NCAA TOURNAMENT

[sedziobs]

The author of this piece actually did some research.

Selection committee chair Bernard Muir told ESPN that a team's specific NET ranking was not intended to be the determining factor in the committee's choices.
...
However, speaking after the selection show on CBS, Muir said the committee examined how well teams did against opponents in the NET rankings' top quadrant. He noted that a team like Belmont, which went 2-2 against Quadrant 1 teams, was looked upon more favorably than a team like NC State, which went 3-9 against Quadrant 1 opponents, and therefore did not make the most of having more opportunities for Quadrant 1 wins.

Clemson was just 1-10 against Quadrant 1 teams, while Texas, with a NET ranking of 38, went 5-10 and also settled for the NIT. St. John's, despite its much lower NET ranking of 73, went 5-7 against Quadrant 1 teams, the most wins of all the Last Four In and First Four Out teams other than Indiana, who went 6-9 against Quadrant 1. But St. John's also went 5-3 against Quadrant 2, whereas Indiana was just 2-6.

 

[waterhead]

The author of this piece actually did some research.

I think it is also relevant that we didn't pick up any Q1 wins that we weren't supposed to. It wasn't until after selection decisions were made that we got our first. On T-rank it is called Q1A...those were all games we were probably picked as dogs in. Houston and MSU away were tough gets but UCF away and Houston home were games we could have made a statement.

We beat Houston to go 1-4 but again...the selections were mostly in cement at that time.

 

[sedziobs]

Warren Nolan's team sheets show the Q1-A and Q2-A breakdowns:
http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2019/team-net-sheet?team=Cincinnati

Before the Houston win, @Memphis was the closest to moving into Q1-A. But I agree, going 0-4 prior to Houston could have been a factor holding us back from a higher seed.

 

[TheRealUC]

That's nice. Seth Davis even said we were underseeded during the selection show. All of them are entitled to their uninformed opinions. The committee defines their procedures. Media personalities largely ignore them.

You're not paying attention. A team's NET ranking DOES NOT MATTER. NC St could have been ranked 200 in the NET and still made the tourney if they had good quadrant records and metrics. St Johns made the tournament with a 79 NET. Why did NC St miss out and St Johns made it? NC St went 8-9 in Q1/2 games. St Johns went 10-10. That's enough to put one team barely above the cut line and one barely below. The NCAA has been very clear that NET quadrants are the primary tool. That's a fact. Am I a scripture proponent because I acknowledge facts? Well then I'm proud to be one.

Haha, you're getting awfully defensive. You can enjoy your advanced metrics without becoming emotional about it, relax. That said, the committee is anything but clear on their procedures and this has long been documented. Each member can take into account any metric they want or dismiss any metric they want during the process. Throw in that the committee changes through the years and it's even more of a problem....that is of course if one is allowed to speak against advanced metrics.

 

[sedziobs]

Personally, the "scripture" proponents irritate the shit out of me

I'm not the only one here who is emotional.

 

[TheRealUC]

I'm not the only one here who is emotional.

So the NET takes certain statistics, ranks teams based on those statistics, separates teams into quadrants based on those rankings, and adjusts those rankings throughout the year based on how a team performs against others, but the ranking isn't actually indicative of how good a team is....is that what your trying to sell? Cuz that's completely contradictory.

 

[sedziobs]

So the NET takes certain statistics, ranks teams based on those statistics, separates teams into quadrants based on those rankings, and adjusts those rankings throughout the year based on how a team performs against others, but the ranking isn't actually indicative of how good a team is....is that what your trying to sell? Cuz that's completely contradictory.

Yep, you got it. That's what the NCAA is selling. It doesn't matter how good of a system you or I think it is. It's the system that is used, contradictory or not. It's used exactly the same way the RPI was.

I gave my opinion about NET earlier this year:

Silver and many others are complaining that NET is not as good as power rankings systems like those used in professional sports, or Kenpom and Massey in college basketball. This is true. Those systems will be better at forecasting what teams are better than others at any given moment. But a key difference is power ranking systems are NOT used to determine postseason qualification. So while they may be more accurate, there is nothing to be gained by achieving a better power ranking compared to actual record.

Competitive sports must maintain the idea that winning is the ultimate goal. Power rankings can help us to predict who will win, but the goal should always be winning in itself. Power rankings and Kenpom place no emphasis on actual wins. Winning by 10 points instead of 12 is the same as losing by 1 instead of winning by 1 (assuming pace and opponent are equal). If we're going to maintain the integrity of sports, winning by 1 must be proportionally more important than an extra 1 pt margin. NET is a good compromise of placing emphasis on both winning (like the RPI) and on efficiency (like Kenpom).

But even if I hated the NET, I would still use it because it's what the committee uses.

 

[TheRealUC]

Yep, you got it. That's what the NCAA is selling. It doesn't matter how good of a system you or I think it is. It's the system that is used, contradictory or not. It's used exactly the same way the RPI was.

I gave my opinion about NET earlier this year:

But even if I hated the NET, I would still use it because it's what the committee uses.

Fair enough. I guess the most obvious question for me, is how could a team that's 1-10 in Q1 games earn a NET ranking of 35 (Clemson). Is it because they have no "bad losses"? To me that just screams that something needs adjusting.

 

[sedziobs]

Fair enough. I guess the most obvious question for me, is how could a team that's 1-10 in Q1 games earn a NET ranking of 35 (Clemson). Is it because they have no "bad losses"? To me that just screams that something needs adjusting.

In Clemson's case, I think their high NET is due to lots of close losses. They lost six games by 1 or 2 points. That and the fact that they only played three teams ranked 200+. The difference with RPI really shows. They are 60 in RPI, which treats all losses the same regardless of margin.

 

[sedziobs]

Clemson is a good case for why I actually support the quadrant system. Clemson is a really good team. But although they were competitive against better competition, they didn't actually win. I think you should have to actually win to qualify. That's the point of sports.

 

[TheRealUC]

Clemson is a good case for why I actually support the quadrant system. Clemson is a really good team. But although they were competitive against better competition, they didn't actually win. I think you should have to actually win to qualify. That's the point of sports.

I don't disagree....will you look at that??

I've derailed this thread long enough. Didn't mean to come across confrontational, so my apologies if that was the case. Let's get past Iowa and look to bust some brackets on Sunday, shall we?

 

[sedziobs]

No grudges here, confrontations take two to tango. I'm just as much to blame.

I'll repost my underdog preview to get this thread back on topic:

Vermont is a solid team playing close to home. They're sort of a small time Cincinnati with a do-it-all 6-6 junior scorer in Anthony Lamb, and a senior guard who shoots 43% from three. They lost at Louisville by only 8 and have beaten quite a few solid mid-majors like Yale, Harvard, Northeastern and St Bonaventure.

Everyone knows about Ja Morant from Murray St, who are playing struggling Marquette in round 1.

Northeastern can really light it up from three, with four guys who shoot 39% or better on 135+ attempts. They beat Alabama by 16 on a neutral floor and won at Harvard.

Yale has five guys that can really score including NBA bound Miye Oni. They won at Miami and took Memphis to OT on the road.

New Mexico St is one of the best rebounding teams in the country. They won 30 games and lost by only 3 at Kansas (they had the lead with under 5:00 to play). They are playing close to home in Utah.

UC Irvine is also playing close to home against a Kansas St team without Dean Wade.

And don't forget about Georgia St. D'Marcus Simonds lit us up for 24 last year. They still have him surrounded by four 40%+ three point shooters. They won at Alabama and also beat solid mid-majors East Tennessee St and St Bonaventure.

 

[Alum2013]

AAC with a great showing so far.

 

[cincrulz11]

temple was a classic case of their resume was tournament worthy but the team really wasn't. an at large bid in the low 70's on kenpom.

 

[TheRealUC]

Anyone else check out these "Best players in the tournament" articles going around? Most are top 25, with Cland not being on the ones i saw, but he was #32 on a top 50 list. Yes, this means squat, but it's interesting. Corey Davis was listed #42....

 

[Jon Rycek]

AAC with a great showing so far.

Temple played pretty good in that game, Belmont is a very good team. But I’m sure it feels better just to talk trash about our conference

 

[Jon Rycek]

temple was a classic case of their resume was tournament worthy but the team really wasn't. an at large bid in the low 70's on kenpom.

Lmao, so is every team that loses in the first round “not worthy,” someone has to lose and sometimes the team you play wins

 

[Union Bearcat]

Lmao, so is every team that loses in the first round “not worthy,” someone has to lose and sometimes the team you play wins

I'm with you. 52 teams don't make it past the first weekend.

 

[sedziobs]

cincrulz didn't say Temple is unworthy because they lost to Belmont. He said they were bad for an at-large team because their Kenpom ranking is in the 70s.

 

[waterhead]

AAC with a great showing so far.

Memphis won....so there's that