Oh boy... another win. Our NET will probably drop below 60 now

Donate To GopherHole
Dano564

Dano564

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
10,135
Reaction score
2,906
Points
113
All of this winning is going to get us kicked out of the tournament as our NET goes down a couple points on every win.

Purdue will get a nice bump however.
 

Face The Facts said:
All of this winning is going to get us kicked out of the tournament as our NET goes down a couple points on every win.

Purdue will get a nice bump however.
Click to expand...

I hear Nebraska got a nice bump today too. Looked really efficient in their loss.
 

Face The Facts said:
All of this winning is going to get us kicked out of the tournament as our NET goes down a couple points on every win.

Purdue will get a nice bump however.
Click to expand...

Our win will make Penn State's loss yesterday look even better. Look for them to rise.
 


Face The Facts said:
All of this winning is going to get us kicked out of the tournament as our NET goes down a couple points on every win.

Purdue will get a nice bump however.
Click to expand...

Hope nobody's busy next Tuesday night it's going to be game time.
 





We're still below Nebraska and Penn State in KenPom after factoring in today's win. I'm sure the NET will be similar. Is the goal of the NET to pick the most deserving teams or the teams who are analytically the best? Sure it's nice to look at who has the most talented teams but the committee should pick teams who have truly earned a spot.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 



mcal24 said:
We're still below Nebraska and Penn State in KenPom after factoring in today's win. I'm sure the NET will be similar. Is the goal of the NET to pick the most deserving teams or the teams who are analytically the best? Sure it's nice to look at who has the most talented teams but the committee should pick teams who have truly earned a spot.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I’m sure they will.



The whole metric is dumb though. Counting quality wins by ranking teams by how good they “should” be rather than how good they are.
 

mcal24 said:
We're still below Nebraska and Penn State in KenPom after factoring in today's win. I'm sure the NET will be similar. Is the goal of the NET to pick the most deserving teams or the teams who are analytically the best? Sure it's nice to look at who has the most talented teams but the committee should pick teams who have truly earned a spot.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's basically a giant YTD + - total points ranking. It's largely set by how big a margin you rack up in the cupcake portion of your non-conference. If we would have beaten our cupcakes by an overage of 22 instead of 12, our net ranking would be 10-15 spots higher with the exact same record.
 

howeda7 said:
It's basically a giant YTD + - total points ranking. It's largely set by how big a margin you rack up in the cupcake portion of your non-conference. If we would have beaten our cupcakes by an overage of 22 instead of 12, our net ranking would be 10-15 spots higher with the exact same record.
Click to expand...
I believe it's capped at +- 10 points but same point. When they introduce a new metric and say it will be used in the selection process it worries me that you can have such weird results like this.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

mcal24 said:
I believe it's capped at +- 10 points but same point. When they introduce a new metric and say it will be used in the selection process it worries me that you can have such weird results like this.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No your efficiency is never capped. So it's your entire + - for the entire season. And it's obviously a huge component of the formula. Nebraska lost like 12-14 but never dropped out of the top 50.
 



mcal24 said:
I believe it's capped at +- 10 points but same point. When they introduce a new metric and say it will be used in the selection process it worries me that you can have such weird results like this.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It’s not capped at 10

The margin of victory is capped at 10
But the largest part of the ranking is NET efficiency which measures average points per possession the whole year offensively and defensively.


If you beat a dog 100-35. The margin of victory only counts as 10, but all those possessions that gave you a 65 point victory count in efficiency, and efficiency is the largest conponent.


In fact, margin of victory counting at all is ridiculous, because using efficiency rating innately already counts margin of victory based on what you are measuring. NET DOUBLE COUNTS margin of victory up to 10 points
 

howeda7 said:
No your efficiency is never capped. So it's your entire + - for the entire season. And it's obviously a huge component of the formula. Nebraska lost like 12-14 but never dropped out of the top 50.
Click to expand...

Correct.

The NCAA released language that the "margin of victory" bonus is capped at 10, but that's just the bonus on top of the efficiency rankings, which as it seems, appears to make up 95% of the formula. Whatever the formula is, actually winning a game isn't important, otherwise losing teams wouldn't be in the top 15% of all teams.
 

Face The Facts said:
Correct.

The NCAA released language that the "margin of victory" bonus is capped at 10, but that's just the bonus on top of the efficiency rankings, which as it seems, appears to make up 95% of the formula. Whatever the formula is, actually winning a game isn't important, otherwise losing teams wouldn't be in the top 15% of all teams.
Click to expand...

And this is what we are using to measure a quality win. Lol
 

Some guy said:
It’s not capped at 10

The margin of victory is capped at 10
But the largest part of the ranking is NET efficiency which measures average points per possession the whole year offensively and defensively.


If you beat a dog 100-35. The margin of victory only counts as 10, but all those possessions that gave you a 65 point victory count in efficiency, and efficiency is the largest conponent.


In fact, margin of victory counting at all is ridiculous, because using efficiency rating innately already counts margin of victory based on what you are measuring. NET DOUBLE COUNTS margin of victory up to 10 points
Click to expand...

Correct.

So knowing this now, you need to blow out non-conference opponents by 40 and 50 when you can, and not just 20-30. It makes a huge difference that will carry through the season.
 

We are 10th in the B1G in + / - at +2.5. We are 11th in the Net. Nebraska is still +5.4. PSU +1.0. They are the only exception.
 

howeda7 said:
No your efficiency is never capped. So it's your entire + - for the entire season. And it's obviously a huge component of the formula. Nebraska lost like 12-14 but never dropped out of the top 50.
Click to expand...
My bad, I read the original comment wrong, you are correct.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

B1G Net Rankings and +/ -:

8. MSU +13.6

9. Michigan +11.6

12. Purdue +9.4

16. Wisconsin +8.2

29. Maryland + 6.3

41. Iowa +5.5

47. Penn State +1.0

49. Nebraska +5.2

53. Indiana +3.8

55. Ohio State +3.4

57. Minnesota +2.5

91. Northwestern +0.8

101. Rutgers -0.9

109. Illinois -2.6

It corresponds with 1 exception. So basically the brilliant plan to replace the RPI is just to add total point scored and allowed. Genius.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom