Offical Net ranking thread

Interesting.. I don't really know what to make of the Net and how we went about scheduling this year. Does anyone know if there is like a variable Net calculator online anywhere? I wasn't able to find one but I think it'd be nice to see how we could actually raise these rankings that are important for our postseason chances. Really would be curious to see how adding a top 50 game and/or raising the caliber of some of the crap non-conf games we play.
 
Interesting.. I don't really know what to make of the Net and how we went about scheduling this year. Does anyone know if there is like a variable Net calculator online anywhere? I wasn't able to find one but I think it'd be nice to see how we could actually raise these rankings that are important for our postseason chances. Really would be curious to see how adding a top 50 game and/or raising the caliber of some of the crap non-conf games we play.
Honestly after I look at it wow. All of the p5 teams we played really have been less than spectacular with the exception of Washington. I'd like to think if you play A&M, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma State, and Boston College you will have played an absolute minimum of 2 tourney teams maybe 3 on a good year.

Last 5 years:

A&M--2 appearances (2x sweet 16)
Utah--2 appearances(1x sweet 16)
Washington--0 appearances
OSU--3 appearances (no wins)
Boston College-1 appearance

And after I did the research I was clearly wrong in what I had projected above. Maybe putting a little more emphasis on the teams talent and not the name/conference? Could be the solution although I'm not saying this is the problem. Also have to keep in mind that teams exceed/fail to meet expectations every season so putting together the perfect schedule is tough.
 

tjgopher

Active member
Strength of schedule has nothing to do with Minnesota's low NET ranking. Teams with much worse SOS's and much worse records are ranked higher. Minnesota's SOS is plenty good. Minnesota's record and Minnesota's quality of wins are both plenty good.

The new NET ranking factors in offensive and defensive efficiency (a predictive measure, not a results measure). The Gophers are neither efficient on offense or defense, but somehow have won games. Winning doesn't help them. In fact, LOSING a game last night allowed them to go UP in the rankings because they were defensively so efficient last night.

Coaches will absolutely have to rethink how they want their teams to play if the NCAA uses the current NET setup as an end-all, be-all. Luckily for Minnesota's sake, it sounds like it won't be an end-all, be-all. It will mostly be a guide to judge a team's quality of wins, etc., as part of an overall team spread sheet.

As an example, NC State plays almost no one in the non-conference, but blew them all out, and were highly efficient. They had one good win (Auburn). They are currently ranked 27th in the NET, which puts them in solid position. In the old RPI formula that the NCAA used for more than 40 years (which factors in SOS much more strongly), NC State is ranked 114th and would not even make the NIT.

The RPI had its faults for sure and was not a perfect metric and it is good the NCAA tried to use something better. But, the NET stuff is a little out of hand with predictive measures that don't really factor in winning and losing, which will create some interesting situations on Selection Sunday.
 
Last edited:

Bordergopher

Active member
Well that’s great we lost and increased our ranking. Maybe if we can efficiently lose the rest of our games, we’ll get into a better position to make the tourney!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ltf

Member
If anyone wants to take the time, interesting article about NET at sports illustrated. Its rather long but the crux is that, while the NET formula hasnt been shared,
NET seems to empasize
- efficiency
- final score margin
- road wins
NET seems to de-empasize
- strength of schedule
The article gives examples to support its conclusions and speculates that power 5 teams will start to schedule low major teams on the road as this gives the best potential for a high NET.
 

builtbadgers

Active member
Well that’s great we lost and increased our ranking. Maybe if we can efficiently lose the rest of our games, we’ll get into a better position to make the tourney!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was playing Michigan and playing improved defense that gave a small rise in the NET. You do know that being more efficient than your opponents results in victories.
 

cjbfbp

Active member
Strength of schedule has nothing to do with Minnesota's low NET ranking. Teams with much worse SOS's and much worse records are ranked higher. Minnesota's SOS is plenty good. Minnesota's record and Minnesota's quality of wins are both plenty good.

The new NET ranking factors in offensive and defensive efficiency (a predictive measure, not a results measure). The Gophers are neither efficient on offense or defense, but somehow have won games. Winning doesn't help them. In fact, LOSING a game last night allowed them to go UP in the rankings because they were defensively so efficient last night.

