You Can't Fool The NET. UConn still 4th.

[uh-no]

I know. And? We played 9 Q4 games which is among the most in the NET top 50, and while it may not burn a 24-2 monster, going forward we may want to consider (for fan interest and seeding) not having as many games against Q4 teams as programs like Drake.

I don't think there's any argument there. I think the question is.....why do we care, other than wanting to play more good games? The committee will likely have us as the overall #1 next time around, so it seems like despite being 4th in NET, things are working out just fine. I also argue that our simply playing more good teams is not necessarily a formula for a higher NET, as in theory it adjusts for strength of opponent....hence why Gonzaga was able to get gaudy NET rankings so many years.

It's valiant to want to play a better schedule, I just don't think it's what's hurting our NET, and certainly is not hurting our resume in the eyes of the committee right now.

 

[7774]

Have a good day. You apparently have license from the mods to say or insult however you would like. You are too right and too smart for me. Must be tough having to carry that burden. I guess we can ignore each other so you don’t have to read all of the fiction I post.

This is so funny. The only reason we’re interacting today is you tried to pull some gotcha routine on me and it backfired. You’re not a victim of board unfairness.

 

[Travelman6]

Computer has become too intertwined in sports. Get the nerds out the door and let the athletes play the game.

 

[Hunt for 7]

This is so funny. The only reason we’re interacting today is you tried to pull some gotcha routine on me and it backfired. You’re not a victim of board unfairness.

I understand I am well below your standard to interact with. You are an insider with real information. You seem to be looking for a fight. I am certain every opinion or post you have made is spot on. Not sure where you came up with me suggesting unfairness. This is not about my feelings toward this forum. Do I think calling another fan of the same team full of shot an appropriate thing, really thing that is over the top. I can say I have seen other BY’s censored for less. Then going on and saying everything I post is BS. I see I was full of shot when I suggested we might be a unanimous #1 today and the usual group was quick to call me uninformed and explain to me how uniformed that opinion was. Oh well got that one right. In fact this is the first time in the history of our program that we are a in season unanimous AP #1. And as noted the usual group quickly noted how I was very wrong. And all I said was I thought we had a shot.
There is a world where you can be out of line and over the top even though from what I can tell you are not one to admit if you make a mistake. And to your premise on gotcha routine, I am merely saying there is much more coverage on Hurley as a COY candidate (BE/National) over the last two weeks than there was previously (even pointing out that I understood that it could be related to the better timing and being in February as a reason there was more attention) and at every turn you have found not just a way to disagree but just insult me continuously. Trust me I don’t find it funny. Being called FOS and clueless not my idea of fun. And for whatever reason you can decide upon the NET rankings are if you conclude they have any fair value and not just dung yes I will disagree with you. But not call you FOS and a number of other derogatory names. But I was also advised that it is the fans that over rate the big10 not the entity that is actually rates them. And for your conspiracy comments you can DM me and I will share with you how soon before the Donaghy story broke that I had identified it was going on. Believe it or not people cheat when there is money to be made. Saying things like that don’t happen is IMO naive.

 

[caw]

That's 2 out of 9. Look at all the other top NET teams. Houston has 7 Q4 games. BYU and Iowa State have been excoriated for having 9 like we do.

Top 10 games vs. Q4:
Houston: 7
Purdue: 3
Arizona: 2
UConn: 9
Alabama: 3
Tennessee: 5
Auburn: 5
Iowa State: 9
UNC: 5
BYU: 9

You have to get to 15 St. Mary's (in a real mid-major) before you find another team with as many Q4 games as us (they're 10-0). And then its 23 Gonzaga (11-0). Then it's 32 Indiana State (9-1). Then it's 46 Drake (9-0).

In the NET top 50, only 4 teams played more Q4 games, and only 7 played as many or more.

Georgetown home is currently also a Q4 game, so three Q4 games in conference. 6 OOC. It would be a lot less of an issue if DePaul and Georgetown weren't historically bad BE teams and all three of those were Q3 games. I do agree though that trying to schedule Q3 opponents instead of Q4 opponents would be better. It can be a bit of a crapshoot though when getting buy games.

New Hampshire is 191 in NET which is actually an improvement over last year at 268.
Manhattan is 338 which is a drop from 302 last year.
Northern Arizona was 231 last year and 312 this year.
Stonehill was 314 last year and 356 this year.

The other two were about the same and very bad.

 

[tzznandrew]

I don't think there's any argument there. I think the question is.....why do we care, other than wanting to play more good games? The committee will likely have us as the overall #1 next time around, so it seems like despite being 4th in NET, things are working out just fine. I also argue that our simply playing more good teams is not necessarily a formula for a higher NET, as in theory it adjusts for strength of opponent....hence why Gonzaga was able to get gaudy NET rankings so many years.

It's valiant to want to play a better schedule, I just don't think it's what's hurting our NET, and certainly is not hurting our resume in the eyes of the committee right now.

I mean, Iowa State and BYU are seeded multiple spaces below their NET/CPU in the preview (BYU worse than ISU) . Q4 games are certainly a part of that.

It isn't really going to matter this year. When a team is as good and dominant as this team, those games are a wash.

UConn is among the best programs out there, and this is rare for them. I think we ought to schedule in a way that isn't betting on being 24-2 and instead is more like 20-6. On that razor edge, suddenly 9 Q4 games is a seed line or two.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Purdue loses to a team with a rookie coach, pretty much were handled the entire game. But Purdue fan is still touting resume because we have more Q4 games and Purdue has more Q3 games. Say what?

What does the resume have to do with who is best team? I don’t Really think it matters. As long. As they are a 1 seed their chances at final four are very very good .

 

[Gurleyman]

efficiency systems, such as NET, KP, whatever, almost ALWAYS devalue

• points margins past a certain gap. There's no predictive value of a 30 vs 40 point win.
• games between teams with large disparities. Uconn beating depaul should mean not a whole lot in the metrics since they are so differently rated. (now if defaul played CLOSER to uconn thn expected, it would)

So in the end, people are far overstating how much uconn's results against "really bad" teams have mattered. Far more impactful are things like:

• getting trounced by SHU
• only beating st john's by 4...at home
• only beating xavier by 5
• only beating providence by 9
• only beating butler by 9

It's not that those are bad wins/margins....but those are the places uconn could have done better to be atop NET.....not beating depaul by 50 instead of 40

You’re right, but the things the algorithms don’t tell you is Clingan was out for 3 of those (well 2 1/2, he missed basically the whole second half vs. Hall). And Karaban was injured vs. Providence (he wasn’t 100 percent vs. Butler either, but if you play, you play - not being 100 percent shouldn't be an important part of the calculus). Navigating those games should be considered a strength by a human analyzing them (other than we should have done better against Hall - but losing a guy in the second half makes it a little tougher - you can’t gameplan or make halftime adjustments).

This is by no means a novel thought - but margins sometimes need context. You can win by 5 by being in a dogfight and hitting a tiebreaking 3 with 5 seconds left, then two foul shots. Or the other team can cut it from 12 to 5 in the last minute just to pretty up the corpse a little. We beat Georgia Tech by 9 in the 2004 finals because they bombed 5 threes in a row in the final two minutes after we punked them all night.

 

[Scrutineer]

If you look at our analytic ratings since we’ve been fully healthy, they match the “eye test” 100%.

Nice to see these updated ratings, and that you didn't feel the need to gratuitously insult someone as some others here are prone to do.

 

[auror]

After the Creighton beatdown, we're now #2 behind Houston since Clingan's return. Then Purdue and Arizona. The 4 1 seeds seem pretty clear.

 

[CL82]

After the Creighton beatdown, we're now #2 behind Houston since Clingan's return. Then Purdue and Arizona. The 4 1 seeds seem pretty clear.

Doomed.

 

[ToolzieFan]

After the Creighton beatdown, we're now #2 behind Houston since Clingan's return. Then Purdue and Arizona. The 4 1 seeds seem pretty clear.

Actually still #1! You’re right about the top four seeds looking fairly set.

 

[auror]

Actually still #1! You’re right about the top four seeds looking fairly set.

View attachment 96773

I must have misclicked a date or some data changed. Houston was on top when I did it (but they're riiight behind us as shown now).