NET and KenPom Tracker 23-24 (SU = 84 3/9/24) | Page 24 | Syracusefan.com

NET and KenPom Tracker 23-24 (SU = 84 3/9/24)

Some people are saying they don't agree with bracketologists who are putting us in or at least on the bubble because we haven't done enough yet, but the thing is they aren't saying we'll make it if the field is selected this Sunday, they're acknowledging there's a lot of basketball left and based on Syracuse's performance they think Syracuse will win enough games in the remainder of the season to be in the tournament by March.
 
The quad system would be like if the tax system taxed you 100% at your highest marginal tax rate instead of taxing each dollar at its marginal rate . Tax nerds know what I’m getting at .
 
Fly Rodder said:
I don't take it personally, but I do think that people are whining like children because their own biases are coloring their judgement. All anyone is doing is pointing out supposed flaws based on their own unrealistic expectations based on their willful ignorance.

I'm sorry that Syracuse isn't ranked higher to make you feel better. But frankly, it doesn't mean squat and KP, NET, Evan Miya, etc. don't care about your feelings.

You probably think baseball was ruined by statistics as well ...
Expand...
not sure if you are truly open to what I have to say...but I will try:

in my opinion (yes, its subjective...so what), ranking systems should be SUMMATIVE...not PREDICTIVE

they should summarize what has already happened...not predict what will happen next!

that's my issue. and it would be my issue regardless of where SU is ranked. I assure you.

oftentimes, there will be considerable overlap between summative and predictive rankings...but that is far from a guarantee...esp with 350 teams to evaluate.

I'm sure Auburn, Alabama and Mich St (as just 3 anomolous examples), etc are great teams and would put up a solid fight vs any team in NCABB

in that sense, yeah, they likely would be near the top of potentially good teams.

However, a blind resume test would not flatter such teams, at least nowhere near to the extent that the NET currently does....even if they have theoretically elite ability.

My preference for ncaabb ranking systems is that they SUMMARIZE and DESCRIBE what has already happened...not try to PREDICT what will happen next. I think the current models are waaaaay too predictive to be fair. They're doing a job they shouldnt be doing.

in my 30+ years of following the sport...this is new.

I liked the AP and coaches polls etc...these analytic algorithms for ranking teams are not an improvement. It doesnt make me a whiner to feel as such, either. and it has nothing to do with SU's current rank...these changes are new to the sport and dont like them. orange colored glasses or not.
 
Eric15 said:
I had no idea college basketball metrics were such a divisive and controversial topic.
Expand...
Having a debate should be neither divisive nor controversial, IMO. Disagreeing and having a debate in good faith is one of the tenants of what I would call classic liberalism. It should in theory bring all sides to a better understanding even as they will likely still disagree. However, that doesn’t work if people take themselves too seriously or if they are disingenuous and simply want to impose on other people.
 
CardiacCuse said:
I liked the AP and coaches polls etc...these analytic algorithms for ranking teams are not an improvement. It doesnt make me a whiner to feel as such, either. and it has nothing to do with SU's current rank...these changes are new to the sport and dont like them. orange colored glasses or not.
Expand...
You think that the voters for either of those polls are actually watching enough of the games to make educated decisions? It's impossible to watch every top 25 team (and those not in the top 25) play every full game.

Guaranteed some AP/Coaches voters are using the analytics to make their decisions.
 
There’s a lot of talk about how scoring margin in our losses has negatively impacted our NET but margin is no longer in the NET formula. They simplified it a few years back.

“No longer will the NET use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET.”

IMG_5948.jpeg
 
The bubble this year is LOADED and overall it’s a lot less disparity between great teams good teams and teams that hover around average.
It’s going to be hard for any team that’s on the cusp of a tournament bid and certainly for us, that means no bad losses whatsoever.
Since that’s really one of the few things we have going for us.

We’ll have to win a lot of game down the stretch to have chance…and because we don’t have any true marquee wins, Imo we might need to go 10-3 the rest of the way to get a bid.

Theres too many teams we’ll have to fend off, to get in going 8-5 like some have said.

That NC game remains the last chance at a huge resume boosting opportunity.
 
good news in NET world:

65th ranked (and 4 spots above SU) in NET Mcneese is getting pummeled by something called texas am cc

hopefully they drop back to the triple digits where they belong...but Im not going to hold my breath on that one!
 
CuseOrange15 said:
There’s a lot of talk about how scoring margin in our losses has negatively impacted our NET but margin is no longer in the NET formula. They simplified it a few years back.

“No longer will the NET use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET.”

View attachment 236819
Expand...
well ... off efficiency and def efficiency is essentially the same thing as scoring margin, right?

what is the difference between off def efficiency and scoring margin really?
 
bnoro said:
You think that the voters for either of those polls are actually watching enough of the games to make educated decisions? It's impossible to watch every top 25 team (and those not in the top 25) play every full game.

Guaranteed some AP/Coaches voters are using the analytics to make their decisions.
Expand...
idk...\i thnk they see enough of the teams that matter
 
CardiacCuse said:
well ... off efficiency and def efficiency is essentially the same thing as scoring margin, right?

what is the difference between off def efficiency and scoring margin really?
Expand...

not quite, its would be more like aggregate scoring margin, but its weighted by home/away and opponent, so its really very similar to KP
 
jncuse said:
I say we should stop all metrics. All of them. No more scores kept at games (after all scores are numbers trying to explain things). Then humans can select the winner after the game based on how they feel what happened on the floor.
Expand...
How are you going to count the votes? Isn't that math?
 
SwagSocks said:
View attachment 236820needless to say, we need to keep on winning. If Cuse beats UNC i think they will be in the field if no bad losses. So maybe the NET numbers dont matter as much as. all these arguments wasted time
Expand...

As I have said on this thread more than a few times in this thread, if we win the NET starts taking care of itself. And even if our NET is just middling in the 50's standalone NET is not the crucial factor for selection,

This is why I tried to start another tourney thread. Unfortunately this thread has turned to a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo at times -- and I take a lot of responsibility for those posts, and I can't stay away even though I tell myself to.

Anyway my goal for this thread is 3 line posts or less every single time.
 
My first attempt at bullet posting - my intentions were to go much deeper on some of those points to explain the why, but just wasting too much time with long posts on this thread recently. I was also told by admin that I would be getting paid for driving engagement but they reneged on the offer.

  • Tourney selection is a human process. Not a computer process. The NET simply provides data to be help people with subjective selections. Once it comes down to the bubble there are so many ways to subjectively pick teams, and committees have went all over the place be it quality wins, bad losses.
  • NET just groups information to help people subjectively make decisions. It doesn't need to be that precise. It just helps sort information to easily isolate the clear in's, If you are on the bubble your good wins get scrubbed on the borders of quads anyway.
  • NET will have a lot less strange teams once conference play is done. There won't be many teams that you say hey that team should be Q1 not Q2, or in Q3, or vice versa.
  • The biggest impact "Computers" have on the process is actually out of conference play. OOC record as a whole by the conference, will certainly have a big impact on who gets in Q1 and Q2, and what conferences dominate in terms of numbers in.
  • But we have had the OOC discussion a lot before. It sucks that the only way to assess the best conferences is play in November and December, but since nobody plays each other after December how else can we do it?
Still failed at keeping length down, but got a lot of points out there in one post.
 
Last edited:
Only 3 ACC teams projected…that’s also why I feel like 8-5 the remainder of the way is not going to be good enough, just not in this league and how competitive other teams are.
We need quality wins and the league is not providing many opportunities.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
175,146
Messages
5,330,853
Members
6,228
Latest member
Azerion

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
8,924
Total visitors
9,149
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom