NCAA NET 23-24

[IowaHoosierFan]

2 hours ago, 5fouls said:

You cant make this shiat up.

We have the same overall record as MSU

We have the same Quad 1 record as MSU.

We have a better Quad 2 record than MSU.

We own a head to head win over MSU.

We are 70 spots behind MSU in the NET.

You can complain and moan about this all you want.  They have more +15 point wins and less +15 point losses than we do compared to the wins/losses.  It's really not hard to figure out the metrics behind what the NET is doing.  Kill the 300+ team you play and don't get your ass handed to you very often by anyone else, then + wins enough to stay in the top 50 and you're pretty golden.  We had way too many mid/low single digit wins against shitty teams early and then gave up to many 15+ losses over the season.  We also win close alot of games.  How many low single digit games do we win by.  No one cares if you win by 1 if you're undefeated or close to it.  But a 18 to 20 win season, you can't win a majority of your games by single digits.  You're going to be considered mediocre.  

They have to use something to differentiate the team with similar Quad wins/losses.  What else are they going to look at?  Paint vs 3point scoring?  Rebounds? Efficiency maybe?

All this is coming from me, who knows nothing about anything, so take what i say and ignore it

[IUJoe]

4 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

You can complain and moan about this all you want.  They have more +15 point wins and less +15 point losses than we do compared to the wins/losses.  It's really not hard to figure out the metrics behind what the NET is doing.  Kill the 300+ team you play and don't get your ass handed to you very often by anyone else, then + wins enough to stay in the top 50 and you're pretty golden.  We had way too many mid/low single digit wins against shitty teams early and then gave up to many 15+ losses over the season.  We also win close alot of games.  How many low single digit games do we win by.  No one cares if you win by 1 if you're undefeated or close to it.  But a 18 to 20 win season, you can't win a majority of your games by single digits.  You're going to be considered mediocre.  

They have to use something to differentiate the team with similar Quad wins/losses.  What else are they going to look at?  Paint vs 3point scoring?  Rebounds? Efficiency maybe?

All this is coming from me, who knows nothing about anything, so take what i say and ignore it

This is actually spot on.  They had a result-based metric with the RPI and people didn't like that, either.  The bottom line is people like metrics that help their cause and don't like metrics that don't help their cause.

[kyhoosier29]

32 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

You can complain and moan about this all you want.  They have more +15 point wins and less +15 point losses than we do compared to the wins/losses.  It's really not hard to figure out the metrics behind what the NET is doing.  Kill the 300+ team you play and don't get your ass handed to you very often by anyone else, then + wins enough to stay in the top 50 and you're pretty golden.  We had way too many mid/low single digit wins against shitty teams early and then gave up to many 15+ losses over the season.  We also win close alot of games.  How many low single digit games do we win by.  No one cares if you win by 1 if you're undefeated or close to it.  But a 18 to 20 win season, you can't win a majority of your games by single digits.  You're going to be considered mediocre.  

They have to use something to differentiate the team with similar Quad wins/losses.  What else are they going to look at?  Paint vs 3point scoring?  Rebounds? Efficiency maybe?

All this is coming from me, who knows nothing about anything, so take what i say and ignore it

Yeah, I think people continue to ignore that the NET is more about “efficiency” numbers. We can have an almost identical record in many facets as MSU with a head to head win, but it doesn’t mean we played better basketball than MSU to get to those numbers, comparatively to the field. Didn’t somebody post not too long ago that we had been one of the luckiest teams this year? And that’s with us still being 19-13 😬. The NET’s object is to rank the most efficient, or in their words the best teams based on play, not result per se over the course of the year. Although the play typically determines the result. My guess is we don’t beat MSU on a neutral court. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Edited March 15 by kyhoosier29

[94hoosier]

25 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

You can complain and moan about this all you want.  They have more +15 point wins and less +15 point losses than we do compared to the wins/losses.  It's really not hard to figure out the metrics behind what the NET is doing.  Kill the 300+ team you play and don't get your ass handed to you very often by anyone else, then + wins enough to stay in the top 50 and you're pretty golden.  We had way too many mid/low single digit wins against shitty teams early and then gave up to many 15+ losses over the season.  We also win close alot of games.  How many low single digit games do we win by.  No one cares if you win by 1 if you're undefeated or close to it.  But a 18 to 20 win season, you can't win a majority of your games by single digits.  You're going to be considered mediocre.  

They have to use something to differentiate the team with similar Quad wins/losses.  What else are they going to look at?  Paint vs 3point scoring?  Rebounds? Efficiency maybe?

All this is coming from me, who knows nothing about anything, so take what i say and ignore it

Not saying ignore it at all. Just saying 70 spot difference is not accurate. 

Winning close games can be conspired a good thing as well

Again not saying we are a great team or belong in the tournament. Just saying we compare good to other bubble teams. I’ve watched St. john’s Villanova Wake Forest and others. Not sure they are better than us. Every calling Iowa and OSU a bubble team is crazy

I hope Indiana State makes it in but if they played our schedule would they have a different outcome?  Doubt it Doubt they would have even finished with 8 wins in BTT. 

Too much weight is given to the scoring difference. Coaches are going back to playing shitty teams and running up the score to improve the metrics. You used to play tough schedules because that helped get you in. Now you play bad teams and blow them out. Doesn’t sound like a good way to me

[5fouls]

1 hour ago, Kdug said:

Might be unpopular, but I agree with the NET, kenpom, and other advanced metrics assessment of this IU team. For 75% of the year, we played like one of the worst big ten teams, and really one of the 10-15 worst power conference teams. This last stretch we’ve played tourney caliber basketball, but you can’t ignore the first 3.5 months of the season. Even with this stretch, we’ve still probably only beat 2 at large tournament teams the whole year.

