|
Replies: 9
| visibility 1,281
|
All-TigerNet [12943]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6228
Joined: 1/26/16
|
The Quadrant System and NET explained...
Mar 17, 2019, 10:05 AM
|
|
The NCAA replaced the RPI with "NET", or "NCAA Evaluation Tool". The NET "relies on game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses". And "to ensure fairness, certain types of data were omitted from the model," including game date and order because early- and late-season games should carry equal weight. Additionally, winning margin is capped at 10 points "to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain."
Here is how the Quadrant System breaks down (wins per Quadrant)
Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353
The below article points out the obvious problem. According to current rankings.. a win vs. Virginia (#1 NET) is the same as a win at Davidson (#75). If you apply this to last year, the #75 team (Toledo), lost in the first round of the CBI.
This is why the committee should (and hopefully does) dive deeper into these Quad 1 games.
On a side note, St. Johns is predicted to be in by many, and they have a NET of 72. AZST has a NET of 63.
Link:
https://herosports.com/college-basketball/ncaa-tournament-rpi-net-ahah
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [11470]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 13624
Joined: 10/27/04
|
Re: The Quadrant System and NET explained...
Mar 17, 2019, 10:11 AM
|
|
So where do you think are % chances are? Maybe around 40 percent??
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12943]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6228
Joined: 1/26/16
|
I honestly have no idea... I am surprised that we are so low
Mar 17, 2019, 10:21 AM
|
|
on "experts" lists. I also know that every year there is 1 or 2 teams it seems that make the tournament from that "next four out" category.
I am surprised we are so low b/c our numbers are very strong. I know... 1--10 Quad 1, etc... But 7 of those losses were against the top 21. The other 3 were against #'s 34 and 44. The question is how will that be evaluated? I hope the committee does't give the same credence to a win over #72 as they do to a win vs. #10.
There has be something said for our metrics being so strong. When I say "strong"... you have to go down quite a ways to start finding other bubble teams.
I think you could make a strong argument for Clemson either way, and I could see this going either way.
I just can't get past the fact that our NET is so strong, even though we are 1--10 vs. Q1. That screams for someone to look deeper into the numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24961]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32287
Joined: 2/15/09
|
wasnt Arizona State kind of a shock inclusion last year?
Mar 17, 2019, 10:28 AM
|
|
Or at least a shock to the expert projectors? I remember they were considered solidly out.
Kinda like us this year. Lunardi and others seem to think are chances are like 10%. Which of course means if we are included they will rip the selection rather than consider they may have valued the wrong metric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12943]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6228
Joined: 1/26/16
|
it doesn't make any sense this year. There is clearly a new
Mar 17, 2019, 10:33 AM
|
|
metric.. but everyone seems to overlook it.
Really Lunardi? AZST at 63 in NET and St. Johns at 72? I don't get that.
Here's what I know:
No team has EVER gotten an at-large with a KenPom rating above 68. Temple currently sits at 76 and St. Johns is at 79.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16774]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/1/14
|
My gut is there will be a surprise...
Mar 17, 2019, 10:47 AM
|
|
My gut's been right, before.
My gut's been wrong, before.
So...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11470]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 13624
Joined: 10/27/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [57054]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39676
Joined: 11/12/04
|
Make a Quad 1A category for top 10.***
Mar 17, 2019, 2:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12943]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6228
Joined: 1/26/16
|
the hope is the committee does this when/if they dig into
Mar 17, 2019, 2:33 PM
|
|
numbers
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6223]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4310
Joined: 6/23/17
|
Re: The Quadrant System and NET explained...
Mar 17, 2019, 3:42 PM
|
|
thanks for the summary explanation. I want us to make the tourney as much as the next fan, but with a filed of 68 and 32 automatic berths, do they really need a complicated matrix to determine who is in or out?
last year #16 UMBC shocked uva (lol), the only time a 16 has won a game.
since '91 a total of seven #15 seeds even won a game, and of those only one went on to the next round.
The matrix may make the seeding process easier, then again they are probably splitting hairs. I hate the unfair advantage when top seeds play in their own arena.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 9
| visibility 1,281
|
|
|
50
