Longtimesu
Scout Team
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2013
- Messages
- 306
- Like
- 540
WOW, someone else who remembers those races. One of my favorite hangouts.
NET and KenPom Tracker 23-24 (SU = 84 3/9/24)
- Thread starter Sbucketball
- Start date
Shenexon
All American
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 6,635
- Like
- 22,030
My sister has been gone a good while now, but she was a stated fan of the races, which puzzled me for a while in my teens. Maybe you crossed paths...
Sbucketball
All Conference
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2022
- Messages
- 2,463
- Like
- 8,801
The ACC's average NET is currently approximately 88. Last year the ACC's average NET right before the tournament selection was around 110.
Current average: Big 12 average 54; Big 10 average 74; SEC average 75; Big East average 84; ACC average 88; Pac 12 average 96; Mountain West average 108. ACC is 5th.
I would think the median would be a better indicator than the mean, since teams like Louisville and Notre Dame are heavy anchors, which other conferences have too.
Current median: Big 12 is 37; SEC is 41; ACC is 58; Big East is 60; Big 10 is 67; Pac-12 is 77; and Mountain West is 113. ACC is 3rd.
Current average: Big 12 average 54; Big 10 average 74; SEC average 75; Big East average 84; ACC average 88; Pac 12 average 96; Mountain West average 108. ACC is 5th.
I would think the median would be a better indicator than the mean, since teams like Louisville and Notre Dame are heavy anchors, which other conferences have too.
Current median: Big 12 is 37; SEC is 41; ACC is 58; Big East is 60; Big 10 is 67; Pac-12 is 77; and Mountain West is 113. ACC is 3rd.
Sherman20
2018 Iggy Leading Scorer Winner
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2017
- Messages
- 6,372
- Like
- 16,030
Everyone should listen to Mike Waters' podcast interview with Ken Pomeroy to understand a bit more how KenPom works and what I think are some of the faults. I've been a big KenPom devotee, but I'm more skeptical of the ratings now and how much to take them as gospel.
www.syracuse.com
His preseason ratings still play an important role in the algorithm even 10 games into the season!...And it sounds like the preseason ratings play some role even after 10 games, which is crazy.
Some other caveats about how Ken's algorithm spits out its pre-season rankings:
—"It's hard for a team that has played poorly the last few years to jump up in the [pre-season] ratings simply from adding a bunch of transfers."
—“Coaching changes on average are a negative. They have a more negative impact on the better programs."
—Pomeroy estimated the change from Boeheim to Autry might have cost the Orange “10 to 15 spots or so.’'
—"My [preseason] ratings are calibrated on past season ratings."
—"The previous season ratings is probably the most important thing. It looks at five seasons worth of ratings, but the most recent season is the most important." [Which is why we keep dropping the past few seasons in KenPom]
—"The NET rating essentially duplicates my ratings...My ratings should not really be used for NCAA tourney selection, except for in maybe very specific circumstances. If you're trying to measure accomplishment, my ratings are not the way to do it."
—This was KenPom statement that really gobsmacked me: "There's actually not much difference between how a team is at the end of the season and how they are at the beginning of the season. Obviously some teams are an exception there. ...There isn't that much difference between beginning of the season quality of a team and end of the season." He acknowledges that there are exceptions every year. But, to me, this is a stunning statement and where I think previous season baselines give KenPom's ratings lots of continued statistical noise throughout a season that the algorithm can't sift out. I imagine most coaches would be stunned by that statement. I just don't think his algorithm is all that good at discerning much of a difference between a 50th rated team and a 100th rated team or a 35th and a 65th or a 20th and a 40th. Yet the NCAA tournament selection committee uses a team's NET in a significant way. Yes, they say that Q1 and Q2 wins are the most important, but guess what? Whether a win is Q1 or Q2 is based almost wholly on the NET! So you have a self-reinforcing system.
Ken Pomeroy explains his college basketball ratings: Why is Syracuse at No. 105? (podcast)
Ken Pomeroy explains the numbers behind his college basketball ratings on KenPom.com.
Some other caveats about how Ken's algorithm spits out its pre-season rankings:
—"It's hard for a team that has played poorly the last few years to jump up in the [pre-season] ratings simply from adding a bunch of transfers."
—“Coaching changes on average are a negative. They have a more negative impact on the better programs."
—Pomeroy estimated the change from Boeheim to Autry might have cost the Orange “10 to 15 spots or so.’'
