Wow the NIT disrespects Vanderbilt too

[Golddore68]

A 3 seed? When Vanderbilt had more quality wins than their 1 seeds?

What a joke.

[doubledore9603]

Disgraceful.

[mathguy]

Behind Colorado and Michigan?!?!?!?

[dallasdore]

Behind Colorado?????????? Are you kidding????

Behind Michigan? More major big ten bias.

I hope we beat Yale, then beat that Michigan team like a friggin' drum. Be warned, their big guy is kindof a thug. Be ready to absolutely not stand them.

There are two teams that are probably a hair better than us: Clemson and OK State.

And we may only get ONE home game? Am I correct?

[vutrain]

And we may only get ONE home game? Am I correct?

Yes, and then we travel to Michigan.

[UltimateVUFan]

Hopefully that is enough to give them a chip on their shoulder to go out and play pissed off and beat the entire field like a drum.

[Obvious]

We didn’t get what we wanted. The team wanted it more than we can imagine and they played their hearts out to get in. The last 12 games was one the finest runs in modern Vanderbilt basketball history. I feel for the team and I hope we can support their NIT run. This is a team of fighters that happen to play basketball. I want all the best for this team. Go win it all!

[UltimateVUFan]

Your NIT 2 seeds, everyone:

Michigan: Quad 1 (2-12); Quad 2 (6-2); 1 Q4 loss
Liberty (HA!): Quad 1 (0-3); Quad 2 (1-2); 3 Q3 losses
Sam Houston: Quad 1 (1-3); Quad 2 (1-1); 2 Q3/1 Q4 losses
Colorado: Quad 1 (3-7); Quad 2 (4-4); 3 Q3/2 Q4 losses

VU racked up 5 Q1 wins and 5 Q2 wins. 11 Q1 losses and ZERO Q2 losses. Their black mark is the 2 Q3/1 Q4 losses.

If you look at the NET, it’s obvious that the NIT also seeded solely on this metric system.

However, with:
- a 10-11 record against Quads 1 and 2
- a significantly better overall record than Michigan (17-15) and Colorado (17-16)
- only 3 fewer wins than Liberty, who played 9 Q3 games and SIXTEEN (16) Q4 games (yes, they won 23 games, with 25 of 31 games played against Q3/4 opponents)
- only ONE fewer win than Sam Houston, who played 22 of 28 games against Q3/4 opponents

VU is apparently a 3 seed.

And this NET isn’t a flawed system???? Jason, where you at in this one buddy?
I love your posts. You are always very insightful and admittedly more knowledgeable about basketball on the whole than me. But this just doesn’t add up, man. I’m sorry. The NET is flawed.

[Jason94]

Your NIT 2 seeds, everyone:

Michigan: Quad 1 (2-12); Quad 2 (6-2); 1 Q4 loss
Liberty (HA!): Quad 1 (0-3); Quad 2 (1-2); 3 Q3 losses
Sam Houston: Quad 1 (1-3); Quad 2 (1-1); 2 Q3/1 Q4 losses
Colorado: Quad 1 (3-7); Quad 2 (4-4); 3 Q3/2 Q4 losses

VU racked up 5 Q1 wins and 5 Q2 wins. 11 Q1 losses and ZERO Q2 losses. Their black mark is the 2 Q3/1 Q4 losses.

If you look at the NET, it’s obvious that the NIT also seeded solely on this metric system.

However, with:
- a 10-11 record against Quads 1 and 2
- a significantly better overall record than Michigan (17-15) and Colorado (17-16)
- only 3 fewer wins than Liberty, who played 9 Q3 games and SIXTEEN (16) Q4 games (yes, they won 23 games, with 25 of 31 games played against Q3/4 opponents)
- only ONE fewer win than Sam Houston, who played 22 of 28 games against Q3/4 opponents

VU is apparently a 3 seed.

And this NET isn’t a flawed system???? Jason, where you at in this one buddy?
I love your posts. You are always very insightful and admittedly more knowledgeable about basketball on the whole than me. But this just doesn’t add up, man. I’m sorry. The NET is flawed.

Dude, give it a rest, just because you don't understand the NET doesn't make it flawed. Yes we had a great 11 games run. But we played 34 games. How did we do in the other 23 games? Perhaps the NET is looking beyond those 11 games, unlike yourself.

[Vandy5]

The NET is not real basketball minds judging basketball teams. It’s a lazy way out to use a predictive computer analysis.

So, the path forward has been clearly laid out by the selection committee. Play nobody in the non conference, beat them mercilessly because this improves your margin of victory component. It also will improve your offensive and defensive efficiency ranking, those are all important. Doesn’t matter if you score a lot but have a bad defense, even if you win this way, the analytics don’t like it.

Southern Miss was not a bad loss but a bad decision to play them, especially at home. They won the Sun Belt and 24 games, but their net is in upper 80’s so “bad” loss by computer.

Arky, Miss St, Auburn, played no one, 2 had losing conference records. No great wins, just don’t have a bad computer loss and you’re golden.

2nd ranked conference in country by most, Vandy has 3rd most conference wins, and not even close. You should be judged on what you did, not on how you manipulated the system.

Sorry, rant over. Can we one day get back to get judged on having the gumption to play somebody, who you beat and how you did in that conference that you ride on the coattails of

[cc11316]

Your NIT 2 seeds, everyone:

Michigan: Quad 1 (2-12); Quad 2 (6-2); 1 Q4 loss
Liberty (HA!): Quad 1 (0-3); Quad 2 (1-2); 3 Q3 losses
Sam Houston: Quad 1 (1-3); Quad 2 (1-1); 2 Q3/1 Q4 losses
Colorado: Quad 1 (3-7); Quad 2 (4-4); 3 Q3/2 Q4 losses

VU racked up 5 Q1 wins and 5 Q2 wins. 11 Q1 losses and ZERO Q2 losses. Their black mark is the 2 Q3/1 Q4 losses.

If you look at the NET, it’s obvious that the NIT also seeded solely on this metric system.

However, with:
- a 10-11 record against Quads 1 and 2
- a significantly better overall record than Michigan (17-15) and Colorado (17-16)
- only 3 fewer wins than Liberty, who played 9 Q3 games and SIXTEEN (16) Q4 games (yes, they won 23 games, with 25 of 31 games played against Q3/4 opponents)
- only ONE fewer win than Sam Houston, who played 22 of 28 games against Q3/4 opponents

VU is apparently a 3 seed.

And this NET isn’t a flawed system???? Jason, where you at in this one buddy?
I love your posts. You are always very insightful and admittedly more knowledgeable about basketball on the whole than me. But this just doesn’t add up, man. I’m sorry. The NET is flawed.

Dude, give it a rest, just because you don't understand the NET doesn't make it flawed. Yes we had a great 11 games run. But we played 34 games. How did we do in the other 23 games? Perhaps the NET is looking beyond those 11 games, unlike yourself.

My issue is if you think about this as a machine learning model that is trained to be adaptable to produce more accurate results. It seems the parameters and hyperparameters haven't been tuned since November as the model is still predicting results based on pre-conference data. If the actual results was used as training data, we would have seen an upward trend from the mid 80's to the mid 30's or something in the KenPom and net rankings instead of creeping up one or two spots with all the consecutive victories.

[UltimateVUFan]

Your NIT 2 seeds, everyone:

Michigan: Quad 1 (2-12); Quad 2 (6-2); 1 Q4 loss
Liberty (HA!): Quad 1 (0-3); Quad 2 (1-2); 3 Q3 losses
Sam Houston: Quad 1 (1-3); Quad 2 (1-1); 2 Q3/1 Q4 losses
Colorado: Quad 1 (3-7); Quad 2 (4-4); 3 Q3/2 Q4 losses

VU racked up 5 Q1 wins and 5 Q2 wins. 11 Q1 losses and ZERO Q2 losses. Their black mark is the 2 Q3/1 Q4 losses.

If you look at the NET, it’s obvious that the NIT also seeded solely on this metric system.

However, with:
- a 10-11 record against Quads 1 and 2
- a significantly better overall record than Michigan (17-15) and Colorado (17-16)
- only 3 fewer wins than Liberty, who played 9 Q3 games and SIXTEEN (16) Q4 games (yes, they won 23 games, with 25 of 31 games played against Q3/4 opponents)
- only ONE fewer win than Sam Houston, who played 22 of 28 games against Q3/4 opponents

VU is apparently a 3 seed.

And this NET isn’t a flawed system???? Jason, where you at in this one buddy?
I love your posts. You are always very insightful and admittedly more knowledgeable about basketball on the whole than me. But this just doesn’t add up, man. I’m sorry. The NET is flawed.

Dude, give it a rest, just because you don't understand the NET doesn't make it flawed. Yes we had a great 11 games run. But we played 34 games. How did we do in the other 23 games? Perhaps the NET is looking beyond those 11 games, unlike yourself.

How do you explain the comparative metrics of these other teams? They didn’t rack up the same number of quality wins and most of them lost as many or more Q3/Q4 games. Does SOS not factor into the equation at all?
I’m just saying that slavery to a computer metric system that only evaluates efficiency (yes, I am well aware that’s how it works, and that your relative offensive and defensive efficiencies against your opponents vs. expected results matters) but fails to calculate tangible results and outcomes is flawed. Wins matter, whether they’re by a single point or not. Sure, a blowout at Bama and a loss at home to Southern Miss and Grambling sucks. But at the end of the day, a system that balances elements of the RPI and NET and considers all sides of the equation seems like a more logical way to evaluate relative team strengths. Also, the “eye test” in the last month+ of the season, which is when the tournaments actually get played, should matter.

I suppose we can agree to disagree.

[Troubadore]

It does seem "odd" that we're widely considered first 4-5 out of the ncaa tourney, but this seeding would indicate the NIT only considers us first 9-12 out of the NCAA tourney. Whatever, gotta win.

With Liam, I think we'd have a good shot at winning the NIT. Without him it'll be a tough go but definitely looking forward to seeing what we can do, and watching the youngsters build up more experience.

[Vandyfw]

Please see the post below. I think the Dores are a 2 seed per the NCAA bracket.

[UltimateVUFan]

Please see the post below. I think the Dores are a 2 seed per the NCAA bracket.

HA! If you look at the actual bracket, it appears they somehow originally flipped all the 2 and 3 seeds???
I guess that gives me a little more confidence in the sanity of the selection process. Of course, the irony is that it gives less confidence in the competence of those who run the thing.
What a clown show.

[FayetteDore]

VU MBB tweet says the NCAA put out a corrected NIT bracket showing the 'Dores as a 2 seed:

https://twitter.com/VandyMBB/status/163 ... 64513?s=20

[MrMemorial]

And we may only get ONE home game? Am I correct?

Yes, and then we travel to Michigan.

Don't think for a minute that Toledo can't beat Michigan. They won like 17 games in a row at one point before a very good Kent State team played lights out to get the auto-bid from the MAC. To be honest, I'm glad we are not playing Toledo in the first round.

[MrMemorial]

And we may only get ONE home game? Am I correct?

Yes, and then we travel to Michigan.

Don't think for a minute that Toledo can't beat Michigan. They won like 17 games in a row at one point before a very good Kent State team played lights out to get the auto-bid from the MAC. To be honest, I'm glad we are not playing Toledo in the first round.

And a bracket tip for you BigTen haters out there. MAC schools hate the BigTen more than you do. Yes, not only is that possible, it's true. Thus not only does Kent State have a very athletic team, they have the added motivation of hate when they play Indiana. (and Toledo is pretty close to Ann Arbor too)

I'm not saying Kent State is going to upset Indiana. But I'm also not not saying it.

[mathguy]

My issue is if you think about this as a machine learning model that is trained to be adaptable to produce more accurate results. It seems the parameters and hyperparameters haven't been tuned since November as the model is still predicting results based on pre-conference data. If the actual results was used as training data, we would have seen an upward trend from the mid 80's to the mid 30's or something in the KenPom and net rankings instead of creeping up one or two spots with all the consecutive victories.

This is what the old RPI system would have done. Ultimately, we were punished by the next because we had BIG losses combined with a lot of SMALL wins. So the NET looks at that and says well ... good for you, that you won these two games close, but over 3 games you collectively got clobbered.

And there's a place for that. It says something legit about this team.

Which is why we have a human committee who ... apparently ignored all of our big wins because they had a mindset a month ago tht we weren't good enough.

[rEvUrB]

They just need to add another round to the tournament. The first four got them down the road, just make it 128 teams and be done w it.