I think you might be confused.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU MBB Rankings/NET/KenPom/Bracketology Catch-All
- Thread starter FM-Buff
- Start date
The lower the negative number, the better.
Minus odds is a good thing. They’re the leading odds to make the tournament of that list of teams.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Apparently I had an epic brain fart. Which is wildly inexcusable because I'm not foreign to sports betting
Buffsbball
Well-Known Member
Negative lines mean Colorado is favored to get in and not favored to miss.
They have the best odds of this group.
I honestly might have a stroke at this point. Since Lunardi's last major update:
- CU won two games in pretty convincing fashion, moved up to 30 in NET and 29 in KenPom
- Utah notched victories against the same opponents
- Wake Forest lost to bad VT and ND teams
- Virginia beat BC and got blown out against Duke
- FAU lost to Memphis
BPI discounts our home wins by at least 40% and ESPN folks like Lunardi use it as their main computer number.
Last edited:
P.S. The reason Utah gets so much love is that they beat Wake (N), St Mary's (A) and BYU (H) in the non conference. Their non conference losses were neutrals against St John's and Houston. It's a very strong resume even though it's pretty clear watching them and CU that our Buffs are better than them.
Something really weird happening there. Why are CU and CSU penalized so much heavier than any of the other teams?
Last edited by a moderator:
BPI is a joke and I hate that it’s used as a ‘valid’ metric. (It’s also very opaque and not clear at all how it’s calculated.)
If I remember right I believe BPI over emphasizes past season performances. While most do this (as it’s the only thing available in November), other metrics like Ken Pomeroy’s are clear how this is a flawed way to anticipate future performance and accordingly give it little weight.
(Personally, I like Ken’s rankings the most - he puts out great blog posts on how and why he values the metrics he uses. And for the fire Tad group he has a great piece on why the timeout to stop the run is overvalued
)
Last edited by a moderator:
BPI is a garbage metric. You'll often see Lunardi change his tune about following BPI religiously during Conference Tournament week so he actually ends up being more accurate on prediciting the tournament. Lunardi, although the most well known bracketologist, is FAR away from being the most accurate.
Also. Par for the course for ESPNBPI is a joke and I hate that it’s used as a ‘valid’ metric. (It’s also very opaque and not clear at all how it’s calculated.)
If I remember right I believe BPI over emphasizes past season performances. While most do this (as it’s the only thing available in November), other metrics like Ken Pomeroy’s are clear how this is a flawed way to anticipate future performance and accordingly give it little weight.
(Personally, I like Ken’s rankings the most - he puts out great blog posts on how and why he values the metrics he uses. And for the fire Tad group he has a great piece on why the timeout to stop the run is overvalued
KP leans heavily on preseason prediction and past performance at season start. As the in-season data comes in, that 'old' data is weighted less and less, until, by now, it's not included at all.BPI is a joke and I hate that it’s used as a ‘valid’ metric. (It’s also very opaque and not clear at all how it’s calculated.)
If I remember right I believe BPI over emphasizes past season performances. While most do this (as it’s the only thing available in November), other metrics like Ken Pomeroy’s are clear how this is a flawed way to anticipate future performance and accordingly give it little weight.
(Personally, I like Ken’s rankings the most - he puts out great blog posts on how and why he values the metrics he uses. And for the fire Tad group he has a great piece on why the timeout to stop the run is overvalued
FWIW, CU is #43 on RPI. It's no longer used by the Selection Committee except for determining SOS (RPI was replaced by NET), but it's not bad to look at it.
www.teamrankings.com
No member of a Big Six conference has ever been left out of the Dance with an RPI better than 40 and it's a huge anomaly if a Big Six team in the 40s is left out.
NCAA College Basketball RPI Rankings (updated today)
NCAA college basketball RPI rankings and ratings for 2024, updated daily for all teams and available historically for every day of the 2024 season.
www.teamrankings.com
No member of a Big Six conference has ever been left out of the Dance with an RPI better than 40 and it's a huge anomaly if a Big Six team in the 40s is left out.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Wyoming is also penalized. Teams that play at altitude have their home wins discounted in BPI because of the advantage that altitude theoretically gives.
I'm well aware of the theory dude. I'm saying how BPI is applying it is wildly inconsistent based on what we are seeing.
Lunardi gets way more credit than he deserves. He's like the signature that I think Gramburgler had about geology - just liquor and guessing.
He got in early, predicted a perfect bracket almost 20 years ago, coined the word "bracketology", and is located in the ESPN HQ region as a St. Joe's guy. When ESPN put up his "bracketology" the first year it created millions of additional hits for the website. None of the above have anything to do with whether I think he has any more credibility than 100 other guys who do this, but I give him credit on timing and seizing opportunity. He's made a mint off this stuff.
UNLV winning vs SDSU and Nevada winning at Boise State muddies the waters a lot in the MWC. They've got 7 really good teams, but they're beating up on each other. Right now, most of the brackets have it as a 6-bid league, but I can't imagine that will hold. I suspect that only Utah State and San Diego State can afford to not make at least the semis of their conference tourney.
Also - it's likely those 2 results tonight are good for CU's NET rank. Not necessarily that we'll move much tomorrow (29-32 range), but resumes in front of us & just behind us aren't as strong as they were a week ago so we're positioned for a win at Oregon to cause us to make a significant move.
Also - it's likely those 2 results tonight are good for CU's NET rank. Not necessarily that we'll move much tomorrow (29-32 range), but resumes in front of us & just behind us aren't as strong as they were a week ago so we're positioned for a win at Oregon to cause us to make a significant move.
MCskid
Well-Known Member
As someone that doesn’t follow/understand this net/kenpom thing does this mean that we’re 31 ranked team in the country?
Yes. Based on the computer formula the NCAA Selection Committee uses to evaluate team resumes (NET). KenPom also used to a lesser extent and basically gives a ranking on team performance weighted to the factors of play most correlated to winning basketball.
I don't get UVA either, they had a good stretch about a month ago but that was against bad to mediocre teams with the exception of Clemson.
I heard an interview with David Hale yesterday and he thinks UVA is easily in and said the ACC should get 6 teams in. I get that he covers the ACC but over the top homerism bugs the hell out of me. They have 3 teams solidly in but after that it's 2 or 3 teams on the wrong side of the bubble.
Lunardi is equivalent to Mel Kiper Jr. for basketball. Both are horrible at what they do.
GRM
Well-Known Member
I had the same reaction. Let's just face it-- Lunardi is an old washed up scrub. He uses ESPN metrics (BPI). Think he got the gastric band surgery to reduce his fat gut/ass. Other than screw CU, he does not change his bracket much throughout the year. He hates PAC12 Hoops and is terrified of Prime, who gives him nightmares... Lunardi suffers Tim McCarver flashbacks!
BaileyBuff
Member
With Tuesday night results, I understand the NET ,Florida move from 34 to 26 and the Nevada move from 40 to 32. But how does a St John’s win over Depaul 3-27 (0-19) and a #38 to #34 jump work? As well as Texas Tech jumping from #42 to #35 with a win over Oklahoma State 12-18 (4-13) . Also, I second and third, Joe Lunardi Bracketology is a waste of time read.
The NET likes road wins, even over bad teams?
There's also an efficiency component there -- the NET incentivizes beating the piss out of your opponent, regardless of quality. The Johnnie's won by 27, and broke 100 in doing so, on the road.
It's a flawed metric, just as the RPI was, but it's what we got.