NET rankings as of 12/31/22

[HuskyNan]

 

[MSGRET]

LSU, really who comes up with this stuff. There is no way LSU should be #2 in the NET. With about 20 other teams on this that had a tougher schedule then Coach M's team, this is pure B.S.

 

[Kaizen]

This is Massey's ranking. Massy has UConn's strength of schedule (SOS) as #1.

Massey Ratings - College Basketball Women's : NCAA D1 Ratings

Computer ratings and rankings for CBW (College Basketball Women's), with links to team predictions, scores, and schedules.

masseyratings.com

 

[MSGRET]

This is Massey's ranking. Massy has UConn's strength of schedule (SOS) as #1.

View attachment 82594

Massey Ratings - College Basketball Women's : NCAA D1 Ratings

Computer ratings and rankings for CBW (College Basketball Women's), with links to team predictions, scores, and schedules.

masseyratings.com

While LSU just cracked the top 100 with a SOS of 99.

 

[HuskyNan]

It’s numerically driven, not subjective analysis

 

[Bone Dog]

I was poring over that NET page the other day, and I can't figure out why they don't seem to have an SoS factor. The only thing I can imagine is that late in the season, SoS factors will matter less and the factors they do weigh will matter more. But this means early in the season it will be a wildly distorted tool, as the LSU result suggests. In March, the distortions might even be negligible.

 

[hoopsfan22]

That's a nice explanation graphic. Someone forward that to Geno who said after Creighton he has no idea how it works.

 

[MSGRET]

So besides Arkansas and Oregon State, what other good opponents did LSU play so far this season to rate as #2. I guess you can say Tulane, they're rated #83 in the Massey ratings, everyone else is 100+ or more.

 

[Bone Dog]

So besides Arkansas and Oregon State, what other good opponents did LSU play so far this season to rate as #2. I guess you can say Tulane, they're rated #83 in the Massey ratings, everyone else is 100+ or more.

If I'm right, NET contains no SoS factor. This means it will produce distorted results early season, and (one hopes) better ones toward March.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

So besides Arkansas and Oregon State, what other good opponents did LSU play so far this season to rate as #2. I guess you can say Tulane, they're rated #83 in the Massey ratings, everyone else is 100+ or more.

In referencing the graphical example above...I think .NET breaks down because, in Part#1, 2 of the 3 factors (location and winner) can override a subpar component. If you stomp a cupcake on a neutral floor you get rewarded. It can be good as beating a better component on your own floor. In Part #2 you get rewarded again for running up the score and dominating defensively which is the usual case when you're the heavily favored team. And part#5 in my opinion...is just redundant bonus points for accomplishing part#2. It's like rewarding a rattler for killing a mouse.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

If I'm right, NET contains no SoS factor. This means it will produce distorted results early season, and (one hopes) better ones toward March.

Wouldn't SOS be part of considering the opponent? If not, what does that factor consider?

 

[MSGRET]

If I'm right, NET contains no SoS factor. This means it will produce distorted results early season, and (one hopes) better ones toward March.

There should be a negative rating when you play cupcakes for almost the whole non conference play. When it takes into consideration of "GOOD" opponents as they say. LSU appears to have played only 2 or 3 good opponents and 10 cupcakes, so I say again how do they get a net rating of 2?

UConn, Norte Dame, Stanford, NC State, Duke, Indiana, Ohio State, and so on and so on have more good opponents on their schedule.

 

[Bone Dog]

Wouldn't SOS be part of considering the opponent? If not, what does that factor consider?

I suspect the only assessment of opponents (ie SoS) is through NET itself. There doesn’t seem to be any independent SoS factor.

 

[sun]

Since any top #30 team can beat another due to a team simply having one or two players out due to injury or illness, then losing can reveal a weakness with a team's consistency & depth that winning doesn't reveal.

The NET becomes better as a team's full schedule gets played out.
It's only a snapshot of a race in time, and conference schedules are also not equal.
Does anyone complain that the Big East is often considered to be a cupcake league?
How many bigs even play in the Big East?

 

[Puppy Love]

The efficiency component seems to over reward making 3 point shots and punish giving them up. Teams that make most of their points off threes have an artificial advantage.

 

[Bigboote]

Wouldn't SOS be part of considering the opponent? If not, what does that factor consider?

It looks as though the quality of opponent is a third of the team value index. That's one of five components, so quality of opponent appears to be about 6% of the total rating.

 

[Bone Dog]

I suspect if the Big East does well in the tournament this season, more bigs will come there.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

It looks as though the quality of opponent is a third of the team value index. That's one of five components, so quality of opponent appears to be about 6% of the total rating.

That's certainly plausible, but also disturbing to think that who you play carries so little value.

 

[Boreifs]

It looks as though the quality of opponent is a third of the team value index. That's one of five components, so quality of opponent appears to be about 6% of the total rating.

Ridiculous

 

[Bone Dog]

It looks as though the quality of opponent is a third of the team value index. That's one of five components, so quality of opponent appears to be about 6% of the total rating.

But the quality of opponent factor of the TVI is not the same as a strength of schedule factor. They’re just looking at average opponent W-L record for that one, which may be distorted by cupcake density. What Massey does is a bit more sophisticated I think.

 

[sun]

The NET ranking shouldn't make much of any difference whether a team will become a national champion or not.
The difference in seeding may mean playing an extra game in the next higher round or not, but should not cause a team to fail winning the national championship.
And that's what the NET is intended to do, it helps to decide who gets to compete in the NCAAT's and which seeding they deserve.
But it isn't about which team should have a significant advantage toward winning it all.
If a team is over ranked then they will end up losing sooner rather than later during March Madness.

 

[Bone Dog]

If a team is over ranked then they will end up losing sooner rather than later.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. If a team is over-ranked -- that is, has a seed that allows them to play weaker teams in the early rounds -- they will end up losing later rather than sooner.

 

[HopJim]

Click bait! Predict that UConn will win every game from now until Championships with the possible exception of South Carolina which I rate as 50-50. SC is big but Huskies have great shooters and a midrange and drive to the basket game unseen for several years. At the end of the year, there will be one champion the Creme or others will have no say over.

 

[visitingcock]

Why are you guys stopping with NET and Massey?

Remember discredited RPI? It was sooo bad.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

Enjoy NET while it's "good enough". Give it time and it will have a social media and NIL component. Because...those things matter. lol