Offical Net ranking thread


it doesnt matter if you win games, all that matters is if you look like you should be winning games

One of my buddies once told me that it doesn't matter if she has a dick, it only matters if she LOOKS like she has a dick.

We were in uptown at Liquor Lyles... If you've been there, you know what I mean.
 

The main focus of RPI is "who did you play".

Remember, the formula is:
25% is your winning percentage
50% is your opponents' winning percentage
25% is your opponents' opponents' winning percentage

So, your opponents opponents winning percentage matters just as much as your own winning percentage.

If that isn't fundamentally flawed I don't know what is. The coaches wanted to get rid of it with very good reason.

But if your winning percentage was 0.750, that would pull up the SOS numbers enough to make it look somewhat legit.
 




Their efficiency is still better.
Both really blew out some bad teams.
NEB over SE Louisiana 87-35

Also, NEB loses, but they lose closely.

And this is where the problem lies with it. Run up the score against junk teams and get highly rated? Lose to any good team you've played as long as you
don't get blown out?

Garbage. Just win baby. The most important metric to me is W's. Who've you've beat, who you've played. Not how well you do against garbage squads. If you won by 3 or 10-11, a W is a W.

This thing will be thrown out after this season if it puts bad teams with poor records in over teams that have actually won games. Maybe it will even out, but showing Nebraska as such a solid right now if a farce. Nebraska is a borderline BAD team this season. They haven't beat anybody and are losing at the moment. Right now they should be 100% OUT and not close to getting in unless they win 7-8 more games.
 

It seems as though we need 10 or 11 wins in the B1G to make it, but Nebraska and IU will be solid at 8-12.
 

It seems as though we need 10 or 11 wins in the B1G to make it, but Nebraska and IU will be solid at 8-12.

And doesn't that seem like garbage to you? It maddens me.

I think we get to 10 easy and 11-12 is possible. They are playing pretty decent lately. Do that and they can be safe and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.
 

And doesn't that seem like garbage to you? It maddens me.

I think we get to 10 easy and 11-12 is possible. They are playing pretty decent lately. Do that and they can be safe and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.

Yes. I hope I'm wrong. There are no "easy" games left for us. But we will win at least 2 of the home games and hope we can scrape out 2 others.
 



According to the NET, close losses to decent opponents are a good thing. We moved up 6 spots losing to Michigan. So basically I’m counting that as a win! Of course I’m hoping for a win vs Purdue but the NET tells me as long as they lose by less than 10 we should celebrate. So playing good opponents close and being efficient doing so are more important than winning games. Or at least that’s how it seems to me. See IU and Nebraska. Once again the NCAA hits a homerun!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

It seems as though we need 10 or 11 wins in the B1G to make it, but Nebraska and IU will be solid at 8-12.

We will need 11 more wins.

OR

We could get 6 more wins each by 25 point margins and lose in the other 5 games each by one point.

Or win one game by 150 points, and lose 10 games by one point and we'll still be fine.
 

Team most affected by RPI / NET Change.



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

We will need 11 more wins.

OR

We could get 6 more wins each by 25 point margins and lose in the other 5 games each by one point.

Or win one game by 150 points, and lose 10 games by one point and we'll still be fine.


Think you've got a better handle on this than most. Not sure NCAA would be terribly thrilled with your findings, though.
 



We will need 11 more wins.

OR

We could get 6 more wins each by 25 point margins and lose in the other 5 games each by one point.

Or win one game by 150 points, and lose 10 games by one point and we'll still be fine.

11 MORE wins, eh? Too bad we only have 10 games left.
 


Penn State likely a top 25 net rated team now with their OT loss to Purdue :rolleyes:
 



Depends on if they efficiently lost by 9


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They sure looked efficient to me! But I am not a very efficient person as I often forget what I was going to do when I walk into a room to do something. I'm sure glad the NET rankings know all about efficiency (sarcasm)
 

During halftime of Penn State and Purdue, the halftime question was "Is it a three way race for the Big Ten?" (Mich, Mich St., and Purdue).

One of the commentators said (Paraphrase) "I think Purdue is there offensively, with a top 10 offense, but defensively they don't have the "efficiency" to win the Big Ten.
His commentary had nothing to do with matchups, games, schedule, players... instead it was their defensive "efficiency".

It's already come to this.
 

Penn State likely a top 25 net rated team now with their OT loss to Purdue :rolleyes:

They are among worst power 6 conference teams offensively. They shot lights out tonight but had one of their worst games defensively. They keep puking on themselves with poor play and thus their horrible efficiency numbers have led to a truly disgraceful record.
 

They are among worst power 6 conference teams offensively. They shot lights out tonight but had one of their worst games defensively. They keep puking on themselves with poor play and thus their horrible efficiency numbers have led to a truly disgraceful record.
Yeah, but I’ve found the key. In every single game they’ve lost - bar none - they’ve scored less points than their opponent. Correlation coefficient of exactly 1.0. Now that’s an indicator you can count on!
 

But if your winning percentage was 0.750, that would pull up the SOS numbers enough to make it look somewhat legit.

What do you mean here? (Not trying to be an a$$, I'm genuinely wondering.)

The way RPI works is that it excludes the games you play against each opponent from that opponent's winning percentage.

The main problem a lot of people had with RPI was this -- the #5 team could play the #200 team and, regardless of the result, the #200 team would likely move up while the #5 team would likely move down. Whether you got blown out by 35 or lost by 1 on a buzzer beater, the game result would have the same effect on your RPI. It didn't matter how close the game was.
 

Updated overlay of Ken Pom and RPI over NET ranked teams. (teams 1- 68)

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


This isn't breaking news.
NET includes efficiency as a factor in the formula.
RPI doesn't count efficiency at all.
KenPom is pretty much strictly an efficiency measure.
So, obviously there will be a stronger correlation between KenPom & NET vs KenPom & RPI
 

This isn't breaking news.
NET includes efficiency as a factor in the formula.
RPI doesn't count efficiency at all.
KenPom is pretty much strictly an efficiency measure.
So, obviously there will be a stronger correlation between KenPom & NET vs KenPom & RPI

My point is that NET is almost equal to KenPom (efficiency rankings).

What efficiency means is keep your opponent to the lowest points per possession, every single possession regardless of outcome. And score as many points every possession regardless of outcome.

If you are in a game against someone better than you, do everything you can to get the game over quicker by slowing down the pace of the game so that game reflects as a small sample size of your total season.
 

What do you mean here? (Not trying to be an a$$, I'm genuinely wondering.)

The way RPI works is that it excludes the games you play against each opponent from that opponent's winning percentage.

The main problem a lot of people had with RPI was this -- the #5 team could play the #200 team and, regardless of the result, the #200 team would likely move up while the #5 team would likely move down. Whether you got blown out by 35 or lost by 1 on a buzzer beater, the game result would have the same effect on your RPI. It didn't matter how close the game was.

On a given game, adding that week team to your schedule "that day" would affect your rating for that day by moving down because it wasn't considered part of your schedule until it was played.
If you take out that variable, you are always better off winning the game which would have a net positive on your schedule.
The issue people had with RPI was if you played a low ranked team it hurt your overall rating compared to teams who played stronger SOS.

Now, SOS is basically meaningless.

The ideal now for NET score, you should play 12 non-conference games against teams ranked 300-353 and try to beat them all by 80-100 points. Then go through your conference and have your "average game" be a loss of 5 points across 20 games. With that, you would be a top 5 team for efficiency with a efficiency spread of over 25 points.
 

Yeah, but I’ve found the key. In every single game they’ve lost - bar none - they’ve scored less points than their opponent. Correlation coefficient of exactly 1.0. Now that’s an indicator you can count on!

What is this "score" thing you write about?
 

According to the NET, close losses to decent opponents are a good thing. We moved up 6 spots losing to Michigan. So basically I’m counting that as a win! Of course I’m hoping for a win vs Purdue but the NET tells me as long as they lose by less than 10 we should celebrate. So playing good opponents close and being efficient doing so are more important than winning games. Or at least that’s how it seems to me. See IU and Nebraska. Once again the NCAA hits a homerun!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, NET is a joke for rating teams for tournament selection. It’s an efficiency measure and nothing more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

On a given game, adding that week team to your schedule "that day" would affect your rating for that day by moving down because it wasn't considered part of your schedule until it was played.
If you take out that variable, you are always better off winning the game which would have a net positive on your schedule.
The issue people had with RPI was if you played a low ranked team it hurt your overall rating compared to teams who played stronger SOS.

Now, SOS is basically meaningless.

The ideal now for NET score, you should play 12 non-conference games against teams ranked 300-353 and try to beat them all by 80-100 points. Then go through your conference and have your "average game" be a loss of 5 points across 20 games. With that, you would be a top 5 team for efficiency with a efficiency spread of over 25 points.

I hate all these next gen stats that require a degree in mathematics to understand :)

There are so many of them these days, especially in baseball, that as an average fan you feel like a moron for not getting all these deep dive stats and how they are figured. It is what it is though as all these advanced metrics aren't going away anytime soon.
 

On a given game, adding that week team to your schedule "that day" would affect your rating for that day by moving down because it wasn't considered part of your schedule until it was played.
If you take out that variable, you are always better off winning the game which would have a net positive on your schedule.
The issue people had with RPI was if you played a low ranked team it hurt your overall rating compared to teams who played stronger SOS.

Now, SOS is basically meaningless.

The ideal now for NET score, you should play 12 non-conference games against teams ranked 300-353 and try to beat them all by 80-100 points. Then go through your conference and have your "average game" be a loss of 5 points across 20 games. With that, you would be a top 5 team for efficiency with a efficiency spread of over 25 points.


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.
 




Top Bottom