Offical Net ranking thread


What is Nebraska being rewarded so heavily for? It's not for winning games. Certainly not for winning games against good teams.

Told you it is not perfect. They have less quality wins but not by much in 1 and 2. Same amount of bad losses. Their schedule grades higher, the teams they beat played higher, and their efficiency is better. I said a dozen times that i would have the Gophers in and Nebraska out. Your awfully fixated on two teams, IU and Nebraska. Lets say just for fun that those two teams were 56 and 57 in NET. Would you be happy or do you think the Gophers should be ranked as high as any team with 16 wins ? What would you rate the Gophers ?
 

Told you it is not perfect. They have less quality wins but not by much in 1 and 2. Same amount of bad losses. Their schedule grades higher, the teams they beat played higher, and their efficiency is better. I said a dozen times that i would have the Gophers in and Nebraska out. Your awfully fixated on two teams, IU and Nebraska. Lets say just for fun that those two teams were 56 and 57 in NET. Would you be happy or do you think the Gophers should be ranked as high as any team with 16 wins ? What would you rate the Gophers ?

Less quality wins but not by much? We have three better wins than they do. Same amount of bad losses.....sure.....but they are failing to beat anyone of note. And why do you keep asking if those teams were ranked below the Gophers? They aren't. They are rated significantly higher. In fact....out of the power conference teams.....our NET ranking at a 16-6 record is the lowest. St. Johns from the Big East is at 45 and Syracuse is at 42.

But answer for Florida while your at it. http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/57/florida-gators

Do they even have a "best" win. Because they rank 40th.
 

Illinois currently beating Michigan state.
I assume Indiana will move up in net if Illinois holds on
 



Less quality wins but not by much? We have three better wins than they do. Same amount of bad losses.....sure.....but they are failing to beat anyone of note. And why do you keep asking if those teams were ranked below the Gophers? They aren't. They are rated significantly higher. In fact....out of the power conference teams.....our NET ranking at a 16-6 record is the lowest. St. Johns from the Big East is at 45 and Syracuse is at 42.

But answer for Florida while your at it. http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/57/florida-gators

Do they even have a "best" win. Because they rank 40th.

I still don't understand this "bad loss" stuff. Bad losses shouldn't matter unless you have a bunch of them.

Teams should be judged on whether they can beat good teams especially away from home.
 

Less quality wins but not by much? We have three better wins than they do. Same amount of bad losses.....sure.....but they are failing to beat anyone of note. And why do you keep asking if those teams were ranked below the Gophers? They aren't. They are rated significantly higher. In fact....out of the power conference teams.....our NET ranking at a 16-6 record is the lowest. St. Johns from the Big East is at 45 and Syracuse is at 42.

But answer for Florida while your at it. http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/57/florida-gators

Do they even have a "best" win. Because they rank 40th.

Are you ok in reading comprehension ? I said to pretend that those two teams were lower would you be happy and asked where do you rank the Gophers right now ? Now you scream about other teams that have played way tougher schedules and played better. We have played sloppy a whole bunch in both wins and losses and that factors in . Sorry you do not like it but in all your ability please tell me where would you have the Gophers ? Maybe you have seen all the teams ahead of us several times and think we are better than most of them. There is no wrong answer if if you have not really watched any of them.
 

Are you ok in reading comprehension ? I said to pretend that those two teams were lower would you be happy and asked where do you rank the Gophers right now ? Now you scream about other teams that have played way tougher schedules and played better. We have played sloppy a whole bunch in both wins and losses and that factors in . Sorry you do not like it but in all your ability please tell me where would you have the Gophers ? Maybe you have seen all the teams ahead of us several times and think we are better than most of them. There is no wrong answer if if you have not really watched any of them.

It would be a start. It would certainly lend more credibility to NET. But even so, the Gophers should be higher. But you appear to continue avoiding the question about these other teams. Not being able to beat good teams give teams a higher ranking? That's nonsense. Look at Florida's schedule and look at who they've beaten. Tell me how it makes any sense. Argue with it all you want....but again....it's an incredibly flawed system that will no doubt will have to be tweaked.

But look no further than the unknown algorithm behind NET. You seem to be defending it tooth and nail....but the NCAA has only released the five metrics but no algorithm behind those metrics. Why? Most likely because they had no idea how it would shake out. The results so far are less than stellar. Hopefully they will improve by year end.
 

MN NET going up with IL win over MSU?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 



MN NET going up with IL win over MSU?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

No, because a circular NET calculation loop forms when you both win and lose inefficiently against the same team within a four-week period, and your coach complains about the NET algorithm. This results in a decrease in your team’s NET score.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

NET formula isn't published anywhere.

What they do release is a marketing infographic that explains components that are factors. (efficiency, wins, loses, where the wins happen, etc).
But in the end, it appears 90% of it is efficiency, with another 8% on margin of victory. It's the only way to explain why some of these teams are exceeding their Ken Pom rating (which is the defacto efficiency index).

Right now NET isn't complete crap, but it's really close, and it's much worse than RPI.

Ask me where about I'd have the Gophers ranked right now, and I'd say low 30's.
Ask me where Nebraska should be ranked and I'd say below 90. (And not 33rd). But Nebraska is still 27th in Ken Pom, so there you go.

Guess what, Illinois is ranked 68th in Ken Pom. Anxious to see if their NET jumps up from 98 overnight.

Oh, and look who is getting close to making the tournament with a 71 NET. (Northwestern at 12-10).
Penn State is incontention as well with a net of 74 at 8-14.

Right now Minnesota is closer to Penn State and Northwestern than they are Iowa or Wofford in NET.


The NCAA crapped the bed when they went public with this metric. It's really pathetic.
 

Are you ok in reading comprehension ? I said to pretend that those two teams were lower would you be happy and asked where do you rank the Gophers right now ? Now you scream about other teams that have played way tougher schedules and played better. We have played sloppy a whole bunch in both wins and losses and that factors in . Sorry you do not like it but in all your ability please tell me where would you have the Gophers ? Maybe you have seen all the teams ahead of us several times and think we are better than most of them. There is no wrong answer if if you have not really watched any of them.
I’m getting really tired of your BS. Go post on another team’s board. You deal in bad faith and it’s getting old
 

I’m getting really tired of your BS. Go post on another team’s board. You deal in bad faith and it’s getting old

What is interesting is badgerboy extolls the virtue of squeaky clean and at the same time has praised aw shucks Roy and his unc teams.

Priceless.
 



Updated B1G NET rankings

Through games played last night (Tuesday).

Michigan #6
Michigan State #9
Purdue #11
Badgers #12
Iowa #23
Maryland #24
Nebraska #33
Ohio State #36
Indiana #44
Gophers #52
Northwestern #72
Penn State #76
Illinois #88
Rutgers #123
 

Through games played last night (Tuesday).

Michigan #6
Michigan State #9
Purdue #11
Badgers #12
Iowa #23
Maryland #24
Nebraska #33
Ohio State #36
Indiana #44
Gophers #52
Northwestern #72
Penn State #76
Illinois #88
Rutgers #123

Thanks! If the Gophers win tonight, their net should be around 60 I'd guess.
 

What is interesting is badgerboy extolls the virtue of squeaky clean and at the same time has praised aw shucks Roy and his unc teams.

Priceless.

Where did i praise UNC. I referenced the awe people look at Williams and UNC not my own position. I can not stand cheating or Williams.
 

Thanks! If the Gophers win tonight, their net should be around 60 I'd guess.

Only if it's by more than 10. If it's closer than 10 we fall below 65 and Wisc will climb to 10th
 

NET formula isn't published anywhere.

What they do release is a marketing infographic that explains components that are factors. (efficiency, wins, loses, where the wins happen, etc).
But in the end, it appears 90% of it is efficiency, with another 8% on margin of victory. It's the only way to explain why some of these teams are exceeding their Ken Pom rating (which is the defacto efficiency index).

Right now NET isn't complete crap, but it's really close, and it's much worse than RPI.

Ask me where about I'd have the Gophers ranked right now, and I'd say low 30's.
Ask me where Nebraska should be ranked and I'd say below 90. (And not 33rd). But Nebraska is still 27th in Ken Pom, so there you go.

Guess what, Illinois is ranked 68th in Ken Pom. Anxious to see if their NET jumps up from 98 overnight.

Oh, and look who is getting close to making the tournament with a 71 NET. (Northwestern at 12-10).
Penn State is incontention as well with a net of 74 at 8-14.

Right now Minnesota is closer to Penn State and Northwestern than they are Iowa or Wofford in NET.


The NCAA crapped the bed when they went public with this metric. It's really pathetic.

You think the NET is the only tool for selecting a team into the tourney! You said that Northwestern is close to making the tournament ! No chance, unless they win the Big 10 tournament. There will be teams with a NET in the 30's that miss the tournament, there were with RPI. What you will see is teams that do well in efficiency will be great tiebreaker tools. Teams like the Gophers will have enough wins, the first criteria, some good wins. i STILL SEE 22 wins minimum counting the big 10 tourney. It can not just be wins. Right now Kansas has the same amount of loses as we do but are ranked way higher, seeded way higher because of who they have defeated, who they played (what a schedule) and how they played. Kenpom is not 98 % of any formula . It is a useful tool, one part to help determine who has played well. It recognizes good play to credit those that lose a close game to a great team in a game played clean. The great team is also credited for playing great. It tracks how worthless a team that plays poorly against a terrible team and does not give that team, despite the win the same credit as they losing team in my first example. If a team plays great and loses by one at Gonzaga i have no problem with crediting that team more than the team that beats someone with a 1-12 record in a sloppy game. It must be accounted for somewhere. When the coaches voted they liked Kenpom as the teams already use efficiency stats for every player, every line up , every opponent, not as predictor but as proof on who plays well with who. Then most important, they wanted something with zero bias as it is all adjusted for the strength of schedule. Look at the top 20 Kenpom and see exactly who is there and why.
 

You think the NET is the only tool for selecting a team into the tourney! You said that Northwestern is close to making the tournament ! No chance, unless they win the Big 10 tournament. There will be teams with a NET in the 30's that miss the tournament, there were with RPI. What you will see is teams that do well in efficiency will be great tiebreaker tools. Teams like the Gophers will have enough wins, the first criteria, some good wins. i STILL SEE 22 wins minimum counting the big 10 tourney. It can not just be wins. Right now Kansas has the same amount of loses as we do but are ranked way higher, seeded way higher because of who they have defeated, who they played (what a schedule) and how they played. Kenpom is not 98 % of any formula . It is a useful tool, one part to help determine who has played well. It recognizes good play to credit those that lose a close game to a great team in a game played clean. The great team is also credited for playing great. It tracks how worthless a team that plays poorly against a terrible team and does not give that team, despite the win the same credit as they losing team in my first example. If a team plays great and loses by one at Gonzaga i have no problem with crediting that team more than the team that beats someone with a 1-12 record in a sloppy game. It must be accounted for somewhere. When the coaches voted they liked Kenpom as the teams already use efficiency stats for every player, every line up , every opponent, not as predictor but as proof on who plays well with who. Then most important, they wanted something with zero bias as it is all adjusted for the strength of schedule. Look at the top 20 Kenpom and see exactly who is there and why.

Quit making up your own arguments.

1. No. NET is not, but it's the first tool of choice which is why they made it.

2. Northwestern and Penn State (if you believe NET has any value) are near tournament cutoff according to NET.

3. Kansas is ranked higher because of scoring margin (efficiency) as are most teams who are ahead of the Gophers.

4. KenPom is not 98% of NET formula, but last time I checked it had a correlation of over .970

5. I don't give a crap about top 20 as most polls, voters, and idiots can agree on their placement within one seed. The issue I have is utilizing a tool that is widely variable in the area where it most matters. (#35-#90)
 

Quit making up your own arguments.

1. No. NET is not, but it's the first tool of choice which is why they made it.

2. Northwestern and Penn State (if you believe NET has any value) are near tournament cutoff according to NET.

3. Kansas is ranked higher because of scoring margin (efficiency) as are most teams who are ahead of the Gophers.

4. KenPom is not 98% of NET formula, but last time I checked it had a correlation of over .970

5. I don't give a crap about top 20 as most polls, voters, and idiots can agree on their placement within one seed. The issue I have is utilizing a tool that is widely variable in the area where it most matters. (#35-#90)

Where did you find the NET tournament cutoff number ? Also, everyone knows Kansas is ranked higher because they have 7 huge wins and played a top 3 schedule. Oh yes, they did that by playing efficient more often than not. Where do you think they rank in scoring margin ?
 

Will help you, Kansas is not top 50 in scoring margin. Scoring margin is not the same efficiency. Really simple to research exactly how efficiency works. Scoring margin even easier.
 

