Jump to content

Colgate vs The Bills ?


Recommended Posts

For those that live and die on NET rankings....A great quad 1 win would be Colgate....and you can play them home or away and we would be in.
 
 
 
 
Yahoo Sports

How NCAA rankings have tiny Colgate ahead of a handful of powerhouses

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff Eisenberg

Jeff Eisenberg
Tue, March 9, 2021, 4:11 PM·6 min read
 
 

The top seven teams in the NCAA’s NET rankings include unbeaten Gonzaga, one-loss Baylor and a trio of Big Ten heavyweights with national title aspirations.

Then there’s No. 8: A small-conference afterthought that has never won an NCAA tournament game in program history, nor even once appeared in the AP Top 25.

How is Colgate — the No. 2 seed in this week’s Patriot League tournament — ranked ahead of 2019 national champ Virginia, blue blood Kansas and powerhouses Ohio State and Villanova? Even the coach of the Raiders didn’t see this coming.

“It’s a mathematical outlier,” Matt Langel told Yahoo Sports. “It’s an interesting tidbit in what has been the craziest college basketball season in my lifetime.”

The explanation for Colgate’s top-10 NET ranking begins with the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the Patriot League’s schedule. The league did not allow six of its eight teams to start their seasons until Jan. 2. Only Army and Navy were exempt and had permission to schedule games in November and December.

As a result of that decision, the totality of the Patriot League’s non-league schedule this season consists of nine games involving either Army or Navy. Army went 4-1 including a narrow loss to Florida and an impressive win over mid-major power Buffalo. Navy went 3-1 including an upset of Georgetown.

In a normal year, the NET rankings — a metric created to help select and seed NCAA tournament hopefuls — would evaluate the strength of the Patriot League on the results of roughly 100 non-conference games. In this pandemic year, only nine data points are available. Army and Navy outperforming expectations in those nine games is dramatically warping the NET’s perception of the league as a whole.

“Basically, Colgate and the Patriot League are a closed system,” college basketball analytics expert Bart Torvik told Yahoo Sports. “You can't really use results from just this year with no priors of any kind and compare those teams against the rest of D-I because there’s no connectedness.”

(Michael Wagstaffe/Yahoo Sports illustration)
 
(Michael Wagstaffe/Yahoo Sports illustration)

Colgate has soared higher in the NET rankings than its Patriot League peers because of its 12-1 record and impressive margin of victory. Because the Patriot League broke its teams into three divisions to help limit travel, Colgate has only played three opponents: Army, Boston University and Holy Cross. The Raiders’ lone loss came by two against Army. They won the rest of their games by an average of nearly 19 points apiece.

“When you beat your opponents by such a huge margin, that shows up,” said data scientist Ed Feng, founder of The Power Rank.

While it’s theoretically possible that the Patriot League could produce a team worthy of a high ranking, recent history suggests it’s unlikely. Only twice in the 2000s has the Patriot League’s NCAA tournament entrant received better than a No. 13 seed. The league has not produced an NCAA tournament victory since 15th-seeded Lehigh toppled mighty Duke in 2012.

Other respected college basketball analytics experts have avoided overrating the Patriot League this season by incorporating data from previous years into their rankings. The assumption that the league would have performed at its recent average level in non-conference play makes a huge difference.

 

 

Colgate is 80th in Torvik’s tempo-free rankings. Ken Pomeroy has the Raiders 89th.

“The preseason weighting helps anchor the Patriot League in a more realistic way,” Pomeroy told Yahoo Sports. “The weighting only applies to cases where teams have played few games, so it influences the Patriot League while not being a factor for the vast majority of teams at this point.”

While the NCAA’s algorithm does not include data from previous seasons, Colgate’s top-10 NET ranking isn’t likely to dramatically alter the selection committee’s perception of the Raiders. NCAA spokesman David Worlock cautioned that the NET is “just one tool” and that “other metrics and criteria factor into the committee’s decision for selecting and seeding teams.”

Many mock NCAA tournament brackets project Colgate as a No. 13 or 14 seed if it wins this week’s Patriot League tournament. The Raiders received a No. 15 seed two years ago and lost a first-round matchup to Tennessee.

