Official complain about net rankings thread

Donate To GopherHole
Ope3 said:
Right now Michigan St sucks, so yeah that's about right.

Over the long haul that will even out, though I do concede that this year with smaller sample sizes (27 game schedule for those that don't have any games ppd instead of 32) there is a greater margin for error.
Click to expand...
Over the long hall it’ll even out a little.
it will still suck
 

Some guy said:
A little better. Still illogical.

minnesota 1-2 against the NET top 11
Minnesota 9-0 against everyone else



honestly if Minnesota played away at some scrub and won by 50 Minnesota would probably be 6th in the NET.

It almost appears to be better to lose on the road than to win at home. Their formula is jacked up
Click to expand...
Next year, we demand to play St. Thomas on the road.
 

The gophers just got thumped twice in the last week and have moved from 31 to 33 in the NET
 


Some guy said:
Click to expand...

My understanding is tjhat margin is no longer considered so i think palm is wrong here. Certainly beating a team by a million would help with efficiency. Maybe that is what he is referring to.
 


golf said:
My understanding is tjhat margin is no longer considered so i think palm is wrong here. Certainly beating a team by a million would help with efficiency. Maybe that is what he is referring to.
Click to expand...
It is 100% what he is referring to and a huge impact of road games that is set at an arbitrary level.

currently winning at 5-7 northwestern or at 6-3 Kent state is a higher quality win than winning at home against 11-2 UCLA, 11-2 Ava tech or 10-2 Xavier
 

Palm is a moron. He did not even does the research to explain it. Any committee that follows the game, not one team would place value on road wins and value by quad. Efficiency is a kenpom tool for efficiency that the committee likes as another way to measure all these teams that do not play each other with adjustments for pace. Margin was clarified in a public release. Those high efficiency teams in ppp win 30 games in a full schedule and get to a final 4. They use the data to seed teams 1-68 but guess what 1 does not always play the worst team. It selects at larges and seeds the tourney. Palm wants clicks. NET is a easy search. What do fans expect, a fan vote to win a place in the tourney. The least bias the better so use data, who you beat, where and how well do you play. Plat well, finish top 3 or 4 in the conference and your home free.
 

OK, the last two days we have somehow dropped 7 spots in the NET. Ohio State is now 12 places ahead of us. They should be 12 places behind us.
 
Last edited:





builtbadgers said:
Palm is a moron. He did not even does the research to explain it. Any committee that follows the game, not one team would place value on road wins and value by quad. Efficiency is a kenpom tool for efficiency that the committee likes as another way to measure all these teams that do not play each other with adjustments for pace. Margin was clarified in a public release. Those high efficiency teams in ppp win 30 games in a full schedule and get to a final 4. They use the data to seed teams 1-68 but guess what 1 does not always play the worst team. It selects at larges and seeds the tourney. Palm wants clicks. NET is a easy search. What do fans expect, a fan vote to win a place in the tourney. The least bias the better so use data, who you beat, where and how well do you play. Plat well, finish top 3 or 4 in the conference and your home free.
Click to expand...
While all that may be true, it doesn’t make NET a good metric
 

Some guy said:
While all that may be true, it doesn’t make NET a good metric
Click to expand...
What do you suggest ? RPI was too easily manipulated by power 6 conferences protecting the strength of schedule component. Just play sound basketball, win games and thinking about making the tourney becomes a thing of the past.
 

builtbadgers said:
What do you suggest ? RPI was too easily manipulated by power 6 conferences protecting the strength of schedule component. Just play sound basketball, win games and thinking about making the tourney becomes a thing of the past.
Click to expand...
The ncaa cites a terrible metric as a way to evaluate teams with very few common opponents
 




builtbadgers said:
Just asking, how do you suggest they do it ?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t take having the answer to see someone else doesn’t have it. NET ain’t it

Personally, I feel metrics based solely on W/L metrics are good measures of what teams have done moreso than efficiency models that try to predict how teams will do.
 

Some guy said:
It doesn’t take having the answer to see someone else doesn’t have it. NET ain’t it

Personally, I feel metrics based solely on W/L metrics are good measures of what teams have done moreso than efficiency models that try to predict how teams will do.
Click to expand...
Understood. To each their own. I prefer who you beat, where you beat them and how you play. Efficiency is not just predictive , it measures how you played.
 

builtbadgers said:
Understood. To each their own. I prefer who you beat, where you beat them and how you play. Efficiency is not just predictive , it measures how you played.
Click to expand...
It measures how you played while ignoring if you won.

Two teams could play the same 5 teams one goes 1-4 and the other 5-0 and the 1-4 team could have better efficiency metrics because of how they played
 

Some guy said:
It measures how you played while ignoring if you won.

Two teams could play the same 5 teams one goes 1-4 and the other 5-0 and the 1-4 team could have better efficiency metrics because of how they played
Click to expand...
It has the measure of who you beat and where. Look up exactly what is contained and then if you have a better way , let me know. Believe me, i wish only conference champions went.
 

builtbadgers said:
It has the measure of who you beat and where. Look up exactly what is contained and then if you have a better way , let me know. Believe me, i wish only conference champions went.
Click to expand...
RPI is better
EYE TEST is better
Common sense is better
 

NET shows the Gophers as not very high because we play poor offense. It also shows us not high because when we lose, we get the doors blown off of us.

It shows you, that on a neutral court against a tournament like team, we are about 30% chance to win the game because of the way we shoot the ball.

I don't like it, but until we quit getting beat terribly on the road, it will not change. We also can't be one of the worst shooting teams in the country and expect our ranking to be way up there. The shooting will be the thing that hurts our NET ranking and eventually will be the thing that sends them home when the tourney comes around.
 

Go Gophs said:
NET shows the Gophers as not very high because we play poor offense. It also shows us not high because when we lose, we get the doors blown off of us.

It shows you, that on a neutral court against a tournament like team, we are about 30% chance to win the game because of the way we shoot the ball.

I don't like it, but until we quit getting beat terribly on the road, it will not change. We also can't be one of the worst shooting teams in the country and expect our ranking to be way up there. The shooting will be the thing that hurts our NET ranking and eventually will be the thing that sends them home when the tourney comes around.
Click to expand...
Even though we're ranked in the top 25 in the human polls, we're about 2 losses from the bubble, IMO.
 

Go Gophs said:
NET shows the Gophers as not very high because we play poor offense. It also shows us not high because when we lose, we get the doors blown off of us.

It shows you, that on a neutral court against a tournament like team, we are about 30% chance to win the game because of the way we shoot the ball.

I don't like it, but until we quit getting beat terribly on the road, it will not change. We also can't be one of the worst shooting teams in the country and expect our ranking to be way up there. The shooting will be the thing that hurts our NET ranking and eventually will be the thing that sends them home when the tourney comes around.
Click to expand...
Our defense ranks pretty damn low.
 

Some guy said:
RPI is better
EYE TEST is better
Common sense is better
Click to expand...
RPI was 25% of your winning %, 50 % of your opponents average winning % and 25% of your opponents-opponents winning %. Nearly every coach hated it. EYE test, whose eyes ! Whose common sense ! Fans, sportwriters ! Kenpom efficiency number by the end reveal all the top teams. If your top 10 on both offense and defnse you will have 28 wins and a conference title. Net counts, efficiency counts, wins count, especially road wins against really good teams.
 

builtbadgers said:
RPI was 25% of your winning %, 50 % of your opponents average winning % and 25% of your opponents-opponents winning %. Nearly every coach hated it. EYE test, whose eyes ! Whose common sense ! Fans, sportwriters ! Kenpom efficiency number by the end reveal all the top teams. If your top 10 on both offense and defnse you will have 28 wins and a conference title. Net counts, efficiency counts, wins count, especially road wins against really good teams.
Click to expand...
I actually don’t love any of those

not sure you picked up on my sarcasm of listing things I hate on the football and basketball board but still liking them better than NET


kenpom is not the same thing as net
I haven’t ripped kenpom in this thread. Just net

you’re in the wrong thread if you’re defending kenpom

no one is attacking it here
 

Some guy said:
I actually don’t love any of those

not sure you picked up on my sarcasm of listing things I hate on the football and basketball board but still liking them better than NET


kenpom is not the same thing as net
I haven’t ripped kenpom in this thread. Just net

you’re in the wrong thread if you’re defending kenpom

no one is attacking it here
Click to expand...
Was not defending it. Only mentioned it as NET has efficiency in it.
 

builtbadgers said:
Was not defending it. Only mentioned it as NET has efficiency in it.
Click to expand...
I’d like an RPI-like formula that is 51% your winning percentage, 35% your opponents winning percentage and 14% your opponents’ opponents winning percentage
 

Some guy said:
I’d like an RPI-like formula that is 51% your winning percentage, 35% your opponents winning percentage and 14% your opponents’ opponents winning percentage
Click to expand...
Everyone gets to like what they like. Of course i liked it when only conference champs got in. Of course they net with all the criteria, wins, road wins, great efficiency. Pure quality.
 

builtbadgers said:
Everyone gets to like what they like. Of course i liked it when only conference champs got in. Of course they net with all the criteria, wins, road wins, great efficiency. Pure quality.
Click to expand...
And that’s all fine and dandy but doesn’t make net a good metric
 

If there is a NET equivalent for Men's NCAA Hockey, I would have to think the 10-0 & 10-2 beatdowns of Arizona St really helped the Gophers last weekend.
 

Ope3 said:
If there is a NET equivalent for Men's NCAA Hockey, I would have to think the 10-0 & 10-2 beatdowns of Arizona St really helped the Gophers last weekend.
Click to expand...
Margin of victory does not matter.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom