metric. I'm fine with using a metric like the NET as a data point, but do not create a new, arbitrary metric from that same metric. I don't see any other metric that got Rutgers in last year, except the quad system.

Oh, the quad system blows even harder.... and that's coming from Forbes as well.
 
Wake was significantly better in NET, kenpom, Torviq, overall record, conference record, etc. The only metric in which Rutgers was better was the NET quad system, which is just a completely arbitrary metric. I'm fine with using a metric like the NET as a data point, but do not create a new, arbitrary metric from that same metric. I don't see any other metric that got Rutgers in last year, except the quad system.
Yeah agreed. I've said this for two years. My frustration is the consistent conflation with "quad system" and "NET sucks"
 
Then why make a list that puts Liberty ahead of Missouri/Providence/State/etc if they're not going to include Liberty over those teams?

There should be a system that ranks teams based on their projected success in the tournament and use that to make the field and seed the teams. We've got enough data from past NCAA Tournaments to do this.
Because there's an inherent tension between "projected success in the tournament" (read: teams who would be favored on a nightly basis against teams around them) and teams who have put a resume together in the regular season where they should be "rewarded" with an at-large bid. No rating system or formula resolves this tension in a manner that satisfies everybody. The NET is intended to address this tension by including both resume and predictive aspects.

These are generally pretty close to one another, but Ohio State this year is an excellent example of a huge divide between the two.
 
Didn't expect to win, so not surprised that we were thoroughly outplayed and lost. Yeah, we had a chance somehow at the end, but that was all bullshit. We were chucking up prayers and they started to fall. We slept for the first part of the second half after cutting it to three and that is when the game was lost. We were down by 18 points. It is very frustrating how many times other teams have just gone on killer runs against us all year. It's also a product of who we are-- which is a team that does better than it should with a bunch of middling players that Forbes molds into a respectable team. Nobody expected us to win 25 games last year and we did. Then we lost the nucleus of the team last year, and somehow won 19 this year. I suppose you can say we had two ACC POYs and shoulda/coulda/woulda done better, but I don't buy that.

We can match up with most teams with our starting 5, but by the end of the season, I felt like we were tapped, with our abilities/limitations well scouted and known. Every one of these guys will be better next year except for the guys who aren't returning, obviously. I feel like for the first time in the Forbes era that we have a pretty solid core who will be returning (assuming no unexpected losses or transfers). And I like who we have coming in, though we absolutely need another big man.

Bobi - Continue path, bulk up, improve outside shooting. The stuff typically expected between FR-SO years.
Cam - Improve shot, finishing ability. I think at this point his game is what it is, but if he can improve his outside shot, it negates the need for him to take it to the hole so much and play so physical, which contributes to fatigue.
Marsh - Improve feet, off-the-ball quickness/anticipation. I think he is limited, but development of a simple post move would make him so much more of a threat.
Carr - Needs bulk and to reduce his timidity. Also needs to reduce putting it on the floor. Both ACCT games had teams going for the ball whenever he put it on the floor. But the biggest thing is getting some strength and aggression from him. He is built like Ricardo Peral was, but weight/strength training has come a long way since those days and I think his shoulders are bigger than Peral's. Regardless, strength doesn't have to manifest itself in his appearance-- just during the game when teams are trying to push him around or when he takes a shot he should take instead of passing on it.
Monsanto - Work on shot selection and defense.
Taylor - Don't know what to say here. I was happy to see him contribute, so maybe he stays.
I'm assuming that Bradford is gone and I'm fine with that. His Stan King levels of production and effectiveness could be better utilized elsewhere.

Not sure about the kids coming in. One has a Slavic last name so you know he can ball. The Oklahoma kid is a shooter, which we desperately need.
 
well then Wake would never make the tournament
I'm not sure if you're joking, but I'm not saying it should be based on a program's past success in the tournament. I'm saying rank teams based on their projected similarity to past teams that performed well in their seed in the tournament based on performance during the season.
 
I'm not sure if you're joking, but I'm not saying it should be based on a program's past success in the tournament. I'm saying rank teams based on their projected similarity to past teams that performed well in their seed in the tournament based on performance during the season.
it was a joke
 
I'm not sure if you're joking, but I'm not saying it should be based on a program's past success in the tournament. I'm saying rank teams based on their projected similarity to past teams that performed well in their seed in the tournament based on performance during the season.
I'm not being obtuse, but why would we want that instead of teams that had the best resume when balanced with who they played and how they played against them based on the individual season's body of work?
 
I'm not being obtuse, but why would we want that instead of teams that had the best resume when balanced with who they played and how they played against them based on the individual season's body of work?
First of all, the goal is to pick the best teams for the tournament, meaning the teams most likely to advance in the tournament.

Second, "best resume" is fuzzy. There are plenty of variables, but what is the outcome? I'm saying the outcome should be tournament performance. I'm not sure what outcome NET is supposed to be.
 
Back
Top