Offical Net ranking thread

fmlizard

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
393
Points
83
Our RPI is currently 33 ... I don't know much about how it's computed, but ranked 33 is about right for this Gopher team right now, which tells me RPI is doing something right and NET is doing something wrong.
On RealTimeRPI the Gophers dropped 3 spots yesterday, from 30 to 33. It could be teams jumping them, but beating Illinoize soundly actually dropped the Gopher profile yet again.

I suppose there's plenty of chances for splashy wins coming up.
 

Moonlight

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
7,074
Reaction score
83
Points
48
If I wanted to get a business lessons and follow basketball that is purely a business, I'd go see the Timberwolves.
I realize that this board is for dedicated BB freaks, but what I keeps me renewing my tickets is player development. Seeing players learn and evolve. Seems to me that Net ranking can work against putting players in for real time development. I suppect this works against players like Omersa, and it works contrary to the way Pitino wants to coach (as he said) when he needs Dupree to not hold the ball but go for a last shot that in everyones mind is poor sportmanship.
 

Otis

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,494
Reaction score
364
Points
83
NET as of 29 Jan:

#4 Michigan 1-0 over OSU since
#6 Michigan State
#11 Purdue Plays PSU tonight
#12 Wisconsin 1-0 over Nebraska
#21 Maryland 1-0 over NW
#27 Iowa
#28 Nebraska 0-1
#38 Ohio State 0-1 (ranked #1 in initial NET back in Nov)
#44 Indiana 0-1 lost @Rutgers
#50 Minnesota 1-0
#59 Northwestern 0-1
#86 Penn State
#113 Illinois 0-1
#125 Rutgers 1-0 - Hard to figure why with 4 wins in conference they are ranked so much lower than the rest! Baffling.

MSU plays Iowa on Friday(maybe Saturday).

Hard to figure the staying power of Indiana, Nebraska and Ohio State. Especially Indiana and their 7 game losing streak.
 

fmlizard

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
393
Points
83
NET as of 29 Jan:

#4 Michigan 1-0 over OSU since
#6 Michigan State
#11 Purdue Plays PSU tonight
#12 Wisconsin 1-0 over Nebraska
#21 Maryland 1-0 over NW
#27 Iowa
#28 Nebraska 0-1
#38 Ohio State 0-1 (ranked #1 in initial NET back in Nov)
#44 Indiana 0-1 lost @Rutgers
#50 Minnesota 1-0
#59 Northwestern 0-1
#86 Penn State
#113 Illinois 0-1
#125 Rutgers 1-0 - Hard to figure why with 4 wins in conference they are ranked so much lower than the rest! Baffling.
It's like they took the preseason projections and never bothered to change them based on the games.
 

Gopherbbdude

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
177
Points
63
looks like no change from yesterdays game.

still at 50. through Jan. 30th games
 

Gopherbbdude

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
177
Points
63
How in the world can Indiana, OSU, and Nebraska be ahead of us....makes no sense.


rhetorical question above.
 

Holy Man

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
240
Points
63

bc2211

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
101
Points
63
I have said repeatedly that it is not perfect but a combination of many methods, especially who you beat and where is most important will bear out as the best that can be selected for the field. It has never picked the best 68 teams and this will come closer. Agree with you that the best teams do not worry about it because by any measure they are the best teams. The efficiency matric matters more as to how you play and winning than some large single factor in team selection. The coaches picked it , not me. I have the Gophers between 25 and 30 by my biased eyes because it is not possible to remove all bias. When i pull back and look at it on who we beat and where we fall to 43. I count UW at UW as a titan victory, fantastic. Beating Washington on a neutral court is a good win. The rest of the non con being bad is just bad luck. We have games coming up to move way up while other teams are steadily sliding down. Some people forget that i am the one who picked no worse than 13-7, Still writing checks for tickets since 1968, still thinking we could be great. But what i will not do is blindly ignore bad play, not recognize great play by other teams and always tear other people and teams down. I support 4 teams financially and follow several more. People ask what is with the nickname on the board. That was given to me by Pat Richter for what he felt was a role i played on a search committee for a coach and a plan to build a new facility along time ago. I support UCLA because i went to school there in the 60's for my undergrad and i grew up in Carmel California and still maintain a home there. I support the U because my Grandfather was a executive at Piper and had season tickets which i kept starting in 1968 and we keep a family cabin up north. I support UVA because of my relationship through business and friendship with the Bennett's. Ben to hundreds of clinics, thousands of games and been paid as a advance scout. I have stated often that i do not think on a message board that my opinions are any more valuable than anyone else, we all as readers can decide what we do and do not enjoy. I prefer facts over opinion and dislike personal attacks as i was raised and have lived with the idea that anger rots what it lives in. When someone rips on UVA or UW for some perceived style of play than fine. that is preference but when they take shots about UVA choking in March, anything can happen in a one and done tourney. It does not wipe out 30 win seasons and ACC titles and being the only ACC team to leave the season having won anything. When we start to win 30 games and conference titles and stop the off the court garbage then we will be very proud of our Gophers.

Hope you didn't interpret my comment as a negative attack - I think this is my only post in this thread and I'm not trying to reignite the heat you were taking on this thread yesterday. And believe me, I don't have any hangups that you are a Badger supporter. I grew up in Wisconsin and earned my MS at UW, literally knocked on wood through the whole second half of the Sweet 16 in 2000 because I thought it was helping the comeback, and sweated through the Arizona victory to get to the final four in 2013 alone in my Madison apartment because I did not want to face a loss in public with friends who less emotionally invested. I've also been rooting for Tony Bennett simply because my dad loved Dick Bennett. I have equally as strong ties to the UMN and root for them during head to head matchups against UW - but I can relate your commitment to multiple programs, albeit not on the professional or financial level.

My main point in responding, was that in my opinion, this metric should not be judged on how well it characterizes the top or the bottom, but rather how well it characterizes the middle. I come from a statistics background, which doesn't validate my opinion, but that is the lens through which i view this. "We" don't need help determining who is the best, but we need help sorting out who the last 4-8 in the tournament deserves to be. That is where the stakes are the highest, both from a emotional standpoint for the fans, but also a financial perspective for the institutions. The NET is simply a model - and until the committee communicates how this model will weigh on seeding decisions, coaches will and should be changing the way they finish off games in order to maximize their statistical gains.
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,209
Reaction score
398
Points
83
I may searching for proof texts but our last place team without a conference win and a poor non conference record is 86th. Penn State has some talent but has been bad and they are a quality win. Something is off in this metric or it redefines a rising tide lifts all boats in a loaded B1G.
Yep.

As of today, a win @ Penn State is a Quad 2 win.

Go figure.
 

Face The Facts

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
497
Points
83
Updated overlay of Ken Pom and RPI over NET ranked teams. (teams 1- 68)

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

Face The Facts

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
497
Points
83
All teams.
Graph gets a bit busy.

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

Biggest thing to notice is how closely NET aligns with KP.
RPI is widely scattered.
 

Thomasthetank

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
356
Reaction score
23
Points
18
All teams.
Graph gets a bit busy.

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

Biggest thing to notice is how closely NET aligns with KP.
RPI is widely scattered.
So with this linear graph, the selection committee will go right down the line with the NET similar to Pairwise in hockey?
 

Gopherbbdude

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
2,289
Reaction score
177
Points
63
I think everyone is thinking the NCAA committee will use the NET ranking as an end all be all. I really don't think that will be the case.
 

tmvander

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
105
Points
63
I think everyone is thinking the NCAA committee will use the NET ranking as an end all be all. I really don't think that will be the case.
Even if they do they will do more than just look at the number and decide "in or out." These are professionals who do this for a living and will look WAY more closely at the schedule, games played, where played, etc. They will be spending days looking over various forms of data. If they went straight off of NET rankings currently teams with losing records would be in the tourney and that isn't going to happen.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
5,889
Reaction score
709
Points
113
builtbadgers;1684555 It has never picked the best 68 teams and this will come closer. [/QUOTE said:
Picking the best 68 teams is not the goal of the NCAA tournament. If that were the case, there would not be automatic qualifiers from lowly conferences who rarely win a game. I would say that the goal is to pick the best 40 to 50 teams while guaranteeing representation across all conferences.

