Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
The Wiz

NET....a tool or to be tooled

Recommended Posts

Time for a rant on the the NET....the Ncaa Evaluation Tool

This system was not thought out very well ....not to mention it's lack of transparency.  I have ranted on this before ...Time for another installment

We are rated #48 in this weeks poll...you could argue ...not bad....better than a lot of other places....with 1 big difference ...none of those other polls or rankings mean or decide anything. This one does...it is the only one that does. It is the decider and therefore it is important.

In our last installment last week, we talked about the #1 team in the A-10 according to NET....the one everyone is talking about--Duq  (too lazy to put this last phrase into blue font)..

We could talk about #22 Pitt in this segment .. a team we not only played even on the scoreboard but statistically as well...Pitt beat us by 2 ...and they finish 26 spots ahead of us...or that we beat a favored Butler team by double digits and finish ahead of them in the standings by 1....We could talk about Furman who at C+ is only 2 behind us even though they are projected to finish 4th in the Southern conference and have a D rated SOS at this point...254

No...what we will talk about in this chapter will be Liberty....You know that Bball powerhouse everyone talks about....Duke... Kansas ...Liberty....#35 in this week's standings...13 ahead of the Bills. What do you mean you don't know who they are? The darlings of the Atlantic Sun....No Atlantic Sun is not a resort ...it is a D-1 conference...currently rated as F+...and with an F rated SOS...the 23rd weakest schedule in D-1(330)...it is easy to see why they would be an NCAA fav (imagine more blue font)...The sad thing is Liberty is not even projected to win there conference...super  Lipscomb will squeeze them out....

Which brings us to the point of this rant....Suppose Liberty was squeezed out ASun championship...and they were given an at large bid (after all they were #35)...How would you feel if they were the ones who knocked out the #48 Bills.....just sayin...

Will the Ncaa Evaluation Tool be a tool to pick qualified teams or will it be a system to turn the NCAA into a Tool

End of the rant....

For now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Time for a rant on the the NET....the Ncaa Evaluation Tool

This system was not thought out very well ....not to mention it's lack of transparency.  I have ranted on this before ...Time for another installment

We are rated #48 in this weeks poll...you could argue ...not bad....better than a lot of other places....with 1 big difference ...none of those other polls or rankings mean or decide anything. This one does...it is the only one that does. It is the decider and therefore it is important.

In our last installment last week, we talked about the #1 team in the A-10 according to NET....the one everyone is talking about--Duq  (too lazy to put this last phrase into blue font)..

We could talk about #22 Pitt in this segment .. a team we not only played even on the scoreboard but statistically as well...Pitt beat us by 2 ...and they finish 26 spots ahead of us...or that we beat a favored Butler team by double digits and finish ahead of them in the standings by 1....We could talk about Furman who at C+ is only 2 behind us even though they are projected to finish 4th in the Southern conference and have a D rated SOS at this point...254

No...what we will talk about in this chapter will be Liberty....You know that Bball powerhouse everyone talks about....Duke... Kansas ...Liberty....#35 in this week's standings...13 ahead of the Bills. What do you mean you don't know who they are? The darlings of the Atlantic Sun....No Atlantic Sun is not a resort ...it is a D-1 conference...currently rated as F+...and with an F rated SOS...the 23rd weakest schedule in D-1(330)...it is easy to see why they would be an NCAA fav (imagine more blue font)...The sad thing is Liberty is not even projected to win there conference...super  Lipscomb will squeeze them out....

Which brings us to the point of this rant....Suppose Liberty was squeezed out ASun championship...and they were given an at large bid (after all they were #35)...How would you feel if they were the ones who knocked out the #48 Bills.....just sayin...

Will the Ncaa Evaluation Tool be a tool to pick qualified teams or will it be a system to turn the NCAA into a Tool

End of the rant....

For now

NCAA is already a tool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its all about protecting the power conferences.   they control the ncaa.   when the smaller conferences figured out the rpi and started to schedule accordingly to maximize their rpi, you can bet the big boys conferences were pissed.   so now finally the big boys have given up controlling the rpi and now have instituted the NET.   i think it is hillarious that for now it hasnt given them the answers and rankings they likely expected, but like the rpi, a lot of weird stuff comes out of their computer prior to the first of the year.   i am betting come may all the power conferences will dominate the top 40 once again and control the at large teams and seedings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Which brings us to the point of this rant....Suppose Liberty was squeezed out ASun championship...and they were given an at large bid (after all they were #35)...How would you feel if they were the ones who knocked out the #48 Bills.....just sayin...

I realize this NET thing is not going to be perfect nor is it likely to be the best at ranking teams.  However, it likely can't be worse than RPI and at this point in the season it is likely meaningless.  I'm not sure why the NCAA is even releasing the rankings because (as you've said yourself about your system) there is not enough data in there for it to mean much.  You said your system takes 8 games, but who knows how many games NET takes.  If Liberty is still ranked #35 at the end of the season, I'd be shocked.  As the season goes on NET will likely converge with your rankings and while they won't be exactly the same in the end, they'll be close enough that it would be tough to argue one is supremely better than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, i hope we have a lot of Liberty's by season end.  F the power conferences with a 9th place ACC team getting at large bids while 20+ conferences are likely one bid conferences.   

as i have said for years, the real answer is let everyone in.   geographically seed the regionals and then reseed when it gets to 64 teams.   why does a computer and a bunch of old men in a back room get to decide who spits millions of dollars?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

btw, i hope we have a lot of Liberty's by season end.  F the power conferences with a 9th place ACC team getting at large bids while 20+ conferences are likely one bid conferences.   

as i have said for years, the real answer is let everyone in.   geographically seed the regionals and then reseed when it gets to 64 teams.   why does a computer and a bunch of old men in a back room get to decide who spits millions of dollars?  

That would be more fun but we sort of already have a "let everyone in" format because of conference tournaments. Except for new additions to D-I going through their probation period and the bottom half of the Ivy League, technically every single school has a shot to get in the field of 68. They just need to win 3 or 4 consecutive conference tournament games.

(Compare that to college football, a sport in which you can beat everyone on your schedule for two consecutive years and not be considered for the "playoff" at the end.)

FWIW, I agree that the NET sucks (although I'm curious to see what it looks like after a full season) and that too much of how the Tournament is formed and seeded is done to protect power conference teams, and that the whole process needs major changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

I realize this NET thing is not going to be perfect nor is it likely to be the best at ranking teams.  However, it likely can't be worse than RPI and at this point in the season it is likely meaningless.  I'm not sure why the NCAA is even releasing the rankings because (as you've said yourself about your system) there is not enough data in there for it to mean much.  You said your system takes 8 games, but who knows how many games NET takes.  If Liberty is still ranked #35 at the end of the season, I'd be shocked.  As the season goes on NET will likely converge with your rankings and while they won't be exactly the same in the end, they'll be close enough that it would be tough to argue one is supremely better than the other.

How many games will they need to make it work....all of them.....but you are correct ...in the end they will come together with my system and others with a little P5 bias.(as BRoy would say)....It will work because of the " secret sauce"....after the season is over, the " magic adjustment" they have said they will make that will "fix" everything.  Fix is the correct word in this sentence.

I agree with BRoy in that there should be an all inclusive tournament....where the lower 175 teams play each other and then gradually step up to play the upper teams....like the A-10 tournament does. ...only on a bigger scale.  Maybe even do away with the Conf tourneys and use all those venues as sites for the super tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Pistol said:

That would be more fun but we sort of already have a "let everyone in" format because of conference tournaments. Except for new additions to D-I going through their probation period and the bottom half of the Ivy League, technically every single school has a shot to get in the field of 68. They just need to win 3 or 4 consecutive conference tournament games.

(Compare that to college football, a sport in which you can beat everyone on your schedule for two consecutive years and not be considered for the "playoff" at the end.)

FWIW, I agree that the NET sucks (although I'm curious to see what it looks like after a full season) and that too much of how the Tournament is formed and seeded is done to protect power conference teams, and that the whole process needs major changes.

yes and no.   sure the conference tourneys more or less give everyone a chance, but then the seedings are so one sided where the lesser conferences are set up to beat up each other in the early rounds while the power conference mediocre at large teams get seeds undeserving to advance accordingly.   sure an occasional butler sneaks through, but typically the good non power conference teams beat up on each other and leave the power conferences to gain the lion's share of the top 16 year in and year out.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

btw, i hope we have a lot of Liberty's by season end.  F the power conferences with a 9th place ACC team getting at large bids while 20+ conferences are likely one bid conferences.   

as i have said for years, the real answer is let everyone in.   geographically seed the regionals and then reseed when it gets to 64 teams.   why does a computer and a bunch of old men in a back room get to decide who spits millions of dollars?  

Totally agree been saying that since they went from 48 to 64. Would only take few more games to get down to 64. They do it in high school. 

Share this post


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

How many games will they need to make it work....all of them.....but you are correct ...in the end they will come together with my system and others with a little P5 bias.(as BRoy would say)....It will work because of the " secret sauce"....after the season is over, the " magic adjustment" they have said they will make that will "fix" everything.  Fix is the correct word in this sentence.

I agree with BRoy in that there should be an all inclusive tournament....where the lower 175 teams play each other and then gradually step up to play the upper teams....like the A-10 tournament does. ...only on a bigger scale.  Maybe even do away with the Conf tourneys and use all those venues as sites for the super tournament.

a compromise to an all inclusive tourney is say that all tourney eligible teams must have a 500 record.   that would likely whittle down the participants to something like 256 teams which would feed into a normal 64 team tourney.    

the other thought i had was give the NIT one leg of the final four.  give an auto bid into the NIT if you are a regular season conference winner who lost their tourney shot.  then seed the other three legs with the 32 auto qualifiers and just 16 at large teams.   what this would do is force the power conference mediocre teams into the NIT vs true good mid majors.   it would come closer to getting the true top 64 then anything they do now with the corrupt bid giving.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Time for a rant on the the NET....the Ncaa Evaluation Tool

This system was not thought out very well ....not to mention it's lack of transparency.  I have ranted on this before ...Time for another installment

We are rated #48 in this weeks poll...you could argue ...not bad....better than a lot of other places....with 1 big difference ...none of those other polls or rankings mean or decide anything. This one does...it is the only one that does. It is the decider and therefore it is important.

