UConn #1 in NET rankings

[HuskylnSC]

UConn is currently ranked #1 in NET
Net is based on two factors
1) Team Value Index (TVI), which is a result-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home, 2) adjusted net efficiency rating.

The top 20:
UConn
Stanford
South Carolina
Oregon
Louisville
Baylor
NC State
Indiana
UCLA
Michigan
Maryland
Georgia
Ohio St.
Kentucky
Arizona
Texas A&M
South Fla.
Gonzaga
Tennessee
South Dakota

 

[hoopsfan22]

We're #1! Hang a banner in Gampel!

 

[CocoHusky]

Which of those factor accounts for putting Oregon, a 3 loss team, ahead of Louisville.

 

[diggerfoot]

This along with another computer generated list is puzzling. That other list holds that the Pac-12 is the fifth best conference, just ahead of the Big East. How does a conference go from being the best to the worst of the P-5 in one season, particularly when many of the teams are ranked high by voters?

This is a case where I am inclined to believe the subjective voters over objective algorithms, but why? At one time the Pac-12 was consistently rated the worst of the P-5 due to its relative isolation west of the Rockies. As long as Stanford was the only powerhouse they were not playing enough good teams east of the Rockies to boost their ratings ... or to get the experience they needed to perform well in tournaments.

This changed with the influx of good coaches, competition for being the best in conference and expansion of their territory east of the Rockies. I wonder, and this is pure conjecture, if they are "back where they started" for this one year because of Covid. Are they not playing enough teams east of the Rockies, where all the other P-5 powerhouses are located? Otherwise, I just cannot understand how they can be ranked the worst P-5 when they seem to have the most power programs this year.

This contrasts with the SEC, now ranked the top P-5, while only SC and perhaps TAMU seem to be high performers. Have they played the most OOC games with other P-5 powerhouses? Once again, pure conjecture.

The NET rankings would not suffer as much from a lack of OOC interchange. This could explain why the Pac-12 can suffer in the ranking of conferences, yet its members are doing well with NET. Meanwhile, in our case, DePaul and Villanova are "quality enough" for one of the components and would not influence the other one. Still more conjecture on my part, but the bottom line is what everyone is concluding this season, all the metrics we might otherwise respect are now suspect this particular year.

 

[BobbyJ]

Which of those factor accounts for putting Oregon, a 3 loss team, ahead of Louisville.

More colorful uniforms?

 

[bluedevil]

A win at Tenn and at Arkansas on national tv will go a long way to help the net..

 

[Sifaka]

A win at Tenn and at Arkansas on national tv will go a long way to help the net..

That is a perplexing statement for two reasons:

1. "...help the net" How does a #1 rating improve?
2. "...on national tv" If one reads the rating factors in the opening post of this thread, tv is not included. In other words, the NET computer algorithym ignores popularity. If you want 'style points', looks at the so-called efficiency rating.

 

[shiverz45]

I think the NET also has margin of victory as a factor. If you blow out a bunch of average/quality teams it really helps your rating.

 

[Boreifs]

Massey also has them number one

 

[CL82]

We're #1! Hang a banner in Gampel!

Call Dawn Staley. I hear she knows a guy for that.

 

[Sifaka]

Here is some—I hope logical—speculation. Like Massey rankings, these NET ratings become more reliable and gain predictive value with more data input, i.e.,
when more game results are fed into the computer program. Right now, they are a fairly good general indicator, but will be much better in a couple of weeks.

Consider DePaul. As of this week's AP writers' and the NCAA Coaches's polls,
Doug Bruno's crew is ranked #18 and #21, respectively. Their NET ranking is #44. I would take the writers' and coaches' educated opinions more seriously at this point in time.

 

[DEpup]

Here is some—I hope logical—speculation. Like Massey rankings, these NET ratings become more reliable and gain predictive value with more data input, i.e.,
when more game results are fed into the computer program. Right now, they are a fairly good general indicator, but will be much better in a couple of weeks.

Consider DePaul. As of this week's AP writers' and the NCAA Coaches's polls,
Doug Bruno's crew is ranked #18 and #21, respectively. Their NET ranking is #44. I would take the writers' and coaches' educated opinions more seriously at this point in time.

If efficiency is a variable, I doubt DePaul will ever be high since their model is to play fast, take quick shots, shots from deep, and get more possessions rather than being super efficient with fewer shots up. I wonder how this equation deals with a philosophy like that.

 

[bluedevil]

That is a perplexing statement for two reasons:

1. "...help the net" How does a #1 rating improve?
2. "...on national tv" If one reads the rating factors in the opening post of this thread, tv is not included. In other words, the NET computer algorithym ignores popularity. If you want 'style points', looks at the so-called efficiency rati

 

[bluedevil]

So are you saying the 2 net team can't become the 1 with an impressive victory over a top team and leap frog the #1? So impressive victory over say TENN and ARK doesn't widen the gap between 1 and 2...? ok then.

 

[veryolddog]

I am guessing, but I would think that Geno would say that none of this matters. The only ranking in Geno's mind is the last game of the season and winning the National Championship.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I gotta think limited # of OOC games is rendering these computer rankings somewhat inaccurate.

 

[HuskylnSC]

Which of those factor accounts for putting Oregon, a 3 loss team, ahead of Louisville.

Pick one:

Team value index​

The value index is an algorithm developed to reward teams who beat good teams. It is a results-oriented component of the NET and is based on game results. It takes into account three factors: opponent, location and winner.

Net efficiency​

Net efficiency is a team’s offensive efficiency minus its defense efficiency.

Winning percentage​

Winning percentage is calculated by dividing a team’s wins by its total games played.

Adjusted win percentage​

This metric is a winning percentage that is weighted based on location and result. Here is the breakdown:
Road win = + 1.4
Neutral win = + 1
Home win = +.6
Road loss = -.6
Neutral loss = -1
Home loss = -1.4

Scoring margin​

Scoring margin is a team’s total points minus its opponent’s points. The winning margin was capped at 10 points per game “to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play,” according to the NCAA.

 

[HuskylnSC]

That is a perplexing statement for two reasons:

1. "...help the net" How does a #1 rating improve?
2. "...on national tv" If one reads the rating factors in the opening post of this thread, tv is not included. In other words, the NET computer algorithym ignores popularity. If you want 'style points', looks at the so-called efficiency rating.


View attachment 63791

The best way to improve your NET is to win on the road and win by more than 9 points;
Road win = + 1.4
Neutral win = + 1
Home win = +.6
Road loss = -.6
Neutral loss = -1
Home loss = -1.4

Scoring margin is a factor but is limited to 10 points to not encourage running up the score.

 

[visitingcock]

Which of those factor accounts for putting Oregon, a 3 loss team, ahead of Louisville.

Closed circuit strength of schedule.

 

[Sifaka]

If efficiency is a variable, I doubt DePaul will ever be high since their model is to play fast, take quick shots, shots from deep, and get more possessions rather than being super efficient with fewer shots up. I wonder how this equation deals with a philosophy like that.

You make a good point, and raise an interestng question: Does the NCAA, in its usual wisdom, value conformity over success?

Consider a hypothetical.

Team A (DePaul, for example) takes a hundred threes, and makes 30% of them.
.30 x 100 x 3 = 90 points

Team B doesn't shoot from beyond the arc, takes fewer shots, but is much more efficient at 2 point range, scoring on half their shots.

.50 x 85 x 2 = 85 points

All other factors in the NET formula being equal, the NCAA may favor the loser, Team B, for greater efficiency.