Colgate #11 NET
- Thread starter Doctor Worm
- Start date
North Carolina beat Notre Dame by 40 is not predictive of anything happening in the ncaa tournament
But you're wrong and this isn't really a matter of opinion nor is it close. Margin of victory data is proven in every sport to improve a model's prediction capability over using just wins and losses.
In fact, just using points and completely ignoring wins and losses would be far, far superior to doing it the other way around if your goal was to actually predict the future.
I agree. But then, Sagarin is by far the best quant system this year with cutting off the margin of victory factor at 10 points. UNC is 23 there (RU is 32). Colgate is 62. Loyola behind RU as well.
So it may be that UNC was undervalued in NET before. They don’t have great wins, but they solidly defeated a large number of decent teams.
Yes, our losing by 23 to MSU was a great indicator that we'd turn around and beat them by 30 just 23 days later.
Also, our 11 pt win vs. Indiana was both a) indicative of how much we dominated them before putting in walkons, and b) predictive of how well we'd perform the following week at Nebraska.
(note: all of the above was sarcasm)
Disregarding home/away is just silly. Throw game location into the margin data..... when we're at home, even in this year with no fans, we're +4.5 against high major teams, while we're -5.1 outside the RAC. There's a reason models build in home court advantage points into their predictions - being able to overcome that and win outside your home environment matters.
Also, our 11 pt win vs. Indiana was both a) indicative of how much we dominated them before putting in walkons, and b) predictive of how well we'd perform the following week at Nebraska.
(note: all of the above was sarcasm)
Disregarding home/away is just silly. Throw game location into the margin data..... when we're at home, even in this year with no fans, we're +4.5 against high major teams, while we're -5.1 outside the RAC. There's a reason models build in home court advantage points into their predictions - being able to overcome that and win outside your home environment matters.
if a team wins a game by 6 points every night and finishes 25-0 and another team goes 20-5 with some 10 20 point wins and is ranked higher, yes the 25-0 team is way better given same schedule
I dont care about margin of victory or predictive results from game to game, The NCAA really does not either, it uses the NET as a sorting tool despite its obvious flaw and basically all the other ratings systems like Ken Pom and Sagarain are useless to them.
This year is unlike any other year though. Who knows how heavily the computer numbers will be weighted at all? There’s no precedent for Covid.
The committee won’t look at Sagarin per se, but it’s certainly eye popping to see how different the rankings look when the metric caps margin of victory at 10. All the blatant outliers (Colgate head scratchers) come out of the top 50.
I'm certainly not saying either:
(a) home court advantage should not be considered when looking at results or
(b) the final score is a perfect description of a game or
(c) using final scores will allow you to create a perfect rating system
So really none of these seems to be responsive to my arguments at all.
Define better.
I am in favor of giving the 25-0 team a better ranking, better seedings, better everything because sports is about winning the game not about running up the score.
But if I am trying to predict a future matchup the 20-5 team with a better scoring differential is likely "better" i.e. more likely to win that matchup on a neutral court.
I don't think this should matter at all for NCAA tournament selection purposes. I bring it up because your argument for why road wins should get some special treatment that is not symmetric with the treatment of home losses is because "the NCAA tournament is not played on home courts and road wins will predict how well a team performs away from home"
Your attitude towards home/road splits and MOV data is contradictory.
They weren't meant to be responsive to your arguments - just mocking of them, lol
Margin of victory was originally included in the NET formula, but was removed for this year - so it seems the NCAA doesn't consider it an important metric to consider for tournament selection. They did continue to include net efficiency, though.
That's what last years NET was all about, capping victories and defeats, good use of metrics and determining who the best 68 teams were. If you look back at the rankings, there was no outliers, no teams out of place from where they should be as a whole. It was better than 2018-19 and much better than this year's version. It is a shame it was scraped before it was even given a chance to succeed in a tournament setting and seeds. It was the best fair system the NCAA in either major college sport including the BCS.
What is the purpose of "showing you can win away from home" if not to predict the team's performance away from home?
Net efficiency is just a better (pace adjusted) version of margin of victory. Given the same number of possessions in a game, higher margin of victory = higher net efficiency.
Do you even know what you're arguing against? What do you think our efficiency numbers were in the first Michigan St game that you are bizarrely trying to use to prove that past scores don't help you predict future scores lol?
My last comment wasn't even an argument for or against anything, just saying that NET doesn't use it any more (without any argument of whether they should/shouldn't, or whether its inclusion would be a good/bad thing). You're jumping at shadows at this point.
My earlier comments were just lighthearted trolling.
In all seriousness, I do think that MOV should be included as a metric, to an extent (conceptually, capping the metric at a certain point isn't a terrible idea, imo). It's as imperfect as anything else, but it shouldn't be ignored.
But each game is it's own thing.... your MOV and efficiency and everything else in one game doesn't necessarily carry over to the next, as team performance is volatile (more volatile for some teams than others). I think the committee tries to look at peaks and valleys along with average performance - which could also be done with standard deviation, etc, but that might be getting too deep into the weeds.
The first part of my post was directed at bac. As mentioned above efficiency is basically just an adjusted margin of victory anyway.
Sorry, I'm not really familiar with your posting history so I couldn't distinguish where you were trolling. I've seen people make similar arguments seriously so I just assumed you had basically no idea what you were talking about lol.
Offenseive and defensive efficiency is margin of victory in disguise.
Personally I think margin of error should have zero part in a team’s direct resume.....NONE. It is binary. You win or lose. You get no credit for keeping games close. You get no credit for keeping starters in too long in wins!
I am OK if you want to use margin of victory when determining SOS, but only to a certain extent.
I am OK if you want to use margin of victory when determining SOS, but only to a certain extent.
The issue this year is the value of the road factor with no fans in the stand. A road win at Missouri State with empty stands isn’t as difficult as a home with vs Syracuse (also without fans). But both count the same.
Fans (and lack thereof) are definitely a factor, but not the only one. Not having to travel in the day before, comfortable visual markers for players/shooters, mental aspect of your own vs. an away locker room, even what brand/model of basketball is used.... lots of intangible things contribute to home court advantage.
I am
Thinking this year will be a good case study to the percentage of home court advantage to the fans
Lunardi has Drake as IN. Colgate should win easily on Sunday in the Patriot final as they really don’t struggle to score.
Colgate leading Loyola in first half of Patriot final on CBSSN. NBA hopeful, Burns, scoreless but will wind up with 15 assists. High on skill and low on elite athleticism...Colgate plays European-style hoops.
Seems right. First time seeing them. They would struggle in the BigTen. Loyola is shutting down Colgate’s top two scorers, but the other three guys have been given all kinds of time and space.
I didn’t see them play 2 seed Tennessee in 2019. Vols won 77-70.
They’ve always had a just beneath Ivy reputation...and still do. I think they are still mostly a traditional liberal arts college geared toward preparing kids for graduate school. Have a friend from high school whose son played hockey at Colgate. They play in a good D1 hockey conference...the ECAC.
There are other factors,sure, but to treat a home win over the NET 31 team the same as a road win over the NET 150 team based on those other things is just flawed. The fans are the biggest factor of home advantage by a good margin.