Manipulating the NET

[STEVEHOLT]

In the end it seems that NET and RPI wind up with the same inherent flaw. The calculations put too much value on something other than winning/losing.

RPI: you benefit too much from playing good teams even if they destroyed you, just playing them helped you.

NET: you benefit too much from margin against bad teams and that disproportionally boosts your conference.

EDIT: I do understand that both NET and RPI were trying to weight the value of the teams you won and lost to. Obviously that is necessary but not at the expense of undervaluing the most important part of a game result which is of course getting the W. In one thread jncuse talked about some tweaks that would give us something that landed in-between NET/RPI which on its face made a lot of sense to me.

I guess we have to ask ourselves are we essentially going down the rabbit hole of having the at large teams selected by vegas professional handicappers? Let's just have Sam Ace Rothstein select the at larges.

Conference record SHOULD matter. This is how you have done against your peer programs. Year to year conference strengths fluctuate and there can be some obvious adjustment made to account for this when comparing teams across conference. However it is quite clear that in recent years the ACC keeps getting crappy conference rankings yet does well in the NCAA. Small sample sizes and all, this to me means something. Once these teams enter conference play, it just becomes a viscious cycle that either hozes you or elevates you.

 

[Sherman20]

A Bonnies Twitter account did some really good research on this topic last year. I will link it if I find it tonight. Just saying because there is data that backs up my opinion.

Mountain West teams are so smart in their noncon scheduling. Three Man Weave spent some time in a recent pod talking about them. I am really interested to see how they do this march. I'm also just sick of seeing ACC fans whine on Twitter. The league stinks.

ACC fans have every right to complain. The middle of the pack in the conference is just as good as the Big 12’s. We had a better record against their teams in the non conference.

 

[UpstateSM]

ACC fans have every right to complain. The middle of the pack in the conference is just as good as the Big 12’s. We had a better record against their teams in the non conference.

Mainstream media spreading false narratives about the ACC. Stop the steal!

 

[Madbiker]

The media is just going to look at the NET scores and take the position that the ACC teams are weak.
Most ACC teams have not adjusted their thinking on scheduling from the days of RPI, which rewarded SOS. The NET system does NOT reward SOS. It rewards metrics like offensive and defensive efficiency and win/loss margin. The Big 12 adjusted to this. NET scores will reward beating up weak teams. So schedule OOC games accordingly. We need to change for next season as do other ACC teams so when we play them more games will be Q1. The Big 12 is piling up huge numbers of Q1 games because so many of their teams inflated their NET scores with weak OOC opponents.

 

[SWC75]

Use the conferences. Everyone who wins or ties for a conference regulars season championship and everyone who wins a conference tournament should get a bid. Then any additional bids would be based on the historical success of the conference in the NCAA tournament. The top conferences might get 6 bids. The next level would get 5 bids, the next 4, etc, including the regular season and tourney champs. You might have to expand the tourney to accommodate that. But if you want to get in the tournament, do well in your conference and fight for one of those bids.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Use the conferences. Everyone who wins or ties for a conference regulars season championship and everyone who wins a conference tournament should get a bid. Then any additional bids would be based on the historical success of the conference in the NCAA tournament. The top conferences might get 6 bids. The next level would get 5 bids, the next 4, etc, including the regular season and tourney champs. You might have to expand the tourney to accommodate that. But if you want to get in the tournament, do well in your conference and fight for one of those bids.

You’re not far off. I expect the tournament to be expanded to 96 teams in the next 5 years.

 

[orange79]

Use the conferences. Everyone who wins or ties for a conference regulars season championship and everyone who wins a conference tournament should get a bid. Then any additional bids would be based on the historical success of the conference in the NCAA tournament. The top conferences might get 6 bids. The next level would get 5 bids, the next 4, etc, including the regular season and tourney champs. You might have to expand the tourney to accommodate that. But if you want to get in the tournament, do well in your conference and fight for one of those bids.

I have to disagree with this point.

Each season is a season unto itself. What happened last year (when ALL teams are fundamentally different than this or any other year) is ancient history. Last year or any other year should have no bearing on this year.

IMHO.

 

[DPCuse]

Use the conferences. Everyone who wins or ties for a conference regulars season championship and everyone who wins a conference tournament should get a bid. Then any additional bids would be based on the historical success of the conference in the NCAA tournament. The top conferences might get 6 bids. The next level would get 5 bids, the next 4, etc, including the regular season and tourney champs. You might have to expand the tourney to accommodate that. But if you want to get in the tournament, do well in your conference and fight for one of those bids.

You’d have to increase the field to do this for sure. No way a conference such as the Patriot League deserves two bids if there is an upset in its postseason tourney. That would take away from a decent ACC team on the bubble.

 

[SWC75]

You’d have to increase the field to do this for sure. No way a conference such as the Patriot League deserves two bids if there is an upset in its postseason tourney. That would take away from a decent ACC team on the bubble.

But if a team dominates the Patriot League during the regular season and some 16-15 teams wins their tourney, both teams deserve to be in. A league like the ACC deserves maybe 6 slots. SU should be trying to be one of the 6.

 

[domestu]

Use the conferences. Everyone who wins or ties for a conference regulars season championship and everyone who wins a conference tournament should get a bid. Then any additional bids would be based on the historical success of the conference in the NCAA tournament. The top conferences might get 6 bids. The next level would get 5 bids, the next 4, etc, including the regular season and tourney champs. You might have to expand the tourney to accommodate that. But if you want to get in the tournament, do well in your conference and fight for one of those bids.

Thirty-two conference tournament champs make the Big Dance now. The tourney might expand to 96 in the future, but allowing multiple schools from the Southland, SWAC, Patriot, MEAC, Horizon, Summit and other small conferences is the last thing most college hoops fans want to see, and the major conferences would never go for it. The Atlantic 10 has far better teams than those leagues but often only gets one school into the NCAAs. The third or fourth best team in the Atlantic 10 would dominate the schools in the Big Sky.

Bids to the Big Dance should always be based around getting the best teams in any given year. Additional bids to conferences that have had past success in the NCAAs might result in the PAC-12 receiving 5 bids next month. Florida Atlantic, Memphis, Wichita State, Temple and Charlotte have had Final Four runs, but that doesn't mean the American Athletic Conference deserves any extra bids this year.

The NCAA Tournament is discussing future expansion, but it's hard to see that leading to a lot more teams from the mid-majors and minor conferences getting in. The overriding target of the power conferences is to get a bigger slice of the pie and expanding the NCAA field will result in most of those additional bids going to the majors.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

I watch a decent amount of Big 10 basketball as a Michigan grad . That conference isn’t any better than the ACC. I don’t care what the metrics say.

 

[hoopsupstate]

Watching the MSU and Ohio State game yesterday showed they would not be close to a top team in the ACC. They are both mediocre at best.

 

[Millhouse]

You’re not far off. I expect the tournament to be expanded to 96 teams in the next 5 years.

Boeheim as usual is smarter than everyone else

People thought it was just self interest but he's right

There is no difference between 30 and 70 and whatever goofy criteria they pick to emphasize in selection isn't going to change that

 

[Cusefan0307]

Boeheim as usual is smarter than everyone else

People thought it was just self interest but he's right

There is no difference between 30 and 70 and whatever goofy criteria they pick to emphasize in selection isn't going to change that

To your point there's a 15 point difference per 100 possessions between team 1 and team 30 according to Kenpom and a 5 point difference between teams 30 to 70.

When extrapolated from 30 to 96 it is only a 9 point difference.

There's also the fact that there's 90 more teams playing division one basketball than there was in 1985 when the tournament expanded to its current format(not including the first 4).

 

[Orangezoo]

To your point there's a 15 point difference per 100 possessions between team 1 and team 30 in Kenpom and a 5 point difference between teams 30 to 70. When extrapolated from 30 to 96 it is only a 9 point difference.

There's also the fact that theres 90 more teams playing division one basketball than there was in 1985 when the tournament expanded to its current format(not including the first 4).

Not to mention college hoops takes the lowest pct of teams to the post season of nearly any sport and that includes the the NIT.

 

[IthacaMatt]

If the NET is easily manipulated, why did the ACC not manipulate it? Did the B12 really outsmart the rest of the country? People with full time jobs in the ACC office couldn't think of this before the season and advise the programs how to make their schedule? Or is it not true?

It takes people a while to figure these things out.

 

[Sbucketball]

It takes people a while to figure these things out.

We'll see how the ACC adjusts next year now that system flaws are a little more exposed.

 

[SWC75]

Thirty-two conference tournament champs make the Big Dance now. The tourney might expand to 96 in the future, but allowing multiple schools from the Southland, SWAC, Patriot, MEAC, Horizon, Summit and other small conferences is the last thing most college hoops fans want to see, and the major conferences would never go for it. The Atlantic 10 has far better teams than those leagues but often only gets one school into the NCAAs. The third or fourth best team in the Atlantic 10 would dominate the schools in the Big Sky.

Bids to the Big Dance should always be based around getting the best teams in any given year. Additional bids to conferences that have had past success in the NCAAs might result in the PAC-12 receiving 5 bids next month. Florida Atlantic, Memphis, Wichita State, Temple and Charlotte have had Final Four runs, but that doesn't mean the American Athletic Conference deserves any extra bids this year.

The NCAA Tournament is discussing future expansion, but it's hard to see that leading to a lot more teams from the mid-majors and minor conferences getting in. The overriding target of the power conferences is to get a bigger slice of the pie and expanding the NCAA field will result in most of those additional bids going to the majors.

Really the lower majors, (if it's a one-bid conference, they aren't mid majors), belong n a basketball FCS - o Division 2. But a team that won the regular season deserves to be in the Big Dance more than a team that won the conference tournament - or a team that finished 7th or 8th in another conference.

 

[SWC75]

It takes people a while to figure these things out.

It seems to me that if the quad of your opponent matters, wins over quad four teams would be virtually irrelevant.

 

[sufan59]

Boeheim as usual is smarter than everyone else

People thought it was just self interest but he's right

There is no difference between 30 and 70 and whatever goofy criteria they pick to emphasize in selection isn't going to change that

They had a discussion on expansion during college gameday on Saturday. Greenberg was the only one in support for expansion on the panel. He may still be at Virginia Tech if the tournament expanded years ago. The argument Bilas made is that teams have the ability to get the auto bid during the conference tournament. I think seeing that “upsets” in the tourney, 12 over 5 and 11 over 6 aren’t considered a big deal and this season with top 10 teams losing a lot of games on the road to unranked teams suggests that there is so many more good teams today in College Basketball. As you described there is no different between 30 and 70. IMO, there is only two solutions that make sense moving forward, either you make the NCAA tourney a conference championship tourney only or expand the tournament to ensure that power conference teams with overall winning records and winning conference records are making the field.

 

[Orangezoo]

Haven’t done all conferences but the top 8 of the ACC has a .500 record vs the top 9 conferences in the country. Once you get down past that of course the record runs to a deficit of 8 games below .500. The crash of the Ville and then struggles of GT , FSU etc in the non conference are ugly paired with UNC, Duke and UVA getting some wins but overall still running .500 in big games OOC. We definitely beat up the B12 this year but overall that’s the only conference we really dominated against.

None of this moves the needle but just shows that if your bottom feeders stick to cream puff opponents it’s far better than all of them challenging themselves with strong non conf schedules and opponents.

 

[PoppyHart]

If the tourney expanded by 50%, my interest in CBB would decrease proportionally. Maybe that’s just me.

 

[Bayside44]

If the tourney expanded by 50%, my interest in CBB would decrease proportionally. Maybe that’s just me.

The 64 team tournament was done 40 (yikes!) year ago? There are exponentially more good players and schools now. Can make the argument just on population growth.

It feels like the NCAA is splitting the atom with all these dumb "metrics" on deciding who is in / out.

 

[Fly Rodder]

It feels like the NCAA is splitting the atom with all these dumb "metrics" on deciding who is in / out.

Exactly right. Math is stupid. I pick my tourney teams like I pick my stocks: logos and team colors. After that I go with unique names.

 

[FrancoPizza]

You’re not far off. I expect the tournament to be expanded to 96 teams in the next 5 years.

I really hope that never happens. Look what happened to bowl games. Now they are just an exhibition.

If anybody can make the tournament, it just makes the bloated 31 game regular season even more worthless. It would be a disaster from a fan interest standpoint.