- This topic has 45 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I completely missed the news that came out last July about the changes that were being made in the Selection Process for the NCAAT.
[See the full post at: What the Heck is a Quadrant?]I forgot to provide a link to State’s team sheet in the article. I’ll just put the link here rather than edit the entry (again).
http://www.statefansnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Team-Sheet.jpg
Note that the losses to UNCG and N. Iowa will most likely stay in Q3…along with the Penn St win.
I heard Jay Bilas ripping the Quadrant system, rightfully so. His analogy was according to the quadrant system beating Rider at their home is the equivalent of beating Nova at your place. Are those two things even close to equal?
His analogy was according to the quadrant system beating Rider at their home is the equivalent of beating Nova at your place. Are those two things even close to equal?
About 95 times out of 100, I automatically disagree with anything Bilas says. For instance, people often call the RPI calcs “simplistic”, outdated, and worse. While the RPI is obviously simplistic, the actual selection process is anything but. So back to Bilas, just because both wins are in the same column on a piece of paper, doesn’t necessarily mean that the selection committee will view both games the same (though it is a possibility).
Based on the statistical analysis behind the Dance Card, Top 25 wins were meaningful even though they were lumped in with the Top 50 wins. Things could change this year, but I still expect Top 25 wins to carry special weight with the Selection Committee. For now, all we can do is speculate…unless we find some articles on this year’s mock selection event. Baring getting some illuminating information, we’ll see what we see after Selection Sunday.
UNCG is almost a Q2 loss. Pull for them to improve to 75 RPI or better. Helps to get rid of a bad loss.
And according to freshment 83, I am a Q4.
BTW, the Quadrant system is helping us because we have some good Q1 wins. Use Syracuse as a comparison. Your RPI tracking chart has Syracuse in but the pack at the bottom of the bubble. But a couple of the bracketologists have State in the last 4 in, but Syracuse as just out because we look better.
But in your RPI article you think 9-9 in conference won’t do it for us and I agree. If we get to 10-8, I think we should be in. 9-9 we would need something special in the tournament. Beating Syracuse on the road gives us another Quad 1 win and gives us a head to head against a fellow NCAA bubble team. It also get’s our needed win count down to 3. A Syracuse win does not help them as much since they are home, but it certainly helps them. Let’s hope we win tonight or we will have to win 4 of the last 5.metrics/analytics.
most sports are turning into MoneyBall.
enough games make the numbers work.
(that’s why football rules…not enough)
lately, “numbers” MLB has hit the next level.But a couple of the bracketologists have State in the last 4 in, but Syracuse as just out because we look better.
I don’t read minds, but when I look at a lot of brackets I doubt that they are really based on the assumption “if the selections were made today.” It looks to me like the bracketologists are mixing current facts with projections/predictions to fill their bracket.
SYR is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Before last night’s game, they had a good RPI, were .500 in the ACC, good OOC schedule, and several good wins. To the best of my memory, that combination has never been left out of the NCAAT. But if you look at their remaining schedule, it’s not obvious that they can finish with a .500 conference record. With <.500 conference record, you need an impressive win in the ACCT to get a bid. So it's not hard to see why people would leave them out of their brackets.
Well I don’t get the whole SOS thing anyway. We played AZ, Tennessee (power 5 19-6), Penn St (18-9) in the pre-season then our conference slate, seems like that would qualify as a decent SOS to me. Listen once you get below like 100 or so in the power ranking you’re pretty much splitting hairs aren’t you? I expect NCSU to beat the 120 RPI team by as much as we should beat the 250 team. What this means is some patsies that front loaded with power 5 school to get their cut of the gate and got killed have a higher sos than we do so their 17-9 record means more than our 17-9 record?
What the NCAA is trying to do is set up an analytical system that basically takes all responsibility off of them to make any decisions.
(that’s why football rules…not enough)
Football has it as well. Check out the debates about who makes the “Final Four” playing for the championship. It will eventually get expanded to 16 games and the conference championship games will be eliminated. There will be more $$$ (which is what it is really about), and the argument will be that the only teams that really have a chance at a title will be there. There still will be debates though because where ever there is an arbitrary cutoff point, there will be complaining around the teams near that line, even if they have no real statistical chance of winning it all.
The RPI debates are really about the last 4-6 teams in every year, and 4-6 teams that got left out. Of teams of that profile, VCU with Smart is about the last one that I can really remember that went on any sort of run. Much ado about nothing, but what it means is that there’s buzz and interest about college basketball (and by extension these sorts of sites) during the regular season. If not, the only interest would be during the tournament (much like the NBA).
VAWolf’s write up is great. I knew the quadrant breakdown and how different wins could be viewed home vs. away, etc., but hadn’t really thought of the “winners and losers.” It will be interesting to see how this changes the predictive brackets, if at all. I would tend to agree that the committee’s “mix of inputs” leaves it open to them doing whatever they want. 😀
Q5 – Alexander, Tucker, Owen, Metcalf & Bowen…
The center of the universe…
Hello ?#NCSU-North Carolina's #1 FOOTBALL school!What this means is some patsies that front loaded with power 5 school to get their cut of the gate and got killed have a higher sos than we do so their 17-9 record means more than our 17-9 record?
Let’s go back to what makes up the SOS:
Winning percentage of your opponents (with the games against you removed)
Winning percentage of your opponents’ opponentsSo the opponents’ RPI ranking doesn’t directly feed into SOS. But you’re right in that an opponent with an RPI of 120 is generally going to have a better winning percentage than one with a ranking of 250.
Since SOS is basically an “average” of your opponents winning percentage, it takes a lot of games against good teams to make up for 7 really, really bad teams. The Selection Committee doesn’t want teams to run up impressive records against unimpressive opponents. So when teams dig their own grave with a weak OOC schedule, those teams have to do something extra to earn a bid. This sequence of events is known to just about anyone that bothers to spend any amount of time studying the Selection Process. If Gott could figure this out, then I tend to think that anyone could.
What the NCAA is trying to do is set up an analytical system that basically takes all responsibility off of them to make any decisions.
I don’t think so. The Selection Committee appears to take every opportunity to distance themselves from the calcs that used to rule college football. No one algorithm is ever going to be able to take in every pertinent aspect and the Selection Committee is not going to turn all of that over to any one algorithm. Just one example is losing your leading scorer for several weeks, racking up a bunch of losses, then start winning again when he comes back (sound familiar?). The committee wants the ability to take things like that into consideration.
I briefly mentioned the mock Selection event. The articles from people who have attended over the past years have been unanimously impressed with how much work goes into the selection process. Most of the bitching comes from talking heads who like to hear themselves talk or are just interested in stirring up controversy.
I read a bunch of articles on this whole subject and linked most of them in the write-up. The “coaches” have complained about the RPI and want something different. I suspect that the bitching comes mainly from the mid-major coaches AND that they are bitching about the wrong thing.
The basic inequity between the power conferences and the mid-majors isn’t RPI calcs. It’s the simple fact that teams in the middle of the power conferences are going to have more chances at top-quality wins. For teams that are any good, more chances equals more quality wins and thus more bids.
If you go back and read the comments from the Monmouth coach, it sounds to me like he was trying to schedule teams good enough to get noticed, but bad enough that Monmouth could beat them. That’s a difficult line to straddle. But even if a mid-major is able to read the tea leaves and pick the right opponents, they have to play on the road.
Power conference teams aren’t usually interested in traveling to play mid-majors….because every OOC road game, represents lost revenue. Sometime during the Great Herb Debates, someone from the comments at SFN counted up and pointed out that State usually schedules about 10 OOC games in Raleigh every year. Assuming that the consistency of past schedules shows intent, it’s going to be rare for mid-majors to play many good teams at home.
Maybe the quadrant system will help mid-majors. Maybe they can schedule enough Q2 wins on the road to get an invite. But you need to know how many Q2 wins it takes to balance a Q1 win before you can draw any conclusions about whether this latest change will help the mid-majors or not.
“I think that’s good,” Monmouth coach King Rice told NCAA.com. “We should have gotten into the tournament that year. People still come up to me to this day and tell me that.”
Those “people” wouldn’t happen to be fellow holes, would they, coach? The EweNC sense of entitlement apparently followed all the way to Monmouth.
Va using your criteria then State should be an automatic in. After all if its about television ratings and possible upsets then wouldn’t people rather watch a team that’s beaten several ranked teams go up against a top seeded team knowing that there could be a good chance of an upset brewing or a Cinderella in the making? Our OOC SOS drags us down but the reality is we are much more likely to beat a seeded team and make a run and that’s what viewers want to see after all (it’s what I want to see). However a team that had a higher OOC SOS that really hasn’t beaten anyone of note can get in ahead of us.
Looks to me like that’s just the NCAA trying to insulate themselves from the criticism so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.However a team that had a higher OOC SOS that really hasn’t beaten anyone of note can get in ahead of us.
Not likely. If you have an example from the past, then we can discuss. The RPI is simplistic, but the selection process is not. So someone who has “pumped up” their numbers without key victories will not get in.
The best example I can think of right now was the year VT got a first-round bye in the ACCT, beat Miami, lost to UNC(?) and didn’t get in…but Miami did. Miami had several good victories, but Miami was VT’s best win by far.
After all if its about television ratings
I don’t think so. The Selection Committee is made up of athletic directors and conference commissioners. I believe that they work to get the best teams because they would want their teams treated just fairly in the future. In the end, most of the bitching comes from (a) idiotic talking heads (See Digger Phelps and Dickie V), (b) talking heads trying to stir up controversy (everyone at CBS), or (c) mid-majors that want an invite even though they didn’t beat anyone.
Plus. I’m biased. Every time State has been close, they’ve gotten in. I was worried about Sendek’s last year and had given up the year TJ Warren won ACC POY. But State got in both times.
Dance card – Pack 38
http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm
38 North Carolina St. 4.9613 100.00% 48(RPI) – Projected?
No freshman 83 – they use the old RPI formula. They evidently saw more correlation between for tourney bid teams than the newer RPI.
What’s interesting about this year is that usually we don’t have a lot of wins vs quality opponents at this point. This year is obviously different.
I think the quadrant system is designed to encourage power conference teams to go on the road against mid majors. The old argument was that these games were no win situations for the power conference teams. Not many mid majors finish in the RPI top 25 but there are plenty in the top 75. This is a well thought out approach. I’d personally like to see UH get some big name non conference games at home just so I can go watch.
Normally we have a “tough” schedule but have lost to most of the good teams and have 2-3 wins at most against anyone with a pulse. That was the description of most of the HWSNBN teams and 2 of Gott’s. We often backed into the tournament, or got hot in the ACC tournament. The RPI might have been good, but we were a paper tiger. There’s reason that a Sweet 16 was the high water mark.
This year we have a pathetically weak non-conference schedule that is probably even worse than we imagined when we put it together. Check out the win totals on some of those teams like Bryant, UKMC, Jacksonville, etc.. We played 2 good teams, 2 borderline bubble teams and went 2-2 and took a bad loss to N. Iowa. Our season changed when we beat Duke, and from there we’ve collected several quality wins. Keep rolling off the wins and we’d go to the ACC tournament actually trying to play for our seed, which hasn’t really happened since Hodge. I also think NC State is a dangerous team that most higher seeds would not want to draw.
My fear is we’re just getting things going with the whole sport (and us) about to be blown apart…
No freshman 83 – they use the old RPI formula. They evidently saw more correlation between for tourney bid teams than the newer RPI.
What’s interesting about this year is that usually we don’t have a lot of wins vs quality opponents at this point. This year is obviously different.
Wow the old RPI has more of a difference from the new one than I would have thought. Thanks for the info.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
