Year 1 of the NET

#76
#76
admiralkerr said:
Fair enough, but that is sort of my point. RPI puts too much focus on SOS and not enough focus on winning and other factors. In the RPI, a loss against great team is more valuable than a win against a bad team, regardless of margin of victory and other factors. So, NC State plays a bad team, but beats them by 60. That is worse than if they had played a good team but lost.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have said for years that the RPI is flawed. I think that is why they created the NET- to fix some of those flaws. The NET includes net efficiency and wins by 10+ along with components of the RPI.

That said, the NET has things in it as well that can skew the numbers. That's why they look at overall body of work and why NC State was left out.
 
#77
#77
BruinVol said:
Well what did we learn from year one of the NET???


Bubble teams:
NC State-33 left out
Clemson-35 left out
Belmont-47 got in
Temple-56 got in
Minn-61 got a 10 seed
Arizona State- 63 got in
St Johns-73 got in


Gonzaga-2 got a one seed
Unc-7 got a one seed



From what i see the NET wasn't used at all by the committee unless it was to justify Gonzaga.
Click to expand...

Well for me it looks better than the RPI....... it has Kansas at 2. And now they no longer use the RPI.... they use the NET.
 
#78
#78
golfballs said:
Many of NC States opponents ended up being a lot worse than they were expected to be. It’s not like the purposefully sought out the easiest OOC schedule, but they were penalized for it. The NET controls for that somewhat by factoring in how they played in those games.
Click to expand...

They only got unlucky with Vandy. Penn State is not expected to be good, and Wisconsin and Auburn were good.

As I posted above, they played 6 teams that were ranked 300+ and 8 teams that were 250+. They also knew they were playing GTech, WF, BC, and Pitt twice in their unbalanced schedule. Those are the 4 worst in the conference. They should have never scheduled all of those terrible OOC games.
 
#79
#79
JoAllan said:
Well for me it looks better than the RPI....... it has Kansas at 2. And now they no longer use the RPI.... they use the NET.
Click to expand...


Kansas is the ugly part of the RPI no doubt but they were 11-8 in Q1 games.

The RPI just appears to have less evils in it than the net at least this year
 
#80
#80
I found this quote re KenPom. It should tell you all you need to know about it's predictive quality -

"One professional handicapper, who has been active in the college basketball market for a decade and works for a respected betting syndicate, characterized Pomeroy's influence as "profound." "(He's) the single biggest influencer of the college basketball market in the last decade, and probably ever," the bettor said."
 
#81
#81
admiralkerr said:
I found this quote re KenPom. It should tell you all you need to know about it's predictive quality -

"One professional handicapper, who has been active in the college basketball market for a decade and works for a respected betting syndicate, characterized Pomeroy's influence as "profound." "(He's) the single biggest influencer of the college basketball market in the last decade, and probably ever," the bettor said."
Click to expand...

The problem is that is for handicapping purposes, which has its own discussion for how they get money in for both sides.
 
#83
#83
In the case of NC state they had some very good covers against good teams but didn't win the games. I guess that would fit Ken Pom in that he doesn't use W/Ls in his ratings
 
#86
#86
BruinVol said:
Ok I see you said efficiency is used more than record in Ken Pom so the point remains
Click to expand...

Yea, and I am not a statistics guy. So, I really am not sure exactly that is the case. To be fair, if you have a high net efficiency, then the record usually just follows suit.
 
#87
#87
VolGee4 said:
Yea, and I am not a statistics guy. So, I really am not sure exactly that is the case. To be fair, if you have a high net efficiency, then the record usually just follows suit.
Click to expand...

It should but in some cases I am sure some teams just can't close games out.
 
#88
#88
I guess I will end with this, if you are trying to determine whether Team A will beat Team B, KenPom (and NET by extension) will be much more predictive on average than RPI.
 
#89
#89
admiralkerr said:
I guess I will end with this, if you are trying to determine whether Team A will beat Team B, KenPom (and NET by extension) will be much more predictive on average than RPI.
Click to expand...


In this case you think NC state and Clemson are better and would beat ole miss. I'll agree to disagree
 
#91
#91
admiralkerr said:
I don't think anything. That's kind of the point. That is what the ratings would say.
Click to expand...

Lol

You just said they predict the winner.


I'd say in this small sample set RPI has done a better job of PredictIng the strength of teams and outcomes since those two teams are 4-19 against similar ranked teams
 
#92
#92
admiralkerr said:
I guess I will end with this, if you are trying to determine whether Team A will beat Team B, KenPom (and NET by extension) will be much more predictive on average than RPI.
Click to expand...


Tonight will be fun to follow this.

The NET thinks Belmont is the better team and so does Vegas to your ealier post.

RPI thinks Temple is better. Now obviously in a one game deal it won't mean much but fun to follow none the less.
 
#93
#93
VolGee4 said:
They only got unlucky with Vandy. Penn State is not expected to be good, and Wisconsin and Auburn were good.

As I posted above, they played 6 teams that were ranked 300+ and 8 teams that were 250+. They also knew they were playing GTech, WF, BC, and Pitt twice in their unbalanced schedule. Those are the 4 worst in the conference. They should have never scheduled all of those terrible OOC games.
Click to expand...
There were some others. Some of those smaller schools and they all count towards their RPI. The thing is... the committee never said one thing about OOC strength of schedule. This is a justification others are making. The committee said NC State didn’t win enough Q1 games. Which of course they won more than others who are currently in the field. Back to the point. The committee talks out of both sides of its mouth
 
#94
#94
golfballs said:
There were some others. Some of those smaller schools and they all count towards their RPI. The thing is... the committee never said one thing about OOC strength of schedule. This is a justification others are making. The committee said NC State didn’t win enough Q1 games. Which of course they won more than others who are currently in the field. Back to the point. The committee talks out of both sides of its mouth
Click to expand...


Honestly the big problem with Q1 is there is a huge difference between winning at Memphis and Tenn beating Kentucky. Those shouldn't hold the same value in that singular criteria.
 
#95
#95
golfballs said:
There were some others. Some of those smaller schools and they all count towards their RPI. The thing is... the committee never said one thing about OOC strength of schedule. This is a justification others are making. The committee said NC State didn’t win enough Q1 games. Which of course they won more than others who are currently in the field. Back to the point. The committee talks out of both sides of its mouth
Click to expand...

The committee has stressed OOC SOS for years. That’s why mid majors have mostly been left out.

The other OOC games that NC State player had no chance of being high NET schools.

NC State didn’t win enough quadrant one games relative to how many they played. Georgia Tech won just as many. Washington, VCU, UCF, Nevada, Belmont, and Temple had less quadrant wins as at large teams, and most had significantly less chances.

I just don’t see an issue with who they picked.
 
#96
#96
BruinVol said:
Honestly the big problem with Q1 is there is a huge difference between winning at Memphis and Tenn beating Kentucky. Those shouldn't hold the same value in that singular criteria.
Click to expand...

Memphis went 17-3 at home this year. I kind of get what you are saying, but...
 
#97
#97
VolGee4 said:
The committee has stressed OOC SOS for years. That’s why mid majors have mostly been left out.

The other OOC games that NC State player had no chance of being high NET schools.

NC State didn’t win enough quadrant one games relative to how many they played. Georgia Tech won just as many. Washington, VCU, UCF, Nevada, Belmont, and Temple had less quadrant wins as at large teams, and most had significantly less chances.

I just don’t see an issue with who they picked.
Click to expand...
Saint Johns OOC schedule was just as garbage.

The committee throws out rationale every year and it’s never consistent.

Again this isn’t about NC state. This is about logical inconsistencies in their decision. The game of basketball isn’t changing. At this point it’s absurd to think they can’t come up with a set of defined criteria by which they select and seed teams. The truth is they do whatever they want and justify it however they want.
 
#100
#100
golfballs said:
Saint Johns OOC schedule was just as garbage.

The committee throws out rationale every year and it’s never consistent.

Again this isn’t about NC state. This is about logical inconsistencies in their decision. The game of basketball isn’t changing. At this point it’s absurd to think they can’t come up with a set of defined criteria by which they select and seed teams. The truth is they do whatever they want and justify it however they want.
Click to expand...

Yea, and St. John’s won more big games. I don’t care if they picked St. John’s or NC State, but neither had a gripe if they were left out.

All metrics are flawed. By KenPom, Texas would have been in at 16-16. You just can’t go down the list. Anyway, we’ve beat it to death.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top