First NET Rankings

[jncuse]

Bleech. The whole ACC has work to do. As of 3 December, Lunardi has only 5 ACC teams in his bracket with two on the bubble.

They have a number of big games in December -- at the same time 2/3 rd of the OOC games have now been played. So the damage has largely been done -- it can be mitigated a bit however. Alternatively it can be somehow worsened.

If the ACC plays above what it has done to date it might be able to get to a point where it is a projected 5-6 bid league.

If the ACC plays worse then it has to date, we could be heading to where it is projected 5, with a downside of 4, and any more than 5 being unlikely..

 

[jncuse]

If Colgate goes like 18-2 in the Patriot and a bunch of those wins are blowouts there’s an outsiiiiiide chance they climb to Q2. Unlikely but possible.

Even if they don’t, we can win enough games where that loss is the difference between a 5 seed and a 6 or 7 instead of the being in or missing the tournament altogether.

That Florida St win was huge.

We probably need to go 15-5 in the ACC to even be a contender for a 5 seed.
Lack of Q1 win opportunities vs other Big 6 conferences will hurt ACC seeding -- you will need a very good win% to make up for it

 

[Orangezoo]

KP still has some built in predictions / preseason assessments in their rankings as of now ... they don't ween off immediately although they have to be close to dropping off. Done to avoid the craziness that can happen from small samples.

NET is somewhat proprietary as far as I can tell even if they say they consider efficiency more than they used to, so there are probably elements in their that do stupid things like the RPI and degrade efficiency.

That being said not stunned by FSU at 77. I think they can be better, but they have literally accomplish very little this year with some bad results (in close wins and losses)

For me- the Colgate weirdness last year paired with big wins equaling big Net moves made it clear how flawed it really is. Even though KP layers predictive analysis in it's more well rounded as the season progresses.

 

[jncuse]

For me- the Colgate weirdness last year paired with big wins equaling big Net moves made it clear how flawed it really is. Even though KP layers predictive analysis in it's more well rounded as the season progresses.

Have to remember that last year only had a handful of OOC games (half the regular slate I believe, or even slightly less). I suspect it threw some numbers off more than normal.

I also think NET tries to be a hybrid of a number of things and doesn't fully commit to efficiency systems which are the best. So it probably results in garbage like the RPI did, but less of it.

Interesting thing is that the committee still appeared to take the NET weirdness into consideration and only gave them a 14 seed.

 

[shandeezy7]

That tricky pythag W/L. SU has generally been blown out in losses and eeked out one-possession wins. So, far Syracuse has a 58% expected W%, over 8 games so far, they should be ... just about 5-3, which they are. Extrapolated over a 31 games season, it's 18 wins.

Syracuse would do well to get a couple of 5-10 point wins under their belt against good competition.

We had 5-10 point wins in the bag against Indiana and Florida State before we vomited all over ourselves in the final few minutes.

 

[jncuse]

In a system that only evaluates current year possessions (efficiency) or current year results only (like RPI), the Colgate game is basically 12.5% of our data (1 of 8). So it will have a large impact on our rankings because it is a bad loss at home. Eventually by the end of the year heading into the tournament it will only be 3% of our data (1 of 30 or so games), so it will not impact much.


Just looking at W/L's like RPI does (which I still think is a portion of the NET formula, whether they calll it RPI or not), Colgate has been bad, has a bad RPI, and we lost to them at home which hurts even more.

And if we look at an efficiency system like KP as of today we should beat Colgate by 9. We lost by 15, a variance of 24 points which will have a marked impact when assessing efficiency 8 games. (24/8 = 3 points a game)

Assuming the Colgate game was a pure outlier, the stink of that loss and its efficiency impacts will eventually largely go away after 30 games. But after 8 games it still lingers and it will impact you, so I am not surprised that we are not NET top 100.

 

[kingtidge]

Wyoming is 8-0 and they have 3 40pt wins, but their best win is Washington.

Going by KenPom, they have no top 125 wins.

Blowouts are huge

...and a century getting hung on us at home by toothpaste really didn't help us.

 

[HoustonCuse]

Even if we have a Top 10 NET by the end of the season, Gotlieb will still be spouting “no team that lost at home to Colgate should ever be in the tournament!!!1!!”

 

[Day2]

Even if we have a Top 10 NET by the end of the season, Gotlieb will still be spouting “no team that lost at home to Colgate should ever be in the tournament!!!1!!”

…While completely ignoring UVA’s home loss to Navy.

 

[Cuse181]

San Francisco is a really good team, fwiw.

Just like Colgate.

 

[Cuse181]

Net should wait until January at the earliest to be released.

 

[Orangezoo]

Have to remember that last year only had a handful of OOC games (half the regular slate I believe, or even slightly less). I suspect it threw some numbers off more than normal.

I also think NET tries to be a hybrid of a number of things and doesn't fully commit to efficiency systems which are the best. So it probably results in garbage like the RPI did, but less of it.

Interesting thing is that the committee still appeared to take the NET weirdness into consideration and only gave them a 14 seed.

Yeah it's one of those things where they tried to create a balanced model but over engineered it and then it resulted in some odd things weighing heavier than they should.

 

[Cusefan0307]

…While completely ignoring UVA’s home loss to Navy.

And saying tomorrow’s game is a home game even though Philly is closer to NYC than Syracuse is...

 

[UpstateSM]

Even if we have a Top 10 NET by the end of the season, Gotlieb will still be spouting “no team that lost at home to Colgate should ever be in the tournament!!!1!!”

You guys will have to screenshot those tweets for me because I’m blocked for having a couple drinks and making a few too many credit card jokes in his mentions

 

[Col. Bleep]

If it's any consolation, Andy Katz ranks the Orange #35:

Purdue moves into No. 1 spot in Andy Katz's latest Power 36 men's basketball rankings

After a wild week of men's college basketball, Purdue is new to No. 1 in the latest Power 36 rankings for the week of Dec. 6.

www.ncaa.com

 

[MSOrange]

Wyoming is 8-0 and they have 3 40pt wins, but their best win is Washington.

Going by KenPom, they have no top 125 wins.

Blowouts are huge

Wyoming plays at Arizona Wednesday. Obviously will be their biggest test to date. Jeff Linder has done a good job cleaning up the mess that Allen Edwards left.

 

[CardiacCuse]

We had 5-10 point wins in the bag against Indiana and Florida State before we vomited all over ourselves in the final few minutes.

i think its a feature of the playng philosphy...go turtle mode with 5 mns to play and white knuckle a win...hurts NET.

 

[rrlbees]

i think its a feature of the playng philosphy...go turtle mode with 5 mns to play and white knuckle a win...hurts NET.

JB has probably won 95%+ of the games where he’s used the time and lead slide rule. It’s easy to say play straight up those last minutes but other teams do come back. Happens every night. He thinks we’d lose more games that way. Not all of them but a few more games over time. Which might hurt the NET even more.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yeah well far as I'm concerned they can first NET rank my balls.

 

[CardiacCuse]

JB has probably won 95%+ of the games where he’s used the time and lead slide rule. It’s easy to say play straight up those last minutes but other teams do come back. Happens every night. He thinks we’d lose more games that way. Not all of them but a few more games over time. Which might hurt the NET even more.

oh i'm aware! my screen name aint cardiaccuse for nothin...it generally has worked...but i still dont like it.

in tourney time...wearing players all the way down hurts...you saw what happened in atlantis - game 3 was a wipe job the legs were gone. the teams that go far in tourneys generally get a few blowouts to ease the strain and save the legs, imo.

its a good strategy when you have vet players who are good at killing the clock and dont lose their edge when they do...however, for a lot of teams and players...they become shells of themselves in that mode for whatever reason. passive basketball is losing basketball.

it teaches players how to win close games...which is good over the long run. but its also good to teach them how to blow teams out and extend leads as well.

in some situations - it is definitely the right call...but when you are killing a team and they aint doing anything until you slow down and play kill the clock and then its get close...not a fan of that. even if you still "luckily" win.

 

[Day2]

oh i'm aware! my screen name aint cardiaccuse for nothin...it generally has worked...but i still dont like it.

in tourney time...wearing players all the way down hurts...you saw what happened in atlantis - game 3 was a wipe job the legs were gone. the teams that go far in tourneys generally get a few blowouts to ease the strain and save the legs, imo.

its a good strategy when you have vet players who are good at killing the clock and dont lose their edge when they do...however, for a lot of teams and players...they become shells of themselves in that mode for whatever reason. passive basketball is losing basketball.

it teaches players how to win close games...which is good over the long run. but its also good to teach them how to blow teams out and extend leads as well.

in some situations - it is definitely the right call...but when you are killing a team and they aint doing anything until you slow down and play kill the clock and then its get close...not a fan of that. even if you still "luckily" win.

