Gophers NET Team Sheet

[SelectionSunday]

3-2 vs. Quad 1
#13 Nebraska (W)
@ #20 Wisconsin (W)
#22 Maryland (L)
@ #36 Ohio State (L)
vs. #38 Washington (W)

2-0 vs. Quad 2
vs. #58 Oklahoma State (W)
vs. #81 Texas A&M (W)

3-1 vs. Quad 3
#108 Utah (W)
#112 Rutgers (W)
@ #141 Boston College (L)
vs. #198 Santa Clara (W)

5-0 vs. Quad 4
#182 Omaha (W)
#191 North Florida (W)
#202 Arkansas State (W)
#258 North Carolina A&T (W)
#336 Mount Saint Mary's (W)

Average Net Win = 138

Average Net Loss = 66

True Road Record: 1-2

Road/Neutral Record: 5-2

Overall Strength of Schedule (SOS): #45

Non-Conference SOS: #155

 

[matt]

Need BC to get to 135 or better to be a Q2 loss.

 

[fmlizard]

Man, a bunch of machines and algorithms hate this team. Except the old RPI. We're a clear 10th in the B1G in all those ratings but record and standings say different. Prove 'em wrong guys!

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Man, a bunch of machines and algorithms hate this team. Except the old RPI. We're a clear 10th in the B1G in all those ratings but record and standings say different. Prove 'em wrong guys!

It doesn't matter if you win games anymore, it matters if you look like you should be winning them.

 

[Bordergopher]

Seems like we went from one really bad algorithm (RPI) to just a bad one (NET). More weight should be given to wins and losses than how you looked doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[builtbadgers]

It doesn't matter if you win games anymore, it matters if you look like you should be winning them.

Actually it matters a whole lot. But how you play and against whom will spell out in wins. Look at the top 10 in any metric and those are the teams with the most wins. They are winning on the road, beating top 10 teams, routing teams, playing lock down defense and shooting well with low turnovers. Who exactly is it that you do not think is winning much that gets points because they "look Good " but do not win. Who are these teams you refer to.

 

[Some guy]

Seems like we went from one really bad algorithm (RPI) to just a bad one (NET). More weight should be given to wins and losses than how you looked doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is quite an odd society we live in that now rewards losing to the 27th best team by 3 more than it awards beating the 40th best team by 8


Efficiency is not the end all be all. In fact, one of the most efficient teams in the rankings (wisconsin) lost to a much “worse” team (Minnesota) at home.

Effiency ratings currently have issues calibrating how important strength of schedule should weigh.
They also can’t see extenuating circumstances impacting effiency of a game. (Guy playing injured, foul trouble, etc)
They also value a 1 point win against the 25th ranked team almost identically to a 1 point loss to a 24th ranked team...which is just straight up messed up



I wish we could retroactively give the 2003 gopher football team a share of a big ten title for almost beating Michigan.

 

[builtbadgers]

It is quite an odd society we live in that now rewards losing to the 27th best team by 3 more than it awards beating the 40th best team by 8


Efficiency is not the end all be all. In fact, one of the most efficient teams in the rankings (wisconsin) lost to a much “worse” team (Minnesota) at home.

Effiency ratings currently have issues calibrating how important strength of schedule should weigh.
They also can’t see extenuating circumstances impacting effiency of a game. (Guy playing injured, foul trouble, etc)
They also value a 1 point win against the 25th ranked team almost identically to a 1 point loss to a 24th ranked team...which is just straight up messed up



I wish we could retroactively give the 2003 gopher football team a share of a big ten title for almost beating Michigan.

Actually they do not value it the way you think. Winning is still the most important but kenpom will be factored in as it should be. Coaches voted for this and for good reason. RPI was the worst and they wanted a comprehensive and transparent system. Amazing that people do not understand oe and de. If your great in those your winning games. If your not great in those and your winning you have not played a difficult schedule.

 

[SelectionSunday]

Actually it matters a whole lot. But how you play and against whom will spell out in wins. Look at the top 10 in any metric and those are the teams with the most wins. They are winning on the road, beating top 10 teams, routing teams, playing lock down defense and shooting well with low turnovers. Who exactly is it that you do not think is winning much that gets points because they "look Good " but do not win. Who are these teams you refer to.

Florida, Texas, Saint Mary’s, Creighton, Butler, and Oregon to name a few. All with at least 6 losses, all in the top 45 of KenPom, and ahead of the Gophers.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Actually it matters a whole lot. But how you play and against whom will spell out in wins. Look at the top 10 in any metric and those are the teams with the most wins. They are winning on the road, beating top 10 teams, routing teams, playing lock down defense and shooting well with low turnovers. Who exactly is it that you do not think is winning much that gets points because they "look Good " but do not win. Who are these teams you refer to.

