Jump to content

NCAA Talk Superthread


greenminer

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, greenminer said:

It's because the talent/ability across the league is PRO level.  That's not the case across EVERY roster in D1

 

 

you're literally displacing one metric with another.  IMO, you're replacing one metric that tries to use deep level evaluation and context with your own metric that abandons evaluation and context.

What? You must not have read what I said. I'm asking they pick a metric and actually use it. They have the NET. They ignore it. They have RPI. They ignore it. I'm not asking they use my own metric which is really just win-loss records. I'm asking they actually use the metrics they've created. They ignore their own metrics so why have them?

Edited by GMG_Dallas
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GMG_Dallas said:

What? You must not have read what I said. I'm asking they pick a metric and actually use it. They have the NET. They ignore it. They have RPI. They ignore it. I'm not asking they use my own metric which is really just win-loss records. I'm asking they actually use the metrics they've created. They ignore their own metrics so why have them?

I think the bigger takeaway here is, no single metric can define these decisions.  They have to look at all this stuff, combine it with the other numbers, plus what they gather from watching the games, and make their best guess.  When you have that kind of process, it can result in looking like one metric being ignored.

It's not a perfect system but for the most part it's pretty good.  I get frustration though.  Hard to look at all the Indiana numbers, plus what we now see with their nearly 30 point loss against St. Marys, and speculate about what could be better.  The numbers are supposed to eliminate bias, but it's pretty clear simply being in the B1G gives you an advantage over CUSA.

Just saw some back and forth on Twitter from an Indiana guy who made fun of our close win over TxState.  I think he was kinda picking and choosing individual games to make his points, so I didn't want to engage him, and he wasn't going to even consider that a regular season Sun Belt champ like Tx State could actually be competitive.

EDIT: CMJ is right, no single metric was created with the intent to use ONLY that metric.  That would be foolish.

Edited by greenminer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, greenminer said:

I think the bigger takeaway here is, no single metric can define these decisions.  They have to look at all this stuff, combine it with the other numbers, plus what they gather from watching the games, and make their best guess.  When you have that kind of process, it can result in looking like one metric being ignored.

It's not a perfect system but for the most part it's pretty good.  I get frustration though.  Hard to look at all the Indiana numbers, plus what we now see with their nearly 30 point loss against St. Marys, and speculate about what could be better.  The numbers are supposed to eliminate bias, but it's pretty clear simply being in the B1G gives you an advantage over CUSA.

Just saw some back and forth on Twitter from an Indiana guy who made fun of our close win over TxState.  I think he was kinda picking and choosing individual games to make his points, so I didn't want to engage him, and he wasn't going to even consider that a regular season Sun Belt champ like Tx State could actually be competitive.

EDIT: CMJ is right, no single metric was created with the intent to use ONLY that metric.  That would be foolish.

A few months ago I took the time (not saying you haven't) to read about the NET on the NCAA's website. On their website, they say it is to be used as the primary sorting tool for D1 basketball. It was actually created to replace RPI, not be used in conjuction. Now, it also says that Q1 wins and Q3/Q4 losses will be used to determine seeding and selection which is obviously where we're hurt with only 1 Q1 win and 2 Q3 losses. Even though Rutgers had 2 Q3 losses and 1 Q4 loss (at home to #319 10-20 Lafayette), they had plenty of Q1 opportunities to make-up for it in the eyes of the committee. They also say it's not a determining factor, is just an organizational piece, and blah blah blah. They have their built in cop-out. I get it, teams lacking NET-determined quality wins will be punished in a sense and I understand why. It still comes down to the committee's opinion. A 77th ranked team shouldn't get in over multiple teams ranked in the top 50.

Like you said, it's not perfect but it is pretty good. It's still new. I think it'll get better. I'm thankful the NCAA at least seems to care about evening the playing field in basketball a bit. I barely watch college football outside UNT. That includes playoffs and bowls. College basketball is one of the best in my opinion and it's thanks to the NCAA tournament.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davidson got robbed... I'm trying not to be a mid-major homer but that reviewed charge was a blocking foul, the foul on the inbounds pass was a good steal (ball hit the defender's knee, didn't see contact otherwise), 6 fouls called in 63 seconds on Davidson in crunch time is just incredible.

On Chattanooga, if they shot 60% from FTs instead of 50%, they maybe win the game in overtime. 65% from FTs gets them the win in regulation. Shame.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having family in Arkansas, I loved watching the Hogs take out Gonzaga last night even though my bracket is now officially firepit kindling.  I am also a fan of Coach K and enjoyed the Duke win over Tech.  Two really good games last night along with Houston/Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.