Offical Net ranking thread

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
10,748
Reaction score
506
Points
113
Would love it. UVA would gain tremendously as they have played walk ons and even their manager in too many games to count. They have given away tons of efficiency in the last 3 minutes. Led Florida State 65-36 and played the walk ons and the manager and lost 16-0. Have had several 35-40 point leads, like at Boston College and just let it go, same clemson etc.. They never kept in guys to enhance the final score.
UVA. UVA. UVA. UVA.

Please go to their board.
 

WoodburyTim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
1,398
Reaction score
82
Points
48
READ THIS POST

I like the READ THIS POST disclaimer. It makes it so you don't have to sift through the unimportant posts. As long as we can trust that we won't have people who are on the incorrect side of the arguments using it, we should be fine.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
9,939
Reaction score
1,019
Points
113
One note on efficiency rankings. The efficiency rankings are trying to figure out who the best team is. It can be argued that the Committee should be selecting the best "resumes." I could buy into that argument. But the way they're doing it now actually is that. They use NET to get a list of the best teams, and then they use them to pick the best resume based on wins against Q1 and Q2.

And if you don't think KenPom, etc are good systems for determining who the best teams are, I encourage you to quit your job tomorrow morning. These are the basis for gambling lines, and if you know better than the gambling lines, you'll never have to work again in your life. Just go bet against St Mary's and NC State every game and you'll be #howrich
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,593
Reaction score
1,358
Points
113
I do not use Ken pom for predictive purposes. I use it to see how teams have played and cross it with film review. Top 20 kenpom every year matches incredibly well with conference title contenders. Never a outlier.
 

Moonlight

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
7,072
Reaction score
83
Points
48
Over dinner, discussing the NET system we all agreed it had similarities to the point system problems of getting into The Good Place.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,593
Reaction score
1,358
Points
113
I don’t hate them. I think you are a troll.
Trolls do not write checks to the program for over 50 years. Trolls do not fly back from California for several games a year. Trolls do not lay out facts. Trolls do not cheer for us to win and predict victory at Purdue and still congrats to the team after.
 

WoodburyTim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
1,398
Reaction score
82
Points
48
UVA. UVA. UVA. UVA.

Please go to their board.
Are you done harassing SelectionSunday or is that still going on? I saw on a show on the Oxygen Network that stalkers are rarely fixated on 2 people at one time. That doesn't mean you can't take on builtbadger too if you have the bandwidth, but I think it might be spreading yourself too thin.
 
Last edited:

Bordergopher

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,333
Reaction score
191
Points
63
I support this program among several and this is a free board of opinions. Just skip my posts if you hate them.
Although I’m not in love with NET as you are, I enjoy your posts. Keep posting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
10,748
Reaction score
506
Points
113
Are you done harassing SelectionSunday or is that still going on? I saw on a show on the Oxygen Network that stalkers are rarely fixated on 2 people at one time. That doesn't mean you can't take on builtbadger too if you have the bandwidth, but I think it might be spreading yourself too thin.
Thanks for asking Tim. Bandwidth no issue.
 

Face The Facts

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
7,830
Reaction score
491
Points
83
I still prefer RPI over NET.

RPI was solid.
You knew what the heck would help your score.
Namely, playing teams who won other conferences and beating them.
And also winning games.

Very seldom did you have an issue with a coach wondering why their RPI was different than they thought it should have been.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,593
Reaction score
1,358
Points
113
I still prefer RPI over NET.

RPI was solid.
You knew what the heck would help your score.
Namely, playing teams who won other conferences and beating them.
And also winning games.

Very seldom did you have an issue with a coach wondering why their RPI was different than they thought it should have been.
Coaches hated RPI, they voted for change . None of the top 20 in any metric or poll ever worries about it because they play well so often and pile up not only victories. We were held back by a terrible loss at BC and at Illinois and then the bad fortune of so many of our non con teams ended up sucking. I have watched Oklahoma State several times and they are hot garbage, down 30 yesterday at home ! Utah can not get a good win because they are both not good and only play one good team. That team , Washington is a good team, very well coached and a great hire by the way. Ohio State sucking really hurts too because we were boat raced there. We won huge at UW because of 28 minutes of great defense. We can play with anyone not named Duke when we do that. But we do not do that every time out. The good news is the wonderful opportunities in front of us starting Wednesday. Do not do that and we will not finish tied or ahead of them in any of Pitinos 6 years. Get it done Wednesday.
 

fryguy22

Maroon and Gold from birth
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
1,169
Reaction score
6
Points
38
One note on efficiency rankings. The efficiency rankings are trying to figure out who the best team is. It can be argued that the Committee should be selecting the best "resumes." I could buy into that argument. But the way they're doing it now actually is that. They use NET to get a list of the best teams, and then they use them to pick the best resume based on wins against Q1 and Q2.

And if you don't think KenPom, etc are good systems for determining who the best teams are, I encourage you to quit your job tomorrow morning. These are the basis for gambling lines, and if you know better than the gambling lines, you'll never have to work again in your life. Just go bet against St Mary's and NC State every game and you'll be #howrich
Yep, and as long as NET is used primarily for quadrant sorting, I think it's absolutely fine.
 

Face The Facts

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
7,830
Reaction score
491
Points
83
Coaches hated RPI, they voted for change . None of the top 20 in any metric or poll ever worries about it because they play well so often and pile up not only victories. We were held back by a terrible loss at BC and at Illinois and then the bad fortune of so many of our non con teams ended up sucking. I have watched Oklahoma State several times and they are hot garbage, down 30 yesterday at home ! Utah can not get a good win because they are both not good and only play one good team. That team , Washington is a good team, very well coached and a great hire by the way. Ohio State sucking really hurts too because we were boat raced there. We won huge at UW because of 28 minutes of great defense. We can play with anyone not named Duke when we do that. But we do not do that every time out. The good news is the wonderful opportunities in front of us starting Wednesday. Do not do that and we will not finish tied or ahead of them in any of Pitinos 6 years. Get it done Wednesday.
Why would a coach hate a math equation.

I think what happened was that in search for a better metric, they went two steps backwards.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Points
18
Why would a coach hate a math equation.

I think what happened was that in search for a better metric, they went two steps backwards.
Net will undergo some tweaking in the future there is no doubt. It is really much better right now than RPI when you want to get down to who is really deserving to dance. If you were a bubble team and from a deep power conference(B1G). You better hope that RPI is not the metric used over Net.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,894
Reaction score
671
Points
113
Net will undergo some tweaking in the future there is no doubt. It is really much better right now than RPI when you want to get down to who is really deserving to dance. If you were a bubble team and from a deep power conference(B1G). You better hope that RPI is not the metric used over Net.
Wrong. When teams like Indiana and Nebraska are ranked above Minnesota who has a significantly better record....something is very wrong with the NET rankings. And yesterday during the Purdue game and during the postgame this was discussed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,393
Reaction score
2,166
Points
113
Wrong. When teams like Indiana and Nebraska are ranked above Minnesota who has a significantly better record....something is very wrong with the NET rankings. And yesterday during the Purdue game and during the postgame this was discussed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Nationally, on ESPN a headline story (with Indiana at 4-7) was "How Indiana can make the NCAA tournament"..... No way such a story would ever be written by ESPN were the Gophers in a similar situation.
 

RickDornsby

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
535
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Wrong. When teams like Indiana and Nebraska are ranked above Minnesota who has a significantly better record....something is very wrong with the NET rankings. And yesterday during the Purdue game and during the postgame this was discussed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
It isn’t too crazy of an idea for IU to be considered better if you factor in schedule.

Some of this is luck of scheduling (A&M/Utah being garbage this year) and some of this will be figured out by the 2nd half of BIG play.

NET can be predictive of sorts so you could kind of compare what you think we’d do against these schedules:

Both teams went 6-0 vs cupcakes (adding Santa Clara in ours, debatable)

I’ll just power rank the teams with a pulse on both schedules:
@Duke (IU)
(N) Louisville (IU)
Marquette (IU)
@Arkansas (IU)
(N) Washington (MN)
(N) Butler (IU)
@Boston College (MN)
(Somewhat N) Oklahoma St (MN)
(N)Texas A&M (MN)
Utah (MN)
That’s just non-conference.

Now take conference.
Indiana has played 7 road games. 4 of them were at very tough teams (PU/MSU/UM/MD) 2-5
We’ve played 5 road games 3.5 against tough teams (UW/UM/PU and OSU is maybe) 1-3

Point being, do you really think we’re better than 13-9 and 4-7 with that schedule? Just like Indiana, we’re no lock to win @Rutgers, @PSU, @NW which IU went 1-2 against.

It’ll even out a bit when we finish our tough slate but NET can approximate differerences. It’s obviously dangerous to say, “yeah well if this team played that schedule” but I bet Indiana would argue they’re 16-6 or better against our schedule and oddsmakers would probably agree. How much should the NCAA use that? I don’t know.
 
Last edited:

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,894
Reaction score
671
Points
113
It isn’t too crazy of an idea for IU to be considered better if you factor in schedule.

Some of this is luck of scheduling (A&M/Utah being garbage this year) and some of this will be figured out by the 2nd half of BIG play.

NET can be predictive of sorts so you could kind of compare what you think we’d do against these schedules:

Both teams went 6-0 vs cupcakes (adding Santa Clara in ours, debatable)

I’ll just power rank the teams with a pulse on both schedules:
@Duke (IU)
(N) Louisville (IU)
Marquette (IU)
@Arkansas (IU)
(N) Washington (MN)
Butler (IU)
@Boston College (MN)
(Somewhat N) Oklahoma St (MN)
(N)Utah (MN)
(N)Texas A&M (MN)

That’s just non-conference.

Now take conference.
Indiana has played 7 road games. 4 of them were at very tough teams (PU/MSU/UM/MD) 2-5
We’ve played 5 road games 3.5 against tough teams (UW/UM/PU and OSU is maybe) 1-3

Point being, do you really think we’re better than 13-9 and 4-7 with that schedule? Just like Indiana, we’re no lock to win @Rutgers, @PSU, @NW which IU went 1-2 against.

It’ll even out a bit when we finish our tough slate but NET can approximate differerences. It’s obviously dangerous to say, “yeah well if this team played that schedule” but I bet Indiana would argue they’re 16-6 or better against our schedule and oddsmakers would probably agree. How much should the NCAA use that? I don’t know.
Considering that they are 13-9 overall and 4-7 in conference? While we are 16-6 overall and 6-5 in conference? Indiana is ranked 10 higher in the NET rankings and lost seven in a row at one point. Nebraska is even worse at 13-9 overall and 3-8 in conference play. Should they be ranked 20 higher in the NET rankings with conference wins over Illinois, PSU, and Indiana? Not to mention five straight losses?

Clearly there is something terrible wrong with the NET rankings. I have no problem with factoring in efficiency rankings....but there is no reason why they should take precedence over record.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Points
18
Wrong. When teams like Indiana and Nebraska are ranked above Minnesota who has a significantly better record....something is very wrong with the NET rankings. And yesterday during the Purdue game and during the postgame this was discussed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
No sir. you have 9-10 games left in a power conference which will couple up and drop that net number significantly, a number of quad 1 games because you are in a power conf. where are the Mid-majors going to get those numbers to help themselves? They are not! Just win your games! The rest of it will take care of itself. Not my words, those are Bo Ryan's words. A pretty good coach and went to the NCAA every year he was at Wisconsin.
 

RickDornsby

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
535
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Considering that they are 13-9 overall and 4-7 in conference? While we are 16-6 overall and 6-5 in conference? Indiana is ranked 10 higher in the NET rankings and lost seven in a row at one point. Nebraska is even worse at 13-9 overall and 3-8 in conference play. Should they be ranked 20 higher in the NET rankings with conference wins over Illinois, PSU, and Indiana? Not to mention five straight losses?

Clearly there is something terrible wrong with the NET rankings. I have no problem with factoring in efficiency rankings....but there is no reason why they should take precedence over record.
Did you literally not read anything I wrote? Fair or not, we’ve gotten a bit lucky in scheduling compared to IU.

UNC Greensboro is ranked well below the Gophers in NET and most other ratings and they’re 20-3. Is something wrong with that?
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,593
Reaction score
1,358
Points
113
Did you literally not read anything I wrote? Fair or not, we’ve gotten a bit lucky in scheduling compared to IU.

UNC Greensboro is ranked well below the Gophers in NET and most other ratings and they’re 20-3. Is something wrong with that?
Fans just see the metric they want, They do not like the ones that do not reflect well on their teams. Most fans can not name the Indiana wins. Bo Ryan was right, play efficiently (HARDLY ANYONE DID THAT BETTER ) and win games and will shake out. He did that better than anyone in conference history in conference games ! Do people actually worry a 7-13 Nebraska team is going to make the tourney ! If we go by just wins lets just take the top 4 in every power conference and the rest from the top of the mid majors, that way we will have all the quality earned and tons of cinderellas.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,894
Reaction score
671
Points
113
No sir. you have 9-10 games left in a power conference which will couple up and drop that net number significantly, a number of quad 1 games because you are in a power conf. where are the Mid-majors going to get those numbers to help themselves? They are not! Just win your games! The rest of it will take care of itself. Not my words, those are Bo Ryan's words. A pretty good coach and went to the NCAA every year he was at Wisconsin.
Again....a number of Big Ten teams with significantly worse records are higher up in the NET rankings. That's a major issue. As a Badger fan....I can see how you want to defend the NET rankings seeing as how Wisconsin is overrated in these rankings while their RPI rankings don't favor them as well. Let's not forget that the Gophers beat the Badgers on their home court.

Did you literally not read anything I wrote? Fair or not, we’ve gotten a bit lucky in scheduling compared to IU.

UNC Greensboro is ranked well below the Gophers in NET and most other ratings and they’re 20-3. Is something wrong with that?
It doesn't matter what IU's schedule has been. They haven't exactly been winning many of those games so why should their schedule matter? And UNC Greensboro plays in the SoCon. They've won a few more games against significantly worse competition. The kind of competition that that we moped up in the non-conference schedule.
 

RickDornsby

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
535
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Again....a number of Big Ten teams with significantly worse records are higher up in the NET rankings. That's a major issue. As a Badger fan....I can see how you want to defend the NET rankings seeing as how Wisconsin is overrated in these rankings while their RPI rankings don't favor them as well. Let's not forget that the Gophers beat the Badgers on their home court.



It doesn't matter what IU's schedule has been. They haven't exactly been winning many of those games so why should their schedule matter? And UNC Greensboro plays in the SoCon. They've won a few more games against significantly worse competition. The kind of competition that that we moped up in the non-conference schedule.
Ok, answer my question: if we had IU’s schedule so far, our record would be...

A debate can be had about how far you want to take that, but if you can’t understand why IU might be a better team with a tougher schedule, that’s on you.

Yes, we both play in the BIG. However, Indiana played a way, way tougher schedule out of conference and has drawn a few tougher B10 games so far.

And we should sing the praises of NET. As noted by the Badger fans, NET is primarily to decide “good wins.” Maybe it’s not a bad thing if IU, WI, Illinois, Nebraska are overrated. Those could be our best/potentially best wins.

A good example (I’m not a Badger fan as you’ve accused) is Wisconsin in football 2 years ago.

“They’re 12-0 and a Big 10 team.”

Yeah, well they played no one in non-conference and played a sloppy Big 10 West. So maybe several 1 and 2 loss teams were better at that point, right?
 
Last edited:

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
18,894
Reaction score
671
Points
113
Ok, answer my question: if we had IU’s schedule so far, our record would be...

A debate can be had about how far you want to take that, but if you can’t understand why IU might be a better team with a tougher schedule, that’s on you.

Yes, we both play in the BIG. However, Indiana played a way, way tougher schedule out of conference and has drawn a few tougher B10 games so far.

And we should sing the praises of NET. As noted by the Badger fans, NET is primarily to decide “good wins.” Maybe it’s not a bad thing if IU, WI, Illinois, Nebraska are overrated. Those could be our best/potentially best wins.

A good example (I’m not a Badger fan as you’ve accused) is Wisconsin in football 2 years ago.

“They’re 12-0 and a Big 10 team.”

Yeah, well they played no one in non-conference and played a sloppy Big 10 West. So maybe several 1 and 2 loss teams were better at that point, right?
Indiana beat beat Marquette, Louisville, and MSU. They also had bad losses to Arkansas, Nebraska, PSU, and Rutgers.

We've beaten Washington (18-4 overall and on an 11 game win streak), Wisconsin, and Iowa. We've had bad losses to BC and Illinois.

So are you saying that if we played a slightly tougher schedule and lost more games that we deserve to be ranked higher in the net rankings? That doesn't make any sense.
 

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
18,951
Reaction score
251
Points
83
Ok, answer my question: if we had IU’s schedule so far, our record would be...

A debate can be had about how far you want to take that, but if you can’t understand why IU might be a better team with a tougher schedule, that’s on you.

Yes, we both play in the BIG. However, Indiana played a way, way tougher schedule out of conference and has drawn a few tougher B10 games so far.

And we should sing the praises of NET. As noted by the Badger fans, NET is primarily to decide “good wins.” Maybe it’s not a bad thing if IU, WI, Illinois, Nebraska are overrated. Those could be our best/potentially best wins.

A good example (I’m not a Badger fan as you’ve accused) is Wisconsin in football 2 years ago.

“They’re 12-0 and a Big 10 team.”

Yeah, well they played no one in non-conference and played a sloppy Big 10 West. So maybe several 1 and 2 loss teams were better at that point, right?
He didn't call you a wisconsin fan.

Also, wisconsin football in 2017 is a terrible example because they absolutely would've made the playoffs had they won the Big Ten.
 

RickDornsby

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
535
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Indiana beat beat Marquette, Louisville, and MSU. They also had bad losses to Arkansas, Nebraska, PSU, and Rutgers.

We've beaten Washington (18-4 overall and on an 11 game win streak), Wisconsin, and Iowa. We've had bad losses to BC and Illinois.

So are you saying that if we played a slightly tougher schedule and lost more games that we deserve to be ranked higher in the net rankings? That doesn't make any sense.
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.
 
Top Bottom