If efficiency spells out in wins, then we shouldn't need to separately account for it, because the wins already capture it.

 

[Winasota Gopher]

Florida, Texas, Saint Mary’s, Creighton, Butler, and Oregon to name a few. All with at least 6 losses, all in the top 45 of KenPom, and ahead of the Gophers.

Pitino talks about it in his presser about Illinois.

Maybe it will work itself out over time but Florida at number 42 is a head scratcher being 9-6 (now 7 after losing to Mississippi state)

Lost by 21 to FSU
Lost by 5 to Oklahoma
Lost by 7 to Butler (then beat them by 34 so that's weird that they are playing them twice and having those different results)
Lost by 4 to MSU
Lost by 2 to South Carolina
Lost by 11 to Tennessee
Lost by 3 to Mississippi State

The moral of the story is only play power 5 teams. Which might be cool as a season ticket holder, it might ruin the college basketball upset special over time.


Edit:

Wisconsin is another head scratcher at 19 (they moved up a spot) with 6 losses

Lost to Virginia by 7
Lost to Marquette by 5
Lost to Western Kentucky by 7
Lost to Minnesota by 7
Lost to Purdue by 4
Lost to Maryland by 4

 

[builtbadgers]

If efficiency spells out in wins, then we shouldn't need to separately account for it, because the wins already capture it.

Coaches wanted it and it does reflect how well you played and who you played. The wins will measure out over the year but it will be most advantageous to capture wins against the best teams. Some of those teams mentioned by Winasota and rightfully so are in trouble. The GOPHERS are in far better shape because of who they will still play. Those teams he listed have far fewer chances at big wins for NET. I was not concerned with how well those lower ranked kenpom teams are, they have not played or beat good teams or many of them and they have not played that well. We have not played that well and have few big wins but take down MSU or Michigan and we will be safe. Will not beat those teams with bad OE and DE games. Those top 10 teams are murdering people with efficiency. Coaches have used these analytics for 12-15 years to show how well they play with every player, every combination every opponent. Over the time of the season this will blow away RPI and power 5 schools that get to 19 wins or so with 4-5 really good wins will get in. The Gophers have at UW and home to Nebraska. Washington we will see, they may not be a tourney team. Boston college was a bad loss and it happened because we played poorly in any measure. What do fans want it measured by, just wins ? We already have too many mid majors in, this gives the power conferences more opportunity . The Gophers playing great and losing by one at Michigan should be rewarded more than Colorado state winning by one at Drake !

 

[builtbadgers]

Pitino talks about it in his presser about Illinois.

Maybe it will work itself out over time but Florida at number 42 is a head scratcher being 9-6 (now 7 after losing to Mississippi state)

Lost by 21 to FSU
Lost by 5 to Oklahoma
Lost by 7 to Butler (then beat them by 34 so that's weird that they are playing them twice and having those different results)
Lost by 4 to MSU
Lost by 2 to South Carolina
Lost by 11 to Tennessee
Lost by 3 to Mississippi State

The moral of the story is only play power 5 teams. Which might be cool as a season ticket holder, it might ruin the college basketball upset special over time.


Edit:

Wisconsin is another head scratcher at 19 (they moved up a spot) with 6 losses

Lost to Virginia by 7
Lost to Marquette by 5
Lost to Western Kentucky by 7
Lost to Minnesota by 7
Lost to Purdue by 4
Lost to Maryland by 4

They are rewarded for a brutal schedule and the win over Oklahoma. When our schedule hits the hard part we will be rewarded. UW is not playing well by metrics and not winning right now, thus the fall. It is hard for fans right now because the bias plays in and you will have morons who do not like a team or a style of play or an opposing coach or a opinion on schedules. The metrics capture how you play, who you play and when you play them and where you play them.

 

[ltf]

We have a better sos ranking than iowa state (72 vss. 108) and a better record. So we have a better record against a more difficult schedule. Yet, kenpom has iowa state ranked at 17 and us at 54.
Guess the idea is that at this rate the efficiency numbers prove that our success is unsustainable compared to the success of iowa state, so we are PRE-EMPTIVELY ranked much lower than them? Kenpom is more predictive than present if I'm following correctly.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

We have a better sos ranking than iowa state (72 vss. 108) and a better record. So we have a better record against a more difficult schedule. Yet, kenpom has iowa state ranked at 17 and us at 54.
Guess the idea is that at this rate the efficiency numbers prove that our success is unsustainable compared to the success of iowa state, so we are PRE-EMPTIVELY ranked much lower than them? Kenpom is more predictive than present if I'm following correctly.

