Big East OOC tracker - December

[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.

 

[SoFla Steve]

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?

From the article . . .

NCAA announces changes to NET ranking system​

By RILEY GATES May 11, 2020

On Monday afternoon, the NCAA announced changes to the NET ranking system. The ranking will now lean on just two factors: Team Value Index and adjusted net efficiency rating. TVI rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly in road games or at neutral sites. Adjusted efficiency takes strength of opponent and location into account when analyzing just how valuable a win was.

The old NET ranking system included those two factors, while also taking into consideration: winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. But after consulting with Google Cloud Professional Services, those factors were dropped.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

From the article . . .

NCAA announces changes to NET ranking system​

By RILEY GATES May 11, 2020

On Monday afternoon, the NCAA announced changes to the NET ranking system. The ranking will now lean on just two factors: Team Value Index and adjusted net efficiency rating. TVI rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly in road games or at neutral sites. Adjusted efficiency takes strength of opponent and location into account when analyzing just how valuable a win was.

The old NET ranking system included those two factors, while also taking into consideration: winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. But after consulting with Google Cloud Professional Services, those factors were dropped.

If they say so. Since the formula is a black box, and the Big 12 is ranked as the #1 league in NET despite few quality OOC wins, I am going to go with my description.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

75% was not out of a team's control. 50% was the opponents' winning percentage. Schedule cupcakes and get punished, schedule tough opponents, and get rewarded. The last 25% was opponents' opponents' record, but all that meant was playing the best team in a bad league didn't warp the RPI that much.

People can say it was easy to game, but if everyone knows how to game it, then anyone can do it and it is no longer really gaming the system. The NET is a black box that some leagues or schools may or may not have access too. It does not get more out of a team's control than that.

 

[MU in MKE]

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

I probably could have worded it better. What I mean by that is 75% of a teams control over their RPI is not affected by what the team does on the court. A far greater part of that, at least 75%, had more to do with scheduling than a team actually playing a game.

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.

This is the point I'm trying to make, but it is difficult through printed word. Neither the RPI nor the NET are used to pick the 68 teams directly. They are just a sorting tool to help the committee read the team resumes. That's why you want the best tool to actually tell you how good a team is, which is one in which you're using analytics to measure performance and the win/loss column of individual games. The W/L record is what gets you picked... the RPI/NET are just tools to determine how good or bad your W or L was. That's why the RPI is wholly inappropriate for the usage.

When it came out it was the best solution at the time, before most personal computers and spreadsheets existed. However, we have tools available to us now that make an analytical approach easy. We have for a long time, but as with most things, the NCAA is not quick to change or improve.

 

[JonnyRI]

Saragin rankings vs Top 50

BE 15-16
B12 10-6
B10 19-28
ACC 10-26

BE looking good. Pac12 so bad not worth posting.

 

[auror]

RPI was just not a very accurate measure of EITHER strength of record OR predictive team strength. Yeah it was more transparent and thus predictable, but that doesn't mean it was accurately measuring anything important.

NET is pretty good at both, but intentionally geared to do both so not perfect at either. That being said, by tournament time it's totally fine and a good enough metric for committee to use for organizing.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

This is the point I'm trying to make, but it is difficult through printed word. Neither the RPI nor the NET are used to pick the 68 teams directly. They are just a sorting tool to help the committee read the team resumes. That's why you want the best tool to actually tell you how good a team is, which is one in which you're using analytics to measure performance and the win/loss column of individual games. The W/L record is what gets you picked... the RPI/NET are just tools to determine how good or bad your W or L was. That's why the RPI is wholly inappropriate for the usage.

When it came out it was the best solution at the time, before most personal computers and spreadsheets existed. However, we have tools available to us now that make an analytical approach easy. We have for a long time, but as with most things, the NCAA is not quick to change or improve.

Got it. That's not bad I guess. I can live with that. Your W-L is most important and then they use the NET to evaluate the quality of those Wins and Losses on your record. Fair enough

But am I the only weirdo that thinks the NCAA should not be the gatekeepers to this formula?

Can we at least agree that the formula should be public and not kept in secret?

It just really rubs me the wrong way that the NCAA is the only one that has access to NET. Make it public and allow everyone to know what is the tool used to evaluate the quality of your wins and losses.

And are you really keeping it secret or are there a few insiders out there that already know the formula? Also, with how powerful computing power are nowadays isn't it technically possible to brute force (the few terms I remember from my CompSci days. lol) it and end up reverse engineering the formula anyway?


I can probably input the data points of the past two weeks into an AWS analytics service and run it until develops a formula that closely resembles the results of published NET

 

[Big East Fa]

Tuesday 12/14/21
Arizona State @ Creighton, 8:00, FS1 - Kevin Kugler, Bill Raftery
Line: Creighton -7.5/136.5

DePaul @ UIC, 8:00, ESPN+ - Jonathan Hood (PBP), Kenny Williams
Line: DePaul -10.5/142.5

 

[HooperScooper]

Anyone else watching this Creighton-Arizona St. game? I'm glad to know UConn isn't the only team in the BE that sometimes struggles mightily from three. Creighton is 5-25 from three with less than 4 minutes left and down by 2 points.

 

[shizzle787]

89-24. Bad loss for Creighton. 22-17 against the P5.