Page 15 of 31 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 460
  1. #211

    Default

    STrib: Gophers' low NET ranking puzzles coach Richard Pitino

    The Gophers are one of the best examples in college hoops of the difference between NET and RPI. They are 16-5 overall and 6-4 in the Big Ten, but their NET after Wednesday’s 86-75 victory over Illinois was 50th. That’s 10th in the Big Ten, even behind Indiana (No. 48) after the Hoosiers dropped to 12-9 and lost their seventh game in a row Wednesday at Rutgers. Minnesota’s RPI is No. 33, while Indiana is No. 66.

    Those RPI rankings seem more accurate to what actually is going on, at least right now. One team is playing well and beat some quality opponents (four wins vs. top 35 NET teams). The other is really on a nose dive.

    “I’m not saying we’re the best team in the country, but with the résumé we have right now,” Gophers coach Richard Pitino said Wednesday, “[Minnesota’s NET] makes no sense to me.”

    So why is this happening? Well, NET appears to focus more on scoring margin and efficiency numbers than RPI did, according to analysts. The NCAA hasn’t said that, but it revealed the NET’s five factors: game results, offensive and defensive efficiency, winning percentage, adjusted win percentage and scoring margin.

    http://www.startribune.com/gophers-l...ino/505176182/

    Go Gophers!!


  2. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BleedGopher View Post
    STrib: Gophers' low NET ranking puzzles coach Richard Pitino

    The Gophers are one of the best examples in college hoops of the difference between NET and RPI. They are 16-5 overall and 6-4 in the Big Ten, but their NET after Wednesday’s 86-75 victory over Illinois was 50th. That’s 10th in the Big Ten, even behind Indiana (No. 48) after the Hoosiers dropped to 12-9 and lost their seventh game in a row Wednesday at Rutgers. Minnesota’s RPI is No. 33, while Indiana is No. 66.

    Those RPI rankings seem more accurate to what actually is going on, at least right now. One team is playing well and beat some quality opponents (four wins vs. top 35 NET teams). The other is really on a nose dive.

    “I’m not saying we’re the best team in the country, but with the résumé we have right now,” Gophers coach Richard Pitino said Wednesday, “[Minnesota’s NET] makes no sense to me.”

    So why is this happening? Well, NET appears to focus more on scoring margin and efficiency numbers than RPI did, according to analysts. The NCAA hasn’t said that, but it revealed the NET’s five factors: game results, offensive and defensive efficiency, winning percentage, adjusted win percentage and scoring margin.

    http://www.startribune.com/gophers-l...ino/505176182/

    Go Gophers!!
    From the Article that Bleed linked:
    Pitino admitted after the 11-point victory over Illinois on Wednesday that he kept his starters in the game to make sure the final margin was at least 10 points. The NET caps point differential at 10, but the efficiency numbers can look better the more you distance yourself in points.

    “I’m never trying to show up another coach,” Pitino said. “But if they’re going to tell me a win by more than 10 points means more, then if we can get it, I’m going to get it. It’s hard to win games in this league by double digits.”


    This is confirmation that coaches are paying attention to it and it is affecting their decision making. That sucks for the guys at the end of the bench when a coach is forced to leave in their starters to increase the margin of victory in order to improve their team's ranking for the computers.

    Also, it is a joke that we would be behind Indiana in any metric right now. That fact alone tells you there is something off with it.

  3. #213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ltf View Post
    Yes, pretty obvious when looking at the NET rankings that increasing the value of sos would need to be a tweak for next season. Has been mentioned before, but one main problem is this whole thing is difficult because the sample space for each team is so different. Also, when NET was rolled out the NCAA did not present it as a minor, somewhat insignificant new metric, but rather an important new tool. Therefore, very understandable that coaches, broadcasters, and bracketologists (see bracket matrix) are giving it a lot of weight.
    The other tweek needs to be removal of the "margin of victory" portion. It's being double-counted right now. One as a "margin of victory up to 10 points" and the other category of "team efficiency" which is very largely a "How wide of a scoring margin do you usually have".
    "Do Not Be Afraid to Be A Legend"

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Corn Field
    Posts
    23,657

    Default

    The Gophers should get in the tournament if they win at least 10 conference games. Go 11-9 or better and they are a lock. In my opinion, NET ranking will only come into play for seeding and/or if they go 9-11 in conference play but maybe win a few in the BT tourney.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,434

    Default

    Maybe I'm not understanding this, but based on the few articles I've seen recently this does not make any sense. Scoring margin should not be factored in to computer rankings. Making a team continue to try to score like we did against Illinois so we can meet some random committee-determined threshold is just stupid.

    Which is more impressive? Being behind for most of the game but pulling ahead and winning by 10 in the final minutes because the other team won't stop fouling you in the final 5 seconds when you're already up by 8 points? Or being up by 20 points for most of the game, pulling your starters and then winning by only 9?

    Can their algorithms account for this? This seems like something that needs to be a human evaluation, and is why you would have a human committee, to determine these kinds of intricacies. I hope these NET rankings are not taken so literally when it comes to be selection time.

  6. #216

    Default

    My favorite example is Iowa State at #12 Kenpom and #14 NET with an identical 16-5 record as Minnesota. Kenpom ranks ISU SoS at 45, Minnesota at 43. Several common opponents like Iowa (ISU lost to them), Illinois, Ok State.

    With other variables that similar as Minnesota, how you win has to be a huge part of NET.

  7. #217

    Default

    https://twitter.com/KevinPauga/statu...42022465638400

    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.

  8. #218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    https://twitter.com/KevinPauga/statu...42022465638400

    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.
    I agree the not overthinking part. No way IU or Nebraska should be ahead of the Gophers right now in any ranking. There...took no thinking at all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #219

    Default

    The new NET evaluation systems gives your team bonus points if your players are smiling when they score. Also, putting someone on a poster is frowned upon as being "intent to make another look bad".

    And in deeper investigation, "If players on your team stick out their knees to impede driving players or flop at a high percentage you activate double bonus points."

    I took these statements directly from the NET guide. I swear.

  10. #220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    https://twitter.com/KevinPauga/statu...42022465638400

    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.
    No issue. Just heading into the homestretch of the college basketball season and the NET rankings are a joke. What do you say? Let's not overthink this.....?

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    35,046
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    To me, this points to scheduling your non-conference cupcakes as weak as possible and then absolutely drilling them. Is that what the NCAA is trying to promote?

  12. #222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    https://twitter.com/KevinPauga/statu...42022465638400

    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.
    He's not addressing the "margin of victory" component in that phrase. Only the efficiency standard.

    Also, with efficiency, he's down talking the last possession or two, but it's equally important in the metric as the first possession of the game or any possession in the 2nd half.
    So to say it's not important is disingenuous.

    Essentially, if you want to play your subs for two minutes, you may as well play them in the first half or early 2nd half because the possessions all mean the same regardless of whether you are winning or losing.
    "Do Not Be Afraid to Be A Legend"

  13. #223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    https://twitter.com/KevinPauga/statu...42022465638400

    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.
    Impossible to reconcile his statement with the rankings. See Iowa State example above. The only way his statement makes sense is if scoring margin is a huge consideration, which is another problem.

  14. #224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    He's not addressing the "margin of victory" component in that phrase. Only the efficiency standard.

    Also, with efficiency, he's down talking the last possession or two, but it's equally important in the metric as the first possession of the game or any possession in the 2nd half.
    So to say it's not important is disingenuous.

    Essentially, if you want to play your subs for two minutes, you may as well play them in the first half or early 2nd half because the possessions all mean the same regardless of whether you are winning or losing.
    He's just saying it doesn't have much of an effect. Which is true. Even if you are talking about the last two minutes of every blowout game -- you are still only looking at maybe 6-7 possessions in that time of each game that was enough of a blowout to put in reserves.

    We've had 11 games where the winning/losing margin was more than 10 points.
    Figure we have another 5 to end the season.
    Figure there are 7 possessions in the final two minutes of each of those games.
    16 x 7 = 112
    So 112 out of 2,000 (if you take the minimum) possessions in the season is less than 6%.
    Plus the other team likely doesn't have their starters in at that point either.

    That's a pretty small thing to be worried about. That's his point.
    Last edited by bizzle22; 02-01-2019 at 11:46 AM.

  15. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ltf View Post
    Impossible to reconcile his statement with the rankings. See Iowa State example above. The only way his statement makes sense is if scoring margin is a huge consideration, which is another problem.
    Why is that a problem? Are you saying that a 2 pt win should be counted the same as a 30 pt win?

    And scoring margin is not a HUGE consideration, it's just one of many factors.

Posting Permissions

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