NET Rankings -- 1/4

[DaBball]

DI Women's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Women's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com

Get NCAA women's college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today/WBCA and NCAA committee.

www.ncaa.com

Stanford - #1
UConn - #2
Marquette - #42
DePaul - #56
Villanova - #67

 

[j66kicker]

DI Women's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Women's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com

Get NCAA women's college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today/WBCA and NCAA committee.

www.ncaa.com

Stanford - #1
UConn - #2
Marquette - #42
DePaul - #56
Villanova - #67

Interesting...

Baylor 3
Oregon 4 & UCLA 11 the day after UCLA beats Oregon
Ohio State 6 (@#$%^????)
Louisville 9 (So let's see Ohio State play Louisville)

 

[Plebe]

Those are ... interesting.

Ohio State #6. Let's let that soak in for a while.

 

[eebmg]

Here is the background on NET ratings

NET rankings — The NCAA Evaluation Tool, or the NET, was introduced in 2018 for the 2018-19 men's basketball season, replacing the RPI as the primary sorting tool used by the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee. It was created after consultation with Google Cloud Professional Services. Women's college basketball adopted the NET to replace the RPI starting in the 2020-21 season.

The NET was changed prior to the 2020-21 season to increase its accuracy and reduce it from a five-component metric to just two components. The two remaining components are the Team Value Index (TVI), which is a results-based component that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, especially away from home, and a team's adjusted net efficiency rating, which calculates how many points a team scores on average on offense minus the number of points it allows on average on defense.

The NET previously used winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin.

NET rankings are updated daily (starting every December in a normal season) and they're used to sort wins and losses into one of four quadrants, such that Quadrant I games represent tougher games than Quadrant 4 games.

 

[diggerfoot]

Here is the background on NET ratings

NET rankings — The NCAA Evaluation Tool, or the NET, was introduced in 2018 for the 2018-19 men's basketball season, replacing the RPI as the primary sorting tool used by the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Committee. It was created after consultation with Google Cloud Professional Services. Women's college basketball adopted the NET to replace the RPI starting in the 2020-21 season.

The NET was changed prior to the 2020-21 season to increase its accuracy and reduce it from a five-component metric to just two components. The two remaining components are the Team Value Index (TVI), which is a results-based component that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, especially away from home, and a team's adjusted net efficiency rating, which calculates how many points a team scores on average on offense minus the number of points it allows on average on defense.

The NET previously used winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin.

NET rankings are updated daily (starting every December in a normal season) and they're used to sort wins and losses into one of four quadrants, such that Quadrant I games represent tougher games than Quadrant 4 games.

This prompts a question (whether rhetorical or not I'm not sure). This formula does not look as discriminating as Massey's. If the NCAA was going to switch metrics anyways why not switch to an existing one that's more discriminating than create a new one that's less so? It appears that even when the NCAA does something that makes sense it doesn't make sense.

 

[mbr33ct]

Those are ... interesting.

Ohio State #6. Let's let that soak in for a while.

Is Ohio State only playing home games, all away cancelled or postponed?

 

[LETTERL]

NC State apparently gained no benefit from playing South Carolina in this NET algorithm, and apparently its three road games didn't count for much. Ohio State did better having most of their December games either cancelled or postponed and playing all their games in Columbus.

 

[Sifaka]

Head scratchers: Tennessee* ranked considerably higher than Marquette and DePaul.
Could Coach Jumper have a secret friend at NCAA HQ?

South Carolina only ranked #5!
NCAA obviously didn't give appropriate banner weighting.


In case you're wondering what's really, really going on...
Plebe created the well known and highly respected Boneyard poll.
The NCAA has tried to counter that with its very own Bonehead poll.


*According to these NCAA rankings, TN is ninth in the SEC.

Afterthought- There is probably little truth to the rumors that UCF, unhappy with its 66th place ranking, is going to trip, bite, elbow, and scratch anyone from the NCAA.

 

[LETTERL]

Head scratchers: Tennessee ranked considerably higher than Marquette and DePaul.
Could Coach Jumper have a secret friend at NCAA HQ?

South Carolina only ranked #5!
NCAA obviously didn't give appropriate banner weighting.

Those are but a few of the head-scratchers. I see a whole lot wrong with that ranking system. I'll just leave it at that for now until my emotions have settled down enough to think, and type posts, with a clear head and mind.

 

[MooseJaw]

Is Ohio State only playing home games, all away cancelled or postponed?

Head scratcher to me, I have watched Ohio St play and Michigan, play recently, while O.S. is a solid team Michigan looks like a steamroller in the Big 10. Maybe I'm missing something but is the NET system coocoo for cocoa puffs.

 

[MSGRET]

Those are but a few of the head-scratchers. I see a whole lot wrong with that ranking system. I'll just leave it at that for now until my emotions have settled down enough to think, and type posts, with a clear head and mind.

It could take days maybe even weeks for you to get a clear head AND mind at the same time!!! just kidding

 

[Majic Hands]

Head scratcher to me, I have watched Ohio St play and Michigan, play recently, while O.S. is a solid team Michigan looks like a steamroller in the Big 10. Maybe I'm missing something but is the NET system coocoo for cocoa puffs.

Watched Michigan & Northwestern last night. Gotta say I was impressed with Michigan.

The one thing I couldn't get out of my head was that Michigan has a kid that I would swear to be a carbon copy of Nepheesa and Northwestern has a kid I though could be Gabby's twin.

 

[Lorcan]

I think there’s quite a few surprises here. I’m not surprised Stanford is number one given that they’ve won tough games on the road, but there’s a few surprises here and there that I’ll have to dig through too after work.

I have to wonder if this will get more accurate as the season goes on, or teams with few touch points will continue to see an inflated ranking like Ohio State. The good news is that the committee won’t have to worry about seeding a team like Ohio State this year.

 

[azfan]

Very interesting. From the pac-12 perspective the kitties from Tucson were 21st significantly behind Rutgers. I understand these rankings don't include the weekend games but Rutgers was upset by a average Nebraska team. If these rankings are on point ASU is in for a tough weekend in Washington. Both Washington schools are ranked significantly higher than the Sun Devils. If the rankings in this metric are to believed the Sun Devils are looking in with very little chance of making the big dance

 

[triaddukefan]

 

[Ron and Vida]

Those are but a few of the head-scratchers. I see a whole lot wrong with that ranking system. I'll just leave it at that for now until my emotions have settled down enough to think, and type posts, with a clear head and mind.

Great advice. I’ll do my damnedest to follow it from here on in and try not to dwell on times in the past when I didn’t........

 

[Cuango]

Not sure I understand this....why are the Az Wildcats all the way down at #21? Admittedly, #6 was a bit of a stretch but they are clearly in the top 12-15!

 

[bluedevil]

Not sure I understand this....why are the Az Wildcats all the way down at #21? Admittedly, #6 was a bit of a stretch but they are clearly in the top 12-15!

East Coast bias.

 

[Lorcan]

East Coast bias.

I think given the impact that the pandemic has had on scheduling has probably thrown the NET off a little bit this year. We typically see the Pac-12 as having one of the hardest OOC schedules; however, this year is an anomaly. For example, in a normal year, Stanford wouldn't have had 7 games on the road in a row. The rankings are also indicating that Stanford's game against Washington in Las Vegas is being considered a "home" game for the Cardinal, even though that's not the case. What's really interesting, is that while we don't know the exact formula for NET, we do know that on some level it weighs wins by the quadrants.

Right off the bat, it's hard to make judgements given that this is such an odd year, but the NET seems to be ranking mid-majors lower than the RPI did last year. Last year, we had a fantastic year for six mid-majors in the top 25 of the RPI; however, it was still unclear how many of those teams would have made it in. ((Please excuse the additional numbers outside of the record, too much to tidy up))

8		Princeton Ivy League (14-0)	28-1
11		Gonzaga West Coast (17-1)	28-3
12		Missouri State Missouri Valley (16-2)	26-5
22		Drake Missouri Valley (14-4)	24-8
23		Central Michigan Mid-American (16-2)	23-7
24		James Madison Colonial Athletic (16-2)	28-4
27		South Dakota The Summit League (16-0)	29-2
30		Old Dominion Conference USA (14-4)	26-7
31		Western Kentucky Conference USA (14-4)	23-8
35		FGCU Atlantic Sun (15-1)	28-3
37		UCF American Athletic (11-5)	20-10
40		Troy Sun Belt (16-2)	24-5
41		Dayton Atlantic 10 (15-1)	25-8
43		Bucknell Patriot League (16-2)	26-6
45		Rice Conference USA (16-2)	24-8
48		Yale Ivy League (9-5)	20-9
49		Tennessee-Martin Ohio Valley (16-2)	22-10
50		Drexel Colonial Athletic (16-2)	24-8
51		Bradley Missouri Valley (13-5)	22-8
52		Montana State Big Sky (19-1)	24-6
54		Marist MAAC (18-2)	27-5
55		Illinois State Missouri Valley (11-7)	20-11
56		Belmont Ohio Valley (16-2)	22-9
57		Middle Tennessee Conference USA (13-5)	21-10
59		Abilene Christian Southland (16-4)	23-5
60		IUPUI Horizon League (15-3)	22-8
61		Cincinnati American Athletic (11-5)	22-10
62		Penn Ivy League (10-4)	19-8
64		Fresno State Mountain West (16-2)	23-7
65		Stony Brook America East (14-2)	28-3
68		South Florida American Athletic (10-6)	19-13
70		South Dakota State The Summit League (13-3)	22-10
72		Charlotte Conference USA (11-7)	21-10
73		Texas A&M-Corpus Christi Southland (17-3)	21-8
75		Rider MAAC (18-2)	28-4
76		Ball State Mid-American (13-5)	20-10
77		Northern Iowa Missouri Valley (10-8)	17-12
78		West Virginia Big 12 (7-11)	17-13
80		Coastal Carolina Sun Belt (15-3)	25-4
83		Boise State Mountain West (13-5)	22-9
86		Saint Louis Atlantic 10 (9-7)	19-13
87		Stephen F. Austin Southland (16-4)	20-7
88		Southeast Missouri Ohio Valley (14-4)	23-7
89		Fordham Atlantic 10 (11-5)	21-11
92		Liberty Atlantic Sun (11-5)	20-12
93		VCU Atlantic 10 (13-3)	20-12
95		Ohio Mid-American (11-7)	19-12
96		BYU West Coast (13-5)	17-11
98		Kent State Mid-American (11-7)	19-12
99		Idaho Big Sky (15-5)	22-10

If you compare this to the initial NET ratings.....it gets interesting. Granted, it's still early in the year, and scheduling is rough on everyone. South Florida, a team that has played Baylor close, and beaten Mississippi State can only garner a #18 ranking. It gets even more interesting when you note that last year, mid-majors compiled 50 of the top 100; however, with NET, the power starts swinging back towards P5+BEAST as the mids only account for 45 of the top teams. I'm still digesting the data, and trying to make sense of it, but thought I'd share this compilation for others to review.

18		South Fla.	AAC	-	3-0
24		Gonzaga	WCC	-	3-1
25		Rice	C-USA	-	4-1
27		Missouri St.	MVC	-	2-0
29		IUPUI	Horizon	-	4-1
31		New Mexico	Mountain West	-	4-0
34		Milwaukee	Horizon	-	6-1
35		South Dakota	Summit League	-	2-1
37		SFA	Southland	-	1-2
42		Marquette	Big East	-	4-0
45		Belmont	OVC	-	3-1
46		South Dakota St.	Summit League	-	2-2
50		Massachusetts	Atlantic 10	-	4-1
51		Illinois St.	MVC	-	1-2
54		Bowling Green	MAC	-	3-1
58		Tulane	AAC	-	2-3
59		FGCU	ASUN	-	3-0
62		BYU	WCC	-	2-0
63		Buffalo	MAC	-	3-2
65		Houston	AAC	-	2-2
66		UCF	AAC	-	2-0
68		Bucknell	Patriot	-	1-0
69		Central Mich.	MAC	-	2-2
72		UNI	MVC	-	1-3
73		Marist	MAAC	-	2-0
74		Maine	America East	-	6-1
75		Mercer	SoCon	-	3-1
76		Long Beach St.	Big West	-	3-1
77		Fordham	Atlantic 10	-	1-1
80		Charlotte	C-USA	-	1-2
82		Colorado St.	Mountain West	-	2-1
84		Drake	MVC	-	2-4
85		VCU	Atlantic 10	-	1-4
86		Boise St.	Mountain West	-	0-0
88		Pacific	WCC	-	2-0
89		California Baptist	WAC	-	4-0
90		North Dakota St.	Summit League	-	2-2
92		Saint Joseph's	Atlantic 10	-	0-0
93		Towson	CAA	-	2-2
95		Fairfield	MAAC	-	5-0
96		Abilene Christian	Southland	-	2-1
97		Ohio	MAC	-	1-2
98		UT Martin	OVC	-	2-2
99		Saint Louis	Atlantic 10	-	0-0
100		Northern Ariz.	Big Sky	-	3-2

 

[Ex Nutmegger]

Here is a comparison of the average NET rankings of the teams in the P5 conferences as well as the Big East and the AAC(note - lowest average number is best):

SEC ......... 50.1
ACC ........ 60.0
Big 12 ..... 62.6
Pac-12 .... 74.1
Big 10 ..... 75.6

Big East..112.6

AAC .......136.0

I also did the Massey averages:

PAC-12 .... 43.1
ACC ......... 43.3
SEC ......... 43.4
Big 10 ...... 48.1
Big 12 ...... 48.8

Big East ... 89.5

AAC ........ 117.0

I will readily admit that I don’t understand how these ranking systems arrive at their numbers. And I find it interesting that they can be so different. Note that the PAC-12, which the media has been raving about being head and shoulders above the other P5’s, barely avoids last place among the P5’s in the NET lists and barely noses out the ACC and SEC in a very tight 5-way race in Massey.

Unfortunately, UConn, although much better than the AAC is still way behind all of the P5’s. And that probably won’t improve much this year with so few OOC game being played due to COVID.

By the way, if you just remove Butler’s horrible numbers (NET-325, Massey196)from the averages, the Big East numbers improve dramatically:

NET ............ 91.4
Massey ...... 78.9

 

[MooseJaw]

Here is a comparison of the average NET rankings of the teams in the P5 conferences as well as the Big East and the AAC(note - lowest average number is best):

SEC ......... 50.1
ACC ........ 60.0
Big 12 ..... 62.6
Pac-12 .... 74.1
Big 10 ..... 75.6

Big East..112.6

AAC .......136.0

I also did the Massey averages:

PAC-12 .... 43.1
ACC ......... 43.3
SEC ......... 43.4
Big 10 ...... 48.1
Big 12 ...... 48.8

Big East ... 89.5

AAC ........ 117.0

I will readily admit that I don’t understand how these ranking systems arrive at their numbers. And I find it interesting that they can be so different. Note that the PAC-12, which the media has been raving about being head and shoulders above the other P5’s, barely avoids last place among the P5’s in the NET lists and barely noses out the ACC and SEC in a very tight 5-way race in Massey.

Unfortunately, UConn, although much better than the AAC is still way behind all of the P5’s. And that probably won’t improve much this year with so few OOC game being played due to COVID.

By the way, if you just remove Butler’s horrible numbers (NET-325, Massey196)from the averages, the Big East numbers improve dramatically:

NET ............ 91.4
Massey ...... 78.9

I am totally flabbergasted that you and several others have the info and patience to put something like this together. To say the least I'm not so sure that I even understand it all. I am truly getting an education. Thanks to you and the others who are so very dedicated. ??

 

[Ex Nutmegger]

Thank you, MooseJaw. I did that exercise to help take my mind off the loss of the Baylor game. I did learn a couple of things. First, the PAC-12 is not quite “all it’s cracked up to be”. And, second, Butler should probably be in a different conference - perhaps “The Little Sisters Of The Not So Rich And Famous League” . Apparently their men’s team was pretty good when the new Big East was formed, but they are mediocre now.

 

[Bajan Best]

Here are important reminders about how the NET rankings will be used this season:

• The NET rankings are used for the NCAA tournament. The rankings are released every day in an effort to be transparent but the NET rankings in January carry little significance during the selection process in March.
• The NET rankings do not include any preseason data, as many other popular metrics like KenPom and BPI do.
• Today (Jan. 4) is the 40th day of the season. In a typical year, teams will have played 10 to 12 games 40 days into the season. The average number of games played is slightly lower this year, and several teams have played fewer than five games thus far.
• Despite the unusual scheduling circumstances, the NET rankings are largely aligned with other metrics that the selection committee tracks. There are certainly outliers involving teams that have played very few games, but as more data becomes available with the addition of more games, the more stable the NET rankings will become.
• The NCAA entertained the idea of not including teams that have yet to play five Division I opponents but ultimately decided to include everyone, recognizing that all teams will soon reach that threshold.
• As always, the NET rankings do not include games played against non-Division I opponents.
• After two seasons of DI men's basketball using the NET, it was tweaked in advance of this season, simplifying it to a two-component system. The first is the Team Value Index, a results-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home. This component was an original part of the NET. The other is an efficiency rating, which is adjusted for strength of opponent and location (home/away/neutral) across all games played.
• With teams playing home games with limited or no fans, the committee and staff is studying the impact that’s having on home-court advantage compared to a typical year.
• While both the men’s and women’s NET rankings share high-level goals and individual components, the NET algorithm used in each is different.
• The machine learning model developed for each sport utilizes only that sport’s data. The women’s model uses only women’s game data, while the men’s model only uses men’s game data.
• The weights for each are trained using the historical data from the respective sports.