Unfortunately, the NIT made the foolish decision some years ago to also include automatic qualifiers thereby abandoning the central premise of its title (The National Invitational Tournament) and weakening that tournament. The NCAA already has automatic qualifiers and the other tournaments (CIT and CBI) are exclusively mid-major tournaments.
 

ltf

Active member
Joined
Feb 4, 2018
Messages
861
Reaction score
96
Points
28
If anyone's interested, there is an article that interviews SEC coaches regarding NET. If want to do a search it comes up right away. Not a lot new from those coaches to be honest, pretty much echo Pitino's thoughts.
 

Thomasthetank

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
356
Reaction score
23
Points
18
Hope you didn't interpret my comment as a negative attack - I think this is my only post in this thread and I'm not trying to reignite the heat you were taking on this thread yesterday. And believe me, I don't have any hangups that you are a Badger supporter. I grew up in Wisconsin and earned my MS at UW, literally knocked on wood through the whole second half of the Sweet 16 in 2000 because I thought it was helping the comeback, and sweated through the Arizona victory to get to the final four in 2013 alone in my Madison apartment because I did not want to face a loss in public with friends who less emotionally invested. I've also been rooting for Tony Bennett simply because my dad loved Dick Bennett. I have equally as strong ties to the UMN and root for them during head to head matchups against UW - but I can relate your commitment to multiple programs, albeit not on the professional or financial level.

My main point in responding, was that in my opinion, this metric should not be judged on how well it characterizes the top or the bottom, but rather how well it characterizes the middle. I come from a statistics background, which doesn't validate my opinion, but that is the lens through which i view this. "We" don't need help determining who is the best, but we need help sorting out who the last 4-8 in the tournament deserves to be. That is where the stakes are the highest, both from a emotional standpoint for the fans, but also a financial perspective for the institutions. The NET is simply a model - and until the committee communicates how this model will weigh on seeding decisions, coaches will and should be changing the way they finish off games in order to maximize their statistical gains.
In response to you and builtbadger, you may be correct that the best teams are solidly in and this metric is to "measure" teams seeded 4-11.

However are the teams vying for these lower seeds more erratic and sometines statically an outlier anyways? I understand that as a whole, all teams when regressed fall into the line of best fit or whatever statically appropriate verbiage people want to use. When you use every possession as a data point, you can get accurate measures according to your parameters.

However isnt the parameter just " who ya beat?" Rpi is flawed but its main focus is still just who ya beat and not who you blow out and who you lose to. That's what we are trying to find out: can you beat good teams.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
43,464
Reaction score
2,484
Points
113
Nebraska with its 4 straight losses is still 28th and Indiana and their 7 game losing streak is still ahead of us.
 

Face The Facts

Fleck Superfan
Joined
Feb 26, 2013
Messages
7,845
Reaction score
497
Points
83
Nebraska with its 4 straight losses is still 28th and Indiana and their 7 game losing streak is still ahead of us.
Their efficiency is still better.
Both really blew out some bad teams.
NEB over SE Louisiana 87-35

Also, NEB loses, but they lose closely.
 
Last edited:

bc2211

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
101
Points
63
In response to you and builtbadger, you may be correct that the best teams are solidly in and this metric is to "measure" teams seeded 4-11.

However are the teams vying for these lower seeds more erratic and sometines statically an outlier anyways? I understand that as a whole, all teams when regressed fall into the line of best fit or whatever statically appropriate verbiage people want to use. When you use every possession as a data point, you can get accurate measures according to your parameters.

However isnt the parameter just " who ya beat?" Rpi is flawed but its main focus is still just who ya beat and not who you blow out and who you lose to. That's what we are trying to find out: can you beat good teams.
The fundamental question (which, I guess, has always been there) is do you place more weight on what “has been done” or what “can been done?” In other words, what’s been “earned” by victories vs what likelihood you will win a game in the bracket. The NET certainly tries to put at least some emphasis on the latter, as you pointed out.

As a fan, I’m not sure I’m excited by this shift. I wasn’t excited when Syracuse snuck into the tournament recently with a sub 500 conference record. Of course, they went on to the sweet 16 or beyond (I think?) that year, but it felt to me like they had never earned their way in. I would have preferred to see a mid major getting a shot. But the committee and the coaches have more say in the matter than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
25,499
Reaction score
1,054
Points
113
Their efficiency is still better.
Both really blew out some bad teams.
NEB over SE Louisiana 87-35

Also, NEB loses, but they lose closely.
Rutgers went on a 22-0 run against Indiana last night. Indiana's average margin of loss during the 7 game losing streak is 11.5 points. They did beat Marquette and Louisville earlier this year so that helps a lot I'm guessing.
 

HOOP DREAMS

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,654
Reaction score
8
Points
38
Their efficiency is still better.
Both really blew out some bad teams.
NEB over SE Louisiana 87-35

Also, NEB loses, but they lose closely.
You play to win the game. A loss is a loss. a win is a win. #Facts.

Nebraska with its 4 straight losses is still 28th and Indiana and their 7 game losing streak is still ahead of us.
The system needs to be adjusted.
 
Last edited:

A nonymous

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
477
Reaction score
169
Points
43
Nebraska with its 4 straight losses is still 28th and Indiana and their 7 game losing streak is still ahead of us.
it doesnt matter if you win games, all that matters is if you look like you should be winning games
 

bizzle22

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
1,812
Reaction score
44
Points
48
In response to you and builtbadger, you may be correct that the best teams are solidly in and this metric is to "measure" teams seeded 4-11.

However are the teams vying for these lower seeds more erratic and sometines statically an outlier anyways? I understand that as a whole, all teams when regressed fall into the line of best fit or whatever statically appropriate verbiage people want to use. When you use every possession as a data point, you can get accurate measures according to your parameters.

However isnt the parameter just " who ya beat?" Rpi is flawed but its main focus is still just who ya beat and not who you blow out and who you lose to. That's what we are trying to find out: can you beat good teams.
The main focus of RPI is "who did you play".

Remember, the formula is:
25% is your winning percentage
50% is your opponents' winning percentage
25% is your opponents' opponents' winning percentage

So, your opponents opponents winning percentage matters just as much as your own winning percentage.

If that isn't fundamentally flawed I don't know what is. The coaches wanted to get rid of it with very good reason.
 

Thomasthetank

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
356
Reaction score
23
Points
18
The fundamental question (which, I guess, has always been there) is do you place more weight on what “has been done” or what “can been done?” In other words, what’s been “earned” by victories vs what likelihood you will win a game in the bracket. The NET certainly tries to put at least some emphasis on the latter, as you pointed out.

As a fan, I’m not sure I’m excited by this shift. I wasn’t excited when Syracuse snuck into the tournament recently with a sub 500 conference record. Of course, they went on to the sweet 16 or beyond (I think?) that year, but it felt to me like they had never earned their way in. I would have preferred to see a mid major getting a shot. But the committee and the coaches have more say in the matter than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This ie exactly how I feel. I still feel like you earn your way into the tourney based off what you did and not a projection. A mid major who loses in the conference tourney deserves it just as much
 
Last edited:

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,692
Reaction score
1,424
Points
113
it doesnt matter if you win games, all that matters is if you look like you should be winning games
Looks like winning matters the most but you have to play well to do that. Look at the top 20 in AP, Coaches poll, Kenpom. All with a ton of wins, hardly any losses and no bad losses for wins. Tons of similarities in those 3. Winning, winning against good teams, winning on the road, not losing to bad teams all as a result of playing really well consistently. Keep going down the list and you will see teams decrease in quality play equaling a lower ranking. Obviously i agree that the Gophers are better than Indiana and Nebraska but those two are sinking fast and it will all work out fine. People are having a hard time understanding how playing well results in victories and our resume is skinnier than we hoped because we thought some of those non con wins would be good wins and they are not, plus 2 bad losses.
 

Lakers612

Active member
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Looks like winning matters the most but you have to play well to do that. Look at the top 20 in AP, Coaches poll, Kenpom. All with a ton of wins, hardly any losses and no bad losses for wins. Tons of similarities in those 3. Winning, winning against good teams, winning on the road, not losing to bad teams all as a result of playing really well consistently. Keep going down the list and you will see teams decrease in quality play equaling a lower ranking. Obviously i agree that the Gophers are better than Indiana and Nebraska but those two are sinking fast and it will all work out fine. People are having a hard time understanding how playing well results in victories and our resume is skinnier than we hoped because we thought some of those non con wins would be good wins and they are not, plus 2 bad losses.
I agree with your overall point, but I do think in 2019 most AP writers rely on Kenpom to make their rankings. Kenpom is no longer some esoteric metric
 
Top Bottom