Official complain about net rankings thread

Donate To GopherHole

Ope3 said:
Shucks, I should start an "Official complain about the Pairwise rankings" thread on the Gopher Puck msg board.
Click to expand...
It may get hits. Just reality that there are a lot of complainers and excuse makers.
 



builtbadgers said:
It may get hits. Just reality that there are a lot of complainers and excuse makers.
Click to expand...
Excuse makers?
This thread isn’t about a team at all. It’s about a crap metric that you for some reason like


why don’t you tell me what you like about the net formula?
Wait...you can’t...because the formula isn’t released
 


Some guy said:
Excuse makers?
This thread isn’t about a team at all. It’s about a crap metric that you for some reason like


why don’t you tell me what you like about the net formula?
Wait...you can’t...because the formula isn’t released
Click to expand...
You sure about that ? What part do you not understand ? The whole formula is released. Improved on May 20th 2020. Coaches committee voted on it over RPI. The entire formula is available with minimal research. I like every part of it, especially adjusted efficiency per 100 possessions. Quad wins and extra credit for road wins.
 

builtbadgers said:
You sure about that ? What part do you not understand ? The whole formula is released. Improved on May 20th 2020. Coaches committee voted on it over RPI. The entire formula is available with minimal research. I like every part of it, especially adjusted efficiency per 100 possessions. Quad wins and extra credit for road wins.
Click to expand...
You want to link me to the formula?
 

Some guy said:
You want to link me to the formula?
Click to expand...
Google . What is the NET formula for college hoops. The NET explained article will be at the top. It tells you the original components and the changes made in 2020.
 

builtbadgers said:
Google . What is the NET formula for college hoops. The NET explained article will be at the top. It tells you the original components and the changes made in 2020.
Click to expand...
You can find what is in it, I’ve never seen the formula itself with the weights on the different components
 




Unregistered User said:
I don't believe they publish the actual Al Gore Rhythm used, but here is a better explanation:

Click to expand...
That’s the point:
The weight they put on these factors is pretty arbitrary and they don’t publish their formula for how they weight the factors
 

Some guy said:
That’s the point:
The weight they put on these factors is pretty arbitrary and they don’t publish their formula for how they weight the factors
Click to expand...
Coaches like it. Supports winning, supports playing well. Winning on the road. Efficiency is awesome. Look at Kenpom every year and whose on top in wins mirrors who dominates Overall PPP. No one has come up with a better way to select and seed. I am waiting for someone to show me another way because RPI was garbage. No matter what, the elite team come out just great. That is why i really loved conference champions only.
 

builtbadgers said:
Coaches like it. Supports winning, supports playing well. Winning on the road. Efficiency is awesome. Look at Kenpom every year and whose on top in wins mirrors who dominates Overall PPP. No one has come up with a better way to select and seed. I am waiting for someone to show me another way because RPI was garbage. No matter what, the elite team come out just great. That is why i really loved conference champions only.
Click to expand...
Kenpom by itself would be better. At least you basically know his formula.

You still are defending a formula you don’t know the formula to. How much do they weight each ingredient? Until you can tell me that your defense of it is laughable at best. You don’t even know how it is made
 



Some guy said:
Kenpom by itself would be better. At least you basically know his formula.

You still are defending a formula you don’t know the formula to. How much do they weight each ingredient? Until you can tell me that your defense of it is laughable at best. You don’t even know how it is made
Click to expand...
Laugh all you want. There are rules and guidelines and criteria that apply to every committee member for them to form their opinion. All the Data is used and it is flexible as their are many circumstances. The data and rules are designed to take bias out of it. Their manual is available to the public. If your talking about how much they weigh each part of the selection by % that would not happen as if it was Q1 wins for example some mid majors may have had one or two chances. The other criteria like efficiency adjusted for strength of schedule will provide the best attempt at a fair and balanced selection. Nothing is perfect. Show me something better or laugh. What made me laugh is the idea of fans suggesting eye test. When i watch a team play i can see if they are efficient on both offense AND defense. Those are the teams at the top of their conference and they are pretty easy to find a accurate seed line. The bubble teams worry because the are seperated by the efficiency numbers and the wins.
 

