UConn 57th in First NET Rankings | Page 2 | The Boneyard

UConn 57th in First NET Rankings

Yeah, it's just unlike all these other things (even the NET) RPI had no "secret sauce" baked in that made it impossible to replicate. So we could actually see what it looks like in comparison.

I have a feeling it might be a new worst ranking Nate Silver has ever seen.
 
auror said:
Takeaways...

System emphasizes wins and raw scoring margin. Our lack of road games might get us in the end, but we're in a good spot with this schedule for that reason.

Expand ...


It's early, but if this really doesn't account for strength opponent, this could really open the door for mid-majors to take more at-large bids. But we will have to see how well this correlates in March.
 
Storrs South said:
It's early, but if this really doesn't account for strength opponent, this could really open the door for mid-majors to take more at-large bids. But we will have to see how well this correlates in March.
Expand ...

I've read that it's early so there isn't much confidence to adjust so the system is probably designed to not adjust much. There will probably be less adjustment than KenPom in general though thanks to the other criteria.
 
The biggest issue long term would seem to be that the system uses raw rather than adjusted efficiency. Having an offensive efficiency of 1.2 against Virginia should not be treated the same as having an offensive efficiency of 1.2 against Incarnate Word.

The reason it's so crazy right now is that unlike KenPom & others it doesn't have a baseline rating to prevent the early blowouts from affecting its initial ratings. Over time that will correct. The non-adjusted numbers do make me wonder how it will fare over the year, though.
 
What we do know for certain is this: Unlike ratings such as those at KenPom.com, which use a proprietary formula to establish a preseason projection that is factored into early season numbers, every team’s ranking in the NET begins at 0. So the limited data set after just a few weeks of games inevitably will produce odd results based more on how a team’s schedule has broken to date than on the team’s actual value.

“I think we very much anticipated there would be some head-scratchers here, but we’re also confident that the more games are played, the picture will become clearer,” Gavitt said. “This tool is used in Selection Week in March. Ultimately, it’s not a tool that has full value until an entire schedule has been played out. Obviously, we’re a long way from that.

“Because it’s so new and so different from the RPI, we just think that getting out information, sharing it on a regular basis, letting coaches, student-athletes, fans and the media know what the implications are would be important.”

Hysterical overreaction to NCAA ratings can be NET positive for the sport
 
To be honest, the system doesn’t seem half bad. It’s at least seems less biased to pre existing opinions. The thing that bugs me the most is when teams that have multiple losses or a loss to a mediocre team being ranked over undefeated teams that have been blowing their competition out. Is it fair that a team like UNC is ranked 11th?

Obviously exceptions like Duke, nova (since they are defending champs), but why should UNC be ranked above Iowa? Because they’re a historical program who people pay more attention to (and resultantly look at their talent a lot more).
 
FlippinCrazy! said:
To be honest, the system doesn’t seem half bad. It’s at least seems less biased to pre existing opinions. The thing that bugs me the most is when teams that have multiple losses or a loss to a mediocre team being ranked over undefeated teams that have been blowing their competition out. Is it fair that a team like UNC is ranked 11th?

Obviously exceptions like Duke, nova (since they are defending champs), but why should UNC be ranked above Iowa? Because they’re a historical program who people pay more attention to (and resultantly look at their talent a lot more).
Expand ...

Because North Carolina's loss at Michigan is incredibly more difficult than any game Iowa has won. And Iowa will probably lose that same game later this year. It makes just as much sense to penalize for unequal opportunity this early in the season as it does to rank based on pre-existing opinions. Iowa's most difficult game was their win on a neutral court against Oregon, who then lost to Texas Southern at home. North Carolina's other loss, neutral court by 3 to top 20 ranked Texas, is also more difficult than that Oregon win. Who's to say Iowa wins either of those games? UNC has faced the 50th hardest schedule. Iowa the 250th. How do you reconcile that?

The truth of the matter is that systems and models use pre-existing "infrastructure" and player projections in the early season because it makes the model more accurate than starting from 0 and relying only on results. These guys test these things. Giving Roy Williams and Jay Wright the benefit of the doubt in the early season has been proven to be more accurate than not doing so and just relying on the small sample sizes at the beginning of the season.

Are we having this discussion if UNC hits 1 more 3 and wins against Texas in OT and their only loss is at Michigan? So we're not even quibbling about 1 game, but maybe 1 or a handful of possessions.
 
I am just glad to see our name near the top of any poll. I think we as fans didn't realize how much we took their success for granted during our run.

Even if it is just today, things feel right!
 

Online statistics

Members online
27
Guests online
2,354
Total visitors
2,381
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,200
Messages
4,387,053
Members
10,196
Latest member
ArtTheFan


.
..
Top Bottom