WE'RE RANKED 11th
-
Agreed. last time UConn won it was maybe a marginal top 20 team; same with KU in 1988. This is why I am in favor to cutting down the field to 8 byes and 16 that play-in to get to 16 teams and then play best of 3 or best of 5.
-
@BShark I believe the @BigBad post was meant to include all 3 games played at the Final 4, as made clear by the statement referring to no doubt who was #1, meaning the champ. G Mason was a F4 participant, but that is irrelevant to the comment.
-
-
@mayjay Exactly
-
I about said “be patient, more info may change it up for the better as the season moves on” – until I say what Nate Silver said.
-
Nate Silver is jumping the gun. Look at what Ken Massey, who I have mentioned before and believe has the best rating system, had to respond.
I will guess simulations of the system were run using information from previous years at different times of the season and the final results were found to be valid…at least a reasonable person would think they did.
-
It’s a steaming pile. What Nate said.
-
After stepping back and reevaluating this, I am ok with it. This is a simple and transparent tool that places teams within the quadrants for the seeding later on. So, playing a weak schedule hurts you even more, imo.
If you play a weak schedule, and win, the NET puts you up higher. If you are higher in the NET than you should be, you will be gifting other teams higher quality wins and sacrificing them yourself. Once this is broken out into quadrants, that is when the evaluation starts for seeding. They didn’t seed teams based on RPI alone in the past and they won’t with this either. As far as lumping teams in to quadrants, this seems like it will serve it’s purpose just fine by season’s end.
-
It appears that all teams started as equals which makes sense for a computer based program. why throw in a human prediction after all. It also appears that as the date a game is played is not tracked the team order will be recalculated each and every time a game is entered into the system taking into account all of the games played to that point by every team no matter how remotely connected. That would result in a great deal of volatility at the beginning which would slowly stabilize as more data was entered. I am curious if the program is setup to recalculate at each entry or if it will be done daily or weekly. I would have set it up to show real time results however I likely would at most show a daily list with a weekly list being most probable just to avoid all the screaming as teams bounce about from games they are not involved with.
I haven’t done any programming in a long time so I may be totally off on some of this to be sure. I do cringe more than a bit about the amount of data that is going to be crunched each time the data is recalculated. Just keep in mind that to error is human and it takes a computer to really screw things up!!
-
The amount of data is not that big. Let’s assume that by the end of the season teams have played 30 games each times 350 teams divided by 2, since each game involves 2 teams, results in app. 5,250 games which in computing is a very small data set that would take seconds to recalculate and could be shown in real time but I assume it will be done initially weekly and later in the season hopefully more often.
-
@JayHawkFanToo information will be tallied for each team for each game so can’t divide by 2 I believe. However you are correct in that it will take just a few seconds to tally things up. With multiple data points per team and multiple calculations the data will add up however I am not worried about the data creating storage or runtime issues more of the possiblity of a small error compounding daily into a huge issue.
-
So…the NUMBER 1 SEED in the new ranking system gets their ass handed to them by a 3-2 Syracuse team on their home floor. What Nate said.
-
Michigan will beat UNC by 10.
-
@KUSTEVE …“just a little outside”.
-
Still not digging these NET ranking. Dook loses at home to a bubble team in Syracuse albeit missing some players but still only fall from 2 to 4 while we beat a Texas team that’s probably fairly even maybe a touch better on paper than Syracuse and drop from 12th to 13th. Yet a 4 loss Nebraska and UNC team sit 10th and 11th tho they ain’t missing players or playing a schedule that as tough as ours thus far. Just seems crazy that if they base a ton of those ranking and the tournament was tomorrow we’d be a 4 seed with 2 losses against Kenpoms #1 SOS.
-
@kjayhawks it is replacing the rpi. Not seeding teams. Just keep that in mind.
-
@Kcmatt7 Right and they didn’t always go straight off of the RPI, it was just one of the tools they used. I’m just saying I’m unimpressed from it so far.
-
@kjayhawks What is unimpressive about it so far?
Side by side:
Looks more accurate than the RPI through the top 50 to me. But, I’d love to hear why you disagree.
-
@Kcmatt7 NET still has some big flaws as well. Houston at 8, Nebraska at 10 immediately stand out to me.
Other teams that are nowhere near what their NET ranking is are LSU, Purdue, Louisville, Wisconsin, Nevada, San Francisco, Florida, Texas, Liberty, Lipscomb, and Seton Hall among the top 50 teams. Nevada is in there because of 23 is way too low compared to how good they actually are.
I’m not saying Houston is a bad team, but they’re not 8th and Nebraska isn’t the 10th best team.
I agree it’s better than the RPI, but it still has some major flaws in its system that need to be worked out before the RPI should be kicked to the curb.
-
KU sure knew how to crush the RPI. LOL
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Fully agree with you. Definitely has flaws. I’m just trying to show that it isn’t any bit of a downgrade from what it replaced. Maybe it was a waste of time because it is pretty close to the same dang thing, but it isn’t like SO atrocious that I can’t believe they are using it.
-
@Kcmatt7 Well I pretty much stated my issue with it but while we are on topic, Nebraska and Houston are way too high along with UNC. Nevada isn’t getting any love IMO. I personally think the NET must be putting too much on margin of victory because there isn’t a rating system that I’ve seen KU lower than 9th in. I prefer Kenpom but don’t always agree a 100% with it. I’m just saying a team with only 2 losses against the top SOS land should be higher. I don’t have an issue with the top 4 in NET. I also never said that RPI is superior ether. I’ll guarantee if you pick a bracket of off any of the ratings systems it will be junk after the first weekend.
-
@Kcmatt7 1 vs 12 is same?
Maybe I’m missing something.
-
@Bwag well technically as far as putting a win or loss in a quadrant, yes, they are equivalent.
-
I don’t know… it seems to point to our late game drop offs… barely holding on to victories instead of keeping the score up.
I’m okay with that.
We need to close out games better and maybe this helps.
-
My point is simply that this is not meant to be the AP top 25. It actually falls somewhere in between the Massey and Kenp rankings if you compare it to that. Much closer than the RPI rankings. Both of which has Nebraska and Purdue high as well.
It is replacing only the RPI. Compare it to the RPI only and I think you see improvement. Instead of taking a bias against the NCAA just because, point out it’s flaws compared to the RPI. Is it better or worse? If better is the answer, than that’s an improvement and should be applauded instead of criticized. At least, that’s how I see it. We will see in 10 weeks though I guess.
-
@Kcmatt7 I’ll believe when I see it when it comes to this replacing the RPI. The the RPI rankings still exist mean they’re going to be used and the selection committee members aren’t likely changing their ways any time soon. I still think the RPI will be used more heavily than the NET system in March.
-
@Kcmatt7 “…point out it’s flaws compared to the RPI. Is it better or worse?”
Specifically, it’s just backasswards stupid. The RPI is only stupid.