Jump to content

The Bills over BC by 10


The Wiz

Recommended Posts

 
Cold shooting last night was a game killer.  If you want to find meaning in last night's game check out my post game analysis in the Bel spread thread.
 
As promised in the Bel thread, I am going to list our chances to get a bid in the NCAA playoffs each thread as long as we have at least a 40% chance to make it.  I am going to lead with that in this thread,  in light of last night's loss and the " end of the world " scenario being painted by some posters.  The reality is our overall chances were little affected by last night's loss.  One of the things that is being lost in the discussions is the overall parity that is taking place in college basketball at least up  until this point.  While there will always be rankings and NET trackers,  the difference in the actually numbers are much closer ...a 60th ranked team is much closer to a 40th ranked team than a 60 and 40 from the past few years....Let's see our chances....
 
Chance to Dance
 
The Bills....60%
St. B...........59%
Day.............46%
VCU............44%
Rich.............41%
To paraphrase Mark Twain...Reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. ...Our numbers have gone done since the last thread from 61% to 60%.  My calendar say December.    Long way to go...
 
Turning to the report card ... as expected, our offense numbers have declined but are still very good. Defensive numbers improved a little.  And rebounding was much better. Maybe the team was reading our board.  Let's see what the grades look like....
 
 
....................SLU....................BC..........................SLU...........................BC

.................................OFF...........................................................DEF.............

PPG...............A.......................D............................C+................................A-

FG%...............B+....................C+..........................C..................................C+

3Pt%.............A-.......................A-..........................C+................................C

FT%...............B+......................C-.................................................................

Reb...............B+.......................C+...............................B+...........................A-

 OFF Rebs  = total rebs...DEF Rebs = opp reb

UP....Off....Rebs.......Def....PPG...3P%

Down....Off...PPG...FG%...3P%...FT%......Def....none

Team FTs... Top 100 Teams ITN

FTM/gm....The Bills...1st

FTA/gm....The Bills....4th

FTM / 100 possessions...The Bills...1st

FTA / Offensive play...The Bills........6th

Top 100 ITN (In The Nation)/ gm

SLU

Assts...Collins...7th...dn

Stls......Collins....46th....unch

FG%.....Linssen...96th....dn

BC

None

 

BC is an above average team (B- ) but a step down from the teams we have been playing.  We remain at A-... This game will be a low scoring game featuring 3Pt shooting . The team that shoots the best from the arc and rebounds best (no 2nd chances ) will probably win the game.

WWN2D2W...

47/38/75...with an emphasis on the 38%....Hold them to 33% from 3....Rebounds +4  for the Bills.....TO 11  ...This is important because they don't turn it over...There is no star we have to look out for...  evenly spread scoring ...keep them under 65 pts.

Bottom line...We need to bounce back on shooting ..don't need a great night of shooting just a normal Bills night.  Rebound like we did against Bel...and keep TOs down.     If we clip the 3pt wings of the Eagles,  we will rebound to victory.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My outlook on the season hasn't changed. It is early in the season and the Auto bid is our goal. As long as we can develop into a strong team before the A10 tourney, the nonconference wins and losses don't really matter. Conference wins and losses matter as far as seeding is concerned.

Let's get that double bye!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sagarin has SLU over BC by 9 points, including the 4 point home court advantage.

Ratings:  SLU- NET 72, RPI 123, Sagarin 54, ESPN BPI 55, Pomeroy 90, 5 ratings average- 78.8

                BC- NET 114, RPI 162, Sagarin 111, ESPN BPI 99, Pomeroy 112, 5 ratings average- 119.6

                Massey's was only through 12/5/21.

SLU should win over BC. But SLU also should have beaten UAB and Belmont, BC more so.

NET's of upcoming nonconference opponents:  Auburn 15, Drake 85;

NET's of A10 teams:  Davidson 52, SLU 72, VCU 74, St. Bona 78, URI 84, Dayton 94, Richmond 98, Mason 124, UMass 132, Fordham 170, St. Joe's 208, LaSalle 251, Duquesne 263, GW 285.

The sky is not yet falling, but opportunities have been lost.  BC is a must win, no question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NET's of SLU non-conference opponents in games already played, Home games unless otherwise indicated:

UAB 36 (L), Belmont 38 (L), @Memphis 66 (L), @Boise State 80 (W), SFA (N, W) 165, Mercer (W) 168, Illinois State (N, W) 268, Central Arkansas (W) 336, Eastern Illinois (W) 357.  Harris-Stowe (W) is NAIA.

Bill Parcells said, you are what your record says you are.  While I don't always subscribe to that, SLU's NET of 72 is right down Broadway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Wiz said:
Chance to Dance
 
The Bills....60%
St. B...........59%
Day.............46%
VCU............44%
Rich.............41%
To paraphrase Mark Twain...Reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated. ...Our numbers have gone done since the last thread from 61% to 60%.  My calendar say December.    Long way to go...

@The Wiz this may be a silly question.  Are those %s each team's chances of an at-large bid or their changes of making the tournament at all (at-large plus auto bid chances)?

When I was reading your posts in the past, I was always thinking that was our chance at an at-large.  I'm now thinking that was foolish and these %s include both at-large and auto-bid.

If it isn't too much work, it would be really cool / useful if you could show those %s separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

@The Wiz this may be a silly question.  Are those %s each team's chances of an at-large bid or their changes of making the tournament at all (at-large plus auto bid chances)?

When I was reading your posts in the past, I was always thinking that was our chance at an at-large.  I'm now thinking that was foolish and these %s include both at-large and auto-bid.

If it isn't too much work, it would be really cool / useful if you could show those %s separately.

Has to be chances between auto and at large.  Our chances of an at large right now has to be under 30%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Has to be chances between auto and at large.  Our chances of an at large right now has to be under 30%

Agreed that it has to be our chances of either auto or at-large.  If our at-large chances are under 30% that would mean we have a 30%+ chance of winning the A10 tournament which also seems crazy high for a single elimination tournament that we're probably not even the best team in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

Agreed that it has to be our chances of either auto or at-large.  If our at-large chances are under 30% that would mean we have a 30%+ chance of winning the A10 tournament which also seems crazy high for a single elimination tournament that we're probably not even the best team in.

Ya, the other day I had mentioned that I think we're closer to the 4th best team in the A10 than we are the 2nd best team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Has to be chances between auto and at large.  Our chances of an at large right now has to be under 30%

Agreed - but I think Wiz looks at the percentages of tournament based on the team quality (per his model) and not necessarily the resume. If bills don't win v auburn, it is WAY less than 30%. Only because there won't be any opportunities for good wins in conference, especially if Bonnies don't figure it out/get healthy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Ya, the other day I had mentioned that I think we're closer to the 4th best team in the A10 than we are the 2nd best team. 

I disagree - not because we are any good, but I think the league as a whole is so far down, there are only three good teams in the league - Bona, SLU, Dayton. I think I am probably lower on Bona than most and Dayton appears to be past their horror stretch. Maybe once Ace comes back VCU will be worth something, but that's it in this league. Richmond and maybe Rhody have enough to beat anyone in the league on any given night, but so so inconsistent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Littlebill said:

I disagree - not because we are any good, but I think the league as a whole is so far down, there are only three good teams in the league - Bona, SLU, Dayton. I think I am probably lower on Bona than most and Dayton appears to be past their horror stretch. Maybe once Ace comes back VCU will be worth something, but that's it in this league. Richmond and maybe Rhody have enough to beat anyone in the league on any given night, but so so inconsistent

never bet against davidson.   he is a good floor coach.   and he recruits players that fit his style of play.  he and schmidt are a step above the conference in overall coaching ability and attributes of a good coach imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RUBillsFan said:

@The Wiz this may be a silly question.  Are those %s each team's chances of an at-large bid or their changes of making the tournament at all (at-large plus auto bid chances)?

When I was reading your posts in the past, I was always thinking that was our chance at an at-large.  I'm now thinking that was foolish and these %s include both at-large and auto-bid.

If it isn't too much work, it would be really cool / useful if you could show those %s separately.

They are  combined %s...at large and auto bid. It is a sliding scale...as our chances to win the conference go up our at large chances go up too....as our chances for the auto bid drop then what you are seeing is mainly the at large bid.    I did it this way because in the end , I want to know as well as most fans what are our chances to get into the Tourney.  I really don't care whether it is an at large or an auto... just get in.  

Right now ,  as it did in the preseason forecast, it looks like  a 2 bid conference with a chance that one of those 40% teams could come in and grab a 3rd bid.  Based on the percentages ...SLU 60% and St. B 59% ...it looks like the conference title is a tossup right now. Please note there is no Davidson at this time... to low to be listed.  I think the NCAA embarrasses itself buy putting out data too early  that confuses its fans. If they don't have enough data to put out a realistic forecast then they should just wait till they do.

Bottom line....We are still in the running for a Dance bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC is not very good. I went there and I watch most of their games. Their new coach has given them energy. Their best players are probably the Langford brothers. Demarr is a super athletic and strong guard, a big like J-Good. His brother is older but not as thick. They have a nice left 2-guard named Zachary. Former Supersonics coach Bernie Bickerstaff's grandson is a junior transfer and is a work in progress with a nose for rebounding. They have a very muscular center, Karnik, who destroyed Notre Dame. Linssen should be able to stick with him. 

Coach Grant is bringing in a top 25 recruiting class with 2 top 100 guys next year, so this may be the last year to beat up on a BC team that has sucked since Skinner left. The Jared Dudley/Ty Rice/Reggie Jackson days are long gone and this team hasn't danced since 2009, and they hung on too long to two Jim Crews-type coaches. 

The Wiz likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Littlebill said:

NCAA got rid of margin of victory this year

I have included a great  article on Net Ranking....I think it is good for the novice as well as the seasoned fan who follows basketball carefully.

You are technically correct ...the NCAA did get rid of the margin of victory in May of 2020.  In the section below titled How Are Net Rankings Calculated?... I have bolded a line which refers  margin of victory no longer being included.  On the surface not a bad idea. BUT like everything else  the NCAA does , they make things worse when they fix things especially non basketball things like tech data models.

The reason I mentioned you were technically correct is because they didn't really delete  margin of victory...they moved it and hid it AND made it worse. Now look a little farther down in the article to the section titled...Adjusted Net Efficiency...last line...again  bolded by me. This  section explains not only why margin of victory isn't gone (nor limited) but why it is now one of the key factors in the ranking.  It is why dumb things happen....On Wed. before their loss to Arizona, Wyoming was 12th in the NET rankings.  What a joke...  a team that I didn't even have close to the top 100...  was 12th in the NET rankings. Wed night they played a good team,  Ariz who beat them....but the NCAA said no,  they didn't beat  WY ...they whupped them by 29 pts...emphasis  on the 29pts.  What happened next was very predictable  ...after taking down the WY powerhouse... AZ becomes number 1 in the rankings.

So for those that like to fool around with quadrants....better not forget the margin of victory...And for those posters who think the Bills season is over because of a couple of close losses...a couple of blowouts against LaSalle and Fordham and the NCAA says you might be Dancing.

PS...The most important part of the article is at the end of the section which is titled...NET Rankings Explained...last few lines....again bolded... Translation of those lines...Want to see the NCAA pull a quarter out of your ear?

What Are NET Rankings? Understanding College Basketball’s New Ranking System

0
Comments
understanding-NET-rankings-featured.png
How to Bet on Sports IconHow to Bet on Sports Icon Text
Estimated Read Time: 6 minutes

See All Guides 

 Published March 23, 2021

Even the most dedicated college basketball fans have probably wondered how college basketball teams are ranked.

NCAA Division I men’s and women’s basketball each have their own 10-member selection committee responsible for selecting, seeding, and bracketing teams for the championship tournament. There is a lot of debate and voting involved.

To assist in making these decisions, the NCAA created the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET ranking system) in 2018, replacing the outdated Rating Percentage Index (RPI) system with a more sophisticated metric.

What exactly are NET rankings? Read on for a complete overview of the NCAA Evaluation Tool, including its role in seeding March Madness. Plus, learn how you can use it to compare teams when betting on college basketball.

NET Rankings Explained

The NCAA Evaluation Tool is a ranking system for men’s and women’s college basketball teams, developed in partnership with the NCAA and Google Cloud.

The NET uses a highly sophisticated algorithm the NCAA doesn’t share. However, NET rankings are adjusted daily during the college basketball season and displayed publicly on NCAA.com and NCAA.org.

The NET is one of the sorting tools used by the selection committees to determine which teams receive at-large bids for March Madness. We wish we could say that NET rankings alone determined tournament seeding, but it’s not that simple. The NET is not designed to select and seed teams for the committee.

Remember, teams that win their conference tournaments automatically qualify for the NCAA tournament. The remaining tournament bids are given to teams who the selection committee considers the best in the country. Many of them will have high NET rankings, but that isn’t a perfect predictor of a team making the tournament, nor is it necessarily an indication of how teams will be seeded. There will be teams left out with good NET rankings and others that squeak in with relatively poor rankings.

NET Rankings vs. RPI

Prior to adopting the NET ranking system, the NCAA had utilized the Rating Percentage Index, or RPI, since 1981.

Widely criticized for not accounting for a teams’ margin of victory, the RPI was calculated based on winning percentage, strength of schedule, and opponents’ strength of schedule. In theory, RPI punished teams for playing weaker opponents, which isn’t entirely in the realm of control for teams in weaker conferences.

As an attempt to overcome the shortfalls of the RPI, the NET considers multiple other factors. We’ll share as much info as we can about each of these in the next sections.

How Are NET Rankings Calculated?

The NCAA does not publicly share the exact formula it uses to calculate NET rankings. In fact, there is almost no part of the NET that can be calculated or reverse engineered. The proprietary algorithm is a tightly kept secret, but here’s what we do know: the NET has two main components – adjusted net efficiency and the team value index.

Infographic showing the components of the NET ranking system

The NCAA dropped three other components of the original NET formula before the 2020-2021 college basketball season. The new NET algorithm no longer uses winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage, and scoring margin. The NCAA confirmed it does not anticipate any further adjustments in the formula for several years.

Let’s explore the remaining factors in as much detail as possible with the limited information provided.

Adjusted Net Efficiency

In basketball, net efficiency is a team’s offensive efficiency (points per possession) minus its defensive efficiency (opponent points per possession). Here’s the basic formula:

Infographic outlining basketball net efficiency calculation

To find adjusted net efficiency, the NCAA tweaks the above calculation to account for strength of opponent and game location – home, away, or neutral– across all games played.

Exactly how the algorithm calculates this adjustment is somewhat of a mystery. The important thing to remember is that a given net efficiency value – say, 8.2 points per 100 possessions – rates higher against stronger competition than the same efficiency against weaker opponents. Equally, having a certain efficiency when playing on the road rates higher than accomplishing that same efficiency at home.

Adjusted net efficiency is now the most heavily weighted part of the NET formula, so running up the score can have a significant effect on NET rankings.

Team Value Index

The Team Value Index (TVI) is the other “results-oriented” element of the NET. It’s designed to reward teams for beating other good teams.

The Team Value Index only considers games against Division I opponents and is based on results. The algorithm factors in the opponent, location, and winner to produce a TVI score. Again, little information is shared about how TVI is actually calculated.

Interestingly, strength of schedule is in some way part of both adjusted net efficiency and the Team Value Index, but its exact impact on each component is – you guessed it – a secret.

What About the Quadrant System?

Hoops diehards are probably wondering if the so-called Quadrant System is still in play with NET rankings. The NCAA still utilizes the Quadrant System for March Madness tournament selections and seeding. Essentially, at the end of the season, the NET sorts games into tiers, from Quadrant 1 at the top through Quadrant 4.

The men’s and women’s Quadrant Systems differ slightly in that the men’s uses a weighted system to account for home, neutral site, and road games. The women’s system doesn’t differentiate based on where games are played and simply sorts teams into four quadrants based on NET ranking: Quad 1 (NET 1-25), Quad 2 (NET 26-50), Quad 3 (NET 51-100), and Quad 4 (NET 101+).

Here’s a quick overview of the Division I men’s basketball Quadrant System, with the corresponding NET rankings for each quadrant displayed by location:

Tier Home Game Neutral Site Game Road Game
Quadrant 1 NET 1-30 NET 1-50 NET 1-75
Quadrant 2 NET 31-75 NET 51-100 NET 76-135
Quadrant 3 NET 76-160 NET 101-200 NET 136-240
Quadrant 4 NET 161+ NET 201+ NET 241+

Quad 1 wins make the biggest headlines, as they come against the highest caliber opponents. On the other end of the spectrum, Quad 4 games are the easiest on the schedule. A loss here could have devasting consequences for a team’s tournament aspirations.

When looking at NCAA rankings, each team’s record will display its overall record, home record, away record, and neutral record, as well as its record in each of the four quadrants. Note that game results can shift between quadrants throughout the season depending on fluctuations of an opponent’s NET ranking.

How to Use NET Rankings to Compare Teams

There are 350 schools in Division I men’s college basketball and 354 in Division I women’s basketball. Part of what makes March Madness so chaotic is most teams must face opponents from outside of their conferences.

There is simply no perfect way to compare two teams that may not have played each other before or even shared any common opponents in a given season.

That said, NET rankings can provide some valuable insights for basketball bettors. Because the NET system rewards teams for beating quality opponents and considers adjusted net efficiency, NET rankings should give you some sense of how a team performs against other top competition.

When comparing teams, we recommend looking at the number of Quadrant 1 wins and Quadrant 3 and 4 losses. A team with a good NET ranking but several Quad 3 and 4 losses may be prone to playing down to their opponent. Conversely, a team with a mediocre or even low NET ranking but a few Quad 1 wins may not be the most consistent but could have an upset in them.

Sometimes, a team will have a much lower seeding than their NET ranking would imply, as was the case for both Loyola Chicago and Colgate in the 2021 NCAA men’s tournament and Oregon in the women’s tournament. The NCAA doesn’t provide any explanations for this, but an educated guess would be that such teams either played too many Quad 4 games or not enough Quad 1 games, or struggled in their recent performances.

A Word of Warning

Bracketology is complicated, as much an art as a science. Exactly how the NCAA utilizes its own evaluation tools and team sheets is convoluted and vague, perhaps even intentionally so.

The NET is a complex analytical model, but it’s still just one part of the picture. Tournament seedings are not solely decided based on NET ranking.

Interestingly, in 2021, the top four teams in the NET rankings (Gonzaga, Baylor, Illinois, and Michigan) all received a #1 seed from the men’s basketball committee. On the women’s side, only three of the top four squads in the NET rankings received a #1 seed – Stanford, UConn, and South Carolina. The Baylor Lady Bears were relegated to a #2 seed, with NC State receiving the final top seed.

While the NET is a useful predictive metric, we must remind bettors that no single metric can perfectly foresee every outcome – that’s why we have to play the games.

Similarly, despite spending millions on developing algorithms, the March Madness selection committee is ultimately still a human committee, and thus a flawed one. For all its high talk of “amateurism” when discussing its athletes, the NCAA is still run like a business. March Madness brings in over a billion dollars of revenue every year, and one has to wonder what impact that has on tournament selection.

Your Source for College Basketball Betting Information

Even with sophisticated ranking systems in play, college basketball can still be unpredictable. That’s all part of the fun.

Be sure to check out our “How to Bet on Sports” section for more NCAA basketball betting advice. We provide all the information you need to make confident wagers and fill out your March Madness brackets.

Have fun and enjoy the action out there!

 
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.

×
×
  • Create New...