DePaul being historically terrible was not accounted for. If we knew we would be playing true cupcake (#300-caliber) games in January and February, we probably would have scheduled differently.
I think that’s what he said in your quote. But whatever. Assigning a lower value because your really good team didn’t nuke versus merely flatten a really bad team is a distinction only a computer system would do and some BY fans.
efficiency systems, such as NET, KP, whatever, almost ALWAYS devalue
Every team has a handful of games that are closer than expected. Beyond Houston’s 3 losses, Houston has had close games with Xavier, A&M, Cincy, OT against Texas. I also don’t look at 9 point conference wins to be negatives
Yes, but data has shown that such margins are predictive in value. IF we want to be #1 in efficiency metrics, we need to do better in some of those games. There's no conspiracy here.
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?
Right. And none of that means a thing game by game. Beating Marquette by almost 40
it’s all just nipping around the margins in some imprecise attempt to be more or less more precise. In the end, it isn’t all that much better than the eye test. But it does provide fodder for sports boards.
Sure. Eye test is usually good....but it's also often biased in cases where results haven't tracked with how well a team has played. If a team loses by a couple to a bunch of top teams, many people will use the "eye test" and say they aren't good....but in reality, they're probably a sleeper.
It would be interesting to know what NET would have been for the Napier NC team.
As my old buddy use to say “ figures don’t lie but liers fo figure”
NET ends up tracking decently close to other efficiency metrics such as KP, and uconn was 25 entering the tournament. I don't think there's any metrics gonna explain that team...other than "defense which went from pretty good to crushing after nearly getting bounced by st joes"
They didn’t meet many, if any, eye tests either. Erratic as heck and boom, they jell.
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.
which Q a team falls in is an output of NET. not an input.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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).
Doomed.
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).