Search results

Efficiency ratings are close to universally understood. They are points per possession on offense and defense. They are adjusted for strength of schedule, the exact metric for that isn't going to vary much. So then they take the efficiency rating, which already is adjusted for SOS, and adjust...

There seems to be denial of the anti-ACC narrative the last 4 years. I don't know how. I don't consume much sports media and I haven't been able to avoid it. There are something like 10 Peter Burns for each Danny Kanell. I know some of these people pretty well. They aren't playing a role for...

This is a binary approach to a probability problem. Even 1 vs. 16 isn't 100% as we have seen. 8 vs. 9 is essentially 50-50.

I am glad you posted this. Michigan State has a NET ranked 24th. I looked through their results and the only reason I can come up for that is strength of schedule. So if NET is overemphasizing SOS, then the committee uses OOC SOS, they are definitely putting too much weight on that one thing...

Right. And Pitt was 40th in NET. Quads are an arbitrary concept, lines drawn in the sand. Out of conference strength of schedule is already in the NET rankings. Using that a second time weighs too heavily and weighs Nov-Dec too heavily at the expense of conference play and Jan-Feb.

I don't follow college baseball but the NCAAMBT does not use RPI, which is good because RPI is not a good tool. Here is the same link I posted earlier

Amen. The propensity for ACC fans to denigrate its own conference is extremely strange. The Pac 12 was probably in second place for self-hating fans but their anger was directed at the conference leadership and officials, rather than claiming they had bad teams.

This isn't a thing. Overspending P5 programs are a thing.

They stopped including margin of victory in 2020. With the changes announced in May 2020, the NET will no longer use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with...

He is tied up.

So was South Carolina as a 6. South Carolina was 51 in NET. Pitt was 40. UVA 54.

As I understand the metrics, number 181 is the middle of the pack of 362. To a team that is on the bubble, there is pretty much no difference between team 200 and 362. I don't think the models adjust for that.

Not a coach. Close enough.

GT was a resume destroyer in the ACC this year. A conference commissioner's nightmare.

Those should read 2004 and 2010.