You have to remember, this is week 1 and there have been limited games. Those are going to throw ANY computer ranking system off. KenPom has said early season he still uses his own preseason rankings in his formula to help with a base. So teams he has high before 1 game is played will stick higher initially regardless of results. Honestly its not a huge issue, the only real issue will be if a good chunk of games gets cancelled. Then you can have weird outliers stick such as the case now and a loss to Mich St could look awful were a lose vs Colgate wouldnt look bad at all. What this means is that eye test could mean more this year, which is good for us as wins vs Iowa Mich St and Ohio St probably carry more eye test weight than they would in a computer ranking system.
Official complain about net rankings thread
- Thread starter Some guy
- Start date
I doubt doubt humans could and will figure it out. But it is concerning the selection committee points to this broken metric and their number one metric when it is clearly broken. Thanks fully they use more than net
builtbadgers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6,815
- Reaction score
- 2,385
- Points
- 113
Scoring margin no longer matter. They through that out on May 20th. Value changed and home wins over inefficient teams, even ranked do not count as much as before and road wins against efficient wins count for a great deal. The best measure is Kenpom as it shows how well you play in total. The only non top 10 team in kenpom to win at all was UCONN and they did it twice. I would not worry about any of it as winning will take care of it, they will use it for seeding when teams have not played each other. They can not go by fans voting as fan bases are biased. These are adjusted for SOS. Said it before, go out and be 16-4 or 17-3 and you get a 1 or 2 seed. Just like playing efficient on both ends leads to piling up wins. You will win everytime you win PPP on both ends. If your top 3 in the conference in both offense and defense you will be top 3.
GophersInIowa
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 26,971
- Reaction score
- 2,538
- Points
- 113
That’s just flat out wrong. Even though it isn’t directly in the formula, if you are using efficiency ratings in your metric you are innately putting in scoring margin because scoring margin impact efficiency.
a more correct thing to say is they are no longer double counting margin of victory
seeing as how they don’t publish the formula they may actually be accidentally counting victory margin more. Give or take one possession of offense or defense per game efficiency and scoring margin are directly correlated. Efficiency used to be one of I think 5 thinks that played into formula.
They have now reduced the number of factors including taking out margin of victory. But margin of victory used to be capped at 15. Now there are fewer factors in the equation, one that stayed in is efficiency with no cap on how efficient or in efficient you can be on one given game. If my team wins one game 125-23 and then loses 5 games in a row by one point and your team plays those same 6 teams, goes 6-0 but wins them all by 1 point... my team is likely higher rated than yours.
Not saying that happens, but the fact that it could happen means it’s fundamentally flawed as a metric to judge achievement.
Last edited:
matt
Let's get weird
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2010
- Messages
- 3,376
- Reaction score
- 496
- Points
- 83
Colgate has played two games this year, both against the powerhouse Army basketball team and both at home. Their scores in those games illustrate the exact issue many people have with NET rankings.
Game 1: 101-57 Colgate
Game 2: 75-73 Army
Colgate won in extremely efficient fashion in game 1 and lost game 2 in a method that was probably just below average in efficiency. The average of those two games is still a team that is well above average in efficiency. Thus, their NET ranking is still very impressive. Unfortunately Army has played 4 other games this year, but I would have loved to see the NET ranking of a 1-1 Army team without any other games played.
The irony is that Army would have been credited with going 1-1 in Q1 games while Colgate would have likely been 1-1 in Q3 or Q4 games. Army would have had a much better résumé at that point.
Because how you win or los is more important than if you win or lose. Which is the entire reason of why I hate the metric
I hate the NET.
Ope3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,033
- Reaction score
- 590
- Points
- 113
I would start a thread about my indifference to the NET ranking, but I just don't care.
I care and I know it’s a mistake to care.
I’m jealous of you
Ope3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,033
- Reaction score
- 590
- Points
- 113
Nothing is perfect as far as these metrics. I trust intelligent minds can identify the outliers and weed them out accordingly.
tmvander
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 688
- Points
- 113
Couple things to remember.
First, the season is still early. Teams like Boise St and Colgate will fall once they start playing their conference games against 200+ NET teams.
Second, the selection committee doesn't just run down this list and seed teams in the tourney based off of where their NET ranking is. If that were the case we would have been in the tourney last year under .500. This system "helps" the selection committee but isn't the end all be all.
First, the season is still early. Teams like Boise St and Colgate will fall once they start playing their conference games against 200+ NET teams.
Second, the selection committee doesn't just run down this list and seed teams in the tourney based off of where their NET ranking is. If that were the case we would have been in the tourney last year under .500. This system "helps" the selection committee but isn't the end all be all.
gopherguy15
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 473
- Reaction score
- 172
- Points
- 43
Yep, remember NC State had a shiny NET ranking a couple years back, but was left out of the NCAA tournament because they played a cupcake non-conference and didn't notch enough big wins in ACC play.
localhuman
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2018
- Messages
- 109
- Reaction score
- 18
- Points
- 18
Rankings were just updated through yesterday and look a lot more sensible. Apparently the first batch didn't include Sunday's games.
Up to #31...
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
Otis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Messages
- 3,974
- Reaction score
- 767
- Points
- 113
Then why aren't we #1? No one loses on the road like us.
Because we have only done it twice
Colorado is 2-3 on the road.
7-3 overall
1-3 against quad 1
Ranked 14 in the net.
Otis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Messages
- 3,974
- Reaction score
- 767
- Points
- 113
You sure it's not because Dick Vitale picked Wright on his All-American list?
I honestly wonder if Minnesota wins at Michigan if Minnesota is 4th in the net rankings on Thursday
I also wonder if they lose if they move up in the net rankings
Ope3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,033
- Reaction score
- 590
- Points
- 113
Additionally, just like the RPI I don't give a rip about the Gophers own ranking, as long as it is at least 75 or better. What is more meaningful is their record against teams as grouped into Quad 1, 2, 3 & 4.
Last edited:
I think even that is messed up because the quads are based on a flawed ranking.
Right now a road victory over abeldine Christian is a quad 1 win while a home win over Michigan state is a quad 3 win
LOL
tmvander
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 688
- Points
- 113
I'd like for them to edit the huge gaps in advantages it is for the quad wins. Top 30 for a home victory? That's tough. Even in the Big Ten you may only get 2-4 chances of that happening in a year depending on your schedule.
GopherVotary
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,561
- Reaction score
- 525
- Points
- 113
NET is calculated on Dominion machines.
With the original insides or new insides?
We are talking about the NCAA, here, right?
Ope3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,033
- Reaction score
- 590
- Points
- 113
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.
Ope3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,033
- Reaction score
- 590
- Points
- 113
Well, it's more than blind faith (how much is certainly debatable). Time after time though the committee selects essentially the same field as Palm, Lunardi, Davis and our owned esteemed SS. The maybe at most 2-3 teams where there is disagreement on should have won a few more games to not rely on these folks:
From wiki Current NCAA Cmte:
