It doesn’t make a lick of sense, but if those teams keep playing like they have they will fall hard by the end of the year.
The NET is a Problem
- Thread starter Tampa_cat54
- Start date
They are good relative to their conference, I expect them to be at the top of it most of the year. They are a solid team. I hope they go undefeated and then that loss won’t look bad at all.
They got rid of RPI when that one mid-major hired a math genius to figure it out and tell their teams how to schedule.
Looks like NET has been figured out as well
Looks like NET has been figured out as well
people keep saying "UNCW" "UNCW" "UNCW".
And yes that was a bad loss. The worst part is it was at home.
But look at it this way, right now in the NET, UNCW is right there with Ariz St & Okl St, and ahead of Penn St, FSU, UCLA, Ga Tech, Stanford, LSU, and far ahead of WVU, G-town, Oregon St, Maryland, Cal, UL, ND, Vandy, & DePaul.
So UNCW, according to the NET, is as good or better than:
- 2 Big East team
- 2 SEC teams
- 2 Big 10 teams
- 2 Big 12 teams
- 4 ACC teams
- 5 PAC 10 teams
That is over 20% of the P5 schools.
And yes that was a bad loss. The worst part is it was at home.
But look at it this way, right now in the NET, UNCW is right there with Ariz St & Okl St, and ahead of Penn St, FSU, UCLA, Ga Tech, Stanford, LSU, and far ahead of WVU, G-town, Oregon St, Maryland, Cal, UL, ND, Vandy, & DePaul.
So UNCW, according to the NET, is as good or better than:
- 2 Big East team
- 2 SEC teams
- 2 Big 10 teams
- 2 Big 12 teams
- 4 ACC teams
- 5 PAC 10 teams
That is over 20% of the P5 schools.
Last edited:
For those saying "Just use Vegas!", remember that Vegas is using mathematical models to predict the opening line.
The "best" mathematical model isn't the NET, it is the Colley Matrix. It was developed by Dr. Wes Colley and uses objective mathematics to determine rankings based only on win and loses.
Not sure why the NCAA doesn't use this method over the NET.
The "best" mathematical model isn't the NET, it is the Colley Matrix. It was developed by Dr. Wes Colley and uses objective mathematics to determine rankings based only on win and loses.
Not sure why the NCAA doesn't use this method over the NET.
What they should do is just use a combination of respected computer models. WIsdom of the crowds. The aggregate is usually better than any one specific system.
Also I can't see how a system that determines ranking based only on wins and losses would ever be considered the "best". It's been proven in many many sports that margin of victory is a better predictor of future success than actual won/loss record.
But I think the whole discussion is so overblown. Ultimately, the seeding is still being done by a bunch of humans sitting in a room. While NET figures are plastered all over the team sheets they are using, it's not as if they go through the NET ranks team by team and base the seedings exactly on that. It's not as if they go well this team is 16th so they obviously are the worse 4 seed. It doesn't really work like that.
It really won't. So long as UNC-W doesn't fall off a cliff.
UNC-W is currently a Quad 3 Loss. Houston had 1 quad 3 loss last year and was a 1 seed. #1 overall IIRC. There's still time to climb to a 1 seed.
The NET is definitely not the most accurate measure of which teams are best. The only positive thing I will say about it is the same thing I'd say about most of the math-based systems- they usually become more accurate as the season goes. Right now, they're not very accurate. After these teams start playing their conference opponents, it will become more accurate among the high major programs. Unfortunately, it then becomes less accurate among the mid-major and smaller programs. I hope (and expect) that the people choosing the NCAA-T field are aware that these systems are not the authority.
Saying any one model is better than another, or is "the best", is very subjective. Especially when there is no agreement on what is more/most important wrt the various factors. I could say my model (which I ran for several years about 10-20 years ago) is "the best", as could any other model creator. So honestly, the "best" would be one that is a composite of several different models.
Just an FYI, my model included as factors:
- Who you beat or lost to, and where (Home, Away, Neutral, semi-Neutral like UK playing in Louisville). The home/away factor was based on data from prior year within conference games to determine how much to weight H vs A.
- Margin of victory, with an adjustment if it was an OT game, but also a cap where winning by 40 not much better than winning by 20.
- How long ago the game was (a game in late Feb was weighted more than one in early Nov).
- And I figured out a way to run the model so that it created probabilities between teams with common opponents, and each iteration extended that out further.
Yeah if we go 15 and 3 in the sec and win out rest of ooc we are 26 and 5 going into sec tourney. That team record gets a 2 seed or better no matter what IMO.
And you ever notice that the majority of them don't ever go back and actually look at exactly how they did.
Kenpom has a model diagnostics page but for the most part many of them I don't see anything regarding just how accurate they measured things.
In general tho I think most of these computer rankings have the correct methodology. Factor in SOS, factor in margin of victory, where the game took place.
Yeah honestly I wouldn't mind if they just canned the committee and took an average of say 5-10 good models.
I do think tho the humans get a bit too much hate and they generally get the top teams (the ones that can actually compete for a title) correct.
Nobody is in a board room “making up” the NET rankings. They are entirely the result of a computer objectively processing data through an algorithm.
As strange to some people ( and to me, as well) as this idea may seem, I think you may have the best way to do it right there. Vegas puts money where the mouth is, and they are amazing at handicapping games. You make an awesome point with this post, imho.
well done, well said.
the more i think about it, the better I like it.
Yes, but. I think most of them do not use SOS very well. I think a lot of them simply average the SOS of a team's opponents which is flawed. For example two top 25 teams 10 game schedules are:
Team A opps: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 300, 305, 310, 315, 320 has an average SOS = 162.5
Team B opps: 120, 125, 130, 135, 140, 145, 150, 155, 160, 165 has an average SOS = 142.5
So, by average SOS Team B has the tougher schedule, BUT if they are top 25 teams they should both almost always win the vs the 100+ Opps, thus Team A has 5 "tough" games and Team B has 0 "tough" games, therefore Team A really has the more difficult schedule. SOS should be adjusted relative to where you are. Because if in that example Team A & B were both in the 120-150 range, then it changes and Team B has the tougher schedule.
By using multiple models (like you suggest) a team would have a much tougher time "playing the system"
There is a problem with that. Vegas bases their odds not strictly on outcome, but moreso on WHERE the MONEY is going to be BET. For example, Vegas knows how many UK, Duke, UNC fans there are, and even casual fans know those Blue Bloods, but may not know Creighton or San Diego State. And so they know more will be bet on those Blue Bloods than probably should be, so they adjust because they want an approximate equal amount of betters on each side of the bet (assuming the games aren't rigged).
The NET, like the RPI, can be hacked.
Who is hacking it faster and better? Not Kentucky.
The reality is, you can hack the net by playing "the right" teams in neutral and road games. You can beat "not good" teams on the road/neutral and you can get Q1/Q2 wins, without really challenging yourself.
Instead, UK plays a bunch of games at Rupp against teams that can only hurt them.
Who is hacking it faster and better? Not Kentucky.
The reality is, you can hack the net by playing "the right" teams in neutral and road games. You can beat "not good" teams on the road/neutral and you can get Q1/Q2 wins, without really challenging yourself.
Instead, UK plays a bunch of games at Rupp against teams that can only hurt them.
This is true also, but I still think as far as picking who are the best teams after the auto bids are done, Vegas would do a better job than a committee of people who are associated with conferences and schools. Truth is there is probably no perfect way to do it.
I'd just let Vegas determine it.
Honestly it's all a bit silly when one team is 6 seeded and another team is 11 seeded and the 11 seed is the favorite when the game comes around.
So Vegas sees that the 11 seed is more talented.
Computer models that pretty much mirror the Vegas lines realizes this.
But a committee of humans somehow think that not only is the 6 seed better but the 6 seed is 5 seed lines better.
Honestly it's all a bit silly when one team is 6 seeded and another team is 11 seeded and the 11 seed is the favorite when the game comes around.
So Vegas sees that the 11 seed is more talented.
Computer models that pretty much mirror the Vegas lines realizes this.
But a committee of humans somehow think that not only is the 6 seed better but the 6 seed is 5 seed lines better.
But Dook lost to a worse NET team in GA Tech 154, our lost was to 127 yet, both are Quad 3 losses but they are 17th in the NET we are 30th and they also have 3 losses.
I gave up on figuring out the NET awhile back.
If we didnt have basically four of our top 10 players out for that one Id agree but we did so I dont. Its a throw away game and would be if it was any of the other blue blood but not UK as we are persecuted unmercifully all the time and its total BS.
Everyone on this board knows if Wagner, Ugonna, Z and a normal (not with 1st gm jitters and limited minutes after injury) Bradshaw played that Kentucky would not have lost that game. Thus, its a throw away, like it never happened. That's what the committee would do for Duke and UNC and Kansas. Why not Kentucky? Because we are the King, thats why, and they all hate us.
Last edited:
Maybe we win with all those guys. But we had PLENTY of firepower to take of business and we couldn’t.
I get your schtick but come on man. You shouldn’t need 10 first round picks to beat UNCW. Our second five should’ve beat them by 15-20 minimum.
I know Cal has lowered your standards but UNCW? On our home floor? Come on now. You’re being silly.
Exactly and they looked like a good team in that game. Yes we have had some head scratchers to teams that weren’t any good but they appeared to be a team that could be in the tournament. The numbers seems to show that they could in fact do that as well. We will have to follow them in conference.
We have some crappy teams in the conference eaccording to net rankings. Vandy is doing their usually sucking it up before being an en so if year tough team that can’t make the tournament. Lsu? Ark?
Similar threads