In our last installment last week, we talked about the #1 team in the A-10 according to NET....the one everyone is talking about--Duq  (too lazy to put this last phrase into blue font)..

We could talk about #22 Pitt in this segment .. a team we not only played even on the scoreboard but statistically as well...Pitt beat us by 2 ...and they finish 26 spots ahead of us...or that we beat a favored Butler team by double digits and finish ahead of them in the standings by 1....We could talk about Furman who at C+ is only 2 behind us even though they are projected to finish 4th in the Southern conference and have a D rated SOS at this point...254

No...what we will talk about in this chapter will be Liberty....You know that Bball powerhouse everyone talks about....Duke... Kansas ...Liberty....#35 in this week's standings...13 ahead of the Bills. What do you mean you don't know who they are? The darlings of the Atlantic Sun....No Atlantic Sun is not a resort ...it is a D-1 conference...currently rated as F+...and with an F rated SOS...the 23rd weakest schedule in D-1(330)...it is easy to see why they would be an NCAA fav (imagine more blue font)...The sad thing is Liberty is not even projected to win there conference...super  Lipscomb will squeeze them out....

Which brings us to the point of this rant....Suppose Liberty was squeezed out ASun championship...and they were given an at large bid (after all they were #35)...How would you feel if they were the ones who knocked out the #48 Bills.....just sayin...

Will the Ncaa Evaluation Tool be a tool to pick qualified teams or will it be a system to turn the NCAA into a Tool

End of the rant....

For now

Furman is better than you your program has them right now, but even eight games is too early to judge a team.  Furman has road wins against a top 25 team and a top 75 team. If you have a problem with the NET ratings you are going to have a huge problem with Massey who has Furman at 32.  

Plus, I think any program that has us as a bubble team right now.   

It appears at least for now, that the fears that this ranking system would favor power conference programs were overstated.  Just about a third of the top 60 come from outside those conferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion but so far the NET model has been discussed primarily from the point of view of a system created to promote an appearance of a valid process (the magical word which may or may not have been used yet in regards to NET is "algo") while maintaining a fairly subjective decision in the hands of the NCAA to be applied at the end of the season which makes it "unfair". I know this is a confusing sentence but it is exactly what I think NET really is. In other words, it is a system with no more validity than the prior system they used based on RPI's (sorry I do not know the initials so I probably wrote the wrong ones, you know what I mean).

There is a another point of view that could be used in this discussion and that is looking at NET as just a "model" and to talk in general terms about why models work to some degree and break down past a certain and non predictable level. Models are approximations of reality, not reality itself. The NET model has big issues and cracks in it, but so does everything else available. Just look at the differences between Sagarin's, Pomeroy's, TeamRanking's, and the Wiz's model rankings. No system is a flawless mirror of reality, they all have strengths and weaknesses, they all approximate reality to a variable degree. Ultimately, the bridge between a model and reality HAS to contain a degree of subjectivity in it. NCAA will do what it will do because they  are in charge (and can do it) and because they want to maintain the March Madness tour just the way it is, as a major popular attraction and a major source of profits for all involved. They can pretend to surround the decisions with a cloak of impartiality, but the truth is that a lot of these decisions are and will continue being subjective in nature and taken to preserve the status quo.

My conclusion: the NCAA is what it is and plans to continue being exactly what it has always been. NET is just the current attempt to make the process look impartial.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest problem is that the NCAA has not been transparent about how the NET is calculated.  We shouldn't be picking out teams like Furman or Liberty and saying they're ranked too high.  We should be saying this formula or variable they are using is flawed because whatever.  It should be a math problem, but NCAA's lack of transparency means we just nit pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

I think the biggest problem is that the NCAA has not been transparent about how the NET is calculated.  We shouldn't be picking out teams like Furman or Liberty and saying they're ranked too high.  We should be saying this formula or variable they are using is flawed because whatever.  It should be a math problem, but NCAA's lack of transparency means we just nit pick.

Lack of transparency and their decision to release results only a few weeks into the season. They should have waited until at least mid-December before releasing any results. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brianstl said:

Furman is better than you your program has them right now, but even eight games is too early to judge a team.  Furman has road wins against a top 25 team and a top 75 team. If you have a problem with the NET ratings you are going to have a huge problem with Massey who has Furman at 32.  

Plus, I think any program that has us as a bubble team right now.   

It appears at least for now, that the fears that this ranking system would favor power conference programs were overstated.  Just about a third of the top 60 come from outside those conferences.

That's right now, when the lower conference teams actually get a chance to play to power conference teams.  I'm guessing that the problem with the NET is that it will overvalue mediocre power conference teams playing against other mediocre power conference teams during the entire second half of the season.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×