But it’s not losing basketball. Prevent defense doesn’t really prevent you from winning either. These are effective strategies, yet people latch onto the exceptions, even though they’re few and far between.

I’ve been following Cuse hoops since 1994 and the only game I remember where it didn’t work was against Pitt in 2007 or 2008. I know there are others, I just don’t recall the specifics. (The Butler loss in the tournament doesn’t count IMO.)

 

[UpstateSM]

Yeah well far as I'm concerned they can first NET rank my balls.

Bad news..

 

[CardiacCuse]

But it’s not losing basketball. Prevent defense doesn’t really prevent you from winning either. These are effective strategies, yet people latch onto the exceptions, even though they’re few and far between.

I’ve been following Cuse hoops since 1994 and the only game I remember where it didn’t work was against Pitt in 2007 or 2008. I know there are others, I just don’t recall the specifics. (The Butler loss in the tournament doesn’t count IMO.)

up 11 with 5 min to go.

should the opponent having a shot to tie at the end of the game be considered good basketball? in that scenario, do you want the opponent to have a shot to tie at the end of regulation? yes or no?

if no - then do not play scared "run out the clock".

the indiana game never shoudlve gone to 2 OT as well.

2 wins but still...lucky... and doesnt mean its the right strategy. the opponent's win chances decreased overall from the start of the strategy to the end of the game. yes the wins still happened but only barely.

NET rewards margin of victory for a reason...as i think it should.

its "losing" in terms of what happens to plus/minus during that strategy whether or not it results in actual losses occurring. i dont like it. and understand why you dont mind it.

i think it trains nervousness and passivity into the players - at least it can - and builds bad habits. shrinks the margin of error needlesslessly.

it seems like the right play because the performance of the players gets worse using it...so it seems that it is necessary...when in fact the reason it is necessary is compounded by its employment...its a self-perpetuating cycle.

for me, a team should only employ a strategy that has a losing plus/minus if and only if it must.

 

[jncuse]

At the end of the day teams aren't really picked by NET anyway -- the same as RPI. Its only a different way of ranking teams for Q1, Q2, which are typically what the committee focuses on the most anyway.

Yes it can be seen as a "look at me further" number but not much more then that. ,It can disqualify you from consideration if it is so out of range. But typically if it is 70 or above you have some obvious holes that are going to result in you not making it anyway.

I also thought when they switched to the NET they may use it to allow mid-majors with good NET's but an empty resume into the tournament and to seed them higher... basically they may trust the NET better than the RPI. But that does not appear the case either

I am less concerned about our own NET and more concerned about how bad the ACC opposition NET's will be.

 

[Day2]

up 11 with 5 min to go.

should the opponent having a shot to tie at the end of the game be considered good basketball? in that scenario, do you want the opponent to have a shot to tie at the end of regulation? yes or no?

if no - then do not play scared "run out the clock".

the indiana game never shoudlve gone to 2 OT as well.

2 wins but still...lucky... and doesnt mean its the right strategy. the opponent's win chances decreased overall from the start of the strategy to the end of the game. yes the wins still happened but only barely.

NET rewards margin of victory for a reason...as i think it should.

its "losing" in terms of what happens to plus/minus during that strategy whether or not it results in actual losses occurring. i dont like it. and understand why you dont mind it.

i think it trains nervousness and passivity into the players - at least it can - and builds bad habits. shrinks the margin of error needlesslessly.

it seems like the right play because the performance of the players gets worse using it...so it seems that it is necessary...when in fact the reason it is necessary is compounded by its employment...its a self-perpetuating cycle.

for me, a team should only employ a strategy that has a losing plus/minus if and only if it must.

It’s not about good vs. bad and it’s not about luck. It’s about wins vs. losses. You’re using your own perception to back up your opinion, while the facts state otherwise.

Seriously, name an example other than Pitt. We’re probably talking about a handful of losses over decades. How is this even a debate at this point?