Seeking6 Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 4 hours ago, 13th&Jackson said: How far apart are the following teams in the NET rankings? Team 1: 13-8, 1-4 road, 1-2 neutral, 2-7 quad 1, 2-1 quad 2. No quad 3 or 4 losses Team 2: 13-8, 1-4 road, 1-2 neutral, 0-7 quad 1, 3-1 quad 2. No quad 3 or 4 losses The part that kills me is MSU has a better ranking because they beat bad teams badly where as we haven't. Bad losses and close wins are metric killers. With the exception of Rutgers I'd love to see the bad loss we have. Hopefully by the end of the season some common sense will prevail if we can add some quality W's with Northwestern, Wiscy, and Sparty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaHoosierFan Posted February 5 Report Share Posted February 5 On 2/2/2024 at 2:12 PM, Seeking6 said: The part that kills me is MSU has a better ranking because they beat bad teams badly where as we haven't. Bad losses and close wins are metric killers. With the exception of Rutgers I'd love to see the bad loss we have. Hopefully by the end of the season some common sense will prevail if we can add some quality W's with Northwestern, Wiscy, and Sparty. I never liked how college football took win margin into account when ranking teams. All they did was move that to basketball and now you have to curb stomp bad teams to keep up your metrics. Don't like it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th&Jackson Posted February 5 Author Report Share Posted February 5 7 hours ago, IowaHoosierFan said: I never liked how college football took win margin into account when ranking teams. All they did was move that to basketball and now you have to curb stomp bad teams to keep up your metrics. Don't like it. The weird thing is they technically removed margin of victory as a variable, but it's just embedded in efficiency numbers. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyhoosier29 Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 6 hours ago, 13th&Jackson said: The weird thing is they technically removed margin of victory as a variable, but it's just embedded in efficiency numbers. I think it’s somewhat important…. we can’t say that it means the same thing to beat Morehead St the way we did (luckily) as it does to beat them by 40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaHoosierFan Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 Does margin of ranking matter? So if we're ranked 100 and we beat a rank 20 team by 20. Does it hold more weight than beating a team ranked 200 by the same amount? Or is it just win by X and you get more benefit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maedhros Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 Ranking matters insofar as a lower ranked team is going to have a lower Adjusted Efficiency Margin. Efficiency metrics are predictive. Any hypothetical matchup between the two would have a predicted spread, based on their current efficiences. Beat that spread and your AdjEM improves. Underperform that spread and your rating will drop. Even in a win. That's why our rating and rank dropped like a rock after playing Army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 17 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said: Does margin of ranking matter? So if we're ranked 100 and we beat a rank 20 team by 20. Does it hold more weight than beating a team ranked 200 by the same amount? Or is it just win by X and you get more benefit? Yes, most efficiency metrics are weighted based on competition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th&Jackson Posted February 7 Author Report Share Posted February 7 (edited) Unfortunately beating OSU on the road only moved IU from 103 to 99. OSU fell from 67 to 73, so currently a quad 1, but barely and not likely to hold the way OSU is trending. Unfortunately PSU is a quad 3 loss. IU has to win at PU to move the NET needle. Edited February 7 by 13th&Jackson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted February 7 Report Share Posted February 7 20 minutes ago, 13th&Jackson said: Unfortunately beating OSU on the road only moved IU from 103 to 99. OSU fell from 67 to 73, so currently a quad 1, but barely and not likely to hold the way OSU is trending. Unfortunately PSU is a quad 3 loss. IU has to win at PU to move the NET needle. Team needs to find a way to get to 20 wins in the regular season, then probably win a couple in the BTT to have a good shot. If they do that, the numbers should work themselves into a bubble case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted February 7 Report Share Posted February 7 4 minutes ago, KoB2011 said: Team needs to find a way to get to 20 wins in the regular season, then probably win a couple in the BTT to have a good shot. If they do that, the numbers should work themselves into a bubble case. And probably need at least one of those wins to be at Purdue or vs Wisconsin. We're going to need a signature win to be taken seriously. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted February 7 Report Share Posted February 7 6 minutes ago, BGleas said: And probably need at least one of those wins to be at Purdue or vs Wisconsin. We're going to need a signature win to be taken seriously. Yeah I think so too. We do have potentially 3 Quad 2 games and 5 Quad 1 games left. So if they hypothetically get to 20 wins, that’s at least 3 Quad 2 and 3 Quad 1 wins. Then you hope that Michigan and Ohio State play great ball the rest of the way to sneak those into Quad 1. Obviously we all want to make the tournament, but if the team puts up the type of fight in the next month to even make it a conversation then I’ll be happy with the effort to get there. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgambill Posted February 9 Report Share Posted February 9 The tournament committee has shown time and time again they don’t value conference tournament wins the same as regular season. We want in we need multiple quad 1 wins and no more bad losses….else we better make it to the finals of B1G tournament. They want to see wins vs quality opponents…tournament quality teams…and those we have few if any at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUCrazy2 Posted February 11 Report Share Posted February 11 On 2/8/2024 at 7:44 PM, dgambill said: The tournament committee has shown time and time again they don’t value conference tournament wins the same as regular season. We want in we need multiple quad 1 wins and no more bad losses….else we better make it to the finals of B1G tournament. They want to see wins vs quality opponents…tournament quality teams…and those we have few if any at all. The only way we are getting in the tournament is if we win the Big Ten tournament. We are on the outside looking in at the NIT right now. And frankly, I hope we don't end up in that. It doesn't hold the value it used to from a development standpoint with the portal these days. I expect over half this team to be gone next year. Who cares if they get a few more games together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgambill Posted February 11 Report Share Posted February 11 5 hours ago, IUCrazy2 said: The only way we are getting in the tournament is if we win the Big Ten tournament. We are on the outside looking in at the NIT right now. And frankly, I hope we don't end up in that. It doesn't hold the value it used to from a development standpoint with the portal these days. I expect over half this team to be gone next year. Who cares if they get a few more games together. I want to win all our games…but I’m not disillusioned to think we have a good shot. We would need to reel off 6-7 in a row and need to sweep NW and Wisc and have them also continue to win. Anyways…I think this is Woodys last offseason if he can’t put together a much better team. It goes to show it isn’t about having the best players…its about having the best TEAM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobSaccamanno Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 On 2/6/2024 at 2:13 PM, Maedhros said: Ranking matters insofar as a lower ranked team is going to have a lower Adjusted Efficiency Margin. Efficiency metrics are predictive. Any hypothetical matchup between the two would have a predicted spread, based on their current efficiences. Beat that spread and your AdjEM improves. Underperform that spread and your rating will drop. Even in a win. That's why our rating and rank dropped like a rock after playing Army. Interesting. Do you recall the before and after NET from the Army game (even ballpark)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUJoe Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 50 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said: Interesting. Do you recall the before and after NET from the Army game (even ballpark)? As someone who produces these types of metrics, I can answer your question. The first NET rankings came out on December 3, well after we played Army. To produce completely unbiased rankings, it takes time for the teams to play enough games to “connect” with each other in the regression. Anything you see that is produced before that (KenPom, Sagarin, etc.) includes pre-season or previous year’s data and is not exclusively this season’s data. But by December 3rd, Indiana had played close games with Florida Gulf Coast, Army, Wright State, Louisville, and Harvard, and had been blown out by Connecticut. As a result, they were #137 in those December 3rd rankings. And while they have moved up some, those early games turned out to be a good predictive indicator that they weren’t very good. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking6 Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 Interesting take from Brownell on how easy it is to manipulate NET rankings. https://www.on3.com/news/clemson-coach-brad-brownell-frustrated-big-12-has-manipulate-net-rankings/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zlinedavid Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 16 minutes ago, Seeking6 said: Interesting take from Brownell on how easy it is to manipulate NET rankings. https://www.on3.com/news/clemson-coach-brad-brownell-frustrated-big-12-has-manipulate-net-rankings/ Quote “I really think it kept us out of the tournament last year and that’s not right,” Brownell said. Well, adjust your scheduling next year. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceDouglas Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking6 Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 Can someone that knows the NET rankings in and out help me on this. Is there a cutoff for losing at home by 5 vs 7 points? I saw this on Twitter and hoping it's wrong but Collins was yelling to his players not to foul when down 5 vs Iowa. Please tell me this is just Ant having fun and not a real cutoff that influences rankings? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUJoe Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 4 minutes ago, Seeking6 said: Can someone that knows the NET rankings in and out help me on this. Is there a cutoff for losing at home by 5 vs 7 points? I saw this on Twitter and hoping it's wrong but Collins was yelling to his players not to foul when down 5 vs Iowa. Please tell me this is just Ant having fun and not a real cutoff that influences rankings? No, a 2-point difference in one game is going to change a team's rating by about 0.000001. In other words, no effect at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking6 Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 Just now, IUJoe said: No, a 2-point difference in one game is going to change a team's rating by about 0.000001. In other words, no effect at all. Thank you! I saw the tweet and thought no way... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking6 Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 Cool to see Michigan St NET ranking jump after another loss. 3 losses in a row....2 at home to Iowa and Ohio St and they improve. Got it NET rankings. Joke. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purdue7 Posted March 5 Report Share Posted March 5 On 3/3/2024 at 8:59 PM, Seeking6 said: Cool to see Michigan St NET ranking jump after another loss. 3 losses in a row....2 at home to Iowa and Ohio St and they improve. Got it NET rankings. Joke. If they beat what’s left of NW and lose at IU and first BTT are they really a lock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th&Jackson Posted March 5 Author Report Share Posted March 5 On 3/3/2024 at 8:59 PM, Seeking6 said: Cool to see Michigan St NET ranking jump after another loss. 3 losses in a row....2 at home to Iowa and Ohio St and they improve. Got it NET rankings. Joke. WI has lost 7 of 9, including losses to MI, IN, & Rutgers (3 iof bottom 4 in B1G NET), yet they are still NET 23, one behind MSU. Only wins were OSU and MD. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.