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

[CardiacCuse]

Tell us where Syracuse should be*. All of the smarty pants on here who think that NET and KP and any other ranking site is fundamentally flawed at best or complete and utter trash at worst should be able to hammer our a consensus top 100 in about 10 minutes. GO!




*That seems to be the most important thing here. Since if SU was ranked 10th no one would be complaining.

the Orange has played a top 20 schedule this year...we're about to hit February...and there is only 1 team in the ACC (top 10 UNC) that currently has more total wins than the Orange.

think about that for a second...just think about that "math"


.....meanwhile SU is nowhere near the tourney???

and has to win every single game from here on out to even sniff the field??

on top of that, a plethora of teams with worse overall records are ranked higher than the Orange???

and we are just supposed to blindly nod and smile?

yeah...we probably wouldnt notice it if the Orange was ranked in the top 10...but yeah...

victims do generally tend to notice the crime more than bystanders...right?

 

[dasher]

Tell us where Syracuse should be*. All of the smarty pants on here who think that NET and KP and any other ranking site is fundamentally flawed at best or complete and utter trash at worst should be able to hammer our a consensus top 100 in about 10 minutes. GO!




*That seems to be the most important thing here. Since if SU was ranked 10th no one would be complaining.

I'm no expert and I am not a math guy but, any system that has Pitt, a team with a worse record than us and has lost twice to us, and not exactly close games either, ahead of us, has got flaws.

 

[SwagSocks]

I'm no expert and I am not a math guy but, any system that has Pitt, a team with a worse record than us and has lost twice to us, and not exactly close games either, ahead of us, has got flaws.

Pitt won at duke. What is Cuse's best win? It is total resume not just two games.

 

[dasher]

Pitt won at duke. What is Cuse's best win? It is total resume not just two games.

Yes I game where Duke didn't have two starters. And over their whole season, they have a worse record and lost twice head to head. What is the first tie breaker in any league you ever played in? Going in to that game, Pitt only had quad 4 wins. Our overall resume is better. Along with our record and our two head to head wins. It is ridiculous. Pitt's resume is awful. What is their second best win? Now, at the end of the year, it won't matter. Pitt will be near the end of the ACC standings. We may not have anything to brag about either but we will be ahead of Pitt

 

[UpstateSM]

The no-MOV cap is a real issue with the NET but it is hard to come up with a margin of victory cap that doesn't seem arbitrary. I know some models tell you when a game was "analytically over" but which model do you pick?

We don't have a great system but idk what a perfect one would look like. RPI was probably better than NET but NET was made to benefit P6 leagues. SBUnfurled did a great research project showing so.

 

[Shoym]

I see what you did there.

 

[Shoym]

We can always point out we were missing our starting Center and a key guard as well.

Except the loss of our starting center has resulted in better play. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[SwagSocks]

Yes I game where Duke didn't have two starters. And over their whole season, they have a worse record and lost twice head to head. What is the first tie breaker in any league you ever played in? Going in to that game, Pitt only had quad 4 wins. Our overall resume is better. Along with our record and our two head to head wins. It is ridiculous. Pitt's resume is awful. What is their second best win? Now, at the end of the year, it won't matter. Pitt will be near the end of the ACC standings. We may not have anything to brag about either but we will be ahead of Pitt

We beat Oregon with tons of people out. Miami didn't have their starting center/leading scoring. Our two best wins? Or is Pitt, a team say is awful, our 2nd best win?
NET isn't pitting one team straight up against another team..its against all teams.
Winning at Duke is very hard to do, even without 2 players.
We don't have a great resume either, that is why I am not shocked Pitt is above us.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Except the loss of our starting center has resulted in better play. Don't shoot the messenger.

Yeah but they don’t know that

 

[Cuse181]

me too! look at the list of teams higher than SU in NET, though, its a lot more than just Alabama

Auburn is 16-2 (great job) and they are 6th in NET...but guess what ? ZERO quad 1 wins! (0-2)

Mcneese is 65th (4 spots higher than Cuse) - Zero quad 1 wins, 2-2 against quad 2

Pitt is 1 spot higher than Cuse at 11-7 on the year

Creighton is 14-5 on the year 6-5 combined vs quad 1 and 2...meanhwile SU is 4-5 combined in Q 1 and 2...pretty similar right? nope. Creighton is 11th, SU 69th. Marquette is almost the same metrics.

Mich St has a garbage record vs quad 1 and 2...yet in the top 25

Gonzaga did wipe the floor with the Cuse...but guess what? ZERO quad 1 wins! yet 39 places higher than the orange at 12-5 on the season.

Villanova, Texas AM and St Johns all have 7 losses on the season...and well above SU.

Xavier is 10-8...and 20 spots higher than 13-5 cuse...meanwhile cuse has played a top 20 schedule in the NCAA!

