I wonder what metrics they're looking at.
But the rest of the number nerd models also have us top 10. It surprises me, but I'll take it.
But the rest of the number nerd models also have us top 10. It surprises me, but I'll take it.
Yep.Colgate and Drake in the top 20.
NET considers both the strength of opponent (Quadrant 1-4) and your Margin of Victory / Defeat. However, I believe that your margin is capped at 10 points.
You think it will take us off the bubble?This should skyrocket us into the last 4 in on Lunardi's bracket, LOL.
The video in that link (around the 1:00 mark) states, that it now considers just 2 factors; one of which is your quality of win ("who'd you play, who'd you beat, and how good was that win"). I interpretted that to mean that "how good was that win" statement to mean that the amount you won by would still matter. At 1:16 in the video he also says that your Net Points per possession (your points per possession minus points your opponents get per possession) is also factored in still.From the linked .NET explanation post (dated 2018) "No longer will the NET use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin."
Questionable given Lunardi's disdain for the Illini.You think it will take us off the bubble?
The reference to how good was the win probably means the TVI.The video in that link (around the 1:00 mark) states, that it now considers just 2 factors; one of which is your quality of win ("who'd you play, who'd you beat, and how good was that win"). I interpretted that to mean that "how good was that win" statement to mean that the amount you won by would still matter. At 1:16 in the video he also says that your Net Points per possession (your points per possession minus points your opponents get per possession) is also factored in still.
When I say "Margin of Victory" I mean how many points you won by, and from the video it sounds like that is still the case.
The reference to how good was the win probably means the TVI.
The .NET has been reduced to two metrics.
1) Team Value Index (TVI).
This is a function with three inputs: Win/Loss, Quality of opponent, Location of game.
2) Adjusted net team efficiency.
This is the team efficiency adjusted for the quality of the opponent and pace. i.e. It is better to average 1.1pts/possession against Gonzaga on the road than against Chicago State at home.
The .NET used to consider the margin of victory. It was explicitly removed from the formula.
I suppose the difference is margin per possession rather than margin per game (which would seem to penalize slower paced teams that typically have fewer possessions per game and thus likely smaller margins of victory)Adjusted net team efficiency would naturally take into account margin of victory since it is points scored and points allowed per possession. Or am I missing something?
I love seeing us ranked so high, but what kind of mathematical voodoo is involved to get us to number 4?
I'm not a big fan of moving to things like efficiency margin --I guess that makes me old school. It's relatively easy to construct non-intuitive results. Do you really want to reward a 30 point blowout and a 2 point loss, more than the team who played the same two games* and won both by 12?
*depends on the statistical model, but I'm assuming a simplified case.
Questionable given Lunardi's disdain for the Illini.
I was just going to post this exact same thing. I bet it killed Lunardi to put a #2 next to our name.Speaking of Lunardi, today's Bracketology would have us in a very interesting bracket. We would be the 2-seed, and if we made it to the Elite Eight (i.e., beat 3-seed Creighton in the Sweet Sixteen), we'd presumably get a rematch in the Elite Eight of either #1 Baylor or #4 Mizzou ... I'd hope like hell for the latter!
A rematch with Mizzou in either Elite 8 or sweet 16 would be special....only thing that could make that better would be if fans were allowed to attendSpeaking of Lunardi, today's Bracketology would have us in a very interesting bracket. We would be the 2-seed, and if we made it to the Elite Eight (i.e., beat 3-seed Creighton in the Sweet Sixteen), we'd presumably get a rematch in the Elite Eight of either #1 Baylor or #4 Mizzou ... I'd hope like hell for the latter!
Agreed. (Answering I11ini82)I suppose the difference is margin per possession rather than margin per game (which would seem to penalize slower paced teams that typically have fewer possessions per game and thus likely smaller margins of victory)
This is where the TVI comes into play. It measures wins/losses.It's trying to solve a vexing problem. I mean, how do you rank teams? How do you understand quality of wins?
I'm not a big fan of moving to things like efficiency margin --I guess that makes me old school. It's relatively easy to construct non-intuitive results. Do you really want to reward a 30 point blowout and a 2 point loss, more than the team who played the same two games* and won both by 12?
I suppose the difference is margin per possession rather than margin per game (which would seem to penalize slower paced teams that typically have fewer possessions per game and thus likely smaller margins of victory)
Speaking of Lunardi, today's Bracketology would have us in a very interesting bracket. We would be the 2-seed, and if we made it to the Elite Eight (i.e., beat 3-seed Creighton in the Sweet Sixteen), we'd presumably get a rematch in the Elite Eight of either #1 Baylor or #4 Mizzou ... I'd hope like hell for the latter!
I can't wait to see Baylor again! I honestly don't fear anyone with our team, as constructed we don't lose unless we f it up. Fts will get better I bet 70% or better will work.Absolutely love the latest brackets! Big Ten gets all 4 two seeds and we only have to beat Creighton and Baylor to get to the Final Four!
Bracketology: The Big 12 is actually the Big 14, and it's a perplexing puzzle
The Big 12 has a bloated 14 schools for 2023-24 and is about to learn thatwww.espn.com
I think I remember reading initially that the NCAA had partnered with someone like Microsoft to develop an “AI” or ML method for calculating the NET.
They could theoretically adjust their algorithm weekly to fit the teams to a let’s say a normal distribution. So it’s possible the factors are weighted differently week to week.