builtbadgers said:
Laugh all you want. There are rules and guidelines and criteria that apply to every committee member for them to form their opinion. All the Data is used and it is flexible as their are many circumstances. The data and rules are designed to take bias out of it. Their manual is available to the public. If your talking about how much they weigh each part of the selection by % that would not happen as if it was Q1 wins for example some mid majors may have had one or two chances. The other criteria like efficiency adjusted for strength of schedule will provide the best attempt at a fair and balanced selection. Nothing is perfect. Show me something better or laugh. What made me laugh is the idea of fans suggesting eye test. When i watch a team play i can see if they are efficient on both offense AND defense. Those are the teams at the top of their conference and they are pretty easy to find a accurate seed line. The bubble teams worry because the are seperated by the efficiency numbers and the wins.
Click to expand...
Nope. Im not talking about that. I’m talking about how they weight SOS, offensive adjusted efficiency, defensive adjusted efficiency, etc within the net rankings themselves

I know the NET rankings are just one of many metrics used by the selection committee.

That doesn’t mean the NET rankings are any good. They have a formula for creating these horse crap rankings.
People know what’s in the formula....that’s not the same thing as knowing the formula.



bread has flower, yeast, etc
Not a very good recipe if you don’t know how much of each thing.
 

Some guy said:
Nope. Im not talking about that. I’m talking about how they weight SOS, offensive adjusted efficiency, defensive adjusted efficiency, etc within the net rankings themselves

I know the NET rankings are just one of many metrics used by the selection committee.

That doesn’t mean the NET rankings are any good. They have a formula for creating these horse crap rankings.
People know what’s in the formula....that’s not the same thing as knowing the formula.



bread has flower, yeast, etc
Not a very good recipe if you don’t know how much of each thing.
Click to expand...
Great post . You explained it crystal clear. I actually think very highly of NET. You think what you shared. Appreciate the civil disagreement.
 

builtbadgers said:
Great post . You explained it crystal clear. I actually think very highly of NET. You think what you shared. Appreciate the civil disagreement.
Click to expand...
Youre in the wrong thread if you think that horse crap rating is good
 

Some guy said:
Youre in the wrong thread if you think that horse crap rating is good
Click to expand...
I like the vast improvement over RPI or some fans eye test ! Because the OP claims it is the OFFICIAL complain thread. The mod has the power to decide who is on the wrong thread. Fortunately they are wise enough to allow free thinking that may bring about a discussion on what is terrible, what is good, what is better.
 

Still trying to wrap my head around penn state’s 31 ranking when they are under .500 with just 3 quad one wins.

would be nice if they published the formula so people could understand it
 

Some guy said:
Still trying to wrap my head around penn state’s 31 ranking when they are under .500 with just 3 quad one wins.

would be nice if they published the formula so people could understand it
Click to expand...
Without looking at their scores my guess would be they haven't gotten their butts kicked in every loss like we have so their efficiency numbers against other good teams is better. I also remember they killed a very good Virginia Tech team on the road during the Big/ACC Challenge...road wins (especially blowouts) will inflate those numbers.

Edit: But yeah I see your point and feel your pain. We have a great resume and there are teams that have shitty overall records riding high above us.
 

tmvander said:
Without looking at their scores my guess would be they haven't gotten their butts kicked in every loss like we have so their efficiency numbers against other good teams is better. I also remember they killed a very good Virginia Tech team on the road during the Big/ACC Challenge...road wins (especially blowouts) will inflate those numbers.

Edit: But yeah I see your point and feel your pain. We have a great resume and there are teams that have shitty overall records riding high above us.
Click to expand...
They are under .500 overall with their third best win being home against Rutgers?

Yeah let’s put them 31


It’s a flawed formula. They should publish the formula so people can pick at the flaws and they can fine tune it.
 

Some guy said:
They are under .500 overall with their third best win being home against Rutgers?

Yeah let’s put them 31


It’s a flawed formula. They should publish the formula so people can pick at the flaws and they can fine tune it.
Click to expand...
Good news is if we beat them its a quad 1 win
 


Some guy said:
Still trying to wrap my head around penn state’s 31 ranking when they are under .500 with just 3 quad one wins.

would be nice if they published the formula so people could understand it
Click to expand...

