NET rankings

[Hoosierhoopster]

NET:

Not

Exactly

Trustworthy

[Proud2BAHoosier]

I nominate 5fouls to send an e-mail, message or whatever to Lunardi and ask him why he has IU so low!!

Anyone second this motion???

[IU Scott]

6 minutes ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

I nominate 5fouls to send an e-mail, message or whatever to Lunardi and ask him why he has IU so low!!

Anyone second this motion???

2nd it

[MPM]

28 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Is that enough to rate an 11-16 team ahead of a 18-9 one?  Also, they play in the same conference,. where they presumable play a very similar schedule.  One team is 13-4 (LR) and the other is 9-9 (UTA).    

Well what are each teams offensive and defensive efficiencies? What about their scoring margin? Win/Loss record can be such a misleading stat to use and is only 1 of 5 parts of the NET rankings. If all teams played the same exact schedule than sure it would be very viable. If IU played that non-conference schedule, would we still be 18-9? Let’s say our record is 15-12 playing UTA’s non-conference schedule, do we definitely deserve to get into the tournament over a 18-9 team that didn’t play as difficult schedule? Would those fans be complaining if a 15-12 team was ranked higher in the NET than their 18-9 team? There’s no right answer because there are too many unknown variables when it comes to this. Does the NET make sense from a mathematical perspective? The answer is yes based off how it’s devised. Does it take into affect every possible variable or situational outcome? Obviously no. Do I agree that the net efficiency metric could be improved? Yes, because it’s not weighted based off opponent or venue. Is playing in the Big Ten going to hurt either efficiencies compared to playing in the MAC? I would like to think it would be easier to score and defend playing against MAC teams than Big Ten teams. But obviously there is a trade-off to that. If we are in the MAC, are we getting 5 stars to come play for us? Possibly if you look at the talent Gonzaga brings in, but they are the exception to the rule. So am I going to complain about the NET rankings? Nope because it’s the best system that they’ve come up with yet. Is it “perfect”? Of course not and I would venture to guess somewhere down the line a new system will be developed that is an improvement on this system. But it’s the NCAA, so I’m not putting money on it nor holding my breath.

[5fouls]

2 minutes ago, MPM said:

Well what are each teams offensive and defensive efficiencies? What about their scoring margin? Win/Loss record can be such a misleading stat to use and is only 1 of 5 parts of the NET rankings. If all teams played the same exact schedule than sure it would be very viable. If IU played that non-conference schedule, would we still be 18-9? Let’s say our record is 15-12 playing UTA’s non-conference schedule, do we definitely deserve to get into the tournament over a 18-9 team that didn’t play as difficult schedule? Would those fans be complaining if a 15-12 team was ranked higher in the NET than their 18-9 team? There’s no right answer because there are too many unknown variables when it comes to this. Does the NET make sense from a mathematical perspective? The answer is yes based off how it’s devised. Does it take into affect every possible variable or situational outcome? Obviously no. Do I agree that the net efficiency metric could be improved? Yes, because it’s not weighted based off opponent or venue. Is playing in the Big Ten going to hurt either efficiencies compared to playing in the MAC? I would like to think it would be easier to score and defend playing against MAC teams than Big Ten teams. But obviously there is a trade-off to that. If we are in the MAC, are we getting 5 stars to come play for us? Possibly if you look at the talent Gonzaga brings in, but they are the exception to the rule. So am I going to complain about the NET rankings? Nope because it’s the best system that they’ve come up with yet. Is it “perfect”? Of course not and I would venture to guess somewhere down the line a new system will be developed that is an improvement on this system. But it’s the NCAA, so I’m not putting money on it nor holding my breath.

We saw all we need to see about the NET last week.  Indiana beat Minnesota on the road and Penn State at home, while Minnesota lost to Indiana at home and beat Northwestern on the road.  No comparison at all in the quality of the week.  Yet, Minnesota advanced more spots in the NET than IU.  It's indefensible.  And, forgive me for not believing in margin of victory.  Would beating Chicago State on the road by 47 points be more impressive than beating Kansas at home by 1?  An inherent flaw of the NET is that it does not seem to matter WHO you beat, as much as it does WHERE you beat them and by HOW much.

[rogue3542]

3 minutes ago, MPM said:

Well what are each teams offensive and defensive efficiencies? What about their scoring margin? Win/Loss record can be such a misleading stat to use and is only 1 of 5 parts of the NET rankings. If all teams played the same exact schedule than sure it would be very viable. If IU played that non-conference schedule, would we still be 18-9? Let’s say our record is 15-12 playing UTA’s non-conference schedule, do we definitely deserve to get into the tournament over a 18-9 team that didn’t play as difficult schedule? Would those fans be complaining if a 15-12 team was ranked higher in the NET than their 18-9 team? There’s no right answer because there are too many unknown variables when it comes to this. Does the NET make sense from a mathematical perspective? The answer is yes based off how it’s devised. Does it take into affect every possible variable or situational outcome? Obviously no. Do I agree that the net efficiency metric could be improved? Yes, because it’s not weighted based off opponent or venue. Is playing in the Big Ten going to hurt either efficiencies compared to playing in the MAC? I would like to think it would be easier to score and defend playing against MAC teams than Big Ten teams. But obviously there is a trade-off to that. If we are in the MAC, are we getting 5 stars to come play for us? Possibly if you look at the talent Gonzaga brings in, but they are the exception to the rule. So am I going to complain about the NET rankings? Nope because it’s the best system that they’ve come up with yet. Is it “perfect”? Of course not and I would venture to guess somewhere down the line a new system will be developed that is an improvement on this system. But it’s the NCAA, so I’m not putting money on it nor holding my breath.

The rpi (unbelievably) is actually better than the NET, which directly contradicts the net being the best. Minn and Purdue are something like 96 and 101 while IU is 41 I believe because, regardless of schedule, criteria 1,2, and 3 for making the tournament is actually winning games. I'm sorry, no 12-13 team should be ahead of a 17-9 team from the same league right after getting throttled at home.

Also, just a few posts above it was laid out how IU's non-con schedule ranks harder than something like twenty teams ranked ahead, so I think it's pretty clear the NET is a pretty big step backwards from the RPI

[bobtcat2]

Sagarin has been shown to have a lot more predictive accuracy than any other ratings metric I've seen.  He has IU at 25. That seems more reasonable to me than 52, and not just because I want to believe it.  When I look at the teams around IU in Sagarin they seem pretty comparable.  NET?  No way.

[MPM]

5 minutes ago, rogue3542 said:

The rpi (unbelievably) is actually better than the NET, which directly contradicts the net being the best. Minn and Purdue are something like 96 and 101 while IU is 41 I believe because, regardless of schedule, criteria 1,2, and 3 for making the tournament is actually winning games. I'm sorry, no 12-13 team should be ahead of a 17-9 team from the same league right after getting throttled at home.

Also, just a few posts above it was laid out how IU's non-con schedule ranks harder than something like twenty teams ranked ahead, so I think it's pretty clear the NET is a pretty big step backwards from the RPI

The same RPI that has Auburn currently 4th? Net they are ranked 28. Sagarin 37 and KenPom 38. Arizona St 21st?  41,45,55 in the other 3. Rhode Island 22nd? 37, 53, 44 respectively in the other 3. Northern Iowa 23rd? 46,67,43 in the other 3. Cincinnati 26th? 54,35,41 in the other 3. Richmond 29th? 49,68,52 in the other 3. USC 30th? 47,71,61 in the other 3. I could keep going if you want 😁.

[cybergates]

So if a team was 6-21, but played only Quad 1 road games, losing by 1 in losses and winning by 10+ in wins, they'd probably be a top 25 NET team.

[rogue3542]

11 minutes ago, MPM said:

The same RPI that has Auburn currently 4th? Net they are ranked 28. Sagarin 37 and KenPom 38. Arizona St 21st?  41,45,55 in the other 3. Rhode Island 22nd? 37, 53, 44 respectively in the other 3. Northern Iowa 23rd? 46,67,43 in the other 3. Cincinnati 26th? 54,35,41 in the other 3. Richmond 29th? 49,68,52 in the other 3. USC 30th? 47,71,61 in the other 3. I could keep going if you want 😁.

I think you missed my point. I'm saying as bad as the RPI is, the NET is worse, and it was instituted specifically to be an upgrade.

 

[jv1972iu]

The NET sounds a lot like the Matrix to me.  Or the Wizard of Oz. " Pay no attention to that won-loss record.  I am the great and powerful Wizard of NET. "  Sounds like humbug to me!  😝

[SawatchHoosier]

I thought it might be informative/interesting to look at the net ranking of all teams that have played 13 Q1 games like Indiana...it wasn’t. 

The only clear difference between those ranked above Indiana and those below is the combined winning percentage of Quad 1 and Quad 2 games. Teams like OSU have a Q1 record of 5-8 but the Q1+Q2 is 13-9. Indiana’s combined is 8-9. 
I feel the NET must weigh Q2 wins higher than expected because a team like OSU is 19th.

[IowaHoosierFan]

1 hour ago, SawatchHoosier said:

I thought it might be informative/interesting to look at the net ranking of all teams that have played 13 Q1 games like Indiana...it wasn’t. 

The only clear difference between those ranked above Indiana and those below is the combined winning percentage of Quad 1 and Quad 2 games. Teams like OSU have a Q1 record of 5-8 but the Q1+Q2 is 13-9. Indiana’s combined is 8-9. 
I feel the NET must weigh Q2 wins higher than expected because a team like OSU is 19th.

Does out weak non-con SOS hurt us in the NET?  Only think i can think of that would cause us to be penalized 

[5fouls]

7 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

Does out weak non-con SOS hurt us in the NET?  Only think i can think of that would cause us to be penalized 

If it does, then there are a dozen teams ranked ahead of us that should be getting punished as well.  I've specifically posted about Texas Tech numerous times.  Bottom line is the formula sucks and I hope the committee is smart enough not to use it this year.

[SawatchHoosier]

5 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

Does out weak non-con SOS hurt us in the NET?  Only think i can think of that would cause us to be penalized 

It was weak but there are teams ahead of us that have played weaker NCON schedules. Also when compared to Utah State who is ranked 38th our ranking makes little sense. 

[SawatchHoosier]

8 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

If it does, then there are a dozen teams ranked ahead of us that should be getting punished as well.  I've specifically posted about Texas Tech numerous times.  Bottom line is the formula sucks and I hope the committee is smart enough not to use it this year.

Here’s a live look at the selection committee using the NET Rankings...

 

[NotIThatLives]

I've done this the past 3 Mondays.

NET 52

sagarin 25

kenpom 37

rpi 45

bpi 38  BPI likes our strength of record at 14th.  Even more than the one Fouls found at 23.

 

[CincyHoosier]

I think it's important to keep in mind that none of these advanced statistical models uses a linear "ranking" system.  The separation between 1 and 2 may be far greater than the separation between 2 and 3 for example.  IU may be inches away from skyrocketing up past many comparable teams with say, a blow out win of Purdue or Illinois on the road.  

[Seeking6]

17 hours ago, 5fouls said:

I missed the last 3/4ths of yesterday's game.  What did Marshall say?

Sorry for delayed response. Essentially said he didn't understand some of the ranking services and discrepancy.

[Seeking6]

15 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

NET:

Not

Exactly

Trustworthy

The good part of this is Lunardi has Kentucky really off (imo) too and of course their fans don't hold back one bit. He's to the point of almost referencing/enjoying the bait he's been selling.

[rico]

An article from a month ago...

https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/arizona-stanford-exposing-flaws-in-ncaa-tournament-selection-tool/

[IUFLA]

"There were teams with high NET numbers — North Carolina State was 33 and Clemson was 35 — that didn’t get to dance last March."

Dont know whether to laugh or cry at that statement...

NC St finished 20-12 but was 1-6 against ranked opponents...

Clemson was 20-14 and 1-7 vs ranked teams...

[cybergates]

1 hour ago, rico said:

An article from a month ago...

https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/arizona-stanford-exposing-flaws-in-ncaa-tournament-selection-tool/

At least it is getting some national attention, albeit looking at teams ranked too high in this case, instead of too low in our case. 

[rico]

15 minutes ago, cybergates said:

At least it is getting some national attention, albeit looking at teams ranked too high in this case, instead of too low in our case. 

I will say that we are not the only fan base that is really questioning them.

[bobtcat2]

NET is garbage but I think the guys who vote for top 25 use it because otherwise IU would be getting a lot of votes after last week.  I actually thought they might be ranked.  Doesn't really matter but something about seeing them in the top 25 scoreboard really turns me on.