NIT 32 A10 0

[slufan13]

2 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

Where was the word "screwing" used?  

Your analogy is incoherent.  

 

Lol thats my point. It's also incoherent to look at RPI 

[slufan13]

1 minute ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

Is VCU going to fire Paul Rhodes for this apparent befuddlement?  Are VCU fans calling for his ouster?

No because he wins unlike Ford.  Nice try though.

Any time you get on your conspiracy hike is a good time for the sane people to leave the board. Cya

[Bay Area Billiken]

5 minutes ago, Lord Elrond said:

The NET, as far as I know, remains proprietary with the NCAA. While they have released parts of it, I haven’t seen where they have released it all. While that may be fine to not know how a rating service (like Sagarin) figures things, the NET is stated by the NCAA as something they use. We need to understand it as well as we can to gain every advantage we can. I don’t see anything wrong with looking at everything possible to advance your program as much as possible.

Agreed.

They don't want the High Major, No Football and the Mid-Majors to know.  They don't want a Missouri Valley to crack their code, like it did with the RPI.  They don't want to explain how a team with an RPI of 21 (Missouri State) got snubbed, as it once was.

 

[Bay Area Billiken]

Just now, slufan13 said:

No because he wins unlike Ford.  Nice try though.

Any time you get on your conspiracy hike is a good time for the sane people to leave the board. Cya

Have a nice rest of your day.

[brianstl]

5 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

4 years ago we were on this board talking about SLU running up the score in a game against Duquesne because the margin of victory would help our efficiency ratings and then last week our head coach is befuddled about efficiency being a part of the NET. The man has an excuse for all his failures 

I remember that.

[TheA_Bomb]

@Bay Area Billiken

1.Wait are you saying SLU isn't in the NIT because of the NET?

2.The NET is purposefully set to favor P5 schools?

Just making sure I understand you. 

[Bay Area Billiken]

4 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

@Bay Area Billiken

1.Wait are you saying SLU isn't in the NIT because of the NET?

2.The NET is purposefully set to favor P5 schools?

Just making sure I understand you. 

If the RPI was used, SLU would be in the NIT, a high seed.

More is coming when I complete a comparison study.  These will be supported facts, not a conspiracy.

[TheA_Bomb]

26 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

If the RPI was used, SLU would be in the NIT, a high seed.

More is coming when I complete a comparison study.  These will be supported facts, not a conspiracy.

I agree with point 1.  SLU would likely be in the NIT if RPI was still used as a metric.

Another question if SLU were in the NIT would that be cause for celebration for the season?

It would make this season more palatable for me personally but still overall a disappointment. 

As to the conspiracy it is troubling that it's a black box. It should be known because it's a metric. 

[Young Charles]

Can we add @The Wiz  computer to our staff for scheduling / exploiting the NET? 

[The Wiz]

1 hour ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

The NET keeps being tweaked by the NCAA for its Power 5 overlords. No one in this fanbase should be insulted if the NET remains a mystery.  Some parts of the schedules are made years ahead, such as contracted return visits on home and homes.

My request is for The Wiz to weigh in on this if he's reading.  My understanding is the old 10 point cap on wins under the NET was abolished, with no margin of victory cap baked into the "efficiency" component.  I'm not even certain the exact NET formula has even made public.  It someone is aware, provide a link.  

 

Here is a part of the NET formula as presented by Sports Betting Dime, a betting service that studies and evaluates the NET...ie cracking the code. It is true their is no margin of victory showing in the formula ...10 pts or otherwise...but it is not gone....it is now just hidden in the weeds under the title of Adjusted NET Efficiency. Make sure to read the last bolded sentence in the paragraph below. Again, this is not the whole formula but it is the meat of it. 

As the Committee has pointed out, the NET is not the only evaluation model they use...they start with the NET...filter out their 50 shoo-ins and then sift through the remaining 25-30 to find the final  14-18 teams. That is where the non NET action takes place and the Committee uses their "brains" to "FIX" the artificial intelligence and "make things right".

 

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.

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.

[Bay Area Billiken]

39 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

I agree with point 1.  SLU would likely be in the NIT if RPI was still used as a metric.

Another question if SLU were in the NIT would that be cause for celebration for the season?

It would make this season more palatable for me personally but still overall a disappointment. 

As to the conspiracy it is troubling that it's a black box. It should be known because it's a metric. 

The findings are below.  These are facts, based on the metrics, not conspiracies.  Brace yourselves, on both sides of the divide, because one finding is beyond even what I expected.  

1.  Per the RPI, Saint Louis University would be in the NCAA Tournament, not the NIT field, as the second to last team into the NCAA, with RPI of 53.   In reality, had the RPI been used, SLU probably would have been snubbed and a #1 Seed in the NIT.  

2.  In comparing the Actual NCAA Field selected by the NCAA, which used the NET, but not only the NET, vis-a-vis the RPI, FIVE (5) NCAA AT LARGE BIDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE POWER 5 AND SIX (6) TO THE POWER 5 + 1 (BIG EAST).  Those 6 bids come, 1 each, from the A10 (SLU), Sun Belt, MVC, ASUN, and 2 from C-USA.

3.  In comparing the NCAA Field per a pure following of the NET vs. the NCAA Field per a pure following of the RPI, Four (4) NCAA at large bids were transferred to the Power 5.  Those bids came from the A10 (SLU), C-USA, Sun Belt, and MVC.

4.  This year the actual NCAA field has 6 variances from a pure following of the NET.  The teams below the cutoff line of 47 that received NCAA bids were 48 Penn State, 49 Mississippi State, 50 Southern California, 56 Providence, 66 Arizona State, and 67 Pittsburgh.  The teams at or below the cutoff line of 47 that the above six replaced were:  38 North Texas, 40 Rutgers, 43 Oklahoma State, 44 Liberty, 46 North Carolina (which opted out of the NIT) and 47 Oregon.  Included in that list of 6 are 2 Non-Power 5's, 38 North Texas and 44 Liberty.

In advance, the reason I use the RPI for comparison is because the RPI was the metric previously used by the NCAA and still used by the NCAA for Soccer and Baseball.  I recall someone saying that was going to change in one of those sports.  To my knowledge there is no NET prior to tweaking to use for comparisons.  

You can draw your own conclusions.  But the conclusion is obvious to this observer.

Remedy:  SLU needs to schedule as best it can to the NET.  SLU could follow the Mizzou Model.  While that might not be palatable to elements of the fanbase, some good PR priming would appear to be in order.  

 

 

 

[Lord Elrond]

5 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

The findings are below.  These are facts, based on the metrics, not conspiracies.  Brace yourselves, on both sides of the divide, because one finding is beyond even what I expected.  

1.  Per the RPI, Saint Louis University would be in the NCAA Tournament, not the NIT field, as the second to last team into the NCAA, with RPI of 53.   In reality, had the RPI been used, SLU probably would have been snubbed and a #1 Seed in the NIT.  

2.  In comparing the Actual NCAA Field selected by the NCAA, which used the NET, but not only the NET, vis-a-vis the RPI, FIVE (5) NCAA AT LARGE BIDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE POWER 5 AND SIX (6) TO THE POWER 5 + 1 (BIG EAST).  Those 6 bids come, 1 each, from the A10 (SLU), Sun Belt, MVC, ASUN, and 2 from C-USA.

3.  In comparing the NCAA Field per a pure following of the NET vs. the NCAA Field per a pure following of the RPI, Four (4) NCAA at large bids were transferred to the Power 5.  Those bids came from the A10 (SLU), C-USA, Sun Belt, and MVC.

4.  This year the actual NCAA field has 6 variances from a pure following of the NET.  The teams below the cutoff line of 47 that received NCAA bids were 48 Penn State, 49 Mississippi State, 50 Southern California, 56 Providence, 66 Arizona State, and 67 Pittsburgh.  The teams at or below the cutoff line of 47 that the above six replaced were:  38 North Texas, 40 Rutgers, 43 Oklahoma State, 44 Liberty, 46 North Carolina (which opted out of the NIT) and 47 Oregon.  Included in that list of 6 are 2 Non-Power 5's, 38 North Texas and 44 Liberty.

In advance, the reason I use the RPI for comparison is because the RPI was the metric previously used by the NCAA and still used by the NCAA for Soccer and Baseball.  I recall someone saying that was going to change in one of those sports.  To my knowledge there is no NET prior to tweaking to use for comparisons.  

You can draw your own conclusions.  But the conclusion is obvious to this observer.

Remedy:  SLU needs to schedule as best it can to the NET.  SLU could follow the Mizzou Model.  While that might not be palatable to elements of the fanbase, some good PR priming would appear to be in order.  

 

 

 

Exactly!  Understanding the NIT and scheduling to maximize the chances of SLU getting into the NCAA needs to be what we do, regardless of who the head coach or AD is. Is it the only thing we need to do? Again, everything we do should be within the rules and geared towards improving the team.

[Soderball]

Wiz is saying that it is time for SLU to go on a road trip to all the Ohio Valley teams and blast them all by 30 points.

I like it.

[Bizziken]

The NET has been used for 4 Tournaments (2019, 2021, 2022, and this year). The avg # of Non-Power 5 at-large bids is 6.0 under this system. 

The 4 Tournaments prior to the NET being instituted, that average was 5.5. 

I certainly believe there is a skew towards Power 5 schools, but I don't think it's any worse than before the NET was implemented.

[GOSLU68]

Hard to be a billiken fan- mostly always

[Bay Area Billiken]

1 hour ago, Bizziken said:

The NET has been used for 4 Tournaments (2019, 2021, 2022, and this year). The avg # of Non-Power 5 at-large bids is 6.0 under this system. 

The 4 Tournaments prior to the NET being instituted, that average was 5.5. 

I certainly believe there is a skew towards Power 5 schools, but I don't think it's any worse than before the NET was implemented.

The NET has been tweaked.  In 2023 the number of non-Power 5 at large bids is 5, 3 to the Mountain West (which has the #5 Conference NET, ahead of the #6 PAC-12 and the #7 ACC), and 1 each to the American Athletic (which went to #1 NET overall Houston) and to the WCC (which has #11 NET St. Mary's).  Houston and St. Mary's were NCAA Locks.

The Mountain West at large bids went to #18 Utah State, #29 Boise State, and #37 Nevada, which was sent to the Play-In Game in Dayton.

Two non-Power 5's were flat out snubbed:  #38 North Texas of C-USA and #44 Liberty of the ASun.

 

[Bay Area Billiken]

1 hour ago, Soderball said:

Wiz is saying that it is time for SLU to go on a road trip to all the Ohio Valley teams and blast them all by 30 points.

I like it.

Yes.  The NCAA created this sandbox.  We have to figure out how to play in it, how to tell them to pound sand.

[cheeseman]

1 hour ago, Soderball said:

Wiz is saying that it is time for SLU to go on a road trip to all the Ohio Valley teams and blast them all by 30 points.

I like it.

No he is saying schedule teams for the home games that you can run up the score.  

[DOC]

2 hours ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

The findings are below.  These are facts, based on the metrics, not conspiracies.  Brace yourselves, on both sides of the divide, because one finding is beyond even what I expected.  

1.  Per the RPI, Saint Louis University would be in the NCAA Tournament, not the NIT field, as the second to last team into the NCAA, with RPI of 53.   In reality, had the RPI been used, SLU probably would have been snubbed and a #1 Seed in the NIT.  

2.  In comparing the Actual NCAA Field selected by the NCAA, which used the NET, but not only the NET, vis-a-vis the RPI, FIVE (5) NCAA AT LARGE BIDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE POWER 5 AND SIX (6) TO THE POWER 5 + 1 (BIG EAST).  Those 6 bids come, 1 each, from the A10 (SLU), Sun Belt, MVC, ASUN, and 2 from C-USA.

3.  In comparing the NCAA Field per a pure following of the NET vs. the NCAA Field per a pure following of the RPI, Four (4) NCAA at large bids were transferred to the Power 5.  Those bids came from the A10 (SLU), C-USA, Sun Belt, and MVC.

4.  This year the actual NCAA field has 6 variances from a pure following of the NET.  The teams below the cutoff line of 47 that received NCAA bids were 48 Penn State, 49 Mississippi State, 50 Southern California, 56 Providence, 66 Arizona State, and 67 Pittsburgh.  The teams at or below the cutoff line of 47 that the above six replaced were:  38 North Texas, 40 Rutgers, 43 Oklahoma State, 44 Liberty, 46 North Carolina (which opted out of the NIT) and 47 Oregon.  Included in that list of 6 are 2 Non-Power 5's, 38 North Texas and 44 Liberty.

In advance, the reason I use the RPI for comparison is because the RPI was the metric previously used by the NCAA and still used by the NCAA for Soccer and Baseball.  I recall someone saying that was going to change in one of those sports.  To my knowledge there is no NET prior to tweaking to use for comparisons.  

You can draw your own conclusions.  But the conclusion is obvious to this observer.

Remedy:  SLU needs to schedule as best it can to the NET.  SLU could follow the Mizzou Model.  While that might not be palatable to elements of the fanbase, some good PR priming would appear to be in order.  

 

 

 

Thanks. Good stuff. We definitely need to change how we schedule next year. 

[Bay Area Billiken]

55 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

No he is saying schedule teams for the home games that you can run up the score.  

Both- reading what the Wiz posted, road games still count more, as do playing better teams.  But I think the really important factor is blowing out the opponent, running up the score.  We'd get more "efficiency" points by running up the score vs. assorted cupcakes on the road.  For instance, SLU could play at Lindenwood and SIUe, a short bus ride away, and get more points for blowing them out on the road.  There is no mileage restriction.  We'd get the same road credit as winning at UC San Diego.  (I know all about the SIUe debacle the Wed. before Christmas.  I was there.)

[BANGheGOTit]

15 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

Both- reading what the Wiz posted, road games still count more, as do playing better teams.  But I think the really important factor is blowing out the opponent, running up the score.  We'd get more "efficiency" points by running up the score vs. assorted cupcakes on the road.  For instance, SLU could play at Lindenwood and SIUe, a short bus ride away, and get more points for blowing them out on the road.  There is no mileage restriction.  We'd get the same road credit as winning at UC San Diego.  (I know all about the SIUe debacle the Wed. before Christmas.  I was there.)

Except that backfires when you lose to them AT HOME.  That’s pretty presumptuous to count on blowing out at team at their place when you can’t beat them at home (even though you are aware of this years mess).  Until this team proves it’s capable of actually doing what you say, ANY road game is a toss up and no team can be taken lightly.  No lead can be big enough either.

[cheeseman]

25 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

Both- reading what the Wiz posted, road games still count more, as do playing better teams.  But I think the really important factor is blowing out the opponent, running up the score.  We'd get more "efficiency" points by running up the score vs. assorted cupcakes on the road.  For instance, SLU could play at Lindenwood and SIUe, a short bus ride away, and get more points for blowing them out on the road.  There is no mileage restriction.  We'd get the same road credit as winning at UC San Diego.  (I know all about the SIUe debacle the Wed. before Christmas.  I was there.)

I understand but simply scheduling a bunch of OVC teams for road games that the poster I responded too was advocating is not the solution.  Road games are always a challenge and expecting a win is one thing but expecting a blow out is a much different thing.

[Matty Light]

27 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

I understand but simply scheduling a bunch of OVC teams for road games that the poster I responded too was advocating is not the solution.  Road games are always a challenge and expecting a win is one thing but expecting a blow out is a much different thing.

Yeah, I think if you are going to take buy games on the road you would rather the play the teams from conferences with the highest SOS--mainly the Big 12 and Big 10. We should be asking Porter Moser for slot at Norman. Call Fred Hoiberg at Nebraska. I think we took a buy game at Minnesota a few years ago. We didn't win but it didn't hurt us and if you win some of those games you get a Quad 1 or 2 win which seems super important in this system. Plus the additional revenue has to be nice.

[SluSignGuy]

6 hours ago, The Wiz said:

 

 

I have never really looked into NET ratings, and I understand trying to count the number of possessions. But a missed FGA, offensive rebound, and missing put back would add 3 to the denominator.  Meanwhile just missing the FG would only add 1 to the denominator.  Seems odd to punish a team for getting an offensive rebound.

[majerus mojo]

10 hours ago, JMM28 said:

RPI hasn't been used in 5 years. NET has been around 5 years. The ol "We don't know what matters in the NET!" is insulting to the fanbase. Hire people who do. 

 

10 hours ago, slufan13 said:

What fact? Looking at the RPI and saying the NET is screwing SLU is like looking at 3 point % and saying Arenado isn't a good hitter

NET favors P5 teams to a larger degree than RPI. I think most people agree on this, but it’s kind of hard to tell what’s going on here. We’re comparing RPI vs. NET because the former had been the #1 metric used by the NCAA for 40 years. I don’t think anyone is saying because our RPI is in the 50s we should be dancing, or we had a great season look at our RPI, etc. 

With RPI, mid-majors did have a path to “figuring out” the system — crazy stuff like scheduling road games and games vs. other quality mid-majors. Well what does NET do? It diminishes the importance of road wins, since the mid-majors were the ones going on the road while the P5s camped out at home in Nov/Dec. 

Now with NET, it appears that Q1 wins are the big ticket. Texas Tech made me double-take a month ago as a bubble team. Their NET is 63, because they have 5 Q1 wins. Good amount, but they had 18 (!) opportunities. A mid-major might get 2 or 3. On the road. VCU this season had 1. 

It seems that the current system for P5 is: Do whatever! Play no one good in Nov/Dec, win a few games during conference play and find yourself on the bubble.

For mid-majors: Get on the bubble based on winning the quality Nov/Dec games you can schedule. Can only bounce yourself off during conference play.