MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Pakuni on August 22, 2018, 10:13:53 AM
-
NCAA selection committee replacing RPI with something called the NET.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-08-22/division-i-mens-basketball-committee-adopts-new-ranking
-
Interesting. I am cautiously optimistic but would need to see the formula to be sure. The cap on margin of victory is an interesting touch. I understand why they do it but I really think the fear of running up the score is overblown. I probably would have set the cap at 15 rather than 10.
-
Can someone find the calc for us?
-
RPI was a dinosaur that should have become extinct years ago. Whatever replaces it can't be worse.
-
Is the NET an acronym? I assumed so, since it is in all caps. However, they didn't tell us what it stands for. Any guesses?
-
Is the NET an acronym? I assumed so, since it is in all caps. However, they didn't tell us what it stands for. Any guesses?
Second paragraph -- NCAA Evaluation Tool.
-
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-08-22/college-basketball-new-ranking-system-replacing-rpi
-
"The team sheets also included three predictive metrics: those managed by renowned basketball analytics experts Ken Pomeroy and Jeff Sagarin, as well as ESPN’s Basketball Power Index."
Good God!
At least it may end up helping us this year.
Perhaps the only question that remains is one-seed or two-seed for MU?
-
"The team sheets also included three predictive metrics: those managed by renowned basketball analytics experts Ken Pomeroy and Jeff Sagarin, as well as ESPN’s Basketball Power Index."
Good God!
At least it may end up helping us this year.
Perhaps the only question that remains is one-seed or two-seed for MU?
NIT or TBT?
-
Second paragraph -- NCAA Evaluation Tool.
The NCAA part makes me think it will be a total disaster.
-
Second paragraph -- NCAA Evaluation Tool.
So NET is just a nickname for a member of the selection committee?
-
RPI was a dinosaur that should have become extinct years ago. Whatever replaces it can't be worse.
Let's hope the NCAA doesn't ask you to hold its collective beer.
-
It said it considering using game dates, but decided not to. I think they should of considered dates. I do not think a win or loss in November should mean as much as a win or loss in February.
It will be interesting to see if this changes Wojo's position on running the clock out. Will he hold the ball and let the clock expire, if we are up 8 points? This of course is not a big deal, if we are solidly in the tournament. However, not going for the extra 2 points in November for a potential bubble team may make him reconsider not scoring in the last 30 seconds. Personally, I would take the shot with about 2 seconds to go.
-
Looming NCAA stupidity alert. Matt Norlander is reporting that the NCAA won't release the formula/foundation for the NET because it's based on ML/AI and isn't "readable".
(https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1395426288ra/8994919.gif)
-
Looming NCAA stupidity alert. Matt Norlander is reporting that the NCAA won't release the formula/foundation for the NET because it's based on ML/AI and isn't "readable".
(https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1395426288ra/8994919.gif)
So much for transparency. Also, why the need for quadrants as the model would seem to be self-fullfilling. Just adds a layer of subjectivity that the NCAA is trying to avoid? Wonder if/when the NET output will be released to the public. It’s official RPI was released in the past on Monday’s later in the season, though others obviously were calculating RPI in real time. Guess we’ll have to wait for those Mondays? In the meantime, the RPI sites are out of business.
PS, Matt Norlander tweets that Gavitt says the NCAA will release the NET weekly beginning late November or early December.
-
They likely aren't releasing the details because they don't want people playing / scheduling to the data. But of course it's going to be reverse engineered. People will figure out in general what gets some teams ranked higher than others. But the idea that the formula isn't "readable" sounds like something I used to say to my grandfather when he couldn't program his VCR.
-
They likely aren't releasing the details because they don't want people playing / scheduling to the data. But of course it's going to be reverse engineered. People will figure out in general what gets some teams ranked higher than others.
My take, given some of the talk in the release, is that the NET has variables (“quality of wins and losses”) that favor the Power 6 teams. I think the mid-majors are going to get screwed especially as some of those power conferences go to a 20 game conference season. As with the RPI, it behooves schools to schedule wisely (and, of course, win those games).
-
It said it considering using game dates, but decided not to. I think they should of considered dates. I do not think a win or loss in November should mean as much as a win or loss in February.
Why? Is there any other sport where a regular season game at the beginning of the season means less than a regular season game at the end of the season?
-
The committe will still have to deal with late season injuries and with star players returning late in the season after being injured.
-
Why? Is there any other sport where a regular season game at the beginning of the season means less than a regular season game at the end of the season?
I think this is interesting, and I'm not quite sure where I stand. Say Harry had come in last year, and been better than advertised, a Hank 2.0 if you will. I would have hoped that the Georgia loss would have been viewed differently because the team was "incomplete". It also has to be seen as a double edge sword, where the VCU and LSU games were viewed differently because he had Haani.
Now none of those games were big enough to move us in the field last year, but there was a big debate about how ND should have been treated with the loss and then return of Bonzie. If my memory serves correct, they were the first team out, so an argument can be made that a win in any one of the losses in their 7 game losing streak in January would have put them in.
Valid arguments on both sides, as long as they are consistent with their treatment of teams in scenarios mentioned above there shouldn't be too many legitimate complaints.
-
I think this is interesting, and I'm not quite sure where I stand. Say Harry had come in last year, and been better than advertised, a Hank 2.0 if you will. I would have hoped that the Georgia loss would have been viewed differently because the team was "incomplete". It also has to be seen as a double edge sword, where the VCU and LSU games were viewed differently because he had Haani.
Now none of those games were big enough to move us in the field last year, but there was a big debate about how ND should have been treated with the loss and then return of Bonzie. If my memory serves correct, they were the first team out, so an argument can be made that a win in any one of the losses in their 7 game losing streak in January would have put them in.
Valid arguments on both sides, as long as they are consistent with their treatment of teams in scenarios mentioned above there shouldn't be too many legitimate complaints.
As I posted just before you, injuries are something the NET can’t deal with. That’s up to the committee.
-
I think this is interesting, and I'm not quite sure where I stand. Say Harry had come in last year, and been better than advertised, a Hank 2.0 if you will. I would have hoped that the Georgia loss would have been viewed differently because the team was "incomplete". It also has to be seen as a double edge sword, where the VCU and LSU games were viewed differently because he had Haani.
Now none of those games were big enough to move us in the field last year, but there was a big debate about how ND should have been treated with the loss and then return of Bonzie. If my memory serves correct, they were the first team out, so an argument can be made that a win in any one of the losses in their 7 game losing streak in January would have put them in.
Valid arguments on both sides, as long as they are consistent with their treatment of teams in scenarios mentioned above there shouldn't be too many legitimate complaints.
Personally, I think the tournament should be about what teams earn it, not how they good they are perceived at the end of the season. If we are going to forgive early season losses because a star player was injured who is not now, are we going to punish teams who lose stars late in the season? If Doug McDermott went down with injury in the Big East tournament, should Creighton have been left out because with McDermott they wouldn't have been a good enough team to make the tournament?
-
I agree with TAMU about the point spread. You can win or lose by 10 and it's not close to a blow out; my knee-jerk reaction also was 15.
I agree with Nuke, mu03 and others on the lack of transparency. But yes, I do imagine that soon enough everybody will know the formula (or darn close to it).
I'm gonna go in with optimism. Beats the alternative.
Yay! Ding dong RPI is dead!
-
Personally, I think the tournament should be about what teams earn it, not how they good they are perceived at the end of the season. If we are going to forgive early season losses because a star player was injured who is not now, are we going to punish teams who lose stars late in the season? If Doug McDermott went down with injury in the Big East tournament, should Creighton have been left out because with McDermott they wouldn't have been a good enough team to make the tournament?
Left out entirely? No. But bumped down a couple seed lines? I think that'd be justifiable.
I think cases where a team loses a player as good as Bonzie and were close as ND were last year are few and far between. As long as they're consistent, whichever direction they would lean, I would have no problem.
-
Left out entirely? No. But bumped down a couple seed lines? I think that'd be justifiable.
See I don't. You judge a team by how it performs as a team on the court based on the whole season. I don't think factors like injuries, or when certain wins or losses occur, should matter at all.
In no other sport does that stuff matter.
-
See I don't. You judge a team by how it performs as a team on the court based on the whole season. I don't think factors like injuries, or when certain wins or losses occur, should matter at all.
In no other sport does that stuff matter.
Curious what you think about conference tourney's then? We played Nova three times last year, and if we had won any of those I think we would have been dancing. However, I think beating them on March 8th would have given us a higher seed than if we would have beaten them on January 28th. Now part of that would be neutral court vs home court, plus beating them on March 8th would have given us at least one more Q1 game, but the selection committee is human. If the factors that you mentioned shouldn't matter at all, then wouldn't it just be easier to have a computer decide the field? That didn't work in football, and I don't see how it could work in basketball.
-
Curious what you think about conference tourney's then? We played Nova three times last year, and if we had won any of those I think we would have been dancing. However, I think beating them on March 8th would have given us a higher seed than if we would have beaten them on January 28th. Now part of that would be neutral court vs home court, plus beating them on March 8th would have given us at least one more Q1 game, but the selection committee is human. If the factors that you mentioned shouldn't matter at all, then wouldn't it just be easier to have a computer decide the field? That didn't work in football, and I don't see how it could work in basketball.
No I don't think a March 8 victory should matter anymore than a January victory should matter. I like the committee concept and how they use objective data to guide their decision making. I don't think it should be all objective.
I just think the discussions should be about Team A v. Team B and how they performed over their whole season. And how they performed as a team regardless of injury. You still need to have subjective decision making under that scenario as well.
-
No I don't think a March 8 victory should matter anymore than a January victory should matter. I like the committee concept and how they use objective data to guide their decision making. I don't think it should be all objective.
I just think the discussions should be about Team A v. Team B and how they performed over their whole season. And how they performed as a team regardless of injury. You still need to have subjective decision making under that scenario as well.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think that this happens 100% if the time. The past couple of years, certain teams have gotten preferable treatment from the committee based on their coaches name being Boeheim. Now I'm not advocating for a BCS like system, but if it always uses the same formula, it should be consistent in its team selection
-
I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think that this happens 100% if the time. The past couple of years, certain teams have gotten preferable treatment from the committee based on their coaches name being Boeheim. Now I'm not advocating for a BCS like system, but if it always uses the same formula, it should be consistent in its team selection
Oh I agree it's not what it happening now. And will likely never happen because emotions (like conference tournament wins) get involved. But that's the ideal that I would be shooting for.
-
See I don't. You judge a team by how it performs as a team on the court based on the whole season. I don't think factors like injuries, or when certain wins or losses occur, should matter at all.
In no other sport does that stuff matter.
I would agree. Though the NCAA has accounted for some injuries in the past.
-
Is the NET an acronym? I assumed so, since it is in all caps. However, they didn't tell us what it stands for. Any guesses?
Nukem
Eye
Test
:P
-
Why? Is there any other sport where a regular season game at the beginning of the season means less than a regular season game at the end of the season?
NCAA Football
-
Nukem
Eye
Test
:P
It is a predictive model. So, well, it is sort of an eye test. But, I’ll give that honor to the Ncaa Evaluation Tool. ;)
-
This thread title should be "RIP RPI."
#epicfail
-
The one thing I can't stand is a system that uses past year's performance to seed this year's rating. Although those methods might actually give a closer result to "ultimate reality"...it seems unjust.
So at least the RPI had that intention...and if the article is right the new system hopefully will do that as well:
"The NCAA Evaluation Tool, which will be known as the NET, relies on game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses. "
-
It is a predictive model. So, well, it is sort of an eye test. But, I’ll give that honor to the Ncaa Evaluation Tool. ;)
We finally found a use for Google Glass!
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/d1/8b/b4/d18bb4496f0912b0b4bdb33d5090fa08--google-glass-software-development.jpg)
-
Why? Is there any other sport where a regular season game at the beginning of the season means less than a regular season game at the end of the season?
A young team can be much better at year end. They should be looking for the best at large teams. Look at it this way what if MU losses both games in NIT and at Indiana. MU finally jells as a team sometime after that and is playing very well in February. Do you think those November losses should keep MU out of the tournament? As far as other sports they take you based on record. The NCAA takes you based on subjective observations.
-
Nukem
Eye
Test
:P
I thought I read somewhere that it stood for
NCAA evaluation tool
-
A young team can be much better at year end. They should be looking for the best at large teams. Look at it this way what if MU losses both games in NIT and at Indiana. MU finally jells as a team sometime after that and is playing very well in February. Do you think those November losses should keep MU out of the tournament? As far as other sports they take you based on record. The NCAA takes you based on subjective observations.
First, if Marquette loses both games in the NIT and @Indiana, those games wouldn't "keep them out of the tournament." All three would be quality losses.
Second, individual games don't keep teams out of a tournament. Its the entire resume. The entire resume should be considered equally regardless of when the game was played.
Finally, I don't want the best teams in the tournament. I want the teams that earn their bids. Sometimes better teams don't get the job done. They shouldn't be rewarded with a tournament bid over a team with a better resume just because someone subjectively decides that they are playing better at the end of the season.
-
Injuries are a big guessing game. 2010? Onuaku from Cuse went down with a “quad strain” in the BET. Cuse told the NCAA that he would be back by the tournament(helping their #1 seed claim) and he never came back.
All of this discussion screams for Wins Above Bubble. Rewards teams for winning games, just not on the “stats.” Doesn’t penalize mid majors like Loyola who dominate their league and don’t get to play high majors for various reasons.
-
I don't mind when the committee uses injury situations to move schools up or down seed lines because of the a availability or absence of a key player. If the school is already in the field regardless moving them up.or down a line or 2 is no big deal.
What I absolutely hate is the argument that was made last year reagarding Norte Dame. Where they actually considered strongly including them,in the field with a resume that wasn't worthy because Colson was hurt for much of the season and came back at the end.
You can't just give them wins they didn't earn because a key player was hurt.
-
First, if Marquette loses both games in the NIT and @Indiana, those games wouldn't "keep them out of the tournament." All three would be quality losses.
Second, individual games don't keep teams out of a tournament. Its the entire resume. The entire resume should be considered equally regardless of when the game was played.
Finally, I don't want the best teams in the tournament. I want the teams that earn their bids. Sometimes better teams don't get the job done. They shouldn't be rewarded with a tournament bid over a team with a better resume just because someone subjectively decides that they are playing better at the end of the season.
I never really know how to address this (or know if it’s taken into account). Say a preseason #1 team played well early in the season during OOC. Still #1 going into conference play. They get to conference play and they get rolled and win like 15-20% of their conference games. Do you then average out their 2 halves and call it a day?
-
will be interesting to see coaches and ADs reaction to the NET as it is not a verifiable measurement.
-
Broeker tweeted out approval already.....so MU likes the move.
-
Broeker tweeted out approval already.....so MU likes the move.
Though, I should have added what they think come Selection Sunday....
-
NCAA really does need to reveveal what the outcomes would been over the last 2 or 3 years for a reference point. Oh wait, that might tell us that Boeheim should have been shoved aside....??
-
Broeker tweeted out approval already.....so MU likes the move.
I do wonder if Marquette knew this was coming. Would explain why they scheduled Presbyterian late when in the past they have decided to not play all their possible non-conference games.
-
Why? Is there any other sport where a regular season game at the beginning of the season means less than a regular season game at the end of the season?
never mind. LlLe beat me to it.
-
NCAA Football
Does it? I honestly don't follow college football.
-
I do wonder if Marquette knew this was coming. Would explain why they scheduled Presbyterian late when in the past they have decided to not play all their possible non-conference games.
I believe my preview for Presbyterian is tomorrow, but I think they are a solid add regardless. Not just a "not bad for July" add, but simply a good buy game.
-
I believe my preview for Presbyterian is tomorrow, but I think they are a solid add regardless. Not just a "not bad for July" add, but simply a good buy game.
I know you believe that, brew but I don't see it. They were the 334th best team in the country last season and lose their two best players, including their only true PG. They do play a favorable non-conference schedule and should be able to pick up a few wins there but I think they finish dead last in the Big South along with Longwood.
-
will be interesting to see coaches and ADs reaction to the NET as it is not a verifiable measurement.
I'm guessing there will be sites that continue to do the RPI and a team or two will be left out this season that may have a strong RPI, that is when the reactions will come out even more.
-
It said it considering using game dates, but decided not to. I think they should of considered dates. I do not think a win or loss in November should mean as much as a win or loss in February.
All games should be treated equal. So basically if you did this there would be no reason to have difficult games early in the season. So if we beat Kansas and Louisville/Tennessee in the NIT it shouldn't mean that much? Those early season wins can often be the difference for a bubble team.
Now if you beat that team because they had significant injuries that is something else, but if you try and say that results in February should mean more than November, you have no reason to schedule any difficult non conference games.
-
I know you believe that, brew but I don't see it. They were the 334th best team in the country last season and lose their two best players, including their only true PG. They do play a favorable non-conference schedule and should be able to pick up a few wins there but I think they finish dead last in the Big South along with Longwood.
You're wrong. Their point guard is returning. Bart Torvik was also wrong and has since upgraded them to around 289 since I pointed out that error (feel free to fact-check that).
And their best player was Francois Lewis, who is back. They plummeted last year after he was declared academically ineligible. Lewis is the type of 6'9" badass that tends to dominate lower leagues, but didn't get the chance last year.
(EDIT: To be clear, I just meant you're wrong specifically about Davon Bell. He is back.)
-
Does it? I honestly don't follow college football.
Yep, last year OSU got into the playoffs with a loss on the record that came early in the season versus an Alabama who had one right before the playoff field was determined.
-
I feel pretty confident one of the defining features of this new analytic is that they will be doing nested correlations and bilevel optimizations to evaluate whos playing well when as well as to get a more accurate accounting for stength of schedule of opponents of opponents, etc
Conspiracy mu03eng thinks part of the reason they aren't disclosing the analytic/formula is because it is a ML-based solution and they are going to have a couple of data scientists "optimizing" in real time.
Buckle up kids.
-
You're wrong. Their point guard is returning. Bart Torvik was also wrong and has since upgraded them to around 289 since I pointed out that error (feel free to fact-check that).
And their best player was Francois Lewis, who is back. They plummeted last year after he was declared academically ineligible. Lewis is the type of 6'9" badass that tends to dominate lower leagues, but didn't get the chance last year.
(EDIT: To be clear, I just meant you're wrong specifically about Davon Bell. He is back.)
Huh, you are correct about Bell. I didn't realize he had another year of eligibility. That makes me feel a lot better about the game. I still don't think they are a good buy game if RPI was still a thing, but they wouldn't have been terrible....not that it matters now!
-
Huh, you are correct about Bell. I didn't realize he had another year of eligibility. That makes me feel a lot better about the game. I still don't think they are a good buy game if RPI was still a thing, but they wouldn't have been terrible....not that it matters now!
RPI no matta, hey.
-
RPI no matta, hey.
I'll drink to that
-
Huh, you are correct about Bell. I didn't realize he had another year of eligibility. That makes me feel a lot better about the game. I still don't think they are a good buy game if RPI was still a thing, but they wouldn't have been terrible....not that it matters now!
Check out the preview I have up now. I'll follow up in there with some extra thoughts.
-
I'll drink to that
RPI was the pioneer into early use of statistics in basketball (hat tip). However, why the NCAA held on to this dinosaur for so long must have been political. It became the US News and World report college rating metric where schools tried to manipulate the outcome versus use it as an evaluator of the value of the quality of their play.
Pomeroy, while pedantic, has continually tried to improve his methods and quality of his metrics, on the other hand. The game is changing in subtle ways and these metrics need to move with the game.
#machinelearningmattas
-
Looming NCAA stupidity alert. Matt Norlander is reporting that the NCAA won't release the formula/foundation for the NET because it's based on ML/AI and isn't "readable".
No surprise there. The NCAA never released the exact formula for the RPI, either.
-
No surprise there. The NCAA never released the exact formula for the RPI, either.
#FakeNews
#Lies
Yes they did. You could recalculate it.
-
Why not let Watson decide?
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/business-analytics/mens-basketball-bracket/
-
#FakeNews
#Lies
Yes they did. You could recalculate it.
Yep, there were a number of sites that recalculated it every day and some in real time.
-
Second, individual games don't keep teams out of a tournament. Its the entire resume.
Does anyone here want to argue that the loss at DePaul did not keep us out of the tournament?
-
Does anyone here want to argue that the loss at DePaul did not keep us out of the tournament?
It didn't. Our entire resume which included the loss at DePaul kept us out of the tournament.
-
Does anyone here want to argue that the loss at DePaul did not keep us out of the tournament?
It was a factor, but if I could change any "L" to a "W", it would not be that game. The DePaul game wouldn't even make the list if I could change 8 "L's" to "W's".
-
Up until a few years ago the NCAA did look at how you performed in the last 10 games. I am basically only talking about bubble teams fighting for the last bids. I think the team that is playing better in the last 10 games should get a bid over a team that got an upset win in November. Unless there is an injury or transfer there is no team in the country that is as good in November as they will be in March. However, all teams do not improve at the same rate.
Team A that is better than Team B in November may not better than Team B in March. Maybe that is the so called eye test.
-
Up until a few years ago the NCAA did look at how you performed in the last 10 games. I am basically only talking about bubble teams fighting for the last bids. I think the team that is playing better in the last 10 games should get a bid over a team that got an upset win in November. Unless there is an injury or transfer there is no team in the country that is as good in November as they will be in March. However, all teams do not improve at the same rate.
Team A that is better than Team B in November may not better than Team B in March. Maybe that is the so called eye test.
The problem with that is that you can't control your conference scheduling. Last year, our conference schedule was extremely front loaded. 5 of our first 9 games were against ranked opponents, then before we got to New York we didn't play a ranked team again so our "last 10 games" record was not an accurate reflection of our team. Yes we improved, but as Nova proved in NY it clearly wasn't enough.
-
Up until a few years ago the NCAA did look at how you performed in the last 10 games.
Not sure it was 10 games, but certain that either your definition of “a few years ago” is bonkers or you’re just wrong.
-
RPI RIP.
-
RPI was the pioneer into early use of statistics in basketball (hat tip). However, why the NCAA held on to this dinosaur for so long must have been political. It became the US News and World report college rating metric where schools tried to manipulate the outcome versus use it as an evaluator of the value of the quality of their play.
Pomeroy, while pedantic, has continually tried to improve his methods and quality of his metrics, on the other hand. The game is changing in subtle ways and these metrics need to move with the game.
#machinelearningmattas
I think Gasaway interviewed the RPI creators son a couple years back. The creator had passed away. Anyway, the guy said there is no way his father would have wanted it used now with better evaluation tools out there.
-
Not sure it was 10 games, but certain that either your definition of “a few years ago” is bonkers or you’re just wrong.
It was 10 games. In a quick google , I saw a quote from 2011 in which Gene Smith said the committe looked at the last ten games “a while ago”. So it’s been a long time since the committee looked at that as a factor.
-
The problem with that is that you can't control your conference scheduling. Last year, our conference schedule was extremely front loaded. 5 of our first 9 games were against ranked opponents, then before we got to New York we didn't play a ranked team again so our "last 10 games" record was not an accurate reflection of our team. Yes we improved, but as Nova proved in NY it clearly wasn't enough.
This is why I think you need to look at the entire schedule
Team A: Big wins in November/December, play tough conference schedule at end goes 5-5.
Team B: No big out of conference wins, but goes 8-2 down stretch in conference against mid tier teams.
Is Team B really better then Team A just becuase they did better in final ten games? This is why bas losses and good wins matter so much, it is one of the few ways to compare two teams who play very limited (if any) shared opponents.
-
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.
-
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.
Not necessarily, it all depends on the formula, if they are weighted evenly, then one would not be more favorable than the other.
-
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.
The NET is an algorithm not a committee. It doesn't matter what people believe, it is math. Put in the numbers and it will crank out rankings. I suppose the people who created it could weight defensive efficiency over offensive efficiency but that would be dumb and bias the ranking towards specific kinds of teams.
-
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.
Bizarre post
-
With the 10 point cap, will walk-ons see less garbage time? ;)
-
#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?
-
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?
There were sites that had it perfect, including rpiforecast.com. Many, including ESPN, were always wrong due to being stupid. No secret sauce, just laziness/stupidity.
I found an error by NCAA one year - they missed a school who had just transitioned to D-I for purposes of the calc, but they hadn’t updated for it. Emailed them & they fixed it.
D-I ins & outs, site of game oftentge culprits of bad calcs. Just mistakes, nothing secret.
-
Being ranked 10th in defense and 100th in offense may be considered more favorable than being rank 10th in offense and 100th in defense.
This seems unlikely because the inspiration for this is almost certainly websites that use a composite of the two like Pomeroy. They will plug numbers in and whatever comes out is the result without overly favoring either side of the ball.
-
With the 10 point cap, will walk-ons see less garbage time? ;)
That was my first thought when I read this. However, I do not think Wojo would put the walk-ons in with only a 10 point lead.
-
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 defense
b) 100th & 10th good defense & poor offense
c) 55th & 55th good in neither & bad in neither
They 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.
-
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 defense
b) 100th & 10th good defense & poor offense
c) 55th & 55th good in neither & bad in neither
They 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.
-
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.
-
Brew like everybody else does not know how they are actually going to do things. He is only making a reasonable guess.
This is true. That said, we do know two things. First, who the NCAA brought in to consult. Guys like Ken Pomeroy, Jeff Sagarin, & Kevin Pauga haven't overly valued defense. They allow the numbers to fall where they may. Second, we know that the NCAA is a business. While programs like Wisconsin and Virginia have risen to prominence with defense, that hasn't translated to ratings. Those schools don't attract the stars that drive ratings and haven't grown in popularity commensurate with their on court success. So if the NCAA were to value one over the other, they would be wiser to value offense because at the end of the day, they want eyeballs and offense brings more than defense.
Actually...we know a third thing. The idea that defense wins championships is BS and always has been. You don't win without both. Not in any sport, not ever. The Ravens don't win the Super Bowl without a competent offense and running game led by Jamal Lewis. The Badgers don't make back to back Final Fours without efficient offense and go-to scorers like Dekker & Kaminsky. The Devils don't win the Stanley Cup without putting the puck in the net.
Defense doesn't win championships. That's a load of crap. Teams win championships and need offense and defense to get that done.
-
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 defense
b) 100th & 10th good defense & poor offense
c) 55th & 55th good in neither & bad in neither
They 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 far as I am aware, none of the major rating systems have ever weighted defense over offense (or vice versa). Nor should they. Both sides of the ball are equally important to the success of a team. Weighting one over the other would result in a biased ranking system that favors certain kinds of teams.
Also, efficiency rankings will not be used in the calculation. They will use a formula to calculate efficiency score for offense and defense and use whatever the score is. Rankings are just a tool used by fans so they can understand in general where their team stands in comparison to other teams. For example, if I told you Davidson had an offensive efficiency of 117.0 last season, most fans would have no idea if that's bad or good. If I said their offensive efficiency is rated 17th overall then everyone understands they are good.
Now this is important because if you go by ranking, you are making the assumption that each individual ranking is equidistant from each other. For example, you would be assuming #2 Cincinnati is the same distance from #1 Virginia that #182 Marquette is from #181 California. The reality is that it is on a bell curve. The distance between #1 Virginia (85.6) and #2 Cincinnati (86.8) is actually equal to distance between #181 California (105.4) and #160 Manhattan (104.2).
As for your last point about mid-majors, no it shouldn't. Efficiency stats adjust for the level of competition you are facing.
-
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.
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.
I phrased it poorly, that's why I said it shouldn't.
-
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.
-
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.
Agreed, I had little warning bells going off when I heard that. I mean, it has to be better than RPI, which is clearly a heavily flawed and easily gameable formula, but people should know what they're looking at.
-
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 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?
I think they said “AI” because a computer does the calc.
-
With the use of computers they basically could do anything they can think of to come up with a selection. Especially, when they are not saying how they are going to actually do it.
-
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.
-
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.
Yeah, that’s where I’m at on this.
-
Jay Bilas recommended this article yesterday on social media about NET transparency and the call for the NCAA committee to be transparent
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-ncaa-tournament-committee-should-come-clean-on-how-it-will-determine-net-results/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Good reminder at the end that RPI used to be secret. But as we've seen, I think there's a consensus that the more information the committee has and the more people understand that information, the more likely it is we'll see the best possible field of 68 and Syracuse.
It wouldn't surprise me if they kept it secret for a short time, but in a few months, the coaching criticisms of a secret formula will begin and as those build, I suspect they'll have to make their method more transparent.