- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Basketball now up to 34th in NET ranking
Posted on 12/17/18 at 11:40 am to jimbeam
Posted on 12/17/18 at 11:40 am to jimbeam
What are you rolling your eyes about? At least say something if you disagree.
There is no logic to the RPI or this new NET ranking. It's a bunch of convoluted BS. This NET ranking is even worse than the RPI.
I don't want LSU's season ever coming down to what this ranking this system spits out. I'm not sure on what grounds you are rolling your eyes at me for calling it what it is.
There is no logic to the RPI or this new NET ranking. It's a bunch of convoluted BS. This NET ranking is even worse than the RPI.
I don't want LSU's season ever coming down to what this ranking this system spits out. I'm not sure on what grounds you are rolling your eyes at me for calling it what it is.
This post was edited on 12/17/18 at 11:41 am
2
Posted on 12/17/18 at 12:02 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
There is no logic to the RPI or this new NET ranking
Actually, that's exactly what these kind of systems are based upon, logic, not subjectivity.
Posted on 12/17/18 at 12:17 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
There is no logic to the RPI or this new NET ranking. It's a bunch of convoluted BS. This NET ranking is even worse than the RPI.
There's tons of logic to both RPI and NET being a metric used in figuring out if a team is better than another team. It uses all sorts of metrics that are either literally tracking wins or factors that greatly correlate to wins. I'm actually super confused as to why anyone couldn't understand that. With 330+ teams in NCAA D1 basketball you cant rely on eye test alone. Too many variables and this tries to take a lot of variables and give them a value.
Posted on 12/17/18 at 12:29 pm to thunderbird1100
This is the type of argument I'm used to seeing. Just because something isn't subjective, does not mean it is correct. There are laws in place that I disagree with. A law isn't subjective, as it is written and concrete. but the law can still be a bad law.
These systems over reward teams for playing road games, regardless of competition, and harshly punish in other areas.
These systems over reward teams for playing road games, regardless of competition, and harshly punish in other areas.
Posted on 12/17/18 at 12:33 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
This is the type of argument I'm used to seeing.
Well then that should tell you something then...
quote:
Just because something isn't subjective, does not mean it is correct
"Correct" is not "logic". You cant change the argument entirely here. The WHOLE point of advanced metric/statistic systems is to try and put numbers to tangible measurable things to try and come up with a LOGIC based ranking system.
It's obviously completely ridiculous to think anyone can follow 350+ Division I teams and make a decision based on that who should and shouldnt play in a tournament. There HAS to be some objective measurable criteria you put into a format with logic behind it to attempt to try and rank those teams beyond just "well I think they're about here".
Can you sit here and argue what is more "Correct" than another? Absolutely. But these systems are all based on logic, that's kind of the entire point.
This post was edited on 12/17/18 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 12/17/18 at 12:36 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
These systems over reward teams for playing road games, regardless of competition, and harshly punish in other areas.
I think this is crazy. Home teams win over 2/3's of the time. This is fact. Why wouldnt you reward winning on the road?
What are you seeing in either RPI or NET that harshly punishes a team for something that shouldn't be punished?
It's not like this is the BCS and the top 64 teams in NET go to tournament; this is 1 measurement the committee uses. I'm seriously interested in why you think these are bad metrics to help figure out at large bids.
Posted on 12/17/18 at 12:37 pm to SouthOfSouth
I'm not advocating for the eye test, alone, as a means to rank teams.
I'm saying the metrics don't add up. The very nature of which these systems measure value seems like a blender spitting out teams.
I've seen some of the NET rankings, and some of it is just outrageous. It tries to tie too any things together that aren't relevant to who is playing who, and how they are playing.
I'm saying the metrics don't add up. The very nature of which these systems measure value seems like a blender spitting out teams.
I've seen some of the NET rankings, and some of it is just outrageous. It tries to tie too any things together that aren't relevant to who is playing who, and how they are playing.
Posted on 12/17/18 at 12:42 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
I've seen some of the NET rankings, and some of it is just outrageous. It tries to tie too any things together that aren't relevant to who is playing who, and how they are playing.
One thing to note is NET is a measurement for an entire season and early season NET rankings aren't entirely relevant.
I am a bit confused though on what things you are talking about?
Net basically has 5 measurements. 2 are literally tied to W's and L's. 1 is efficiency of offense and defense which is literally tied to W's and L's. Point differential is a magnitude of Win/Loss but correlates to how well you performed and team value index factors opponent/location/winner so that correlates to winning and against who you won...
Posted on 12/17/18 at 12:52 pm to thunderbird1100
It tells me that people automatically accept the systems that are in place because it's convenient to do so. I hear the same arguments from global warming people, too. What do they ever do to back up their claims? "Well scientists agree". What scientists? What is their evidence. Sorry to bring that topic up in here, but it illustrates the point about "logic" not being an acceptable answer, when those who make this "logic" can't come up with a definitive answer as to how they came to these conclusions.
They, and those who believe in their logic, can only offer that this is the best we can do, because we said so.
I am 100% on board with what you are saying about needing an objective means for determining the field. I know that it's hard to just say who is better than who in every case. I am not asking to have no computers. But every year there are teams who just look like utter crap, but they get all of this extra credit for certain types of wins. For instance: If you are below average at home, and above average on the road, why do you get the benefit of the doubt? Why aren't you punished more for losing home games? It should be expected that you are better at home, no?
Yet, if you are good at home, but below average on the road, you take a huge hit. That isn't logical. That is an opinion by those who made the system, that road games mean twice as much. I'm fine with getting extra credit for winning on the road. But the road losses should not be punished more heavily than home losses.
They, and those who believe in their logic, can only offer that this is the best we can do, because we said so.
I am 100% on board with what you are saying about needing an objective means for determining the field. I know that it's hard to just say who is better than who in every case. I am not asking to have no computers. But every year there are teams who just look like utter crap, but they get all of this extra credit for certain types of wins. For instance: If you are below average at home, and above average on the road, why do you get the benefit of the doubt? Why aren't you punished more for losing home games? It should be expected that you are better at home, no?
Yet, if you are good at home, but below average on the road, you take a huge hit. That isn't logical. That is an opinion by those who made the system, that road games mean twice as much. I'm fine with getting extra credit for winning on the road. But the road losses should not be punished more heavily than home losses.
Posted on 12/17/18 at 12:59 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
It tells me that people automatically accept the systems that are in place because it's convenient to do so. I hear the same arguments from global warming people, too. What do they ever do to back up their claims? "Well scientists agree". What scientists? What is their evidence. Sorry to bring that topic up in here, but it illustrates the point about "logic" not being an acceptable answer, when those who make this "logic" can't come up with a definitive answer as to how they came to these conclusions.
In the end we accept them for what they are because it's the measurements the committee uses to determine at large teams making the tournament. You can always argue if 1 is better than another, what cant be argued is they are all logic based rather than truly subjective based though.
quote:
Yet, if you are good at home, but below average on the road, you take a huge hit. That isn't logical. That is an opinion by those who made the system, that road games mean twice as much. I'm fine with getting extra credit for winning on the road. But the road losses should not be punished more heavily than home losses.
I dont think you can say any this without directly quantifying it. It just seems like you're taking some shots in the dark here. They reward winning on the road or neutral site more than at home, varying degrees one to the next. Consider this though, we are #34 in NET only being 2-3 away from home. Also, road losses arent punished more heavily than home losses, not sure where that came from. Losing at home is definitely worse than losing on the road. They REWARD you more for winning on the road vs. winning at home. They dont hurt you more for losing on the road vs. losing at home, just the opposite.
Think of it like this in very basic terms:
Winning:
+1.3x opponent strength on road
+1.0x opponent strength neutral
+0.7x opponent strength at home
Losing:
-1.3x opponent strength at home
-1.0x opponent strength neutral
-0.7x opponent strength on road
This post was edited on 12/17/18 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 12/17/18 at 1:08 pm to SouthOfSouth
quote:
Net basically has 5 measurements. 2 are literally tied to W's and L's. 1 is efficiency of offense and defense which is literally tied to W's and L's. Point differential is a magnitude of Win/Loss but correlates to how well you performed and team value index factors opponent/location/winner so that correlates to winning and against who you won...
This is where it becomes too computerized. Using efficiency of offense and defense as a metric does not take into account who you played. As far I understand it, they measure strength of schedule, but fail to take into account how you actually play in your more difficult games. You might beat some hapless mid--major by 60 points, and then a top 25 caliber team by 1 point, but your efficiency ratings are measured out over the two games combined, and there is no attempt to separate the two individual games of vastly different significance.
Conversely, you might have a team who beats a hapless mid-major by 30, and beats a top 25 caliber team by 20 plus points, but they are given no extra credit for the better performance against a good team.
Some coaches use the cup cake games to let a bunch of guys play, and others just want to try to win those games by 100 points. This system fails to recognize the difference. It's just not a logical way of looking at the game.
Posted on 12/17/18 at 1:19 pm to thunderbird1100
Obviously, we can't change what the committee uses. I understand that. I just don't view it as an acceptable means. I'm not an idiot, and yet when I look at some of these rankings, I get the impression that we are all being treated as such.
I don't spend my time studying every one of the ins and outs of these systems, and I'll admit to that fully. Maybe the letter of the law with these systems is not exactly as I have perceived it in some cases. Yet, when I look up at the end of every season, I see very uninspiring teams with mediocre records ranking high in RPI, and the common denominator seems to almost always be that they won more on the road, and the teams that seem pretty obviously better, get left out because they aren't winning on the road.
I could only assume from that, that it meant you were punished more for road losses. If I am incorrect on that, then I stand corrected. But I'm left then with the question of why it always appears that losing on the road costs you more than at home.
I don't spend my time studying every one of the ins and outs of these systems, and I'll admit to that fully. Maybe the letter of the law with these systems is not exactly as I have perceived it in some cases. Yet, when I look up at the end of every season, I see very uninspiring teams with mediocre records ranking high in RPI, and the common denominator seems to almost always be that they won more on the road, and the teams that seem pretty obviously better, get left out because they aren't winning on the road.
I could only assume from that, that it meant you were punished more for road losses. If I am incorrect on that, then I stand corrected. But I'm left then with the question of why it always appears that losing on the road costs you more than at home.
This post was edited on 12/17/18 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 12/17/18 at 1:29 pm to Metaloctopus
College basketball has the biggest "home court advantage" of any of the major sports. The home team wins roughly 2/3rds of the time. Thus, the logic behind significantly rewarding wins away from home is that average/good teams can win at home. Great teams can win anywhere
I think you're looking at it as the selection criteria should "punish" losses moreso than rewarding wins. I don't think that's how the selection committee necessarily looks at it. Losses aren't "punished" per se. It just means a lost opportunity to get a win. Who you beat matters more than who you lose to.
quote:
Yet, if you are good at home, but below average on the road, you take a huge hit. That isn't logical. That is an opinion by those who made the system, that road games mean twice as much. I'm fine with getting extra credit for winning on the road. But the road losses should not be punished more heavily than home losses.
I think you're looking at it as the selection criteria should "punish" losses moreso than rewarding wins. I don't think that's how the selection committee necessarily looks at it. Losses aren't "punished" per se. It just means a lost opportunity to get a win. Who you beat matters more than who you lose to.
Posted on 12/17/18 at 1:33 pm to SouthOfSouth
That's a great graphic. 
Posted on 12/17/18 at 1:44 pm to Alt26
quote:
I think you're looking at it as the selection criteria should "punish" losses moreso than rewarding wins. I don't think that's how the selection committee necessarily looks at it. Losses aren't "punished" per se. It just means a lost opportunity to get a win. Who you beat matters more than who you lose to.
No, I'm not actually arguing that there should be any extra punishment for home or away losses. I'm arguing that it seems road losses cost teams more than home losses.
Your point about the home court advantage in college basketball is exactly why I believe that IF you are going to punish a team, it should be more for losing home games. I would much prefer to see the field judged by who they play, who they beat, and how they beat them. There just seems to be too much inconsistency in determining advantages/disadvantages of home and away.
There is no such thing as a perfect system, I do know that. I'm someone who always advocates for LESS teams in tournaments. But there needs to be a little more common sense in the process, imo, and these committees go too far in trying to appear objective.
This post was edited on 12/17/18 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 12/17/18 at 1:53 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
No, I'm not actually arguing that there should be any extra punishment for home or away losses. I'm arguing that it seems road losses cost teams more than home losses.
That's just not correct. If you look at the graphic I put on the first page (last post of first page of this thread) you'd realize that in factor #4 of NET a home loss counts as 1.4 losses while road losses only count as .6 losses. Most of your issues with NET seem to be you just misunderstanding the calculation.
This post was edited on 12/17/18 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 12/17/18 at 2:32 pm to SouthOfSouth
quote:
That's just not correct. If you look at the graphic I put on the first page (last post of first page of this thread) you'd realize that in factor #4 of NET a home loss counts as 1.4 losses while road losses only count as .6 losses. Most of your issues with NET seem to be you just misunderstanding the calculation.
I was talking about RPI.
And another poster mentioned (thought I don't know if he was referring to RPI or NET) that road losses were not punished more. And I acknowledged that I may be wrong on that, as I don't study all of the ins and outs. I went by the common denominators between all of the teams who get in on the bubble, and those who are left out. It seems that teams with significantly better records are often passed over by teams who happened to win a few more road games (and I'm not talking about the ULL's of the world who play absolutely no one, and pile up a bunch of wins).
Which indicates to me, that not only are they rewarding road wins more (which is fine), but they are also punishing road losses more. It's understandable when two teams have similar resume's and you pick the team who showed an ability to win away from home. But sometimes it seems like we throw all common sense out the window and pick uninspiring teams based off of their higher RPI. In other words, the RPI is given too much weight, when at best it should be a separator between two or more teams who are very close in the eye test. The eye test still has to be able to come into play when you can clearly see that one team has demonstrated a higher quality of play.
As for the NET, I'll simply refer you back to my earlier reply to you, that you may have missed. That will tell you my thoughts on that system.
This post was edited on 12/17/18 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 12/17/18 at 2:49 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:
Yet, if you are good at home, but below average on the road, you take a huge hit. That isn't logical. That is an opinion by those who made the system, that road games mean twice as much. I'm fine with getting extra credit for winning on the road. But the road losses should not be punished more heavily than home losses.
Road losses are not more heavily punished. They only count as .6 of a loss where as a home loss counts as 1.4 losses.
I can understand wondering why the NCAA decided to use an arbitrary number of 1.4x for road wins and home losses and .6 for home wins and road losses but it does correlate pretty similar to historical home/road records.
I would suggest understanding the metric before trying to bash it. I wasn't the biggest fan of RPI but I think NET has definitely a move in the right direction; still, this isn't a end all number. It is one of many metrics used to figure out what teams belong in the tournament.
This post was edited on 12/17/18 at 2:51 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News