DePaul and the Big East

[navery12]

The NET includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.

--------------------------------

I'm going to make this super simple.

Quad 1 wins are better than Quad 4

Depaul is in Quad 4

Shocking that there is a discussion, but there is no debate

Computer modules, RPI, KenPom, NCAA Net Rankings and every metric known to mankind takes into account your opponents and their strength in some manner or another

Geez, if we only had more 300+ schools in the Big East, our body of work might be better than Purdue's!!!!!!!!!!

Whoop whoop whoop

You should really quit before you get dunked on for the 3rd time in this thread, as enjoyable as it is to watch

 

[FearThePups]

The quads are an output of the NET, not an input.

You could absolutely have a schedule entirely of Quad 4 games and be #1 in the NET if you won the games by enough points. Right now Indiana State is #29 and their best win is at Bradley. They've played 19 Quad 3 or Quad 4 games so far. Their resume metric ranks are 21, 30, and 40. Again, their best win is at Bradley and their 2nd best win is home against Drake.

There's been a whole narrative in college basketball this season about the B12 and teams like Houston and Iowa St blowing bad teams out and juicing their NET (but that's a whole other topic which is kinda right but mostly wrong).

What you said was:


Beating DePaul is not keeping anyone out of the tournament. DePaul isn't going to beat any of our bubble teams. If they do, that bubble team doesn't deserve to get into the tournament.

Is there an opportunity cost to DePaul on the schedule vs. a better team? Possibly. But you might lose to that better team, and you're not losing to DePaul. In fact it's quite easy to beat them by a lot of points, especially since they fired their coach. As I mentioned, their net rating change has gifted BE teams increases in their metrics overall. BE bubble teams this season have 11 Q1 opportunities in league play. Lack of Q1 wins for our bubble teams is only a problem if you're not good enough to win them.

But even aside from scoring margin, none of the "resume" metrics give you a demerit for beating anybody. Beating DePaul is not hurting anybody's resume. The baseline is positive movement for a win (although in DePaul's case it's close to zero, but it's not negative). The "predictive" metrics it depends on your margin of victory, but again, it's not hurting you if you beat them by enough. It's within your control. These metrics have been designed to judge quality of teams in all manner of conferences with varying membership strengths. You can show your quality against anyone and move up. As you said, there are other factors that go into the ranking, but those factors only really determine how much you need to beat them (on a per possession basis) to move up.

They said there’d be no math.

 

[WestHartHusk]

So this school gets the same TV and tournament money as UConn?

 

[How Sway?!]

So this school gets the same TV and tournament money as UConn?

No, Big East distributes tourney money on weighted basis.

 

[WestHartHusk]

No, Big East distributes tourney money on weighted basis.

TV too?

 

[willie99]

You should really quit before you get dunked on for the 3rd time in this thread, as enjoyable as it is to watch

Right, playing DePaul helps the Big East

LMFAO

You have to tell the college basketball world to stop worrying about Quad 1 wins, all they have to do is beat Quad 4 teams

What a clueless argument

 

[freescooter]

TV too?

No. Equal shares.

 

[Luna]

No, Big East distributes tourney money on weighted basis.

They do?… I didn’t know that

 

[navery12]

Right, playing DePaul helps the Big East

LMFAO

You have to tell the college basketball world to stop worrying about Quad 1 wins, all they have to do is beat Quad 4 teams

What a clueless argument

You are so out of your depth here. Auror took way more time and put way more effort in than you deserve so I'm not even going to bother. And nobody is saying quad 1 wins don't matter, try reading what people say to you before responding

 

[willie99]

The 2023-24 men's basketball season marks the sixth season of the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) rankings, which replaced the RPI prior to the 2018-19 season as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams. In May 2020, the NCAA announced there will be changes made to the NCAA Evaluation Tool to increase accuracy and simplify it by reducing a five-component metric to just two.

