Offical Net ranking thread

I am not sure if it was discussed it the thread, but I feel like the Gophers tweaked their schedule at the wrong time. In the past, getting wins over high majors like Utah, A&M, and winning the "neutral" game over Oklahoma State would mean more. The Gophers would have been better served to play weaker low major teams and try to put up 100. Now in fairness to the NET, the Gophers didn't play that great in that stretch post Ohio State where they had a few low majors on their home court. They had some chances to pad their efficiency marks, but they just didn't do it.
 

Pitino just ripped it some more in the post-game.
 

Pitino just ripped it some more in the post-game.

Pitino is spot on in his complaining about it.


When he said “every possession in every game matters”

That is what my complaint is.
If gophers play omursa less and stockman more in November, we are rated 42 instead of 52.

Not because we lost, but because we won some games by 18 instead of 26
 


Pitino is spot on in his complaining about it.


When he said “every possession in every game matters”

That is what my complaint is.
If gophers play omursa less and stockman more in November, we are rated 42 instead of 52.

Not because we lost, but because we won some games by 18 instead of 26

What about all the really food teams that put in walk ons in with 4 minutes left and have a 25 point win chopped to 15 ! Nothing because it affects their kenpom little and the NET is not rewarding blowouts, read the who NET framework on the NCAA site. What exactly did Pitino say because his dad preached that every possession does count.
 


What about all the really food teams that put in walk ons in with 4 minutes left and have a 25 point win chopped to 15 ! Nothing because it affects their kenpom little and the NET is not rewarding blowouts, read the who NET framework on the NCAA site. What exactly did Pitino say because his dad preached that every possession does count.

I can't tell if you are arguing that every possession does or doesn't count?
 

What about all the really food teams that put in walk ons in with 4 minutes left and have a 25 point win chopped to 15 ! Nothing because it affects their kenpom little and the NET is not rewarding blowouts, read the who NET framework on the NCAA site. What exactly did Pitino say because his dad preached that every possession does count.

When a good team takes out starters And wins by 14 instead of 24 their net ranking drops. Thanks for confirming what I said.
Which is another reason the number one net efficiency team doesn’t really mean much.
It is certainly better to be higher. But it is more important how efficienct you are in critical situations against good teams than how efficienct you are against all teams in all situations.

NET does reward blowouts. One of the major components is efficiency and every possession matters equally in efficiency.
Net efficiency is the number 2 factor in it.


I’m not going to debate you anymore.
You clearly don’t know what you’re reading.
You are reading posts by people and then accusing them of saying it is better to be inefficient.
 
Last edited:

If anyone has a link to the postgame comments by Pitino I would be very appreciative

EDIT: Found it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jggazi2JB78&feature=youtu.be

Found it. Pitino says that he hears NET is not everything, that there is no rating that should have us 52nd by resume' and that he thinks every possession counts but that everyone is kind of in a guessing game. He is wrong. Some coaches know exactly how margin is rewarded and still but in walk ons very early. One of the best teams has even played their manager on several occassions despite it affecting the metric.
 

Found it. Pitino says that he hears NET is not everything, that there is no rating that should have us 52nd by resume' and that he thinks every possession counts but that everyone is kind of in a guessing game. He is wrong. Some coaches know exactly how margin is rewarded and still but in walk ons very early. One of the best teams has even played their manager on several occassions despite it affecting the metric.

And the possession the manager was in impacted their net efficiency rating.
 



Found it. Pitino says that he hears NET is not everything, that there is no rating that should have us 52nd by resume' and that he thinks every possession counts but that everyone is kind of in a guessing game. He is wrong. Some coaches know exactly how margin is rewarded and still but in walk ons very early. One of the best teams has even played their manager on several occassions despite it affecting the metric.

BB, just make your point, whatever it is.
Name your team who you are referring to.
Make your point about whatever it is you are trying to say.
 

The issue is the NCAA is trying to say they don't reward margin of victory beyond 10 points, but in fact, efficiency is all about making the scoring margin as much as possible.

Offensively... high shooting percentage. 3's over 2's. Offensive rebounding.

Defensively... turnovers and stopping the other team from scoring.

EVERY SINGLE POSSESSION.
 

NET , Winning is first and who you played, points rewarded for road wins, docked for home losses
Efficiency is 2nd
scoring margin is capped at 10 points, so you gain nothing by running up the score ! Look it up on the NCAA website. It is actually every coaches job to know every bit of this. Be really a terrible thing to keep starters in with 2 minutes left trying to take a 19 point lead to 25 and suffering a injury. Millions of dollars paid to coaches to know this stuff and execute accordingly. CEO's get fired for poor execution and losing. I fired lawyers in our firm for not knowing their job . After that i knew to hire only detailed people who covered every nuance. Please people , instead of taking my word on NET, Kenpom, programs success or failure just do minimal research yo find actual facts and records.
 

NET , Winning is first and who you played, points rewarded for road wins, docked for home losses
Efficiency is 2nd
scoring margin is capped at 10 points, so you gain nothing by running up the score ! Look it up on the NCAA website. It is actually every coaches job to know every bit of this. Be really a terrible thing to keep starters in with 2 minutes left trying to take a 19 point lead to 25 and suffering a injury. Millions of dollars paid to coaches to know this stuff and execute accordingly. CEO's get fired for poor execution and losing. I fired lawyers in our firm for not knowing their job . After that i knew to hire only detailed people who covered every nuance. Please people , instead of taking my word on NET, Kenpom, programs success or failure just do minimal research yo find actual facts and records.


The NCAA doesn't provide weighting for their NET formula, and KenPom rankings are solely efficiency ranking.
I've compared NET, RPI, BPI, and KenPom rankings (efficiency).

In another post, I showed a graph that shows the strong correlation between NET and KenPom rankings.
They are almost the same thing. Correlation is 0.98 last time I checked.

Here's a link to the graph that shows NET rankings and Efficiency (KenPom).

https://twitter.com/FaceTheFactsMn/status/1089400954498281472
 



NET , Winning is first and who you played, points rewarded for road wins, docked for home losses
Efficiency is 2nd
scoring margin is capped at 10 points, so you gain nothing by running up the score ! Look it up on the NCAA website. It is actually every coaches job to know every bit of this. Be really a terrible thing to keep starters in with 2 minutes left trying to take a 19 point lead to 25 and suffering a injury. Millions of dollars paid to coaches to know this stuff and execute accordingly. CEO's get fired for poor execution and losing. I fired lawyers in our firm for not knowing their job . After that i knew to hire only detailed people who covered every nuance. Please people , instead of taking my word on NET, Kenpom, programs success or failure just do minimal research yo find actual facts and records.
Nice job not knowing what you’re talking about.
Margin of victory is not included in component 2 “efficiency”
It is it’s own component number 5


So the number 2 component is uncapped efficiency.



I feel bad for the guys you fired
 

NET , Winning is first and who you played, points rewarded for road wins, docked for home losses
Efficiency is 2nd
scoring margin is capped at 10 points, so you gain nothing by running up the score ! Look it up on the NCAA website. It is actually every coaches job to know every bit of this. Be really a terrible thing to keep starters in with 2 minutes left trying to take a 19 point lead to 25 and suffering a injury. Millions of dollars paid to coaches to know this stuff and execute accordingly. CEO's get fired for poor execution and losing. I fired lawyers in our firm for not knowing their job . After that i knew to hire only detailed people who covered every nuance. Please people , instead of taking my word on NET, Kenpom, programs success or failure just do minimal research yo find actual facts and records.

Wait now you are arguing that efficiency doesn't matter? If it does, why would you take out your best players at the end of a game like you suggest? Your clumsy appeal to authority about your law firm only makes this post worse. It is late, but it has to be better than this.
 

The issue is the NCAA is trying to say they don't reward margin of victory beyond 10 points, but in fact, efficiency is all about making the scoring margin as much as possible.

Offensively... high shooting percentage. 3's over 2's. Offensive rebounding.

Defensively... turnovers and stopping the other team from scoring.

EVERY SINGLE POSSESSION.

Yep, and a team i follow has forfeited tons of efficiency points by killing teams and playing subs early but still has great numbers. Plus the 3's over 2's is only true if your 3's are quality looks and a good % . Offensive rebounding is not as efficient a approach for some as getting back and set on defense has proven to be more efficient for them than others. MSU is a great example of tremendous offensive rebounding, UVA a great example of getting back and thus eliminating easy transition points, less foolish fouls (which hurt both your courtsides by giving up points and hampering players) and sticking to the goal of giving up zero or one shot while on defense. Wooden, Knight, Ryan, IBA and on and on all preached and drilled every ounce into being efficient. It has been around forever, only talked about it . Belichek does it in the NFL, the Warriors live by it in the NBA.
 

Wait now you are arguing that efficiency doesn't matter? If it does, why would you take out your best players at the end of a game like you suggest? Your clumsy appeal to authority about your law firm only makes this post worse. It is late, but it has to be better than this.

No, it matters not only in wins but in Net. Spelled out scenarios of why you take out your best players because it will be measured as the most important part of NET, Margin over 10 does not factor, injuries and i did not even mention chemistry for the entire team by others playing keeping everyone sharp, prepared and competitive and engaged at practice. You can really tell a great deal about practice.
 

