Scholarship table
I reread the NET and it says it is going to take into account offensive and defensive efficiency. I not sure how this effects an unbalanced team like MU was last year, but I think having a bad defensive efficiency rank is really going to be a negative. Generally, I believe people believe defense wins games.Being ranked 10th in defense and 100th in offense may be considered more favorable than being rank 10th in offense and 100th in defense.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
#FakeNews#Lies Yes they did. You could recalculate it.
Not that it matters now, but I'm curious. I know there are tons of RPI sites. But I always thought they had slightly different numbers than the official RPI, because of some secret sauce that was never disclosed. Do I have that wrong, or did it change at some point that I wasn't aware of?
Being ranked 10th in defense and 100th in offense may be considered more favorable than being rank 10th in offense and 100th in defense.
With the 10 point cap, will walk-ons see less garbage time?
Bizarre post
Why bizarre?They said they are going to consider offensive and defensive efficiencies. They did not say how they are going to do this.Does it make a difference if a team is:a)10th & 100th good offense & poor defenseb) 100th & 10th good defense & poor offensec) 55th & 55th good in neither & bad in neitherThey all average out the same. My concern is if they weight defensive teams ahead of offensive teams, because it presently would not does not favor MU.
Read brew's response.
Brew like everybody else does not know how they are actually going to do things. He is only making a reasonable guess.
Why bizarre?They said they are going to consider offensive and defensive efficiencies. They did not say how they are going to do this.Does it make a difference if a team is:a)10th & 100th good offense & poor defenseb) 100th & 10th good defense & poor offensec) 55th & 55th good in neither & bad in neitherThey all average out the same. My concern is if they weight defensive teams ahead of offensive teams, because it presently would not does not favor MU.This metric may favor the mid-major teams. I am pretty sure our defensive efficiency rank & offensive efficiency rank would of been better last year, if we had played in a non power 6 conference.
As for your last point about mid-majors, no it shouldn't. Efficiency stats adjust for the level of competition you are facing.
Not necessarily. Pomeroy adjusts his efficiency stats based on level of competition, but that's by choice. Not every metric does that. I think it's probably the best course, but I could see the NCAA using raw numbers and perhaps weighting a comparison of the average opponent efficiency rather than adjusting the numbers.It was interesting to run defensive efficiency numbers for Presbyterian and find that even in their worst stretch of the season, 16 games when they averaged 1.13 dppp, it wasn't as bad as the Pomeroy defensive efficiency score that was worse than 1.15 dppp.
Not necessarily. Pomeroy adjusts his efficiency stats based on level of competition, but that's by choice. Not every metric does that. I think it's probably the best course, but I could see the NCAA using raw numbers and perhaps weighting a comparison of the average opponent efficiency rather than adjusting the numbers.
This is one reason why I want to look under the hood and see what they're doing... I could see the NCAA using some wacky weighting to adjust for opponent in coming up with adj ppp stats. "Uhh, they're ranked between 200 and 300 in NET, so you get a negative .02 ppp adjustment for that game"... I have little faith that there isn't some bizarro crap in their 'unreadable' calcs.
one question I have. Supposedly AI based. So, if the model is run twice on the same data, will the output be the same or will the model “educate” it self and get a different result?
One of the pods about this, I believe Parrish & Norlander, talked about this. It sounds like they want learning software and did try to create that in coordination with Google.That said, one of the experts they talked to claimed at this point, anyone citing an AI model is basically saying their model is crap, presumably because the technology isn't there.As JB said above, this really needs transparency.