NCAA Net Rankings | Page 2 | The Boneyard

NCAA Net Rankings

auror said:
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.
Expand ...
I disagree completely here. I don't think it's safe to assume all teams react the same way to mismatches. In fact, I contend the opposite, and playing walk-ons is just one confounding factor of many.
 
Mr. Wonderful said:
I disagree completely here. I don't think it's safe to assume all teams react the same way to mismatches. In fact, I contend the opposite, and playing walk-ons is just one confounding factor of many.
Expand ...
You can say you disagree, but the data and research suggest these matchups still help in the aggregate (though as KenPom says when you get up to like #350 not very much).
 
auror said:
You can say you disagree, but the data and research suggest these matchups still help in the aggregate (though as KenPom says when you get up to like #350 not very much).
Expand ...
We're splitting hairs now. We only disagree on scale.
 
NET ranking is an improvement over RPI, and having an unbiased data driven ranking system is a good thing to have in combination with people’s general opinions on team rankings.

When it come time to reward #1 seeds, winning conference is critical and national ranking is critical. If UConn wins the Big East and remains a top 4 ranked team they will get a 1 seed regardless of net ranking. Net ranking comes more into play for bubble teams.
 
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 ...
Which is just stupid, because a good team will put the bench in and rest starters in those games. They really need to adjust this so that any win by more than say 16 is treated the same. That's a blowout. Whether it becomes 20, 24, 30 or 36 is mostly irrelevant. In many cases it could have been.
 
.-.
HuskyHawk said:
Which is just stupid, because a good team will put the bench in and rest starters in those games. They really need to adjust this so that any win by more than say 16 is treated the same. That's a blowout. Whether it becomes 20, 24, 30 or 36 is mostly irrelevant. In many cases it could have been.
Expand ...
T-rank (barttorvik) accounts for "garbage time" in his metrics.

T-Rank Methodology Update

Adam Chorlton and Bart Torvik discuss Wisconsin sports, mostly the Badgers.
adamcwisports.blogspot.com adamcwisports.blogspot.com
 
tzznandrew said:
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"
Expand ...
He's not wrong, but he excludes how many Q1 wins we have had.
 
If we stay healthy the rest of the year we will be top ten in both offensive and defensive efficiency on KenPom. The 8 Q4 wins will diminish in negative value but they are probably going to keep us out of the top 3 in NET this year. Certainly some of this may adjust on its own as the teams we beat get better or worse but as we saw last year the committee does not use them as much as people think hence our ridiculously low 4 seed from last year when compared to where we were on KenPom and Net. Win the BE regular season with a record no worse than 16-4 and at least get to the final in the BE tourney and we are a one or two seed no matter what the analytics say. 17-3 and BE final we are a 1 seed.
 
Hi-Low said:
Texas is back to a Quad 1 win for the good guys. UConn now tied with Purdue for most Quad 1 wins at 7.

The NET rankings are still a bit baffling though...Auburn has Zero Q1 wins and yet they are ranked 7 in NET ahead of UConn at 8.
Expand ...
Auburn is 11-2 against Q1-3, and we’re 9-2, so I guess they’re better? Who the hell knows.
 
.-.
Hi-Low said:
Texas is back to a Quad 1 win for the good guys. UConn now tied with Purdue for most Quad 1 wins at 7.

The NET rankings are still a bit baffling though...Auburn has Zero Q1 wins and yet they are ranked 7 in NET ahead of UConn at 8.
Expand ...
quad wins are an output of NET, not an input.
 
Poe said:
Auburn is 11-2 against Q1-3, and we’re 9-2, so I guess they’re better? Who the hell knows.
Expand ...

I was curious about this too... but look at their Q2 games. They absolutely spanked a bunch of good quality teams. They've only played two Q1 games, it'll even out as they play more and their true colors show. Either they walk the walk or they don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,305
Messages
4,562,315
Members
10,457
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom