NET Update post Purdue

Are people actually watching games lately, or just looking at the standings?

If the Gophers and Penn State improbably meet up in Chicago, I think it's likely a pick 'em or a 1-2 point spread either way.

There is a significant difference between the Gophers and Nittany Lions resumes/records, yes, but there's not much difference if any between the teams.

Penn St looks efficient.
 

I'm not an NET expert. I just know that Pitino is talking constantly about "Quad 1" wins and "Quad 2" wins. so, those would seem to be very important in the determination of whether a team makes the tournament.

Being old, I miss the days when winning 20 games meant something. It used to be that you pretty much knew most of the teams that were in the tournament. The only question marks happened when there was an upset in a conference tournament, or some mid-major caught fire and won a conference title for an automatic qualifier.

Now, I don't have a bleepin' clue who is in and who is out. I guess at some point, some buddy of mine will try to get me to join his NCAA tournament pool, and then I'll figure out who's in the tournament.
 

The math suggests that, doesn’t it? PSU, per the math models, has played a tougher schedule than the gophers plus add in a one point victory by the gophers at home. PSU might just be a slightly better team than our gophers

Then again, I like sagarin and his math says our gophers are just a little bit better than PSU. Either way, there’s not a large gap between the two teams

And therein lies the debate with NET as a tool and to a lesser extent some of the other computer rankings. When taking into account things like efficiency, we are saying to some degree that perhaps winning or losing games is not the best measure of a teams quality.

So are we trying to get in the best teams, or the teams with the best results? Many times they are lockstep, but not always.
 






I joke, but your unwavering support for Pitino is admirable. I hope it works out for him and Gophs.

Thanks!

there are times when it may not be so "admirable" as you say, but a bit crazy.
 

And therein lies the debate with NET as a tool and to a lesser extent some of the other computer rankings. When taking into account things like efficiency, we are saying to some degree that perhaps winning or losing games is not the best measure of a teams quality.

So are we trying to get in the best teams, or the teams with the best results? Many times they are lockstep, but not always.

This is the heart of the matter for all invitation post season tournaments. Which is more important - quality or accomplishment?

We see this in college football every year. Is a 2-loss Georgia more deserving than a 1-loss Oklahoma or an undefeated Notre Dame? Almost everybody, Vegas especially, would have favored Georgia over both those other teams last year. But Georgia was left out. Wins and losses were deemed more important.

It's interesting that in the NCAA tournament itself, only one metric does matter - the result of the game. Efficiency has no place, other than making it more likely to determine an outcome.
 



FUN EXERCISE ALERT:

Once the tournament seedings are announced, I would like to know which metric ended up being the closest predictor to the team selection and seeding. I’m going out on a limb to guess that the “awful” RPI will be closer to selection and seeding than the “beloved” NET.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

This is the heart of the matter for all invitation post season tournaments. Which is more important - quality or accomplishment?

We see this in college football every year. Is a 2-loss Georgia more deserving than a 1-loss Oklahoma or an undefeated Notre Dame? Almost everybody, Vegas especially, would have favored Georgia over both those other teams last year. But Georgia was left out. Wins and losses were deemed more important.

It's interesting that in the NCAA tournament itself, only one metric does matter - the result of the game. Efficiency has no place, other than making it more likely to determine an outcome.

Who decides quality and accomplishment since no one plays a identical schedule ? In football UW got left out with 13 wins. How do you want to select the best 68 teams. Those teams that survive in a one and out tourney which by itself does not always crown the best team, will be the teams that have better efficiency in every win. Still do you want to pick just wins and losses because you should see what that looks like ! Strength of schedule, non con and con, not the same. They are using all the info they feel valuable, not just one thing. Besides, it is only a problem if a team has struggled playing well consistently, even in a conference where .500 still sucks because they are just splitting hairs with other inconsistent teams. The top teams have gaudy win totals because they have played so well so often, no matter who they played. Bartorvik grades out every performance of every game for every team.
 

Who decides quality and accomplishment since no one plays a identical schedule ? In football UW got left out with 13 wins. How do you want to select the best 68 teams. Those teams that survive in a one and out tourney which by itself does not always crown the best team, will be the teams that have better efficiency in every win. Still do you want to pick just wins and losses because you should see what that looks like ! Strength of schedule, non con and con, not the same. They are using all the info they feel valuable, not just one thing. Besides, it is only a problem if a team has struggled playing well consistently, even in a conference where .500 still sucks because they are just splitting hairs with other inconsistent teams. The top teams have gaudy win totals because they have played so well so often, no matter who they played. Bartorvik grades out every performance of every game for every team.

wisconsin did not get left out with 13 wins.
 

There are several teams that just jump out at you about how ridiculous the NET ranking is:

#15 Wisconsin @ 20-9 (surrounded) by teams with a handful of more wins, a little too high of a ranking.


None of these 6 teams should make the tournament. Records matter!!!!!
#32 Florida @ 17-13
#35 Texas @ 16-14
#47 Penn St @ 13-17
#51 Nebraska @ 15-15
#56 Indiana @ 15-14
#59 Butler @ 16-14
 



There are several teams that just jump out at you about how ridiculous the NET ranking is:

#15 Wisconsin @ 20-9 (surrounded) by teams with a handful of more wins, a little too high of a ranking.


None of these 6 teams should make the tournament. Records matter!!!!!
#32 Florida @ 17-13
#35 Texas @ 16-14
#47 Penn St @ 13-17
#51 Nebraska @ 15-15
#56 Indiana @ 15-14
#59 Butler @ 16-14

How many times do people have to keep saying the same thing to you for you to understand the purpose of the NET rankings?

THE NET IS NOT A “TOURNAMENT TEAM RANKING”. THE NET SEPARATES TEAMS INTO QUADRANTS TO ANALYZE RECORDS AND RESUMES.

Have you looked at the official team sheets at all to see what the selection committee will be looking at? I’m not even sure why Gopher fans are upset, the NET rankings absolutely bolster the Gopher’s resume! We beat 4/7 teams you listed that have high rankings.
 

The thing I struggle with is this: Valuing each possession for efficiency fundamentally changes how the game would be played. Why foul down 1 with 0:20 left in the game? A 1 point loss is better than putting the other team on the line and trying to hit a 3 to tie it... Is that the entertainment value/fan experience the NCAA wants?
 

Should I feel effectively the same losing to Michigan on a buzzer beater as beating Michigan on a buzzer beater?
 

I think rather than efficiency, a team should get some sort of multiplier for having control of a game throughout.
 

How many times do people have to keep saying the same thing to you for you to understand the purpose of the NET rankings?

THE NET IS NOT A “TOURNAMENT TEAM RANKING”. THE NET SEPARATES TEAMS INTO QUADRANTS TO ANALYZE RECORDS AND RESUMES.

Have you looked at the official team sheets at all to see what the selection committee will be looking at? I’m not even sure why Gopher fans are upset, the NET rankings absolutely bolster the Gopher’s resume! We beat 4/7 teams you listed that have high rankings.

Source? All of the things I read is that the NET is designed to be an improved ranking system that was supposed to eliminate the outliers from RPI. The quadrants were added last year before the new NET was developed.

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

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketba...-what-know-about-college-basketballs-new-tool

Here is a good article on ways to take advantage of the NET ranking:

“Q: Can we use this knowledge to our advantage?

A: If I really thought I knew some big secret that would benefit the team, I would be bugging Kevin Keatts and Debbie Yow on Twitter instead of talking about it here. Regardless, here is some obvious advice:

Run up the score whenever possible. Yes, the Margin is capped at 10 points per game, but the Efficiency is unlimited. I’m not saying that it’s worth being unsportsmanlike or risking injury, but the math says that every point counts, on offense and defense, every second of every game.
It’s better to schedule bad teams that play good teams than bad teams that play bad teams.
Avoid scheduling tough games at home. Losing at home hurts your Adjusted Win Percentage much more than winning helps it. And if the opponent doesn’t finish in the top 30, it’s not even a Quadrant 1 game.
Consider scheduling away games against teams in the 76-135 rank area. It’s fairly winnable, it can boost the Adjusted Win Percentage, and it counts as a respectable Quadrant 2 game.”

https://www.backingthepack.com/nc-...gs-college-basketball-tournament-nc-state-acc



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

How many times do people have to keep saying the same thing to you for you to understand the purpose of the NET rankings?

THE NET IS NOT A “TOURNAMENT TEAM RANKING”. THE NET SEPARATES TEAMS INTO QUADRANTS TO ANALYZE RECORDS AND RESUMES.

Have you looked at the official team sheets at all to see what the selection committee will be looking at? I’m not even sure why Gopher fans are upset, the NET rankings absolutely bolster the Gopher’s resume! We beat 4/7 teams you listed that have high rankings.

So what you're saying is:

Don't care about your own NET.
Care about all the NET's of teams you played.
 

So what you're saying is:

Don't care about your own NET.
Care about all the NET's of teams you played.

That's how it worked with RPI as well, one's own RPI mattered very little compared to record vs Top 50, Top 100 etc.
 

Source? All of the things I read is that the NET is designed to be an improved ranking system that was supposed to eliminate the outliers from RPI. The quadrants were added last year before the new NET was developed.

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

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketba...-what-know-about-college-basketballs-new-tool

Here is a good article on ways to take advantage of the NET ranking:

“Q: Can we use this knowledge to our advantage?

A: If I really thought I knew some big secret that would benefit the team, I would be bugging Kevin Keatts and Debbie Yow on Twitter instead of talking about it here. Regardless, here is some obvious advice:

Run up the score whenever possible. Yes, the Margin is capped at 10 points per game, but the Efficiency is unlimited. I’m not saying that it’s worth being unsportsmanlike or risking injury, but the math says that every point counts, on offense and defense, every second of every game.
It’s better to schedule bad teams that play good teams than bad teams that play bad teams.
Avoid scheduling tough games at home. Losing at home hurts your Adjusted Win Percentage much more than winning helps it. And if the opponent doesn’t finish in the top 30, it’s not even a Quadrant 1 game.
Consider scheduling away games against teams in the 76-135 rank area. It’s fairly winnable, it can boost the Adjusted Win Percentage, and it counts as a respectable Quadrant 2 game.”

https://www.backingthepack.com/nc-...gs-college-basketball-tournament-nc-state-acc



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketba...7/net-rankings-ncaa-tournament-what-they-mean


The NET will be the most common word heard throughout selection week and on Selection Sunday.

The purpose of the NCAA’s Evaluation Tool ranking (i.e. NET) is to sort teams into the four quadrants on the team sheets the men’s basketball selection committee uses for selection and seeding.

It is not a deciding factor.

It is not going to determine if a team is in or out of the bracket.

It is an organizational piece for the committee.



When the season ends — the hope is it will show — that when you played and beat good teams you got rewarded, especially if the games were away from home.

Not all home games are created equal (see a Duke home win over Virginia versus a win over Boston College) but all road wins aren’t inherently valued more than a home win. Remember, the NET will help sort the teams for the selection committee to decide on selection and seeding. But it won’t be the ultimate factor in either decision.
 

Interesting piece from Brian Bennett in The Athletic this morning. A snippet:

N.C. State’s nonconference schedule is ranked 352nd. Out of 353 teams. I’m not even mad, Kevin Keatts. That’s amazing. Combine that SOS with only two Quadrant 1 wins, though, and that’s the type of team to which the committee usually flips the bird. In fact, N.C. State is 117th in the RPI.

So unless the Wolfpack win the ACC tournament, they could provide the ultimate test of whether the committee likes nothin’ but NET. And if it somehow does, that opens the door for schools to dumb down their schedules, like, yesterday.
 

Interesting piece from Brian Bennett in The Athletic this morning. A snippet:

N.C. State’s nonconference schedule is ranked 352nd. Out of 353 teams. I’m not even mad, Kevin Keatts. That’s amazing. Combine that SOS with only two Quadrant 1 wins, though, and that’s the type of team to which the committee usually flips the bird. In fact, N.C. State is 117th in the RPI.

So unless the Wolfpack win the ACC tournament, they could provide the ultimate test of whether the committee likes nothin’ but NET. And if it somehow does, that opens the door for schools to dumb down their schedules, like, yesterday.

Great stuff from Bennett.

Barring an incredible ACC Tournament run by #39 NET NC State, the Wolfpack unquestionably will be the #1 test case for the Selection Committee with regards to the NET. They have a highly inflated NET and do not belong in the tournament, at all, and have beaten basically nobody (Auburn, Clemson, Syracuse all at home).
 
Last edited:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketba...7/net-rankings-ncaa-tournament-what-they-mean


The NET will be the most common word heard throughout selection week and on Selection Sunday.

The purpose of the NCAA’s Evaluation Tool ranking (i.e. NET) is to sort teams into the four quadrants on the team sheets the men’s basketball selection committee uses for selection and seeding.

It is not a deciding factor.

It is not going to determine if a team is in or out of the bracket.

It is an organizational piece for the committee.



When the season ends — the hope is it will show — that when you played and beat good teams you got rewarded, especially if the games were away from home.

Not all home games are created equal (see a Duke home win over Virginia versus a win over Boston College) but all road wins aren’t inherently valued more than a home win. Remember, the NET will help sort the teams for the selection committee to decide on selection and seeding. But it won’t be the ultimate factor in either decision.

Even if that is all that it is used for, it is still significant. Take NC State. A lot of teams get to lay claim to wins over a Quad 1 team, that just isn't very good.
 

Even if that is all that it is used for, it is still significant. Take NC State. A lot of teams get to lay claim to wins over a Quad 1 team, that just isn't very good.

The question I have is whether NC State gamed the system or they just lucked out in the new formula. Pretty sly if they could game the system this early in the process.
 

The problem is the NET isn’t one thing they look at. It is two things.
It is what determines what a quality win is.

8 teams have gotten quad 1 wins by beating penn state.
3 teams have gotten quad 1 wins by beating Minnesota.

That’s messed up

I've looked at this like three times and I still have no clue what point is trying to be made with that statistic.
 

Even if that is all that it is used for, it is still significant. Take NC State. A lot of teams get to lay claim to wins over a Quad 1 team, that just isn't very good.

Not really. Four teams got Quad 1 wins by beating NC State.

The Wolfpack are basically the perfect example of the difference between RPI and NET. And they show the flaws of both systems.

NC State is probably worse than the 35th best team in the country. (NET)
NC State is probably better than the 117th best team in the country. (RPI)
Both systems are wrong.
IMO the right answer is probably somewhere around 55th-60th best team.
 

Not really. Four teams got Quad 1 wins by beating NC State.

The Wolfpack are basically the perfect example of the difference between RPI and NET. And they show the flaws of both systems.

NC State is probably worse than the 35th best team in the country. (NET)
NC State is probably better than the 117th best team in the country. (RPI)
Both systems are wrong.
IMO the right answer is probably somewhere around 55th-60th best team.

All this NET stuff is crazy! It almost looks like you can go 14-16, but if you beat the right teams your in! lol
 

All this NET stuff is crazy! It almost looks like you can go 14-16, but if you beat the right teams your in! lol

Aren’t Ws the second criteria in selection? After automatic bids. I don’t recall an at large bid to a .500 or sub team. But to your point, that’s probably why we are hearing that 14 and 13 loss teams are still in the mix for a bid
 





Top Bottom