collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

NCSTATE is evil by TSmith34, Inc.
[Today at 10:28:11 AM]


Where is Marquette? by Scoop Snoop
[Today at 10:10:34 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Uncle Rico
[Today at 10:02:17 AM]


Are we still recruiting anyone for the 24-25 season. by tower912
[Today at 09:58:46 AM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by Viper
[Today at 09:52:10 AM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by MU Fan in Connecticut
[Today at 09:25:35 AM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by MarquetteDano
[Today at 09:22:06 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: So long, RPI  (Read 16978 times)

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #75 on: August 24, 2018, 09:24:35 AM »
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.

NWarsh

  • Scholarship Player
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #76 on: August 24, 2018, 09:27:06 AM »
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.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #77 on: August 24, 2018, 09:30:36 AM »
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.
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


Jay Bee

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9026
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #78 on: August 24, 2018, 09:40:30 AM »
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
Thanks for ruining summer, Canada.

Nukem2

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4973
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #79 on: August 24, 2018, 10:05:10 AM »
With the 10 point cap, will walk-ons see less garbage time?   ;)

Marcus92

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2513
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #80 on: August 24, 2018, 10:17:13 AM »
#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?
"Let's get a green drink!" Famous last words

Jay Bee

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9026
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #81 on: August 24, 2018, 10:22:52 AM »
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.
Thanks for ruining summer, Canada.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26361
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #82 on: August 24, 2018, 11:51:33 AM »
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.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #83 on: August 24, 2018, 02:39:14 PM »
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.

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #84 on: August 24, 2018, 02:51:24 PM »
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.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #85 on: August 24, 2018, 02:57:58 PM »
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. 

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #86 on: August 24, 2018, 03:04:17 PM »
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.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26361
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #87 on: August 24, 2018, 04:32:50 PM »
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.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #88 on: August 24, 2018, 05:27:16 PM »
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.
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26361
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #89 on: August 24, 2018, 05:42:48 PM »
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.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #90 on: August 24, 2018, 05:53:38 PM »
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.
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


Jay Bee

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9026
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #91 on: August 24, 2018, 05:57:16 PM »
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.
Thanks for ruining summer, Canada.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26361
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #92 on: August 24, 2018, 06:09:37 PM »
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 space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

Nukem2

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4973
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #93 on: August 24, 2018, 06:41:05 PM »
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?

Jay Bee

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9026
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #94 on: August 24, 2018, 06:55:48 PM »
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.
Thanks for ruining summer, Canada.

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8801
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #95 on: August 24, 2018, 07:14:48 PM »
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.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26361
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #96 on: August 24, 2018, 07:23:30 PM »
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.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

Nukem2

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4973
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #97 on: August 24, 2018, 08:08:55 PM »
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.

WarriorDad

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #98 on: August 25, 2018, 07:54:39 AM »
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
« Last Edit: August 25, 2018, 10:37:01 AM by WarriorDad »
“No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”
— Plato

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26361
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: So long, RPI
« Reply #99 on: August 25, 2018, 09:24:54 AM »
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.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.