Coaches will absolutely have to rethink how they want their teams to play if the NCAA uses the current NET setup as an end-all, be-all. Luckily for Minnesota's sake, it sounds like it won't be an end-all, be-all. It will mostly be a guide to judge a team's quality of wins, etc., as part of an overall team spread sheet.

As an example, NC State plays almost no one in the non-conference, but blew them all out, and were highly efficient. They had one good win (Auburn). They are currently ranked 27th in the NET, which puts them in solid position. In the old RPI formula that the NCAA used for more than 40 years (which factors in SOS much more strongly), NC State is ranked 114th and would not even make the NIT.

The RPI had its faults for sure and was not a perfect metric and it is good the NCAA tried to use something better. But, the NET stuff is a little out of hand with predictive measures that don't really factor in winning and losing, which will create some interesting situations on Selection Sunday.
That was a pretty thorough explanation. Thank you! I believe they should use a mix of measures: maybe something like 1/3 NET, 1/3 RPI, and 1/3 take your pick between BPI, Sagarin, etc. because those are similar measures. With spreadsheets, combining these measures with appropriate weights is effortless. As the old Geico commercial used to say "Even a caveman can do it."
 

builtbadgers

Active member
That was a pretty thorough explanation. Thank you! I believe they should use a mix of measures: maybe something like 1/3 NET, 1/3 RPI, and 1/3 take your pick between BPI, Sagarin, etc. because those are similar measures. With spreadsheets, combining these measures with appropriate weights is effortless. As the old Geico commercial used to say "Even a caveman can do it."
Actually kenpom effieciency numbers measure ppp on every possession adjusted for strength of schedule. It reflects how well you play. Look at top 10 in Kenpom and Net and who does not have the wins, who is not playing great. Those teams are running up the score on horrible teams. Hell they are pulling starters with 4 minutes left and letting the metrics suffer.This protects teams that go 20-10 on a power conference that played well but can not match wins with some MAC team that goes 26-4 but played no one and did not play well.
 

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Actually kenpom effieciency numbers measure ppp on every possession adjusted for strength of schedule. It reflects how well you play. Look at top 10 in Kenpom and Net and who does not have the wins, who is not playing great. Those teams are running up the score on horrible teams. Hell they are pulling starters with 4 minutes left and letting the metrics suffer.This protects teams that go 20-10 on a power conference that played well but can not match wins with some MAC team that goes 26-4 but played no one and did not play well.
Great. The top 10 teams will perform like top 10 teams. It may adversely affect teams closer to the bubble.

Nate Silver had it right from the jump.
 
Great. The top 10 teams will perform like top 10 teams. It may adversely affect teams closer to the bubble.

Nate Silver had it right from the jump.
Love all of the stats fiver thirty eight puts out...especially the election predictions. Regardless I'd like to see a ranking metric that is like 40% about wins, 20% about sos, 25% on margin of win/loss, 10% offensive/defensive efficiency, and 5% for road/neutral site wins.


Yes this is very arbitrary but it sounds nice to me lol
 

justthefacts

Active member
Strength of schedule has nothing to do with Minnesota's low NET ranking. Teams with much worse SOS's and much worse records are ranked higher. Minnesota's SOS is plenty good. Minnesota's record and Minnesota's quality of wins are both plenty good.

The new NET ranking factors in offensive and defensive efficiency (a predictive measure, not a results measure). The Gophers are neither efficient on offense or defense, but somehow have won games. Winning doesn't help them. In fact, LOSING a game last night allowed them to go UP in the rankings because they were defensively so efficient last night.

Coaches will absolutely have to rethink how they want their teams to play if the NCAA uses the current NET setup as an end-all, be-all. Luckily for Minnesota's sake, it sounds like it won't be an end-all, be-all. It will mostly be a guide to judge a team's quality of wins, etc., as part of an overall team spread sheet.

As an example, NC State plays almost no one in the non-conference, but blew them all out, and were highly efficient. They had one good win (Auburn). They are currently ranked 27th in the NET, which puts them in solid position. In the old RPI formula that the NCAA used for more than 40 years (which factors in SOS much more strongly), NC State is ranked 114th and would not even make the NIT.

The RPI had its faults for sure and was not a perfect metric and it is good the NCAA tried to use something better. But, the NET stuff is a little out of hand with predictive measures that don't really factor in winning and losing, which will create some interesting situations on Selection Sunday.
I'm really confused by this post. There are a set number of possessions per game. If you score more points per possession than your opponent you will win the game. The efficiency metrics just control for the number of possessions, but otherwise are very much reflection of what it takes to win or lose.

It's not that the Gophers haven't been efficient but have managed to win games, it's just that the ranking systems adjust for schedule. Take for instance, the North Florida game. It had 73 possessions, and NF scored 71 points. That would be .973 PPP. But since NF's offense is bad, T-Rank (a free version of KenPom) adjusts that defensive efficiency up (which is bad) to 1.001. http://barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Minnesota

Or the MSM game. Gophers scored 71 points in 68 possessions, for 1.044 PPP, but it is adjusted down to .975 because MSM is garbage.
 

justthefacts

Active member
Great. The top 10 teams will perform like top 10 teams. It may adversely affect teams closer to the bubble.

Nate Silver had it right from the jump.
Silver's analysis was silly because he was taking the NET as it appeared very early in the season, before the data started to connect. The RPI was also very famously noisy early in the season. Over time, as more games are played, the numbers start to settle down and the teams start to sort out as you'd expect.

Note that the one part of his analysis that he got right was that the efficiency metrics should factor MORE heavily.

NET is imperfect, but it's MUCH better than RPI. It's biggest flaw now is still including some metrics that are similar to RPI.
 

justthefacts

Active member
If anyone wants to take the time, interesting article about NET at sports illustrated. Its rather long but the crux is that, while the NET formula hasnt been shared,
NET seems to empasize
- efficiency
- final score margin
- road wins
NET seems to de-empasize
- strength of schedule
The article gives examples to support its conclusions and speculates that power 5 teams will start to schedule low major teams on the road as this gives the best potential for a high NET.
This is not really true. The most heavily-weighted component is still game results based on opponent and location, which is heavily dependent on strength of schedule.

The 2nd least heavily-weighted factor is adjusted winning percentage which takes into account road games. So if you want to game the system by focusing on the 2nd least-heavily weighted factor, you can start playing road games against bad teams, but you'd be focusing on something that contributes probably 10% of your NET score. That would be really dumb.

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

ltf

Member
This is not really true. The most heavily-weighted component is still game results based on opponent and location, which is heavily dependent on strength of schedule.

The 2nd least heavily-weighted factor is adjusted winning percentage which takes into account road games. So if you want to game the system by focusing on the 2nd least-heavily weighted factor, you can start playing road games against bad teams, but you'd be focusing on something that contributes probably 10% of your NET score. That would be really dumb.

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Liberty has a kenpom sos of 337 and yet they are ranked ahead of us. There are other mid and lows with awful sos also ranked ahead of us. Doesnt seem like sos is valued much.
 

tmvander

Member
I bet next year we won't see many quality non conference opponents outside of what is already on the schedule (@Utah, OK St in Tulsa, ACC/Big Ten opponent at home, Gavitt games?) We will be scheduling teams we can crush.
 

Powder

Member
I bet next year we won't see many quality non conference opponents outside of what is already on the schedule (@Utah, OK St in Tulsa, ACC/Big Ten opponent at home, Gavitt games?) We will be scheduling teams we can crush.

We as a P5 school may not want that as we want other P5 schools on our NC schedule but that is what the majority of schools have begged for. Their biggest complaint over the last two decades is that the 'big boys' wont play lower level teams on the road. Doesn't this new system encourage that?

I really don't know much about the NET Rankings other than what I've read on this site but if what everyone hear is saying is correct it seems like this system would not reward the Duke's of the world that play neutral site or home NC games. Isn't that a good thing for the game?
 

Latest profile posts

Hi guys, I'm new here! Since I can remember, I’ve always been a sports fan. I haven’t been a student for a long time, but I have a direct bearing on student life and educational programmes so please feel free to write me on any matter!
Top