We jumped over North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky.
5 Likes
The NET dont lie…swish!
5 Likes
Well they’ll be redoing that formula in the off-season.
6 Likes
It’s just a base formula. I doubt they will change it. Just a starting point for the committee and what they will use for determining quadrant wins. It will still be closer to the actual seeding for 90% of the teams than Pomeroy or Sagarin which are also used.
1 Like
More importantly let’s see if the NCAA will really heavily rely on it come Sunday. My guess it will still be selectively used as a rationale for some selection seedings.
7 Likes
The head of the tournament selection committee said very specifically that the NET would be heavily relied on for seedings and entry into the tournament this year. He said RPI is dead…and Kellogg said…RIP…If that is true, how in the hay is UH projected in most of the bracket prognostications only seeded #3?
5 Likes
We were higher in the net than our committee ranking when the top 16 was released. It is infinitely better than football but old boys club always comes into play.
2 Likes
By heavily relied upon, I think they meant, it’s what they are using to determine quadrants. So when you hear them say, Houston was ranked this seed because they were 5-2 in quadrant I, it’s based on the NET rankings and nothing else.
For example, Utah State just barely edges into Quad I in the NET but is well outside a Quad I ranking if they used Pomeroy or Sagarin for that measurement.
So that’s what to listen for when they justify seedings next Sunday.
2 Likes
One thing I’ll find interesting is if they weigh losses against Quad 2 as neutral or bad. LSU versus Houston will be the one to watch there. LSU with a better record in Quad I and Houston with a much better record in Quad 2. I think ranking either one over the other can be easily justified. Just depends how they feel about Quad 2 losses.
Thinking about it a little more, I feel like the Quadrants should be done differently. A road win against a top 25 team and a neutral site win against a top 10 team should not be counted in the same category as a home win against a 30th ranked team.
Maybe something like:
Quad 1: H: 1-10, N: 1-25, A: 1-50
Quad 2: H: 11-25, N: 26-50, A: 51-75
Quad 3: H: 26-50, N: 51-75, A: 76-100
Quad 4: The rest of the games.
1 Like
I wasn’t paying attention but my ears perked up when he said RIP RPI.
Are they tossing the other stat driven rankings like kenpom and sagarin too and only using Net and then other non-ranking factors?
2 Likes
Another change made last year to the team sheets was the inclusion of other metrics. These include the Kevin Pauga Index and ESPN’s results-oriented metric, the Strength of Record. The team sheets also included three predictive metrics: those managed by renowned basketball analytics experts Ken Pomeroy and Jeff Sagarin, as well as ESPN’s Basketball Power Index.
“The NCAA Men’s Basketball Committee has had helpful metrics it has used over the years, and will continue to use the team sheets, but those will now be sorted by the NCAA Evaluation Tool,” Gavitt said. “As has always been the case, the committee won’t solely focus on metrics to select at-large teams and seed the field. There will always be a subjective element to the tournament selection process, too.”
2 Likes
The way I read it, the team breakdowns will include other ratings but the good wins and bad losses will be based on the quadrants in the NET rankings.
3 Likes
Thanks for that. Isn’t using metrics directly done by ESPN a giant conflict of interest?
4 Likes
Yes it is but fortunately it didn’t seem to have much weight in the seedings done by the committee earlier this year. Here is the break down I did back then.
Should note the “Massey” isn’t actually the Massey rating, it’s the Massey composite. Because it was the most accurate predictor (of the committee rankings), I’ve been following it closely ever since.
1 Like
In the bracket reveal last month, we were 7th in NET and the 11th seed overall…
2 Likes
Great stuff. Thanks for that graphic.
Seems to me that it ESPN/Kenpom does have an effect though. Of the ranked teams UH is tied for largest drop in ranking vs Net rating (with Wisc). 7 in net…19 in kenpom/ESPN/Sagarin and ranked 11. Thats a drop of 4 spots…given the team was sitting on just one loss at the time it surely had some weight.
Will be interesting to see how things shake out next Sunday.
2 Likes
Also, is that accuracy to wins or vs the spread? And is that wins in the tourny or just wins in general?
1 Like
According to the table he posted, it was the most accurate to the selection committee rankings.
2 Likes
LOL…duh…thanks…Sometimes I under think…
2 Likes