Offical Net ranking thread

Donate To GopherHole
RickDornsby said:
This is literally why we have NET. So that someone like Washington who is a good team but not that good is not ranked in the top 10 because they’ve absolutely crushed the worst major conference maybe we’ve ever seen.

@Arkansas isn’t a bad loss. Again, this is why we have NET.
Click to expand...

Washington is 18-4 and on an 11 game win streak. They are in a power 5 conference.....so to win 11 games in a row is impressive regardless of whether the Pac-12 is down this year. Not to mention that Gonzaga (#4 team in the nation and was #1 at the time) needed a buzzer beater to avoid going to OT against Washington on their home court.

And it's funny that you chose to bring up UNC Greensboro at 20-3 in the SoCon conference to make a point yet disregard Washington playing in a power 5 conference at 18-4.

And who exactly has Arkansas beaten of note outside of LSU? They are 13-8 and 4-4 in conference. That's hardly impressive. Definitely not a good loss for Indiana if your excuse for their record is that they've had a tough schedule.

Funny that you choose to ignore Nebraska sitting at number 33 in the NET rankings while you continue to tout these rankings. Nebraska has basically beaten nobody of note outside of Seton Hall who has an impressive win against Kentucky and @Maryland. But even so....they are 13-9 and 4-6 in conference play. They've lost five of their last six with three of those losses against Depaul, Butler, and Providence.....who are all sitting at the bottom of the Big East only ahead of Xavier. So how exactly do you justify Nebraska's ranking?
 

Where would you rank the Gophers ? We have a win at UW, Super impressive. Washington is not even ranked. I like their team, they hired a great coach. I never thought Nebraska was good and in NET are too high but it is using a lot of metrics and while not perfect is one tool. If Nebraska was 54 and Gophers 52 then what huge earth shattering complaining would we have.
 

builtbadgers said:
Where would you rank the Gophers ? We have a win at UW, Super impressive. Washington is not even ranked. I like their team, they hired a great coach. I never thought Nebraska was good and in NET are too high but it is using a lot of metrics and while not perfect is one tool. If Nebraska was 54 and Gophers 52 then what huge earth shattering complaining would we have.
Click to expand...

As I said....the NET rankings are skewed towards efficiency and completely ignore record. That's ridiculous. Any ranking system that's used to select and seed teams for the NCAA tournament needs to consider record as well as efficiency rankings if RPI isn't being used anymore. To completely ditch record from one year to the next in favor of efficiency is a massive overreaction in my opinion.

Just looking at where some of the other Big Ten teams are ranked kind of proves that something is off with NET. Indiana and Nebraska have no business being ranked higher considering their records. Especially when you consider how much higher Nebraska is ranked. So the point you make about Nebraska being ranked 54 is irrelevant....because they are ranked 33rd.

And Lunardi just a week ago had the Gophers as one of the last four in while both Indiana and Nebraska were seeded safely in the tournament. That's silly considering a 13-9 record for Nebraska with a 3-8 conference record and a 13-9 record for Indiana with a 4-7 conference record. Neither one should be in the field....especially since it means that more deserving mid majors will likely be left out because of the NET rankings. And as we've seen in previous years....several lower seeded mid major team have made impressive runs that prove they deserve to be given a shot over yeams that are barely winning a third or not even winning a third of their conderence games.

Lunardi does appear to have altered his bracket projections this past week giving Minnesota a #9 seed, Nebraska a #10 seed, and Indiana as a #11 seed play in game. I assume that criticism of the NET rankings occurring from skewed rankings in regards to records placed into that. I know that during halftime of the Gophers/Purdue game and in the postgame/Big Ten Show after there was quite a bit of talk about the confusion behind the odd NET rankings. Somehow....RPI and NET need to be combined to come up with a better ranking system.

And again....Washington has 11 straight wins and an 18-4 record. Cincy is #25 in the AP poll with 142 votes. Washington is #26 with 135 votes....so it's certainly possible that they will break into the top 25 here shortly.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

stocker08 said:
As I said....the NET rankings are skewed towards efficiency and completely ignore record. That's ridiculous. Any ranking system that's used to select and seed teams for the NCAA tournament needs to consider record as well as efficiency rankings if RPI isn't being used anymore. To completely ditch record from one year to the next in favor of efficiency is a massive overreaction in my opinion.

Just looking at where some of the other Big Ten teams are ranked kind of proves that something is off with NET. Indiana and Nebraska have no business being ranked higher considering their records. Especially when you consider how much higher Nebraska is ranked. So the point you make about Nebraska being ranked 54 is irrelevant....because they are ranked 33rd.

And Lunardi just a week ago had the Gophers as one of the last four in while both Indiana and Nebraska were seeded safely in the tournament. That's silly considering a 13-9 record for Nebraska with a 3-8 conference record and a 13-9 record for Indiana with a 4-7 conference record. Neither one should be in the field....especially since it means that more deserving mid majors will likely be left out because of the NET rankings. And as we've seen in previous years....several lower seeded mid major team have made impressive runs that prove they deserve to be given a shot over yeams that are barely winning a third or not even winning a third of their conderence games.

Lunardi does appear to have altered his bracket projections this past week giving Minnesota a #9 seed, Nebraska a #10 seed, and Indiana as a #11 seed play in game. I assume that criticism of the NET rankings occurring from skewed rankings in regards to records placed into that. I know that during halftime of the Gophers/Purdue game and in the postgame/Big Ten Show after there was quite a bit of talk about the confusion behind the odd NET rankings. Somehow....RPI and NET need to be combined to come up with a better ranking system.

And again....Washington has 11 straight wins and an 18-4 record. Cincy is #25 in the AP poll with 142 votes. Washington is #26 with 135 votes....so it's certainly possible that they will break into the top 25 here shortly.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do your research. NET does not ignore wins and losses. Why do people not read the exact formula, why do fans not understand efficiency and the importance of that in winning. Where would you rank the Gophers ? Why do people make up complete lies about NET. We have horrific loses, we have one great win, one pretty good win. Those wins over Okla . State, Utah, Tex AM really do not mean much and then there is that 1-5 road record.
 

builtbadgers said:
Do your research. NET does not ignore wins and losses. Why do people not read the exact formula, why do fans not understand efficiency and the importance of that in winning. Where would you rank the Gophers ? Why do people make up complete lies about NET. We have horrific loses, we have one great win, one pretty good win. Those wins over Okla . State, Utah, Tex AM really do not mean much and then there is that 1-5 road record.
Click to expand...

Then you'll have to explain Indiana and Nebraska....because nobody has given a decent explanation as to why Indiana is ranked 10 spots ahead and even more confusing....why Nebraska is ranked 20 spots ahead. The wins over Wisconsin & Iowa were both top 25 wins. And Washington is on the cusp of being a top 25 team. Nebraska was pretty much no good wins to speak of. And considering they are so highly ranked in the NET....why aren't we getting credit for our win over them? BC and Illinois are our two bad losses. Nebraska and Indiana have as many if not more bad losses which you seem to be ignoring as well.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 


stocker08 said:
Then you'll have to explain Indiana and Nebraska....because nobody has given a decent explanation as to why Indiana is ranked 10 spots ahead and even more confusing....why Nebraska is ranked 20 spots ahead. The wins over Wisconsin & Iowa were both top 25 wins. And Washington is on the cusp of being a top 25 team. Nebraska was pretty much no good wins to speak of. And considering they are so highly ranked in the NET....why aren't we getting credit for our win over them? BC and Illinois are our two bad losses. Nebraska and Indiana have as many if not more bad losses which you seem to be ignoring as well.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am not ignoring anything. Contrary , i count everything. Wins, losses, schedule, efficiency everything. Read the NET so you can understand it. You claimed NET ignored NET completely and it is not true. Our wins do not match IU and our schedule does not either. Our road record is terrible and our efficiency is bad. Now if you ask me if we will finish ahead of those teams i will say yes.
 

builtbadgers said:
I am not ignoring anything. Contrary , i count everything. Wins, losses, schedule, efficiency everything. Read the NET so you can understand it. You claimed NET ignored NET completely and it is not true. Our wins do not match IU and our schedule does not either. Our road record is terrible and our efficiency is bad. Now if you ask me if we will finish ahead of those teams i will say yes.
Click to expand...

Indiana is 2-7 on the road. And Marqutte, Louisville, and MSU is better than our wins over Washington, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska.....but not by much. Three of those were against ranked teams and Washington is soon to be ranked sitting at #26. And as I said....Indiana's losses to Arkansas, a floundering Nebraska team, Northwestern, and Rutgers is worse than our losses to BC and Illinois.

And once again....you've failed to mention Nebraska and the fact that their record is lousy, their conference record is abysmal, and they have only one win over a top 25 team in Indiana....which was in the middle of a SEVEN game losing streak. And now Nebraska is building upon a five game losing streak and a 3-8 conference record to go along with their 33 NET ranking.
 

stocker08 said:
As I said....the NET rankings are skewed towards efficiency and completely ignore record. That's ridiculous. Any ranking system that's used to select and seed teams for the NCAA tournament needs to consider record as well as efficiency rankings if RPI isn't being used anymore. To completely ditch record from one year to the next in favor of efficiency is a massive overreaction in my opinion.
Click to expand...

NET IS USED TO DETERMINE Q1A, Q1, and Q2 WINS! THEY DID NOT COMPLETELY DITCH RECORD!

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/bo...ical-Net-ranking-thread&p=1686917#post1686917
 

stocker08 said:
Indiana is 2-7 on the road. And Marqutte, Louisville, and MSU is better than our wins over Washington, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska.....but not by much. Three of those were against ranked teams and Washington is soon to be ranked sitting at #26. And as I said....Indiana's losses to Arkansas, a floundering Nebraska team, Northwestern, and Rutgers is worse than our losses to BC and Illinois.

And once again....you've failed to mention Nebraska and the fact that their record is lousy, their conference record is abysmal, and they have only one win over a top 25 team in Indiana....which was in the middle of a SEVEN game losing streak. And now Nebraska is building upon a five game losing streak and a 3-8 conference record to go along with their 33 NET ranking.
Click to expand...

Not leaving out Nebraska. I have said several times that i can not support them being ranked over the Gophers but made the the point that it is not perfect. You actually mention Nebraska as a good win but it is shrinking by the day. The UW win gets better by the day and the Washington win comes nowhere near what is happening with those 3 wins of Marquette, Louisville, MSU. The metrics of who is beating who matters. We have ourselves to blame and the horrible luck of the non con turning out to be terrible. Plus being boat raced by Ohio State, Illinois AND BC. We got beat by 15 there while the best teams beat them by 30 without even running up the score ! How do you want to count such things to measure teams whole body of work. I have the Gophers about 28th looking at all the data starting with wins and losses, who they won and lost to and where. Then how well you played adjusted for strength of schedule. I have IU 40th, Nebraska near 70 ! Yell at NET not me. They have more weight than i do on some metrics and that says a ton because i love efficient teams. Over time they accumulate more wins than anyone else. Show me how many teams have won games when they were less efficient than their opponents, not in a season long efficiency but within a game ! This is not used predictively it is used to measure how well you played . You have two crowds on this. We have some fans who think a poorly played win against Santa Clara as a example that results in a 2 point win should count more than a 2 point loss at Duke where there was low turnover, better shooting and better defense. They think that winning is the only thing that should be counted. I do not think it should be the only thing.
 



It's interesting that hockey pairwise works so well. If the power bb teams just played amongst themselves could probly use a metric like hockey and all the "guess work" would be removed.
 

ltf said:
It's interesting that hockey pairwise works so well. If the power bb teams just played amongst themselves could probly use a metric like hockey and all the "guess work" would be removed.
Click to expand...

Would love it. The power conferences are moving that direction by having more conference games. Then all you have is to add more challenges between the conferences. That is where your pairwise comes in because with the size of the conferences there is not equitable balance as well as a huge variance in strength of the non con games. NET is the attempt to do a better job of getting the best 68 teams. That is never going to happen because the lines are really narrow to decide between teams ranked below 30 in any measurement. I am in the minority but i liked it when you had to win your conference and in some conferences your conference tourney to get in. Really increased the intensity of your conference titles and actually had high quality teams. Now we split hairs to make sure little Jimmy gets a chance. All in the chase of money. iT IS A T.V. event. 4 TEAMS SURVIVE WINNING TWO 4 TEAM TOURNAMENTS to win a final 4 berth in a single elimination tournament in a sport like basketball. It is not football. Can you imagine the NBA deciding a champion in a one and done. Even getting to the final 4, we end up with VCU, Syracuse (Who got in the 4 extra) George Mason and yes, Loyola. People love that garbage because tv sells it so well. It hurts the teams who really had a slug fest success regular season. The Gophers are really up against a half dozen mid major conference upsets that they do not even play. Teams that we are far superior too. You have a tournament that only partly has qualifiers and partly invites. Nothing is perfect and some posters on here smarter than i am have suggested the Big 6 breaking away from the NCAA. What we have is too big a machine to tear down even though it enables cheaters to play with the guys that play it straight.
 

stocker08 said:
As I said....the NET rankings are skewed towards efficiency and completely ignore record. That's ridiculous. Any ranking system that's used to select and seed teams for the NCAA tournament needs to consider record as well as efficiency rankings if RPI isn't being used anymore. To completely ditch record from one year to the next in favor of efficiency is a massive overreaction in my opinion.

Just looking at where some of the other Big Ten teams are ranked kind of proves that something is off with NET. Indiana and Nebraska have no business being ranked higher considering their records. Especially when you consider how much higher Nebraska is ranked. So the point you make about Nebraska being ranked 54 is irrelevant....because they are ranked 33rd.

And Lunardi just a week ago had the Gophers as one of the last four in while both Indiana and Nebraska were seeded safely in the tournament. That's silly considering a 13-9 record for Nebraska with a 3-8 conference record and a 13-9 record for Indiana with a 4-7 conference record. Neither one should be in the field....especially since it means that more deserving mid majors will likely be left out because of the NET rankings. And as we've seen in previous years....several lower seeded mid major team have made impressive runs that prove they deserve to be given a shot over yeams that are barely winning a third or not even winning a third of their conderence games.

Lunardi does appear to have altered his bracket projections this past week giving Minnesota a #9 seed, Nebraska a #10 seed, and Indiana as a #11 seed play in game. I assume that criticism of the NET rankings occurring from skewed rankings in regards to records placed into that. I know that during halftime of the Gophers/Purdue game and in the postgame/Big Ten Show after there was quite a bit of talk about the confusion behind the odd NET rankings. Somehow....RPI and NET need to be combined to come up with a better ranking system.

And again....Washington has 11 straight wins and an 18-4 record. Cincy is #25 in the AP poll with 142 votes. Washington is #26 with 135 votes....so it's certainly possible that they will break into the top 25 here shortly.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I believe that Washington belongs in the top 25 right now, based on the way they have been playing. One caveat with them is that their star big man was helped off the court in their last game (and wasn't putting any weight on his lower extremity), so that could affect their future performances.
 

builtbadgers said:
Not leaving out Nebraska. I have said several times that i can not support them being ranked over the Gophers but made the the point that it is not perfect. You actually mention Nebraska as a good win but it is shrinking by the day. The UW win gets better by the day and the Washington win comes nowhere near what is happening with those 3 wins of Marquette, Louisville, MSU. The metrics of who is beating who matters. We have ourselves to blame and the horrible luck of the non con turning out to be terrible. Plus being boat raced by Ohio State, Illinois AND BC. We got beat by 15 there while the best teams beat them by 30 without even running up the score ! How do you want to count such things to measure teams whole body of work. I have the Gophers about 28th looking at all the data starting with wins and losses, who they won and lost to and where. Then how well you played adjusted for strength of schedule. I have IU 40th, Nebraska near 70 ! Yell at NET not me. They have more weight than i do on some metrics and that says a ton because i love efficient teams. Over time they accumulate more wins than anyone else. Show me how many teams have won games when they were less efficient than their opponents, not in a season long efficiency but within a game ! This is not used predictively it is used to measure how well you played . You have two crowds on this. We have some fans who think a poorly played win against Santa Clara as a example that results in a 2 point win should count more than a 2 point loss at Duke where there was low turnover, better shooting and better defense. They think that winning is the only thing that should be counted. I do not think it should be the only thing.
Click to expand...
I think it's been pointed out that Minnesota has four (?) Quad 1 wins which stacks up well against teams way higher. And my whole point with Nebraska is that a lot of people defending NET cannot explain why they are 33rd and the Gophers are 53rd. The Huskers shouldn't even be sniffing the tournament right now considering their absence of quality wins and their horrible conference record.

33rd in NET AND sitting in the 100s in RPI. I'm simply pointing out that there is something significantly wrong with the NET rankings. Especially if their NET ranking will help elevate them to the tournament despite their record. I realize that RPI was a heavily criticized system....but so far....NET has some glaring flaws as well. So to exchange one poor system for another isn't exactly a fix.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 



builtbadgers said:
Would love it. The power conferences are moving that direction by having more conference games. Then all you have is to add more challenges between the conferences. That is where your pairwise comes in because with the size of the conferences there is not equitable balance as well as a huge variance in strength of the non con games. NET is the attempt to do a better job of getting the best 68 teams. That is never going to happen because the lines are really narrow to decide between teams ranked below 30 in any measurement. I am in the minority but i liked it when you had to win your conference and in some conferences your conference tourney to get in. Really increased the intensity of your conference titles and actually had high quality teams. Now we split hairs to make sure little Jimmy gets a chance. All in the chase of money. iT IS A T.V. event. 4 TEAMS SURVIVE WINNING TWO 4 TEAM TOURNAMENTS to win a final 4 berth in a single elimination tournament in a sport like basketball. It is not football. Can you imagine the NBA deciding a champion in a one and done. Even getting to the final 4, we end up with VCU, Syracuse (Who got in the 4 extra) George Mason and yes, Loyola. People love that garbage because tv sells it so well. It hurts the teams who really had a slug fest success regular season. The Gophers are really up against a half dozen mid major conference upsets that they do not even play. Teams that we are far superior too. You have a tournament that only partly has qualifiers and partly invites. Nothing is perfect and some posters on here smarter than i am have suggested the Big 6 breaking away from the NCAA. What we have is too big a machine to tear down even though it enables cheaters to play with the guys that play it straight.
Click to expand...

People love that garbage? Why shouldn't mid majors get a shot in the NCAA tournament? The entire point is to invite teams that can make a run and clearly in the past several years we've seen a few of those teams do really well. And unfortunately....with these NET rankings....some of those teams are going to miss out in favor of currently 3-8 conference record Nebraska and 4-7 conference record Indiana....whereas we wouldn't even be discussing those teams right now.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

RPI doesn't have Lipscomb in the top 50 but Minnesota is in top 50.
I think RPI is better.

Wofford is 27th in NET. 40th in RPI.
RPI seems better.

Nebraska is 12-9.
33rd in NET
104 in RPI.
RPI seems better.
 

Face The Facts said:
RPI doesn't have Lipscomb in the top 50 but Minnesota is in top 50.
I think RPI is better.

Wofford is 27th in NET. 40th in RPI.
RPI seems better.

Nebraska is 12-9.
33rd in NET
104 in RPI.
RPI seems better.
Click to expand...

RPI should be used to determine who makes the tournament. NET Ranking should be used to determine seeding.
 

builtbadgers said:
Do your research. NET does not ignore wins and losses. Why do people not read the exact formula, why do fans not understand efficiency and the importance of that in winning. Where would you rank the Gophers ? Why do people make up complete lies about NET. We have horrific loses, we have one great win, one pretty good win. Those wins over Okla . State, Utah, Tex AM really do not mean much and then there is that 1-5 road record.
Click to expand...
lot of bad faith in this post.

you ask why people do not read the "exact formula." you ask why people "make up complete lies about NET."

when, as far as I know, the NCAA is keeping the NET formula a secret.

not sure how you can act so assured of yourself and dismissive of everyone else when no casual fan knows the NET formula. unless maybe you have some insider knowledge on the topic
 

stocker08 said:
People love that garbage? Why shouldn't mid majors get a shot in the NCAA tournament? The entire point is to invite teams that can make a run and clearly in the past several years we've seen a few of those teams do really well. And unfortunately....with these NET rankings....some of those teams are going to miss out in favor of currently 3-8 conference record Nebraska and 4-7 conference record Indiana....whereas we wouldn't even be discussing those teams right now.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In 2018 mid-majors (including the American) got 5 at-large bids. NET didn't exist.
In 2017 mid-majors (including the American) got 4 at-large bids. NET didn't exist.
In 2016 mid-majors (including the American) got 6 at-large bids. NET didn't exist.

In 2019 SelectionSunday has projected that mid-majors (including the American) will get 6 at-large bids. NET does exist.
 
Last edited:

Lakers612 said:
lot of bad faith in this post.

you ask why people do not read the "exact formula." you ask why people "make up complete lies about NET."

when, as far as I know, the NCAA is keeping the NET formula a secret.

not sure how you can act so assured of yourself and dismissive of everyone else when no casual fan knows the NET formula. unless maybe you have some insider knowledge on the topic
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, but many of the criticisms in this thread of the NET ignore the publicly available info about NET.
 

Jon Crispin chimes in:

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Go Gophers!!
 

stocker08 said:
People love that garbage? Why shouldn't mid majors get a shot in the NCAA tournament? The entire point is to invite teams that can make a run and clearly in the past several years we've seen a few of those teams do really well. And unfortunately....with these NET rankings....some of those teams are going to miss out in favor of currently 3-8 conference record Nebraska and 4-7 conference record Indiana....whereas we wouldn't even be discussing those teams right now.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That’s not going to happen.

NET does a better job at quantifying how good a team is and therefore defines wins vs said teams.

If Nebraska finishes 17-15 they will not get in even if they finish with a NET of 45.

However, NET can be used to quantify a victory vs. Indiana, a solid team snakebitton with a tough schedule.

If we beat them it should be a big win. If we lose to them it shouldn’t be “horrible loss!” Because Indiana was 14-10 at the time.

You can still use a results-based system that should get us in if we don’t finish something like 2-9.

Given the teams/games left on the schedule, if we lose a bunch, as long as it isn’t by 100 every game, we probably won’t move far down. If we lose by 3 to Wisconsin or 14 @MSU, we were supposed to lose those games by that much and won’t move down much.

However, if we win 6 or 7 the rest of the way, we’ll maybe be slightly underrated in NET at 35 or 40 let’s say but the humans can see all of the wins we have against good NET teams and give us a 6 seed or whatever it may be.
 

RickDornsby said:
That’s not going to happen.

NET does a better job at quantifying how good a team is and therefore defines wins vs said teams.

If Nebraska finishes 17-15 they will not get in even if they finish with a NET of 45.

However, NET can be used to quantify a victory vs. Indiana, a solid team snakebitton with a tough schedule.

If we beat them it should be a big win. If we lose to them it shouldn’t be “horrible loss!” Because Indiana was 14-10 at the time.

You can still use a results-based system that should get us in if we don’t finish something like 2-9.

Given the teams/games left on the schedule, if we lose a bunch, as long as it isn’t by 100 every game, we probably won’t move far down. If we lose by 3 to Wisconsin or 14 @MSU, we were supposed to lose those games by that much and won’t move down much.

However, if we win 6 or 7 the rest of the way, we’ll maybe be slightly underrated in NET at 35 or 40 let’s say but the humans can see all of the wins we have against good NET teams and give us a 6 seed or whatever it may be.
Click to expand...

Great post. And the information is publicly available. After the committee looks at all the data and discusses teams there will be representation of the eye test but it is minimized so as to minimize bias.
 

NET has almost directly lined up with KenPom and Sagarin at this point of the season.

KenPom has us favored in 1 of our final 9 games and projects a 3-6 finish.

The only way we’re moving down is if we are TERRIBLE the rest of the way because if we finish how a pseudo-predictive system expects us to finish, we’ll land where we were predicted to. If we finish 19-12 I’m not sure that national pundits will be writing op-eds about the royally screwed Gophers, who should be 50th in the nation, are 58th in NET and were not selected.

If we finish 6-3 the humans will not deny us a bid. We’ll move up considerably in NET and maybe be a bit underseeded if they use NET against us but we’ll easily be in.
 
Last edited:

They had to get rid of RPI because there were too many teams that got left out at 21-11 with 7 top 30 RPI wins. Then in another year a power 6 team got in at 18-14 with only 3 top 30 rpi wins, with only two bad losses. The first team had 3 bad losses but had proven how well they had played and that they could beat really good teams. You could game it. The Gophers at 12-8 are a lock, damn near lock at 11. Danger can come at 10 if we have only one more great win and not have two bad losses to the likes of a northwestern who we kill by 20. Win tomorrow night is a great pivot point. Several retired coaches who have seen them practice and play and i have done both and the consensus is they are special. They are the closest team i have seen. Tomorrow will tell us much. We already beat them and now get them here. Take care of business. Really look forward to it and flew in for it.
 

RickDornsby said:
NET has almost directly lined up with KenPom and Sagarin at this point of the season.

KenPom has us favored in 1 of our final 9 games and projects a 3-6 finish.

The only way we’re moving down is if we are TERRIBLE the rest of the way.

If we finish 6-3 the humans will not deny us a bid. We’ll move up considerably in NET and maybe be a bit underseeded if they use NET against us but we’ll easily be in.
Click to expand...

If Kenpom is used a predictive measure of course because it measures all games, all possessions but if you take the numbers from UW, Iowa, Nebraska the Gophers win. 1-9 is not going to happen. This board would explode if it did.
 

builtbadgers said:
If Kenpom is used a predictive measure of course because it measures all games, all possessions but if you take the numbers from UW, Iowa, Nebraska the Gophers win. 1-9 is not going to happen. This board would explode if it did.
Click to expand...

All possessions mattering ends up evening out mostly. If you want to run up the score @Ohio State you have to be good enough to be up by 10 against Ohio State in the 2nd half and have your scrubs run it up.

In terms of 1-9, yes. KenPom has us as underdogs in 8 of the final 9 games but projects 3-6. Why? Because odds are if you are a 1-3 point underdog as well as favored in 1 in 5-6 of those 8 games, you’ll probably win 3 of them. I think @MSU and @Maryland are pretty sure projected losses but also factor slightly into that 3 win projection.
 

RickDornsby said:
All possessions mattering ends up evening out mostly. If you want to run up the score @Ohio State you have to be good enough to be up by 10 against Ohio State in the 2nd half and have your scrubs run it up.

In terms of 1-9, yes. KenPom has us as underdogs in 8 of the final 9 games but projects 3-6. Why? Because odds are if you are a 1-3 point underdog as well as favored in 1 in 5-6 of those 8 games, you’ll probably win 3 of them. I think @MSU and @Maryland are pretty sure projected losses but also factor slightly into that 3 win projection.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful posts that remove a bias when supporting the sport in general and the Gophers specifically. Living all over and supporting several programs i have made the effort to see clearly about a team or program i do not even like but can aknowledge their greatness. It is like officiating, homer fans always think their team gets the short end of it and some even believe in conspiracies to hurt certain programs. Simply not true. If i believed that i would not watch.
 

RickDornsby said:
That’s not going to happen.

NET does a better job at quantifying how good a team is and therefore defines wins vs said teams.

If Nebraska finishes 17-15 they will not get in even if they finish with a NET of 45.

However, NET can be used to quantify a victory vs. Indiana, a solid team snakebitton with a tough schedule.

If we beat them it should be a big win. If we lose to them it shouldn’t be “horrible loss!” Because Indiana was 14-10 at the time.

You can still use a results-based system that should get us in if we don’t finish something like 2-9.

Given the teams/games left on the schedule, if we lose a bunch, as long as it isn’t by 100 every game, we probably won’t move far down. If we lose by 3 to Wisconsin or 14 @MSU, we were supposed to lose those games by that much and won’t move down much.

However, if we win 6 or 7 the rest of the way, we’ll maybe be slightly underrated in NET at 35 or 40 let’s say but the humans can see all of the wins we have against good NET teams and give us a 6 seed or whatever it may be.
Click to expand...

But with 3-8 in conference and 4-7 in conference.....NET is clearly not doing a good job. Losing seven straight games? Losing five straight games? Awarding efficient losses? That's ridiculous. And there is enough of a sample size to come to that conclusion. NET in its current form is a poor system that needs to be scrutinized.
 

stocker08 said:
But with 3-8 in conference and 4-7 in conference.....NET is clearly not doing a good job. Losing seven straight games? Losing five straight games? Awarding efficient losses? That's ridiculous. And there is enough of a sample size to come to that conclusion. NET in its current form is a poor system that needs to be scrutinized.
Click to expand...

That is not all that it is rewarding.
 

Florida at 40 with a 12-9 record and ZERO impressive wins is another fun example of NET rankings gone stupid. I guess we can give them credit for losing every single one of their tough games.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom