First NET Rankings

[CardiacCuse]

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?

Im sure there are examples I just cant think of them off the top of my head...its worked very well over the decades...youre right.

I just hope it continues to work well this season bc these last two wins were some of the shakiest closeouts I can remember.

 

[CousCuse]

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

You must be jack Mormon.

 

[rrlbees]

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.

We were up 9 with 5 mins to go and still up 9 with 4 mins to go. But it got close after that because we missed our next 3 shots and they made a few.

 

[City of Cuse]

I always come back to this graph.

 

[dollarbill44]

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.)

It didn't work against Indiana. They came back and forced OT. The fact that we won should not cloud the fact that the stall ball failed to hold the lead.

 

[Day2]

It didn't work against Indiana. They came back and forced OT. The fact that we won should not cloud the fact that the stall ball failed to hold the lead.

It didn’t not work.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You must be jack Mormon.

I identify as "salty Mormon."

 

[Day2]

Im sure there are examples I just cant think of them off the top of my head...its worked very well over the decades...youre right.

I just hope it continues to work well this season bc these last two wins were some of the shakiest closeouts I can remember.

You can say that again.

 

[CardiacCuse]

I always come back to this graph.

Conjecture:

This year's historically poor defense has tipped the scales against the stall ball tactic's effectiveness and there just isn't any "data" yet to prove it i.e. bad losses

is that possible?

up 9 with 3:46 left vs Indiana...should not be going to 2OT

and up 11 with 5:43 vs FSU shouldn't allow FSU a game typing last second shot(s)

Perhaps previous iterations of the team - that could get more defensive stops - executed the stall ball tactic with a higher winning %?

Perhaps the team usually has a better defense which makes the stall ball more logical?

take a look at the andrew white john gillon team 2016-17- which was one of the worst defensive teams in JB history...and went NIT:

up 11 with 9min to go vs UCONN - lost by 2
down by 1 with 5:15 to vs GEORGETOWN lost by 7
down 5 with 4:45 to CLEMSON tyus battle game winning buzzer beater to win by 1

a lot of close losses that season:
lost to ole miss 80-85
lost to miami 57-62
lost to georgia tech 65-71
lost to louisville 72-76 OT
lost to PITT 75-80

had close wins over UVA(by 4) , Duke (by 3) , nc state (by 7) wake (by 5) and north florida (by 6)

thats more losses than wins in close games that season. an outlier but perhaps with a telling reason.

 

[CousCuse]

I identify as "salty Mormon."

Are you accepted by the rainbow and unicorn goody two shoes Mormons?

 

[jncuse]

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.

So much for Wyoming being undefeated. Guess that KP #109 ranking (the worst of any remaining undefeated) made more sense then their NET #12.

They are down 53-22 at halftime vs Arizona. I think it's early enough to call this one!

 

[MSOrange]

So much for Wyoming being undefeated. Guess that KP #109 ranking (the worst of any remaining undefeated) made more sense then their NET #12.

They are down 53-22 at halftime vs Arizona. I think it's early enough to call this one!

Yep bad night for the Cowboys after the step up in competition. Might not be a great sign for Hop and Washington as Wyoming stayed with them with no problem on the road.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Up to 112!

 

[pearl31]

giddyup

 

[blust2i3d4]

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

No need to blowout. But according to NET formula, winning by 10 makes big difference than winning by 9. Our goal should be winning by double digits if possible.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

No need to blowout. But according to NET formula, winning by 10 makes big difference than winning by 9. Our goal should be winning by double digits if possible.

If this is true, that is absolutely idiotic.

 

[jncuse]

No need to blowout. But according to NET formula, winning by 10 makes big difference than winning by 9. Our goal should be winning by double digits if possible.

Any source for this?

Not doubting the NCAA does some silly things, so it is possible.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

I always come back to this graph.

It’s a poor referendum on stall ball vs non-stall ball because there is no control.. we’d have to not stall for an equal time and then compare the results .. my guess is the total number of games would reduce and our win percentage would go down , because now you’re going to be sampling games that are organically close instead of games artificially made close from a big lead which you were going to win anyway

 

[blust2i3d4]

Any source for this?

Not doubting the NCAA does some silly things, so it is possible.

I heard this from ESPN commentators a few times.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Syracuse #126

 

[jdubs30]

Syracuse #126

Man poor Hop. As bad as we’ve been Washington is 100 spots worse

 

[jncuse]

Syracuse #126

View attachment 211840

I expect @Georgetown not to be Quad 3 by the end of the year. Should fall back to Q2 once the noise in the NET settles.

I see that as of now Colgate has now fell to Q4. And that may hold.

 

[Eric15]

Let's start a petition to bring back the RPI.

Our RPI is currently 48!

RealTimeRPI.com 's College Basketball Power Ratings - A leading sports ratings and resources community on the Internet - College Football Ratings

RealTimeRPI.com: Real Time NCAA College Basketball and Sports Ratings - the most accurate independent analysis of the NCAA college basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI)

realtimerpi.com

 

[jncuse]

Let's start a petition to bring back the RPI.

Our RPI is currently 48!

RealTimeRPI.com 's College Basketball Power Ratings - A leading sports ratings and resources community on the Internet - College Football Ratings

RealTimeRPI.com: Real Time NCAA College Basketball and Sports Ratings - the most accurate independent analysis of the NCAA college basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI)

realtimerpi.com

I think something is wrong with the site you are linking.

WarrenNolan has the Syracuse RPI at #130.
TeamRankings.com also has the Syracuse RPI at #130.

 

[Eric15]

I think something is wrong with the site you are linking.

WarrenNolan has the Syracuse RPI at #130.
TeamRankings.com also has the Syracuse RPI at #130.