Yeah, it's interesting that buildbadgers accuses posters of biasing a certain style of play, when it is clear that some of these rankings do just that. That a team with a better record against a tougher schedule should be ranked higher than a team with a worse record against a weaker schedule should be a bare minimum requirement for any ranking.

 

[Winasota Gopher]

Yeah, it's interesting that buildbadgers accuses posters of biasing a certain style of play, when it is clear that some of these rankings do just that. That a team with a better record against a tougher schedule should be ranked higher than a team with a worse record against a weaker schedule should be a bare minimum requirement for any ranking.

I think it's just fair to state and adhear to this "stay away from absolutes".

I could argue that I can have a tougher strength of schedule, go 10-3 and have a less impressive resume to a team that goes 8-5 with a lesser strength of schedule if those 8 wins are more impressive than their 10. There's at least a conversation there.

I think it's too early to pass judgment on Net rating specifically, even with some statistical headscratchers. To built's point about us getting credit when our schedule gets brutal, over time, this should level itself out. Good teams will win more regularly than bad teams, and the teams with good wins and *cringe* good loses will have a solid argument over the teams that win alot against no one.

 

[builtbadgers]

Iowa state has a dominating win over Kansas. Perhaps that carries too much weight but it is worth a great deal. Wish we knew how much. Is it worth 3 tier 2 wins or 2 ? It is not my bias, this is what the coaching committee voted on.

 

[builtbadgers]

I think it's just fair to state and adhear to this "stay away from absolutes".

I could argue that I can have a tougher strength of schedule, go 10-3 and have a less impressive resume to a team that goes 8-5 with a lesser strength of schedule if those 8 wins are more impressive than their 10. There's at least a conversation there.

I think it's too early to pass judgment on Net rating specifically, even with some statistical headscratchers. To built's point about us getting credit when our schedule gets brutal, over time, this should level itself out. Good teams will win more regularly than bad teams, and the teams with good wins and *cringe* good loses will have a solid argument over the teams that win alot against no one.

Exactly. Abd i believe the Gophers DE will rise, like it did after beating UW and it is why they will beat other good teams.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

I think it's just fair to state and adhear to this "stay away from absolutes".

I could argue that I can have a tougher strength of schedule, go 10-3 and have a less impressive resume to a team that goes 8-5 with a lesser strength of schedule if those 8 wins are more impressive than their 10. There's at least a conversation there.

I think it's too early to pass judgment on Net rating specifically, even with some statistical headscratchers. To built's point about us getting credit when our schedule gets brutal, over time, this should level itself out. Good teams will win more regularly than bad teams, and the teams with good wins and *cringe* good loses will have a solid argument over the teams that win alot against no one.

I dont think there should be a conversation there. If my team has won more games against tougher competition than another team, than my team has been more successful. No amount of looking good while losing should change that.

 

[Urbandale]

It is not my bias, this is what the coaching committee voted on.

You've made this statement multiple times. I understand that you're trying to give your argument more validity, but it's irrelevant. When the discussion is the fidelity of a certain analytic, it doesn't matter in the least bit who wanted it or didn't want it.

 

[Winasota Gopher]

I dont think there should be a conversation there. If my team has won more games against tougher competition than another team, than my team has been more successful. No amount of looking good while losing should change that.

Let's simplify this.

If teams a and b play two games

Team A beats the number 1 team and loses to the number 50 team in a close loss. (Average ranking of opponents 25)

Team B beats the number 23 team and the number 24 team (average ranking of opponents 23.5)

Team B in this simplified scenario has a stronger strength of schedule and has won two games while Team A beat the best team in the country and lost in a close game against a lower ranked opponent.

You're saying I couldn't have a conversation that team A is better than team B?

 

[bc2211]

They are rewarded for a brutal schedule and the win over Oklahoma. When our schedule hits the hard part we will be rewarded. UW is not playing well by metrics and not winning right now, thus the fall. It is hard for fans right now because the bias plays in and you will have morons who do not like a team or a style of play or an opposing coach or a opinion on schedules. The metrics capture how you play, who you play and when you play them and where you play them.

Where this metric matters most is at the bubble. Can anyone truthfully argue that Florida should earn an at-large bid over Minnesota right now? I haven’t watched them, but they must be losing with the utmost efficiency.

Im sure the ncaa ran this simulation over several years, so I’ll be patient that it will work itself out, but so far consider me skeptical that a new metric which weighs other metrics arbitrarily will end up working out as neatly as you describe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[builtbadgers]

Where this metric matters most is at the bubble. Can anyone truthfully argue that Florida should earn an at-large bid over Minnesota right now? I haven’t watched them, but they must be losing with the utmost efficiency.

Im sure the ncaa ran this simulation over several years, so I’ll be patient that it will work itself out, but so far consider me skeptical that a new metric which weighs other metrics arbitrarily will end up working out as neatly as you describe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In every way it is better than RPI. Of course fans like the metric the most that shows the best for their team. Good teams are ranked high in all of them. Kenpom is only a part of NET. Florida is a interesting case. Those 7 losses look terrible but everyone needs to look at that schedule ! I have seen Florida several times and to my eye test the Gophers are better but we are not going to go by fans eye test because it is bias and a whole lot af basketball people think Florida is better watching them play. None of really matters if you go out and win a ton of games, win 13 in the conference and beat somebody really good on the road. That non conference schedule sucked.

 

[Dano564]

Efficiency rating is very closely tied to NET.
You can take KenPom and sort by efficiency and you have almost the same list as NET.

The difference is the occasional team like Houston who is slightly lower in KenPom Efficiency, but win almost all of their games by double digits.

The NET has critics because it doubles up on some factors. Essentially, if you have a good Net Efficiency, you are blowing teams out by wide margins. Then on top of that, you are adding in a scoring difference component on top of that.

The issue with the Gophers not scoring well isn't because they aren't playing a tough schedule or beating good teams. It's because they aren't substantially higher in NET efficiency and they don't blow out many teams by a minimum of 10 points.

If you look at a 10 win team who is ranked high, chances are 9 of their 10 wins came by double digits.

They say they don't reward margin of scoring beyond 10 points, but if you have possessions at the end of the game, to improve your efficiency, you better score on that possession.
Also, if the other team has the ball in a blowout and you let them score, you just dropped your defensive efficiency, and that will reflect in your KenPom score.

I think strength of schedule is maybe a very small fraction to how this NET works.

 

[bc2211]

In every way it is better than RPI. Of course fans like the metric the most that shows the best for their team. Good teams are ranked high in all of them. Kenpom is only a part of NET. Florida is a interesting case. Those 7 losses look terrible but everyone needs to look at that schedule ! I have seen Florida several times and to my eye test the Gophers are better but we are not going to go by fans eye test because it is bias and a whole lot af basketball people think Florida is better watching them play. None of really matters if you go out and win a ton of games, win 13 in the conference and beat somebody really good on the road. That non conference schedule sucked.

Agreed, this conversation is moot if a team doesn’t win, and at the end of the day, Florida simply hasn’t done that. None of their 7 losses are *bad*, but I don’t think they have one moderately impressive win. Bias aside, Minnesota has wins against two top 20 net teams, and one on the road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[matt]

Pitino talks about it in his presser about Illinois.

Very interesting, thanks. He directly talks about NET, OER, DER, and 6-7 loss teams ahead of the Gophers. If anyone wants to see him talk about it, start the video at 6:57.

 

[Dano564]

Very interesting, thanks. He directly talks about NET, OER, DER, and 6-7 loss teams ahead of the Gophers. If anyone wants to see him talk about it, start the video at 6:57.

OER and DER is 90% of the rankings

 

[Dano564]

Losing by 30 to Illinois isn't going to help this team's NET.

 

[Some guy]

Losing by 30 to Illinois isn't going to help this team's NET.

Yeah.

Another reason not to like efficiency ranking. So game is out of hand. You play backups, and those possessions with your bench in the game down 20 are equally weighted with possessions in the last 5 minutes at Wisconsin in a close game? Dumb.

Too many moving parts to think efficiency isn’t end all be all. It is valuable but overrated.

 

[builtbadgers]

Yeah.

Another reason not to like efficiency ranking. So game is out of hand. You play backups, and those possessions with your bench in the game down 20 are equally weighted with possessions in the last 5 minutes at Wisconsin in a close game? Dumb.

Too many moving parts to think efficiency isn’t end all be all. It is valuable but overrated.

It works both ways when the last 2 minutes the Gophers D was more efficient against walk ons and the manager ! It is not everything but measuring every possession by points per possession is a tremendous tool. Last night shows exactly how poorly we played on both sides of the ball. When you have efficiency numbers like last night you never win and i mean never !