All Things 2018-19 Other College Basketball Games Thread

Donate To GopherHole


stocker08 said:
Marquette drops its third straight game. This one against Seton Hall after holding a 15 point second half lead. Previous two losses were against Creighton and Villanova.
Click to expand...

IMO the big east is mediocre.

They are kind of like the big ten except the big ten stop 5 are in the 10-2( range.

The big easts top5 are all in the 20-50 range
 

If Ohio State loses this game and at home against Wisconsin, that would leave them at 8-12 and I think would give the Gophers the 7 seed in the conference tournament against Indiana or something. Might not hurt to also have another bubble team choking down the stretch.
 

Definitely some good developments for the Gophers tonight with OSU, NC State, and Baylor all taking bad losses.
 


matt said:
Definitely some good developments for the Gophers tonight with OSU, NC State, and Baylor all taking bad losses.
Click to expand...

Agreed for the most part, but Baylor is a lock already. I think Florida's missed opportunity against LSU tonight is more helpful to bubble hopefuls. Also Georgetown got destroyed.
 

Bye bye NC State. Has there ever been an at large with an RPI over 100?
 
Last edited:

Sounds like Wesson from OSU was suspended for giving away a jersey to a fellow student in a class.
 










WriterGoph said:
Agreed for the most part, but Baylor is a lock already. I think Florida's missed opportunity against LSU tonight is more helpful to bubble hopefuls. Also Georgetown got destroyed.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all accounts. Mostly thinking about seeding IRT Baylor.
 

Not worthy of its own thread but Iowa since beating Michigan on 2/1:

W @ Indiana 77-72
W vs Northwestern 80-79
W @ Rutgers 71-69
L @ Maryland 65-66
W vs Indiana 76-70 OT
L @ OSU 70-90
L vs Rutgers 72-86

Wins are wins but not exactly inspiring results.

@ wisconsin tonight and @ Nebraska to end the season. I could see them losing both and losing in the first round of the BTT. Not sure if that would put them on the bubble or not.
 

UpAndUnder43 said:
Not worthy of its own thread but Iowa since beating Michigan on 2/1:

W @ Indiana 77-72
W vs Northwestern 80-79
W @ Rutgers 71-69
L @ Maryland 65-66
W vs Indiana 76-70 OT
L @ OSU 70-90
L vs Rutgers 72-86

Wins are wins but not exactly inspiring results.

@ wisconsin tonight and @ Nebraska to end the season. I could see them losing both and losing in the first round of the BTT. Not sure if that would put them on the bubble or not.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be on the bubble but we could finish 6th if that happened, which means we'd play a winner from weakling Wednesday instead of #10.
 


GibsonSG said:
So NC State is #31 in NET and #116 in RPI? How's that work? That's a pretty big difference.
Click to expand...

Because even though they lose all the time, they lose close.
efficiency ratings.

Two teams play the same schedule.
Team A is 10-0. They win every game by 1
Team B is 1-9. They lose 9 games by 1-2 points but win the 10th game by 30

In Efficiency systems, Team B is the better team. They’d have a better net efficiency rating.
 

Some guy said:
Because even though they lose all the time, they lose close.
efficiency ratings.

Two teams play the same schedule.
Team A is 10-0. They win every game by 1
Team B is 1-9. They lose 9 games by 1-2 points but win the 10th game by 30

In Efficiency systems, Team B is the better team. They’d have a better net efficiency rating.
Click to expand...
Not even close to the truth.
 

builtbadgers said:
Not even close to the truth.
Click to expand...

True If two teams play the same schedule and the games have similar pace of play to each other.
Offensive points per possession.
Defensive points per possession.


All efficiency ratings are are norming margin of victory of pace of play.


Funny how all in you are on efficiency ratings but you don’t even understand what they are
 

Some guy said:
True If two teams play the same schedule and the games have similar pace of play to each other.
Offensive points per possession.
Defensive points per possession.


All efficiency ratings are are norming margin of victory of pace of play.


Funny how all in you are on efficiency ratings but you don’t even understand what they are
Click to expand...

Have lived in the efficiency ratings for decades and tracked the programs that do well in them. They are the programs that win conference titles, that win a ton of games. You could not be further than the truth. We measure them game by game, season by season.
 


builtbadgers said:
Have lived in the efficiency ratings for decades and tracked the programs that do well in them. They are the programs that win conference titles, that win a ton of games. You could not be further than the truth. We measure them game by game, season by season.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree with what you said.
I am just talking about the math.


The hypothetical results probably wouldn’t happen. I am saying, if they happened, mathematically a system based 100% on efficiency and SOS adjusted efficiency would have the 1-9 team rated higher than the 10-0 team.

Generally effficiency stats are good at telling a good team from a bad team. They’re good at predicting what a team might do. They are bad at ranking teams in the middle of the pack based on what they’ve done.
 

builtbadgers said:
Have lived in the efficiency ratings for decades and tracked the programs that do well in them. They are the programs that win conference titles, that win a ton of games. You could not be further than the truth. We measure them game by game, season by season.
Click to expand...
I think our complaints are getting twisted. I personally have no issues with efficiency ratings being factored into equation. My current issue is that efficiency ratings seem to be weighted far too heavily in the initial NET system....and the weights have been kept under wraps by the NCAA. Results and records are being overlooked. It's a knee jerk reaction to RPI.

