Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bracketville, MN
    Posts
    21,532
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Overall Strength of Schedule (SOS) Based On Last Season's Final NET Rankings

    I'll update this as I get complete schedules.

    Average NET of All Opponents -- 165 of 353 complete
    1 Purdue 73.333
    2 Oklahoma State 73.833
    3 Michigan State 77.586
    4 Texas 77.933
    5 Kansas 78.724
    6 Iowa State 79.482
    7 West Virginia 80.6
    8 Auburn 80.966
    9 Florida 81.793
    10 Michigan 81.965
    11 Mississippi State 84.285
    12 North Carolina 84.448
    13 TCU 85.366
    14 Ohio State 85.838
    15 Wisconsin 86.7
    16 Seton Hall 87.142
    17 Butler 87.633
    18 Tennessee 88.833
    19 Miami-Florida 89.678
    20 Wake Forest 90.178
    21 Northwestern 90.551
    22 Texas A&M 91.035
    23 Kentucky 91.645
    24 Maryland 91.655
    25 Missouri 92.1
    26 Penn State 92.366
    27 Georgetown 93.166
    28 Kansas State 93.366
    29 LSU 94.064
    30 Georgia 94.172
    31 Virginia 97.137
    32 Vanderbilt 97.645
    33 Duke 98.233
    34 Syracuse 99.633
    35 Texas Tech 99.7
    36 Boston College 100
    37 Louisville 100.483
    38 Nebraska 101.068
    39 Cincinnati 102.178
    40 Xavier 102.793
    41 Ole Miss 104.033
    42 Providence 104.137
    43 Florida State 106.666
    44 Cal 106.866
    45 Notre Dame 107.322
    46 Marquette 107.642
    47 Rutgers 107.967
    48 Wichita State 109.4
    49 Pitt 111
    50 Arizona 114.793
    51 Arizona State 117.966
    52 Saint John’s 119.566
    53 Temple 123.068
    54 UConn 123.344
    55 Virginia Tech 123.379
    56 USC 124.62
    57 Houston 126.172
    58 Utah 127.321
    59 Tulane 127.592
    60 UCLA 128.724
    61 Washington 130.517
    62 UCF 131.642
    63 Stanford 133.566
    64 Tulsa 143.548
    65 East Carolina 148.275
    66 Washington State 149.793
    67 UMass 155.3
    68 San Francisco 155.419
    69 San Diego 155.6
    70 UNLV 157.612
    71 Western Kentucky 158.043
    72 Colorado State 159.965
    73 Dayton 160.517
    74 Illinois State 160.892
    75 Wyoming 161.62
    76 La Salle 165
    77 San Jose State 165.4
    78 UT-Arlington 167.645
    79 George Mason 171
    80 Bradley 173.5
    81 Yale 173.517
    82 Nevada 173.821
    83 Pepperdine 174.714
    84 George Washington 176.517
    85 Missouri State 177.413
    86 Harvard 178.777
    87 Indiana State 180
    88 Old Dominion 181.32
    89 UTEP 182.458
    90 Cleveland State 183.5
    91 Rice 186.72
    92 Navy 186.793
    93 Portland 186.965
    94 Towson 187.107
    95 Columbia 187.896
    96 Air Force 188.233
    97 Brown 189.111
    98 Texas State 189.935
    99 Oakland 190.064
    100 Chattanooga 190.933
    101 Long Beach State 191.5
    102 Charlotte 193.16
    103 Western Carolina 193.31
    104 Appalachian State 194.548
    105 Wofford 194.612
    106 Pacific 195.031
    107 Santa Clara 197.58
    108 NC-Wilmington 199.838
    109 South Alabama 199.896
    110 College of Charleston 200.357
    111 James Madison 202.724
    112 Grand Canyon 203.407
    113 Drexel 203.533
    114 Arkansas State 203.677
    115 Bucknell 205.566
    116 VMI 206.354
    117 Northeastern 206.607
    118 Milwaukee 209.464
    119 Oral Roberts 213.034
    120 Hofstra 214.033
    121 Vermont 214.533
    122 Maine 215.2
    123 Boston U 216.9
    124 Jacksonville 217.774
    125 Utah Valley 218.87
    126 Stony Brook 219.677
    127 Eastern Washington 220.064
    128 Eastern Kentucky 220.935
    129 Central Arkansas 221.433
    130 American 223.482
    131 Binghamton 224.206
    132 UC-Davis 224.5
    133 Cal Baptist 226.166
    134 Wright State 226.758
    135 Hawaii 227.535
    136 Montana State 228.096
    137 Texas Southern 232.29
    138 Jacksonville State 233.2
    139 UMass-Lowell 233.354
    140 Montana 235
    141 New Hampshire 235.413
    142 Canisius 235.666
    143 Northern Arizona 235.862
    144 Texas A&M Corpus-Christi 236.419
    145 Siena 237.137
    146 Mount Saint Mary’s 239.774
    147 Idaho State 240.206
    148 Liberty 240.357
    149 Florida A&M 241.037
    150 Hartford 242.9
    151 Sacramento State 243.724
    152 Central Connecticut 243.933
    153 Murray State 244.535
    154 Fairfield 245.068
    155 Wagner 245.896
    156 Prairie View A&M 247.766
    157 Saint Francis-PA 248.448
    158 Alabama A&M 249.31
    159 Sacred Heart 251
    160 Bryant 258.096
    161 Fairleigh Dickinson 260.586
    162 Quinnipiac 260.931
    163 Abilene Christian 263.516
    164 Marist 269.241
    165 Norfolk State 273.4333
    Last edited by SelectionSunday; Today at 11:42 AM.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bracketville, MN
    Posts
    21,532
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default B1G Only

    9 of 14 B1G Schedules Completed
    1 Purdue 73.333
    2 Michigan State 77.586
    3 Michigan 81.965
    4 Wisconsin 86.7
    5 Northwestern 90.551
    6 Maryland 91.655
    7 Penn State 92.366
    8 Nebraska 101.068
    9 Rutgers 107.967

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bracketville, MN
    Posts
    21,532
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Still waiting. ...

    for non-conference schedule releases from:

    Illinois
    Indiana
    Iowa
    Minnesota
    Ohio State

  4. #4

    Default

    3 in the top 10 so far? Good to see the conference scheduling aggressively.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bracketville, MN
    Posts
    21,532
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bleedsmaroonandgold View Post
    3 in the top 10 so far? Good to see the conference scheduling aggressively.
    Here's how the non-conference scheduling looks so far, a clear look of how teams are scheduling outside their conference.

    This one I won't update again until all 353 schedules are complete, except for when the Gophers officially announce their complete schedule.

    Average NET of Non-Conference Opponents
    1 Purdue 113.3
    2 North Carolina 114.777
    3 Texas Southern 114.846
    4 Florida 119.181
    5 Auburn 121
    6 Butler 122.583
    7 Central Arkansas 123.4
    8 Seton Hall 126.8
    9 Mississippi State 130.6
    10 Cal 131.416
    11 Oklahoma State 131.583
    12 Nevada 132.4
    13 Tennessee 133.666
    14 Texas 135.333
    15 Kentucky 135.692
    16 Western Kentucky 137
    17 Michigan State 137.777
    18 UT-Arlington 138.545
    19 Georgetown 139.416
    20 Kansas 139.727
    21 Iowa State 142.09
    22 Arizona 142.636
    23 Arizona State 143.25
    24 Temple 143.454
    25 LSU 146.153
    26 Colorado State 150.454
    27 Missouri 151.166
    28 Duke 151.2
    29 Long Beach State 151.357
    30 Michigan 151.555
    31 Utah 152.3
    32 Texas A&M 152.6
    33 West Virginia 154.166
    34 Siena 155.444
    35 Wichita State 156.166
    36 TCU 156.25
    37 Syracuse 156.8
    38 Oakland 157.384
    39 Vermont 158
    40 UNLV 158.538
    41 Washington 160.181
    42 Louisville 160.727
    43 Wisconsin 163.2
    44 Alabama A&M 163.818
    45 USC 164.363
    46 UMass 165.166
    47 Xavier 165.363
    48 Dayton 166.272
    49 UCF 167.2
    50 La Salle 167.5
    51 Georgia 171
    52 San Francisco 171.266
    53 Providence 171.272
    54 Kansas State 172.25
    55 Boston College 173.09
    56 Bradley 174.083
    57 UConn 175.181
    58 Maryland 175.333
    59 Eastern Washington 175.636
    60 Towson 175.9
    61 Wake Forest 176.125
    62 Penn State 176.5
    63 Notre Dame 177.363
    64 Stanford 177.833
    65 Marquette 178.2
    66 Yale 178.266
    T67 Miami-Florida 179
    T67 Virginia 179
    69 Bucknell 179.583
    70 UCLA 180.09
    71 Old Dominion 181.727
    72 Missouri State 182.09
    73 College of Charleston 182.4
    74 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi 182.727
    75 Stony Brook 184
    76 George Mason 184.727
    77 Houston 185
    78 Texas Tech 185.416
    79 Florida State 185.5
    80 Ole Miss 187.5
    81 Oral Roberts 187.692
    82 Fairfield 189.666
    83 Saint Francis-PA 191.09
    84 Central Connecticut 193.333
    85 Northwestern 194.444
    86 Wofford 194.538
    87 Harvard 195.923
    88 Montana 196.272
    89 Indiana State 196.363
    90 Maine 197.428
    91 Texas State 197.545
    92 San Jose State 197.583
    93 Tulsa 201.307
    94 Saint John’s 203.916
