Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

BlueDevil

College Bball Thread

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

The NET is still in its infancy stage.   It’s by no means perfect.   One thing they need to do is release the algorithm for how they come up with the number.   Keeping it secret is a big mistake in my opinion 

Because they know they'd get picked apart for how terrible it is. They also know they can change whatever they want to fit whatever they want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brumdog45 said:

The fact that Pom says not to use his metric (I understand that it is predictive instead of reflective) yet is STILL a much better system than NET speaks volumes to me.  I do understand that he uses the previous year (as well as some returning player factors) as a starting factor, I believe) but if I remember correctly, the previous data disappears after about ten games.  I also think you'd never see a Colgate anywhere near the top ten after 9 games of data.

They had a meeting with Ken Pom and the others before they came up with the NET.  Ken Pom had a pod cast about it back in the day.   That’s where I found out he isn’t comfortable with them using his metric as a selection tool.   Everyone agrees while it could be better and hopefully tweaks over time will fix it that it’s a much better solution then rpi 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

No probably like there shouldn’t of been any logical algorithm that had 16-15 Purdue team ahead of a ton of other teams but last year they were.  

Yeah, I think that came up in pretty much all of the models.  That's an error in some of the point based algoirthms in that they don't cap margin of victory.  Purdue won 7 games by 20 or more, including two in the Big Ten and lost just 1 by 20 or more.  A final margin of 30 doesn't tell us anything more than a final margin of 20.

I understand the issue with Pom and Sagarin as a pure NCAA tournament selector in that going 2-5 with a net of zero points is equivalent to going 5-2 with a net of zero points.....but then I look at the NET ratings, which are SUPPOSED to make winning actually important, and the results they are yielding in terms of where teams are ranked look worse than the rating systems which aren't awarding victories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

They had a meeting with Ken Pom and the others before they came up with the NET.  Ken Pom had a pod cast about it back in the day.   That’s where I found out he isn’t comfortable with them using his metric as a selection tool.   Everyone agrees while it could be better and hopefully tweaks over time will fix it that it’s a much better solution then rpi 

I wish that Pom would create a second set of rankings where margin of victory was capped at 20 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

So are we supposed to continue acting like Penn State was a good win?

You can do what you want but as long as it’s a Q2 win then I suppose I will continue to look at it as a resume building win.  So will Purdue, Ohio St, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uspshoosier said:

You can do what you want but as long as it’s a Q2 win then I suppose I will continue to look at it as a resume building win.  So will Purdue, Ohio St, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin 

So basically look at it with no logic? Man I can't wait to have such a great win over a team who can't even get over .500. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

So basically look at it with no logic? Man I can't wait to have such a great win over a team who can't even get over .500. 

Why do care so much how other people view it?    You don’t think it’s a good win.  Isn’t that good enough.   You losing sleep over people thinking a penn st win is a good win.   I’m sure not losing sleep over people thinking opposite of what I think 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Why do care so much how other people view it?    You don’t think it’s a good win.  Isn’t that good enough.   You losing sleep over people thinking a penn st win is a good win.   I’m sure not losing sleep over people thinking opposite of what I think 

No sleep lost. But if the standard is set that Penn State is a good win because how dare you look at it objectively, then it makes college basketball a complete joke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

No sleep lost. But if the standard is set that Penn State is a good win because how dare you look at it objectively, then it makes college basketball a complete joke. 

So nothing new then?  You have  thought college basketball is a joke since you have been on here?   But here you are in the college basketball thread talking about something you think is a joke.    Next year we will be talking about a different team and how it’s a joke people keep calling it a good win, or how college basketball is down and if you don’t see it your not being objective or take your pick.    

arizona st up 9 on Oregon st with 12 to play 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

No sleep lost. But if the standard is set that Penn State is a good win because how dare you look at it objectively, then it makes college basketball a complete joke. 

 

Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average.

College Basketball, where (almost) everyone is below average.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

They had a meeting with Ken Pom and the others before they came up with the NET.  Ken Pom had a pod cast about it back in the day.   That’s where I found out he isn’t comfortable with them using his metric as a selection tool.   Everyone agrees while it could be better and hopefully tweaks over time will fix it that it’s a much better solution then rpi 

My point is that they changed the horrible tool to just a slightly better one that is STILL worse than a couple of systems whose founders will tell you their systems shouldn't be used for selections.

Again, you've cited NET as a 'sorting tool'.  But, again, 31 and 51 aren't comparably ranked teams.  We aren't talking about teams a few spots apart.  

In the top 11 teams in NET is one team that is rated as a 9 seed in the bracket matrix and another that is a 13 seed IF they win their conference.  

My point is simple:  what is the point of the NCAA having their own tool IF that tool is worse than tools that already exist and those tools aren't even designed to do what NET does?  Isn't NET supposed to correct things that Pom or Sagarin does to put them into a more ranked form used to compare teams for selection?  Because if that is what it is supposed to do, it is failing miserably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

 

Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average.

College Basketball, where (almost) everyone is below average.

 

Methinks some people rooting for Pleasantville High weren't happy even when they made every basket and won every game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone catch the Brad Davison elbow that they reviewed and didn't call a flagrant?  Michigan bench was incensed and got called for a technical.  Juwan Howard said it fired his team up and then did seem to go on a run after that in their win.

Certainly looked flagrant to me......don't know many guys who go in for layups with their elbows spread and leaning into the defender.  Dude is as cheap a player as I've seen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brumdog45 said:

Anyone catch the Brad Davison elbow that they reviewed and didn't call a flagrant?  Michigan bench was incensed and got called for a technical.  Juwan Howard said it fired his team up and then did seem to go on a run after that in their win.

Certainly looked flagrant to me......don't know many guys who go in for layups with their elbows spread and leaning into the defender.  Dude is as cheap a player as I've seen.

 

Really hope that guy isn't back next year, but I'm sure Wisconsin's entire roster will return, because Wisconsin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×