The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(02-29-2024 08:47 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So are we pissed he said this about the B12 or that he appropriately said UC's OOC schedule was awful?

Other than made for TV paydays I'm not sure why anyone in power conferences will schedule tough OOC under the NET system.

Not pissed at all. I just think it's a case of the kettle calling the pot black. This is also why we joined a power conference. We wanted a better league - that won't change in terms of higher SOS. The OOC stuff varies year-to-year. First two seasons under Wes were pretty good on that front. This year, not so much but it didn't help GT and X were subpar. If their NETs were higher and you eliminate 330ish Detroit then the OOC looks a lot better this year.

(02-29-2024 08:47 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So are we pissed he said this about the B12 or that he appropriately said UC's OOC schedule was awful?

Other than made for TV paydays I'm not sure why anyone in power conferences will schedule tough OOC under the NET system.

Because scheduling tough can help a lot. There is not an advantage to scheduling weak. you don't get credit for beating Q4 teams.

A team like Kansas was seeded two seedlines above its predictive metrics in the initial bracket reveal because of the way it scheduled and its nonconference wins. Baylor was above Iowa State because of its nonconference schedule.

It matters.

Plenty of teams schedule poorly and don't have great metrics. Look at Ole Miss. Ran up a gaudy nonconference record playing nothing but pumpkins (13-0). They sit 77 in the NET, 88 BPI, and 74 kenpom. Minnesota had a nonconference SOS of 360... they sit 75 NET, 77 BPI, 65 kenpom. A poor non-conference schedule isn't some magic formula. Your metrics are adjusted for competition. How you play matters.

The key for the NET and Kenpom is to run up the score. Most major conference teams do this in the non-conference at home with buy games.

The key to making the tournament is to win games vs other good teams. You do this be playing 4 to 6 really good non-conference games and winning at least half of them plus winning conference games against the top of your league.

I also wish the quad system would go away and that we just look at variety of metrics plus an overall evaluation of who you played, where you played them, and when you played them.

I also for expanding the NCAA tournament to anywhere from 72 to 80 teams. NIT expansion to 64.

The key is also to jump up the list by mid January. It's nearly impossible to drop a ton when you get into February unless you are in a mid major like the AAC and lose to crappy teams (see Memphis).

Been watching teams like X lose 4 straight and they have dropped a total of 7 spots during that span of dreck. UCF is rotten most nights and no matter who they lose to or how bad they play they sit right in that 65-70 range. Christ they lost to WVU and dropped 1 spot.

Michigan State takes consecutive awful losses the past week and they stay between 20-24. It's a silly system.

(02-29-2024 10:16 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The key is also to jump up the list by mid January. It's nearly impossible to drop a ton when you get into February unless you are in a mid major like the AAC and lose to crappy teams (see Memphis).

Been watching teams like X lose 4 straight and they have dropped a total of 7 spots during that span of dreck. UCF is rotten most nights and no matter who they lose to or how bad they play they sit right in that 65-70 range. Christ they lost to WVU and dropped 1 spot.

Michigan State takes consecutive awful losses the past week and they stay between 20-24. It's a silly system.

Yes. Losses are all relative, which is a feature, not a bug. Losing a road game to the number 1 team in the country by 8 doesn't mean you aren't a top 50 team. Losing a home game to the 222nd rated team (as Memphis did) or hell, only wining b 2 against the 215th rated team at home (as Memphis also did) are both data points that suggest you're not a top 50 team.

Neither of those results are determinative. They could conceivably by outlier results... that's why all the results across every game matters... not just win/loss buy how you performed relative to the caliber of the team you played. It's all about how you perform against your relative competition.

If one conference consisted of the best 14 teams in the country... some of those teams are going to lose a lot of games just on the randomness of how it would work. It doesn't mean those teams suddenly suck.

Ratings systems not overreacting to wins/losses is a feature, not a bug.

Michigan State loses to Iowa and Ohio State at home in successive games and they stay right where they are..will lose their third straight to Purdue and they will still be sitting between 22-25 this weekend It's good to be in a power conference.

FWIW...It had its problems with scheduling to maximize the system too too but under the old RPI system that penalized you for losses at home and gave kudos for road wins Michigan State would be rated close to 70 and UC would be rated close to 80.

(02-29-2024 10:41 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Michigan State loses to Iowa and Ohio State at home in successive games and they stay right where they are..will lose their third straight to Purdue and they will still be sitting between 22-25 this weekend It's good to be in a power conference.

They've dropped nearly 10 spots from my recollection. Purdue will depend on the score. Purdue is a top 3 team so if its close, you're right they won't drop if it's a reasonably close game.

(02-29-2024 09:28 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 08:47 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So are we pissed he said this about the B12 or that he appropriately said UC's OOC schedule was awful?

Other than made for TV paydays I'm not sure why anyone in power conferences will schedule tough OOC under the NET system.

Because scheduling tough can help a lot. There is not an advantage to scheduling weak. you don't get credit for beating Q4 teams.

A team like Kansas was seeded two seedlines above its predictive metrics in the initial bracket reveal because of the way it scheduled and its nonconference wins. Baylor was above Iowa State because of its nonconference schedule.

It matters.

Plenty of teams schedule poorly and don't have great metrics. Look at Ole Miss. Ran up a gaudy nonconference record playing nothing but pumpkins (13-0). They sit 77 in the NET, 88 BPI, and 74 kenpom. Minnesota had a nonconference SOS of 360... they sit 75 NET, 77 BPI, 65 kenpom. A poor non-conference schedule isn't some magic formula. Your metrics are adjusted for competition. How you play matters.

Yep.

And also - at the end of the year, it's overall strength of schedule that matters.

UC's overall SOS is significantly tougher this year than any of the AAC years.

UC's NET strength of schedule
2024 - 22
2023 - 89
2022 - 92
2021 - 80


(getting SOS from https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2024/sos-net , although I don't know if that's the same one the NCAA tournament uses)

(02-29-2024 07:21 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I sense a serious case of B12 pen!s envy coming from the ACC. I guess I'd be a little paranoid too if half my conference was scratching at the windows to get out.

Big Brad knows that he'd lose playing TCU at TCU. He also knows that every home court in the B12 is going be packed to the gills and deafening every game. The ACC is filled with a bunch of lousy teams playing in mausoleums.

I never really had an opinion of the guy before but now he's on the d!ck list.

Pretty good read on the subject here
https://twitter.com/ESPNLunardi/status/1...5347929437

(02-29-2024 10:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 09:28 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 08:47 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So are we pissed he said this about the B12 or that he appropriately said UC's OOC schedule was awful?

Other than made for TV paydays I'm not sure why anyone in power conferences will schedule tough OOC under the NET system.

Because scheduling tough can help a lot. There is not an advantage to scheduling weak. you don't get credit for beating Q4 teams.

A team like Kansas was seeded two seedlines above its predictive metrics in the initial bracket reveal because of the way it scheduled and its nonconference wins. Baylor was above Iowa State because of its nonconference schedule.

It matters.

Plenty of teams schedule poorly and don't have great metrics. Look at Ole Miss. Ran up a gaudy nonconference record playing nothing but pumpkins (13-0). They sit 77 in the NET, 88 BPI, and 74 kenpom. Minnesota had a nonconference SOS of 360... they sit 75 NET, 77 BPI, 65 kenpom. A poor non-conference schedule isn't some magic formula. Your metrics are adjusted for competition. How you play matters.

Yep.

And also - at the end of the year, it's overall strength of schedule that matters.

UC's overall SOS is significantly tougher this year than any of the AAC years.

UC's NET strength of schedule
2024 - 22
2023 - 89
2022 - 92
2021 - 80


(getting SOS from https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2024/sos-net , although I don't know if that's the same one the NCAA tournament uses)

UC didn't play anyone with a real pulse outside of Dayton OOC, our big OOC scalp is a home win over Eastern Washington, we are 5-10 in conference, have yet to win 2 conference games in a row, are on a three game losing streak and we are still top 45 in NET.

Christ, even with all of that just beat dreadful WVU and Oklahoma State like they should have and they are likely top 35 and on the right side of the bubble today.

Why schedule beyond the bare minimum prior to January when you get credit for losing to teams in a great conference? Play 10 preconference scrimmages. It was smart under the NET. SVP points out it's the point Clemson's coach was really making.

(02-29-2024 11:54 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 10:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 09:28 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 08:47 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So are we pissed he said this about the B12 or that he appropriately said UC's OOC schedule was awful?

Other than made for TV paydays I'm not sure why anyone in power conferences will schedule tough OOC under the NET system.

Because scheduling tough can help a lot. There is not an advantage to scheduling weak. you don't get credit for beating Q4 teams.

A team like Kansas was seeded two seedlines above its predictive metrics in the initial bracket reveal because of the way it scheduled and its nonconference wins. Baylor was above Iowa State because of its nonconference schedule.

It matters.

Plenty of teams schedule poorly and don't have great metrics. Look at Ole Miss. Ran up a gaudy nonconference record playing nothing but pumpkins (13-0). They sit 77 in the NET, 88 BPI, and 74 kenpom. Minnesota had a nonconference SOS of 360... they sit 75 NET, 77 BPI, 65 kenpom. A poor non-conference schedule isn't some magic formula. Your metrics are adjusted for competition. How you play matters.

Yep.

And also - at the end of the year, it's overall strength of schedule that matters.

UC's overall SOS is significantly tougher this year than any of the AAC years.

UC's NET strength of schedule
2024 - 22
2023 - 89
2022 - 92
2021 - 80


(getting SOS from https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2024/sos-net , although I don't know if that's the same one the NCAA tournament uses)

UC didn't play anyone with a real pulse outside of Dayton OOC, our big OOC scalp is a home win over Eastern Washington, we are 5-10 in conference, have yet to win 2 conference games in a row, are on a three game losing streak and we are still top 45 in NET.

Christ, even with all of that just beat dreadful WVU and Oklahoma State like they should have and they are likely top 35 and on the right side of the bubble today.

Why schedule beyond the bare minimum prior to January when you get credit for losing to teams in a great conference? Play 10 preconference scrimmages. It was smart under the NET. SVP points out it's the point Clemson's coach was really making.

UC put our scrimmages in the nonconference, while Clemson put three of theirs against Louisville and Georgia Tech (x2) in the middle of the conference schedule.

The committee won't care because it's the entire body of work that matters. The timing of the scrimmages is not important.


(And it's not like Clemson's OOC was empty of scrimmages. They played Winthrop, Radford, Queens NC, and Alcorn State. They also played 2 mid-majors (Davidson and UAB) who are well below the NIT bubble.)

Bottom line though is that Clemson is going to get in the tournament because they're 3rd place in a power conference. Their nonconference wins against Alabama, TCU, Boise, and South Carolina are just icing on the cake, and the icing is tasty enough to get them a 5 seed.

What's holding Clemson back from a top-4-seed is that they LOST one of their scrimmages at home to a team (Georgia Tech) that UC beat by 35 points and also lost 3 more games to teams that are flirting with the NIT bubble rather than the NCAA bubble (Miami, NC State, Virginia Tech).

There are 20 or 21 power conference teams with at least 15 loses and/or losing records in the top 135 of NET today (135 is the limit for Q2 games).

Nothing screams quad 1 win like beating 16-17 Xavier...nothing screams Q2 like having 8-24 Michigan on the conference schedule twice. lol