    95 Sacred Heart 206.615
    96 Fairleigh Dickinson 209.636
    97 NC-Wilmington 209.923
    98 Appalachian State 210.181
    99 Jacksonville State 210.833
    100 Binghamton 214.615
    101 Rice 215.363
    102 UTEP 215.7
    103 Tulane 216.111
    104 Pitt 216.7
    105 Norfolk State 216.785
    106 James Madison 216.818
    107 Nebraska 217.444
    108 Miami-Ohio 219.09
    109 Boston U 220.916
    110 Columbia 222.2
    111 Brown 222.461
    112 Western Michigan 222.5
    113 Pepperdine 222.666
    114 Stephen F. Austin 223.363
    115 Air Force 225
    116 UMass-Lowell 226.533
    117 Northern Arizona 226.666
    118 Rutgers 228.09
    119 Bryant 228.307
    120 Chattanooga 229
    121 Quinnipiac 229.444
    122 Hampton 231.153
    T123 Arkansas State 234.909
    T123 Wright State 234.909
    125 Hartford 235.785
    126 Washington State 236.545
    127 Murray State 237.9
    128 Charlotte 238.636
    129 Western Carolina 242.181
    130 New Hampshire 242.538
    131 Liberty 244.5
    132 Idaho State 245.111
    133 Sacramento State 248.444
    134 Virginia Tech 255.111
    135 Marist 264.444
    136 VMI 267.461
    137 Santa Clara 271
    138 Cal Baptist 279.071

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bracketville, MN
    Posts
    21,532
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Big Ten Only

    10 of 14 B1G Schedules Completed
    1 Purdue 73.333
    2 Michigan State 77.586
    3 Michigan 81.965
    4 Ohio State 85.838
    5 Wisconsin 86.7
    6 Northwestern 90.551
    7 Maryland 91.655
    8 Penn State 92.366
    9 Nebraska 101.068
    10 Rutgers 107.967

  7. #7

    Default

    I appreciate the info, but net rankings still are a terrible metric.

    Team A and Team B play Team C and Team D

    Team A beats both C and D by 1 point.
    Team B beats team C by 10 points but loses to D by 1 point.


    Who had a better two games. Any rating based on logic would put the unbeaten team as the more successful. Any rating based on efficiency would do the opposite.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Some guy View Post
    I appreciate the info, but net rankings still are a terrible metric.

    Team A and Team B play Team C and Team D

    Team A beats both C and D by 1 point.
    Team B beats team C by 10 points but loses to D by 1 point.


    Who had a better two games. Any rating based on logic would put the unbeaten team as the more successful. Any rating based on efficiency would do the opposite.
    Two games is a small sample size. SS said based on last years whole body of work. It is a fact that the best teams were most efficient.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    Two games is a small sample size. SS said based on last years whole body of work. It is a fact that the best teams were most efficient.
    You can believe this all you want, and logic would seem to follow, but the weight of the variables in NET are wrong. Efficiency tends to correlate with better teams, but the example shows the problem with the NET rankings. Actual wins matter more than efficiency. If the fundamental logic is flawed, sample size will not fix it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bracketville, MN
    Posts
    21,532
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Some guy View Post
    I appreciate the info, but net rankings still are a terrible metric.

    Team A and Team B play Team C and Team D

    Team A beats both C and D by 1 point.
    Team B beats team C by 10 points but loses to D by 1 point.


    Who had a better two games. Any rating based on logic would put the unbeaten team as the more successful. Any rating based on efficiency would do the opposite.
    It’s the ranking system they use, so it’s the one I’m using here. It’s not an endorsement. Chill, my man!

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alchemy2u View Post
    You can believe this all you want, and logic would seem to follow, but the weight of the variables in NET are wrong. Efficiency tends to correlate with better teams, but the example shows the problem with the NET rankings. Actual wins matter more than efficiency. If the fundamental logic is flawed, sample size will not fix it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Actual wins are the result of efficient play. You can not win if your opponent is more efficient than you are. OE and DE are the measures in a game that result on the points you score and those you give up. Two mediocre teams can and often play poorly. If they play each other one of them wins . If a good team plays at Duke and it was a incredible well played game it will be measured for that. Why not, to me it means nothing if a team ranked 50th wins against a team ranked 300th and both turn it over 25 times. The winner of that game is not better than a team that lost closely in a well played game at a top ranked team. Since everybody can not play everyone they needed a tool to differentiate. I would love a world where everyone could play everyone home and away but the best teams would be the ones that played the best most often. It would look very much how Kenpom looked after last season, or NET or conference standings, or the NCAA tourney.

  12. #12

    Default Overall Strength of Schedule (SOS) Based On Last Season's Final NET Rankings

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    Actual wins are the result of efficient play. You can not win if your opponent is more efficient than you are. OE and DE are the measures in a game that result on the points you score and those you give up. Two mediocre teams can and often play poorly. If they play each other one of them wins . If a good team plays at Duke and it was a incredible well played game it will be measured for that. Why not, to me it means nothing if a team ranked 50th wins against a team ranked 300th and both turn it over 25 times. The winner of that game is not better than a team that lost closely in a well played game at a top ranked team. Since everybody can not play everyone they needed a tool to differentiate. I would love a world where everyone could play everyone home and away but the best teams would be the ones that played the best most often. It would look very much how Kenpom looked after last season, or NET or conference standings, or the NCAA tourney.
    Sports are played to determine who actually wins, not who is technically the best team. Usually the better team wins, but not always!

    If the earlier example was about B1G conference games, the team that is 2-0 is better than the team that is 1-1. And as you always say: you need to have above .500 conference records to judge a team/coach. But NET ranking would have the 1-1 team above the 2-0 team. OK, so you say the sample size is too small. Just extend the example where the one team ends up 10-0 and wins by 1 point every game, where the second team ends up 7-3 winning by 10 points and losing by 1 point. Which team plays for the conference championship, gets seeded higher in the tourney, etc...

    Team efficiencies can be an indicator of how good a team is, but it needs to be held into context. And just because NET includes some OE and DE in its calculations doesn’t mean that it does it correctly. NET was just one of the rankings used last year, but it was not the primary source. Rightfully so, there were some higher NET ranked teams left out of the tournament.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  13. #13

    Default

    Of course the best team does not always win a given game. I value wins as much as anyone alive. Note the high standard i hold for success. It holds only character and winning. The best coaches are tracking all kinds of data but the one that defines success is efficiency. The NET has its flaws but it has to be used to bridge the game on all the teams that never play each other. This staff now is placing its attention to efficiency, not the NET. If you do great in efficiency then NET is taking care of.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    Of course the best team does not always win a given game. I value wins as much as anyone alive. Note the high standard i hold for success. It holds only character and winning. The best coaches are tracking all kinds of data but the one that defines success is efficiency. The NET has its flaws but it has to be used to bridge the game on all the teams that never play each other. This staff now is placing its attention to efficiency, not the NET. If you do great in efficiency then NET is taking care of.
    agree

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by builtbadgers View Post
    Two games is a small sample size. SS said based on last years whole body of work. It is a fact that the best teams were most efficient.
    That is not always the case.
    On average, efficiency in all of the games will lead to winning records.
    In individual cases it may be completely flawed.


    It is funny you say that the reason my example is bad is too small of a sample a size. Because a 30 game schedule to judge 350 teams is exactly why efficiency is a bad metric to use as the primary ranker of teams. Too small of a sample size.
    In a sample size that small, things like wins, winning percentage, and SOS are more reliable to judge quality of accomplishment than point margins.


    If all the ncaa teams played everyone, efficiency would be a better metric.

Posting Permissions

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