Yep, and a team i follow has forfeited tons of efficiency points by killing teams and playing subs early but still has great numbers. Plus the 3's over 2's is only true if your 3's are quality looks and a good % . Offensive rebounding is not as efficient a approach for some as getting back and set on defense has proven to be more efficient for them than others. MSU is a great example of tremendous offensive rebounding, UVA a great example of getting back and thus eliminating easy transition points, less foolish fouls (which hurt both your courtsides by giving up points and hampering players) and sticking to the goal of giving up zero or one shot while on defense. Wooden, Knight, Ryan, IBA and on and on all preached and drilled every ounce into being efficient. It has been around forever, only talked about it . Belichek does it in the NFL, the Warriors live by it in the NBA.

Supporting NET as a driving metric for comparing teams is folly and ultimately a losing argument. Its algorithmic horse$hit and hopefully destined for the crapper after this year.

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1067113566958960640?lang=en
 

Efficiency one metric of success that is very valuable for coaches, teams, anyone interested in how to build success.

To confuse that with being better than winning is pretty short sighted.
 

UVA and Wisconsin are held us examples of "efficiency"

I cannot stand watching either of those programs, and turn to the TCM channel to watch a 1930's pre-code movei if possible, to avoid that constipated BB.
 

Watching the gophers worry and having to put starters back in to keep the 10 point margin of victory intact at the end of the game shows this rating system is ridiculous.
 

Our RPI is currently 33 ... I don't know much about how it's computed, but ranked 33 is about right for this Gopher team right now, which tells me RPI is doing something right and NET is doing something wrong.
 

Efficiency one metric of success that is very valuable for coaches, teams, anyone interested in how to build success.

To confuse that with being better than winning is pretty short sighted.

No. Its bulls***. Just win baby. I don't care by how much. If you are having a good season but have 3 really avg to poor games against average teams, you're screwed.

Gophs are 16-5. They have 4 Q1 wins. However because of three bad games, they are behind the 8 ball according to NET. Instead of just having 3 losses, they have to now make up ground by running up scores and leaving starters in blowout games. This is the asinine part.

A win is a win, a loss is a loss. I understand these metrics project how good a team is but it is not fool proof. It doesnt accurately project every team. These kids are 19 and 20 year old. They change alot evwn over course of same season. However a bad loss in December affects them way more than a good win in march??? That's fu***** stupid.
 

Efficiency one metric of success that is very valuable for coaches, teams, anyone interested in how to build success.

To confuse that with being better than winning is pretty short sighted.

That's a fair statement.
 

Our RPI is currently 33 ... I don't know much about how it's computed, but ranked 33 is about right for this Gopher team right now, which tells me RPI is doing something right and NET is doing something wrong.

RPI is based on winning percentage, opponents' winning percentage, and opponents' opponents winning percentage. Points are not involved. I believe there is an adjustment for home and road. So, it is a metric based on winning and schedule strength. RPI may be inferior to the other major indexes for predictive value but I'd say it's a simple and very fundamental measure of the essential question for selecting teams to a national tournament: "How good of a season did this team have?"
 

RPI is based on winning percentage, opponents' winning percentage, and opponents' opponents winning percentage. Points are not involved. I believe there is an adjustment for home and road. So, it is a metric based on winning and schedule strength. RPI may be inferior to the other major indexes for predictive value but I'd say it's a simple and very fundamental measure of the essential question for selecting teams to a national tournament: "How good of a season did this team have?"

This is true. And yes, the RPI formula weights road wins a little heavier than neutral site wins, and those a little more than home wins.

The issue I have with KP (efficiency) is you could have a team that essentially goes 0-32, losing every game by 1.
That team will score higher than a team who goes 16-16 that won 16 games each by 1 point and lost 16 games by 3 points on average.
 

Found it. Pitino says that he hears NET is not everything, that there is no rating that should have us 52nd by resume' and that he thinks every possession counts but that everyone is kind of in a guessing game. He is wrong. Some coaches know exactly how margin is rewarded and still but in walk ons very early. One of the best teams has even played their manager on several occassions despite it affecting the metric.

Saw this live and rewatched. Both times I thought he said it was a guessing game as to how they were going to use the metric, not how it was calculated or what factors played in.

Many times you’ve defended the net for what it is, which is fine, but you always reference the top ranking teams as proof that it’s working. In this case you say the best teams can still put in their managers and walk ons, so the NET efficiency component must not be a big deal. That isn’t evidence that the new ranking works, but evidence that it doesn’t harm the obviously successful teams who aren’t losing anyways.

What concerns me isn’t how the net characterizes the elite teams, but how the net characterizes the bubble range. This is the whole point - putting in the beat at large bids possible. There are flaws in the metric, creating an unknown bubble. Teams in this range are maximizing end of game minutes in a way that will maximize their overall statistics. Period. Pitino spelled that out very clearly.

These teams have something to lose, and they are telling you that they cannot afford to put in their bench to build rapport and risk turnovers or give up a spurt of points for about 5% of the game (2 minutes). Until the committee vocalizes how they will employ this metric, teams it puts on the bubble will most certainly do what they can to maximize the value of a clear win or a clear loss.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

UVA and Wisconsin are held us examples of "efficiency"

I cannot stand watching either of those programs, and turn to the TCM channel to watch a 1930's pre-code movei if possible, to avoid that constipated BB.

Interesting that you hate watching UVA and UW. To each their own. UVA is the team Jerry West will not miss watching. Rick Pitino calls it the best basketball there is. I get it, some fans would rather watch the Vikings than the Patriots. No harm there, every fan picks for themselves.
 

I knew that if you guys kept searching that you would find a metric that fit your vision of what you want the Gophers to be. It seems that, that metric dujour is RPI and the AP poll. Someone did get it right though. "winning" in the face of all predictive metrics is the elixer you want. The rest will sort itself out when it matters. I think the Gophers are fine and are set up to get in the tourney. A good string of Quad 1 road wins would do wonders for your Net Numbers.
 

Saw this live and rewatched. Both times I thought he said it was a guessing game as to how they were going to use the metric, not how it was calculated or what factors played in.

Many times you’ve defended the net for what it is, which is fine, but you always reference the top ranking teams as proof that it’s working. In this case you say the best teams can still put in their managers and walk ons, so the NET efficiency component must not be a big deal. That isn’t evidence that the new ranking works, but evidence that it doesn’t harm the obviously successful teams who aren’t losing anyways.

What concerns me isn’t how the net characterizes the elite teams, but how the net characterizes the bubble range. This is the whole point - putting in the beat at large bids possible. There are flaws in the metric, creating an unknown bubble. Teams in this range are maximizing end of game minutes in a way that will maximize their overall statistics. Period. Pitino spelled that out very clearly.

These teams have something to lose, and they are telling you that they cannot afford to put in their bench to build rapport and risk turnovers or give up a spurt of points for about 5% of the game (2 minutes). Until the committee vocalizes how they will employ this metric, teams it puts on the bubble will most certainly do what they can to maximize the value of a clear win or a clear loss.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have said repeatedly that it is not perfect but a combination of many methods, especially who you beat and where is most important will bear out as the best that can be selected for the field. It has never picked the best 68 teams and this will come closer. Agree with you that the best teams do not worry about it because by any measure they are the best teams. The efficiency matric matters more as to how you play and winning than some large single factor in team selection. The coaches picked it , not me. I have the Gophers between 25 and 30 by my biased eyes because it is not possible to remove all bias. When i pull back and look at it on who we beat and where we fall to 43. I count UW at UW as a titan victory, fantastic. Beating Washington on a neutral court is a good win. The rest of the non con being bad is just bad luck. We have games coming up to move way up while other teams are steadily sliding down. Some people forget that i am the one who picked no worse than 13-7, Still writing checks for tickets since 1968, still thinking we could be great. But what i will not do is blindly ignore bad play, not recognize great play by other teams and always tear other people and teams down. I support 4 teams financially and follow several more. People ask what is with the nickname on the board. That was given to me by Pat Richter for what he felt was a role i played on a search committee for a coach and a plan to build a new facility along time ago. I support UCLA because i went to school there in the 60's for my undergrad and i grew up in Carmel California and still maintain a home there. I support the U because my Grandfather was a executive at Piper and had season tickets which i kept starting in 1968 and we keep a family cabin up north. I support UVA because of my relationship through business and friendship with the Bennett's. Ben to hundreds of clinics, thousands of games and been paid as a advance scout. I have stated often that i do not think on a message board that my opinions are any more valuable than anyone else, we all as readers can decide what we do and do not enjoy. I prefer facts over opinion and dislike personal attacks as i was raised and have lived with the idea that anger rots what it lives in. When someone rips on UVA or UW for some perceived style of play than fine. that is preference but when they take shots about UVA choking in March, anything can happen in a one and done tourney. It does not wipe out 30 win seasons and ACC titles and being the only ACC team to leave the season having won anything. When we start to win 30 games and conference titles and stop the off the court garbage then we will be very proud of our Gophers.
 




Top Bottom