Metrics did a great job

[freescooter]

So 3 11 seeds, a 10, a13, a 14 so far. Thinking the various metrics need some adjustment for next year. And maybe the SEC commissioner should keep talking football.

 

[upstater]

So 3 11 seeds, a 10, a13, a 14 so far. Thinking the various metrics need some adjustment for next year. And maybe the SEC commissioner should keep talking football.

Obviously not, too many MWC and SEC teams at the expense of at least one BE team.

MWC basically played themselves into 6 spots.

 

[DRBackup]

Hard to say exactly what it means. Looking at Kenpom, these teams were all seeded right, or just about. Three I'm looking at all won their conference tournament. That's how Yale, Oregon, and NC State got in. They're obviously hot. Not really a surprise that they stayed hot.

Auburn was #5 in KP. Lot of good that did them. The argument for Seton Hall or St Johns to be in, would be at the expense of... well, UVA, obviously, and they'd be right. But then, the "last 4 in" all had to play one another, so half of them had to lose. The only one still playing is Colorado.

 

[Hurleyman216]

I mean KenPom has held up pretty well so far. 23 of the top 25 KenPom teams are still in the tournament.

 

[HeGotGame]

I mean KenPom has held up pretty well so far. 23 of the top 25 KenPom teams are still in the tournament.

Don't let facts get in the way of his narrative

 

[Jay-Bone]

So 3 11 seeds, a 10, a13, a 14 so far. Thinking the various metrics need some adjustment for next year. And maybe the SEC commissioner should keep talking football.

This happens every year, and the fans like upsets. It'd suck if it was all chalk. And almost any team can win on any given day. People put too much credence into one game as if its gospel. Not sure what the problem is.

 

[freescooter]

This happens every year, and the fans like upsets. It'd suck if it was all chalk. And almost any team can win on any given day. People put too much credence into one game as if its gospel. Not sure what the problem is.

I’d put it differently. People put too much credence into those metrics. They badly overweigh strength of schedule and do it intentionally to make sure the major conferences get more bids. That and the quad system. Which just compounds the error. Mid majors rarely get those games and when they do they are played on the road, or if they are very lucky at neutral sites. Oh, and since I wrote my original post 2 12-seeds won. And it’s a close call, I know, but 3 of the 4 8-9 games were won by the 9s. And of course it should have been worse but the refs stole the Kansas game.

Nerds of the world, throw off your chains and actually watch some of teams in the regular season. Yale is a nice team. Some size. Well disciplined.

oh, andand St Johns STILL didn’t belong. Seton Hall did.

 

[businesslawyer]

Don't let facts get in the way of his narrative

LOL. The argument is the equivalent that every time you roll snake eyes, analytics were wrong in saying there was only a 1 in 36 chance.

 

[McLovin]

14/16 of the top 16 NET teams made it through the first round.

Are these metrics perfect? Absolutely not. Auburn is a great example of a paper Tiger. Before the SEC Tournament, they had 1 quad 1 win and 1 win vs a top 85 opponent away from their home floor.

Could / should they make some changes? Yes.

Cap MOV over quad 3&4 games at 15 points. Add more weight on OOC quad 1 & 2 games. Eliminate neutral site game designations outside of MTEs / annual classics like Jimmy V (so if Baylor and Penn State want to play a game in Las Vegas to game the NET, 1 team will be required to be designed home and 1 team designated away for metrics purposes).

A few tweaks that would not only reduce gaming the system, but also improve the early product for fans.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

LOL. The argument is the equivalent that every time you roll snake eyes, analytics were wrong in saying there was only a 1 in 36 chance.

I would put it differently. Criticizing the NET is like saying bird entrails are not effective as a predictive tool. It will seem obvious in the future, but some people are still really committed to using bird entrails.

 

[CL82]

Auburn is a great example of a paper Tiger

 

[FfldCntyFan]

LOL. The argument is the equivalent that every time you roll snake eyes, analytics were wrong in saying there was only a 1 in 36 chance.

I could well be wrong but I doubt any metrics (beyond record, eye test and general strength of schedule based on eye test) were used when DePaul and St Joe's were seeded where they were in the 1981 tournament.

