Offical Net ranking thread

Donate To GopherHole
Seems like everyone at least agrees tweaking is needed. Just wondering, does anybody have a fairly high feeling of confidence that tweaking will lead us to a significantly better tool than what we have with our current metrics. Keeping in mind that kenpom already includes efficiency. If it's not significantly better, Im not sure of the point. Not trying to judge as Im not a great NET mind, just wondering if Im missing something.
 

68 teams make the NCAA tournament. If you are on the bubble it's your own fault. For example, this year, that means you finished 7th or worse in the Big Ten. Boo hoo, you didn't get in, because the committee - without analytics - didn't feel you passed the eye test? Win more games. It's not like you were a Power 5 that won 29 games and finished 2nd by one game. The human factor in the NCAA tournament invites and seeding is what makes it more fun. Quit trying to solve the problem with a formula. There is no problem. Formulas are subjective - who do you think puts them together? They are a fun discussion piece, but if these things are used in any meaningful way, other than to maybe break a tie that humans decide upon, that's ludicrous.
 

GopherJake said:
68 teams make the NCAA tournament. If you are on the bubble it's your own fault. For example, this year, that means you finished 7th or worse in the Big Ten. Boo hoo, you didn't get in, because the committee - without analytics - didn't feel you passed the eye test? Win more games. It's not like you were a Power 5 that won 29 games and finished 2nd by one game. The human factor in the NCAA tournament invites and seeding is what makes it more fun. Quit trying to solve the problem with a formula. There is no problem. Formulas are subjective - who do you think puts them together? They are a fun discussion piece, but if these things are used in any meaningful way, other than to maybe break a tie that humans decide upon, that's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

It's fine to say if you finished 7th, it's your own fault. But if #9 and #10 Nebraska and Indiana get in ahead of you with 2-3 less wins, it's a problem.
 


Face The Facts said:
What are the other five?
Click to expand...

KPI -- http://www.kpisports.net/2019kpi-dimbb/
Sagarin -- http://sagarin.com/sports/cbsend.htm
KenPom -- https://kenpom.com
BPI -- http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi
Strength of Record -- http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/dir/asc/view/overview/sort/sorrank

There are many more factors considered that can be found on the team sheets. They are updated daily on the NCAA web site. Here are the team sheets through Jan 30:
https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rp...=%2Fsolutions%2Frpi%2FSitePages%2FHome%2Easpx
 


howeda7 said:
It's fine to say if you finished 7th, it's your own fault. But if #9 and #10 Nebraska and Indiana get in ahead of you with 2-3 less wins, it's a problem.
Click to expand...
What human would do that?
 

Follow the leader

bizzle22 said:
KPI -- http://www.kpisports.net/2019kpi-dimbb/
Sagarin -- http://sagarin.com/sports/cbsend.htm
KenPom -- https://kenpom.com
BPI -- http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi
Strength of Record -- http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/dir/asc/view/overview/sort/sorrank

There are many more factors considered that can be found on the team sheets. They are updated daily on the NCAA web site. Here are the team sheets through Jan 30:
https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rp...=%2Fsolutions%2Frpi%2FSitePages%2FHome%2Easpx
Click to expand...

The NET rankings are ridiculous, but check out all the other lemmings that follow the idiots.
www.masseyratings.com
 

GopherJake said:
What human would do that?
Click to expand...

Remember a couple years ago when Ohio St got into the College Football Playoff the same year they didn't even make the B1G Championship game? Was it humans or computers who chose that?
 

builtbadgers said:
Or scheduling good teams and beating them all. Then your metrics will be awesome. Like if your 20-1 you will have great metrics. Simply can not play poorly or even average and be 20-1. Beating good teams means playing well.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain Wisconsin, who lost to a 7th place team in a bad conference, has 6 losses, and at least twice scored 15 or less points in a half being rated in top 15? How about 12-9 teams being rated ahead of a 16-5 team that has beaten good teams? Give me a break.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Ozzy&Ray said:
Then how do you explain Wisconsin, who lost to a 7th place team in a bad conference, has 6 losses, and at least twice scored 15 or less points in a half being rated in top 15? How about 12-9 teams being rated ahead of a 16-5 team that has beaten good teams? Give me a break.


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

Have said a half dozen times that it is not a perfect method and not the only method used. The post you responded did not reference UW at all. On that note where would you rate UW versus us, where do the resumes' stack up ? Who do you think has played better ? Every metric, every voting human says UW. I hate it that teams like IU and Nebraska rank ahead of us and think they are both terrible teams. Where would you have us ranked, i have us between 25-30 right now. We can beat nearly any of those even in the top 10 too but it does not mean we are better or as good because so far we are not. There will not be a single power 6 team with a bad record that finishes with a great NET by seasons end. Pull every method of grading teams and that top 20 is nearly a consensus. After that it gets more difficult because the teams after that are very close to one another. Separating ourselves is in our hands two fold by a big jump up in schedule, playing well and winning. Of course, playing well leads to winning. We simply can not beat those teams with poor OE and DE. Fans just do not appreciate defense even though it is at least half the game. So if we had a average OE night but a season best DE we could still win.
 

GopherJake said:
What human would do that?
Click to expand...

A cowardly one who wants to stay out of controversy. I fear them using the NET as cover and sticking to it. "The model said 8-12 Indiana was a stronger team than 10-10 Minnesota."...
 

howeda7 said:
A cowardly one who wants to stay out of controversy. I fear them using the NET as cover and sticking to it. "The model said 8-12 Indiana was a stronger team than 10-10 Minnesota."...
Click to expand...

That example will not hold true. My issue is 10-10 is that damn Minnesota mediocre. Go out and win 13 in year 6 !
 

Gopherlife said:
I wonder if going to overtime and losing by 9 is any better than losing by 9 in regulation.
Click to expand...

In terms of margin of victory, better to to go Ot.

OT wins counted as one point wins.
OT losses are counted as one point losses.


In terms of efficiency, it depends on how the rest of your games go.
OT game has more possession. So if the 9 point loss is bringing up your net efficiency, you want OT
But if the 9 point loss is dropping your net efficiency, it would’ve been better to lose in regulation so the game had fewer possessions.

In terms of efficiency, it is definitely better to lose by 1 in regulation than by 9 in overtime.
 



bizzle22 said:
https://twitter.com/KevinPauga/status/1091042022465638400

This is a pretty reasonable explanation of the NET rankings coming from a guy who was part of the conversation to create them, but still has his own metric to evaluate teams.

I especially appreciate this part: Teams will total about 2,000-3,000 offensive and defensive possessions in a season. A small sample of late possessions isn't moving your NET really at all (maybe a spot or two in multiple extreme circumstances). I understand the rightful concern, but let's not overthink this.
Click to expand...

If you have 2000 possessions in a season and in 6 non conference games you play backups and walkons as a unit five minutes in each of those games.

If on average there are 3 total possessions in a minute.
You have given up 90 of 2000 possessions (4.5%).
Not only that, if you leave staters in, you are giving up what would likely be your most efficient 4.5% of possessions the whole season and putting it in the hands of backups.

You can say that’s not a big deal or not. But if the gophers have 90 more points this season they are rated 30 instead of 50.
 

Some guy said:
If you have 2000 possessions in a season and in 6 non conference games you play backups and walkons as a unit five minutes in each of those games.

If on average there are 3 total possessions in a minute.
You have given up 90 of 2000 possessions (4.5%).
Not only that, if you leave staters in, you are giving up what would likely be your most efficient 4.5% of possessions the whole season and putting it in the hands of backups.

You can say that’s not a big deal or not. But if the gophers have 90 more points this season they are rated 30 instead of 50.
Click to expand...
Every team can make the claim you do, many teams have played walk ons, even the manager more than we have.
 

builtbadgers said:
Have said a half dozen times that it is not a perfect method and not the only method used. The post you responded did not reference UW at all. On that note where would you rate UW versus us, where do the resumes' stack up ? Who do you think has played better ? Every metric, every voting human says UW. I hate it that teams like IU and Nebraska rank ahead of us and think they are both terrible teams. Where would you have us ranked, i have us between 25-30 right now. We can beat nearly any of those even in the top 10 too but it does not mean we are better or as good because so far we are not. There will not be a single power 6 team with a bad record that finishes with a great NET by seasons end. Pull every method of grading teams and that top 20 is nearly a consensus. After that it gets more difficult because the teams after that are very close to one another. Separating ourselves is in our hands two fold by a big jump up in schedule, playing well and winning. Of course, playing well leads to winning. We simply can not beat those teams with poor OE and DE. Fans just do not appreciate defense even though it is at least half the game. So if we had a average OE night but a season best DE we could still win.
Click to expand...

So far, based upon its results relative to the Big10 standings, I think that NET is a joke. However, the more of your responses I read, the better I understand. Here is the fundamental problem I believe I will still have with NET in the end. NET is more about how you played (efficiency) instead of the result (win or lose). That is fine for coaches to help their teams get better, or for a book-maker to set betting lines, but it should not be a leading indicator of team selection for a tournament. Yes, it is probably true that more efficient teams generally win more. Makes sense. I don’t really care about generalizations, I care about results! There is no arguing right now that NET displays very flawed rankings in terms of order of tournament selection (again referencing the obvious example of MN vs NE and IN). I think the BIG mistake has been the elevated status it has been given. All the commentators, coaches, fans think of this like it is the end-all. If it is, there will be some real injustices in the selections. I only hope that sounder minds will prevail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bordergopher said:
So far, based upon its results relative to the Big10 standings, I think that NET is a joke. However, the more of your responses I read, the better I understand. Here is the fundamental problem I believe I will still have with NET in the end. NET is more about how you played (efficiency) instead of the result (win or lose). That is fine for coaches to help their teams get better, or for a book-maker to set betting lines, but it should not be a leading indicator of team selection for a tournament. Yes, it is probably true that more efficient teams generally win more. Makes sense. I don’t really care about generalizations, I care about results! There is no arguing right now that NET displays very flawed rankings in terms of order of tournament selection (again referencing the obvious example of MN vs NE and IN). I think the BIG mistake has been the elevated status it has been given. All the commentators, coaches, fans think of this like it is the end-all. If it is, there will be some real injustices in the selections. I only hope that sounder minds will prevail.


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

This. On a tweet someone said they would rather use the efficiency metrics vs results metrics.....wtf would you do that???

Should rpi be changed? Yes. But why wouldn't a tourney invite be based purely on results? It should ONLY be based off of results
 

Just read an interview by Andy Katz dated Jan. 31. He interviews NABC director Jim Haney. Haney says the purpose of NET is to make the other metrics obsolete, so can just use one metric rather than 5 or 6. That must be the ultimate goal.
If Im not mistaken, kenpom uses some serious math to come to its conclusions, maybe NET does the same and it will make sense in the end. If so, wish they would assure folks of this.
 

As a lifelong Minnesota fan, I keep thinking that it would be typical Minnesota for them to somehow be excluded from the tournament field based on the NET rankings, even if they were exceedingly deserving based on every other measure of success. The powers that be would then vow to change the system for next season, but that would do nothing for this team. It's probably irrational, but we've seen some crazy things over the years as Minnesota fans, in multiple sports.
 

Thomasthetank said:
This. On a tweet someone said they would rather use the efficiency metrics vs results metrics.....wtf would you do that???

Should rpi be changed? Yes. But why wouldn't a tourney invite be based purely on results? It should ONLY be based off of results
Click to expand...

Results are the most important part but if you understand being efficient matters as well as who you play and where. What if team A, lets say from the Big 10 has 22 wins, two against the top 10 but three bad loses. Team B is a ACC team with 21 wins one bad loss but wins over Duke, UVA and UNC and a non con upset of Texas Tech. Team A had only 2 road victories, team B had 4. I like team B. metrics are used to measure things beyond results to determine who else is good. Hell, a two point loss at Duke is better than a one point home win over team 325. If we go just by results then .500 in a power conference will not make the tourney.
 

Maybe the net ranking gives extra points for tripping players - flopping and punching guys in the nuts. That would explain Wisconsin’s net ranking
 

ltf said:
Just read an interview by Andy Katz dated Jan. 31. He interviews NABC director Jim Haney. Haney says the purpose of NET is to make the other metrics obsolete, so can just use one metric rather than 5 or 6. That must be the ultimate goal.
If Im not mistaken, kenpom uses some serious math to come to its conclusions, maybe NET does the same and it will make sense in the end. If so, wish they would assure folks of this.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If we win 5 or more games against the brutal stretch the rest of the way we should get in with a NET in the 40s. Maybe we’d be a bit underseeded but not terribly.

If we go 3-7 and finish 19-12 with only a handful of big wins, I’d imagine our NET may actually not change much given schedule down the line and I say we’d be a classic bubble team regardless of rating system.
 

builtbadgers said:
Results are the most important part but if you understand being efficient matters as well as who you play and where. What if team A, lets say from the Big 10 has 22 wins, two against the top 10 but three bad loses. Team B is a ACC team with 21 wins one bad loss but wins over Duke, UVA and UNC and a non con upset of Texas Tech. Team A had only 2 road victories, team B had 4. I like team B. metrics are used to measure things beyond results to determine who else is good. Hell, a two point loss at Duke is better than a one point home win over team 325. If we go just by results then .500 in a power conference will not make the tourney.
Click to expand...

You are arguing more for factoring in SOS, not efficiency. We all agree with you! Thanks for making our point. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bordergopher said:
You are arguing more for factoring in SOS, not efficiency. We all agree with you! Thanks for making our point. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Always said winning, who you beat and where is the most important thing. Efficiency is how you win. Check the top 10 and check their efficiency. You can not lose a game when within that game you have better IE and DE and teams that do it better over the long hall are the best teams. Check out who wins conferences for as back as you can go. Those programs are stuck in the mediocre muck of the bubble but those team that are best improve if they want to make it. You can not win a power 6 conference by not being efficient. As for strength of schedule and road record. Not a hard schedule and 1-4 on the road. What do you rank the Gophers right now. I have us 25-30 by my eye. Someone was arguing that only results matter. That would mean only wins. My response was to their post. If he meant all results like schedule than efficiency numbers are also results. The best programs have sworn by them for decades. Duke,Kentucky,Kansas, Villanova and on and on. Same with the NFL, NBA , MLB.. Theo Epstein built both his champion franchises on it. UW and UVA take it further than Kenpom by doing it in every lineup combination against every opponent combination. Being efficient is how you win. No wonder so few teams do it. Year after year they pound their head against the wall with high turnover % and defense below 50 and just seem to think they got unlucky and that UW got all the calls.
 


Top 20 teams

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:

builtbadgers said:
Always said winning, who you beat and where is the most important thing. Efficiency is how you win. Check the top 10 and check their efficiency. You can not lose a game when within that game you have better IE and DE and teams that do it better over the long hall are the best teams. Check out who wins conferences for as back as you can go. Those programs are stuck in the mediocre muck of the bubble but those team that are best improve if they want to make it. You can not win a power 6 conference by not being efficient. As for strength of schedule and road record. Not a hard schedule and 1-4 on the road. What do you rank the Gophers right now. I have us 25-30 by my eye. Someone was arguing that only results matter. That would mean only wins. My response was to their post. If he meant all results like schedule than efficiency numbers are also results. The best programs have sworn by them for decades. Duke,Kentucky,Kansas, Villanova and on and on. Same with the NFL, NBA , MLB.. Theo Epstein built both his champion franchises on it. UW and UVA take it further than Kenpom by doing it in every lineup combination against every opponent combination. Being efficient is how you win. No wonder so few teams do it. Year after year they pound their head against the wall with high turnover % and defense below 50 and just seem to think they got unlucky and that UW got all the calls.
Click to expand...

You make good points and are very logical, and I agree with you. I even think you might be a bit generous in your ranking of our beloved Gophers. My point is simply that, at this point in the season, a difference of 25-30 (your very educated eye-test ranking) and 50’s(NET ranking) is WAY too big of a gap. This massive gap exposes problems with the metric for being used as a primary tool for ranking teams for selection. Way too much emphasis in this tool on efficiency and HOW you won or lost vs. WHETHER you won or lost and WHO you won or lost to. The whether and who should be 90% of the influence on the ranking, not the how.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Big Ten
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Of the metrics listed, RPI seems to measure wins and losses with heavier weighting as well as SOS.
 
Last edited:

Nebraska is the team really benefitting from this NET ranking. They really haven't beaten anyone and their record is poor. Any other year, they are not even on the bubble right now, they are looking NIT or nothing.

Also, Wisconsin being that high seems unjustified as well. That said, the NET probably is a decent indicator of how games will go. Wisconsin will never get blown out, no matter who they play. The boring basketball, limiting of the other team's
possessions and good defense will assure this happens.

My main complaint in Nebraska. They should be OUT, unless they start to win.
 

Go Gophs said:
Nebraska is the team really benefitting from this NET ranking. They really haven't beaten anyone and their record is poor. Any other year, they are not even on the bubble right now, they are looking NIT or nothing.

Also, Wisconsin being that high seems unjustified as well. That said, the NET probably is a decent indicator of how games will go. Wisconsin will never get blown out, no matter who they play. The boring basketball, limiting of the other team's
possessions and good defense will assure this happens.

My main complaint in Nebraska. They should be OUT, unless they start to win.
Click to expand...
Nebraska built up their equity with really quality play early but are now in free fall.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom