(01-31-2023 06:41 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: Well half the college basketball teams qualify as Q4 games at home. So that's why there are so many games in that category - even for Top 50 teams.
There is no denying that top teams in the NET play more Q1 and Q2 games, and play fewer Q4 games. Now the "feedback loop" has some to do with that. But their scheduling also does. That's what I'm focused on.
I think if we cut out all Q2 and Q3 games and moved them to Q4 games, it would be disastrous for us - even if we blew them out.
And thanks for the coding. If anyone has guidance for that, I'd appreciate it.
You seem to not be getting the point at all if you're stating, "There is no denying that top teams in the NET play more Q1 and Q2 games, and play fewer Q4 games." Really? That's not the takeaway that the data reflects. Question. Why is there such a sudden and precipitous decline from Q1 to Q2 that isn't present with the other tiers and then a mirrored ramp up to Q4? This should show you that having a significant number of Q4 games where you can run up the score is part of the strategy, just like having a bunch of Q1 wins is a distinguishing factor among top teams.
I also believe you're misunderstanding the approach that I'm suggesting, which is based on what the most successful teams are doing. To be clear, I advocate cutting as many Q3 games as possible and shifting them to Q4 teams that we can blow out. The Q2 games will come as an artifact of conference play and through natural attrition as anticipated Q1 teams slip. It will initially be more difficult for us to get a significant number of Q1 games, but if the rest of the conference will follow this type of scheduling, the AAC can create its own feedback loop to the benefit of all teams. What I've stated is not wrong and there is nothing to ponder. It is a documented fact that the NET absolutely rewards blowouts in an unlimited fashion. Are you saying you can't see the proof in the NET rankings for teams compared to their performance?
I'll take this one step further and chart it out for you because visualizing data isn't necessarily easy when it's presented in a table. Look at the line graph and tell me you don't see something interesting with regards to the top 50 teams. Notice how only that group is an anomaly? All of the other teams have a similar proportion with the exception of the top 50. Of course they should have more Q1 games scheduled as a top 50 team will be playing a higher standard of competition in general and being in a P5 conference helps with Q1 opportunities. That's not really the interesting part, it's the Q2, Q3, Q4 side of the graph that illustrates what I'm saying.
Hear me now and believe me later, but the truth is the key facet is blowing out weak competition to run up the NET efficiency metric. Look at FAU and Boise State again and tell me how they're ranked 20 spots above us. Take any other team with a similar schedule and win ratio. I bet you that they will be higher than us in the NET (likely much more so) if they have a significant number of games with wins of 20 points or more, irrespective the quadrant of the opponent.
Edit: Just re-read this to make sure I didn't have too many typos, and my tone comes across not as I intended and i apologize if it seems strong. I'm just passionate about this because for all this time we've been led to believe that the NET caps wins and it never made any sense. The team has always been so underrated and undervalued with regards to the tournament. Much of the perceived tone is really just frustration on my part for us having to deal with such a rigged system and an utter lack of meaningful transparency. So please don't misinterpret the verve as anything directed towards any individuals. It's just me being very passionate about finally understanding what the heck is going on at the NCAA and what we can do to fight fire with fire.