NET Rankings...

[EnviroSciGuy]

Odd Isn’t it? That shows ONE of the metrics is severely flawed. Any one who thinks we are really #177 ”because the NET says so“ is undervaluing our team. I’m not predicting we make the tournament but we are not #177 or close. (If healthy) .

if BPI was the key metric, every one here would be talking about us being on the bubble now, not being “toast”. BPI is a factor too. Just not as big.

as I said before, even if we beat Texas and Tennessee we would still be FAR behind Yukon at 39, which is a joke based on 3 unranked losses an no good wins. NET sucks but we unfortunately have to live with it.

another Yukon note. They have stretch of Baylor, Texas, Zags and Xavier. If they go 1-3, they will need 14-15 Big east wins to get in no matter how badly they beat their “cupcakes”. Big east is farther down than ACC.

If NET is overvaluing margin of victory, which frankly I don't think should be a metric at all, no wonder it has SU so low. Nothing sportsmanlike about being able to juice your numbers by scheduling a bunch of cupcakes and intentionally running up the score on them. Plus, the transitive property doesn't hold in most sports... which is exactly what is being implied by including margin of victory in a model.

Each game is it's own statistical universe, governed by matchups and style of play. NET sucks and the only thing it is good for is encouraging s***tty scheduling practices and poor sportsmanship.

The football team would be ranked pretty poorly in a model like NET.

 

[two3zone]

The NET is far from end all be all, especially at the beginning of December. It's very simple, win games and keep winning.

Quad victories are the end all and be all.

Count our Q1 opportunities, there aren't many.

 

[jncuse]

On your point about maintain west. They had almost no big wins OOC as a conference. They barely even played any big games because they understood blowout wins vs bad teams are more valuable than close losses to good teams In the NET. They scheduled and went all out to beat bad teams by as much as possible. That raised the conference NET so high they had numerous quad 1 opportunities in conference. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that you must be good because of your quad one wins. Then they sucked in the tournament as was expected. Every year recently the ACC has out performed their “bad conference reputation”


BTW I said might be enough. No assumption there, we certainly could get left out

If there is one league that takes advantage of creaming cupcakes it is the B12. Your point on what MWC is doing with their scheduling is inaccurate.

I've been tracking date in my other thread, so its easy to pull. I'm not saying that the MWC doesn't do some tactical scheduling, but the method you are portraying is inaccurate. They don't pile up on creampuffs compared to others. In fact they do less of it.

This year the MWC has played 44% of its games against Q4 Teams. P5 conferences have played 52% (ACC also 52%). This year the MWC has played 24% of its games against the real bottom feeders (bottom half of the Q4)... the P5 has played 33% of its games. It was a similar trend last year.

Where the MWC does schedule differently is that it plays more Q2 and Q3 games, as it hunts Q2 victories for its members in OOC play. The MWC has played 41% of its games as Q2/Q3, while the P5 Leagues are at 26%. The other factor for this is that the MWC is not typically invited to the high profile pre-season tourneys so there games end up being Q2/Q3 rather than Q1.

There were other scheduling reasons that the MWC is able to take advantage of (and its not all NET) that allowed them to get 5 teams in the tourney. And those 5 teams actually did very well in OOC play last year (5-3 in Q1, 10-3 in Q2). But beating creampuffs more than others is not one of them at all.

 

[jncuse]

If NET is overvaluing margin of victory, which frankly I don't think should be a metric at all, no wonder it has SU so low. Nothing sportsmanlike about being able to juice your numbers by scheduling a bunch of cupcakes and intentionally running up the score on them. Plus, the transitive property doesn't hold in most sports... which is exactly what is being implied by including margin of victory in a model.

Each game is it's own statistical universe, governed by matchups and style of play. NET sucks and the only thing it is good for is encouraging s***tty scheduling practices and poor sportsmanship.

The football team would be ranked pretty poorly in a model like NET.

NET is almost entirely based on margin of victory (adjusted to schedule strength). We are getting crushed because of our first 3 games.

As for poor sportsmanship. We were fighting for our lives against 3 cupcakes. Those games had nothing do with sportsmanship on our part. (although I don't think you were implying that)

NET is too margin based and doesn't appear to have any caps built in, which would be nice. But I think its more then fair for a system to consider how much Syracuse struggled against really bad teams.

Thankfully, the NCAA tournament selection is still a W/L game, and a quality of record game so the individual NET can get mostly pushed aside, and its still a fact that we have no bad losses. Unfortunately that is where the ACC's OOC as a whole is really hurting us, because we just aren't going to get enough Q1 and Q2 opportunities.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

As for poor sportsmanship. We were fighting for our lives against 3 cupcakes. Those games had nothing do with sportsmanship on our part. (although I don't think you were implying that)

Yeah, my comment was about scheduling cupcakes to run up the score and game the NET that way. I doubt Red would try to maximize the margin in a blowout... although it's not like we've had too many chances to see...