Official complain about net rankings thread

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,974
Reaction score
2,530
Points
113
Shucks, I should start an "Official complain about the Pairwise rankings" thread on the Gopher Puck msg board.
It may get hits. Just reality that there are a lot of complainers and excuse makers.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,746
Reaction score
1,817
Points
113
It may get hits. Just reality that there are a lot of complainers and excuse makers.
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
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,974
Reaction score
2,530
Points
113
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
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.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,746
Reaction score
1,817
Points
113
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.
You want to link me to the formula?
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,974
Reaction score
2,530
Points
113
You want to link me to the formula?
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.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,746
Reaction score
1,817
Points
113
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.
You can find what is in it, I’ve never seen the formula itself with the weights on the different components
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,746
Reaction score
1,817
Points
113
I don't believe they publish the actual Al Gore Rhythm used, but here is a better explanation:

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
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,974
Reaction score
2,530
Points
113
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
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.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,746
Reaction score
1,817
Points
113
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.
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
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,974
Reaction score
2,530
Points
113
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
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.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,746
Reaction score
1,817
Points
113
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.
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.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,974
Reaction score
2,530
Points
113
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.
Great post . You explained it crystal clear. I actually think very highly of NET. You think what you shared. Appreciate the civil disagreement.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,746
Reaction score
1,817
Points
113
Great post . You explained it crystal clear. I actually think very highly of NET. You think what you shared. Appreciate the civil disagreement.
Youre in the wrong thread if you think that horse crap rating is good
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,974
Reaction score
2,530
Points
113
Youre in the wrong thread if you think that horse crap rating is good
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.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,746
Reaction score
1,817
Points
113
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
 

tmvander

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
869
Points
113
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
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.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,746
Reaction score
1,817
Points
113
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.
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.
 

tmvander

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
869
Points
113
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.
Good news is if we beat them its a quad 1 win
 

Holy Man

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
3,901
Reaction score
351
Points
83
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
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.
 

Unregistered User

Wild animal with a keyboard
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
11,826
Reaction score
380
Points
83
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.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,974
Reaction score
2,530
Points
113
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.
A road win would give us a big lift. That record is a black eye no matter how good the teams you lose against.
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,446
Reaction score
646
Points
113
A road win would give us a big lift. That record is a black eye no matter how good the teams you lose against.
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.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,974
Reaction score
2,530
Points
113
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.
Better than I could have said it.
 

tmvander

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
869
Points
113
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.
Perfect explanation. Get the high Quad victories and the rest will work itself out.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
637
Points
113
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.
C'mon now, why do you have to hate on Colgate?
;)
 
Top Bottom