Page 16 of 31 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 460
  1. #226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    Why is that a problem? Are you saying that a 2 pt win should be counted the same as a 30 pt win?

    And scoring margin is not a HUGE consideration, it's just one of many factors.
    Hia quote indicates efficiency is a very minor consideratiin. How does this square with the Iowa State, among others, example?


  2. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MNVCGUY View Post
    From the Article that Bleed linked:
    Pitino admitted after the 11-point victory over Illinois on Wednesday that he kept his starters in the game to make sure the final margin was at least 10 points. The NET caps point differential at 10, but the efficiency numbers can look better the more you distance yourself in points.

    “I’m never trying to show up another coach,” Pitino said. “But if they’re going to tell me a win by more than 10 points means more, then if we can get it, I’m going to get it. It’s hard to win games in this league by double digits.”


    This is confirmation that coaches are paying attention to it and it is affecting their decision making. That sucks for the guys at the end of the bench when a coach is forced to leave in their starters to increase the margin of victory in order to improve their team's ranking for the computers.

    Also, it is a joke that we would be behind Indiana in any metric right now. That fact alone tells you there is something off with it.
    That's exactly my concern. Is this becoming coach to the metric, a bit like teach to the test?
    If followed, I think this will interrupt player development. Someone brought up scrubs, but did/will this keep Omersa out of some real time minutes?

  3. #228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moonlight View Post
    That's exactly my concern. Is this becoming coach to the metric, a bit like teach to the test?
    If followed, I think this will interrupt player development. Someone brought up scrubs, but did/will this keep Omersa out of some real time minutes?
    It's called "posturing"

    He's mad because it doesn't rank us as well as he thinks it should. If it ranked us #5 he'd be talking about how great it is.

  4. #229

    Default





    Rick Pitino chimes in. I'm thinking he may still be talking to Richard.
    Winasota Gopher now takes me seriously.....you should too.

  5. #230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ltf View Post
    Hia quote indicates efficiency is a very minor consideratiin. How does this square with the Iowa State, among others, example?
    His quote indicates that the last two minutes of a game (when a team might have their reserves in the game if it is a blowout) is a very minor thing. He didn't say efficiency as a whole isn't a big consideration.

  6. #231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    He's just saying it doesn't have much of an effect. Which is true. Even if you are talking about the last two minutes of every blowout game -- you are still only looking at maybe 6-7 possessions in that time of each game that was enough of a blowout to put in reserves.

    We've had 11 games where the winning/losing margin was more than 10 points.
    Figure we have another 5 to end the season.
    Figure there are 7 possessions in the final two minutes of each of those games.
    16 x 7 = 112
    So 112 out of 2,000 (if you take the minimum) possessions in the season is less than 6%.
    Plus the other team likely doesn't have their starters in at that point either.

    That's a pretty small thing to be worried about. That's his point.
    Okay, so let's hypothetically concede your point. Then are we to believe that the current NET rankings are in fact a solid representation of who is good and who is not? And by extension that the old rankings were incorrect and that we were putting the wrong teams in the tournament? And considering the wide variations we see between, let's say the RPI and NET, that not only were we putting in the wrong teams, but completely the wrong teams?

  7. #232

    Default

    Another concern: the game has oft been abandoned during the telecast to discuss the NET ranking. Going forward, will we have a prayer of knowing how many fouls there are?

  8. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    His quote indicates that the last two minutes of a game (when a team might have their reserves in the game if it is a blowout) is a very minor thing. He didn't say efficiency as a whole isn't a big consideration.
    My bad, read his quote too quickly. Problem I could see would be situation like Illinois game. Pitino had to consider not only efficiency but also scoring margin. Even though for just a few possessions, this would be impactful. Can see his point, though, as well. Would probably be affected as well by how many times a team finds itself in this situation.

  9. #234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WoodburyTim View Post
    Okay, so let's hypothetically concede your point. Then are we to believe that the current NET rankings are in fact a solid representation of who is good and who is not? And by extension that the old rankings were incorrect and that we were putting the wrong teams in the tournament? And considering the wide variations we see between, let's say the RPI and NET, that not only were we putting in the wrong teams, but completely the wrong teams?
    1. It's a working model, not a finished product. I don't think it's perfect by any means. Tweaks will be made in the coming years. I like the idea of combining game results with efficiency measures. The premise behind it is in the right place in my opinion, though I don't think it's perfect yet. It probably never will be, some fan base will always be mad.

    2. RPI was a horrible metric, and there is a reason that everyone from coaches/fans/administrators/etc wanted to see it go.

    3. NET and RPI are the same in one way -- they each are just one of the metrics used. I do the bracketology thing each year, and I include every metric that the selection committee considers in the formula. There are a ton of things that have nothing to do with NET or RPI that are considered. KenPom, KPI, Sagarin, ESPN BPI, ESPN SOR, road record are all considered. Heck, the biggest factor in the model I use is winning percentage. None of those things are based on the NET rankings.

    I guess my point is that there are so many factors considered, and I sort of get it why NET is singled out (because it is directly from the NCAA), but I think it's a little funny that people seem to have zeroed in on NET when other ranking metrics have us rated in a similar way. NET doesn't even have us rated the lowest out of all the different metrics used.

    And last but not least -- let's wait to see what it looks like at the end of the season.
    Last edited by bizzle22; 02-01-2019 at 12:43 PM.

  10. #235

    Default

    Net ranking is not the sole answer to the at large field correct?

    It's just a comparison metric and not even THE comparison metric, but one of several comparison metrics?

    In that light, while flawed, it's probably a decent indicator of what a team COULD do or WOULD do in a game against an unnamed opponent.

  11. #236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winasota Gopher View Post
    Net ranking is not the sole answer to the at large field correct?

    It's just a comparison metric and not even THE comparison metric, but one of several comparison metrics?

    In that light, while flawed, it's probably a decent indicator of what a team COULD do or WOULD do in a game against an unnamed opponent.
    Correct. It is one of six metrics used and other factors are considered as well.

  12. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    Correct. It is one of six metrics used and other factors are considered as well.
    What are the other five?
    "Do Not Be Afraid to Be A Legend"

  13. #238
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    3,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    What are the other five?
    Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge

  14. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    Why is that a problem? Are you saying that a 2 pt win should be counted the same as a 30 pt win
    Yes.

  15. #240

    Default

    Or scheduling good teams and beating them all. Then your metrics will be awesome. Like if your 20-1 you will have great metrics. Simply can not play poorly or even average and be 20-1. Beating good teams means playing well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •