Offical Net ranking thread

Pitino is on his show on KFAN completely RIPPING the new system. Saying he finds himself coaching differently at the end of games because of the 10 point factor. He called their current ranking "ludicrous." Reading slightly between the lines - because he didn't come out and say it - he hates the formula.
 

Using 6 metrics would hopefully protect teams from falling victim to an outlier metric. I guess as builtbadger says there is no perfect metric and the coaches asked for this additional one. Also, havent heard any coach complain about NET to this point. Think I personally am to the point where I see no value that these metrics provide to the committee, they're too flawed. However, have never been accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer, so there is that.

Perhaps the outlier metric is not just an outlier. Perhaps it is measuring something different that is still a valuable metric for selection. I would like to see a correlation matrix for these 6 indexes. If four or five are highly correlated, then using all of them is just piling on the same measure and perhaps giving those dimensions of measurement undue weight.

As far as the self-deprecating remarks, given how you express your thoughts, I think they are completely unfounded. :)
 

Pitino is on his show on KFAN completely RIPPING the new system. Saying he finds himself coaching differently at the end of games because of the 10 point factor. He called their current ranking "ludicrous." Reading slightly between the lines - because he didn't come out and say it - he hates the formula.

I saw that in the Rutgers game, where in a normal setting, the bench would have been cleared with three minutes or so to go, but he waited until below one minute. I found myself grousing, but now I see why. This is bad news.
 

. ... What I have not heard much talk of with the new metric is the old stand-by of mid-majors not getting the chance at high level wins because the big boys won't play them. It was an issue before and may be even more of one now with the power conferences shrinking their out of conference schedules. So far, it looks like the NET highly favors the high majors.

That's what I'm most curious to find out on Selection Sunday, and I think it's the most important thing.

What will the Selection Committee (SC) do with the quality mid-majors who don't win their conference tournament, who have a lot of wins, but not many Q1 and/or Q2 wins because the big boys are giving them less & less opportunities so as to hoard even more of the at-large bids? The ones who have all the look of a NCAA-caliber team, but the ones the SC invariably finds an excuse to leave them out of the field.

Current examples would be:

#20 Buffalo
#30 Wofford
#40 Lipscomb
#45 Hofstra
#46 Liberty
#53 Murray State

All are mid-majors worth keeping an eye on what SC does with 'em if they don't win conference tourney, especially the ones that end up in the top 40ish of the NET rankings.
 
Last edited:

Perhaps the outlier metric is not just an outlier. Perhaps it is measuring something different that is still a valuable metric for selection. I would like to see a correlation matrix for these 6 indexes. If four or five are highly correlated, then using all of them is just piling on the same measure and perhaps giving those dimensions of measurement undue weight.

As far as the self-deprecating remarks, given how you express your thoughts, I think they are completely unfounded. :)

Too kind. Can see your point as kenpom and NET would be an example of high correlation on a very consistent basis
 


Pitino is on his show on KFAN completely RIPPING the new system. Saying he finds himself coaching differently at the end of games because of the 10 point factor. He called their current ranking "ludicrous." Reading slightly between the lines - because he didn't come out and say it - he hates the formula.

And here it is. Have been curious as havent heard any complaining from coaches about NET. I imagine Pitino could have ulterior motives as NET isnt kind to the gophs, but would think coaches would be a little frustrated with having to include efficiency in their considerations. Will be interesting to see if other coaches agree with Pitino going forward.

Some posters on here seem to be under the impression that NET will not have a large effect. Pitino seems to be under no such impression.
 

And here it is. Have been curious as havent heard any complaining from coaches about NET. I imagine Pitino could have ulterior motives as NET isnt kind to the gophs, but would think coaches would be a little frustrated with having to include efficiency in their considerations. Will be interesting to see if other coaches agree with Pitino going forward.

Some posters on here seem to be under the impression that NET will not have a large effect. Pitino seems to be under no such impression.
Pitino said in the interview he doesn't expect NET to be the primary factor the committee uses
 

Pitino said in the interview he doesn't expect NET to be the primary factor the committee uses

Then why did he rip it? May not be primary, but must be a pretty significant factor in Pitino's estimation.
 
Last edited:

My preferred ranking site is KPI (Kevin Pauga). His are more resume-based (who you beat, where you played, etc.).

KPI more favorable to the Gophers (#30) at this point, but I'll feel the same way about KPI if it flips this season (or in any future season).

http://www.kpisports.net/2019kpi-dimbb/
 



That's what I'm most curious to find out on Selection Sunday, and I think it's the most important thing.

What will the Selection Committee (SC) do with the quality mid-majors who don't win their conference tournament, who have a lot of wins, but not many Q1 and/or Q2 wins because the big boys are giving them less & less opportunities so as to hoard even more of the at-large bids? The ones who have all the look of a NCAA-caliber team, but the ones the SC invariably finds an excuse to leave them out of the field.

Current examples would be:

#20 Buffalo
#30 Wofford
#40 Lipscomb
#45 Hofstra
#46 Liberty
#53 Murray State

All are mid-majors worth keeping an eye on what SC does with 'em if they don't win conference tourney, especially the ones that end up in the top 40ish of the NET rankings.

Although they rarely take more than one MAC team, I think Buffalo would be in regardless of the conference tournament as long as they keep playing as expected for the remainder of the season. Wofford would be on shakier ground (might depend upon whether Buffalo is picked as an at-large team). The others would not seem in good position to survive a conference tournament loss. Perhaps the most interesting case is the lowest rated team on your list: Murray State. They have a guard who has emerged as a consensus top 5 or 6 NBA draft pick and media loves to highlight stars.
 

My preferred ranking site is KPI (Kevin Pauga). His are more resume-based (who you beat, where you played, etc.).

KPI more favorable to the Gophers (#30) at this point, but I'll feel the same way about KPI if it flips this season (or in any future season).

http://www.kpisports.net/2019kpi-dimbb/

Yes. This one looks much better. For one thing, except for Illinois pretty closely mirrors big 10 conf. standings.
 

My preferred ranking site is KPI (Kevin Pauga). His are more resume-based (who you beat, where you played, etc.).

KPI more favorable to the Gophers (#30) at this point, but I'll feel the same way about KPI if it flips this season (or in any future season).

http://www.kpisports.net/2019kpi-dimbb/

Thanks for that link. Interesting site. I don't think any of us would argue with his choices for the Gophers' best and worst games: Wisconsin and Illinois respectively. We also show up as Maryland's best game and Washington's worst. I also find it amusing to see an Indiana victory listed as another team's worst game (granted, Marquette has had a great season otherwise).
 

I saw that in the Rutgers game, where in a normal setting, the bench would have been cleared with three minutes or so to go, but he waited until below one minute. I found myself grousing, but now I see why. This is bad news.
He mentioned the Rutgers game specifically during the conversation. He said he was embarrassed to say it on-air, but he maybe was also logging a complaint, speaking to folks like you and - he said - "tell Rudrud to stop staring me down."
 



Pitino is on his show on KFAN completely RIPPING the new system. Saying he finds himself coaching differently at the end of games because of the 10 point factor. He called their current ranking "ludicrous." Reading slightly between the lines - because he didn't come out and say it - he hates the formula.

Of course he hates it. If we were ranked top 5 he would not hate it.
 

He mentioned the Rutgers game specifically during the conversation. He said he was embarrassed to say it on-air, but he maybe was also logging a complaint, speaking to folks like you and - he said - "tell Rudrud to stop staring me down."

UVA cleared the bench with 3 minutes left up 65-36 and played the walk ons and the actual manager and got out scored 16-0 for a very misleading 65-52 final as Florida State played their starters to the end and were pressing. FANS simply like the system that makes their team look favorable, just human nature but the best coaches are playing to efficiency , coaching it. The better you play offensively and defensively than your opponents then the more you win games ! Bo Ryan used these numbers for 15 years. The teams with the best Kenpoms are the teams at the top. If we were a top kenpom team we would have more wins . With a great OE and DE against BC WE WIN ! No way around that.
 

Obviously efficiency is something to strive for, no doubt every team would like to limit turnovers, rebound the basketball, only take high percentage shots, and limit opponents to low percentage shots. Playing consistently like this no doubt indicates a good team. This is a no brainer.

The problem becomes when you try to rank team efficiency and use it for decision making. These models are prone to ridiculous amounts of statistical noise, and the ranking system does not reflect this variability. One of the main problems with these models is that the observations have very very limited interaction. Since there is very little overlap of schedules between two randomly selected teams, the models that compare their efficiency are essentially composed of numerous individual models, each prone to their own share of variability. For example, every game you play, your outcome efficiency for that game is adjusted for the season long efficiency rating of the opposing team, which is also adjusted for opposing efficiencies and thus is in itself a model system also prone to variation. All of these converging models introduce a lot of statistical noise that make it very hard to compare teams with different schedules. Further, sample size is quite small even at the end of the season, with only ~30 observations per team. It would be quite useful to look at teams within a conference given that most teams within a conference will play a very similar schedule. However, to use it as a nationwide metric is quite difficult.

Probably the biggest flaw of these efficiency sites is that they do not even include a measure of the variation in their reported measurements, which is just bad statistics. It is likely with variability taken into account, there is not much statistical difference between a team rated 15th in kenpom vs the 25th rated team.
 

Great post. Many fans are thinking it is the only thing being considered and as i said it is not perfect. Fans seldom watch other teams closely and thus have a very heavy bias to their own team. Tons of bad metrics out there and Rpi was terrible. I have tracked efficiency for decades and the teams that have top 20 OE and DE finish very high in their conference , of course they do. Look at it right now and those teams rock at the top of their conference especially as the season goes deeper. To compare teams ranked 25th-50th this way that have not played a similar schedule is very difficult and i would not do it. But there is a huge gap from the top few to 15th and is helpful for seeding which in itself is way overplayed. There may be big point spreads but except for Duke the margin for error in a game is small and only increased by the ability to be efficient. Really good teams and fans never worry about these metrics because they simply play well the vast majority of the time. No one in the top 10 of any metric is worried. Worried fans cheer for teams that only play well once in awhile.
 

Obviously efficiency is something to strive for, no doubt every team would like to limit turnovers, rebound the basketball, only take high percentage shots, and limit opponents to low percentage shots. Playing consistently like this no doubt indicates a good team. This is a no brainer.

The problem becomes when you try to rank team efficiency and use it for decision making. These models are prone to ridiculous amounts of statistical noise, and the ranking system does not reflect this variability. One of the main problems with these models is that the observations have very very limited interaction. Since there is very little overlap of schedules between two randomly selected teams, the models that compare their efficiency are essentially composed of numerous individual models, each prone to their own share of variability. For example, every game you play, your outcome efficiency for that game is adjusted for the season long efficiency rating of the opposing team, which is also adjusted for opposing efficiencies and thus is in itself a model system also prone to variation. All of these converging models introduce a lot of statistical noise that make it very hard to compare teams with different schedules. Further, sample size is quite small even at the end of the season, with only ~30 observations per team. It would be quite useful to look at teams within a conference given that most teams within a conference will play a very similar schedule. However, to use it as a nationwide metric is quite difficult.

Probably the biggest flaw of these efficiency sites is that they do not even include a measure of the variation in their reported measurements, which is just bad statistics. It is likely with variability taken into account, there is not much statistical difference between a team rated 15th in kenpom vs the 25th rated team.

Yes, which begs the question of its usefulness if NET cannot be reliable in cases of difficult decisions. I guess could maybe be helpful if used in conjunction with other metrics to
to give insight between two similar teams. Hopefully not used for much more than that.
 

Perhaps the outlier metric is not just an outlier. Perhaps it is measuring something different that is still a valuable metric for selection. I would like to see a correlation matrix for these 6 indexes. If four or five are highly correlated, then using all of them is just piling on the same measure and perhaps giving those dimensions of measurement undue weight.

As far as the self-deprecating remarks, given how you express your thoughts, I think they are completely unfounded. :)

Or perhaps it is measuring something that is totally useless.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Of course he hates it. If we were ranked top 5 he would not hate it.

Get real. As system that ranks teams way above you that you have beaten and have also better B1G records could be a reason.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

For the people who understand Net rankings, does it take into account injuries? Like is the badgers win today less impressive because Copeland was out? Or will our win against Nebraska be less impressive if they start sliding due to the injury even though we played them when they had Copeland.
 

For the people who understand Net rankings, does it take into account injuries?

I strongly doubt it. Tracking and adjusting for that would introduce too much effort (and uncertainty) into the record keeping.
 

For the people who understand Net rankings, does it take into account injuries? Like is the badgers win today less impressive because Copeland was out? Or will our win against Nebraska be less impressive if they start sliding due to the injury even though we played them when they had Copeland.

The selection committee will discuss injuries so they will not that UW beat Nebraska without Copeland and that it was at Nebraska who already was 3-6 with him.
 

The selection committee will discuss injuries so they will not that UW beat Nebraska without Copeland and that it was at Nebraska who already was 3-6 with him.

If they are a bubble team or if someone disagrees with seeding.

Don't believe for a second if Wi is bouncing between a #5 or #6 seed that the committee will spend a second discussing WI vs Nebraska.
The only way a discussion like that even would come up is if Nebraska and Wisconsin are fighting for a last bubble spot.

About 55-60 of the teams make the tournament without discussion.

Top 25 teams are in.
Conference Champions are in.
Any team in the top 30-40 from a major conference in whatever index they are using (RPI in the past).

At that point you probably have 50-60 teams.

Then they start debating the next 20 for the last 10 spots.
At that point they might think of injuries as a reason why a team incurred a bad loss.
 

If they are a bubble team or if someone disagrees with seeding.


Then they start debating the next 20 for the last 10 spots.
At that point they might think of injuries as a reason why a team incurred a bad loss.

I think that would be a rats' nest of subjectivity. If Nebraska manages to do well enough without Copeland to be on the bubble, how should one think of that? Are they a deserving team who has overachieved or are they a hobbled team who is unlikely to advance? If Nebraska gets a Mulligan for the loss to Wisconsin because of Copeland's absence, do we get a bonus because we beat Iowa without Oturu? Now, multiply that by about 20 or so teams who might be under consideration and you should be able to see how going down that path could be troublesome.
 

We should be sub 50 now. Purdue on the road will be a tough game

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

We should be sub 50 now. Purdue on the road will be a tough game

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

False, we just beat a team who we lost to. MAking the loss look worse. We only beat them by 11 meaning our adjusted winning percentage actually went slightly down
 

We should be sub 50 now. Purdue on the road will be a tough game

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
I like games like @Michigan, @MSU, and even @Purdue. If no one expects you to win, then you will either get a monster win or meet expectations.
 

False, we just beat a team who we lost to. MAking the loss look worse. We only beat them by 11 meaning our adjusted winning percentage actually went slightly down
We shall see. It's still a win

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

False, we just beat a team who we lost to. MAking the loss look worse. We only beat them by 11 meaning our adjusted winning percentage actually went slightly down
We also shot 50% from the field

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 




Top Bottom