—"My [preseason] ratings are calibrated on past season ratings."
—"The previous season ratings is probably the most important thing. It looks at five seasons worth of ratings, but the most recent season is the most important." [Which is why we keep dropping the past few seasons in KenPom]
—"The NET rating essentially duplicates my ratings...My ratings should not really be used for NCAA tourney selection, except for in maybe very specific circumstances. If you're trying to measure accomplishment, my ratings are not the way to do it."
—This was KenPom statement that really gobsmacked me: "There's actually not much difference between how a team is at the end of the season and how they are at the beginning of the season. Obviously some teams are an exception there. ...There isn't that much difference between beginning of the season quality of a team and end of the season." He acknowledges that there are exceptions every year. But, to me, this is a stunning statement and where I think previous season baselines give KenPom's ratings lots of continued statistical noise throughout a season that the algorithm can't sift out. I imagine most coaches would be stunned by that statement. I just don't think his algorithm is all that good at discerning much of a difference between a 50th rated team and a 100th rated team or a 35th and a 65th or a 20th and a 40th. Yet the NCAA tournament selection committee uses a team's NET in a significant way. Yes, they say that Q1 and Q2 wins are the most important, but guess what? Whether a win is Q1 or Q2 is based almost wholly on the NET! So you have a self-reinforcing system.
Last edited:
721Comstock
2022 Iggy Awards: Leading Scorer/Game/Buddy 3s
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 25,171
- Like
- 105,782
jordoo
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 15,367
- Like
- 40,047
Why should I watch it when I've always known it was a computer program with inherent problems? Its just something that is used as a crutch to help humans make a decision (most of whom aren't qualified to make, because they didn't watch enough games.) This stuff is fine for fans but should have no place in actually choosing the field. Computers are dumb, they are programed by humans, humans are flawed. I'd prefer a group of flawed humans make the decision rather than complicating the process.Everyone should listen to Mike Waters' podcast interview with Ken Pomeroy to understand a bit more how KenPom works and what I think are some of the faults. I've been a big KenPom devotee, but I'm more skeptical of the ratings now and how much to take them as gospel.
His preseason ratings still play an important role in the algorithm even 10 games into the season!...And it sounds like the preseason ratings play some role even after 10 games, which is crazy.Ken Pomeroy explains his college basketball ratings: Why is Syracuse at No. 105? (podcast)
Ken Pomeroy explains the numbers behind his college basketball ratings on KenPom.com.
Some other caveats about how Ken's algorithm spits out its pre-season rankings:
—"It's hard for a team that has played poorly the last few years to jump up in the [pre-season] ratings simply from adding a bunch of transfers."
—“Coaching changes on average are a negative. They have a more negative impact on the better programs."
—Pomeroy estimated the change from Boeheim to Autry might have cost the Orange “10 to 15 spots or so.’'
—"My [preseason] ratings are calibrated on past season ratings."
—"The previous season ratings is probably the most important thing. It looks at five seasons worth of ratings, but the most recent season is the most important." [Which is why we keep dropping the past few seasons in KenPom]
—"The NET rating essentially duplicates my ratings...My ratings should not really be used for selection, except for in maybe very specific circumstances. If you're trying to measure accomplishment, my ratings are not the way to do it."
—This was KenPom statement that really gobsmacked me: "There's actually not much difference between how a team is at the end of the season and how they are at the beginning of the season. Obviously some teams are an exception there. ...There isn't that much difference between beginning of the season quality of a team and end of the season." He acknowledges that there are exceptions every year. But, to me, this is a stunning statement and where I think previous season baselines give KenPom's ratings lots of continued statistical noise throughout a season that the algorithm can't sift out. I imagine most coaches would be stunned by that statement. I just don't think his algorithm is all that good at discerning much of a difference between a 50th rated team and a 100th rated team or a 35th and a 65th or a 20th and a 40th. Yet the NCAA tournament selection committee uses a team's NET in a significant way. Yes, they say that Q1 and Q2 wins are the most important, but guess what? Whether a win is Q1 or Q2 is based almost wholly on the NET! So you have a self-reinforcing system.
IthacaMatt
Old Timer / Unofficial Contributor for 25+ years
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 24,340
- Like
- 35,958
Everyone should listen to Mike Waters' podcast interview with Ken Pomeroy to understand a bit more how KenPom works and what I think are some of the faults. I've been a big KenPom devotee, but I'm more skeptical of the ratings now and how much to take them as gospel.
His preseason ratings still play an important role in the algorithm even 10 games into the season!...And it sounds like the preseason ratings play some role even after 10 games, which is crazy.Ken Pomeroy explains his college basketball ratings: Why is Syracuse at No. 105? (podcast)
Ken Pomeroy explains the numbers behind his college basketball ratings on KenPom.com.
Some other caveats about how Ken's algorithm spits out its pre-season rankings:
—"It's hard for a team that has played poorly the last few years to jump up in the [pre-season] ratings simply from adding a bunch of transfers."
—“Coaching changes on average are a negative. They have a more negative impact on the better programs."
—Pomeroy estimated the change from Boeheim to Autry might have cost the Orange “10 to 15 spots or so.’'
—"My [preseason] ratings are calibrated on past season ratings."
—"The previous season ratings is probably the most important thing. It looks at five seasons worth of ratings, but the most recent season is the most important." [Which is why we keep dropping the past few seasons in KenPom]
—"The NET rating essentially duplicates my ratings...My ratings should not really be used for selection, except for in maybe very specific circumstances. If you're trying to measure accomplishment, my ratings are not the way to do it."
—This was KenPom statement that really gobsmacked me: "There's actually not much difference between how a team is at the end of the season and how they are at the beginning of the season. Obviously some teams are an exception there. ...There isn't that much difference between beginning of the season quality of a team and end of the season." He acknowledges that there are exceptions every year. But, to me, this is a stunning statement and where I think previous season baselines give KenPom's ratings lots of continued statistical noise throughout a season that the algorithm can't sift out. I imagine most coaches would be stunned by that statement. I just don't think his algorithm is all that good at discerning much of a difference between a 50th rated team and a 100th rated team or a 35th and a 65th or a 20th and a 40th. Yet the NCAA tournament selection committee uses a team's NET in a significant way. Yes, they say that Q1 and Q2 wins are the most important, but guess what? Whether a win is Q1 or Q2 is based almost wholly on the NET! So you have a self-reinforcing system.
Yes, this part of the interview bothered me, too:
This was KenPom statement that really gobsmacked me: "There's actually not much difference between how a team is at the end of the season and how they are at the beginning of the season. Obviously some teams are an exception there. ...There isn't that much difference between beginning of the season quality of a team and end of the season."
Yeah, because even though there is weighting, it's still basically a 5 year rolling average of how a team does. It has very little predictive value.
If it doesn't change much from the beginning to the end of the year, Ken, when TEAMS obviously DO, well, that tells me you have too much historical weight in your ratings.
PoppyHart
All American
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,657
- Like
- 5,823
I would think a better gauge would be throwing out the top 2 and bottom 2 in each conference, as those schools will either be locks or hot garbage, 2022-23 Big 12 excepted.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,820
- Like
- 33,903
Everyone should listen to Mike Waters' podcast interview with Ken Pomeroy to understand a bit more how KenPom works and what I think are some of the faults. I've been a big KenPom devotee, but I'm more skeptical of the ratings now and how much to take them as gospel.
His preseason ratings still play an important role in the algorithm even 10 games into the season!...And it sounds like the preseason ratings play some role even after 10 games, which is crazy.Ken Pomeroy explains his college basketball ratings: Why is Syracuse at No. 105? (podcast)
Ken Pomeroy explains the numbers behind his college basketball ratings on KenPom.com.
Some other caveats about how Ken's algorithm spits out its pre-season rankings:
—"It's hard for a team that has played poorly the last few years to jump up in the [pre-season] ratings simply from adding a bunch of transfers."
—“Coaching changes on average are a negative. They have a more negative impact on the better programs."
—Pomeroy estimated the change from Boeheim to Autry might have cost the Orange “10 to 15 spots or so.’'
—"My [preseason] ratings are calibrated on past season ratings."
—"The previous season ratings is probably the most important thing. It looks at five seasons worth of ratings, but the most recent season is the most important." [Which is why we keep dropping the past few seasons in KenPom]
—"The NET rating essentially duplicates my ratings...My ratings should not really be used for selection, except for in maybe very specific circumstances. If you're trying to measure accom
plishment, my ratings are not the way to do it."
—This was KenPom statement that really gobsmacked me: "There's actually not much difference between how a team is at the end of the season and how they are at the beginning of the season. Obviously some teams are an exception there. ...There isn't that much difference between beginning of the season quality of a team and end of the season." He acknowledges that there are exceptions every year. But, to me, this is a stunning statement and where I think previous season baselines give KenPom's ratings lots of continued statistical noise throughout a season that the algorithm can't sift out. I imagine most coaches would be stunned by that statement.
I'm not going to claim his preseason rankings are flawless or even particularly great- in this current environment its hella difficult to rank 362 teams. You need to use some algorithm But their impact does 100% go away by season end, even if there is some weight now. Syracuse preseason ranking right now has minimal impact on where it currently is. Its not "important" to us right now. (It is important to some teams - See Wyoming example below)
Let's make this 100% clear though since there is some confusion. The preseason predictions have ZERO weight on the final KP rankings. KP did not claim otherwise in the interview. Its not a self-reinforcing system. Just as KenPom said there is preseason weight at the 5 and even 10 game mark (he is an open book), he will 100% tell you there is none by season end. Your misinterpretation that he is saying that in this interview is leading you to make an incorrect downstream conclusion.
KP could actually run his rankings right now with no preseason weight at all. He chooses not to (See my Wyoming below) Here is an article from 2012 where KenPom addresses why he still uses pre-season weights around this time of the year. He is actually running rankings without pre-season weight at this point as there is now enough connectivity, but feels that teams that are playing well above his pre-season ranking or well below it, will tend to have some partial regression (or partial improvement depending on what direction the variance is). It's a long read, but he supports his position with data to keep some weights this late into the year. Seems like around December 24, 2011 he had the weights at about 20%(predicted) and 80% (Year to Date).
Whether he should still do that on December 20th, 2023 might be more debatable where pre-season predictions are even harder and more in-accurate now then before. I would drop them as soon as possible. But I assume he still runs some data to support it. But rest assured those weights do go away before the year is over.
I will use Wyoming from that article. Wyoming was the most wild example from that year.
Wyoming 2012 Prediction - 273
Wyoming KP rating at Dec 24, 2011 (with no preseason weights) - #43
Wyoming published ranking at Dec 24, 2011 (with preseason weight) - #88
Wyoming Final KP ranking - #98
He makes it very clear that the FINAL ranking has no weights in it.
Regarding Syracuse since our current ranking (#91) is so close to our pre-season ranking of #105, the use of pre-season weights (say it still had 20% value) will have very little impact on our ranking. It will only move teams 10-20 spots if they are way, way above or way, way below their starting point.
Last edited:
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,820
- Like
- 33,903
If we win by just one point, it would only move us up by about 6 or 7 spots in KP.
That being said the W in this game will have a much huger impact in determining our tournament fate.
KP has us at 95 and www.parsedsports.com has us at 94. Their model does have us beating Duke at home, so there is that?
+
+
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,820
- Like
- 33,903
I'll just address this quickly since I had a long post above:
1) KP does not equal NET, its actually not even a part of NET - NET actually uses something else (BPI?) as their margin system, and its merely just a component of NET. There are many factors that go into NET - the biggest being actually simply winning and losing games. (schedule considered of course)
2) KP is a piece of data the committee can consider but its not part of their core metrics - nor should it be. It should come down to W's and L's. My only exception on this thought are teams from mid-majors which are hard to compare -- for those KP is sometimes the best way to try to compare in my view - but I don't think the committee feels the same. At the end of the day Q1, Q2 wins, bad losses, overall record, having an acceptable NET are the drivers.
3) Here are the NETS from last year... look at the teams around #50 vs those around #100, or those at #35 vs #65 Simply looking at the records you can tell there is a big difference in those teams. You might find one or two outliers that look strange, but the teams are typically easy to tell apart. I don't think NET is driving some crazy out of whack records.
NET Ranking - Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com
2023 Men's College Basketball NET Ranking: NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) a ranking of teams based on five factors, team value index, net efficiency, winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage, and scoring margin.
4) NET (or KP) is not self-reinforcing based on preseason predictions. That being said, what a conference does OOC is huge. If a conference does great prior to December, you can see it as the NETS self-reinforcing in conference season. Alternatively if you stink like the ACC has recently it has the other impact.
But its not a KP or a NET issue - its an issue of your conference doing bad OOC. The argument can be whether that is too important and how do we adjust but that is another matter.
IthacaMatt
Old Timer / Unofficial Contributor for 25+ years
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 24,340
- Like
- 35,958
That's just not true. Did you actually listen to the interview?
Because it's a 5 year look-back that creates the first rating, and the last rating of the prior year is the starting point.
So, where do you come to the conclusion that past years are magically "gone" by year end? It's literally not what he says.
Last edited:
M2MPrinciples
2nd String
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 949
- Like
- 2,147
Speaking of stats, I came across this chart a few minutes ago. Judah is special in his ability to get to the line and convert.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,820
- Like
- 33,903
2 Things:
1) Would you just drop 200 pages on the committee's desk (1 for each team) with a W-L record and the results of 31 games, and say have at it folks?
I'm in no means suggesting teams being picked in anyway by their KP or NET on a standalone basis (and they are not). But I think you need to bring some data to the table with a metric to measure what were your quality wins and how many you had. Not all data is bad. You need some sort of "system" to do that.
2) What did you think of Florida Atlantic, North Texas, and UAB entering March Madness last year?
I bring this up due to a heated debate I had with another member as we were discussing NCAA selection last year (I'll get to that below). I find this is where KP plays its best role - giving us a bit of a general understanding of how good these teams might be... teams that we don't get to see and teams that don't play much against the P5. How do we measure what we can't see? KP is by no means definitive, but it does provide some good value in this regards. I also would never use KP (or NET) to say team #49 is better than team #58 for example. The 3 teams in question were rated in the 20's, 50 and 60's range IIRC - in both KP and NET
The debate I had with another member was whether Florida Atlantic should get an at-large if it failed in its tourney. He claimed Florida Atlantic which I think was 18-2 or 19-1 in CUSA should only get in if its 20-0 in CUSA. He claimed they all sucked, and that a win at UAB or North Texas was worthless. That it was ridiculous to claim those were Q1 or Q2 victories, and that there KP and NET was flawed. That a 6-14 team in the ACC would go undefeated in the CUSA.
Florida Atlantic made the Final 4.
UAB and North Texas played in the NIT Final.
Last edited:
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,820
- Like
- 33,903
1. Yes I listened to the interview.
2. Yes he uses look back models as he claims, including the last ranking to build a starting point. I never disputed that. I also don't put much faith in his preseason rankings, or really anybody's in the new NCAA. Or any team's KP for at least the first 5 games.
3. He claimed in his interview that pre-season predictions can alter things significantly for 5 and even up to 10 games. (which I showed above in my Wyoming 2011 example from the linked article) Although for Syracuse 2023/24 the ranking is largely our current season ranking (See below)
4. He did not in that interview or ever claimed the preseasons ranking impact the ranking at season end. Provide me a link or timestamp in the interview where he has ever said that. KP is pretty open about the general parameters of his system
5. Did you read this link?
- KP runs a system as of December 24, 2011, that is only based on current season data without preseason impact. He can run that system at any time moving forward without any pre-season impact. And its this system that gives you your final rank ... no preseason weight
- He then chooses adjust that number by weigh the preseason rank vs the current year rank. Seems at that time is was around a 20%/80% split, based on the teams he presented in his data. He has a reason for doing this.
- As the year continues to progress that assumed 20% split weight winds down to 0%.
For a team like Syracuse this year that 20% weight is largely irrelevant (assuming that is what is used) We are ranked 91st in KP, and 105 preseason... by deduction we can see that we would be about #87 in current season data - so 4 spots difference.
For a team like Wyoming 2011, its not #87 vs #105... its #43 vs #272. So his weighted ranking will spit out a number that is adjusted a lot -- 45 total spots - in this case #43 falls to #88. But this is an extreme example. But as per his example, their ultimate ranking of #98 was fully based on current year performance.
6. I'm not going to argue against anyone's view that his pre-season rankings are hot garbage. I don't think they are fully 100% garbage, but I'm not going to fight that opinion either. Pretty much anyone's is not good at this point. But they don't impact things by the end, and they don't move that many teams significant spots either by that point (unless your a team that he outlined in his 2011 paper)
Last edited:
IthacaMatt
Old Timer / Unofficial Contributor for 25+ years
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 24,340
- Like
- 35,958
Good post. KP is best in these scenarios, because his algorithm is best at measuring the growth, or state, of a program. That's where the 5 year trends are useful.
Some team like Davidson, or FGCU, or Belmont, and of course so many others over the years - under KenPom, it's not about the 1 game, but rather, how many "close calls have these guys given P5 teams, where have the upsets been, is the coach still there, how many players are returning, are they getting better recruits now with this early success?"
That's where KenPom shines, in my opinion.
CardiacCuse
All Conference
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
- Messages
- 3,325
- Like
- 6,400
wow...now I like kenpom less...Everyone should listen to Mike Waters' podcast interview with Ken Pomeroy to understand a bit more how KenPom works and what I think are some of the faults. I've been a big KenPom devotee, but I'm more skeptical of the ratings now and how much to take them as gospel.
His preseason ratings still play an important role in the algorithm even 10 games into the season!...And it sounds like the preseason ratings play some role even after 10 games, which is crazy.Ken Pomeroy explains his college basketball ratings: Why is Syracuse at No. 105? (podcast)
Ken Pomeroy explains the numbers behind his college basketball ratings on KenPom.com.
Some other caveats about how Ken's algorithm spits out its pre-season rankings:
—"It's hard for a team that has played poorly the last few years to jump up in the [pre-season] ratings simply from adding a bunch of transfers."
—“Coaching changes on average are a negative. They have a more negative impact on the better programs."
—Pomeroy estimated the change from Boeheim to Autry might have cost the Orange “10 to 15 spots or so.’'
—"My [preseason] ratings are calibrated on past season ratings."
—"The previous season ratings is probably the most important thing. It looks at five seasons worth of ratings, but the most recent season is the most important." [Which is why we keep dropping the past few seasons in KenPom]
—"The NET rating essentially duplicates my ratings...My ratings should not really be used for NCAA tourney selection, except for in maybe very specific circumstances. If you're trying to measure accomplishment, my ratings are not the way to do it."
—This was KenPom statement that really gobsmacked me: "There's actually not much difference between how a team is at the end of the season and how they are at the beginning of the season. Obviously some teams are an exception there. ...There isn't that much difference between beginning of the season quality of a team and end of the season." He acknowledges that there are exceptions every year. But, to me, this is a stunning statement and where I think previous season baselines give KenPom's ratings lots of continued statistical noise throughout a season that the algorithm can't sift out. I imagine most coaches would be stunned by that statement. I just don't think his algorithm is all that good at discerning much of a difference between a 50th rated team and a 100th rated team or a 35th and a 65th or a 20th and a 40th. Yet the NCAA tournament selection committee uses a team's NET in a significant way. Yes, they say that Q1 and Q2 wins are the most important, but guess what? Whether a win is Q1 or Q2 is based almost wholly on the NET! So you have a self-reinforcing system.
I think theres a very big difference in beginning of year to end of year for each team...but likely not much fluctuation in where they end up in the rankings (with exceptions, of course) but yeah I strongly dislike that the beginning of the years matters A LOT in kenpom...his algorithm makes more sense in the old version of NCABB
oh yeah, and the quads system is baloney...creating arbitrary partitions in categories of teams....just use the rankings without splitting them into 4 groups, imo
Eric15
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 30,087
- Like
- 112,390
Bummer that they don’t use RPI anymore. Our RPI is currently 25.
RealTimeRPI.com Men's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Ratings - A leading sports ratings and resources community on the Internet
RealTimeRPI.com: RPI, RPI Rankings, college basketball rpi, Real Time NCAA College Basketball and Sports Ratings - the most accurate independent analysis of the NCAA college basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI)
realtimerpi.com
CardiacCuse
All Conference
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
- Messages
- 3,325
- Like
- 6,400
weird...says the orange is 5-3
that strength of schedule at 9th hardest really helps the RPI
a good sign though
early season schedule has been brutal...
littlereg
845 hoops extraordinaire
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,671
- Like
- 4,083
I read all of this but I didn’t gaf after your first statement. The committees single job is to put the the teams that should be in the tournament in the tournament. If they aren’t watching a lot of games, studying and looking at each teams season, games, trends, etc what the hell is the point of having those bums do anything? So yeah I’d consistently drop pages of each team on their desk cus it’s their mf job?!?! The whole committee is bs anyways. athletic directors should not be serving on that boards, it should be outside people who are actually putting their time and the resources gave to them into doing the job correctly.
Sbucketball
All Conference
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2022
- Messages
- 2,463
- Like
- 8,801
Oregon is currently #51 in NET. Top 50 in neutral site games count as Q1. So this is a huge opportunity to steal what might be a Q1 win prior to ACC play, and it's a winnable game.
blust2i3d4
Starter
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,808
- Like
- 1,669
For comparison, our RPI is in the top 25 and Oregon's is also very high. If we can have the road win, expect we enter top 10 in RPI ranking. Too bad NCAA no longer uses RPI to evaluate the teams.
Similar threads
