Jump to content

2021 NET Rankings

ChiHoosier

Recommended Posts

rico

rico

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, dgambill said:

The caveat being this isn’t a normal tournament. Being super condensed, no fans to speak, and all held in Indy there isn’t room to extend it. That said if there is a way...say those teams make a run and get a few games over 500 they will likely select them.

There is a distinct possibility that Duke will only play 1 ranked team the rest of the way out in the ACC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Maedhros

Maedhros

Posted
Posted
On 1/11/2021 at 12:03 PM, 5fouls said:

Does anyone know if these are still the Quad classifications?  It's from an article when the NET first rolled out.  And, I was not able to locate anything recent.  If so, the Nebraska win is only a Quad 3.  The good news is that Stanford has moved into the Top 50, giving us our only Quad 1 win thus far.

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75.
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135.
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240.
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353.

I'm a bit late, so apologies if this has been answered, but warrennolan.com is an invaluable resource for resume related questions. Here's Indiana's NET team sheet, and plenty of other interesting pages are available from the nav bar:

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2021/team-net-sheet?team=Indiana

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
5fouls

5fouls

Posted
Posted

Net rankings are updated daily.  Keep that in mind as you read below.  

We literally did not move in the NET rankings after picking up a Quad 1 win yesterday.  Went in 48th, came out 48th.

Meanwhile, Colgate, who did not play, moved up two spots to 13th.  

Several Big Ten teams that were idle on Sunday moved up one spot, including Ohio State, Wisconsin, Purdue, and Rutgers.

Louisville, on quarantine all week, also moved up.

Apparently, according to NET, it's better to NOT play than it is to win a Quad 1 game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maedhros

Maedhros

Posted
Posted

NET rankings aren't based on Quad 1 wins. Quad 1 wins are based on NET rankings. You have the causality reversed.

The reason a whole bunch of teams moved up exactly one spot without playing is because Drake got smoked and dropped from 13 to 32. I won't deny something's busted to still have Colgate this high, but small sample sizes can be a hell of a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
5fouls

5fouls

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

NET rankings aren't based on Quad 1 wins. Quad 1 wins are based on NET rankings. You have the causality reversed.

The reason a whole bunch of teams moved up exactly one spot without playing is because Drake got smoked and dropped from 13 to 32. I won't deny something's busted to still have Colgate this high, but small sample sizes can be a hell of a thing.

Here is a link that explains how the NET is calculated.  Below, I will state the obvious as to how this is grossly flawed.

College basketball's NET rankings, explained | NCAA.com

Net Efficiency - It's not weighted efficiency.  It's straight net efficiency.  So, if Colgate can muster better efficiency the 4 times they play Holy Cross than IU can when they play Top 10 Iowa, then kudos to them.  They are obviously better.

Winning Percentage - Straight up winning percentage.  Does not matter the strength of schedule.  So, if Colgate can schedule Holy Cross 4 times while IU is playing 3 ranked teams in every 4 game stretch, more power to Colgate.  IU apparently should join the Patriot League.

Adjusted Win Percentage - This sounds promising.  But, alas, it's adjusted based on where it occurs, not who it is against.  Another metric where strength of schedule is not a factor.  So, a home loss to Army counts the same as a home loss to Illinois.  A home win against Holy Cross is weighted at +.6 while a double overtime road loss at Wisconsin is weighted at -.6.  Think about that for a second.  A metric has determined that a home win against Holy Cross is 12 basis points better than a road loss against Wisconsin.  And, think about it further.  It's already giving Colgate credit for the win in the Winning Percentage metric.  This metric is actually doubling down on the previous one.

Scoring Margin - A 2 point home loss to Army is more impressive than a 4 point home loss to Illinois.     

Team Value Index - Team Value Index is an algorithm set up to reward teams who beat other good teams. It's a results-oriented component of NET and only factors in results of games played against Division I opponents. 

The problem with this is how it defines 'good teams'.  It uses the same metrics for Net Efficiency, Winning Percentage, and Adjusted Winning Percentage as defined above.  I've already pointed out the huge flaws in those, and this is perpetuating those flaws. 

If the metric can't properly identify what a 'good team' is, it basically becomes worthless.  And, so it is.  

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
5fouls

5fouls

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, NotIThatLives said:

I don't know the different formulas used but when you have pacific and st Mary's in your top 5 or 10 you lose all credibility, even if you have been around my entire lifetime.  

When you play a brutal 20 game B1G schedule it looks like this. https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other

Colgate is ranked 273rd in that metric.  But, the NET does not care about that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maedhros

Maedhros

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 5fouls said:

Here is a link that explains how the NET is calculated.  Below, I will state the obvious as to how this is grossly flawed.

College basketball's NET rankings, explained | NCAA.com

Net Efficiency - It's not weighted efficiency.  It's straight net efficiency.  So, if Colgate can muster better efficiency the 4 times they play Holy Cross than IU can when they play Top 10 Iowa, then kudos to them.  They are obviously better.

Winning Percentage - Straight up winning percentage.  Does not matter the strength of schedule.  So, if Colgate can schedule Holy Cross 4 times while IU is playing 3 ranked teams in every 4 game stretch, more power to Colgate.  IU apparently should join the Patriot League.

Adjusted Win Percentage - This sounds promising.  But, alas, it's adjusted based on where it occurs, not who it is against.  Another metric where strength of schedule is not a factor.  So, a home loss to Army counts the same as a home loss to Illinois.  A home win against Holy Cross is weighted at +.6 while a double overtime road loss at Wisconsin is weighted at -.6.  Think about that for a second.  A metric has determined that a home win against Holy Cross is 12 basis points better than a road loss against Wisconsin.  And, think about it further.  It's already giving Colgate credit for the win in the Winning Percentage metric.  This metric is actually doubling down on the previous one.

Scoring Margin - A 2 point home loss to Army is more impressive than a 4 point home loss to Illinois.     

Team Value Index - Team Value Index is an algorithm set up to reward teams who beat other good teams. It's a results-oriented component of NET and only factors in results of games played against Division I opponents. 

The problem with this is how it defines 'good teams'.  It uses the same metrics for Net Efficiency, Winning Percentage, and Adjusted Winning Percentage as defined above.  I've already pointed out the huge flaws in those, and this is perpetuating those flaws. 

If the metric can't properly identify what a 'good team' is, it basically becomes worthless.  And, so it is.  

  

 

The NET system was adjusted this year, to have only two inputs:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2021-01-04/ncaa-releases-first-net-rankings-2021-mens-college-basketball-season%3famp

"After two seasons of using the NET, the Division I men’s basketball committee decided to tweak the NET 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."

The biggest flaw with the NET is not knowing what's going on under the hood,  but there's at least lip service on both points to adjusting for quality of opponent. They made changes this year and more changes are apparently needed, so I'm not going to claim the system works just fine. I'm also not going to say it's worthless just because of one outlier that's played only  eight games, and most of those against the same opponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
5fouls

5fouls

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

The NET system was adjusted this year, to have only two inputs:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2021-01-04/ncaa-releases-first-net-rankings-2021-mens-college-basketball-season%3famp

"After two seasons of using the NET, the Division I men’s basketball committee decided to tweak the NET 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."

The biggest flaw with the NET is not knowing what's going on under the hood,  but there's at least lip service on both points to adjusting for quality of opponent. They made changes this year and more changes are apparently needed, so I'm not going to claim the system works just fine. I'm also not going to say it's worthless just because of one outlier that's played only  eight games, and most of those against the same opponent.

The graphic below shows what is in that Team Value Index.  It includes the items I detailed in my original email above.

Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites
IUFLA

IUFLA

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, rico said:

Both Loyola and Colgate move up one spot.  They now sit at #12 and #13 respectively.  You can't stop them.  You can only hope to contain them.

Speaking of Loyola, I see where Damezi Anderson has only played in 3 games for them this year...wonder what the deal is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...