Gophers are #43 in first ever NET rankings

Donate To GopherHole
S

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
25,131
Reaction score
5,920
Points
113
Pretty good start for the Big Ten under the new ranking system. ... 4 teams in the top 10.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings

Top 10
1 Ohio State
2 Virginia
3 Texas Tech
4 Michigan
5 Gonzaga
6 Duke
7 Michigan State
8 Wisconsin
9 Virginia Tech
10 Loyola Marymount

Other Big Ten
14 Nebraska
15 Iowa
17 Maryland
20 Purdue
34 Indiana
43 Minnesota
74 Rutgers
75 Penn State
83 Northwestern
125 Illinois

Non-Conference Opponents (played)
58 Washington (Quadrant 2)
138 Texas A&M (Quadrant 3)
169 Utah (Quadrant 4)
228 Omaha (Quadrant 4)
326 Santa Clara (Quadrant 4)

Tonight's Opponent
170 Boston College (Quadrant 3)
 
Last edited:



Remind me...what are the cutoffs for the different quadrants?
 

tmvander said:
Remind me...what are the cutoffs for the different quadrants?
Click to expand...

Quad 1
Home: 1-30
Neutral: 1-50
Road: 1-75

Quad 2
Home: 31-75
Neutral: 51-100
Road: 76-135

Quad 3
Home: 76-160
Neutral: 101-200
Road: 136-240

Quad 4
Home: 161+
Neutral: 201+
Road: 241+
 



Is this what the Selection Committee is using instead of the RPI?
 






howeda7 said:
Seems like a solution in search of a problem. All they had to do was weight KenPom more highly than RPI. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

They are also using Kenpom. It is on the website under news. Kenpom reveals exactly how your playing on every single possession and who you play. OE and DE are critical as great teams are top 20 both.
 

builtbadgers said:
They are also using Kenpom. It is on the website under news. Kenpom reveals exactly how your playing on every single possession and who you play. OE and DE are critical as great teams are top 20 both.
Click to expand...

I saw that. But I suspect they will rely heavily on this ranking and use it for cover against any criticism.
 

It will be interesting to follow as the minds behind this say that it just needs a larger sample size and then will make sense.
 



howeda7 said:
I saw that. But I suspect they will rely heavily on this ranking and use it for cover against any criticism.
Click to expand...

They will have kenpom to prove any doubters wrong about who is good on the at large side. If a team is worried they probably did not do enough. It will never be about the 64 best teams.
 


UpAndUnder43 said:
Nate Silver and many others highly critical of NET.

ESPN article here: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...nitial-net-basketball-ratings-raise-questions

Silver's comments are amazing and furthers my belief that the NCAA is a trash organization.
Click to expand...

I love Nate Silver, but I thought his criticism was silly.

A) It's early. The RPI is also terrible now. Let everything sort itself out. Any system that doesn't rely on preseason rankings will look weird early as mentioned in the article.

B) Silver complains on twitter about how only one of the factors includes SOS, but the NCAA's graphic that he refers to mentions that the factor with SOS is the most heavily weighted one. There are lots of examples of teams that had great records and had beaten teams by a lot of points that were lower in NET during the first rankings.

NET will be an improvement over RPI. There is zero question.
 

Some guy said:
Ken Pom is also flawed
Click to expand...

Agreed. All ranking systems are flawed to some degree. I haven't studied this new one to know enough about it, but I always thought that if they used a combined measure of RPI and one of the other measures that are similar (Sagarin, KenPom, etc.) that would be good enough.
 

justthefacts said:
I love Nate Silver, but I thought his criticism was silly.

A) It's early. The RPI is also terrible now. Let everything sort itself out. Any system that doesn't rely on preseason rankings will look weird early as mentioned in the article.
Click to expand...

Yes, RPI can look ridiculous in the early season and the measure excludes information but I always thought the beauty of the measure was that it did not rely on initial expectations like the others.
 

Some guy said:
Ken Pom is also flawed
Click to expand...

Kenpom reveals exactly how you are playing in efficiency and schedule adjustment. Any system has flaws but show a coach OE and DE stats and he will know where they are. Look at KENPOM right now and you will see quality and you will see where your at per possession and where that puts you nationally, not a shred of bias. What system do you like ?
 


builtbadgers said:
Kenpom reveals exactly how you are playing in efficiency and schedule adjustment. Any system has flaws but show a coach OE and DE stats and he will know where they are. Look at KENPOM right now and you will see quality and you will see where your at per possession and where that puts you nationally, not a shred of bias. What system do you like ?
Click to expand...

The only way KenPom could be any better is if Tony Bennet had invented it. :cool:
 

If it’s flawed early in the season, then why not wait until 10 games in or the end of December to release it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gall0249 said:
If it’s flawed early in the season, then why not wait until 10 games in or the end of December to release it.


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

I agree with this sentiment, but of course you know the answer: $$$$$. Even people talking about the rankings being stupid are people talking about your sport.
 

builtbadgers said:
Kenpom reveals exactly how you are playing in efficiency and schedule adjustment. Any system has flaws but show a coach OE and DE stats and he will know where they are. Look at KENPOM right now and you will see quality and you will see where your at per possession and where that puts you nationally, not a shred of bias. What system do you like ?
Click to expand...

You probably should have multiple measure.

KenPom assumes efficiency is the best measure of a team. While it is an important measure...in actuality score is the only thing that matters.
 

Some guy said:
You probably should have multiple measure.

KenPom assumes efficiency is the best measure of a team. While it is an important measure...in actuality score is the only thing that matters.
Click to expand...

This is not the right way to look at it. Efficiency is really just score divided by possessions. There's no way to have a positive efficiency margin if you lose the game.

The reason to look at efficiency rather than score is that it's just as impressive for UVa to win a game 68-60 at 62 possessions as it is for Duke to win one 82 - 72 at 75 possessions.

KenPom adjusts for strength of schedule and pace to find the teams that make the most out of every offensive and defensive possession in the game.
 

justthefacts said:
This is not the right way to look at it. Efficiency is really just score divided by possessions. There's no way to have a positive efficiency margin if you lose the game.

The reason to look at efficiency rather than score is that it's just as impressive for UVa to win a game 68-60 at 62 possessions as it is for Duke to win one 82 - 72 at 75 possessions.

KenPom adjusts for strength of schedule and pace to find the teams that make the most out of every offensive and defensive possession in the game.
Click to expand...

Yup. Yet every year teams that Ken Pom says are better win games at a marginally higher rate than some random gambler.
 

Some guy said:
Yup. Yet every year teams that Ken Pom says are better win games at a marginally higher rate than some random gambler.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in reading more about this comparison. Can you link?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom