Offical Net ranking thread

Donate To GopherHole
Bordergopher said:
You make good points and are very logical, and I agree with you. I even think you might be a bit generous in your ranking of our beloved Gophers. My point is simply that, at this point in the season, a difference of 25-30 (your very educated eye-test ranking) and 50’s(NET ranking) is WAY too big of a gap. This massive gap exposes problems with the metric for being used as a primary tool for ranking teams for selection. Way too much emphasis in this tool on efficiency and HOW you won or lost vs. WHETHER you won or lost and WHO you won or lost to. The whether and who should be 90% of the influence on the ranking, not the how.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Border expresses my thoughts well here.

Obviously its better to lose to #5 ranked team than beat #325 by 1. But that's reflected in RPI through SOS.

I guess what I'm saying is who you beat should be 90% of the composite vs the how. The discrepancy between team in rpi and net is disconcerting
 

Bordergopher said:
You make good points and are very logical, and I agree with you. I even think you might be a bit generous in your ranking of our beloved Gophers. My point is simply that, at this point in the season, a difference of 25-30 (your very educated eye-test ranking) and 50’s(NET ranking) is WAY too big of a gap. This massive gap exposes problems with the metric for being used as a primary tool for ranking teams for selection. Way too much emphasis in this tool on efficiency and HOW you won or lost vs. WHETHER you won or lost and WHO you won or lost to. The whether and who should be 90% of the influence on the ranking, not the how.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Exactly, as an example of this, take January 24th for example:

#4 Michigan State got a road win at #17 Iowa by 15 points 82-67.
#5 Gonzaga got a road win at #206 Santa Clara by 59 points 98-39.

Gonzaga jumped Michigan State in the NET Rankings. Think about that. Michigan State got a Big Ten ROAD win at a Top 20 team by 15 points. Gonzaga murdered a terrible Santa Clara team.

Gonzaga did not jump Michigan State in any other major metric that night (KPI, KP, RPI, etc.) But, the NET loved the point margin and 40 minutes of efficiency with very little regard to strength of schedule or what team you played.
 

tjgopher said:
Exactly, as an example of this, take January 24th for example:

#4 Michigan State got a road win at #17 Iowa by 15 points 82-67.
#5 Gonzaga got a road win at #206 Santa Clara by 59 points 98-39.

Gonzaga jumped Michigan State in the NET Rankings. Think about that. Michigan State got a Big Ten ROAD win at a Top 20 team by 15 points. Gonzaga murdered a terrible Santa Clara team.

Gonzaga did not jump Michigan State in any other major metric that night (KPI, KP, RPI, etc.) But, the NET loved the point margin and 40 minutes of efficiency with very little regard to strength of schedule or what team you played.
Click to expand...

Beautifully stated TJ!!!
 


tjgopher said:
Exactly, as an example of this, take January 24th for example:

#4 Michigan State got a road win at #17 Iowa by 15 points 82-67.
#5 Gonzaga got a road win at #206 Santa Clara by 59 points 98-39.

Gonzaga jumped Michigan State in the NET Rankings. Think about that. Michigan State got a Big Ten ROAD win at a Top 20 team by 15 points. Gonzaga murdered a terrible Santa Clara team.

Gonzaga did not jump Michigan State in any other major metric that night (KPI, KP, RPI, etc.) But, the NET loved the point margin and 40 minutes of efficiency with very little regard to strength of schedule or what team you played.
Click to expand...

Efficiency should be disregarding once a game is a blowout. Or at the very least mean less.
 


GophersInIowa said:
Efficiency should be disregarding once a game is a blowout. Or at the very least mean less.
Click to expand...

Too hard to track.
At what point is the game a blowout?
How about for the team that's down?
How do you adjust for pace of play?


A 10 deficit against Virginia might be a 18 point deficit against a faster paced team.
 

If the NET rankings are shown to have much relevance in determining the tournament field, then I think it's pretty much guaranteed that we will see some teams playing into that system at the end of games. For example, when losing at the end of a game, the team will drive in for 2-pointers and avoid fouling, knowing that they will only lose by 5, instead of attempting 3-pointers and sending the opponent to the free throw line, which would be the only possible way to win but could also result in a 10+-point loss. I hope it doesn't come to that.
 

The impression I get is that the NET rankings assume that every possession matters equally, which is just not based in reality.
 

One thing I keep thinking about is how BS Defensive Efficiency is in college basketball. I get that there are teams like Virginia that have a clear defensive identity and they us that side of the ball to win games. I am not denying that. But a lot of college basketball is whether offenses are hot and cold. So many times over the years watching Gophers basketball I've seen this board say, "Wow, that was a great defensive half, we held them to 2/11 from the 3-point line," when in reality our defense wasn't that much difference than it had been in games past--the other team just wasn't hitting their shots..

I understand that over a huge sample size that should all even out. But I would be interested to see if we remove that Illinois game what our Defensive Efficiency would be. Illinois was just shooting lights out that game, far better than they have done all season, and there wasn't really anything we could do about it. Should one game, headlined by a poor-offensive team's outlier performance, really hamper our season's Defensive Efficiency?
 



lol the #26 net team just scored fewer points than its ranking
 


I was very conflicted during the Rutgers-Ohio State game.

Is it better for our Net ranking for a team we lost to (Ohio St) to beat a team we beat (Rutgers) or the other way around?

Improve our win or diminish our loss?
 

What will happen to Nebraska's NET ranking after they lose at Illinois today?
 



Face The Facts said:
Too hard to track.
At what point is the game a blowout?
How about for the team that's down?
How do you adjust for pace of play?


A 10 deficit against Virginia might be a 18 point deficit against a faster paced team.
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t computers be able to track that pretty easily?
 


Moonlight said:
Well here's the problem.
Click to expand...

Nebraska losing to Illinois. I bet they plunge all the way into the 30's. If they lose another 4-5 in a row and we win another 4-5 we might just catch them. :cool:
 


GophersInIowa said:
Wouldn’t computers be able to track that pretty easily?
Click to expand...

I think it would be pretty easy. If a game is 15 points or more at the 5 minute mark, the last 5 minutes are disregarded. Simple.
 

howeda7 said:
But they only gave up 47. Defense was super efficient.
Click to expand...

So true but their offense was not. Guess you have not checked out Kenpom the last 5 years to find out exactly how the best teams have won all those games. Top 20 overall every year and no outliers. Perhaps your confusing it with NET and it is only part of the NET. Read the formula, study the data if you like the truth. Or ignore like most casual fans and just make up stuff or think what you want.
 


builtbadgers said:
So true but their offense was not. Guess you have not checked out Kenpom the last 5 years to find out exactly how the best teams have won all those games. Top 20 overall every year and no outliers. Perhaps your confusing it with NET and it is only part of the NET. Read the formula, study the data if you like the truth. Or ignore like most casual fans and just make up stuff or think what you want.
Click to expand...
NET and KenPom are highly correlated.
 

NET rankings remind me of the Rosie Perez quote in "White Men Can't Jump".

"Sometimes when you win you really lose or tie and sometimes when you lose or tie you really win."
 

It is time we move past this old archaic system of tracking teams by their actual win/lose records. We need to determine game results, conference standings and team rankings all by team efficiencies. It would be so much easier to just set up a system of scrimmages between teams and just crowd the most efficient team in the country the national champion.

When an untested ranking system causes coaches to change the way they play the game, it is Fcked Up! Ranking systems are there to help evaluate the game, NOT to affect the way it is played!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 


howeda7 said:
I think it would be pretty easy. If a game is 15 points or more at the 5 minute mark, the last 5 minutes are disregarded. Simple.
Click to expand...

I actually like this idea. It raises an interesting point. Even in games as close as 6-8 points in the last 2 minutes, it just turns into a foul fest. The leading team ends most of their possessions with foul shots, which are all highly efficient possessions. On the other end, the trailing team essentially must force up 3 point or otherwise low percentage shots which is less efficient. This artificially inflates the efficiency of the winning team, and artificially deflates the efficiency of the trailing team.

Would be interesting to see if anything changes when adjusting for game scenario. My hypothesis is that this phenomenon causes a larger divide between "efficient" and "less efficient" teams than actually exists, but how much difference it accounts for is hard to estimate. PRobably not much, since you need to be a highly efficient team to enter the scenario of foul shots while leading near the end of the game and thus it is simply a function of that. Would still be interesting nonetheless
 
Last edited:

A nonymous said:
I actually like this idea. It raises an interesting point. Even in games as close as 6-8 points in the last 2 minutes, it just turns into a foul fest. The leading team ends most of their possessions with foul shots, which are all highly efficient possessions. On the other end, the trailing team essentially must force up 3 point or otherwise low percentage shots which is less efficient. This artificially inflates the efficiency of the winning team, and artificially deflates the efficiency of the trailing team.

Would be interesting to see if anything changes when adjusting for game scenario. My hypothesis is that this phenomenon causes a larger divide between "efficient" and "less efficient" teams than actually exists, but how much difference it accounts for is hard to estimate. PRobably not much, since you need to be a highly efficient team to enter the scenario of foul shots while leading near the end of the game and thus it is simply a function of that. Would still be interesting nonetheless
Click to expand...
Would love it. UVA would gain tremendously as they have played walk ons and even their manager in too many games to count. They have given away tons of efficiency in the last 3 minutes. Led Florida State 65-36 and played the walk ons and the manager and lost 16-0. Have had several 35-40 point leads, like at Boston College and just let it go, same clemson etc.. They never kept in guys to enhance the final score.
 


Our Ken Pom ranking dropped from 51st to 54th over the last 24 hours or so.

Indiana = 45
Nebraska = 27
Iowa = 22
Maryland = 20
Wisconsin = 11
Purdue = 10
Michigan = 6
Michigan St = 4

Wofford = 31
Lipscomb = 36

Wsahington = 34
 
Last edited:

Minnesota still 51 on NET.

Wisconsin 11
Maryland 24

Indiana 44

Washington 27

Buffalo 23
Wofford 28
Lipscomb 32
 

READ THIS POST

People CONTINUE to act like the NCAA is just going to seed teams straight off the NET rankings. I explained it before: they will still go based on quadrant wins!

This marks the second consecutive year the committee has made a significant change. Before last season, a quadrant system was adopted to place greater emphasis on success in games played away from home on the team sheets, which offer a snapshot of each team’s schedule and results. The existing quadrant system still will be used on team sheets, with the NET replacing the Rating Percentage Index to sort games based on the opponent’s ranking:

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

While the quadrant system was widely deemed an improvement to the selection process, the NET is another significant step in addressing the recommendations the NCAA received from the NABC’s ad hoc committee, whose purpose was to make recommendations regarding the selection, seeding and bracketing of teams.
Click to expand...

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...ed-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom