Page 14 of 31 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 460
  1. #196
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Duluth/Seattle
    Posts
    1,125

    Default

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


  2. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFawkes View Post
    Penn State likely a top 25 net rated team now with their OT loss to Purdue
    I wonder if going to overtime and losing by 9 is any better than losing by 9 in regulation.

  3. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gopherlife View Post
    I wonder if going to overtime and losing by 9 is any better than losing by 9 in regulation.
    Depends on if they efficiently lost by 9


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dtrain19 View Post
    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)

  5. #200

    Default

    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.
    "Do Not Be Afraid to Be A Legend"

  6. #201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFawkes View Post
    Penn State likely a top 25 net rated team now with their OT loss to Purdue
    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.

  7. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    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 Iíve found the key. In every single game theyíve lost - bar none - theyíve scored less points than their opponent. Correlation coefficient of exactly 1.0. Now thatís an indicator you can count on!

  8. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    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.

  9. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    Updated overlay of Ken Pom and RPI over NET ranked teams. (teams 1- 68)



    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

  10. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    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.
    "Do Not Be Afraid to Be A Legend"

  11. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bizzle22 View Post
    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.
    "Do Not Be Afraid to Be A Legend"

  12. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GopherJake View Post
    Yeah, but Iíve found the key. In every single game theyíve lost - bar none - theyíve scored less points than their opponent. Correlation coefficient of exactly 1.0. Now thatís an indicator you can count on!
    What is this "score" thing you write about?

  13. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dtrain19 View Post
    According to the NET, close losses to decent opponents are a good thing. We moved up 6 spots losing to Michigan. So basically Iím counting that as a win! Of course Iím 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 thatís 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. Itís an efficiency measure and nothing more.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    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.

  15. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Face The Facts View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

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