But they also pass the "eye test" with a few guys who can shoot and a hardworking banger of a center in the middle.;) Don't be so harsh on the NET.
 

Though 2/11
Illinois is 4th in NET - 22nd in RPI - 4th in Kenpom
Iowa is 8th in NET - 58th in RPI - 5th in Kenpom
Colgate is 13th in NET - 49th in RPI - 102nd in Kenpom
wisconsin is 18th in NET - 55th in RPI - 11th in Kenpom.

After last night, the Gophers have moved up to 49th in NET - 37th in RPI - 36th in Kenpom.

I have no point with these numbers other than to illustrate some pretty wild swings.
 

Unregistered User said:
Though 2/11
Illinois is 4th in NET - 22nd in RPI - 4th in Kenpom
Iowa is 8th in NET - 58th in RPI - 5th in Kenpom
Colgate is 13th in NET - 49th in RPI - 102nd in Kenpom
wisconsin is 18th in NET - 55th in RPI - 11th in Kenpom.

After last night, the Gophers have moved up to 49th in NET - 37th in RPI - 36th in Kenpom.

I have no point with these numbers other than to illustrate some pretty wild swings.
Click to expand...
A road win would give us a big lift. That record is a black eye no matter how good the teams you lose against.
 

builtbadgers said:
A road win would give us a big lift. That record is a black eye no matter how good the teams you lose against.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

That's the poop stain the Gophers need to remove from their resume. They'll shoot up the rankings if or when they get a road win or two vs. anyone other than Nebraska (if that game is played).

The NET is far from perfect, no ranking system is, but overall I'm fine with it. There always will be outliers like Colgate & Penn State (overvalued) and Western Kentucky (undervalued), but as someone else pointed out the Selection Committee is smart enough to sniff those things out. Case in point NC State 2-3 years ago with its fraudulently strong NET ranking getting left out of the tournament because of its laughable non-conference schedule.

The key is don't get obsessed with a TEAM's individual ranking. What's most important is how a team performs vs. groupings of teams. ... Quad 1, Quad 2, etc.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Exactly.

That's the poop stain the Gophers need to remove from their resume. They'll shoot up the rankings if or when they get a road win or two vs. anyone other than Nebraska (if that game is played).

The NET is far from perfect, no ranking system is, but overall I'm fine with it. There always will be outliers like Colgate & Penn State (overvalued) and Western Kentucky (undervalued), but as someone else pointed out the Selection Committee is smart enough to sniff those things out. Case in point NC State 2-3 years ago with its fraudulently strong NET ranking getting left out of the tournament because of its laughable non-conference schedule.

The key is don't get obsessed with a TEAM's individual ranking. What's most important is how a team performs vs. groupings of teams. ... Quad 1, Quad 2, etc.
Click to expand...
Better than I could have said it.
 

SelectionSunday said:
Exactly.

That's the poop stain the Gophers need to remove from their resume. They'll shoot up the rankings if or when they get a road win or two vs. anyone other than Nebraska (if that game is played).

The NET is far from perfect, no ranking system is, but overall I'm fine with it. There always will be outliers like Colgate & Penn State (overvalued) and Western Kentucky (undervalued), but as someone else pointed out the Selection Committee is smart enough to sniff those things out. Case in point NC State 2-3 years ago with its fraudulently strong NET ranking getting left out of the tournament because of its laughable non-conference schedule.

The key is don't get obsessed with a TEAM's individual ranking. What's most important is how a team performs vs. groupings of teams. ... Quad 1, Quad 2, etc.
Click to expand...
Perfect explanation. Get the high Quad victories and the rest will work itself out.
 

SelectionSunday said:
The NET is far from perfect, no ranking system is, but overall I'm fine with it. There always will be outliers like Colgate & Penn State (overvalued) and Western Kentucky (undervalued), but as someone else pointed out the Selection Committee is smart enough to sniff those things out.
Click to expand...

C'mon now, why do you have to hate on Colgate?
;)
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom