Go Back   BearcatTalk.com > Cincinnati Basketball > Bearcat Basketball

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-27-2018, 11:09 AM   #11
sedziobs
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,171
sedziobs is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincrulz11 View Post
well then that sounds much better than the ranting nate silver has been doing on twitter.
I'm a huge fan of Silver's. I just finished his book, which is excellent. But I think he has the wrong idea here. The NET rankings are only meant to be definitive at the end of the season. They aren't like Kenpom, which is supposed to be as accurate as possible even right now. So judging rankings in November based on how good teams really are kind of misses the point. Similarly, no one would have used RPI in November as a legitimate ranking.

sedziobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 12:32 PM   #12
sedziobs
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,171
sedziobs is on a distinguished road
I'll add a more philosophical take. 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).

When people are disparaging the November NET rankings by saying "well Radford isn't that good because they lost to Duquesne", they are using a preconceived notion of how good Duquesne is. And based off of their record in past seasons, they're probably right. But NET only looks at this year's games. Duquesne is 4-1 with their only loss at Notre Dame (who's only loss is to Radford). They will probably end up being around average, but right now they have a strong record. When evaluating NET, it's important to view it as if you've never followed basketball at all - that you didn't have any idea whether Duke should be better than Radford. That's how NET sees the season, which is very different from power rankings.
sedziobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 02:25 PM   #13
waterhead
Senior Moderator
 
waterhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,040
waterhead is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedziobs View Post
I'm a huge fan of Silver's. I just finished his book, which is excellent. But I think he has the wrong idea here. The NET rankings are only meant to be definitive at the end of the season. They aren't like Kenpom, which is supposed to be as accurate as possible even right now. So judging rankings in November based on how good teams really are kind of misses the point. Similarly, no one would have used RPI in November as a legitimate ranking.
Should be fun to track these things again this season and cross reference the NET with the other metrics to see if we can make any accurate predictions as to who will get the dance in and who won't.
waterhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 03:14 PM   #14
sedziobs
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,171
sedziobs is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterhead View Post
Should be fun to track these things again this season and cross reference the NET with the other metrics to see if we can make any accurate predictions as to who will get the dance in and who won't.
Yes, it should be interesting. They're still using the quadrant system, so our opponents' NET rankings will be more important than our own. I hope to track the games of our potential Quadrant 1 and 2 opponents again later in the season.
sedziobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 04:17 PM   #15
waterhead
Senior Moderator
 
waterhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,040
waterhead is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedziobs View Post
Yes, it should be interesting. They're still using the quadrant system, so our opponents' NET rankings will be more important than our own. I hope to track the games of our potential Quadrant 1 and 2 opponents again later in the season.
I have a feeling we are going to need some help with the quadrants. I don't see a lot of high end quality but hopefully we can squeak a few teams in quad 1 and 2.
waterhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2018, 09:11 AM   #16
sedziobs
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,171
sedziobs is on a distinguished road
Here's a preview of our potential Quadrant 1 and 2 games using Kenpom rankings.

Quadrant 1
Ohio St
@ Miss St
@ Houston
@ UCF

Quadrant 2
Ole Miss
@ UNLV
Xavier
UCLA
@ Tulsa
@ Wichita St
@ Temple
@ Memphis
UCF
@ UConn
@ SMU
Houston

That's 4 Q1 games and 12 Q2 games. Last year we played 9 Q1 games and 8 Q2 games. Temple, Wichita St, UConn and SMU are all between 80 and 87. If any of them end up in the top 75, it gives us another Quadrant 1 game.
sedziobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2018, 09:29 AM   #17
waterhead
Senior Moderator
 
waterhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,040
waterhead is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedziobs View Post
Here's a preview of our potential Quadrant 1 and 2 games using Kenpom rankings.

Quadrant 1
Ohio St
@ Miss St
@ Houston
@ UCF

Quadrant 2
Ole Miss
@ UNLV
Xavier
UCLA
@ Tulsa
@ Wichita St
@ Temple
@ Memphis
UCF
@ UConn
@ SMU
Houston

That's 4 Q1 games and 12 Q2 games. Last year we played 9 Q1 games and 8 Q2 games. Temple, Wichita St, UConn and SMU are all between 80 and 87. If any of them end up in the top 75, it gives us another Quadrant 1 game.
The countdown is on...lol! No better time than the present

Thanks for the breakdown
waterhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2018, 10:18 AM   #18
sedziobs
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,171
sedziobs is on a distinguished road
This week's rankings are out. Top 75 teams on our schedule:

20. Ohio St
28. Houston
32. Miss St
41. Cincinnati
42. UCLA
51. UConn
62. Xavier
64. UCF
71. Ole Miss
72. Temple
sedziobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2018, 11:18 AM   #19
Queens_NYC
Elite Member
 
Queens_NYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 952
Queens_NYC is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedziobs View Post
This week's rankings are out. Top 75 teams on our schedule:

20. Ohio St
28. Houston
32. Miss St
41. Cincinnati
42. UCLA
51. UConn
62. Xavier
64. UCF
71. Ole Miss
72. Temple
Surprised that Temple can be 7-1 with wins against Georgia as well as @St. Joe's and @Mizzou and still be ranked so low.
Queens_NYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2018, 11:50 AM   #20
sedziobs
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,171
sedziobs is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queens_NYC View Post
Surprised that Temple can be 7-1 with wins against Georgia as well as @St. Joe's and @Mizzou and still be ranked so low.
Those 3 teams are a combined 12-10. The rest of Temple's wins are over teams with losing records. Hopefully they can stay within 10 at Villanova.
sedziobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., - All material on this Cincinnati Bearcat discussion forum is strictly for entertainment purposes only. This site and any pages within are in no way affiliated with the University of Cincinnati. Any images, copyrights, or trademarks used on this site are used under the "Fair Use Provision" of the Copyright Act for purposes of comment, criticism, and news reporting.