NCAA Net Rankings | The Boneyard

NCAA Net Rankings

willie99

willie99

Loving life & enjoying the ride, despite the bumps
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
8,029
Reaction Score
28,066
(1) (2)

11HoustonBig 1216-21-24-011-04-22-03-07-0
22PurdueBig Ten17-23-25-09-07-14-13-03-0
33ArizonaPac-1214-42-22-210-05-32-14-03-0
44TennesseeSEC14-42-22-210-03-45-01-05-0
55BYUBig 1214-41-33-010-13-31-11-09-0
66AuburnSEC16-22-14-110-00-25-06-05-0
77North CarolinaACC15-34-03-38-04-33-03-05-0
89AlabamaSEC12-62-22-38-12-52-14-04-0
98UConnBig East17-23-24-010-06-22-01-08-0
1010Iowa St.Big 1214-42-21-211-02-32-11-09-0
1112IllinoisBig Ten14-42-22-010-22-32-05-15-0
1211CreightonBig East14-55-31-18-13-33-23-05-0
1313WisconsinBig Ten14-42-32-010-15-32-12-05-0
1414KansasBig 1214-32-23-19-04-22-04-14-0
1515DaytonAtlantic 1015-23-13-19-03-13-15-04-0
1616BaylorBig 1213-41-23-29-03-42-03-05-0
1717MarquetteBig East13-52-32-19-14-42-12-05-0
1818KentuckySEC14-32-12-110-12-22-05-15-0
1919DukeACC13-42-22-09-23-11-34-05-0
2020San Diego St.Mountain West13-43-43-07-02-44-04-03-0
 
I understand this all data driven, but Alabama being ahead of us says something is wrong with the underlying algorithm. How can a team who is 2-5 vs quad 1 with an additional loss be ahead of a team who is 6-2 in quad one with no additional losses. I typically love these types of metrics but it is a weird year for many of them.
 
The last 4 columns are Quads 1 through 4

Were 6-2, 2-0, 1-0 & 8-0 in Quads 1,2,3 and 4 respectively

We're ranked 9th and dropping. I'm going to show you why you absolutely can argue with "metrics"

So what's the most important thing?
Quad 1? nope, we're 6-2 and would be 2nd best
Quad 2? we're only 2-0, so maybe Quad 2 stands alone
Quad 1 & 2 combined? Nope, we're 8-2, that would still be 2nd best
Quad 4? Well we are 8-0 in Quad 4, maybe that's too many games. But number 1 Houston is 7-0, doesn't seem to be hurting them. And number 5 BYU is 9-0. So we're better than BYU in Quad 1 and Quads 1-3, but they're better in Quad 4, and they're ranked 4 spots ahead of us?

Head to head? Nope We beat UNC by double digits (and covered) on a neutral court, have a better overall record, and have a better Quad 1 record, yet they're ahead of us.

Maybe these metrics will improve as the season progresses, but right now they're kinda silly

Either that, or Quad 2 stand alone is the most important metric, but then Houston couldn't be number 1
 
the-boneyard.com

Quad 1 Away W's

Of the top 25 teams currently ranked in the NET. Only 14 have a Quad 1 road win. Only 3 - UNC, UConn and Wisconsin have 2. Top 25 teams in the NET without a Q1 road win: Purdue, Iowa State, Kansas, Baylor, Duke, Illinois, Michigan State, Colorado State, Utah State. @okaforprez sr texted...
the-boneyard.com the-boneyard.com
 
Is it because our quad 4 wins seemed to be against the worst of the worst teams? Or all of the quad 4 wins weighted the same?
 
.-.
PS: Our Women are Number 3 in the NCAA Net Rankings, so they're doing a much better job with them :)
 
Kenny11 said:
Is it because our quad 4 wins seemed to be against the worst of the worst teams? Or all of the quad 4 wins weighted the same?
Expand ...

They should be. Who cares if you should beat a team by 20 or 30 or 40 points. They're all blowouts
 
willie99 said:
The last 4 columns are Quads 1 through 4

Were 6-2, 2-0, 1-0 & 8-0 in Quads 1,2,3 and 4 respectively

We're ranked 9th and dropping. I'm going to show you why you absolutely can argue with "metrics"

So what's the most important thing?
Quad 1? nope, we're 6-2 and would be 2nd best
Quad 2? we're only 2-0, so maybe Quad 2 stands alone
Quad 1 & 2 combined? Nope, we're 8-2, that would still be 2nd best
Quad 4? Well we are 8-0 in Quad 4, maybe that's too many games. But number 1 Houston is 7-0, doesn't seem to be hurting them. And number 5 BYU is 9-0. So we're better than BYU in Quad 1 and Quads 1-3, but they're better in Quad 4, and they're ranked 4 spots ahead of us?

Head to head? Nope We beat UNC by double digits (and covered) on a neutral court, have a better overall record, and have a better Quad 1 record, yet they're ahead of us.

Maybe these metrics will improve as the season progresses, but right now they're kinda silly

Either that, or Quad 2 stand alone is the most important metric, but then Houston couldn't be number 1
Expand ...
You're completely misunderstanding NET. Record against Q1 - Q4 aren't factoring into the rankings, that's for fans to be able to digest and see who's performing or not performing with good and bad losses. What goes into NET is Team Value Index (who you play, where you play, results), and your offensive and defensive efficiency
 
Kenny11 said:
Is it because our quad 4 wins seemed to be against the worst of the worst teams? Or all of the quad 4 wins weighted the same?
Expand ...
This is relevant. Quads 1 through 4 is a sorting tool, to help human beings make sense of the results. But yes, the strength of any actual result on the overall NET rankings is NOT based on the Quad but the actual numbers, so playing the dregs of the dregs does matter for the overall result.

Will the Committee care? Who knows. The AP voters appear not to. And the “dregginess” of our Quad 4 games becomes less and less of a factor to the computers as we play more and more conference games.
 
willie99 said:
They should be. Who cares if you should beat a team by 20 or 30 or 40 points. They're all blowouts
Expand ...
Especially given pace of play. We are one of the slower teams in the country so winning by 40+ becomes difficult when you shrink the number of possessions. a 30 point win for us per possession is likely a higher variance win than a 40 point win for someone like Alabama when controlling for pace.

Side not I can' wait to see the O/U for Kentucky Bama could legitimately be 185 and I'd take the over
 
willie99 said:
They should be. Who cares if you should beat a team by 20 or 30 or 40 points. They're all blowouts
Expand ...
This is basically the exact opposite of reality. It's much, much more difficult to beat bad teams by 30 or 40 points than people believe, and over the aggregate it does say something about the quality of a team.
 
.-.
Just checked Kenpom Mississippi Valley State is dead last 362 roughly 11 in adjusted efficiency behind #361 or the in other words the distance between us and #50 in the rankings. Is it possible that playing them hurts are metrics somewhat dramatically. I just can't think of any other reason. We beat them by 34 but several teams have beaten them by 50+, just wild how bad they are in comparison to other awful teams
 
Blue Blood said:
Just checked Kenpom Mississippi Valley State is dead last 362 roughly 11 in adjusted efficiency behind #361 or the in other words the distance between us and #50 in the rankings. Is it possible that playing them hurts are metrics somewhat dramatically. I just can't think of any other reason. We beat them by 34 but several teams have beaten them by 50+, just wild how bad they are in comparison to other awful teams
Expand ...
On Torvik that game was our second worst of the year behind the seton hall game
 
These algorithms penalize you for playing cupcakes. We played a fair amount of cupcakes early in the season, and let them score too many points. If UConn keeps playing winning Big East games this will sort itself out by end of season.
I don’t think there is much difference between playing a 300 rank team vs a 200 rank team as both are automatic wins, but these algorithms treat them very different.
 
Blue Blood said:
Just checked Kenpom Mississippi Valley State is dead last 362 roughly 11 in adjusted efficiency behind #361 or the in other words the distance between us and #50 in the rankings. Is it possible that playing them hurts are metrics somewhat dramatically. I just can't think of any other reason. We beat them by 34 but several teams have beaten them by 50+, just wild how bad they are in comparison to other awful teams
Expand ...
This is the crux of it, but not just this game.

Torvik has a "Game Score" that evaluates the result depending on margin, opponent, and location. It's a bit like looking at how the game is seen by the model. Alabama has 6 results that it qualifies as 98, 99, or 100 in Game Score (think of them as "98th+ percentile beatdowns"). 100s are quite rare even for great teams, Alabama has 2: when they beat #220 South Alabama by 57 and when they beat #109 Liberty by 45 on a neutral. Balancing it out slightly, they've got 3 games scoring sub-70. But twice as many great games as bad ones.

We've had only 3 games rated 98, 99, or 100: Creighton, Gonzaga, and UNC. So in 3 of our highest profile games we've played the best. We've got 2 sub-70 games (Miss Valley St and Seton Hall). Pine Bluff was also a 78 game score. We have a ton of "good" results, but we don't have enough real ass kickings to get into the top 5.
 
navery12 said:
You're completely misunderstanding NET. Record against Q1 - Q4 aren't factoring into the rankings, that's for fans to be able to digest and see who's performing or not performing with good and bad losses. What goes into NET is Team Value Index (who you play, where you play, results), and your offensive and defensive efficiency
Expand ...

Oh God, of course I am. Not that there's any inconsistency or idiocy in the numbers that are completely obvious, not that it's a joke BYU or Alabama or UNC are ahead of us

I'm not understanding the brilliance behind it all, LMFAO

Okie Dokie
 
Unless you're extremely confident you understand NET rankings, you should read the link below before giving your opinion in this thread.

www.crackedsidewalks.com

Bracketology: Forget About NET

As rankings, seeding, and brackets are discussed, we come to the part of the calendar where the NET is argued over and complained about. The...
www.crackedsidewalks.com www.crackedsidewalks.com



Then read my response in the "you can't be the algorithms" thread.

the-boneyard.com

Ah, but you can't fool the algorithms!

Teams in the Big Xii and SEC are playing a tougher game in, game out schedule than we are, and we played SIX games OOC against really God awful basketball teams. Not one or two. Six. It doesn’t take a computer genius to wonder if teams that don’t play so many so awful teams might get a boost...
the-boneyard.com the-boneyard.com


Once completed, you will be allowed to comment here. :D
 
.-.
willie99 said:
Oh God, of course I am. Not that there's any inconsistency or idiocy in the numbers that are completely obvious, not that it's a joke BYU or Alabama or UNC are ahead of us

I'm not understanding the brilliance behind it all, LMFAO

Okie Dokie
Expand ...
I'm not saying any of that, there's plenty of issues with NET. I'm just saying what you described is a circular reference. The result of a metric can't be a factor of the metric
 
auror said:
This is the crux of it, but not just this game.

Torvik has a "Game Score" that evaluates the result depending on margin, opponent, and location. It's a bit like looking at how the game is seen by the model. Alabama has 6 results that it qualifies as 98, 99, or 100 in Game Score (think of them as "98th+ percentile beatdowns"). 100s are quite rare even for great teams, Alabama has 2: when they beat #220 South Alabama by 57 and when they beat #109 Liberty by 45 on a neutral. Balancing it out slightly, they've got 3 games scoring sub-70. But twice as many great games as bad ones.

We've had only 3 games rated 98, 99, or 100: Creighton, Gonzaga, and UNC. So in 3 of our highest profile games we've played the best. We've got 2 sub-70 games (Miss Valley St and Seton Hall). Pine Bluff was also a 78 game score. We have a ton of "good" results, but we don't have enough real ass kickings to get into the top 5.
Expand ...
Rewarding teams for beat downs against dramatically inferior competition seems like flawed methodology. Just my opinion.
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
Rewarding teams for beat downs against dramatically inferior competition seems like flawed methodology. Just my opinion.
Expand ...
It seems like like what’s hurting us is we didn’t defend as well against the cupcakes. Our defensive efficiency was 33 nationally in the non conference. Last year it was 5th nationally.
 
Last edited:
Peak boneyard, complaining about a metric that won't become relevant til a month and half from now and that might not even be relevant to us unless we collapse.

Also, NET doesn't use past season data so it doesn't become really useful till the end of the season, unlike kenpom
 
businesslawyer said:
This is relevant. Quads 1 through 4 is a sorting tool, to help human beings make sense of the results. But yes, the strength of any actual result on the overall NET rankings is NOT based on the Quad but the actual numbers, so playing the dregs of the dregs does matter for the overall result.

Will the Committee care? Who knows. The AP voters appear not to. And the “dregginess” of our Quad 4 games becomes less and less of a factor to the computers as we play more and more conference games.
Expand ...
Joe Lunardi isn't great with hitting on the bracket, but I do think we're going to see stuff like this in the conversation as we get closer to the tournament:

"The Boilermakers have a nation's-best six Q1 wins, four of them in the top half of Q1, and scheduled only three Q4 wins. UConn has a whopping eight wins in Q4 -- half its season total -- and therein lies the difference"
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
Rewarding teams for beat downs against dramatically inferior competition seems like flawed methodology. Just my opinion.
Expand ...
In the wins by Alabama, Liberty is a top 100 team on KenPom. Not dramatically inferior at all. That's a really strong win. They're ~14 seed caliber tournament team. South Alabama isn't amazing, but there's a giant difference between them and a team like MVSU or Stonehill (SA would be favored by 15+ against those teams).

In general, the systems (at least KenPom does) have some sort of weighting system for de-emphasizing gross mismatches.

But those games are still useful for the models and still have predictive power. The games against better teams are a better indicator, but there's just less of them. Games against worse teams have a weaker signal, but help the overall sample. All backtesting they've done shows the models improve with those games included.

Here's a KenPom blog where he talks a bit about the weighting:

I'm guessing the NET does NOT have this, though. I think they've gone for more simplicity, which is why we're a few spots lower in NET than KenPom.
 
.-.
So now the debate has come full circle, back to what I complained most about the RPI

Who has played the better chumps, that's how to determine who's the better. Oh yeah baby. We beat number 200 and you beat number 300, so we're better, even if you beat us by 10 head to head

I hope more of you are beginning to understand why many of us mock these metrics

It should be almost entirely weighted by results against teams that can actually beat you

Quad 1 very heavy
Quad 2 heavy
Quad 3 considered
Quad 4 trivialized back fill. Just has no bearing on deciding who's best
 
Last edited:
willie99 said:
So now the debate has come full circle, back to what I complained most about the RPI

Who has played the better chumps, that's how to determine who's the better. Oh yeah baby. We beat number 200 and you beat number 300, so we're better, even if you beat us by 10 head to head

I hope more of you are beginning to understand why many of us mock these metrics
Expand ...
You're reading way too far into a couple outliers this season. Last year had very few outliers.
 
auror said:
But those games are still useful for the models and still have predictive power. The games against better teams are a better indicator, but there's just less of them. Games against worse teams have a weaker signal, but help the overall sample.

Here's a KenPom blog where he talks a bit about the weighting:
Expand ...
This is where my disagreement with the methodology lies.

The predictive power of mismatches drops off much faster than he allows. There's endless reasons outside of the sphere of maximizing performance that a game ends with "only" a 25 point win versus a 50 point win.

There's another aspect of this that draws my ire...

We're talking about buy games here, primarily. Our buy games tend to be of the budget variety. That's why we play the worst of the worst when it comes to buy games. MVSU is cheap. Want better? Open your wallet and donate to the AD.
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
This is where my disagreement with the methodology lies.

The predictive power of mismatches drops off much faster than he allows. There's endless reasons outside of the sphere of maximizing performance that a game ends with "only" a 25 point win versus a 50 point win.
Expand ...
Have you researched it?
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
There's no need.

Just getting the walk-ons playing time screws up the methodology beyond repair, lol...
Expand ...
But that effect will hit most teams in those games at those margins. Along with the rubber band effect, etc. Since you're comparing against expectation as set by past results that also include those effects (and not necessarily comparing linearly), their impact will be smaller than you'd think.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,618
Messages
4,585,961
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom