(02-03-2020 10:43 PM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 10:11 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 06:25 PM)wmmii Wrote:  Not looking good for the Tribe as we have lost 3 out of 5:

124 CoC
128 Hofstra
134 NE
159 Tribe
161 Towson
185 Delaware
213 Drexel
274 JMU
308 Elon
310 UNCW

Yeah, nobody understands this stuff. We beat Northeastern twice and they just lost to Elon - but they are 25 slots better than us. The previous week they were only 6 slots better.

I'm assuming it has to do with their opponents doing better than ours and all of their close losses. Just a guess though

Looking at the posted numbers from the previous week: For the past two weeks we beat #263 JMU and lost to #154 Towson and we beat #127 NE and lost to #155 Hofstra. Northeastern beat #214Drexel, lost to #190 Delaware, lost to #133 W&M and lost to #312 Elon. So we went 2-2 with wins against teams with better numbers and they went 1-3 including losing to us. So it must be something else, perhaps the margin of victory or defeat you mentioned. But that's dumb on their part. It just encourages teams to run up the scores - a violation of good sportsmanship.

Bottom line is that it is all moot because the CAA winner will be either a 14 or 15 seed regardless of who it is.

from the article below Wrote:The NCAA Evaluation Tool, which will be known as 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. To make sense of team performance data, late-season games (including from the NCAA tournament) were used as test sets to develop a ranking model leveraging machine learning techniques. The model, which used team performance data to predict the outcome of games in test sets, was optimized until it was as accurate as possible. The resulting model is the one that will be used as the NET going forward.

The NET was built to create a ranking system that was as accurate as possible while also evaluating team performance fairly. To ensure fairness, certain types of data were omitted from the model. Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games. In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ll-ranking

So margin of victory matters, but it's capped at 10 points. 12 and 42 are worth the same, but 2 is different.

(02-03-2020 11:29 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

from the article below Wrote:The NCAA Evaluation Tool, which will be known as 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. To make sense of team performance data, late-season games (including from the NCAA tournament) were used as test sets to develop a ranking model leveraging machine learning techniques. The model, which used team performance data to predict the outcome of games in test sets, was optimized until it was as accurate as possible. The resulting model is the one that will be used as the NET going forward.

The NET was built to create a ranking system that was as accurate as possible while also evaluating team performance fairly. To ensure fairness, certain types of data were omitted from the model. Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games. In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ll-ranking

So margin of victory matters, but it's capped at 10 points. 12 and 42 are worth the same, but 2 is different.

Thanks. To me, the most cogent quote in the article was from Dan Gavitt, who 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.” Translation: the subjective element is how we will ensure that the borderline P5 gets in while the more metrically-deserving mid-major gets left out.

(02-04-2020 11:57 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 11:29 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

from the article below Wrote:The NCAA Evaluation Tool, which will be known as 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. To make sense of team performance data, late-season games (including from the NCAA tournament) were used as test sets to develop a ranking model leveraging machine learning techniques. The model, which used team performance data to predict the outcome of games in test sets, was optimized until it was as accurate as possible. The resulting model is the one that will be used as the NET going forward.

The NET was built to create a ranking system that was as accurate as possible while also evaluating team performance fairly. To ensure fairness, certain types of data were omitted from the model. Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games. In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ll-ranking

So margin of victory matters, but it's capped at 10 points. 12 and 42 are worth the same, but 2 is different.

Thanks. To me, the most cogent quote in the article was from Dan Gavitt, who 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.” Translation: the subjective element is how we will ensure that the borderline P5 gets in while the more metrically-deserving mid-major gets left out.

Well said !!! this whole Metric , net ranking thing is just a way of getting more power 5 teams in the tournament. The fact that 10 or 12 teams from any one conference can get in the same tournament is just plain wrong. I know it's about the MONEY, but my suggestion would be to make the tournament smaller ,not larger, If your not good enough to finish in the top 2 or 3 of your conference, you should stay home.I don't believe in this EVERYBODY GETS A TROPHY MENTALITY.

(02-04-2020 02:08 PM)LION KING Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:57 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 11:29 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

from the article below Wrote:The NCAA Evaluation Tool, which will be known as 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. To make sense of team performance data, late-season games (including from the NCAA tournament) were used as test sets to develop a ranking model leveraging machine learning techniques. The model, which used team performance data to predict the outcome of games in test sets, was optimized until it was as accurate as possible. The resulting model is the one that will be used as the NET going forward.

The NET was built to create a ranking system that was as accurate as possible while also evaluating team performance fairly. To ensure fairness, certain types of data were omitted from the model. Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games. In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ll-ranking

So margin of victory matters, but it's capped at 10 points. 12 and 42 are worth the same, but 2 is different.

Thanks. To me, the most cogent quote in the article was from Dan Gavitt, who 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.” Translation: the subjective element is how we will ensure that the borderline P5 gets in while the more metrically-deserving mid-major gets left out.

Well said !!! this whole Metric , net ranking thing is just a way of getting more power 5 teams in the tournament. The fact that 10 or 12 teams from any one conference can get in the same tournament is just plain wrong. I know it's about the MONEY, but my suggestion would be to make the tournament smaller ,not larger, If your not good enough to finish in the top 2 or 3 of your conference, you should stay home.I don't believe in this EVERYBODY GETS A TROPHY MENTALITY.

I say that we should open it up to any team with a .500 record or better (not counting D2/3 games). No consideration for conference tournaments. That will be about 175 teams. Throw in a bye for the top 25 in the coaches poll for the first two rounds, and with elimination in the first 2 rounds gets you to just around 64 teams. Solves any favoritism and lets a whole lot more teams in the tournament. I'm sure the NCAA would find a reason that it is crazy. You could always just let everyone in and it would take a couple more rounds. Seems fun to me

(02-04-2020 05:36 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 02:08 PM)LION KING Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:57 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 11:29 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

from the article below Wrote:The NCAA Evaluation Tool, which will be known as 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. To make sense of team performance data, late-season games (including from the NCAA tournament) were used as test sets to develop a ranking model leveraging machine learning techniques. The model, which used team performance data to predict the outcome of games in test sets, was optimized until it was as accurate as possible. The resulting model is the one that will be used as the NET going forward.

The NET was built to create a ranking system that was as accurate as possible while also evaluating team performance fairly. To ensure fairness, certain types of data were omitted from the model. Of key importance, game date and order were omitted to give equal importance to both early and late-season games. In addition, a cap of 10 points was applied to the winning margin to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play, such as needlessly running up the score in a game where the outcome was certain.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ll-ranking

So margin of victory matters, but it's capped at 10 points. 12 and 42 are worth the same, but 2 is different.

Thanks. To me, the most cogent quote in the article was from Dan Gavitt, who 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.” Translation: the subjective element is how we will ensure that the borderline P5 gets in while the more metrically-deserving mid-major gets left out.

Well said !!! this whole Metric , net ranking thing is just a way of getting more power 5 teams in the tournament. The fact that 10 or 12 teams from any one conference can get in the same tournament is just plain wrong. I know it's about the MONEY, but my suggestion would be to make the tournament smaller ,not larger, If your not good enough to finish in the top 2 or 3 of your conference, you should stay home.I don't believe in this EVERYBODY GETS A TROPHY MENTALITY.

I say that we should open it up to any team with a .500 record or better (not counting D2/3 games). No consideration for conference tournaments. That will be about 175 teams. Throw in a bye for the top 25 in the coaches poll for the first two rounds, and with elimination in the first 2 rounds gets you to just around 64 teams. Solves any favoritism and lets a whole lot more teams in the tournament. I'm sure the NCAA would find a reason that it is crazy. You could always just let everyone in and it would take a couple more rounds. Seems fun to me

What always strikes me as funny is that, if it were looked at correctly, every single team is already playing a single elimination tournament (which is their own conference tournaments). But then the NCAA turns around and invites about 42 of those P6 losers back into the real tournament. They should do it like it was done until the late '70s -- only the conference winners go to the NCAA tournament. Everybody still gets their chance: win your conference tournament. Of course, this would result in the breakup of the huge conferences into more manageable 8-team leagues, which would increase the total number of conference winners invited ....

(02-04-2020 06:34 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 05:36 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 02:08 PM)LION KING Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:57 AM)Zorch Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 11:29 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men...ll-ranking

So margin of victory matters, but it's capped at 10 points. 12 and 42 are worth the same, but 2 is different.

Thanks. To me, the most cogent quote in the article was from Dan Gavitt, who 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.” Translation: the subjective element is how we will ensure that the borderline P5 gets in while the more metrically-deserving mid-major gets left out.

Well said !!! this whole Metric , net ranking thing is just a way of getting more power 5 teams in the tournament. The fact that 10 or 12 teams from any one conference can get in the same tournament is just plain wrong. I know it's about the MONEY, but my suggestion would be to make the tournament smaller ,not larger, If your not good enough to finish in the top 2 or 3 of your conference, you should stay home.I don't believe in this EVERYBODY GETS A TROPHY MENTALITY.

I say that we should open it up to any team with a .500 record or better (not counting D2/3 games). No consideration for conference tournaments. That will be about 175 teams. Throw in a bye for the top 25 in the coaches poll for the first two rounds, and with elimination in the first 2 rounds gets you to just around 64 teams. Solves any favoritism and lets a whole lot more teams in the tournament. I'm sure the NCAA would find a reason that it is crazy. You could always just let everyone in and it would take a couple more rounds. Seems fun to me

What always strikes me as funny is that, if it were looked at correctly, every single team is already playing a single elimination tournament (which is their own conference tournaments). But then the NCAA turns around and invites about 42 of those P6 losers back into the real tournament. They should do it like it was done until the late '70s -- only the conference winners go to the NCAA tournament. Everybody still gets their chance: win your conference tournament. Of course, this would result in the breakup of the huge conferences into more manageable 8-team leagues, which would increase the total number of conference winners invited ....

Agree though won’t happen. Too much money involved with current format.

I would be in favor of capping any conference to 5 teams.

The top conferences get favored, but a cap at 5 would be ridiculous. Last season the ACC got three 1s and two 3s. Louisville (7) and Syracuse (8) were seeded in the top half, but would have been out with that cap. The Big XII got 6 teams, and their worst two seeds were 9s who both won in the First Round. What I would like to see capped is how many teams can be in a conference. If conferences were capped at 10, maybe I would support teams being capped at 5. With the current amounts, at least one team who is sixth or worse in the ACC (15 teams), Big Ten (14 teams), and/or SEC (14 teams) is certainly going to be better than at least one team who is fifth or better in the Big East (10 teams), Big XII (10 teams), and/or Pac-12 (12 teams). By "sixth or worse" and "fifth or better," I'm going by however the Selection Committee would rank the teams within each conference. I might support a rule where the 26 conferences outside the top six must get at least 6 at-large bids.