“I don’t think we’re going to get a seed that is similar to where our NET ranking is or even close,” Langel said, “but my hope is that maybe we can bump up a spot or two.”

The most tangible impact of Colgate’s high NET ranking is that Langel’s phone has rung more often than usual the past few weeks. Coaches of teams on the NCAA tournament bubble keep calling to try to hastily arrange a game.

Stoppages and outbreaks caused an unusual number of teams to scramble to fill holes in their schedules. What better way to do that than by scheduling the Raiders in hopes of earning a résumé-boosting Quadrant 1 victory without having to beat a traditional power?

“I fielded a number of calls from bubble teams as the season was winding down,” Langel said. “My angle was to try to get them to come here. I think a testament to our team is that nobody really had a lot of interest in doing that. They wanted to play us, but they wanted to play us in their venue.”

Colgate’s top-10 NET ranking has also garnered attention from coaches eager to assess how the Raiders did it. They all want to know if this is strictly a COVID anomaly or if there’s a lesson to be learned in how to game the NET in the future.

Among those qualified to answer that question is Matt Dover, co-owner of an analytics company that helps coaches optimize their non-league schedules to maximize their chances of making the NCAA tournament. It’s Dover’s belief that this is simply a “weird artifact of a weird season” — not a loophole to be exploited again and again.

“The NET is built to be pretty hard, if not impossible to game, under normal circumstances,” Dover told Yahoo Sports. “This is just a unique situation caused by the Patriot League playing so few non-conference games. That is leaving the entire league vulnerable to huge statistical swings that there won’t be in future years.”

Could another one-bid league gamble, only play a handful of strategically selected non-league games and hope to outperform expectations the way Army and Navy did this season? In theory, maybe. In reality, too many small-conference teams rely on the revenue generated by playing road non-conference games in return for tens of thousands of dollars.

“What are they going to do?” Dover said. “Totally forgo the option of playing those? Because that’s what you’d have to do. You’d have to limit it to a tiny, tiny sample size. Once you get up to a slightly larger sample size — every team playing a few non-conference games for example — it would be much less likely you’d get something super skewed.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can bet the ncaa will rework their program over the summer.   cant have teams like colgate and drake figuring out the system and cost them their precious blue bloods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

you can bet the ncaa will rework their program over the summer.   cant have teams like colgate and drake figuring out the system and cost them their precious blue bloods.

They didn't really game the system. They just didn't play any non-conference games. In a normal year, they'd have enough games against power conference teams that this would be impossible. (They were actually a very good team last year - after losing consecutive games to Clemson, Auburn, and Syracuse, they took only one more non-conference loss and even won a road game at Cincinnati.)

So I don't think there's a big lesson to be taken from their ranking this year if we go back to normal full schedules next season. The only thing I'd add is that as power conferences lengthen their conference schedules to 20 games, non-conference schedules for everyone will get shorter and if a team like Colgate is able to pull off a couple non-conference upsets, look out. Then you could have a lower conference team with like 2 losses in March and a bunch of .500 power conference teams trying to convince us that they're more deserving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing Colgate wouldn't do anything for a bubble team. The committee can see through that kind of stuff and if a team was 1-2 against quad one teams, beat Colgate and became 2-2, the committee would still treat them like they are 1-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the important  takeaways of this thread is ...the power of the Selection Committee to " fix things"  .  If they were truly glued to the NET rankings then Colgate would be a #2 seed and that is not going to happen. They have devised a one time "fix"  to "make things right "  by using past years data.  How do they do that ?  What does that have to do with the NET rankings?  It all falls within that subjective 15% that the committee uses to "achieve reasonable competitive balance"

Colgate will wind up as a 12th or 13th seed.  With the whisk of a  magic wand , Colgate drops 40 places.  The point of this thread is that if the Committee has the power to move a team down 40 spots , it also has the power to move a team up a few spots because of a major Covid outbreak and a month long layoff....whether they play an extra  game or not.

In the end , the Committee will select those that are " most deserving".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Pistol said:

They didn't really game the system. They just didn't play any non-conference games. In a normal year, they'd have enough games against power conference teams that this would be impossible. (They were actually a very good team last year - after losing consecutive games to Clemson, Auburn, and Syracuse, they took only one more non-conference loss and even won a road game at Cincinnati.)

So I don't think there's a big lesson to be taken from their ranking this year if we go back to normal full schedules next season. The only thing I'd add is that as power conferences lengthen their conference schedules to 20 games, non-conference schedules for everyone will get shorter and if a team like Colgate is able to pull off a couple non-conference upsets, look out. Then you could have a lower conference team with like 2 losses in March and a bunch of .500 power conference teams trying to convince us that they're more deserving.

but they have shown the world the backdoor to the code for the NET.   how many teams would use that for next year scheduling?   the ncaa will change it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

I think one of the important  takeaways of this thread is ...the power of the Selection Committee to " fix things"  .  If they were truly glued to the NET rankings then Colgate would be a #2 seed and that is not going to happen. They have devised a one time "fix"  to "make things right "  by using past years data.  How do they do that ?  What does that have to do with the NET rankings?  It all falls within that subjective 15% that the committee uses to "achieve reasonable competitive balance"

Colgate will wind up as a 12th or 13th seed.  With the whisk of a  magic wand , Colgate drops 40 places.  The point of this thread is that if the Committee has the power to move a team down 40 spots , it also has the power to move a team up a few spots because of a major Covid outbreak and a month long layoff....whether they play an extra  game or not.

In the end , the Committee will select those that are " most deserving".

wiz, the committee can be glued to the NET for most of their at large picks but then totally ignore to make sure they get the matchups on the actual brackets which i think they "fix" every year.  

the corruptness of the tourney every year imo is why every team should be in the tourney and get rid of the conference tourneys.  seed the entire country.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

wiz, the committee can be glued to the NET for most of their at large picks but then totally ignore to make sure they get the matchups on the actual brackets which i think they "fix" every year.  

the corruptness of the tourney every year imo is why every team should be in the tourney and get rid of the conference tourneys.  seed the entire country.   

Roy

i see the league tourneys as the extension of the NCAA Tournament. Any team can get hot at the end of the season and nab a spot. We call them upsets, but it is actually the NCAA tournament.5

we did it 2years ago, 4 in a row and got it done. Wasn’t easy but did it.

 

mhg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, brianstl said:

The last time the NET was used the team that got screwed the most according to their NET ranking was not a little guy, but NC State.

Yes.  NC State was 33, Clemson was 35 and Texas was 38, all NOT invited to 2019 NCAA Tourney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Billikenbooster said:

Roy

i see the league tourneys as the extension of the NCAA Tournament. Any team can get hot at the end of the season and nab a spot. We call them upsets, but it is actually the NCAA tournament.5

we did it 2years ago, 4 in a row and got it done. Wasn’t easy but did it.

 

mhg

the difference is that the at large's still all predominately go to the p5 conferences after conference tourney play  they dont lose anything and a few upset tourney winners actually garner more teams in the tourney for the p5 conferences.  the under p5 conference tourney upsets knock out mid major bubble teams.  we are seeing it all week now.   so let them all in.   or raise the number to 128 or 256 teams.   maybe say, 128 and all schools must have a +500 in conference record.   that would get some of the mid majors in the tourney.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

wiz, the committee can be glued to the NET for most of their at large picks but then totally ignore to make sure they get the matchups on the actual brackets which i think they "fix" every year.  

the corruptness of the tourney every year imo is why every team should be in the tourney and get rid of the conference tourneys.  seed the entire country.   

Championship Week isn't going anywhere.  It's a win for the networks.  It has fans like us paying attention to a bunch of games we wouldn't otherwise watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Detroit mercy works for me

Bills by 2....Colgate is a decent team ....Overall  a grade B...trending at A...We are still A- ...trending at B+ ...the A-10 is a B+ conference...The Patriot conference   is a C+ . ...so we play better competition... It would be a good game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Wiz said:

Bills by 2....Colgate is a decent team ....Overall  a grade B...trending at A...We are still A- ...trending at B+ ...the A-10 is a B+ conference...The Patriot conference   is a C+ . ...so we play better competition... It would be a good game.

Would we be the underdog if the game was played at Colgate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CenHudDude said:

Would we be the underdog if the game was played at Colgate?

Yes by 1pt...but I would have played that game at any location because even though the numbers are skewed, they are a legitimate team and a win in a game like this would be good enough for a definite bid.

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.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...