Lunardi's B1G rankings make no sense to me! Help me SS!

Finally someone with a reasonable response. I want to see a full season sample size before jumping to conclusions. I can't believe how many people are up and arms on this topic. (and yes looking at the NET posts, people are freaking out...not that much hyperbole)

Honestly, sample size doesn’t matter.

Let’s wait 4 weeks to see they over emphasized efficiency compared to actually winning?


Or I can just point out it is dumb as hell right now
 


It does matter that they lost because they were less efficient to two very inefficient teams. This gets so complicated most people do not understand the OE and DE numbers and the difficulty of finding and seeding 68 teams. Remember, it has never been about inviting the best 68 teams, this is a attempt to come closer to doing that. This has been about selling as much cinderella as possible. The reality is only four teams win 4 games to get to the final 4. You win two 4 team tournaments and your in. This will reward more power conference teams that beat good teams spots. I actually love a 24 team tourney with 8 byes. Hell you had to win your conference to get in, season long excellence rewarded. Or if you were the ACC tourney winner you got in. Hell winning that is more of a grind than getting to the elite 8 ! Gophers have nothing to worry about if they win games, 6 of them and hopefully a few against really good teams.

You say this, but it has been pointed out that we have done a better job of beating good teams than several teams above us.
 


Based upon the results thus far (that’s all we have), there is good reason to freak out. If you used solely the NET today to select teams, there would be some very unjust selections. Simple as that, and a fact. Not sure why that is hard to understand. Of course, in statistics more data is better than less, so some of the clearly flawed features of the NET will be minimized, but will still be there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct! But, this isn’t really a statistical sampling problem that will even out over a greater sample size. It is a model that calculates a rating based upon weighted factors. If the assumptions on how much weight to give each factor (or which factors to use) does not reflect reality than the model is flawed. They could have easily gone back and tested the model over the last several years weekly data and found these problems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 


Correct! But, this isn’t really a statistical sampling problem that will even out over a greater sample size. It is a model that calculates a rating based upon weighted factors. If the assumptions on how much weight to give each factor (or which factors to use) does not reflect reality than the model is flawed. They could have easily gone back and tested the model over the last several years weekly data and found these problems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is actually how they developed it.

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

"To make sense of team performance data, late-season games (including from the NCAA tournament) were used as test sets to develop a ranking model leveraging machine learning techniques. The model, which used team performance data to predict the outcome of games in test sets, was optimized until it was as accurate as possible. The resulting model is the one that will be used as the NET going forward."
 
Last edited:

A couple bad losses to teams that play bad and lose a lot !

You are way over emphasizing bad losses, and I am wondering if the NET is as well. In real life, I have always been told (and have had it anecdotally confirmed), that in a 3.0 GPA scenario, if you have one candidate that got to 3.0 through all B's and one who got there through an equal number of A's and C's, the A and C candidate is the better hire because he or she has proven an ability to perform at the top level. The all B candidate may be consistent, and just as efficient, but if you're looking for someone on your team, you take the A and the C. Your emphasis on bad loss outliers ignores that reasonable real world hypothesis. And so far, it appears NET does, too. Add in the real world of 18-22 year old young men, and it makes it even worse.

I know someone posted in another thread that we can expect the committee to work these things out in the selection process. I am just not that trusting.
 

You are way over emphasizing bad losses, and I am wondering if the NET is as well. In real life, I have always been told (and have had it anecdotally confirmed), that in a 3.0 GPA scenario, if you have one candidate that got to 3.0 through all B's and one who got there through an equal number of A's and C's, the A and C candidate is the better hire because he or she has proven an ability to perform at the top level. The all B candidate may be consistent, and just as efficient, but if you're looking for someone on your team, you take the A and the C. Your emphasis on bad loss outliers ignores that reasonable real world hypothesis. And so far, it appears NET does, too. Add in the real world of 18-22 year old young men, and it makes it even worse.

I know someone posted in another thread that we can expect the committee to work these things out in the selection process. I am just not that trusting.
 

What do you think we should be ranked? Have you watched the teams that we are so unjustly ranked below ?
 



What do you think we should be ranked? Have you watched the teams that we are so unjustly ranked below ?

This is a very good question.

As of today, I don't really think the NET is that far off on the Gophers. From watching them play, strengths, warts, and all, my gut tells me they're about a top 40- to top-45 type team. Unfortunately, that kind of number (as does their current #52 NET ranking) typically lands a team in bubble territory.

The hard part is answering your question, but I'll try. These are teams currently ranked ahead of the Gophers in the NET that I'd certainly have them ahead of:

#24 Nebraska
#25 Auburn
#27 NC State
#38 Florida
#42 Indiana
#47 San Francisco
#50 Butler

That was with a quick browse of today's rankings.
 

This is a very good question.

As of today, I don't really think the NET is that far off on the Gophers. From watching them play, strengths, warts, and all, my gut tells me they're about a top 40- to top-45 type team. Unfortunately, that kind of number (as does their current #52 NET ranking) typically lands a team in bubble territory.

The hard part is answering your question, but I'll try. These are teams currently ranked ahead of the Gophers in the NET that I'd certainly have them ahead of:

#24 Nebraska
#25 Auburn
#27 NC State
#38 Florida
#42 Indiana
#47 San Francisco
#50 Butler

That was with a quick browse of today's rankings.

I would have the Gophers over Nebraska,Indiana,San Fran, Butler and Florida. Will find out something about NC State tonight as i expect them to pull the win over a incredible UVA team. The teams you and i agree on are all rated to high to my eye. I have the Gophers rated a bit higher than you do.
 

I would have the Gophers over Nebraska,Indiana,San Fran, Butler and Florida. Will find out something about NC State tonight as i expect them to pull the win over a incredible UVA team. The teams you and i agree on are all rated to high to my eye. I have the Gophers rated a bit higher than you do.

Interested to see that you think NC State can pull it off tonight. You like the way Wolfpack matches up with UVa?
 

Interested to see that you think NC State can pull it off tonight. You like the way Wolfpack matches up with UVa?

With Johnson back healthy they can force UVA to play small. The match ups are never great against UVA with Hunter, think they are 50-4 with him. But NC state needs this, it is a short turn around on back to back road trips.
 




Gophers basketball team wins the World Series?

I think the point is that if MLB used "Net" rankings in 1987, the Twins would have been about 5th in the AL and nowhere near being allowed in the play-offs.
 

I think the point is that if MLB used "Net" rankings in 1987, the Twins would have been about 5th in the AL and nowhere near being allowed in the play-offs.

Your sarcasm meter is broken.
 

Today' Lunardi update:
6. Iowa
9. Ohio State
9. Nebraska
10. Indiana
11. Minnesota
 
Last edited:


Today' Lunardi update:
6. Iowa
9. Ohio State
9. Nebraska
10. Indiana
11. Minnesota

Ridiculous. Puts Lunardi's basketball "expertise" into question. Because he clearly knows nothing about the teams at all. He is using the metrics given from above and making guesses.

It's funny that ESPN would adopt this. Their resume comparisons are pretty much shot now. When looking at the last teams in and there really isn't any logic behind them that goes beyond "efficiency".....their shows fall apart real quick. It's going to be a whole lot of excuses for the NCAA if this is how selection and seeding is determined. I don't see NET lasting beyond this year as the primary determinant. It's clearly far inferior to RPI.
 

Let’s pump the brakes a bit. How can we say the NET is inferior when it has yet to be applied to a single Selection Sunday? It doesn’t matter how Lunardi, Palm, or anyone else applies it. It’s the Selection Committee that matters. This is the first year.

How about we at least see where the rankings end up on Selection Sunday (the important date), and then see how the NET rankings are applied? And I say this as someone who prefers KPI over NET (so far) and KenPom.
 
Last edited:

Let’s pump the brakes a bit. How can we say the NET is inferior when it has yet to be applied to a single Selection Sunday? It doesn’t matter how Lunardi, Palm, or anyone else applies it. It’s the Selection Committee that matters. This is the first year.

How about we at least see where the rankings end up on Selection Sunday (the important date), and then see how the NET rankings are applied? And I say this as someone who prefers KPI over NET (so far) and KenPom.

Thank you.
 

Let’s pump the brakes a bit. How can we say the NET is inferior when it has yet to be applied to a single Selection Sunday? It doesn’t matter how Lunardi, Palm, or anyone else applies it. It’s the Selection Committee that matters. This is the first year.

How about we at least see where the rankings end up on Selection Sunday (the important date), and then see how the NET rankings are applied? And I say this as someone who prefers KPI over NET (so far) and KenPom.


Fair enough. Just seems a little strange to go thru the trouble of creating a new metric if it's not going to make a significant contributiion. But would certainly agree that I for one may be getting exercised for no reason. We'll see.
 

Today' Lunardi update:
6. Iowa
9. Ohio State
9. Nebraska
10. Indiana
11. Minnesota

Lunardi apparently is clueless


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Let’s pump the brakes a bit. How can we say the NET is inferior when it has yet to be applied to a single Selection Sunday? It doesn’t matter how Lunardi, Palm, or anyone else applies it. It’s the Selection Committee that matters. This is the first year.

How about we at least see where the rankings end up on Selection Sunday (the important date), and then see how the NET rankings are applied? And I say this as someone who prefers KPI over NET (so far) and KenPom.

Well I’ve disliked KenPom for years now
 

Let’s pump the brakes a bit. How can we say the NET is inferior when it has yet to be applied to a single Selection Sunday? It doesn’t matter how Lunardi, Palm, or anyone else applies it. It’s the Selection Committee that matters. This is the first year.

How about we at least see where the rankings end up on Selection Sunday (the important date), and then see how the NET rankings are applied? And I say this as someone who prefers KPI over NET (so far) and KenPom.

Fair. It just seems silly that using the metrics from a year ago.....Lunardi's bracketology would look completely different. And these new metrics are clearly playing a role in AP rankings as well. They are influencing things one way or another....which shouldn't be the case if we are trying to find the best teams. Clearly something is far more flawed with the first round of NET than there was with the last version of RPI.
 

Fair. It just seems silly that using the metrics from a year ago.....Lunardi's bracketology would look completely different. And these new metrics are clearly playing a role in AP rankings as well. They are influencing things one way or another....which shouldn't be the case if we are trying to find the best teams. Clearly something is far more flawed with the first round of NET than there was with the last version of RPI.

Agree with this. So many cried about the flaws of RPI. Seems like they have created another flawed measure. Now, if NET was simply presented as an efficiency measure to be used as ONE OF MANY tools, including RPI, that would be fine. But to elevate it to such a pedestal is a big mistake for all the indisputable flaws that have been pointed out here. It may do a good job of measuring efficiency, but that should not be elevated over wins, regardless of how bad that team’s losses may have been. Body of work should be the measure, not how pretty you won or lost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Fair. It just seems silly that using the metrics from a year ago.....Lunardi's bracketology would look completely different. And these new metrics are clearly playing a role in AP rankings as well. They are influencing things one way or another....which shouldn't be the case if we are trying to find the best teams. Clearly something is far more flawed with the first round of NET than there was with the last version of RPI.

Yes, only way to make sense of Lunardi is that he is heavily relying on NET. CBS sports Palm doesn’t seem to be using NET much at all.
 

What should they be? Looking at Bracket Matrix, most other predictions aren’t that different from Lunardi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

What should they be? Looking at Bracket Matrix, most other predictions aren’t that different from Lunardi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Question.

Yes, only way to make sense of Lunardi is that he is heavily relying on NET. CBS sports Palm doesn’t seem to be using NET much at all.

Answer.

Palm appears to be looking at resume over metrics.
 

What should they be? Looking at Bracket Matrix, most other predictions aren’t that different from Lunardi.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is the concern of some of us, that NET will be used excessively. Others on here feel that NET won't be used excessively. Others on here feel that NET will be used excessively and should be used excessively. Others on here feel that NET will sort itself out by the end of the season and then will be a valuable tool.. Bottom line, nobody knows for sure, which seems somewhat strange in itself. Other bottom line, gophers need to win or this whole discussion wont really even matter and then, right or wrong, we'll switch back to the fire Pitino threads.
 




Top Bottom