Pitt's Capel goes after Big 12 and efficiency ratings

[ecasadoSBU]

The biggest issue with the NET (for me) is that the formula isn't public.

When something is guarded as a secret it can easily lead to abuse because someone will always find out the formula and then there is asymmetry of information which leads to unfair advantages.

The formula needs to be public, transparent. If everyone knows the formula then the benefits are negated.

The beauty of the RPI was the transparency in its formula and how easy everyone could access it. If everyone tried to game it, the effects of gaming it would end up being neutralized and that's fair game. The RPI was simple and it worked for so long. So why change it?

At the end of the day - there is no perfect way to select 68 teams. If perfection isn't possible then objectively nothing makes the NET any better than the RPI. Its just another selection tool. The only thing we ended up losing was transparency and gave the keys of the castle to the NCAA.

A program would get mad that the RPI left them out. But if a team can't make a cut of 68 they are more to blame than any given selection criteria

The conspiracy kitty in me tells me the NCAA ultimately had bad intentions with the NET. Something gives me the impression that the end goal was to get more Power-6 teams into the NCAA with reduced backlash by reducing the transparency.

 

[auror]

At the end of the day - there is no perfect way to select 68 teams. If perfection isn't possible then objectively nothing makes the NET any better than the RPI. Its just another selection tool. The only thing we ended up losing was transparency and gave the keys of the castle to the NCAA.

A program would get mad that the RPI left them out. But if a team can't make a cut of 68 they are more to blame than any given selection criteria

The conspiracy kitty in me tells me the NCAA ultimately had bad intentions with the NET. Something gives me the impression that the end goal was to get more Power-6 teams into the NCAA with reduced backlash by reducing the transparency.

Just because a tool isn't perfect, doesn't mean it can't be better. That's laughable. Would you rather use a spoon or a knife to open a can of beans instead of a can opener.

There was no conspiracy in getting rid of the RPI. People were just consistently mad it spit out results like Dayton being 6 ranks better than us this year and us being 10th in general this year. If your algorithm doesn't have us as at least a top 5 or 6 team this year, start over from the drawing board.

It affected more than just selection, also seeding. Some teams got some awfully tough draws that they should not have due to the RPI.

 

[storrsroars]

There was a team in the seventies. I was a team member the 76 -77 season. Practices and home games were at Wright Tech and we played the other branches, Norwalk Tech and CC and some other community colleges. I disagree with the athleticism comment.

You sure you have your years right? I was at Stamford Branch from fall '74-fall '76. Don't recall a thing about a hoops team starting up before I left for Storrs. FTR, I was 6'2" and I don't recall meeting anyone there taller than I was.

 

[EROCK CONN]

Capel goes after Big 12 scheduling and metrics, and I agree with him. I don't agree with a lot of what he said, especially his ACC comments, but overall it was a good rant.

I always thought efficiency ratings were stupid because a conference doing what the Big 12 did this year was completely predictable. There was nothing wrong with the RPI.

If a tree falls in the forest ……

 

[cullaville]

You sure you have your years right? I was at Stamford Branch from fall '74-fall '76. Don't recall a thing about a hoops team starting up before I left for Storrs. FTR, I was 6'2" and I don't recall meeting anyone there taller than I was.

I graduated from Storrs in 79 and went to the Stamford Branch on Scofieldtown Road my freshman and so[homore years and was a team member my sophomore year which would have been the 76 - 77 school year If i remember correctly we had twopr three players in the 6'5 range. Practices and games were held at Wright Tech, Games were against the other UCONN branches and community colleges. The team had been in existence prior to that becasue players from past teams would come in for scrimmages.

I do remember the baseball team as well

 

[ecasadoSBU]

Just because a tool isn't perfect, doesn't mean it can't be better. That's laughable. Would you rather use a spoon or a knife to open a can of beans instead of a can opener.

There was no conspiracy in getting rid of the RPI. People were just consistently mad it spit out results like Dayton being 6 ranks better than us this year and us being 10th in general this year. If your algorithm doesn't have us as at least a top 5 or 6 team this year, start over from the drawing board.

It affected more than just selection, also seeding. Some teams got some awfully tough draws that they should not have due to the RPI.

Fair point. I kinda didn't express my thought too well there.

At the end of the day the bottom line for me is that If both tools are imperfect selection tools then I will always choose the transparent, public formula that levels the playing field for everyone with no information asymmetry. Take the control away from the NCAA and a few power (who can easily leak it for money) brokers and return it back to everyone!

The public till this day doesn't know the exact formula behind the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET). That opens the possibility of a ton of abuse and corruption. That's why we are having this conversation right now. The conspiracies and accusations of abuse will continue to happen until the NCAA opens up and displays the formula to everyone.

 

[willie99]

I say let Vegas tell us the best 32 at large teams, don't have to reinvent the wheel

As for any other tweak, there should be some process to enable the best schools from non power conferences to participate more. An 18-15 or so team should not can an at-large invite. Especially when their conference exits early year after year after year

 

[Hey Adrien!]

This made me chuckle:



Pitt hasn't played Duquesne, an A10 school in Pittsburgh, since 2018. Over that time, the Dukes have three 18+ win seasons and .500+ conference records.

 

[storrsroars]

1) the NET is one of about a dozen factors the committee uses
2) if you think the NET is so undervaluing your team, then show me a rating that where that’s not the case

Remember that NET also determines who's a Q1, Q2, etc. And that is influenced by having numerous wins over Q3/Q4.

 

[Scoe]

If you can’t play your way in then cry your way in. I’m not a numbers guy but my eyes tell me that the ACC sucks.

 

[kobe]

Remember that NET also determines who's a Q1, Q2, etc. And that is influenced by having numerous wins over Q3/Q4.

pitt has 14 Q3/Q4 wins which is more than anyone in the big 12 and their net is still 44.

maybe if you're a good team you have a good net and if you stink your net stinks too?

 

[storrsroars]

pitt has 14 Q3/Q4 wins which is more than anyone in the big 12 and their net is still 44.

maybe if you're a good team you have a good net and if you stink your net stinks too?

You'll get no argument from me that Pitt played a soft OOC sked. What I will say is that I think based on the past six weeks of play, Pitt would be a much more interesting tourney field addition than a bunch of B1G, B12, or even a couple of other ACC and BE teams around the bubble or projected for 10-11 seeds.