This tournament has had monumental upsets from well before I was born (more than six decades ago) and will continue to have them on a semi-regular basis until the day arrives when the power two basically eliminate everyone else from having what would be even close to a fair shot at representation in this tournament.

 

[Edward Sargent]

I’d put it differently. People put too much credence into those metrics. They badly overweigh strength of schedule and do it intentionally to make sure the major conferences get more bids. That and the quad system. Which just compounds the error. Mid majors rarely get those games and when they do they are played on the road, or if they are very lucky at neutral sites. Oh, and since I wrote my original post 2 12-seeds won. And it’s a close call, I know, but 3 of the 4 8-9 games were won by the 9s. And of course it should have been worse but the refs stole the Kansas game.

Nerds of the world, throw off your chains and actually watch some of teams in the regular season. Yale is a nice team. Some size. Well disciplined.

oh, andand St Johns STILL didn’t belong. Seton Hall did.

I did watch a few Yale games after the conversation about Danny Wolf possible portaling. They do have some nice players beyond Wolf. That Brown squeaker wasn't one of their best. I also watched a few Northwestern games. They will be a handful Sunday

 

[nelsonmuntz]

14/16 of the top 16 NET teams made it through the first round.

Are these metrics perfect? Absolutely not. Auburn is a great example of a paper Tiger. Before the SEC Tournament, they had 1 quad 1 win and 1 win vs a top 85 opponent away from their home floor.

Could / should they make some changes? Yes.

Cap MOV over quad 3&4 games at 15 points. Add more weight on OOC quad 1 & 2 games. Eliminate neutral site game designations outside of MTEs / annual classics like Jimmy V (so if Baylor and Penn State want to play a game in Las Vegas to game the NET, 1 team will be required to be designed home and 1 team designated away for metrics purposes).

A few tweaks that would not only reduce gaming the system, but also improve the early product for fans.

It is hard to cap MOV in an efficiency rating, but not impossible. They have to do it though, because the Big 12 seedings, the number of MWC bids, and even some of the SEC teams made a mockery of the selection process.

 

[giddyup]

I’d put it differently. People put too much credence into those metrics. They badly overweigh strength of schedule and do it intentionally to make sure the major conferences get more bids. That and the quad system. Which just compounds the error. Mid majors rarely get those games and when they do they are played on the road, or if they are very lucky at neutral sites. Oh, and since I wrote my original post 2 12-seeds won. And it’s a close call, I know, but 3 of the 4 8-9 games were won by the 9s. And of course it should have been worse but the refs stole the Kansas game.

Nerds of the world, throw off your chains and actually watch some of teams in the regular season. Yale is a nice team. Some size. Well disciplined.

this is 200% accurate. The P4 self licking ice cream cone starts with we are the best, because we must be, and goes into distortionville from there.

 

[McLovin]

It is hard to cap MOV in an efficiency rating, but not impossible. They have to do it though, because the Big 12 seedings, the number of MWC bids, and even some of the SEC teams made a mockery of the selection process.

Yeah and maybe 15 isn’t the right number (I just threw something out there). They have the data to say over the last 10 years what the average MOV is for a q1 team over a q3/4 opponent and cap it there.

Also, as I suggested, weighting OOC q1/2 game more heavily would also be helpful.

Because when it comes to March, you are playing top teams from other leagues and an at large teams ability to compete against the best of the best outside of their own league (we already reward the conference champs with an auto bid) should mean more than who you beat within your league. It would help give a better feel on how leagues stack up compared to each other.

The MWC beat basically no one outside of league play, but since they all traded equal blows inside the conference, their metrics were enhanced.

Ironically, the 3 Big East teams who were snubbed also fit that narrative, but were not rewarded for their conference wins.

 

[tzznandrew]

I'd add here (as elsewhere) that I'd eliminate the quads. Beating the #31 team at home is not equivalent to beating the #126 team on the road.

Just go back to Top 25, Top 50, and Top 100, and then distinguish H / R / N splits.

Auburn beat one team in the NET Top 25, and went 1-3 against the group. When you start looking at what they actually did, rather than the raw metrics, you realize they weren't particularly good and just ginned up those metrics.

 

[Palatine]