What's cuse ranked Monday?

[A Clockwork Orange]

No system will ever be perfect. Just accept it as a tool.

And if that's what they do (as it seems they always have) that's perfectly fine. It just seems to me that if computer rankings play a part there should be SOME way to create an algorithm that says "hey, this team swamped this team at their house. Probably should be ranked higher than them."

 

[orange79]

Speaking of the rankings - what is up with the NET ratings???

SYR is currently @ #45 in those??? No way there are 40 teams better than this squad out there...

some of the teams above SYR in the NET are ridiculous:

#41 Texas is 12-10!

#39 Florida 12-9

#37 Ohio State 13-7

#11 Wisconsin is good but @ 16-6 - why SOOO much higher?

Louisville is 16-6 and they are #13

Purdue is #12 @ 15-6


even smaller teams like

#31 Wofford @ 18-4 ...I would put a lot of $$$ on Syr beating them.

#36 Lipscomb @ 17-4 same as wofford.

I think the NCAA is gettin way ahead of itself with this new system - overvaluing trivial things and ignoring overall record BIG TIME.

Hopefully this NET thing isn't really going to be used as the Tourney tool it was supposed to be cuz it makes no sense.

With games through yesterday, we are now #42. We would be much higher if some of the losses (UConn, Oregon, ODU, Buffalo, GT) were wins, Duh, I know. But that has effected our NET ranking. (Currently, our RPI is 35.) It's who you play and who you beat. Road games are gold. Hopefully, Pitt wins a few more games, as last night's game knocked our home win from a Q2 to a Q3, and last night's win from a Q1 to a Q2.

Just like the RPI, the NET can be gamed also. JB was a genius at this with the RPI. Schedule the better teams from the lower-lever conferences, solid mid-majors, strong conference RPI. Lipscomb, to that end, has 9 road wins, and a close road loss at Louisville (4 points). Wofford has a close home loss to #9 UNC, a Q2 win by winning at South Carolina, 7 road wins, etc.

And yes, the selection committee will be using the NET. Things will shake out over the course of the season. From the NCAA: the NET factors in “game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses". So come Selection Sunday, based mainly on SOS, these teams most likely won't be seeded ahead of us. As they play in their conference, their SOS declines each game.

But they certainly won't switch back to the RPI in the middle of the season. Will there be tweaks in the off-season? Most likely.

 

[jncuse]

Speaking of the rankings - what is up with the NET ratings???

SYR is currently @ #45 in those??? No way there are 40 teams better than this squad out there...

some of the teams above SYR in the NET are ridiculous:

#41 Texas is 12-10!

#39 Florida 12-9

#37 Ohio State 13-7

#11 Wisconsin is good but @ 16-6 - why SOOO much higher?

Louisville is 16-6 and they are #13

Purdue is #12 @ 15-6


even smaller teams like

#31 Wofford @ 18-4 ...I would put a lot of $$$ on Syr beating them.

#36 Lipscomb @ 17-4 same as wofford.

I think the NCAA is gettin way ahead of itself with this new system - overvaluing trivial things and ignoring overall record BIG TIME.

Hopefully this NET thing isn't really going to be used as the Tourney tool it was supposed to be cuz it makes no sense.

The NET is ranking teams much closer to the analytical systems. (KP, SAG, BPI)

The Big 10 is probably the best conference in America this year numerically because of how they performed in November and December, 8 of the top 32, 4 of the top 11 in Ken Pom So not surprised to see them do well in the NET.

Interestingly Wofford is also #31 in KenPom, and Lipscomb is #36 in KP. So its not just NET that views them that highly as well. So at least its not just a NET aberration... we would probably be close to a pick em againt them if a game happened today.

The committee has not made it clear as to whether NET, individually will be a key metric. Individually it was irrelevant in the RPI largely because they knew it sucked.

 

[jncuse]

And if that's what they do (as it seems they always have) that's perfectly fine. It just seems to me that if computer rankings play a part there should be SOME way to create an algorithm that says "hey, this team swamped this team at their house. Probably should be ranked higher than them."

They are trying to rank 350 teams. You put in arbitrary exceptions like that and even more jibberish will come out.

 

[jncuse]

With games through yesterday, we are now #42.

Is there a credible LIVE Net out there? Please share the link. Thanks.

I know its not like RPI where it was easy to create. Those guys just saw their sites become worthless.

 

[orange79]

Is there a credible LIVE Net out there? Please share the link. Thanks.

I know its not like RPI where it was easy to create. Those guys just saw their sites become worthless.

There's no live NET rankings that i know of, as the NCAA hasn't released the exact formula of their algorithm.

Although, it's just a matter of time before someone reverse-engineers it (I'm looking at you, 538).

 

[OttoinGrotto]

No system will ever be perfect. Just accept it as a tool.

Oh, I accept a lot of these stat nerds as tools.

 

[HOFCeluck]

And if that's what they do (as it seems they always have) that's perfectly fine. It just seems to me that if computer rankings play a part there should be SOME way to create an algorithm that says "hey, this team swamped this team at their house. Probably should be ranked higher than them."

This sort of cuts both ways coughcougholddomioncoughcough

 

[CardiacCuse]

to me overall record is weighted way too low in the NET rankings.

who have a lot of these teams beaten that are ranked above syracuse and what are their records?

there are a bunch of teams who havent beaten a team like DUKE on the road and who have a worse record than 16-6 (sometimes significantly so) who are ranked above the Orange and that makes -all sense to me.

 

[blust2i3d4]

Media poll 25-29. Coach poll 30-35.

 

[Rage4CUSE]

This is what can be wrong with analytics. We beat Ohio State at their house soundly. They have more losses than SU, and they are ranked eight spots higher because they are playing in a supposedly better conference this year. It's mind-boggling.

Who has said that the B10 is a better conference than the ACC?

 

[Tom K.]

How did we not even budge in the votes? FSU had a single home win versus GT and jumped 3 spots (yeah, I know, those teams lost)
I did not expect to be ranked, at all, but to not even get more votes than the prior week, I'm confused.

Edit: Currently looking at the other teams in that pack to see what their weeks looked like. Thanks to jncuse for that summary.
2nd edit: I suppose it's not a travesty. And after all who cares if we're ranked blah blah blah.

 

[Vorony]

How did we not even budge in the votes? FSU had a single home win versus GT and jumped 3 spots (yeah, I know, those teams lost)
I did not expect to be ranked, at all, but to not even get more votes than the prior week, I'm confused.

Edit: Currently looking at the other teams in that pack to see what their weeks looked like. Thanks to jncuse for that summary.
2nd edit: I suppose it's not a travesty. And after all who cares if we're ranked blah blah blah.

No additional votes this week, but Lipscomb and Wofford have more votes than us. Explain that one.

Also - looks like no votes at all in the coaches poll. But powerhouses Furman, North Texas, and Hofstra are all receiving votes.

 

[Tom K.]

No additional votes this week, but Lipscomb and Wofford have more votes than us. Explain that one.

Also - looks like no votes at all in the coaches poll. But powerhouses Furman, North Texas, and Hofstra are all receiving votes.

Good, okay, it's not just me.

 

[SU94]

No additional votes this week, but Lipscomb and Wofford have more votes than us. Explain that one.

Also - looks like no votes at all in the coaches poll. But powerhouses Furman, North Texas, and Hofstra are all receiving votes.

Rankings matter, but it does not mean they aren't stupid.

 

[Sherman20]

This is what can be wrong with analytics. We beat Ohio State at their house soundly. They have more losses than SU, and they are ranked eight spots higher because they are playing in a supposedly better conference this year. It's mind-boggling.

Analytics that have been developed and refined like KenPom and the BPI are great. But the NET ranking is a joke—another abomination served up by the NCAA, which never knows what it’s doing.

 

[orangecuse]

Donna's article today relative to the new poll.

As for Syracuse -- well, the Orange is right there. SU has won 9 of its last 11. The problem, for me, is those vanquished conference teams have a combined ACC record of 19-41. Throw out Duke, the only ACC team with a winning record on that list, and SU has beaten ACC teams with a combined record of 12-40. (I’ve counted Pittsburgh twice, since SU has already played the Panthers twice.)

 

[Conrad13]

Donna's article today relative to the new poll.

As for Syracuse -- well, the Orange is right there. SU has won 9 of its last 11. The problem, for me, is those vanquished conference teams have a combined ACC record of 19-41. Throw out Duke, the only ACC team with a winning record on that list, and SU has beaten ACC teams with a combined record of 12-40. (I’ve counted Pittsburgh twice, since SU has already played the Panthers twice.)

So if you throw out the best team and only count the other teams' conference records, Syracuse's opponents don't look that impressive (and forget about the fact that Syracuse caused 9 of those losses).

 

[Vorony]

Exactly. We have 7 ACC wins right now. Doesn’t matter who they’re against, they should count a hell of a lot more than whatever conference wins Lipscomb or Wofford have. Why those teams are getting more votes than us is what leaves me scratching my head. Just keep winning...

 

[jncuse]

Who has said that the B10 is a better conference than the ACC?

NET has them and B12 as the best conferences. ACC as #4.

The Big Ten has 11 of the top 58 teams in the NET (78%) which is a very high number. It allows them to beat on each other and not get penalized. The ACC only has 9 (60%). Furthermore the ACC has 3 teams in the 100s, while the Big Ten only has 1.


If you look at something like KP the difference is much closer. But the point being, the numerical systems really like the B10 this year because they played great in November and December. This is after they really sucked last year.

 

[jncuse]

Analytics that have been developed and refined like KenPom and the BPI are great. But the NET ranking is a joke—another abomination served up by the NCAA, which never knows what it’s doing.

I'm not sure if the NET is a joke or not. I haven't been following closely enough. I can tell it is much better than the RPI anyway, which I know is not much of a bar to clear.. but it's a bar.

 

[jncuse]

Two perspectives on this:

I would be fine if we had no votes... the question to ask "Do I expect a voter to have Syracuse in their top 25? " If the answer is no, then why should I expect them to make an improper decision and put them in.

So while I can't blame the voters for not giving Syracuse any votes, I can certainly blame them for giving votes to some of these other teams.

 

[jncuse]

The only team that jumped out of the bottom pack that I had referenced was Baylor. They moved out of the cluster with less than 10 votes up to 44 votes. There was no real possibility for real upward movement because teams 26-31 with one excpetion did really last week, and they picked up more crumbs. WHile last week there was 25 teams over 100 points, now there are 29 teams.

I can see how Baylor jumped out of the group rather than us. They beat Oklahoma and TCU by a combined 58 points. They still have 6 losses though and no Duke.

Part of it may also be that Baylor has a region of voters that will notice when they make a move. Do we have a region of conference voters that supports us now that we are in the ACC?

 

[jordville]

JB didn't even give us a vote...

 

[br801]

JB didn't even give us a vote...

I may have this wrong, but I seem to remember JB would have Hop fill out his ballot in the Coaches Poll in the past. Not sure if he still has an assistant coach doing the honors.