MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: brewcity77 on February 18, 2019, 01:37:45 PM
-
Last week we covered some teams that present significant matchup problems for Marquette. This week we're looking at teams Marquette offers similar challenges to. If Marquette sees these teams in the bracket on the opening weekend, hopes should be high for a Sweet 16 run.
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2019/02/marquettes-ncaa-dream-scenarios.html
-
Many bracketologists now project Marquette as a 3 seed. That's consistent with our latest ranking in the AP and coach's polls (#11 and #10, respectively).
But that seems to ignore MU's current #19 NET ranking. NET, of course, being the new system developed by the NCAA -- designed to serve as "the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams during the Division I men's basketball season." By that measure, MU is a 5 seed. Pretty big difference.
Do we have any indication of how important the NET will be in seeding? Or do you expect the polls and the NET rankings will converge over the final weeks of the season?
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-11-26/net-explained-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-11-26/net-explained-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking)
-
Well, the Selection Committee had us at a 3 seed and we haven't lost since. And our NET was lower at that point than it is now. So it's clearly not THAT important.
-
So it's clearly not THAT important.
In our case, it seems completely irrelevant. So why develop a new tool in the first place?
I'm not complaining about a better seed for MU. But I also don't want to get my hopes too high and be disappointed if the committee pays more attention to its own evaluation tool come Selection Sunday.
-
In our case, it seems completely irrelevant. So why develop a new tool in the first place?
I'm not complaining about a better seed for MU. But I also don't want to get my hopes too high and be disappointed if the committee pays more attention to its own evaluation tool come Selection Sunday.
They are using it in the same way they used RPI.
-
In our case, it seems completely irrelevant. So why develop a new tool in the first place?
I'm not complaining about a better seed for MU. But I also don't want to get my hopes too high and be disappointed if the committee pays more attention to its own evaluation tool come Selection Sunday.
NET, like other metrics, is a sorting tool. It's useful to give a good sketch of the differences between 1-5 and 6-10, of 11-20 and 21-40, etc. The Committee seems to acknowledge it's not perfect & will dig deeper into resumes to separate the teams further.
For a couple examples, start with (18) Kansas & (20) Villanova. Identical records, similar NET, but Kansas is a consensus 3-seed & Villanova is around the 5-6 lines. It's pretty clear when you compare the quality of KU's wins to Nova's. Or look at (33) Florida & (35) Texas. Similar records, but Texas is solidly in the field thanks to their excellent Q1A victories while Florida is generally considered to be on the wrong side of the bubble.
The metrics may add up about the same, but it comes down to the Committee to figure out what separates teams in those groups.
-
They wanted a better sorting tool........manipulating the RPI became the focus of scheduling......they wanted a tool that didn't drop you in the ranking merely for playing a bad team.....even if you killed them.
-
I don't want to say any approach is a dream scenario, too much playing with the Ju Ju Gods of superstition. Win and advance, I don't care whom or how.
-
It's really no difference than this...
Long teams...Maryland, FSU, etc....not good for us
Some teams are bad matchups on paper. For others, we're the bad matchup. Besides, life is no fun if you only look at the negatives.
-
It's really no difference than this...
Some teams are bad matchups on paper. For others, we're the bad matchup. Besides, life is no fun if you only look at the negatives.
Yeah, but psychologically saying I hope we play ____ or _____ or _____ just screams bite us in the arse to me. Be careful what you wish for mentality. Can't do it. There are teams I want no part of, and there are teams that I don't fear but aren't on my dream list because of ^ ^ ^ ^
-
Yeah, but psychologically saying I hope we play ____ or _____ or _____ just screams bite us in the arse to me. Be careful what you wish for mentality. Can't do it. There are teams I want no part of, and there are teams that I don't fear but aren't on my dream list because of ^ ^ ^ ^
I already have the expectation that we won't survive the first weekend, so any victories are gravy. And who doesn't want to see Buzz on the sideline one more time? ;)
-
Many bracketologists now project Marquette as a 3 seed. That's consistent with our latest ranking in the AP and coach's polls (#11 and #10, respectively).
But that seems to ignore MU's current #19 NET ranking. NET, of course, being the new system developed by the NCAA -- designed to serve as "the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams during the Division I men's basketball season." By that measure, MU is a 5 seed. Pretty big difference.
Do we have any indication of how important the NET will be in seeding? Or do you expect the polls and the NET rankings will converge over the final weeks of the season?
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-11-26/net-explained-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-11-26/net-explained-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking)
You answered your own question:
"the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams"
Ever use the Sort function in Excel? Did it influence your evaluation of the data or simply help with your evaluation?
-
I think NET ranking is what is keeping us and will eventually stop us from getting to the 2 line. Even if we go to 30-4 by winning out our NR will most likely be 19-21 where it has been all freaking season. I good team to compare is Nevada who has 1 loss no good wins but was given a 4 seed.
I am still getting up to speed on how Net Rankings work but If I am correct the only way we could move up significantly is if we blast Nova at their place.
-
I already have the expectation that we won't survive the first weekend, so any victories are gravy. And who doesn't want to see Buzz on the sideline one more time? ;)
Hey at least we will get to optimize the boss button for a meaningful game for a change.
-
I am still getting up to speed on how Net Rankings work but If I am correct the only way we could move up significantly is if we blast Nova at their place.
No. It will move up significantly if we blast any team by more than we are "supposed" to.
Beating Georgetown at home by 30 would likely do more for our NET than winning at Villanova by 15. Now, its not the actual scoring margin that makes the difference, its the fact that we would need to be playing very efficiently (or making Georgetown play inefficiently) in order to beat them by 30. While we don't know the nuts and bolts of NET yet, it is clear that efficiency numbers play a huge role.