The remaining factors include the Team Value Index (TVI), which is a result-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home, as well as an adjusted net efficiency rating. The adjusted efficiency is a team’s net efficiency, adjusted for strength of opponent and location (home/away/neutral) across all games played. For example, a given efficiency value (net points per 100 possessions) against stronger opposition rates higher than the same efficiency against lesser opponents and having a certain efficiency on the road rates higher than the same efficiency at home.

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NCAA explanation is pretty clear. Of course the strength of your opponent matters, you cannot have any formula that evaluates teams without taking into account who you played. Now the Net rankings makes adjustments for efficiency, but the entire tool is not about efficiency, which is the argument being made by some. Efficiency is only part of the equation

Beating better teams, especially on the road, matters.

 

[willie99]

^^^^^

A lot of explanation and evolution provided in the above link, including a chart that doesn't post here. A component of the Net Rankings, the 1st one they listed for some strange reason, is the "Team Value Index", which consists of "game results". It measures Opponent, Location and Winner. My emphasis is on opponent for the sake of this conversation. Your opponent matters, because it has to.

-----------------------------------------------------------

More stuff from the link below

Is there any notable data not included in the NET?​

Game date and game order were not included in the NET rankings so a team's first game counts the same as its 30th.

With the changes announced in May 2020, the NET will no longer use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET.

“When we adopted the NET in 2018, we had reviewed several seasons worth of data and we insisted that we would continue to evaluate the metric,” said Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s senior vice president of basketball. “We’ve been very satisfied with its performance thus far, but it became evident after two seasons of use that this change would be an improvement. While we will continue to monitor the metric, I don’t anticipate any additional adjustments for several years. We believe this change will result in more precision throughout the season and will be easier for our membership and the public to understand."

The updated NET is consistent with the women’s basketball NET, which was revealed after the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee worked with a team from Google Cloud to evaluate women’s basketball statistical data for a 10-year period.

------------------------------------------------------------

So the argument that it's all about efficiency is mitigated by the fact that that scoring margin will no longer be used effective May 2020.

The article I'm citing from NCAA.com was authored November 27, 2023

And with that, I'm moving on. I've participated in this silly pissing contest to a much greater extent than I ever want to do.

PS: All the Big East bubble teams will benefit more by beating us by 1 than beating DePaul by 40. It's that simple. Beating DePaul down the stretch or in the BET will not get you into the tournament. Beating a Dayton or a Gonzaga will help you. That's the crux of this argument, and the point I was making when I entered this thread. Somewhat shocking to me I had to go to such great lengths to prove what should be obvious positions

 

[willie99]

Imagine what other teams were saying about UConn in 1985.

We were never as bad and as uncompetitive as DePaul is. We were actually ranked a few times before conference play. I remember Dook Vital loving our "Aircraft Carriers". We would pull off an upset or two, and virtually the entire conference danced every year

World's apart.

I never gave it much thought before this thread was started, but I think replacing DePaul is not a bad idea. Give them a chance somehow, but they have to improve

 

[CL82]

Imagine what other teams were saying about UConn in 1985.

They are a perennial New England regional power that was ranked in the top 20 just a few seasons before?

 

[auror]

The 2023-24 men's basketball season marks the sixth season of the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) rankings, which replaced the RPI prior to the 2018-19 season as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams. In May 2020, the NCAA announced there will be changes made to the NCAA Evaluation Tool to increase accuracy and simplify it by reducing a five-component metric to just two.

The remaining factors include the Team Value Index (TVI), which is a result-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home, as well as an adjusted net efficiency rating. The adjusted efficiency is a team’s net efficiency, adjusted for strength of opponent and location (home/away/neutral) across all games played. For example, a given efficiency value (net points per 100 possessions) against stronger opposition rates higher than the same efficiency against lesser opponents and having a certain efficiency on the road rates higher than the same efficiency at home.

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NCAA explanation is pretty clear. Of course the strength of your opponent matters, you cannot have any formula that evaluates teams without taking into account who you played. Now the Net rankings makes adjustments for efficiency, but the entire tool is not about efficiency, which is the argument being made by some. Efficiency is only part of the equation

Beating better teams, especially on the road, matters.

^^^^^

A lot of explanation and evolution provided in the above link, including a chart that doesn't post here. A component of the Net Rankings, the 1st one they listed for some strange reason, is the "Team Value Index", which consists of "game results". It measures Opponent, Location and Winner. My emphasis is on opponent for the sake of this conversation. Your opponent matters, because it has to.

-----------------------------------------------------------

More stuff from the link below

Is there any notable data not included in the NET?​

Game date and game order were not included in the NET rankings so a team's first game counts the same as its 30th.

With the changes announced in May 2020, the NET will no longer use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET.

“When we adopted the NET in 2018, we had reviewed several seasons worth of data and we insisted that we would continue to evaluate the metric,” said Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s senior vice president of basketball. “We’ve been very satisfied with its performance thus far, but it became evident after two seasons of use that this change would be an improvement. While we will continue to monitor the metric, I don’t anticipate any additional adjustments for several years. We believe this change will result in more precision throughout the season and will be easier for our membership and the public to understand."

The updated NET is consistent with the women’s basketball NET, which was revealed after the Division I Women’s Basketball Committee worked with a team from Google Cloud to evaluate women’s basketball statistical data for a 10-year period.

------------------------------------------------------------

So the argument that it's all about efficiency is mitigated by the fact that that scoring margin will no longer be used effective May 2020.

The article I'm citing from NCAA.com was authored November 27, 2023

And with that, I'm moving on. I've participated in this silly pissing contest to a much greater extent than I ever want to do.

PS: All the Big East bubble teams will benefit more by beating us by 1 than beating DePaul by 40. It's that simple. Beating DePaul down the stretch or in the BET will not get you into the tournament. Beating a Dayton or a Gonzaga will help you. That's the crux of this argument, and the point I was making when I entered this thread. Somewhat shocking to me I had to go to such great lengths to prove what should be obvious positions

There is nothing here I did not know or discuss in my posts. I'll refer you to my last post.

The quads are an output of the NET, not an input.

You could absolutely have a schedule entirely of Quad 4 games and be #1 in the NET if you won the games by enough points. Right now Indiana State is #29 and their best win is at Bradley. They've played 19 Quad 3 or Quad 4 games so far. Their resume metric ranks are 21, 30, and 40. Again, their best win is at Bradley and their 2nd best win is home against Drake.

There's been a whole narrative in college basketball this season about the B12 and teams like Houston and Iowa St blowing bad teams out and juicing their NET (but that's a whole other topic which is kinda right but mostly wrong).

What you said was:
[Depaul is keeping teams out of the tournament.]

Beating DePaul is not keeping anyone out of the tournament. DePaul isn't going to beat any of our bubble teams. If they do, that bubble team doesn't deserve to get into the tournament.

Is there an opportunity cost to DePaul on the schedule vs. a better team? Possibly. But you might lose to that better team, and you're not losing to DePaul. In fact it's quite easy to beat them by a lot of points, especially since they fired their coach. As I mentioned, their net rating change has gifted BE teams increases in their metrics overall. BE bubble teams this season have 11 Q1 opportunities in league play. Lack of Q1 wins for our bubble teams is only a problem if you're not good enough to win them.

But even aside from scoring margin, none of the "resume" metrics give you a demerit for beating anybody. Beating DePaul is not hurting anybody's resume. The baseline is positive movement for a win (although in DePaul's case it's close to zero, but it's not negative). The "predictive" metrics it depends on your margin of victory, but again, it's not hurting you if you beat them by enough. It's within your control. These metrics have been designed to judge quality of teams in all manner of conferences with varying membership strengths. You can show your quality against anyone and move up. As you said, there are other factors that go into the ranking, but those factors only really determine how much you need to beat them (on a per possession basis) to move up.

We have several years of data on the NET. We know by the end of the year it lines up quite strongly with other predictive metrics like KenPom and T-Rank. The Team Value Index is a component, but generally has minimal effect for teams with similar numbers of wins. As I said in my post, beating DePaul will not be a negative in the Team Value Index, but it will not be a strong positive either.

PS: All the Big East bubble teams will benefit more by beating us by 1 than beating DePaul by 40. It's that simple

However, you have to balance that opportunity cost with the benefit that it's basically impossible to lose to this year's DePaul (and basically impossible to beat us) and that there are plenty of other chances in the league for strong wins. With a component that is binary win/loss like Team Value Index, there is absolutely a benefit in just not losing, as other teams will be doing a lot of losing on the road in conference play and suffering negative TVI values.

Houston was #1 in the NET last year in the AAC going 17-1 in quads 3 and 4 because they won those games by a million. We're 12-0 in Quads 3+4 (and won't have any more games this season against them) and have a better Quad 1 record than they did last season and we're #4 in NET. The year before, the top two were Gonzaga (playing 12 Quad 4 games) and Houston 18-0 in Q3+Q4).

 

[freescooter]

They are a perennial New England regional power that was ranked in the top 20 just a few seasons before?

They went to the NIT in 1974 or Five and beat St John’s at MSG. NCAA tournament in 1976 and 79. Had the the NCAA tourney been 64 teams instead of 32-48 ish they would likely have made it a couple of times in the early 80s. They went to the NIT in 80, 81 and 82 . The NCAA didn’t go to 64 until the mid 80s. They fell off after that for sure. But they weren’t close to DePaul’s level of awfulness. Not even on the same planet.

 

[Scottobot]

They went to the NIT in 1974 or Five and beat St John’s at MSG. NCAA tournament in 1976 and 79. Had the the NCAA tourney been 64 teams instead of 32-48 ish they would likely have made it a couple of times in the early 80s. They went to the NIT in 80, 81 and 82 . The NCAA didn’t go to 64 until the mid 80s. They fell off after that for sure. But they weren’t close to DePaul’s level of awfulness. Not even on the same planet.

UConn won atleast 3 Conf games each year and were only bad from 83 to 1987 , with only one season [ Calhoun’s first] being really bad at 9-19. I think they won atleast 12 games every other season. This is a far cry from DePaul’s 20 years at the basement, and this years 3 win season.
To be honest they would get beat by many division 2 schools this year.

 

[Scottobot]

Has a conference ever kicked out a team for sucking?

 

[whalerfan]

Has a conference ever kicked out a team for sucking?

Yes. Big East....Temple.

 

[Vowelguy]

If you’ve been sleeping for 20 years one might check to see that you’re not actually dead.

 

[KryHavok]

Yes. Big East....Temple.

So you're saying there's a chance?

 

[Kolumbo]

Has a conference ever kicked out a team for sucking?

Yes. Big East....BCU

 

[ZooCougar]

I say you give DePaul some reasonable metrics and KPIs to meet within a five season timeline and then if they can't meet them you part ways and replace them with something like Dayton.

 

[UCFBfan]

Every league needs a doormat. Why are we trying to push ours out? Are they really syphoning that much money away? If you add a stronger team and remove a weaker.one, you make your conference play even harder than it already is. Every league needs the perennial doormats to help ease the burden of the rough league games.

 

[freescooter]

Every league needs a doormat. Why are we trying to push ours out? Are they really syphoning that much money away? If you add a stronger team and remove a weaker.one, you make your conference play even harder than it already is. Every league needs the perennial doormats to help ease the burden of the rough league games.

We have 20% of our league games against awful teams that haven’t been any good for almost a generation in one case and a decade in the other. DePaul was a huge mistake. Georgetown is LaSalle.

 

[freescooter]

For what it’s worth, I don't think they can be kicked out. They would have to leave or the league would have to negotiate some sort of deal to get them out.