Will help you, Kansas is not top 50 in scoring margin. Scoring margin is not the same efficiency. Really simple to research exactly how efficiency works. Scoring margin even easier.

Kansas is top 20 in efficiency.

Scoring margin is different but still some correlation.
Kansas seems to be the biggest outlier you could find to prove your point.
 


Quit making up your own arguments.

1. No. NET is not, but it's the first tool of choice which is why they made it.

2. Northwestern and Penn State (if you believe NET has any value) are near tournament cutoff according to NET.

3. Kansas is ranked higher because of scoring margin (efficiency) as are most teams who are ahead of the Gophers.

4. KenPom is not 98% of NET formula, but last time I checked it had a correlation of over .970

5. I don't give a crap about top 20 as most polls, voters, and idiots can agree on their placement within one seed. The issue I have is utilizing a tool that is widely variable in the area where it most matters. (#35-#90)

1. No one from the committee or the NCAA has ever said that NET is the "first tool of choice." It's a little funny to ask another poster to quit making things up and then make something up yourself in response.

2. NW and Penn State are nowhere near the cutoff line. Even if you assume the committee will go exactly by NET.
There are 17 teams currently leading their conference who are not in the top 68 of NET.
So you'd have to be in the top 51 to get in if the committee went by NET alone.
NW is currently 72. Penn St is currently 76.
Do you think being the 21st and 25th team that didn't get in is "near the cutoff line"?

3. That is one of the reasons Kansas is ranked higher. Another is that they have played a significantly tougher schedule. Another is that they have 8 Q1 wins to our 3. Another is that they have 13 Q1/Q2 wins to our 5. Another is that their average win is over the 66th ranked team while our average win is over the 135th ranked team. There are many factors. Efficiency is just one of them.

4. Yes, KenPom and NET both weigh efficiency into their formulas, while many other ranking metrics do not.

5. What are the seeds? How do we know it is bad tool if we have never seen it used?
 

1. No one from the committee or the NCAA has ever said that NET is the "first tool of choice." It's a little funny to ask another poster to quit making things up and then make something up yourself in response.

2. NW and Penn State are nowhere near the cutoff line. Even if you assume the committee will go exactly by NET.
There are 17 teams currently leading their conference who are not in the top 68 of NET.
So you'd have to be in the top 51 to get in if the committee went by NET alone.
NW is currently 72. Penn St is currently 76.
Do you think being the 21st and 25th team that didn't get in is "near the cutoff line"?

3. That is one of the reasons Kansas is ranked higher. Another is that they have played a significantly tougher schedule. Another is that they have 8 Q1 wins to our 3. Another is that they have 13 Q1/Q2 wins to our 5. Another is that their average win is over the 66th ranked team while our average win is over the 135th ranked team. There are many factors. Efficiency is just one of them.

4. Yes, KenPom and NET both weigh efficiency into their formulas, while many other ranking metrics do not.

5. What are the seeds? How do we know it is bad tool if we have never seen it used?



1. Why do you create a tool that you market as a tool and not use it as they try to center in a single tool as they described:

"The NCAA Men's Basketball Committee is adopting a new ranking system to replace Rating Percentage Index (RPI) as its primary evaluation tool in evaluating Division I men's basketball teams, the league announced."

2. 68 - 17 = 50. Do you think they are just going to take the top 50 based on NET or not? If not, it's reasonable to expect the committee to look at teams also ranked in the 50's to 67, which is as low as they went for RPI teams in the past. I don't believe either will be selected, but the fact their rankings are that high polluting the top 100 teams by this metric is frankly laughable.

3. I know why Kansas is ranked high.

4. KenPom is pure efficiency. 100%. NET closely correlates with KenPom. Correlation of over 0.97 last time I checked.

5. Irrelevant discussion at this point.
 

1. Why do you create a tool that you market as a tool and not use it as they try to center in a single tool as they described:

"The NCAA Men's Basketball Committee is adopting a new ranking system to replace Rating Percentage Index (RPI) as its primary evaluation tool in evaluating Division I men's basketball teams, the league announced."

2. 68 - 17 = 50. Do you think they are just going to take the top 50 based on NET or not? If not, it's reasonable to expect the committee to look at teams also ranked in the 50's to 67, which is as low as they went for RPI teams in the past. I don't believe either will be selected, but the fact their rankings are that high polluting the top 100 teams by this metric is frankly laughable.

3. I know why Kansas is ranked high.

4. KenPom is pure efficiency. 100%. NET closely correlates with KenPom. Correlation of over 0.97 last time I checked.

5. Irrelevant discussion at this point.

1. Be careful where you get your info. The quote from the NCAA is a bit different, but has way different meaning.

The quote from the NCAA is:
"The NCAA has developed a new ranking system to replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams during the Division I men’s basketball season."

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...ed-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking

2. You said they would be near the tournament cutoff. There is no cutoff, but if you think they will not go past 67 then neither will even be considered.

3. You said it was because of efficiency, I said there are other reasons.

4. KenPom is pretty much pure efficiency, but it also includes a factor for road vs home games similar to the RPI. Efficiency is also equivalent to wins and losses because the more efficient team will win. So even if KenPom doesn't count actual wins and losses they are inherently included in the formula.

Basically what I'm saying is KenPom includes most of the same factors as NET so of course they will be highly correlated. That shouldn't be news to anyone. The only differences would be the weighting of each factor. When the coaches asked for this they knew exactly what they were getting. Anyone with a college math class under their belt could have told them it would look a lot like KenPom if those were the factors they were going to use.

5. Seems relevant to see how it is used for selection, and see what it looks like after all of the data is included. Every formula has outliers at this point.
 

1. Be careful where you get your info. The quote from the NCAA is a bit different, but has way different meaning.

The quote from the NCAA is:
"The NCAA has developed a new ranking system to replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool for evaluating teams during the Division I men’s basketball season."

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...ed-ncaa-adopts-new-college-basketball-ranking

2. You said they would be near the tournament cutoff. There is no cutoff, but if you think they will not go past 67 then neither will even be considered.

3. You said it was because of efficiency, I said there are other reasons.

4. KenPom is pretty much pure efficiency, but it also includes a factor for road vs home games similar to the RPI. Efficiency is also equivalent to wins and losses because the more efficient team will win. So even if KenPom doesn't count actual wins and losses they are inherently included in the formula.

Basically what I'm saying is KenPom includes most of the same factors as NET so of course they will be highly correlated. That shouldn't be news to anyone. The only differences would be the weighting of each factor. When the coaches asked for this they knew exactly what they were getting. Anyone with a college math class under their belt could have told them it would look a lot like KenPom if those were the factors they were going to use.

5. Seems relevant to see how it is used for selection, and see what it looks like after all of the data is included. Every formula has outliers at this point.

You say “When the coaches asked for this, they knew exactly what they were getting.” To what coaches are you referring? Your group of coaches clearly did not include the younger Pitino, as he is still trying to understand the NET (based on recent comments he made).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You say “When the coaches asked for this, they knew exactly what they were getting.” To what coaches are you referring? Your group of coaches clearly did not include the younger Pitino, as he is still trying to understand the NET (based on recent comments he made).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The coaches on the committee . Do you think they voted on a better tool without knowing what it is ? Listen to other coaches press conferences and they seem to understand very well how efficiency identifies good play. For those that do not know it is adjusted for strength of schedule . High Kenpom teams that have similar strength of schedules are ranked way higher than us because they have played way better than us, have more wins, have better wins, have great road records. I did not pick Kansas for any other reason than they also have 6 losses like we do but they have way better wins, way better losses , way better play as reflected by efficiency and a way harder schedule thus the wide gap in Net, all factors. Not sure where Nebraska gets the steam with a thin resume' etc.. and i have said that. Indiana who i also like us more has huge wins, better than ours. Anyone can pick out teams that do not seem to fit. Amazed at the resistance to efficiency. We can not lose tonight if we are better on OE and DE than UW. Further, we can actually pick up ground by playing great and losing, we just pick up more ground by winning. Coaches wanted rewards for good play. Interesting that since all the great teams for every year of Kenpom had have great years. I have said many times. By eye test i have seen us play sloppy quite a bit but would have us top 30 and capable of beating anyone not named Duke. Haters rip me, which is fine as it is a keyboard after all and i did not invent Kenpom and hated RPI for a whole slew of reasons. We can all get behind the idea of winning the rest of our games. Only power conference not getting a top 3 team in is the Pac 10, rightfully so. they play terrible and have very limited chances at good wins.
 

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

I doubt we move down much if at all. Throw in a 10-15 point loss at MSU and we’ll still stay in the low-mid 50s.
 




Top Bottom