12/27/21: NET Rank v. AP Poll | The Boneyard

12/27/21: NET Rank v. AP Poll

visitingcock

visitingcock

Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
7,257
Reaction Score
25,824
NET AP

  • South Carolina.........................................South Carolina
  • NC State Stanford
  • UNC Louisville
  • Texas Arizona
  • Stanford NC State
  • Louisville Maryland
  • Nebraska Tennessee
  • Arizona Indiana
  • Iowa State Michigan
  • Indiana Baylor
  • UConn.........................................................Uconn
  • K-State Texas
  • Notre Dame UGA
  • UGA Iowa State
  • Maryland Duke
  • Tennessee Georgia Tech
  • Ohio State Notre Dame
  • Oregon BYU
  • Mizzou State LSU
  • VaTech KY
  • Baylor Iowa
  • Utah USF
  • LSU Tx A&M
  • BYU UNC
  • Arkansas Ohio State

Apparently the NET hasn't settled yet. Given their schedules, UNC and Nebraska certainly shouldn't sniff the top 20 til they beat somebody. Maryland seems too low by the net.

SCar and UConn are the only teams ranked the same by humans and algorithm,
 
Too bad for Scar that the NCAA's aren't starting next Friday. :)
 
visitingcock said:
NET AP

  • South Carolina.........................................South Carolina
  • NC State Stanford
  • UNC Louisville
  • Texas Arizona
  • Stanford NC State
  • Louisville Maryland
  • Nebraska Tennessee
  • Arizona Indiana
  • Iowa State Michigan
  • Indiana Baylor
  • UConn.........................................................Uconn
  • K-State Texas
  • Notre Dame UGA
  • UGA Iowa State
  • Maryland Duke
  • Tennessee Georgia Tech
  • Ohio State Notre Dame
  • Oregon BYU
  • Mizzou State LSU
  • VaTech KY
  • Baylor Iowa
  • Utah USF
Expand ...
visitingcock said:
  • LSU Tx A&M
  • BYU UNC
  • Arkansas Ohio State
Expand ...
Here's Massey's top 25.

South Carolina
Arizona
Texas
NC State
Stanford
North Carolina
Louisville
Connecticut
Tennessee
Maryland
Nebraska
Iowa St
Baylor
Indiana
Georgia
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Michigan
Kansas
Duke
LSU
Ohio
BYU
Texas
Oregon
 
.-.
The best explanation I can give for Massey is that his rankings heavily weigh for Margin of Victory, and at present UNC has won by an average of 33.1 points per game. SOS adjusts this down, obviously, but that's still the best in D1. Note also that Nebraska's is 28.1 (And of course, the virtue of being undefeated is that there are no games where your opponent outscored you to drag down your average.)

Unless and until those teams lose, Massey's MoV calculation will keep them ranked higher than the eye test probably suggests they warrant. That's both a feature and a bug of his approach - until someone is beaten, if they win all their games by large margins, who's to stay they won't continue to?

But since UNC faces NC State, Va Tech and Notre Dame in the first three games of the new year, and Nebraska will face Michigan, Iowa, and Indiana, those teams will either drop or they'll win out and actually probably deserve the rankings they currently have.
 
TheFarmFan said:
The best explanation I can give for Massey is that his rankings heavily weigh for Margin of Victory, and at present UNC has won by an average of 33.1 points per game. SOS adjusts this down, obviously, but that's still the best in D1.
Expand ...
This is taken from Massey's FAQ.

“Explain how your system uses margin of victory (MOV).

The BCS compliant version does not use MOV at all. There is no distinction between a 21-20 nailbiter, and a 63-0 blowout.
The main version does consider scoring margin, but its effect is diminished as the game becomes a blowout. The score of each game is translated into a number between 0 and 1. For example 30-29 might give 0.5270, while 45-21 gives 0.9433 and 56-3 gives around 0.9998
The maximum is topped at 1, so the curve flattens out for blowout scores. In addition, I do a Bayesian correction to reward each winner, regardless of the game's score.
The net effect is that there is no incentive to run up the score. However, a "comfortable" margin (say 10 points) is preferred to a narrow margin (say 3 points).
In summary, winning games against quality competition overshadows blowout scores against inferior opponents. Each week, the results from the entire season are re-evaluated based on the latest results. Consistent winners are rewarded, and a blowout score has only marginal effect on a team's rating.”
 
visitingcock said:
I don’t get Massey’s ranking of UNC given their weakness of schedule. It’s like 164th. Oh well, two weeks of conference play should see a big fall
Expand ...
I guess it's because it's an objective rating that isn't influenced by comments from coaches. :)
 
Sifaka said:
This is taken from Massey's FAQ.

“Explain how your system uses margin of victory (MOV).

The BCS compliant version does not use MOV at all. There is no distinction between a 21-20 nailbiter, and a 63-0 blowout.
The main version does consider scoring margin, but its effect is diminished as the game becomes a blowout. The score of each game is translated into a number between 0 and 1. For example 30-29 might give 0.5270, while 45-21 gives 0.9433 and 56-3 gives around 0.9998
The maximum is topped at 1, so the curve flattens out for blowout scores. In addition, I do a Bayesian correction to reward each winner, regardless of the game's score.
The net effect is that there is no incentive to run up the score. However, a "comfortable" margin (say 10 points) is preferred to a narrow margin (say 3 points).
In summary, winning games against quality competition overshadows blowout scores against inferior opponents. Each week, the results from the entire season are re-evaluated based on the latest results. Consistent winners are rewarded, and a blowout score has only marginal effect on a team's rating.”
Expand ...
Hmm, I think you may have grabbed the part of the FAQ that discussed how his ratings were used when the College Football BCS system incorporated computer rankings, including his. As Massey himself notes at the top of that page, those FAQ responses are out of date (RIP BCS System, almost a decade gone). But from the same page:

First, to avoid confusion, be aware that I publish two different sets of rankings:
  • the "Massey Ratings", which utilize actual game scores and margins in a diminishing returns fashion
  • the BCS compliant version, which do not use the actual score
Expand ...

Massey Ratings are what we're all looking at for WCBB. And I'm pretty dang certain that MOV is the major innovation in Massey's ratings versus RPI and NET ratings, because I've read about this as a key difference in a number of places. And as far as I know, ELO is the only other rating that takes MOV into account.

Edited to add: Elsewhere, where Massey provides a description of the theory behind how the calculation works, he makes clear he takes score into account:
Only the score, venue, and date of each game are used to calculate the Massey ratings.
Expand ...
 
The only in common opponent for unc and UConn is Minnesota. Unc beat them by six UConn by 30. Unc has played no ranked teams. I like banghart and what she’s done and doing but but that makes no sense
 
.-.
The most accurate barometer of the likelihood of a team to win the natty is the Vegas futures odds. As of today, South Carolina is +210 and UConn +240. Third is Stanford at +600. No other team is less than +1000. There’s your 1,2,3. I trust the Las Vegas oddsmakers more than the pollsters. They actually have something real at risk.
 
darkstar1 said:
The most accurate barometer of the likelihood of a team to win the natty is the Vegas futures odds. As of today, South Carolina is +210 and UConn +240. Third is Stanford at +600. No other team is less than +1000. There’s your 1,2,3. I trust the Las Vegas oddsmakers more than the pollsters. They actually have something real at risk.
Expand ...
Actually, they don’t set odds based on who they think will win and by how much. They set spreads based on what they think will spur betters on both sides to bet.

Bookies put out spreads that will induce betting. They don’t bet against you if they can avoid it. They get other people to bet against you by moving the spread to where people will bet both sides. They take 10% (juice) of all bets
 
visitingcock said:
Actually, they don’t set odds based on who they think will win and by how much. They set spreads based on what they think will spur betters on both sides to bet.

Bookies put out spreads that will induce betting. They don’t bet against you if they can avoid it. They get other people to bet against you by moving the spread to where people will bet both sides. They take 10% (juice) of all LOSING bets.
Expand ...
Edited. Bookies don't charge winners. Maybe sportbooks do but not bookmakers.
 
In any event, in order to spur betting on both sides, Sportsbook lines tell who the favorite is and by how much. The presumed better team is favored to win. Very different than a ranking, where a superior team may be lower in the rankings yet favored to win.
 
visitingcock said:
Actually, they don’t set odds based on who they think will win and by how much. They set spreads based on what they think will spur betters on both sides to bet.

Bookies put out spreads that will induce betting. They don’t bet against you if they can avoid it. They get other people to bet against you by moving the spread to where people will bet both sides. They take 10% (juice) of all bets
Expand ...
Are you saying 'bookies' mislead people? :eek:
 
.-.
visitingcock said:
No. They make odds and handle bets. They are not predictors of outcomes.
Expand ...
I said that because you stated, "They set spreads based on what they think will spur betters on both sides to bet. Bookies put out spreads that will induce betting". Hence they do things to mislead the bettor.
 
LCConnFan said:
I said that because you stated, "They set spreads based on what they think will spur betters on both sides to bet. Bookies put out spreads that will induce betting". Hence they do things to mislead the bettor.
Expand ...
B does not follow from A
 
EdSaid said:
The only in common opponent for unc and UConn is Minnesota. Unc beat them by six UConn by 30. Unc has played no ranked teams. I like banghart and what she’s done and doing but but that makes no sense
Expand ...
We've seen Baylor play much worse OOC schedules early and stay highly ranked in the AP. If they are a paper tiger then the ACC schedule will expose it.
 
LCConnFan said:
I said that because you stated, "They set spreads based on what they think will spur betters on both sides to bet. Bookies put out spreads that will induce betting". Hence they do things to mislead the bettor.
Expand ...

The bookies set lines that will produce an equal amount of wagering on either team. Lines get adjusted or not based on the betting. If you hear of a bookie who "got killed" on a certain game then it's likely that it wasn't a bookie but a gambler who sat on some wagers. That isn't bookmaking.
 
Alydar said:
The bookies set lines that will produce an equal amount of wagering on either team. Lines get adjusted or not based on the betting. If you hear of a bookie who "got killed" on a certain game then it's likely that it wasn't a bookie but a gambler who sat on some wagers. That isn't bookmaking.
Expand ...
I stand corrected, sort of. My original comment though was sarcasm, about bookies misleading people. How come you guys seem to know so much about 'bookies'? ;)
 
LCConnFan said:
I stand corrected, sort of. My original comment though was sarcasm, about bookies misleading people. How come you guys seem to know so much about 'bookies'? ;)
Expand ...
I have little actual experience betting on sports. My hobby is betting on horses but I have known several bookies fairly well over my life. I also worked in the gaming industry for 40 years. Mostly horse racing.
 
.-.
Alydar said:
I have little actual experience betting on sports. My hobby is betting on horses but I have known several bookies fairly well over my life. I also worked in the gaming industry for 40 years. Mostly horse racing.
Expand ...
Now I understand your 'avatar'. Could be why you seem to have good 'horse sense'! :D
 
Alydar said:
The bookies set lines that will produce an equal amount of wagering on either team. Lines get adjusted or not based on the betting. If you hear of a bookie who "got killed" on a certain game then it's likely that it wasn't a bookie but a gambler who sat on some wagers. That isn't bookmaking.
Expand ...
Yep, like most of us, bookies want to maximize their profits. They do this by tweaking the odds so that an equal number of people bet on each team. Small time bookies don't have much control of the odds. When their books are out of balance they have to "lay off" bets to bigger bookies. Sorta like buying loss prevention insurance. There is a science to this...
 
visitingcock said:
No. They make odds and handle bets. They are not predictors of outcomes.
Expand ...
When a spread is established, it is a prediction of outcome. The only line that isn’t a prediction is a pick’em.
 
darkstar1 said:
When a spread is established, it is a prediction of outcome. The only line that isn’t a prediction is a pick’em.
Expand ...
It is not a prediction of outcome. It is an agreement to pay if you choose on either side of the line. If more gets bet on one side - the line moves.
 
visitingcock said:
It is not a prediction of outcome. It is an agreement to pay if you choose on either side of the line. If more gets bet on one side - the line moves.
Expand ...
I believe we agree and it’s just semantics. I know how it works. Been betting long enough. Of course lines move based on betting patterns. Indeed many predictions are based on the lines established.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,349
Messages
4,566,518
Members
10,469
Latest member
xxBlueChips


Top Bottom