Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020-21 Games of Interest

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Watching the Nebraska / Maryland game and they have mentioned that Nebraska has played 7 games in the last 12 days over 5 states. Why does it seem impossible for the Shox to get games rescheduled? Is it a conference F up?

    Comment


    • OK, I'm calling Bull*** on this Net Ranking and anyone who supports it.
      It is wholly ludicrous.

      Here is one example.
      Colgate, from the Patriot League, has played 11 games.
      They have played the same four teams several times, that is it.
      Those teams are rated :

      Army 96 (their record in 8-6)
      Bucknell 193 (their record is 4-4)
      Boston U 236 (their record is 4-6)
      Holy Cross 247 (their record is 3-9)

      WSU has played number 5 Houston, No 37 Missouri, No 42 OSU, No. 55 Mississippi, No. 62 Memphis.
      Our LOWEST RANKED team is ORU at 186 and Temple at 157.
      Colgate only has Army ranked above our lowest two teams.

      So, go to it brainiacs. Explain to this attorney (a pretty smart fellow) how it is that the Net Rankings are even minimally dispositive?
      Explain to me how Colgate, who has been to THREE NCAA TOURNAMENTS with a record of ZERO WINS and THREE LOSSES is 67 places better than WSU.

      I did a whole excel spreadsheet comparison of the games played by both teams.
      But it tells me I cannot upload an Excel file.

      So, let's look at strength of schedule.

      WSU is 42.
      Colgate is 207.

      SO GIVE ME, ANYBODY, A RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR THIS.

      This is crap. We are gettting screwed again.

      If the tournmanent selectors EVEN LOOK at NET RATINGS, they will be badly mislead.

      As I said before, there is no rational way that Colorado, SD State, Rutgers, Drake, Maryland, Boise State, Penn State, Seton Hall, UC Santa Barbara,
      Indiana, Old Miss, Minnesota, Stanford, North Carolina, WRIGHT STATE, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Auburn, Duke, St. Mary's, Marshall, Toledo, North Texas State,
      Davidson, ABELINE CHRISTIAN, Western Kentucky and Kentucky at 6-13 belong ahead of us in ANY RATIONAL RATING SYSTEM.

      Many of these teams have losing records. Many of them play in conferences that are not even ranked in the top 10 conferences.
      WSU plays in the 7th ranked conference, and has played 3 power five teams this year.

      So, I am waiting. But I don't expect a RATIONAL response because one is not possible.

      Comment


      • David Rahm, it sounds like you’ve already made up your mind about NET and it would be a waste of someone’s time to try and convince you otherwise.

        I’m not here to explain or defend NET. It’s just another in a long line of formulas whose aim is to do the impossible - provide an unbiased ranking of a collection of teams (the NCAA) who only play 30 games a year. There will never be a perfect system. All we can do is continually try to improve.

        The fact that the non-conference was shortened/cancelled/non-existent certainly doesn’t help matters.

        FWIW, Colgate is 96 in KenPom, WSU is 82.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pie n eye View Post
          David Rahm, it sounds like you’ve already made up your mind about NET and it would be a waste of someone’s time to try and convince you otherwise.

          I’m not here to explain or defend NET. It’s just another in a long line of formulas whose aim is to do the impossible - provide an unbiased ranking of a collection of teams (the NCAA) who only play 30 games a year. There will never be a perfect system. All we can do is continually try to improve.

          The fact that the non-conference was shortened/cancelled/non-existent certainly doesn’t help matters.

          FWIW, Colgate is 96 in KenPom, WSU is 82.
          He made a Really good case. Besides all of the facts he stated, Common Sense says he’s onto something. You saying that the non conference was shortened didn’t answer him at all. You did try to defend NET and your explanation stunk. You’re other fact that there will never be a perfect system is right, but this shouldn’t be used for The Tournament. There is too much at stake.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Shockm View Post

            He made a Really good case. Besides all of the facts he stated, Common Sense says he’s onto something. You saying that the non conference was shortened didn’t answer him at all. You did try to defend NET and your explanation stunk. You’re other fact that there will never be a perfect system is right, but this shouldn’t be used for The Tournament. There is too much at stake.
            It’s imperfect in a normal year. If the non-conference is shortened or non-existent in some cases then obviously the sample size and inter-conference mingling necessary to more accurately rank teams in comparison to each other isn’t there.

            I’ve said many times this year I’m taking the computer rankings with a grain of salt this year more so than others.

            NET is an improvement over RPI is an improvement over AP poll is an improvement over the eye test. Not to mention, NET ranking isn’t the only thing they use.

            What should be used for the “The Tournament” since you have it all figured out.

            Comment


            • Hey Pie,

              I gave a very specific example.
              Colgate is not now, and has never been, ever, in our league as a basketball team.
              They have NO quad 1 wins, they have only played four low ranked teams.

              Strength of schedule favors WSU.
              The teams we have played favors WSU.
              The respective conferences favor WSU.
              So explain how Colgate could POSSIBLY be within 50 to 75 rankings BELOW us, never mind above us.

              So, expressly comparing WSU to Colgate, explain how in the hell Colgate could be ranked number 11 in ANY rational basketball ranking system.
              In over 100 years of colleged basketball, Colgate has never sniffed the top 10, now Net Rankings has them 11.

              I am just using this specific example. Explain why and how this could be using ANY metric.

              Explain what Net Rankings could be looking at to arrive at such a ludicrous outcome.

              That's all I am asking.

              I would love to try this case in any court in the land.
              Show me ANY judge anywhere who would say, now or ever, Colgate is better or has ever been better, than WSU in basketball.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Rahm View Post
                Hey Pie,

                I gave a very specific example.
                Colgate is not now, and has never been, ever, in our league as a basketball team.
                They have NO quad 1 wins, they have only played four low ranked teams.

                Strength of schedule favors WSU.
                The teams we have played favors WSU.
                The respective conferences favor WSU.
                So explain how Colgate could POSSIBLY be within 50 to 75 rankings BELOW us, never mind above us.

                So, expressly comparing WSU to Colgate, explain how in the hell Colgate could be ranked number 11 in ANY rational basketball ranking system.
                In over 100 years of colleged basketball, Colgate has never sniffed the top 10, now Net Rankings has them 11.

                I am just using this specific example. Explain why and how this could be using ANY metric.

                Explain what Net Rankings could be looking at to arrive at such a ludicrous outcome.

                That's all I am asking.

                I would love to try this case in any court in the land.
                Show me ANY judge anywhere who would say, now or ever, Colgate is better or has ever been better, than WSU in basketball.
                Their margin of victories:
                44, 7, 44, 40, 9, 11, 18, 10, 9

                So one of the two factors in NET is efficiency rating. When you beat up teams that bad you are bound to look very efficient on offense and defense. The second part of the NET is the "Team value index" which tries to weigh the quality of the results. Since they have only played 4 teams and no non con, combined with the fact that those 4 teams also played limited non con games, then you get a mess of a ranking.

                Note: before you rant on me, I'm not saying I agree with it, just trying to explain why Colgate likely ended up where they are.

                NET Explained color_0.jpg

                Comment


                • David Rahm,
                  Colgate has no chance of getting an at large bid while WSU still does despite a 60+ difference in their NET ranks. That’s because the raw NET rank isn’t the only or even the most important factor used to select tournament teams. There are still humans involved who will consider their entire resume, including the fact that they’ve played the same four teams all year, and exclude them.

                  Yes, the NET is also used to gauge “good wins and bad losses” with the Q1-Q4 system. That is going to be a little wonky this year due to the abbreviated non-conference season and all the cancellation of games. The selection committee is going to have a more difficult job sorting out relevant information this year.

                  I’m all for improving the NCAA tournament selection process. Hopefully NET is just another step along the way towards that goal. Finding the most obviously outlying piece of data (Colgate) in the most obviously outlying year isn’t a fair way to judge the NET ranking system.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MikeKennedyRulZ View Post
                    Watching the Nebraska / Maryland game and they have mentioned that Nebraska has played 7 games in the last 12 days over 5 states. Why does it seem impossible for the Shox to get games rescheduled? Is it a conference F up?
                    In the case of the Huskers, they had a 3 week gap where coaches AND team were pretty much all affected....I think they are anxious to play...and pretty badly, I might add...:)

                    Comment


                    • Pie,

                      I don't wholly disagree with you.
                      There have to be some metrics short of throwing everybody's name in a hat.

                      But the Net Rankings are fatally flawed.

                      So, the only thing Colgate has going for it is its overall record against really bad competition, and the fact that it beat this bad competition thorughly.

                      That's pretty thin gruel for ranking htem no. 11.

                      You said I cherrypicked one team out of 337.
                      But I did not just pick Colgate. How about Kentucky (a true blue-blood) ranked above us in Net Rankings at 6-13?
                      How about Maryland at 11-10, or Penn State at 7-10, Indiana at 11-9 (the last time we played them, we smoked them on their home court, and the time before,
                      Fred Van Vleet made their vaunted point guard look like a moron), Stanford at 13-8, Georgia Tech at 10-8, Notre Dame at 9-10, Duke at 8-8, mighty Furman at 10-7.

                      I am afraid this metric system is fatally flawed.

                      Good idea to find measurements and metrics. Let's find one that has an element of accuracy, this one clearly does not.

                      It hurts WSU unfairly.

                      Comment


                      • I'm still undecided on NET overall .. and I'm giving it a pass this year. They adjusted the formula after last season and simplified it. In a normal year with teams playing 30+ games and 10-13 non-con games, it might be a much better indicator than it's showing right now. Right now its fairly obvious the rankings are junk. Certain teams are light years away from where they should be from what they have shown on the court. If next year in a normal year (hopefully normal) it is still glaringly wrong .. then it's time to jump. Last year before the corrections, it felt like it was CLOSER to being correct than it is this year.

                        Comment


                        • Colgate is ranked now where they would be ranked in early December in a “normal” season.

                          Even then, other teams would have more games vs better teams and they would probably drop a bit further even.

                          If some school could have thought about it a head of time, they could have figured out a ay to game the NET rankings this season, like Colgate (likely) unintentionally has.
                          The Assman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Shock Top View Post
                            Colgate is ranked now where they would be ranked in early December in a “normal” season.

                            Even then, other teams would have more games vs better teams and they would probably drop a bit further even.

                            If some school could have thought about it a head of time, they could have figured out a ay to game the NET rankings this season, like Colgate (likely) unintentionally has.
                            Colgate in early December (assuming they released NET that early) in a normal season would be in the triple digits at least. They likely would have had a schedule of body bag games in the non-con and gotten beaten up by better teams. Since they are ONLY playing their conference games against bad competition they appear to be better than they are.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stickboy46 View Post

                              Colgate in early December (assuming they released NET that early) in a normal season would be in the triple digits at least. They likely would have had a schedule of body bag games in the non-con and gotten beaten up by better teams. Since they are ONLY playing their conference games against bad competition they appear to be better than they are.
                              Or late December. Early in the conference season, is what I was going for.

                              Sorry if my timelines aren’t perfect.
                              The Assman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Shock Top View Post

                                Or late December. Early in the conference season, is what I was going for.

                                Sorry if my timelines aren’t perfect.
                                I'm just saying if they played a normal non-con .. at no point during the season would they ever approach 11th. They would likely be 100+ the whole year.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X