(01-29-2023 05:07 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 05:04 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 01:59 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 01:20 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 11:56 AM)msu35 Wrote:  Was making my eyes bleed, so I reformatted it. Hopefully it's easier for everyone to parse.

Code:

T  Record Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   BOW BOL Ken RPI Best Win        Worst Loss        
-- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- --------------- -----------------
A  14-7   1-5  2-1  7-1  4-0  10  3   21  28  #23 SDSU(N)     #136 LSU(A)      
B  16-5   1-2  6-2  4-0  5-1  11  2   26  26  #44 TAMU(N)     #178 So Dak St(H)
C  18-4   3-2  4-0  4-0  7-2  9   1   60  49  #24 Duke(H)     #279 Loyola(N)    
D  13-8   2-5  4-2  3-1  4-0  11  1   11  30  #27 Xavier(H)   #98 Nebraska(H)  
E  16-5   1-2  5-3  5-0  5-0  7   0   35  22  #31 Auburn(N)   #99 Tulane(A)    
F  16-5   4-4  1-0  5-1  6-0  9   0   39  24  #15 Virginia(H) #216 Ga Tech(A)  
G  11-10  2-8  3-1  0-0  6-1  9   2   27  90  #20 Rutgers(H)  #220 Minn(H)      
H  16-5   3-4  1-1  4-0  8-0  12  1   31  41  #7  UConn(H)    #85 SLU(N)        
I  18-4   1-2  6-0  7-2  4-0  13  0   7   23  #23 SDSU(N)     #126 Col St(H)    
J  16-5   0-3  3-0  10-0 3-2  10  2   47  19  #52 ORU(H)      #207 Weber St(H)

Spoiler Alert - Memphis is one of the schools listed above. All but two of the schools listed have a better NET than Memphis.

Also, all the schools listed above have a higher average margin of victory than Memphis and six of them are from the basketball power conferences identified by the sports media.

In his data, what constitutes a blowout? My opinion is that it's 20 points or more, which to me makes those columns suspect. Without the NET ranking and without qualification regarding what is a blowout, I took a cursory glance and am waiting for more information.

I mentioned the blowout criteria in my intro. I used the NCAA stated NET cap of 10 pts. Since that is supposed to be the cap, it could give us an indication of whether it's part of the algorithm.

I can see why you did that. In practice, there is definitely no cap when it comes to the net efficiency metric which I believe they're weighting very heavily. If you'll get me the NET ranking, I'll add it to the table. I still have the data in a text editor so I'll format it and re-post it.

NET AP
28 33 Team A
22 41 Team B
59 24 Team C
18 33 Team D
41 42 Team E
46 20 Team F
29 NR Team G
34 23 Team H
6 22 Team I
33 NR Team J

Here you go:

How Boise is 19 spots ahead of us with slightly inferior data, is mind boggling.

(01-29-2023 05:15 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Here you go:

Code:

T  Record Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   BOW BOL NET Ken RPI AP Best Win        Worst Loss        
-- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- --- -- --------------- -----------------
A  14-7   1-5  2-1  7-1  4-0  10  3   28  21  28  33 #23 SDSU(N)     #136 LSU(A)      
B  16-5   1-2  6-2  4-0  5-1  11  2   22  26  26  41 #44 TAMU(N)     #178 So Dak St(H)
C  18-4   3-2  4-0  4-0  7-2  9   1   59  60  49  24 #24 Duke(H)     #279 Loyola(N)    
D  13-8   2-5  4-2  3-1  4-0  11  1   18  11  30  33 #27 Xavier(H)   #98  Nebraska(H)  
E  16-5   1-2  5-3  5-0  5-0  7   0   41  35  22  42 #31 Auburn(N)   #99  Tulane(A)    
F  16-5   4-4  1-0  5-1  6-0  9   0   46  39  24  20 #15 Virginia(H) #216 Ga Tech(A)  
G  11-10  2-8  3-1  0-0  6-1  9   2   29  27  90  -  #20 Rutgers(H)  #220 Minn(H)      
H  16-5   3-4  1-1  4-0  8-0  12  1   34  31  41  23 #7  UConn(H)    #85  SLU(N)        
I  18-4   1-2  6-0  7-2  4-0  13  0   6   7   23  22 #23 SDSU(N)     #126 Col St(H)    
J  16-5   0-3  3-0  10-0 3-2  10  2   33  47  19  -  #52 ORU(H)      #207 Weber St(H)

Im assuming we are the 16-5 team. What quad 4 did we lose to? Nevermind I see it’s SDSU

(01-29-2023 06:36 PM)Stammers Wrote:  How Boise is 19 spots ahead of us with slightly inferior data, is mind boggling.

It actually makes perfect sense. If the data provided showed margin of victory versus just a column for number of "blowout" wins, it would be easier to correlate. But back to Boise State, they've blown out a bunch of teams by more than 20 points with at least one by 40 points. In the data above, everything is "capped" at ten points per se, so it is a little misleading. The NET algorithm rewards teams for blowouts with the NET efficiency score. I'm assuming they weigh that very heavily in the final calculation.

(01-29-2023 07:24 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 05:15 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Here you go:

Code:

T  Record Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   BOW BOL NET Ken RPI AP Best Win        Worst Loss        
-- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- --- -- --------------- -----------------
A  14-7   1-5  2-1  7-1  4-0  10  3   28  21  28  33 #23 SDSU(N)     #136 LSU(A)      
B  16-5   1-2  6-2  4-0  5-1  11  2   22  26  26  41 #44 TAMU(N)     #178 So Dak St(H)
C  18-4   3-2  4-0  4-0  7-2  9   1   59  60  49  24 #24 Duke(H)     #279 Loyola(N)    
D  13-8   2-5  4-2  3-1  4-0  11  1   18  11  30  33 #27 Xavier(H)   #98  Nebraska(H)  
E  16-5   1-2  5-3  5-0  5-0  7   0   41  35  22  42 #31 Auburn(N)   #99  Tulane(A)    
F  16-5   4-4  1-0  5-1  6-0  9   0   46  39  24  20 #15 Virginia(H) #216 Ga Tech(A)  
G  11-10  2-8  3-1  0-0  6-1  9   2   29  27  90  -  #20 Rutgers(H)  #220 Minn(H)      
H  16-5   3-4  1-1  4-0  8-0  12  1   34  31  41  23 #7  UConn(H)    #85  SLU(N)        
I  18-4   1-2  6-0  7-2  4-0  13  0   6   7   23  22 #23 SDSU(N)     #126 Col St(H)    
J  16-5   0-3  3-0  10-0 3-2  10  2   33  47  19  -  #52 ORU(H)      #207 Weber St(H)

Im assuming we are the 16-5 team. What quad 4 did we lose to? Nevermind I see it’s SDSU

Yeah, in that list, we're team "E" with the win over Auburn and the loss to Tulane.

(01-29-2023 08:02 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 07:24 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 05:15 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Here you go:

Code:

T  Record Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   BOW BOL NET Ken RPI AP Best Win        Worst Loss        
-- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- --- -- --------------- -----------------
A  14-7   1-5  2-1  7-1  4-0  10  3   28  21  28  33 #23 SDSU(N)     #136 LSU(A)      
B  16-5   1-2  6-2  4-0  5-1  11  2   22  26  26  41 #44 TAMU(N)     #178 So Dak St(H)
C  18-4   3-2  4-0  4-0  7-2  9   1   59  60  49  24 #24 Duke(H)     #279 Loyola(N)    
D  13-8   2-5  4-2  3-1  4-0  11  1   18  11  30  33 #27 Xavier(H)   #98  Nebraska(H)  
E  16-5   1-2  5-3  5-0  5-0  7   0   41  35  22  42 #31 Auburn(N)   #99  Tulane(A)    
F  16-5   4-4  1-0  5-1  6-0  9   0   46  39  24  20 #15 Virginia(H) #216 Ga Tech(A)  
G  11-10  2-8  3-1  0-0  6-1  9   2   29  27  90  -  #20 Rutgers(H)  #220 Minn(H)      
H  16-5   3-4  1-1  4-0  8-0  12  1   34  31  41  23 #7  UConn(H)    #85  SLU(N)        
I  18-4   1-2  6-0  7-2  4-0  13  0   6   7   23  22 #23 SDSU(N)     #126 Col St(H)    
J  16-5   0-3  3-0  10-0 3-2  10  2   33  47  19  -  #52 ORU(H)      #207 Weber St(H)

Im assuming we are the 16-5 team. What quad 4 did we lose to? Nevermind I see it’s SDSU

Yeah, in that list, we're team "E" with the win over Auburn and the loss to Tulane.

Seems like a bad loss doesn’t hurt anyone unless we get one

(01-30-2023 01:05 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 08:02 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 07:24 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 05:15 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Here you go:

Code:

T  Record Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   BOW BOL NET Ken RPI AP Best Win        Worst Loss        
-- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- --- -- --------------- -----------------
A  14-7   1-5  2-1  7-1  4-0  10  3   28  21  28  33 #23 SDSU(N)     #136 LSU(A)      
B  16-5   1-2  6-2  4-0  5-1  11  2   22  26  26  41 #44 TAMU(N)     #178 So Dak St(H)
C  18-4   3-2  4-0  4-0  7-2  9   1   59  60  49  24 #24 Duke(H)     #279 Loyola(N)    
D  13-8   2-5  4-2  3-1  4-0  11  1   18  11  30  33 #27 Xavier(H)   #98  Nebraska(H)  
E  16-5   1-2  5-3  5-0  5-0  7   0   41  35  22  42 #31 Auburn(N)   #99  Tulane(A)    
F  16-5   4-4  1-0  5-1  6-0  9   0   46  39  24  20 #15 Virginia(H) #216 Ga Tech(A)  
G  11-10  2-8  3-1  0-0  6-1  9   2   29  27  90  -  #20 Rutgers(H)  #220 Minn(H)      
H  16-5   3-4  1-1  4-0  8-0  12  1   34  31  41  23 #7  UConn(H)    #85  SLU(N)        
I  18-4   1-2  6-0  7-2  4-0  13  0   6   7   23  22 #23 SDSU(N)     #126 Col St(H)    
J  16-5   0-3  3-0  10-0 3-2  10  2   33  47  19  -  #52 ORU(H)      #207 Weber St(H)

Im assuming we are the 16-5 team. What quad 4 did we lose to? Nevermind I see it’s SDSU

Yeah, in that list, we're team "E" with the win over Auburn and the loss to Tulane.

Seems like a bad loss doesn’t hurt anyone unless we get one

Only if you don't pay attention to the blowout wins.

(01-30-2023 01:25 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:05 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 08:02 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 07:24 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 05:15 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Here you go:

Code:

T  Record Q1   Q2   Q3   Q4   BOW BOL NET Ken RPI AP Best Win        Worst Loss        
-- ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- --- --- --- --- --- -- --------------- -----------------
A  14-7   1-5  2-1  7-1  4-0  10  3   28  21  28  33 #23 SDSU(N)     #136 LSU(A)      
B  16-5   1-2  6-2  4-0  5-1  11  2   22  26  26  41 #44 TAMU(N)     #178 So Dak St(H)
C  18-4   3-2  4-0  4-0  7-2  9   1   59  60  49  24 #24 Duke(H)     #279 Loyola(N)    
D  13-8   2-5  4-2  3-1  4-0  11  1   18  11  30  33 #27 Xavier(H)   #98  Nebraska(H)  
E  16-5   1-2  5-3  5-0  5-0  7   0   41  35  22  42 #31 Auburn(N)   #99  Tulane(A)    
F  16-5   4-4  1-0  5-1  6-0  9   0   46  39  24  20 #15 Virginia(H) #216 Ga Tech(A)  
G  11-10  2-8  3-1  0-0  6-1  9   2   29  27  90  -  #20 Rutgers(H)  #220 Minn(H)      
H  16-5   3-4  1-1  4-0  8-0  12  1   34  31  41  23 #7  UConn(H)    #85  SLU(N)        
I  18-4   1-2  6-0  7-2  4-0  13  0   6   7   23  22 #23 SDSU(N)     #126 Col St(H)    
J  16-5   0-3  3-0  10-0 3-2  10  2   33  47  19  -  #52 ORU(H)      #207 Weber St(H)

Im assuming we are the 16-5 team. What quad 4 did we lose to? Nevermind I see it’s SDSU

Yeah, in that list, we're team "E" with the win over Auburn and the loss to Tulane.

Seems like a bad loss doesn’t hurt anyone unless we get one

Only if you don't pay attention to the blowout wins.

Define “blowout wins” Beating the spread ?

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:25 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:05 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 08:02 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 07:24 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Im assuming we are the 16-5 team. What quad 4 did we lose to? Nevermind I see it’s SDSU

Yeah, in that list, we're team "E" with the win over Auburn and the loss to Tulane.

Seems like a bad loss doesn’t hurt anyone unless we get one

Only if you don't pay attention to the blowout wins.

Define “blowout wins” Beating the spread ?

Well, in my opinion, it's twenty or more points; but with the NET, there is no cap. It's an unlimited way to skew the NET efficiency metric which seems to dramatically inflate NET ranking. Knowing that, it makes sense how a team could have a bad loss but not be affected so much if they're blowing out cupcakes. The NET efficiency calculation does not factor in difficulty of opponent, so blowing out a Q4 cupcake carries as much weight as blowing out a Q1 team by the same margin. It truly is insane, but knowing how it works, Memphis (and the American) can take advantage of this knowledge and start gaming the NET too, just like the MWC and the P5s.

(01-30-2023 02:29 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:58 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:25 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:05 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 08:02 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Yeah, in that list, we're team "E" with the win over Auburn and the loss to Tulane.

Seems like a bad loss doesn’t hurt anyone unless we get one

Only if you don't pay attention to the blowout wins.

Define “blowout wins” Beating the spread ?

Well, in my opinion, it's twenty or more points; but with the NET, there is no cap. It's an unlimited way to skew the NET efficiency metric which seems to dramatically inflate NET ranking. Knowing that, it makes sense how a team could have a bad loss but not be affected so much if they're blowing out cupcakes. The NET efficiency calculation does not factor in difficulty of opponent, so blowing out a Q4 cupcake carries as much weight as blowing out a Q1 team by the same margin. It truly is insane, but knowing how it works, Memphis (and the American) can take advantage of this knowledge and start gaming the NET too, just like the MWC and the P5s.

The bias is built in. P5 teams have more games at home that are Q1 and Q2 and have many more opportunities for blowout wins. Probably 4 to 1 versus non P5 programs that only get opportunities on the road or maybe at neutral sites, almost never at home.

(01-30-2023 02:44 PM)Stammers Wrote:  The bias is built in. P5 teams have more games at home that are Q1 and Q2 and have many more opportunities for blowout wins. Probably 4 to 1 versus non P5 programs that only get opportunities on the road or maybe at neutral sites, almost never at home.

I disagree about the blowout wins aspect as there is nothing stopping any team from heavily scheduling Q4 cupcakes, but I absolutely agree about the Q1/Q2 bias inherent among the P5s due to the feedback loop effect. That's why it's important for the teams in the AAC to reevaluate their scheduling protocol which could effectively create a similar feedback loop for our conference.

Arky Team A
Boise St Team B
Clemson Team C
Creighton Team D
Memphis Team E
Miami Team F
Ohio St Team G
Providence Team H
Saint Mary's Team I
Utah St Team J

Rankings update this week after SMU and Tulsa wins:
38 - AP (up 4)
NR - Coaches (no votes)
41 - NET (down 4)
36 - KenPom (down 4)
31 - Torvik (down 4)
41 - Sagarin (down 5)
41 - ESPN BPI (down 2)
23 - RPI (down 5)

Bracketology:
Palm CBS 9-seed (down 1)
Lunardi ESPN 10-seed (up 1) *not updated since Tulsa win

Crazy. Win 2 games and cover/push the spread in both - yet drop in all metrics.

(01-30-2023 07:23 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Rankings update this week after SMU and Tulsa wins:
38 - AP (up 4)
NR - Coaches (no votes)
41 - NET (down 4)
36 - KenPom (down 4)
31 - Torvik (down 4)
41 - Sagarin (down 5)
41 - ESPN BPI (down 2)
23 - RPI (down 5)

Bracketology:
Palm CBS 9-seed (down 1)
Lunardi ESPN 10-seed (up 1) *not updated since Tulsa win

Crazy. Win 2 games and cover/push the spread in both - yet drop in all metrics.

I believe that's due to under performing, as in not beating the two teams by a higher margin.

(01-30-2023 07:48 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 07:23 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Rankings update this week after SMU and Tulsa wins:
38 - AP (up 4)
NR - Coaches (no votes)
41 - NET (down 4)
36 - KenPom (down 4)
31 - Torvik (down 4)
41 - Sagarin (down 5)
41 - ESPN BPI (down 2)
23 - RPI (down 5)

Bracketology:
Palm CBS 9-seed (down 1)
Lunardi ESPN 10-seed (up 1) *not updated since Tulsa win

Crazy. Win 2 games and cover/push the spread in both - yet drop in all metrics.

I believe that's due to under performing, as in not beating the two teams by a higher margin.

Probably. Also dependent on what happened to everyone else.
It's just crazy when you beat two conference opponents by double-digits - and in the process you cover/push the spread - but fall in the metrics.

You have to essentially "cover" to get points in the .net for win margin.

Otherwise you did what you were supposed to.

(01-31-2023 09:58 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  You have to essentially "cover" to get points in the .net for win margin.

Otherwise you did what you were supposed to.

We covered 1 game and pushed the other. So we slightly exceeded what we were "supposed to" - yet we slipped.

latest from today's ESPN -

Last 4 Bye, #11 seed

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/...redictions

(01-31-2023 11:11 AM)k2tigers Wrote:  latest from today's ESPN -

Last 4 Bye, #11 seed

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/...redictions

Lunardi is an idiot and not even that good at his job.