Overall Strength of Schedule (SOS) Based On Last Season's Final NET Rankings

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
I'll update this as I get complete schedules.

Average NET of All Opponents -- 350 of 353 complete (the 3 incomplete schedules included in rankings)
1 Oklahoma 71.466
2 Purdue 73.333
3 Oklahoma State 73.833
4 Minnesota 73.933
5 Alabama 76.655
6 Michigan State 77.586
7 Texas 77.933
8 Kansas 78.724
9 Iowa State 79.482
10 West Virginia 80.6
11 Auburn 80.966
12 Florida 81.793
13 Michigan 81.965
14 North Carolina 84.448
15 TCU 85.366
16 Ohio State 85.838
17 Wisconsin 86.7
18 Indiana 86.774
19 Arkansas 87.032
20 Seton Hall 87.142
21 Iowa 87.333
22 Butler 87.633
23 Tennessee 88.833
24 Miami-Florida 89.678
25 Wake Forest 90.178
26 Northwestern 90.551
27 Mississippi State 90.689
28 Baylor 90.964
29 Texas A&M 91.035
30 Kentucky 91.645
31 Maryland 91.655
32 Georgia Tech 92.068
33 Missouri 92.1
34 Penn State 92.366
35 Georgetown 93.166
36 Kansas State 93.366
37 Illinois 93.548
38 LSU 94.064
39 Georgia 94.172
40 Clemson 94.896
41 Virginia 97.137
42 Texas Tech 97.166
43 Vanderbilt 97.645
44 Duke 98.233
45 Villanova 98.413
46 Syracuse 99.633
47 Boston College 100
48 Creighton 100.482
49 Louisville 100.483
50 Nebraska 101.068
51 DePaul 101.354
52 Cincinnati 102.178
53 Xavier 102.793
54 Ole Miss 104.033
55 Providence 104.137
56 NC State 106.225
57 Florida State 106.666
58 Cal 106.866
59 Notre Dame 107.322
60 Marquette 107.642
61 Rutgers 107.967
62 USF 108.275
63 Wichita State 109.4
64 Pitt 111
65 South Carolina 111.133
66 Oregon 112.758
67 Arizona 114.793
68 Arizona State 117.966
69 Saint John’s 119.566
70 Temple 123.068
71 UConn 123.344
72 Virginia Tech 123.379
73 Colorado 124.333
74 USC 124.62
75 Houston 126.172
76 Utah 127.321
77 Tulane 127.592
78 UCLA 128.724
79 Memphis 129.838
80 Washington 130.517
81 UCF 131.642
82 Stanford 133.566
83 Saint Mary’s 134.466
84 SMU 135.333
85 BYU 140.827
86 Tulsa 143.548
87 Saint Joseph’s 143.896
88 Oregon State 145.166
89 East Carolina 148.275
90 Rhode Island 149.766
91 Washington State 149.793
92 Ohio 152.206
93 Kent State 152.275
94 Gonzaga 152.965
95 VCU 155.033
96 UMass 155.3
97 San Francisco 155.419
98 San Diego 155.6
99 Middle Tennessee 156.64
100 UNLV 157.612
101 Western Kentucky 158.043
102 Davidson 158.107
103 Princeton 158.384
104 Ball State 158.655
105 Richmond 159.5
106 Colorado State 159.965
107 Dayton 160.517
108 Illinois State 160.892
109 Wyoming 161.62
110 Miami-Ohio 163.137
111 Penn 163.56
112 Bowling Green 163.678
113 Buffalo 164.034
114 Western Michigan 164.7
115 La Salle 165
116 Duquesne 165.233
117 San Jose State 165.4
118 UT-Arlington 167.645
119 Saint Louis 168.548
120 Evansville 168.758
121 Central Michigan 170.387
122 George Mason 171
123 Marshall 171.111
124 San Diego State 171.178
125 Eastern Michigan 172.161
126 Loyola Marymount 172.233
127 *Utah State 173.034
128 Bradley 173.5
129 Yale 173.517
130 North Texas 173.666
131 Nevada 173.821
132 Pepperdine 174.714
133 Toledo 176.032
134 George Washington 176.517
135 Northern Illinois 176.87
136 Kennesaw State 176.966
137 Saint Bonaventure 177.4
138 Missouri State 177.413
139 Valparaiso 178
140 Boise State 178.5
141 Harvard 178.777
142 Detroit 178.87
143 Northern Iowa 179.103
144 Southern Illinois 179.612
145 Indiana State 180
146 New Mexico 180.433
147 Southern Miss 180.64
148 Old Dominion 181.32
149 North Florida 181.6
150 Loyola-Chicago 181.965
151 UTEP 182.458
152 Bakersfield 182.677
153 Cleveland State 183.5
154 Cornell 184.592
155 *Fresno State 186.444
156 Rice 186.72
157 Navy 186.793
158 Portland 186.965
159 Towson 187.107
160 William & Mary 187.161
161 Columbia 187.896
162 Air Force 188.233
163 Georgia State 188.633
164 Akron 188.666
165 Chicago State 188.966
166 Brown 189.111
167 Texas State 189.935
168 Oakland 190.064
169 Dartmouth 190.137
170 Seattle 190.333
171 Louisiana Tech 190.346
172 UTSA 190.518
173 Mercer 190.8
174 Chattanooga 190.933
175 Texas-Rio Grande Valley 191.066
176 Long Beach State 191.5
177 Lafayette 191.551
178 Louisiana 191.838
179 UMKC 191.896
180 NC-Greensboro 193.096
181 Charlotte 193.16
182 Elon 193.166
183 Western Carolina 193.31
184 Little Rock 194.258
185 Georgia Southern 194.29
186 Appalachian State 194.548
187 Wofford 194.612
188 Pacific 195.031
189 Furman 195.935
190 FAU 196.653
191 Samford 197.187
192 Fordham 197.214
193 UAB 197.333
194 The Citadel 197.448
195 Santa Clara 197.58
196 Troy 198.129
197 Drake 198.137
198 Gardner-Webb 199.344
199 NC-Wilmington 199.838
200 South Alabama 199.896
201 College of Charleston 200.357
202 Winthrop 201.935
203 Green Bay 202.064
204 High Point 202.354
205 North Alabama 202.413
206 Loyola-Maryland 202.466
207 James Madison 202.724
208 UIC 203
209 Grand Canyon 203.407
210 Drexel 203.533
211 Arkansas State 203.677
212 Army 204.172
213 Cal Poly 204.793
214 Bucknell 205.566
215 Holy Cross 205.733
216 FIU 206.111
217 Lehigh 206.133
218 Florida Gulf Coast 206.258
219 VMI 206.354
220 UL-Monroe 206.482
221 Northeastern 206.607
222 IUPUI 207.3
223 East Tennessee State 207.933
224 NJIT 208.344
225 Belmont 208.354
226 Coastal Carolina 208.448
227 Colgate 208.483
228 Radford 208.888
229 Tennessee Tech 209.354
230 Milwaukee 209.464
231 SC-Upstate 210.193
232 Delaware 211.451
233 Oral Roberts 213.034
234 Northern Kentucky 213.133
235 Cal State-Northridge 213.406
236 Hofstra 214.033
237 UC-Irvine 214.096
238 Vermont 214.533
239 North Dakota 214.7
240 Maine 215.2
241 Tennessee-Martin 215.821
242 Tennessee State 216.4
243 Cal State-Fullerton 216.483
244 New Mexico State 216.689
245 Boston U 216.9
246 Jacksonville 217.774
247 Utah Valley 218.87
248 Stony Brook 219.677
249 Eastern Washington 220.064
250 Denver 220.5
251 Southern Utah 220.586
252 Youngstown State 220.774
253 Southeast Missouri State 220.903
254 Eastern Kentucky 220.935
255 Central Arkansas 221.433
256 Charleston Southern 221.758
257 Lipscomb 221.827
258 Alabama State 222
259 Austin Peay 222.87
260 Houston Baptist 223.413
261 American 223.482
262 Stetson 223.774
263 Omaha 223.9
264 Binghamton 224.206
265 UC-Davis 224.5
266 Morehead State 225.096
267 Albany 225.741
268 Cal Baptist 226.166
269 Wright State 226.758
270 Presbyterian 227.096
271 Hawaii 227.535
272 North Dakota State 228.066
273 Montana State 228.096
274 *Arkansas-Pine Bluff 228.166
275 Weber State 228.379
276 Hampton 228.645
277 SIU-Edwardsville 228.967
278 Campbell 229.333
279 *UMBC 231.857
280 Eastern Illinois 231.866
281 Texas Southern 232.29
282 Jacksonville State 233.2
283 UMass-Lowell 233.354
284 Fort Wayne 233.838
285 NC-Asheville 234.586
286 Montana 235
287 New Hampshire 235.413
288 Canisius 235.666
289 Northern Arizona 235.862
290 UMES 236.222
291 Monmouth 236.225
292 Texas A&M Corpus-Christi 236.419
293 Western Illinois 236.769
294 Portland State 237
295 Siena 237.137
296 South Dakota State 237.193
297 South Dakota 237.433
298 Niagara 238.935
299 UC-Riverside 239.093
300 Mount Saint Mary’s 239.774
301 Idaho State 240.206
302 Liberty 240.357
303 Hartford 240.612
304 Florida A&M 241.037
305 Idaho 241.161
306 Robert Morris 241.29
307 Sacramento State 243.724
308 Central Connecticut 243.933
309 Murray State 244.535
310 Fairfield 245.068
311 Saint Peter’s 245.137
312 UCSB 245.548
313 Mississippi Valley State 245.838
314 Wagner 245.896
315 Merrimack 246.387
316 Coppin State 247.225
317 Longwood 247.322
318 Prairie View A&M 247.766
319 Saint Francis-PA 248.448
320 Alabama A&M 249.31
321 Rider 249.62
322 Northern Colorado 250.333
323 Sacred Heart 251
324 Stephen F. Austin 251.322
325 Lamar 251.709
326 Southeastern Louisiana 251.741
327 Manhattan 251.793
328 Southern U 252
329 Nicholls State 253.032
330 Sam Houston State 253.451
331 New Orleans 253.6
332 LIU 255.6
333 Howard 256.806
334 Bryant 258.096
335 Iona 258.777
336 Northwestern State 260.517
337 Fairleigh Dickinson 260.586
338 Quinnipiac 260.931
339 North Carolina A&T 261.466
340 McNeese State 262.193
341 Jackson State 263.419
342 Abilene Christian 263.516
343 NCCU 265.733
344 South Carolina State 266.892
345 Delaware State 266.896
346 Saint Francis-NY 268.6
347 Marist 269.241
348 Incarnate Word 270.419
349 Grambling 272.258
350 Bethune-Cookman 273.233
351 Norfolk State 273.433
352 Alcorn State 275.033
353 Morgan State 275.896
 
Last edited:

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
B1G Only

9 of 14 B1G Schedules Completed
1 Purdue 73.333
2 Michigan State 77.586
3 Michigan 81.965
4 Wisconsin 86.7
5 Northwestern 90.551
6 Maryland 91.655
7 Penn State 92.366
8 Nebraska 101.068
9 Rutgers 107.967
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
Still waiting. ...

for non-conference schedule releases from:

Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Minnesota
Ohio State
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
3 in the top 10 so far? Good to see the conference scheduling aggressively.
Here's how the non-conference scheduling looks so far, a clear look of how teams are scheduling outside their conference.

This one I won't update again until all 353 schedules are complete, except for when the Gophers officially announce their complete schedule.

Average NET of Non-Conference Opponents
1 Purdue 113.3
2 North Carolina 114.777
3 Texas Southern 114.846
4 Florida 119.181
5 Auburn 121
6 Butler 122.583
7 Central Arkansas 123.4
8 Seton Hall 126.8
9 Mississippi State 130.6
10 Cal 131.416
11 Oklahoma State 131.583
12 Nevada 132.4
13 Tennessee 133.666
14 Texas 135.333
15 Kentucky 135.692
16 Western Kentucky 137
17 Michigan State 137.777
18 UT-Arlington 138.545
19 Georgetown 139.416
20 Kansas 139.727
21 Iowa State 142.09
22 Arizona 142.636
23 Arizona State 143.25
24 Temple 143.454
25 LSU 146.153
26 Colorado State 150.454
27 Missouri 151.166
28 Duke 151.2
29 Long Beach State 151.357
30 Michigan 151.555
31 Utah 152.3
32 Texas A&M 152.6
33 West Virginia 154.166
34 Siena 155.444
35 Wichita State 156.166
36 TCU 156.25
37 Syracuse 156.8
38 Oakland 157.384
39 Vermont 158
40 UNLV 158.538
41 Washington 160.181
42 Louisville 160.727
43 Wisconsin 163.2
44 Alabama A&M 163.818
45 USC 164.363
46 UMass 165.166
47 Xavier 165.363
48 Dayton 166.272
49 UCF 167.2
50 La Salle 167.5
51 Georgia 171
52 San Francisco 171.266
53 Providence 171.272
54 Kansas State 172.25
55 Boston College 173.09
56 Bradley 174.083
57 UConn 175.181
58 Maryland 175.333
59 Eastern Washington 175.636
60 Towson 175.9
61 Wake Forest 176.125
62 Penn State 176.5
63 Notre Dame 177.363
64 Stanford 177.833
65 Marquette 178.2
66 Yale 178.266
T67 Miami-Florida 179
T67 Virginia 179
69 Bucknell 179.583
70 UCLA 180.09
71 Old Dominion 181.727
72 Missouri State 182.09
73 College of Charleston 182.4
74 Texas A&M-Corpus Christi 182.727
75 Stony Brook 184
76 George Mason 184.727
77 Houston 185
78 Texas Tech 185.416
79 Florida State 185.5
80 Ole Miss 187.5
81 Oral Roberts 187.692
82 Fairfield 189.666
83 Saint Francis-PA 191.09
84 Central Connecticut 193.333
85 Northwestern 194.444
86 Wofford 194.538
87 Harvard 195.923
88 Montana 196.272
89 Indiana State 196.363
90 Maine 197.428
91 Texas State 197.545
92 San Jose State 197.583
93 Tulsa 201.307
94 Saint John’s 203.916
95 Sacred Heart 206.615
96 Fairleigh Dickinson 209.636
97 NC-Wilmington 209.923
98 Appalachian State 210.181
99 Jacksonville State 210.833
100 Binghamton 214.615
101 Rice 215.363
102 UTEP 215.7
103 Tulane 216.111
104 Pitt 216.7
105 Norfolk State 216.785
106 James Madison 216.818
107 Nebraska 217.444
108 Miami-Ohio 219.09
109 Boston U 220.916
110 Columbia 222.2
111 Brown 222.461
112 Western Michigan 222.5
113 Pepperdine 222.666
114 Stephen F. Austin 223.363
115 Air Force 225
116 UMass-Lowell 226.533
117 Northern Arizona 226.666
118 Rutgers 228.09
119 Bryant 228.307
120 Chattanooga 229
121 Quinnipiac 229.444
122 Hampton 231.153
T123 Arkansas State 234.909
T123 Wright State 234.909
125 Hartford 235.785
126 Washington State 236.545
127 Murray State 237.9
128 Charlotte 238.636
129 Western Carolina 242.181
130 New Hampshire 242.538
131 Liberty 244.5
132 Idaho State 245.111
133 Sacramento State 248.444
134 Virginia Tech 255.111
135 Marist 264.444
136 VMI 267.461
137 Santa Clara 271
138 Cal Baptist 279.071
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
Big Ten Only

10 of 14 B1G Schedules Completed
1 Purdue 73.333
2 Michigan State 77.586
3 Michigan 81.965
4 Ohio State 85.838
5 Wisconsin 86.7
6 Northwestern 90.551
7 Maryland 91.655
8 Penn State 92.366
9 Nebraska 101.068
10 Rutgers 107.967
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
6,130
Reaction score
372
Points
83
I appreciate the info, but net rankings still are a terrible metric.

Team A and Team B play Team C and Team D

Team A beats both C and D by 1 point.
Team B beats team C by 10 points but loses to D by 1 point.


Who had a better two games. Any rating based on logic would put the unbeaten team as the more successful. Any rating based on efficiency would do the opposite.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,590
Reaction score
1,354
Points
113
I appreciate the info, but net rankings still are a terrible metric.

Team A and Team B play Team C and Team D

Team A beats both C and D by 1 point.
Team B beats team C by 10 points but loses to D by 1 point.


Who had a better two games. Any rating based on logic would put the unbeaten team as the more successful. Any rating based on efficiency would do the opposite.
Two games is a small sample size. SS said based on last years whole body of work. It is a fact that the best teams were most efficient.
 

alchemy2u

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
4,236
Reaction score
394
Points
83
Two games is a small sample size. SS said based on last years whole body of work. It is a fact that the best teams were most efficient.
You can believe this all you want, and logic would seem to follow, but the weight of the variables in NET are wrong. Efficiency tends to correlate with better teams, but the example shows the problem with the NET rankings. Actual wins matter more than efficiency. If the fundamental logic is flawed, sample size will not fix it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
I appreciate the info, but net rankings still are a terrible metric.

Team A and Team B play Team C and Team D

Team A beats both C and D by 1 point.
Team B beats team C by 10 points but loses to D by 1 point.


Who had a better two games. Any rating based on logic would put the unbeaten team as the more successful. Any rating based on efficiency would do the opposite.
It’s the ranking system they use, so it’s the one I’m using here. It’s not an endorsement. Chill, my man!
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,590
Reaction score
1,354
Points
113
You can believe this all you want, and logic would seem to follow, but the weight of the variables in NET are wrong. Efficiency tends to correlate with better teams, but the example shows the problem with the NET rankings. Actual wins matter more than efficiency. If the fundamental logic is flawed, sample size will not fix it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Actual wins are the result of efficient play. You can not win if your opponent is more efficient than you are. OE and DE are the measures in a game that result on the points you score and those you give up. Two mediocre teams can and often play poorly. If they play each other one of them wins . If a good team plays at Duke and it was a incredible well played game it will be measured for that. Why not, to me it means nothing if a team ranked 50th wins against a team ranked 300th and both turn it over 25 times. The winner of that game is not better than a team that lost closely in a well played game at a top ranked team. Since everybody can not play everyone they needed a tool to differentiate. I would love a world where everyone could play everyone home and away but the best teams would be the ones that played the best most often. It would look very much how Kenpom looked after last season, or NET or conference standings, or the NCAA tourney.
 

alchemy2u

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
4,236
Reaction score
394
Points
83
Actual wins are the result of efficient play. You can not win if your opponent is more efficient than you are. OE and DE are the measures in a game that result on the points you score and those you give up. Two mediocre teams can and often play poorly. If they play each other one of them wins . If a good team plays at Duke and it was a incredible well played game it will be measured for that. Why not, to me it means nothing if a team ranked 50th wins against a team ranked 300th and both turn it over 25 times. The winner of that game is not better than a team that lost closely in a well played game at a top ranked team. Since everybody can not play everyone they needed a tool to differentiate. I would love a world where everyone could play everyone home and away but the best teams would be the ones that played the best most often. It would look very much how Kenpom looked after last season, or NET or conference standings, or the NCAA tourney.
Sports are played to determine who actually wins, not who is technically the best team. Usually the better team wins, but not always!

If the earlier example was about B1G conference games, the team that is 2-0 is better than the team that is 1-1. And as you always say: you need to have above .500 conference records to judge a team/coach. But NET ranking would have the 1-1 team above the 2-0 team. OK, so you say the sample size is too small. Just extend the example where the one team ends up 10-0 and wins by 1 point every game, where the second team ends up 7-3 winning by 10 points and losing by 1 point. Which team plays for the conference championship, gets seeded higher in the tourney, etc...

Team efficiencies can be an indicator of how good a team is, but it needs to be held into context. And just because NET includes some OE and DE in its calculations doesn’t mean that it does it correctly. NET was just one of the rankings used last year, but it was not the primary source. Rightfully so, there were some higher NET ranked teams left out of the tournament.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,590
Reaction score
1,354
Points
113
Of course the best team does not always win a given game. I value wins as much as anyone alive. Note the high standard i hold for success. It holds only character and winning. The best coaches are tracking all kinds of data but the one that defines success is efficiency. The NET has its flaws but it has to be used to bridge the game on all the teams that never play each other. This staff now is placing its attention to efficiency, not the NET. If you do great in efficiency then NET is taking care of.
 

alchemy2u

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
4,236
Reaction score
394
Points
83
Of course the best team does not always win a given game. I value wins as much as anyone alive. Note the high standard i hold for success. It holds only character and winning. The best coaches are tracking all kinds of data but the one that defines success is efficiency. The NET has its flaws but it has to be used to bridge the game on all the teams that never play each other. This staff now is placing its attention to efficiency, not the NET. If you do great in efficiency then NET is taking care of.
agree
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
6,130
Reaction score
372
Points
83
Two games is a small sample size. SS said based on last years whole body of work. It is a fact that the best teams were most efficient.
That is not always the case.
On average, efficiency in all of the games will lead to winning records.
In individual cases it may be completely flawed.


It is funny you say that the reason my example is bad is too small of a sample a size. Because a 30 game schedule to judge 350 teams is exactly why efficiency is a bad metric to use as the primary ranker of teams. Too small of a sample size.
In a sample size that small, things like wins, winning percentage, and SOS are more reliable to judge quality of accomplishment than point margins.


If all the ncaa teams played everyone, efficiency would be a better metric.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,590
Reaction score
1,354
Points
113
That is not always the case.
On average, efficiency in all of the games will lead to winning records.
In individual cases it may be completely flawed.


It is funny you say that the reason my example is bad is too small of a sample a size. Because a 30 game schedule to judge 350 teams is exactly why efficiency is a bad metric to use as the primary ranker of teams. Too small of a sample size.
In a sample size that small, things like wins, winning percentage, and SOS are more reliable to judge quality of accomplishment than point margins.


If all the ncaa teams played everyone, efficiency would be a better metric.
Efficiency measures how well you played in any time frame. You can not lose a game if your more efficient than your opponent. No way to just look at a teams win totals. You have many 20-10 teams far better than a team that won 25 games against a weak schedule. NET is used because not everyone plays each other. What measure do you want to use to try and find out 68 deserving teams and seeds ? Keep in mind that i do not think there are 68 good teams or deserving teams. I like the tourney when 24 teams got in, with the top 8 getting bye's as a reward for a truly great regular season. This is before they diminished the regular season for many fans and before they put all the attention into a crap shoot of a tourney. I liked getting teams in that proved great skill over 4 months instead of 3 weeks. But, i also embrace change and coaches wanted a way to measure deserving teams receiving due for playing tougher games and a examination of how they were played. Straight wins just does not do that.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
6,130
Reaction score
372
Points
83
Efficiency measures how well you played in any time frame. You can not lose a game if your more efficient than your opponent. No way to just look at a teams win totals. You have many 20-10 teams far better than a team that won 25 games against a weak schedule. NET is used because not everyone plays each other. What measure do you want to use to try and find out 68 deserving teams and seeds ? Keep in mind that i do not think there are 68 good teams or deserving teams. I like the tourney when 24 teams got in, with the top 8 getting bye's as a reward for a truly great regular season. This is before they diminished the regular season for many fans and before they put all the attention into a crap shoot of a tourney. I liked getting teams in that proved great skill over 4 months instead of 3 weeks. But, i also embrace change and coaches wanted a way to measure deserving teams receiving due for playing tougher games and a examination of how they were played. Straight wins just does not do that.
Correct. I agree. Good metric to judge similar record teams.


But when you say 17-13 team is better than 20-10 team with similar SOS it is ridiculous
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
5,792
Reaction score
647
Points
113
Correct. I agree. Good metric to judge similar record teams.


But when you say 17-13 team is better than 20-10 team with similar SOS it is ridiculous
I think "better" is not quite the right concept. If this metric is used to select teams for the NCAA tournament, the concept should be "deserving." I would say that the 20-10 team with a SOS not significantly different from the 17-13 team is more deserving. If the 17-13 team had some expectations going into the season, then that team probably underachieved on the W/L dimension relative to those expectations. In retrospect, I think RPI really was a better measure for tournament selection because it considered only W/L and SOS. More quantitative complexity isn't always better, particularly if the greater "precision" isn't measuring the fundamental concept.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
6,130
Reaction score
372
Points
83
I think "better" is not quite the right concept. If this metric is used to select teams for the NCAA tournament, the concept should be "deserving." I would say that the 20-10 team with a SOS not significantly different from the 17-13 team is more deserving. If the 17-13 team had some expectations going into the season, then that team probably underachieved on the W/L dimension relative to those expectations. In retrospect, I think RPI really was a better measure for tournament selection because it considered only W/L and SOS. More quantitative complexity isn't always better, particularly if the greater "precision" isn't measuring the fundamental concept.
RPI has issues too.

My biggest issue with RPI is it measured:
Winning percentage
Opponents winning percentage
Opponents’ opponents winning percentage


I think number 1 is most important. RPI ties it for least important.
I think RPI should be 50% Winning%
30% opponents win %
20% opponents’ opponents winning%
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
Big Ten Overall SOS and Big Ten Non-Conferences SOS

This is through 10 teams completed. Number is average NET ranking of opponents.

Overall SOS
1 Purdue 73.333
2 Michigan State 77.586
3 Michigan 81.965
4 Ohio State 85.838
5 Wisconsin 86.7
6 Northwestern 90.551
7 Maryland 91.655
8 Penn State 92.366
9 Nebraska 101.068
10 Rutgers 107.967

**Gophers opponents through 26 (of 31) known games have average NET ranking of 58.192

Non-Conference SOS
1 Purdue 113.3
2 Michigan State 137.777
3 Michigan 151.555
4 Ohio State 162.181
5 Wisconsin 163.2
6 Maryland 175.333
7 Penn State 176.5
8 Northwestern 194.444
9 Nebraska 217.444
10 Rutgers 228.09

**Gophers non-conference opponents through 6 (of 11) known games have average NET ranking of 99.166
 
Last edited:

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
Updated through 12 teams (all except Gophers & Illinois)

This is through 12 teams completed. Number is average NET ranking of opponents.

Overall SOS
1 Purdue 73.333
2 Michigan State 77.586
3 Michigan 81.965
4 Ohio State 85.838
5 Wisconsin 86.7
6 Indiana 86.774
7 Iowa 87.333
8 Northwestern 90.551
9 Maryland 91.655
10 Penn State 92.366
11 Nebraska 101.068
12 Rutgers 107.967

**Gophers opponents through 26 (of 31) known games have average NET ranking of 58.192

Non-Conference SOS
1 Purdue 113.3
2 Michigan State 137.777
3 Michigan 151.555
4 Ohio State 162.181
5 Wisconsin 163.2
6 Indiana 165.454
7 Iowa 169.1
8 Maryland 175.333
9 Penn State 176.5
10 Northwestern 194.444
11 Nebraska 217.444
12 Rutgers 228.09

**Gophers non-conference opponents through 6 (of 11) known games have average NET ranking of 99.166
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
With Gophers & Illinois partial numbers

This is through 12 teams completed, and with Gophers & Illinois partial numbers noted.

Overall SOS
1 Purdue 73.333
2 Michigan State 77.586
3 Michigan 81.965
4 Ohio State 85.838
5 Wisconsin 86.7
6 Indiana 86.774
7 Iowa 87.333
8 Northwestern 90.551
9 Maryland 91.655
10 Penn State 92.366
11 Nebraska 101.068
12 Rutgers 107.967

**Gophers known opponents through 28 (of 31) games have average NET ranking of 64.571

**Illinois known opponents through 30 (of 31) games have average NET ranking of 84.866

Non-Conference SOS
1 Purdue 113.3
2 Michigan State 137.777
3 Michigan 151.555
4 Ohio State 162.181
5 Wisconsin 163.2
6 Indiana 165.454
7 Iowa 169.1
8 Maryland 175.333
9 Penn State 176.5
10 Northwestern 194.444
11 Nebraska 217.444
12 Rutgers 228.09

**Gophers known non-conference opponents through 8 (of 11) games have average NET ranking of 111.25

**Illinois known non-conference opponents through 10 (of 11) games have average NET ranking of 171.3
 
Last edited:

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
Updated with Gophers released (but not yet complete) schedule

With Gophers & Illinois partial numbers noted.

My guess is Gophers will land in the Big Ten's #3 spot in both the Overall SOS Rankings and the Non-Conference SOS Rankings.

Overall SOS
1 Purdue 73.333
2 Michigan State 77.586
3 Michigan 81.965
4 Ohio State 85.838
5 Wisconsin 86.7
6 Indiana 86.774
7 Iowa 87.333
8 Northwestern 90.551
9 Maryland 91.655
10 Penn State 92.366
11 Nebraska 101.068
12 Rutgers 107.967

**Gophers known opponents through 30 (of 31) games have average NET ranking of 75

**Illinois known opponents through 30 (of 31) games have average NET ranking of 84.866

Non-Conference SOS
1 Purdue 113.3
2 Michigan State 137.777
3 Michigan 151.555
4 Ohio State 162.181
5 Wisconsin 163.2
6 Indiana 165.454
7 Iowa 169.1
8 Maryland 175.333
9 Penn State 176.5
10 Northwestern 194.444
11 Nebraska 217.444
12 Rutgers 228.09

**Gophers known non-conference opponents through 10 (of 11) games have average NET ranking of 133.2

**Illinois known non-conference opponents through 10 (of 11) games have average NET ranking of 171.3
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,590
Reaction score
1,354
Points
113
Maybe not in average but who MSU plays at the top end is tremendous. Duke, Kentucky, Seton Hall and 3 games in Maui !
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
Updated with Illinois complete schedule

Illinois completed its schedule by adding a Nov. 26 game vs. non-Division I Lindenwood. All non-DI opponents are given a ranking of #354 (1 worse than the bottom DI team).

The Gophers partial numbers are noted.

Overall SOS
1 Purdue 73.333
2 Michigan State 77.586
3 Michigan 81.965
4 Ohio State 85.838
5 Wisconsin 86.7
6 Indiana 86.774
7 Iowa 87.333
8 Northwestern 90.551
9 Maryland 91.655
10 Penn State 92.366
11 Illinois 93.548
12 Nebraska 101.068
13 Rutgers 107.967

**Gophers known opponents through 29 (of max 31) games have average NET ranking of 66.551

Non-Conference SOS
1 Purdue 113.3
2 Michigan State 137.777
3 Michigan 151.555
4 Ohio State 162.181
5 Wisconsin 163.2
6 Indiana 165.454
7 Iowa 169.1
8 Maryland 175.333
9 Penn State 176.5
10 Illinois 187.9
11 Northwestern 194.444
12 Nebraska 217.444
13 Rutgers 228.09

**Gophers known non-conference opponents through 9 (of max 11) games have average NET ranking of 112.444
 

Otis

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,493
Reaction score
364
Points
83
So the Gophers have the toughest overall schedule in the B1G.

Pitino must have been counting on Coffey coming back. Or, he really wants to impress the committee!
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,206
Reaction score
397
Points
83
So the Gophers have the toughest overall schedule in the B1G.

Pitino must have been counting on Coffey coming back. Or, he really wants to impress the committee!
If they don't add another game, Gophers for sure will have #1 non-conference and #1 overall SOS (based on opponents' average NET ranking) in the Big Ten, and perhaps the country.
 
Top Bottom