But just look at how two of the major bracketologists are seeding teams. Jerry Palm has the Gophers safely in the tournament as a ten seed and has 16-14 Texas as one of the first four out. Lunardi has the Gophers as one of the last four byes yet has Texas in safely as a nine seed. This is presumably due to their NET ranking of 35.

So there's a major disconnect when it comes to NET, and results and records play a major part.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

Some guy said:
I don’t disagree with what you said.
I am just talking about the math.


The hypothetical results probably wouldn’t happen. I am saying, if they happened, mathematically a system based 100% on efficiency and SOS adjusted efficiency would have the 1-9 team rated higher than the 10-0 team.

Generally effficiency stats are good at telling a good team from a bad team. They’re good at predicting what a team might do. They are bad at ranking teams in the middle of the pack based on what they’ve done.
Click to expand...

All systems are a problem when separating teams in the middle. They have all performed poorly quite often. Look at the huge gap between the efficiency numbers from top to 50. Those teams from 30-50 are close because they are close. The teams that rock high efficiency ratings by season, laid over bartorvik match wonderfully game by game by high performance. No surprise that teams that play well all the time win a ton of games. The teams in the middle are more bunched because their margin for loss is narrow. I also look at scoring margin because that spread over the season reveals great teams. I ignore pace of play because if i take the slowest team, UVA or teams i find out two dribbles less in bringing it up the court moves you from 351 to 270. Now tell UVA to reacklessly turn it over 5 more times per game, some of them quickly and you will have increased possessions another 100 spots, now take bad shots early in a possession and you will be even faster, now play defense poorly, giving up scores and shots earlier and you will be top 50. Bo Ryan knew this to a tee, Michigan preaches it, UVA practices it. If you have the best athletes clear you want more possessions, speed up the other team. If you do not, then great coaches discovered that it was easier to slow down by precision then trying to speed someone up. Obviously being great at both is the best but it is fools gold for most teams.
 

stocker08 said:
I think our complaints are getting twisted. I personally have no issues with efficiency ratings being factored into equation. My current issue is that efficiency ratings seem to be weighted far too heavily in the initial NET system....and the weights have been kept under wraps by the NCAA. Results and records are being overlooked. It's a knee jerk reaction to RPI.

But just look at how two of the major bracketologists are seeding teams. Jerry Palm has the Gophers safely in the tournament as a ten seed and has 16-14 Texas as one of the first four out. Lunardi has the Gophers as one of the last four byes yet has Texas in safely as a nine seed. This is presumably due to their NET ranking of 35.

So there's a major disconnect when it comes to NET, and results and records play a major part.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Texas beat UNC, Kansas, Kansas State, and Purdue. They've played a top 10 schedule by just about any measure so of course they've piled up some losses. They would still be in if we were using RPI -- their RPI is 47, so not a huge difference from NET.

What I think people are totally missing is that NET and RPI are used as a sorting tool. To help determine the quality of wins, and how many quality wins a team has at the end of the year. The number of Q1/Q2 wins is more important than the actual number of their ranking.

It's funny to me that this is a Gopher message board, and people are whining (that's not directed at you stocker08) about NET even though the Gophers have a way better resume using NET than using RPI.

Using NET: 10 Q1/Q2 wins. No Q3/Q4 losses. Best wins 12, @15, vs 33, 41, 47. No losses outside the top 100.

Using RPI: 4 Q1/Q2 wins. 2 Q3/Q4 losses. Best wins 13, vs 21, @28, 42, 77. Losses to 111, 131, 142, 156.

It's not even close. We are inching closer to lock territory with our NET resume, while our RPI resume would probably need another marquee win and even that might not be enough.
 

Wisconsin leading Iowa in Madison by 11 early in the second half. If Iowa loses this game, loses at Nebraska, and the Gophers beat Maryland, we would be tied at 10-10 in conference and we’d have the tournament seeding tiebreaker with our win over Iowa. I think that would give us the 6 seed, the best we can mathematically get right now, playing the winner of the 11-14 game. The Indiana Illinois game tonight could impact which one of them gets the 11 and plays on Wednesday.
 

Cayman said:
Wisconsin leading Iowa in Madison by 11 early in the second half. If Iowa loses this game, loses at Nebraska, and the Gophers beat Maryland, we would be tied at 10-10 in conference and we’d have the tournament seeding tiebreaker with our win over Iowa. I think that would give us the 6 seed, the best we can mathematically get right now, playing the winner of the 11-14 game. The Indiana Illinois game tonight could impact which one of them gets the 11 and plays on Wednesday.
Click to expand...

Iowa looks like they've quit, especially on the defensive side of the ball. No hustle or discipline. Wisconsin up by 23. To Wisconsin's credit, they've played some lock-down defense tonight.
 
Last edited:

UW will really be a tough out. Greg Gard may get them to 14-6.
 

These are not the Hoosiers I remember from Williams Arena. What is with this world?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom