NET 2/16 update

[SteelBowl70]

Clemson up 14 (now 64) by beating FSU by 40 at home. Makes a case that Pitt should have left the starters in when up 25 over BC (kidding … but it’s a real thing) quoting SMF “NET loves blowouts”

Northwestern stays at 43 with a 2 point win at home over Indiana who dropped one spot to 18. IU has 8 losses and is 4-6 on the road. Once again proving winning is secondary to margin.

Pitt went up one to 48. Clemson loss upgraded to a Q2 but Wake dropped one to 76 downgrading that win to a Q3. Miami stayed at 30 keeping that a Q1 win. It’s maddening as these teams cross the quad boundaries whose cutoffs are completely arbitrary.

VT dropped 9 losing at GT to 67. VT is 1-8 on the road. uVA narrow win at UL drops them 3 to 16. Saturday remains a Q1 win opportunity.

 

[MTkeeper23]

We must be careful we don’t beat VT too badly or it’ll drop to a Q2.

Love net.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Clemson up 14 (now 64) by beating FSU by 40 at home. Makes a case that Pitt should have left the starters in when up 25 over BC (kidding … but it’s a real thing) quoting SMF “NET loves blowouts”

Northwestern stays at 43 with a 2 point win at home over Indiana who dropped one spot to 18. IU has 8 losses and is 4-6 on the road. Once again proving winning is secondary to margin.

Pitt went up one to 48. Clemson loss upgraded to a Q2 but Wake dropped one to 76 downgrading that win to a Q3. Miami stayed at 30 keeping that a Q1 win. It’s maddening as these teams cross the quad boundaries whose cutoffs are completely arbitrary.

VT dropped 9 losing at GT to 67. VT is 1-8 on the road. uVA narrow win at UL drops them 3 to 16. Saturday remains a Q1 win opportunity.

We were up 27 late vs BC. I dont know why you say you were kidding about the starters. If NET is being used like it isnt supposed to be, a coach's primary job is to earn the best NCAAT seed he can and if that means leaving your starters in to turn a 27 point lead into a 37 point rather than pulling them and allowing BC to cut it to 19, I think you have to. Its completely ridiculous but NET loves blowouts. You have to blow teams out and keep your foot on the gas when you have the chance. I didnt watch Clemson/FSU but I'm wondering if Clemson did any of that or had that mindset that they dont just have to win but win big. Moving up 14 spots just for winning a Q4 game......words cannot describe that. I would imagine had they won by 1, they wouldn't have moved at all.

NET loves blowouts.

 

[Wanstash21]

We were up 27 late vs BC. I dont know why you say you were kidding about the starters. If NET is being used like it isnt supposed to be, a coach's primary job is to earn the best NCAAT seed he can and if that means leaving your starters in to turn a 27 point lead into a 37 point rather than pulling them and allowing BC to cut it to 19, I think you have to. Its completely ridiculous but NET loves blowouts. You have to blow teams out and keep your foot on the gas when you have the chance. I didnt watch Clemson/FSU but I'm wondering if Clemson did any of that or had that mindset that they dont just have to win but win big. Moving up 14 spots just for winning a Q4 game......words cannot describe that. I would imagine had they won by 1, they wouldn't have moved at all.

NET loves blowouts.

I disagree. We run a 8 man rotation. Burton has had knee inflammation all year. Nelly has a leg. Hinson needs to stay fresh as much as possible. I understand the NET loves blowouts, but keeping this team healthy is way more important than running a score up. I'm also fine with the idea of giving the bench some extra run in ACC play whenever we can.

This is one of the biggest issues with the NET .. running the wheels off your rotation in meaningless minutes to maybe move up in the rankings is so stupid I can't even explain it.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I disagree. We run a 8 man rotation. Burton has had knee inflammation all year. Nelly has a leg. Hinson needs to stay fresh as much as possible. I understand the NET loves blowouts, but keeping this team healthy is way more important than running a score up. I'm also fine with the idea of giving the bench some extra run in ACC play whenever we can.

This is one of the biggest issues with the NET .. running the wheels off your rotation in meaningless minutes to maybe move up in the rankings is so stupid I can't even explain it.

What they need to do is not make it any part of your Team Sheet. Put on there the Quad records, who you beat and NET SOS and pick the field from that. Forget the computer rankings. Without using NET at all, you should be able to determine that Team A is better than Team B

Team A
5-2
2-4
3-0
9-1
7-2 Road
97 SOS
141 OOC

Team B
5-7
3-1
3-0
7-0
4-6 (road)
36 (SOS)
138 OOC

Do you really need tons of computer data? Even if you say Team B is better, fine. But 5 seed lines better? That's where they currently are.....because of NET. Its messed up.

 

[Pitt2006]

What they need to do is not make it any part of your Team Sheet. Put on there the Quad records, who you beat and NET SOS and pick the field from that. Forget the computer rankings. Without using NET at all, you should be able to determine that Team A is better than Team B

Team A
5-2
2-4
3-0
9-1
7-2 Road
97 SOS
141 OOC

Team B
5-7
3-1
3-0
7-0
4-6 (road)
36 (SOS)
138 OOC

Do you really need tons of computer data? Even if you say Team B is better, fine. But 5 seed lines better? That's where they currently are.....because of NET. Its messed up.

Would Pitt have more losses with a tougher SOS? Probably but the more important thing is picking up the Vt win. Wake dropped from a Q2 to Q3 win last night.

 

[KennyHeisman8]

What they need to do is not make it any part of your Team Sheet. Put on there the Quad records, who you beat and NET SOS and pick the field from that. Forget the computer rankings. Without using NET at all, you should be able to determine that Team A is better than Team B

Team A
5-2
2-4
3-0
9-1
7-2 Road
97 SOS
141 OOC

Team B
5-7
3-1
3-0
7-0
4-6 (road)
36 (SOS)
138 OOC

Do you really need tons of computer data? Even if you say Team B is better, fine. But 5 seed lines better? That's where they currently are.....because of NET. Its messed up.

Do creighton, bother one that makes little sense.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Clemson up 14 (now 64) by beating FSU by 40 at home. Makes a case that Pitt should have left the starters in when up 25 over BC (kidding … but it’s a real thing) quoting SMF “NET loves blowouts”

Northwestern stays at 43 with a 2 point win at home over Indiana who dropped one spot to 18. IU has 8 losses and is 4-6 on the road. Once again proving winning is secondary to margin.

Pitt went up one to 48. Clemson loss upgraded to a Q2 but Wake dropped one to 76 downgrading that win to a Q3. Miami stayed at 30 keeping that a Q1 win. It’s maddening as these teams cross the quad boundaries whose cutoffs are completely arbitrary.

VT dropped 9 losing at GT to 67. VT is 1-8 on the road. uVA narrow win at UL drops them 3 to 16. Saturday remains a Q1 win opportunity.

Read my latest post in my rankings, it just is weird on how some teams are ranked in the top 15 and Pitt is 48th.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

We must be careful we don’t beat VT too badly or it’ll drop to a Q2.

Love net.

Haha, great comment exhibiting how stupid this all is. Imagine Capel instructing the guys to start dunking into their own hoop toward the end of the game so as to not disturb these flawless calculations.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

We were up 27 late vs BC. I dont know why you say you were kidding about the starters. If NET is being used like it isnt supposed to be, a coach's primary job is to earn the best NCAAT seed he can and if that means leaving your starters in to turn a 27 point lead into a 37 point rather than pulling them and allowing BC to cut it to 19, I think you have to. Its completely ridiculous but NET loves blowouts. You have to blow teams out and keep your foot on the gas when you have the chance. I didnt watch Clemson/FSU but I'm wondering if Clemson did any of that or had that mindset that they dont just have to win but win big. Moving up 14 spots just for winning a Q4 game......words cannot describe that. I would imagine had they won by 1, they wouldn't have moved at all.

NET loves blowouts.

If they're so infatuated with making everything so dumfoundingly simplistic, they should just use the Quad Blowout system. Winning by 1 is the same as winning by 10. Then 11-20, 21-30, and 31+.

But really... final score is more meaningless in basketball than any other sport. It's why I don't bet on it. Teams chuck threes, foul, eat shot clock, etc. In no other sport is the final score so often a poor representation for how the game actually went. So it only makes sense that NET would use it.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

Haha, great comment exhibiting how stupid this all is. Imagine Capel instructing the guys to start dunking into their own hoop toward the end of the game so as to not disturb these flawless calculations.

The analytics approach is a joke with college basketball. If you're that stupid that you need a computer to tell you which teams are better, you shouldn't be in the business. The above example just highlights how ridiculously stupid this whole NET thing is.

 

[PittPoker]

Clemson up 14 (now 64) by beating FSU by 40 at home. Makes a case that Pitt should have left the starters in when up 25 over BC (kidding … but it’s a real thing) quoting SMF “NET loves blowouts”

Northwestern stays at 43 with a 2 point win at home over Indiana who dropped one spot to 18. IU has 8 losses and is 4-6 on the road. Once again proving winning is secondary to margin.

Pitt went up one to 48. Clemson loss upgraded to a Q2 but Wake dropped one to 76 downgrading that win to a Q3. Miami stayed at 30 keeping that a Q1 win. It’s maddening as these teams cross the quad boundaries whose cutoffs are completely arbitrary.

VT dropped 9 losing at GT to 67. VT is 1-8 on the road. uVA narrow win at UL drops them 3 to 16. Saturday remains a Q1 win opportunity.

The more and more I read these NET posts the more I feel this has to be the worst metric ever to use for putting teams in the NCAA Tournament. It's awful.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

If they're so infatuated with making everything so dumfoundingly simplistic, they should just use the Quad Blowout system. Winning by 1 is the same as winning by 10. Then 11-20, 21-30, and 31+.

But really... final score is more meaningless in basketball than any other sport. It's why I don't bet on it. Teams chuck threes, foul, eat shot clock, etc. In no other sport is the final score so often a poor representation for how the game actually went. So it only makes sense that NET would use it.

Well they dont use scores necessarily, they use officiency metrics. What they'd have to do is not "count" efficiency stats after the game reached a point where it was unwinnable. Say we reached a 20 point lead with 8 minutes to go vs BC. OK. Game over per NET officiency. Turn it off. Whatever happens the rest of the way doesn't count. You'd have to program in that shut-off feature when win probability equals like 99.9%. So lets say Purdue leads IUPUI 24-4. Maybe at that point, the game ends for NET. What difference should it make if Purdue wins by 70 or they're up 40 midway thu the 2nd Half but IUPUI outscores their walk-ons by 20 so the result would be a "very bad" 20 point win for Purdue

 

[SteelBowl70]

Well they dont use scores necessarily, they use officiency metrics. What they'd have to do is not "count" efficiency stats after the game reached a point where it was unwinnable. Say we reached a 20 point lead with 8 minutes to go vs BC. OK. Game over per NET officiency. Turn it off. Whatever happens the rest of the way doesn't count. You'd have to program in that shut-off feature when win probability equals like 99.9%. So let’s say Purdue leads IUPUI 24-4. Maybe at that point, the game ends for NET. What difference should it make if Purdue wins by 70 or they're up 40 midway thu the 2nd Half but IUPUI outscores their walk-ons by 20 so the result would be a "very bad" 20 point win for

Old system has a cutoff where a win beyond a certain amount all counted the same and they eliminated that a few years ago. Seems like recent tweaks have made it worse.

 

[PittMan2003]

I disagree. We run a 8 man rotation. Burton has had knee inflammation all year. Nelly has a leg. Hinson needs to stay fresh as much as possible. I understand the NET loves blowouts, but keeping this team healthy is way more important than running a score up. I'm also fine with the idea of giving the bench some extra run in ACC play whenever we can.

This is one of the biggest issues with the NET .. running the wheels off your rotation in meaningless minutes to maybe move up in the rankings is so stupid I can't even explain it.

I totally agree. In theory yeah we should run up the score, but not at the expense of players' health. Beyond ridiculous system...

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

If they're so infatuated with making everything so dumfoundingly simplistic, they should just use the Quad Blowout system. Winning by 1 is the same as winning by 10. Then 11-20, 21-30, and 31+.

But really... final score is more meaningless in basketball than any other sport. It's why I don't bet on it. Teams chuck threes, foul, eat shot clock, etc. In no other sport is the final score so often a poor representation for how the game actually went. So it only makes sense that NET would use it.

To some point. But I do think a 34 point win (or loss) should have more impact than a 1 point win (or loss). Take WVU. I don't care how many Quad 1 teams they played. When you lose by 34 at Texas, and it was about that margin the entire game, it should be two losses and much more damaging than say Pitt losing to Vandy by 1 on the road.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

To some point. But I do think a 34 point win (or loss) should have more impact than a 1 point win (or loss). Take WVU. I don't care how many Quad 1 teams they played. When you lose by 34 at Texas, and it was about that margin the entire game, it should be two losses and much more damaging than say Pitt losing to Vandy by 1 on the road.

Texas is an elite team (per NET, #6) so losing by 34 to them is about the same per NET as losing to Vandy by 1

 

[CaptainMurphy]

I totally agree. In theory yeah we should run up the score, but not at the expense of players' health. Beyond ridiculous system...

Yep. Also, getting the bench guys like the twins and Santos significant conference minutes could pay dividends some tournament time.

 

[pierre93]

To some point. But I do think a 34 point win (or loss) should have more impact than a 1 point win (or loss). Take WVU. I don't care how many Quad 1 teams they played. When you lose by 34 at Texas, and it was about that margin the entire game, it should be two losses and much more damaging than say Pitt losing to Vandy by 1 on the road.

Exactly 💯

 

[UPitt '89]

To some point. But I do think a 34 point win (or loss) should have more impact than a 1 point win (or loss). Take WVU. I don't care how many Quad 1 teams they played. When you lose by 34 at Texas, and it was about that margin the entire game, it should be two losses and much more damaging than say Pitt losing to Vandy by 1 on the road.

Yes, a 34 point win is better than a 1 point win.

But a 34 point win really isn't twice as good as 17 point win. Once it is above a certain number, it becomes meaningless.

Like SMF said.. once the in-game analytics reach the point where one team has a 99.99% chance of winning, then nothing that comes after that matters.

Once the Texas-WVU game reached the under 12 timeout in the 2nd half, everything after that was completely meaningless.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Texas is an elite team (per NET, #6) so losing by 34 to them is about the same per NET as losing to Vandy by 1

But should it?? That's my point. 34 points is 34 points.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Yes, a 34 point win is better than a 1 point win.

But a 34 point win really isn't twice as good as 17 point win. Once it is above a certain number, it becomes meaningless.

Like SMF said.. once the in-game analytics reach the point where one team has a 99.99% chance of winning, then nothing that comes after that matters.

Once the Texas-WVU game reached the under 12 timeout in the 2nd half, everything after that was completely meaningless.

I agree with that. I think it should be weighted. 1-8 is on one level 8-20 is on another level and 20+ gives the most weight.

 

[UPitt '89]

I agree with that. I think it should be weighted. 1-8 is on one level 8-20 is on another level and 20+ gives the most weight.

I would fine tune it even further than that. We now have the technology to do the following:

- At what point in the game did the winning team have a 99.99% chance of winning? Everything that happened after that point had no bearing on the outcome of the game, and the "efficiency" numbers during that span should have no meaning.

Here's when that point was reached in each of the past 10 Pitt games, according to ESPN in-game analytics:

Boston College: 9:31 left
Florida State: 0:22 left
Louisville: 19:06 left
North Carolina: 0:00 left
Virginia: 0:00 left
Wake Forest: 0:00 left
Florida State: 0:11 left
Louisville: 5:02 left
Georgia Tech: 0:36 left
Duke: 0:07 left

This is basically the point in each game where the winning team didn't need to "try" anymore in order to win. My opinion is that EVERYTHING that happened after that point in each game should be thrown out - as far as offensive and defensive efficiency metrics are concerned and as far as "margin of victory" is concerned. That was the point of each game when the game was over. Done. Fini.