• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Bracketology and Selection Sunday Discussion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
DZ83CK said:
If you want to see how bad the bubble is, IU is 14-14, prior to today had lost 11 of their last 12, and still are being mentioned as a possible at-large team.
Click to expand...

The bubble is bad because of the criteria used to determine it. IU is 2-12 the last 14 games and all the talk is about the 2 wins because they're "Q1", which only teams from power conferences are going to get after December.
 
Upvote 0
There's no recency bias in the NET. The wins count for what they count for.

There probably should be SOME recency bias and other considerations involved, which is why the NET isn't going to just automatically select and seed the at-large teams for the Dance.
 
Upvote 0
I find it odd that Saint Mary's, with 10 losses, zero top-50 Kenpom wins, and only 4 top-100 Kenpom wins, is rated ahead of OSU in the NCAA NET ranking. I feel like there is some weird kind of mid-major bias in the NET when a team like St Mary's loses to all top-50 teams it faces, loses 10 games overall, and is rated ahead of a power conference team like OSU with the same number of losses and a lot better wins.
 
Upvote 0
yeah, that one doesn't add up. Some big issues with the NET rankings. Even with OSU's quality non-con wins a month into the season....when they popped up at #1 after the 1st releasing of the rankings, as much as I wanted to believe OSU was good, I think we all knew what was likely to occur in a deeper B1G this year, especially after the non-con success that the B1G experienced.

I knew that these rankings were going to be a mess at that moment. Just too many variables that can skew the rankings one way or the other......none of them accurately depicting which basketball team is actually better, which is what rankings are designed to do, right?
 
Upvote 0
even those who designed the net system would admit that the system has little-to-no value at the start of the season. however, looking at the current net ranking, it looks pretty solid. there will obviously be some outliers, but i'm not going to quibble about a curious ranking here or there. even kenpom, bart torvik, and the rpi have st. mary's ranked in the top 40. the net ranking isn't exactly standing alone.

one thing to keep in mind is to look at not just the wholesale number of wins and losses versus teams ranked in the top whatever but also the quality of those losses. scoring margin is a component of the net ranking system.

of st. mary's 10 losses, 8 of them were by no more than 6 points after regulation. when beaten, st. mary's has been competitive.

of osu's 10 losses, 8 of them were by at least 9 points. when beaten, osu has not been competitive.

now some will rightfully say that the west coast conference is not the big ten. that much is true. however, st. mary's non-conference strength of schedule is ranked 46th. osu's is ranked 144th. the overall strength of schedule for st. mary's is 66th versus osu's 43rd. this is not a huge difference. there would be a huge difference had we not played cellar dwellars like sc state, ysu, csu, and high point.

all things considered, i don't have too much of a problem with st. mary's being slotted one spot ahead of us despite having only 1 q1 win. if osu were more competitive, we'd be well ahead of them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy said:
even those who designed the net system would admit that the system has little-to-no value at the start of the season. however, looking at the current net ranking, it looks pretty solid. there will obviously be some outliers, but i'm not going to quibble about a curious ranking here or there. even kenpom, bart torvik, and the rpi have st. mary's ranked in the top 40. the net ranking isn't exactly standing alone.

one thing to keep in mind is to look at not just the wholesale number of wins and losses versus teams ranked in the top whatever but also the quality of those losses. scoring margin is a component of the net ranking system.

of st. mary's 10 losses, 8 of them were by no more than 6 points after regulation. when beaten, st. mary's has been competitive.

of osu's 10 losses, 8 of them were by at least 9 points. when beaten, osu has not been competitive.

now some will rightfully say that the west coast conference is not the big ten. that much is true. however, st. mary's non-conference strength of schedule is ranked 46th. osu's is ranked 144th. the overall strength of schedule for st. mary's is 66th versus osu's 43rd. this is not a huge difference. there would be a huge difference had we not played cellar dwellars like sc state, ysu, csu, and high point.

all things considered, i don't have too much of a problem with st. mary's being slotted one spot ahead of us despite having only 1 q1 win. if osu were more competitive, we'd be well ahead of them.
Click to expand...
Clearly St Mary's is exploiting the "dominant win" loophole. They literally have 19 wins by over 10+ and a total of 20 wins, but also 10 losses. I do not see why beating mostly mid-major teams by 10+ on 19 occasions is rewarded as if it makes them a better team when they are losing so frequently. But most of their resume being blowouts vs mid-majors is helping them cook the books in these ranking systems. Kenpom data shows a much different schedule strength between OSU and SMC, 22 and 97. Do you really feel that if the schedules were flipped, that both teams would have exactly 10 losses? I say hell no, St Mary's would be right at .500 and OSU would be like 25-5.
 
Upvote 0
I believe I read a Jerry Palm piece that said there has only been one at-large bid in history given to a team that was worse than 4 games over .500, the 2001 Georgia Bulldogs. So while IU has had some nice wins, it is going to be difficult to see them making the tourney.
 
Upvote 0
st. mary's lost to gonzaga by 48, but we lost to purdue by only 35. we are clearly a much better team.

seriously, though, i would not assume that osu is much better than st. mary's if they are better at all. i don't care what the records say and how they can be broken down.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top