Page 1 of 31 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 460
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,932
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Offical Net ranking thread

    Gophers moved up form 66 to 60 after a great showing at Michigan.


  2. #2

    Default

    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.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MinnGopher View Post
    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.
    Honestly after I look at it wow. All of the p5 teams we played really have been less than spectacular with the exception of Washington. I'd like to think if you play A&M, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma State, and Boston College you will have played an absolute minimum of 2 tourney teams maybe 3 on a good year.

    Last 5 years:

    A&M--2 appearances (2x sweet 16)
    Utah--2 appearances(1x sweet 16)
    Washington--0 appearances
    OSU--3 appearances (no wins)
    Boston College-1 appearance

    And after I did the research I was clearly wrong in what I had projected above. Maybe putting a little more emphasis on the teams talent and not the name/conference? Could be the solution although I'm not saying this is the problem. Also have to keep in mind that teams exceed/fail to meet expectations every season so putting together the perfect schedule is tough.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Waukee, IA
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Northeastern and Indiana both seem way too high.

  5. #5

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by tjgopher; 01-23-2019 at 03:38 PM.

  6. #6

    Default

    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

  7. #7

    Default

    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.

  8. #8

    Default

    So it incentivizes annihilating quadrant 4 teams in the pre-season. Cool.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bordergopher View Post
    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
    It was playing Michigan and playing improved defense that gave a small rise in the NET. You do know that being more efficient than your opponents results in victories.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,932
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saber View Post
    So it incentivizes annihilating quadrant 4 teams in the pre-season. Cool.
    The risk is not blowing them out when you should... greasy rope

    Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tjgopher View Post
    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."

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cjbfbp View Post
    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.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    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.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered User View Post
    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.
    Love all of the stats fiver thirty eight puts out...especially the election predictions. Regardless I'd like to see a ranking metric that is like 40% about wins, 20% about sos, 25% on margin of win/loss, 10% offensive/defensive efficiency, and 5% for road/neutral site wins.


    Yes this is very arbitrary but it sounds nice to me lol

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tjgopher View Post
    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.
    I'm really confused by this post. There are a set number of possessions per game. If you score more points per possession than your opponent you will win the game. The efficiency metrics just control for the number of possessions, but otherwise are very much reflection of what it takes to win or lose.

    It's not that the Gophers haven't been efficient but have managed to win games, it's just that the ranking systems adjust for schedule. Take for instance, the North Florida game. It had 73 possessions, and NF scored 71 points. That would be .973 PPP. But since NF's offense is bad, T-Rank (a free version of KenPom) adjusts that defensive efficiency up (which is bad) to 1.001. http://barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Minnesota

    Or the MSM game. Gophers scored 71 points in 68 possessions, for 1.044 PPP, but it is adjusted down to .975 because MSM is garbage.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •