Gopherbbdude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2013
- Messages
- 3,674
- Reaction score
- 1,675
- Points
- 113
Gophers moved up form 66 to 60 after a great showing at Michigan.
Interesting.. I don't really know what to make of the Net and how we went about scheduling this year. Does anyone know if there is like a variable Net calculator online anywhere? I wasn't able to find one but I think it'd be nice to see how we could actually raise these rankings that are important for our postseason chances. Really would be curious to see how adding a top 50 game and/or raising the caliber of some of the crap non-conf games we play.
Well that’s great we lost and increased our ranking. Maybe if we can efficiently lose the rest of our games, we’ll get into a better position to make the tourney!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The risk is not blowing them out when you should... greasy ropeSo it incentivizes annihilating quadrant 4 teams in the pre-season. Cool.
Strength of schedule has nothing to do with Minnesota's low NET ranking. Teams with much worse SOS's and much worse records are ranked higher. Minnesota's SOS is plenty good. Minnesota's record and Minnesota's quality of wins are both plenty good.
The new NET ranking factors in offensive and defensive efficiency (a predictive measure, not a results measure). The Gophers are neither efficient on offense or defense, but somehow have won games. Winning doesn't help them. In fact, LOSING a game last night allowed them to go UP in the rankings because they were defensively so efficient last night.
Coaches will absolutely have to rethink how they want their teams to play if the NCAA uses the current NET setup as an end-all, be-all. Luckily for Minnesota's sake, it sounds like it won't be an end-all, be-all. It will mostly be a guide to judge a team's quality of wins, etc., as part of an overall team spread sheet.
As an example, NC State plays almost no one in the non-conference, but blew them all out, and were highly efficient. They had one good win (Auburn). They are currently ranked 27th in the NET, which puts them in solid position. In the old RPI formula that the NCAA used for more than 40 years (which factors in SOS much more strongly), NC State is ranked 114th and would not even make the NIT.
The RPI had its faults for sure and was not a perfect metric and it is good the NCAA tried to use something better. But, the NET stuff is a little out of hand with predictive measures that don't really factor in winning and losing, which will create some interesting situations on Selection Sunday.
That was a pretty thorough explanation. Thank you! I believe they should use a mix of measures: maybe something like 1/3 NET, 1/3 RPI, and 1/3 take your pick between BPI, Sagarin, etc. because those are similar measures. With spreadsheets, combining these measures with appropriate weights is effortless. As the old Geico commercial used to say "Even a caveman can do it."
Actually kenpom effieciency numbers measure ppp on every possession adjusted for strength of schedule. It reflects how well you play. Look at top 10 in Kenpom and Net and who does not have the wins, who is not playing great. Those teams are running up the score on horrible teams. Hell they are pulling starters with 4 minutes left and letting the metrics suffer.This protects teams that go 20-10 on a power conference that played well but can not match wins with some MAC team that goes 26-4 but played no one and did not play well.
Great. The top 10 teams will perform like top 10 teams. It may adversely affect teams closer to the bubble.
Nate Silver had it right from the jump.
Strength of schedule has nothing to do with Minnesota's low NET ranking. Teams with much worse SOS's and much worse records are ranked higher. Minnesota's SOS is plenty good. Minnesota's record and Minnesota's quality of wins are both plenty good.
The new NET ranking factors in offensive and defensive efficiency (a predictive measure, not a results measure). The Gophers are neither efficient on offense or defense, but somehow have won games. Winning doesn't help them. In fact, LOSING a game last night allowed them to go UP in the rankings because they were defensively so efficient last night.
Coaches will absolutely have to rethink how they want their teams to play if the NCAA uses the current NET setup as an end-all, be-all. Luckily for Minnesota's sake, it sounds like it won't be an end-all, be-all. It will mostly be a guide to judge a team's quality of wins, etc., as part of an overall team spread sheet.
As an example, NC State plays almost no one in the non-conference, but blew them all out, and were highly efficient. They had one good win (Auburn). They are currently ranked 27th in the NET, which puts them in solid position. In the old RPI formula that the NCAA used for more than 40 years (which factors in SOS much more strongly), NC State is ranked 114th and would not even make the NIT.
The RPI had its faults for sure and was not a perfect metric and it is good the NCAA tried to use something better. But, the NET stuff is a little out of hand with predictive measures that don't really factor in winning and losing, which will create some interesting situations on Selection Sunday.
Great. The top 10 teams will perform like top 10 teams. It may adversely affect teams closer to the bubble.
Nate Silver had it right from the jump.
If anyone wants to take the time, interesting article about NET at sports illustrated. Its rather long but the crux is that, while the NET formula hasnt been shared,
NET seems to empasize
- efficiency
- final score margin
- road wins
NET seems to de-empasize
- strength of schedule
The article gives examples to support its conclusions and speculates that power 5 teams will start to schedule low major teams on the road as this gives the best potential for a high NET.
This is not really true. The most heavily-weighted component is still game results based on opponent and location, which is heavily dependent on strength of schedule.
The 2nd least heavily-weighted factor is adjusted winning percentage which takes into account road games. So if you want to game the system by focusing on the 2nd least-heavily weighted factor, you can start playing road games against bad teams, but you'd be focusing on something that contributes probably 10% of your NET score. That would be really dumb.
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I bet next year we won't see many quality non conference opponents outside of what is already on the schedule (@Utah, OK St in Tulsa, ACC/Big Ten opponent at home, Gavitt games?) We will be scheduling teams we can crush.
We as a P5 school may not want that as we want other P5 schools on our NC schedule but that is what the majority of schools have begged for. Their biggest complaint over the last two decades is that the 'big boys' wont play lower level teams on the road. Doesn't this new system encourage that?
I really don't know much about the NET Rankings other than what I've read on this site but if what everyone hear is saying is correct it seems like this system would not reward the Duke's of the world that play neutral site or home NC games. Isn't that a good thing for the game?
I bet next year we won't see many quality non conference opponents outside of what is already on the schedule (@Utah, OK St in Tulsa, ACC/Big Ten opponent at home, Gavitt games?) We will be scheduling teams we can crush.
I'm still in wait-and-see mode on the NET rankings. The biggest factor we still don't know is how the committee will use them. Do they get more weight than the other rankings (KenPom/Sagarin/etc.) in the committee's eyes? Or are they seen as equal to other rankings by the committee? Also, what does NET look like with a full season of data? Still too many unknowns to for me form a strong opinion.
Every system is going to have its outliers and flaws. NET is no different. But I know I like NET better than RPI.
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.
Another change made last year to the team sheets was the inclusion of other metrics. These include the Kevin Pauga Index and ESPN’s results-oriented metric, the Strength of Record. The team sheets also included three predictive metrics: those managed by renowned basketball analytics experts Ken Pomeroy and Jeff Sagarin, as well as ESPN’s Basketball Power Index.
The way I see it, the NET ratings are a politically correct way to consider margin of victory without technically weighting margin of victory. The various advanced metrics are a reliable surrogate for a score-based rating system. That's why KenPom and the like have always correlated well with Sagarin and the like.
It doesn't show up in the embedded tweet, but if you click the tweet you'll see that scoring margin is explicitly a factor in the ranking. It's the least heavily weighted, but it's an explicit factor.