I could go on...

Overall record should matter more...margin of victory should matter less

Obviously NET is incorporating KenPom...

I wonder if their algorithm is messed up honestly...I mean...who would really be smart enough to make sure it isnt???? highly possible that whoever is in charge of the NET is not that good at math, imo

The formula is public if I’m not mistaken

 

[Cuse181]

Yes I game where Duke didn't have two starters. And over their whole season, they have a worse record and lost twice head to head. What is the first tie breaker in any league you ever played in? Going in to that game, Pitt only had quad 4 wins. Our overall resume is better. Along with our record and our two head to head wins. It is ridiculous. Pitt's resume is awful. What is their second best win? Now, at the end of the year, it won't matter. Pitt will be near the end of the ACC standings. We may not have anything to brag about either but we will be ahead of Pitt

As pointed out before, the computers don’t care about Duke missing players. That’s why Syracuse got a bump against Miami despite miami missing their best player and the margin of victory at home only being 3.

It goes both ways

 

[Sbucketball]

The NET algorithm searched Fan Boards, read the outrage that we beat Pitt twice yet Pitt was 68 and we were 69, and promptly swapped us this morning so we're 68 and Pitt's 69 today.

 

[upperdeck]

Lots of things have us lower ranked..

Look at BPI.. Pitt is 52 SU is 92.

Its mostly offense there.. we avg about 1 pt less but we really suck on offense in their metrics.

Also Pitt has 3 road wins which it values above everything..

We have tons of winnable rd games coming up.

 

[mark79]

I'm no expert and I am not a math guy but, any system that has Pitt, a team with a worse record than us and has lost twice to us, and not exactly close games either, ahead of us, has got flaws.

This

 

[TexanMark]

Yes I game where Duke didn't have two starters. And over their whole season, they have a worse record and lost twice head to head. What is the first tie breaker in any league you ever played in? Going in to that game, Pitt only had quad 4 wins. Our overall resume is better. Along with our record and our two head to head wins. It is ridiculous. Pitt's resume is awful. What is their second best win? Now, at the end of the year, it won't matter. Pitt will be near the end of the ACC standings. We may not have anything to brag about either but we will be ahead of Pitt

Our neutral win with Oregon was suspect too with Oregon injuries...just like Pitt. We do have a better overall resume vs Pitt.

I'm not too upset yet at lack of bracketolegy support. We keep winning in February we'll get there. However this team is fun and easy to root for...but it isn't built for a run in the tournament. Too many flaws.

We need to enjoy the ride and hope that Red can get us back in the Top 10 in 2-3 years.

 

[Fly Rodder]

its with a poorly conceptualized application of math

No, it's not. You and the rest of the luddites don't understand what any of it is used for or how it works and refuse to do so because your favorite team is not being ranked (though I think "rewarded" is the more apt term you desire) the way you think they should.

jncuse has done a tremendous job explaining how these systems work and what they are used for, but it has obviously gone over your head and the other people on here. I'm sorry these systems don't match up with how you think they should. The vast NCAA conspiracy against Boeheim and Syracuse is still here and now it has MATH in its clutches!

Still no one has even listed a top-25. C'mon this should be easy for you folks. Where should syrause be? Top 10? Top 30? 44?

Sure anything can be improved, but I'll tell you right now that KP, NET, and Evan Miya are all waaaaay better than anything else out there including three guys in a room in North Carolina. Revising any system that ranks 350 teams to make your favorite team rank differently screws up the rest of the rankings. That's what the "luck" column is for. It shows the variance.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Why do you take it so personally that these evaluation algorithms are flawed? The people that make them will tell you that. As I advocated early in this thread, I would prefer that we leave the decisions to a group of flawed humans. I have more faith in a group of humans to make a reasonable decision and see the things that computer algorithms may not be able to see. That doesn’t mean that we won’t still argue about the last four teams in and out.

I don’t need to be an expert in anything to use Reductive reasoning to determine something is flawed or not true. Doing that is independent of providing an alternative method/answer.

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 ...

 

[jordoo]

No, it's not. You and the rest of the luddites don't understand what any of it is used for or how it works and refuse to do so because your favorite team is not being rewarded the way you think they should.

jncuse has done a tremendous job explaining how these systems work and what they are used for, but it has obviously gone over your head and the other people on here. I'm sorry these systems don't match up with how you think they should. The vast NCAA conspiracy against Boeheim and Syracuse is still here and now it has MATH in its clutches!

Still no one has even listed a top-25. C'mon this should be easy for you folks. Where should syrause be? Top 10? Top 30? 44?

Sure anything can be improved, but I'll tell you right now that KP, NET, and Evan Miya are all waaaaay better than anything else out there including three guys in a room in North Carolina. Revising any system that ranks 350 teams to make your favorite team rank differently screws up the rest of the rankings. That's what the "luck" column is for. It shows the variance.

LOL, you are so angry that people do not agree with you, why? If you are so sure that you are correct then you should be at peace with your truth. Name calling and making the assumption that posters who do not agree with you either cannot or do not understand these systems will not help convince anyone of your point of view. I have not once seen someone suggest that there was a conspiracy to design these systems to hurt Syracuse basketball. I have seen plenty of posters poke at the obvious flaws these systems have. And I have seen some defend these systems at all costs without acknowledging these faults. Some are just explaining the system which is helpful but it doesn't change the fact this these systems in the end basically aren't any better than a group of reasonable people looking at records/results and using their best judgment.

 

[atlanticuse]

The NET algorithm searched Fan Boards, read the outrage that we beat Pitt twice yet Pitt was 68 and we were 69, and promptly swapped us this morning so we're 68 and Pitt's 69 today.

A.I. NETGPT

 

[NKR1978]

Pitt won at duke. What is Cuse's best win? It is total resume not just two games.

We won at Pitt!

 

[Cusefan0307]

Our neutral win with Oregon was suspect too with Oregon injuries...just like Pitt. We do have a better overall resume vs Pitt.

I'm not too upset yet at lack of bracketolegy support. We keep winning in February we'll get there. However this team is fun and easy to root for...but it isn't built for a run in the tournament. Too many flaws.

We need to enjoy the ride and hope that Red can get us back in the Top 10 in 2-3 years.

They missed those players in most of the games they won too. One of those guys just came back. The other guys look like they may be done for the year and have not played since. I’m not sure why our own fans are harping on this because it’s not exactly factual that they just missed our game.

 

[jordoo]

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 ...

You seem to be the one whining about people pointing out inconsistencies IMO. That is all perspective though and its hard to tell tone through text, much is lost.

I don't think its an unrealistic expectation that statistic based algorithms would take constructive criticism and adjust to better represent what they are trying to show.

I think human beings forget that in the natural world (the one we live in) there are no numbers. There are proportions, things can be expressed in mathematical terms but there are no numbers.

I think math like many things can be a useful tool. That said these systems are simply numbers games. You input the numbers and they perform calculations based on programs humans devised. How is that different from humans sitting in a room looking at the results of the season and figuring out the last 4-10 spots that reasonable people could differ on. It is my opinion that the difference in the end is that the these numbers games simply add a layer complication and give those making the decisions a scapegoat. I prefer personal accountability. Reasonable minds can differ, it often comes down to different order of importance. That is what happens when selecting teams with or without all of these indicating algorithms. I prioritize the human element, you seem to prioritize the numbers.

 

[Day2]

You seem to be the one whining about people pointing out inconsistencies IMO. That is all perspective though and its hard to tell tone through text, much is lost.

I don't think its an unrealistic expectation that statistic based algorithms would take constructive criticism and adjust to better represent what they are trying to show.

I think human beings forget that in the natural world (the one we live in) there are no numbers. There are proportions, things can be expressed in mathematical terms but there are no numbers.

I think math like many things can be a useful tool. That said these systems are simply numbers games. You input the numbers and they perform calculations based on programs humans devised. How is that different from humans sitting in a room looking at the results of the season and figuring out the last 4-10 spots that reasonable people could differ on. It is my opinion that the difference in the end is that the these numbers games simply add a layer complication and give those making the decisions a scapegoat. I prefer personal accountability. Reasonable minds can differ, it often comes down to different order of importance. That is what happens when selecting teams with or without all of these indicating algorithms. I prioritize the human element, you seem to prioritize the numbers.

 

[jncuse]

You seem to be the one whining about people pointing out inconsistencies IMO. That is all perspective though and its hard to tell tone through text, much is lost.

I don't think its an unrealistic expectation that statistic based algorithms would take constructive criticism and adjust to better represent what they are trying to show.

I think human beings forget that in the natural world (the one we live in) there are no numbers. There are proportions, things can be expressed in mathematical terms but there are no numbers.

I think math like many things can be a useful tool. That said these systems are simply numbers games. You input the numbers and they perform calculations based on programs humans devised. How is that different from humans sitting in a room looking at the results of the season and figuring out the last 4-10 spots that reasonable people could differ on. It is my opinion that the difference in the end is that the these numbers games simply add a layer complication and give those making the decisions a scapegoat. I prefer personal accountability. Reasonable minds can differ, it often comes down to different order of importance. That is what happens when selecting teams with or without all of these indicating algorithms. I prioritize the human element, you seem to prioritize the numbers.

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.

 

[jordoo]

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.

I think you are moving the goal posts. People aren't arguing the score or the outcome. That is where numbers are a useful tool as I acknowledged in my post. It's the weight being given to what it being done to numbers and stats after words that I think is misguided.