You Can't Fool The NET. UConn still 4th.

[Sphinx]

Well, we're still 4th this morning in the NET rankings. As far as yesterday's 28-point romp over a top Quad1 opponent, move along, nothing to see here.

Those relying othe eye test to rank teams are urged to get the eyes examined.Anyone relying

 

[Sphinx]

Well, we're still 4th this morning in the NET rankings. As far as yesterday's 28-point romp over a top Quad1 opponent, move along, nothing to see here.

Those relying othe eye test to rank teams are urged to get the eyes examined.Anyone relying

Sorry for the scrap. My computer tends to push its own buttons.

Here's the rest.

Well, we're still 4th this morning in the NET rankings. As far as yesterday's 28-point romp over a top Quad1 opponent, move along, nothing to see here.

Those relying on the eye test to rank teams are urged to get the eyes examined.

Of course, the game was at Gampel, or at least as far as the NET is concerned, it was. Home court is home court.

Except when you travel 3000 miles to Seattle to beat the pants off a Quad 1 Gonzaga team. Then home court for the opponent becomes a neutral court.

Oh, well.

 

[navery12]

In a vacuum we probably should have moved up, we had the most dominating win of the college basketball season relative to competition. But the 2 teams above us who played were Houston with a 21 point win over a solid Texas team and Arizona with a 45 point win over Arizona State

 

[Palatine]

Kenpom Houston 1, UConn 2, Purdue 3.

UConn offense 3, UConn defense 11.

 

[businesslawyer]

Sorry for the scrap. My computer tends to push its own buttons.

Here's the rest.

Well, we're still 4th this morning in the NET rankings. As far as yesterday's 28-point romp over a top Quad1 opponent, move along, nothing to see here.

Those relying on the eye test to rank teams are urged to get the eyes examined.

Of course, the game was at Gampel, or at least as far as the NET is concerned, it was. Home court is home court.

Except when you travel 3000 miles to Seattle to beat the pants off a Quad 1 Gonzaga team. Then home court for the opponent becomes a neutral court.

Oh, well.

The thought that every single computer ranking is going to produce results that meet your eye test is the “nothing to see here” story. If there was one way for computers to rank teams, we wouldn’t have all the various services being used.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

None of this bothers me all that much. We will get at worst, reasonable respect with our seeding for the tournament and from there, it's up to us to perform.

On a side note, I saw a chart that had us with (I believe) nine Q-4 wins (considerably more than those ahead of us). I think we need to cut a couple of those out but I can somewhat understand the thought process at least for this year. With normal seasons for UNC, Gonzaga, Texas and Indiana, we should have had more than sufficient strength of scheduling with an excess of Q-4 games thrown in.

 

[Hunt for 7]

Until or if we play the three teams that are in front of us in some of the models we will not know. But if there is a better team in college basketball my eyes have not seen it. Remember when the term eye test was used before the math geeks decided to take all the art form of sport and break it down to numbers. I can paint the Mona Lisa if it was paint by numbers. The only reason I even follow the analytics is because the people that make decisions seem to rely on them. Especially if they favor teams from the Midwest as the ncaa has always had a bias for the part of the country that they are based. And as for the guy from the committee that was on the selection show talking about how they made their picks not impressed. Needs to learn how to speak without using slang and verbalizing all of his transitional words.

 

[giddyup]

The NCAA seeding committee just put Purdue 1st and us 2nd unanimously…because they have one more quad 1 win, despite us 1 for weeks on end. They have UNC on the second line … but just got beat by the Fruits. So, it’s all a bunch of BS. That’s why the games get played. At least we have some locker room material that should have our guys playing with a chip on their shoulders. Eph Purdue.

 

[7774]

Until or if we play the three teams that are in front of us in some of the models we will not know. But if there is a better team in college basketball my eyes have not seen it. Remember when the term eye test was used before the math geeks decided to take all the art form of sport and break it down to numbers. I can paint the Mona Lisa if it was paint by numbers. The only reason I even follow the analytics is because the people that make decisions seem to rely on them. Especially if they favor teams from the Midwest as the ncaa has always had a bias for the part of the country that they are based. And as for the guy from the committee that was on the selection show talking about how they made their picks not impressed. Needs to learn how to speak without using slang and verbalizing all of his transitional words.

They do still use the eye test. It’s part of the reason we‘re the 2nd overall seed even though we’re 4th in NET. We may have been the top seed if those rankings came out today instead of yesterday. The Midwest thing is bizarre, but you seem to make up things like that on the regular.

 

[Jaydumo20]

You can release these metrics behind closed doors, without much of an argument behind it. Numbers definitely provide a coarse differentiation between certain tiers of teams. But ask any analyst to say with a straight face that Houston and Arizona are better than this UConn team. (I mean, I guess Karl Malone did win an mvp over Jordan)

 

[Tenspro2002]

NET is a coarse binning tool, not a fine sifting tool. It will get you in the ballpark, but beyond that it doesn't mean much.

Coming into yesterday you could argue that, well, we won 13 in a row, but only one of those was against a definite NCAA Tournament team, so that doesn't mean much.

After yesterday, that doesn't hold up. This is the second #2-seed caliber team that we have beaten handily.

And, if you believe that the best indicator of where we stand is Vegas odds -- we're currently the favorite to win the championship (+550, or, accounting for vig, ~13%) and have the best odds of anyone to make the Final Four (+120, ~40%).

 

[Hunt for 7]

They do still use the eye test. It’s part of the reason we‘re the 2nd overall seed even though we’re 4th in NET. We may have been the top seed if those rankings came out today instead of yesterday. The Midwest thing is bizarre, but you seem to make up things like that on the regular.

Opinions and just like the last time you challenged one of my opinions in a forum based mostly on opinions, I produced some facts and you went away. Perhaps why don’t you try having an opinion occasionally rather than trolling and insulting others. Might be good for you.

 

[cohenzone]

The thought that every single computer ranking is going to produce results that meet your eye test is the “nothing to see here” story. If there was one way for computers to rank teams, we wouldn’t have all the various services being used.

Not only that, but who gives a sheet.

 

[AllHusky]

No more analysis necessary. Win the BE, BET and get busy with whoever gets in our way. Time to throw down, not debate.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

1 seed. Brooklyn. Boston. The rest doesn’t matter.

 

[ToolzieFan]

If you look at our analytic ratings since we’ve been fully healthy, they match the “eye test” 100%.

 

[BFieldHusky]

Seth Davis said yesterday Arizona has no Q1 games left on their schedule. I would think if we win @Creighton or @Marquette, we will jump them. The other metrics like us a little better. Like @UConnTrumbull said all that matters in the end is 1 seed, Brooklyn and then Boston.

 

[storrsroars]

Most of y'all know I married into Pitt fandom. So I follow them quite a bit to stay on my wife's good side. Pitt's last three games were a 3 point away win over NC State, an 11 point away win over #21 UVA, and a 33 point home win over putrid L'vile.

IIRC, the NC St win boosted their NET from 67 to 61. The UVA win boosted them from 61 to 54. And now the home win over L'ville takes them from 54 to 47.

Fully recognizing that the rankings on any day will be fluid dependent on how the teams ranked around them perform, it just seems nuts to me that Pitt could benefit from a home win against a pathetic team as much as a road win against a ranked team.

 

[Gurleyman]

I’m not terribly worried about the metrics. Purdue hasn’t dealt with a single injury. Same starting 5 all 25 games. The top 3 off the bench have played all 25 games. The ninth guy missed one game in November, but he averages 1 ppg.

Xavier was really the first time we had our starting 5 in place and no minutes restrictions. Then Karaban went down first half against PC. We've had to adapt on the fly, and fall behind schedule, particularly with Castle’s development. Clingan also is relatively inexperienced in his current role and learning how to be a focal point of the offense and avoid fouls.

The metrics won’t show that we were running at 75 percent capacity, but the eyeball test should reveal how strong we are at 100 percent. Computers don’t have eyeballs.

All that said, we will face a few tests on the road in Omaha and Milwaukee, and PC will give us their best shot. Hostile environments. Maybe we’ll take a step back, but if it makes us take a few more steps forward in the tourney, its all good.

 

[auror]

Most of y'all know I married into Pitt fandom. So I follow them quite a bit to stay on my wife's good side. Pitt's last three games were a 3 point away win over NC State, an 11 point away win over #21 UVA, and a 33 point home win over putrid L'vile.

IIRC, the NC St win boosted their NET from 67 to 61. The UVA win boosted them from 61 to 54. And now the home win over L'ville takes them from 54 to 47.

Fully recognizing that the rankings on any day will be fluid dependent on how the teams ranked around them perform, it just seems nuts to me that Pitt could benefit from a home win against a pathetic team as much as a road win against a ranked team.

What we're not seeing when looking at ranks is the actual distance inbetween the ranks.

Especially at the extremes (like top 3), there can be big separation from the field.

The NET is clearly underrating us, though, and I'm not totally sure why. We have a strong record and strong efficiency performance.

 

[storrsroars]

What we're not seeing when looking at ranks is the actual distance inbetween the ranks.

Especially at the extremes (like top 3), there can be big separation from the field.

The NET is clearly underrating us, though, and I'm not totally sure why. We have a strong record and strong efficiency performance.

Fair point, and if that's the case, that metric value should be part of the published rankings.

 

[Hunt for 7]

They do still use the eye test. It’s part of the reason we‘re the 2nd overall seed even though we’re 4th in NET. We may have been the top seed if those rankings came out today instead of yesterday. The Midwest thing is bizarre, but you seem to make up things like that on the regular.

So what you should do regarding the Midwest comment. Check the winning percentage of big10 teams in the tourney over the last ten years. Where did that come from? It came from the history of how many undeserving big10 teams get bids. Do you even listen to what Danny says about lack of respect and the politics of the game. Wow where did that come from as well as the stated fact it came from a lifetime of watching middling un-athletic big 10 teams getting spanked in the first and second round of the tournament.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

I’m not terribly worried about the metrics. Purdue hasn’t dealt with a single injury. Same starting 5 all 25 games. The top 3 off the bench have played all 25 games. The ninth guy missed one game in November, but he averages 1 ppg.

Xavier was really the first time we had our starting 5 in place and no minutes restrictions. Then Karaban went down first half against PC. We've had to adapt on the fly, and fall behind schedule, particularly with Castle’s development. Clingan also is relatively inexperienced in his current role and learning how to be a focal point of the offense and avoid fouls.

The metrics won’t show that we were running at 75 percent capacity, but the eyeball test should reveal how strong we are at 100 percent. Computers don’t have eyeballs.

All that said, we will face a few tests on the road in Omaha and Milwaukee, and PC will give us their best shot. Hostile environments. Maybe we’ll take a step back, but if it makes us take a few more steps forward in the tourney, its all good.

That is the quote of the day!

 

[willie99]

Eye test

UConn Number 1, my eyes don't lie

But liars figure and figures lie

And I'm so cool with it all. We get to play the games, that's all that matters

 

[navery12]

So what you should do regarding the Midwest comment. Check the winning percentage of big10 teams in the tourney over the last ten years. Where did that come from? It came from the history of how many undeserving big10 teams get bids. Do you even listen to what Danny says about lack of respect and the politics of the game. Wow where did that come from as well as the stated fact it came from a lifetime of watching middling un-athletic big 10 teams getting spanked in the first and second round of the tournament.

As with most of the things you post, this is not true. This data is for 1985-2019 and since then the Big Ten is 36-34 which makes them 59.36%

The top of the Big Ten is absolutely overrated, but the middle and bubble teams have actually performed pretty well recently. Michigan State and Michigan have both made runs as low seeds recently. I wouldn't say there's a Midwest bias as much as there's just a bias for all P6 teams on the bubble