Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="ConwayGmck, post: 3828646, member: 10442"] Yep things may work themselves out, but yesterday was a good example of your issues: this was BEFORE yesterday's results - and CT's loss to Arkansas - was added to the equation, but Stanford and USC was #2 and #3 in the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) ratings - they had the higher power ratings than CT, the higher offensive ratings - CT had the higher defensive rating, but ANY offense/defense rating should have been a red light for CT, because while both Stanford and USC had top 10 SOS ratings, CT's SOS rating wasn't even in the TOP 70(!!!!) And yet, despite ALL those higher ratings for BOTH Stanford and South Carolina, Connecticut had the #1 overall rating. And note I didn't even touch on your points above that you addressed, as to the overall number of Q1 NET opponents both teams had played against CT's total: they played as many if not MORE Q1 opponents thus far than CT had played against Q1 AND Q2 opponents combined. It goes back to that mysterious, nefarious, murky nebulous "Team Value Index" (TVI) which was ONCE one of FIVE (5) elemental parts of the equation, but now is supposed to be one of just TWO (2) - starting this season for both men's and women's BB, they removed winning %, adjusted winning %, and scoring margin of victory, which was the holy grail of sorts for CT fans since CT plays in the AAC/Big East. Those metrics are no longer a part of the NET. The TVI is explained as a component which "rewards" teams for beating quality opponents, especially away from home. But the exact formula of this component has NEVER been released to the public, and apparently never will be, leaving a degree of undisclosed wiggle room in just how the evaluators "evaluate" this aspect. Is it based on an actual mathematical metric, is it based on more "touchy-feely" subjectivity? They ain't telling. The second metric to the new NET is an adjusted net efficiency rating. The adjusted efficiency is described by the [URL='https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2020-05-12/net-explained-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking-replace-rpi']NCAA[/URL] as "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". I'm guessing that any references to "quality" of opponents, "strength of opponent" and "stronger opposition" refers to either individual team NET ratings or Strength of Schedule (SOS) ratings, since the whole point of the NET was to replace the RPI, so they aren't using RPI as a reference because then what's the point. But if THIS is the case, HOW can they use CT's SOS and NET ratings of their opponents against Stanford and South Carolina, and then rank CT ABOVE both Stanford and South Carolina. That's as effective of a 1+1=3 math as I've ever seen. So I thought before yesterday, that a HUGE factor to this ghostly TVI must be being undefeated (But if that was the case, then having lost to Arkansas yesterday should have plummetted CT. And BEFORE yesterday, both NC State and Louisville were undefeated and had better cases for being above CT in the ratings, but they weren't). To a degree, I guess it did but not by much - there's STILL other teams with only 1 loss but with better rated SOS and better Q1 NET opponent results than CT has, but are rated beneath them. So I still am wary and suspicious of the NET, and always will be for ANY ranking formula that refuses to openly disclose its rationale for choosing who will be #1, and who will not be..... [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,477

Messages: 4,397,739

Members: 10,211

Latest member: MurrDog