Big East OOC tracker - December

[Big East Fa]

Sunday

Colgate @ St. John's, 12pm, FS1 -Alex Faust, Casey Jacobsen
Line: St. John's-7

6 Villanova @ 2 Baylor, 3:00, ABC - Jon Sciambi, Dick Vitale, Kris Budden
Line: Baylor -4.5/138.5

Rutgers @ 23 Seton Hall, 7:30, FS1 -Alex Faust, Casey Jacobsen
Line: Seton Hall -10

 

[shizzle787]

87-22. Two big ones to go.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Conference average NET rankings as of today

B12 38.8
BE 62.3
B10 70.2
SEC 85
ACC 98.2
PAC12 112.4
MW 114.2
AAC 128.6
WCC 138.3
A10 140.7


It's gonna be hard to catch up the B12. That's why the last two match-ups of B.E-B12 Battle are so important

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Conference average NET rankings as of today

B12 38.8
BE 62.3
B10 70.2
SEC 85
ACC 98.2
PAC12 112.4
MW 114.2
AAC 128.6
WCC 138.3
A10 140.7


It's gonna be hard to catch up the B12. That's why the B.E-B12 Battle is so important

This ranking has zero credibility. It rewards major conference teams for sandbagging their OOC. The NCAA is making a mockery of tournament selection. There was nothing wrong with RPI.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

This ranking has zero credibility. It rewards major conference teams for sandbagging their OOC. The NCAA is making a mockery of tournament selection. There was nothing wrong with RPI.

I personally prefer the RPI also. But I seem to be the exception. Most people think the RPI is crappy

My thing is... there is no perfect formula to pick the top 68. The RPI was at the very least transparent and straightforward when it came to its emphasis in W-L and the W-L records of your peers. So there was direct relation of a good RPI to W&Ls...

Now we have an obscure NET formula that we don't even know what goes into it. Makes it so much easier for the NCAA to tweak it in such a way that helps the major conferences and at the end of the day its probably not better than the RPI anyway.

So why get rid of the RPI in the first place? Oh well

 

[ucp990411]

There's going to be a lot of upsets in the conference this year. My guess is the conference champion has 5 or 6 losses. Nova, Seton Hall, UConn, Xavier and Providence are all worthy of being ranked, and the two supposed weakest teams in the conference beat Oklahoma and Syracuse this week. The only other league comparable from top to bottom is the Big 12.

Don't you mean the conference runner up will have 5-6 losses? Because we are not losing 5 conference games.

 

[jibsey]

Nova has 25 points against Baylor with 7 and change left. Baylor defense. A shame we never got Akinjo, he can drive, not a good outside shooter though.

 

[shizzle787]

87-23. 21-16 vs. the P5. Need a Seton Hall win tonight.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Baylor is a wagon. They pounded Nova. Their toughest game of the year so far's been VCU.

 

[jibsey]

Baylor is a wagon. They pounded Nova. Their toughest game of the year so far's been VCU.

They played great defense but hand deflected the ball like crazy. I'd like to think we would have done better against them.

 

[shizzle787]

Currently 8 Big East teams in Massey top 50. All 11 teams inside the top 125 (10 inside top 100).

 

[Kolumbo]

87-23. 21-16 vs. the P5. Need a Seton Hall win tonight.

Purdue won at NC State and Seton Hall needs to keep Rutgers in its place. Meanwhile the juggernaut Monmouth is beating Pitt 36-19 at the half. What a tragic story in the steel town.

 

[elmcityboy]

kind of a ref show here in new jersey. cool atmosphere with all of the blue and red in the room, though.

need hall to win this, clearly.

 

[Friarsnoop]

So far, the Big East has 5 losses to teams that aren't legitimate NCAA bid contenders as if now, and Georgetown has 4 of them. Butler has the other, Texas A&M. You could argue that three of those losses (A&M, South Carolina, and San Diego State) could play their way into bid consideration, which means the Georgetown losses to Dartmouth and St. Joe's are the only truly bad losses thus far in OOC play.

The Big East and Big 12 are the two conferences where no team is an automatic win.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Rutgers is putting up a fight. There is a lot of street ball by both sides, and the refs have missed a half dozen clear travels, but they are missing them both ways so I guess it is OK.

 

[shizzle787]

88-23. 22-16 vs. the P5. Need to go 8-2 the rest of the way with no bad losses.

 

[Get a Job]

Don't you mean the conference runner up will have 5-6 losses? Because we are not losing 5 conference games.

I know you're smack talking an opposing fan, so I apologize for interjecting. But do you really think we will lose 4 or fewer conference games? I would be utterly shocked (and giddy) if this team wins 16 Big East games.

 

[jibsey]

We have a talented deep team heavy on older player experience but we make a lot of mistakes, turnovers and are not great shooting from 3. With Martin and Sanogo we will be in every game but will lose a bunch of BE games I think.

 

[MU in MKE]

I personally prefer the RPI also. But I seem to be the exception. Most people think the RPI is crappy

My thing is... there is no perfect formula to pick the top 68. The RPI was at the very least transparent and straightforward when it came to its emphasis in W-L and the W-L records of your peers. So there was direct relation of a good RPI to W&Ls...

Now we have an obscure NET formula that we don't even know what goes into it. Makes it so much easier for the NCAA to tweak it in such a way that helps the major conferences and at the end of the day its probably not better than the RPI anyway.

So why get rid of the RPI in the first place? Oh well

RPI was way too simplistic and could be easily manipulated. You could schedule your OOC against decent mid major teams only and beat them and wait for them to dominate their conference... but another team who plays better high major competition who then goes on to go .500 in their conference play would have a lower RPI. That is only one flaw of many.

NET is not perfect, they need to change how running up the score on low level competition is counted, but overall the NET matches well with some of the rating systems like Kenpom. The main difference though is NET starts from scratch each year while Kenpom and the others have last season data baked in until January-ish. Thats why NET swings so much earlier in the year and takes a while to settle out (also why you don't see it until December at least).

But remember, in the end NET is not what seed lines are based on. NET is only the barrometer used to measure a resume. So UConn at NET 15 doesn't make it a top 4 seed... but it tells the committee that a team who plays UConn has played a Q1 level team. That idea further dilutes the power of the NET and provides more wiggle room to make sense of who really deserves a bid.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

RPI was way too simplistic and could be easily manipulated. You could schedule your OOC against decent mid major teams only and beat them and wait for them to dominate their conference... but another team who plays better high major competition who then goes on to go .500 in their conference play would have a lower RPI. That is only one flaw of many.

NET is not perfect, they need to change how running up the score on low level competition is counted, but overall the NET matches well with some of the rating systems like Kenpom. The main difference though is NET starts from scratch each year while Kenpom and the others have last season data baked in until January-ish. Thats why NET swings so much earlier in the year and takes a while to settle out (also why you don't see it until December at least).

But remember, in the end NET is not what seed lines are based on. NET is only the barrometer used to measure a resume. So UConn at NET 15 doesn't make it a top 4 seed... but it tells the committee that a team who plays UConn has played a Q1 level team. That idea further dilutes the power of the NET and provides more wiggle room to make sense of who really deserves a bid.

The RPI was straight forward. Your record, your opponents' record, and your opponents' opponents' record, with an adjustment for home and away. Everyone understood how it worked, and no one could complain when they finished the season with a low RPI. The only real complaint, that some high majors gamed the system by playing a lot of mid-majors is way overblown. Playing decent mid major teams is a risk, because those teams occasionally beat the high majors. If a team is willing to take the risk and play a MAC or MAAC team instead of Central, they deserve the reward.

NET rewards running up the score on bad teams. Leagues like the Big 12 have already cut back on major conference opponents, because why bother?

 

[Big East Fa]

Purdue won at NC State and Seton Hall needs to keep Rutgers in its place. Meanwhile the juggernaut Monmouth is beating Pitt 36-19 at the half. What a tragic story in the steel town.

Anytime Pitt & Syracuse lose a game is a good day. Pitt draws no fans. The Oakland Zoo is dead. Glad they like the ACC.

 

[Kolumbo]

Anytime Pitt & Syracuse lose a game is a good day. Pitt draws no fans. The Oakland Zoo is dead. Glad they like the ACC.

I checked out their board and some are calling for bulldozing Peterson and building an on-campus football stadium with a smaller hoops court. Which then led me to look up the old pitt stadium of course.

 

[Big East Fa]

I checked out their board and some are calling for bulldozing Peterson and building an on-campus football stadium with a smaller hoops court. Which then led me to look up the old pitt stadium of course.

View attachment 71804

LOL, Nuts. Peterson Event Center opened in 2002.

 

[MU in MKE]

The RPI was straight forward. Your record, your opponents' record, and your opponents' opponents' record, with an adjustment for home and away. Everyone understood how it worked, and no one could complain when they finished the season with a low RPI. The only real complaint, that some high majors gamed the system by playing a lot of mid-majors is way overblown. Playing decent mid major teams is a risk, because those teams occasionally beat the high majors. If a team is willing to take the risk and play a MAC or MAAC team instead of Central, they deserve the reward.

NET rewards running up the score on bad teams. Leagues like the Big 12 have already cut back on major conference opponents, because why bother?

It's way more than that. it is indeed straight foward... too much so. 75% of the RPI was out of team's control, the only influence being who they scheduled against. Gaming could be done lots of ways and none of which actually measured how good or not a team actually is. That last part is key, because of how the NET is used in determining the quadrant system and not for seeding. You want to really know the skill level of a team, not using it to hang banners. No one is meant to hang their hat on being NET #1, it's just a tool used to figure out how good of an opponent a team played.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

It's way more than that. it is indeed straight foward... too much so. 75% of the RPI was out of team's control, the only influence being who they scheduled against. Gaming could be done lots of ways and none of which actually measured how good or not a team actually is. That last part is key, because of how the NET is used in determining the quadrant system and not for seeding. You want to really know the skill level of a team, not using it to hang banners. No one is meant to hang their hat on being NET #1, it's just a tool used to figure out how good of an opponent a team played.

You can't say 75% of the RPI was out of a teams control and also say it was easy to manipulate. You gotta pick one or the other plz

When it doubt always choose transparency. I don't trust the NCAA, I don't trust the Football 5.

I prefer everyone gaming the RPI under a transparent, public formula. Everyone gaming it neutralizes its effect. What you have right now is a formula the public doesn't know about but at the same time - you create insiders and outsiders. I'm sure the formula has leaked to insiders now. So now you have information asymmetry which can lead to way more abuse than the RPI.

The RPI also withstood the test of time for several decades. There was no reason to change it. It actually makes me suspicious that it was recently changed to the NET at a time where the Football 5 are looking for more and more control of everything.

If it were to me I would gladly bring the RPI back. Besides at the end of the day what you are trying to do is pick 68 teams. Then do it in the most transparent way possible.

If a particular program couldn't find a way to fit in the top 68 then you didn't deserve it in the first place. All this controversy over being left out means you didn't work hard enough to get in with a doubt. If you are program that is a sure top 25 you will get in no matter what.