Better late than never, but this improvement in play needed to happen at least a month earlier if we wanted any shot at an at large bid.

It's not neceassarily where we are ranked, but where we are ranked in relation to our peers from the Big Ten.  You say we cant ignore the first 3.5 months.  I say you cant ignore the last 3 weeks either.

A win over MSU in Sunday should mean more than struggling against Army in November.  It just does.  

 

[5fouls]

37 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

You can complain and moan about this all you want.  They have more +15 point wins and less +15 point losses than we do compared to the wins/losses.  It's really not hard to figure out the metrics behind what the NET is doing.  Kill the 300+ team you play and don't get your ass handed to you very often by anyone else, then + wins enough to stay in the top 50 and you're pretty golden.  We had way too many mid/low single digit wins against shitty teams early and then gave up to many 15+ losses over the season.  We also win close alot of games.  How many low single digit games do we win by.  No one cares if you win by 1 if you're undefeated or close to it.  But a 18 to 20 win season, you can't win a majority of your games by single digits.  You're going to be considered mediocre.  

They have to use something to differentiate the team with similar Quad wins/losses.  What else are they going to look at?  Paint vs 3point scoring?  Rebounds? Efficiency maybe?

All this is coming from me, who knows nothing about anything, so take what i say and ignore it

Teams evolve over the course of the year.  Putting so much weight on Margin of Victory in November while discounting a head to head matchup last week is stupid.

Edited March 15 by 5fouls

[94hoosier]

17 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

It's not neceassarily where we are ranked, but where we are ranked in relation to our peers from the Big Ten.  You say we cant ignore the first 3.5 months.  I say you cant ignore the last 3 weeks either.

A win over MSU in Sunday should mean more than struggling against Army in November.  It just does.  

 

Hopefully the committee is looking at overall. Wins mean more than a loss. Our record is good. Strength of schedule is good. The committee has said in the past they only looked at the net for seeding and not used that much at all. If that is the cause we should have moved into consideration and a win too would go a long way. Find a team outside of OSU that’s playing as good as us

[IowaHoosierFan]

33 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Teams evolve over the course of the year.  Putting so much weight on Margin of Victory in November while discounting a head to head matchup last week is stupid.

We're still barely winning most of our games and losing by larger margins when we lose.  It is our own fault.  We didn't do what we needed to do.  Winning 5 games at the end of the season against mediocre teams and doing so by mostly close games, is not going to change the over all metrics.  You can't pick and choose when you want to look at the body of work. 

We shouldn't have lost to PSU, Rutger, etc... throughout the year and we probably wouldn't be in this place.  Also those losses were by double digits.  I give this team credit where it due, we're winning game we should win NOW, we should have done that when we needed to win them THEN.  

Sucks to waste the season until the last 4 games and into the BTT.  Keep wining and we won't have to worry about it.

[IowaHoosierFan]

43 minutes ago, 5fouls said:

Teams evolve over the course of the year.  Putting so much weight on Margin of Victory in November while discounting a head to head matchup last week is stupid.

Sorry but you know it works.  Whether you like it or not.  The numbers don't lie.  5 games don't change the whole body of work.

[94hoosier]

9 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

We're still barely winning most of our games and losing by larger margins when we lose.  It is our own fault.  We didn't do what we needed to do.  Winning 5 games at the end of the season against mediocre teams and doing so by mostly close games, is not going to change the over all metrics.  You can't pick and choose when you want to look at the body of work. 

We shouldn't have lost to PSU, Rutger, etc... throughout the year and we probably wouldn't be in this place.  Also those losses were by double digits.  I give this team credit where it due, we're winning game we should win NOW, we should have done that when we needed to win them THEN.  

Sucks to waste the season until the last 4 games and into the BTT.  Keep wining and we won't have to worry about it.

you say mediocre teams

Wisky and MSU both top 25 net. 
Again winning close games is what good teams do and teams that get in the tournament.  We are clearly playing better D than a month ago

[IowaHoosierFan]

1 minute ago, 94hoosier said:

you say mediocre teams

Wisky and MSU both top 25 net. 
Again winning close games is what good teams do and teams that get in the tournament.  We are clearly playing better D than a month ago

I didn't say we weren't playing better.  Go look at MSU and Wisc last 10 games and tell me what you think. Maryland, Minn and PSU are mediocre for sure though.  We're playing better, but we're also barely winning most of the time.  Keep barely winning and we'll hang a banner.  I will be happy with that.  

[IUJoe]

1 hour ago, 94hoosier said:

Not saying ignore it at all. Just saying 70 spot difference is not accurate. 

Winning close games can be conspired a good thing as well

Again not saying we are a great team or belong in the tournament. Just saying we compare good to other bubble teams. I’ve watched St. john’s Villanova Wake Forest and others. Not sure they are better than us. Every calling Iowa and OSU a bubble team is crazy

I hope Indiana State makes it in but if they played our schedule would they have a different outcome?  Doubt it Doubt they would have even finished with 8 wins in BTT. 

Too much weight is given to the scoring difference. Coaches are going back to playing shitty teams and running up the score to improve the metrics. You used to play tough schedules because that helped get you in. Now you play bad teams and blow them out. Doesn’t sound like a good way to me

You make a good point about winning close games.  As someone who produces metrics, I struggle with determining how much weight to give that, to be honest.  KenPom completely ignores it and calls in “luck” in a separate column.  Some teams just have a knack for winning close games, and some teams just have a string of good luck.  So if you account for it, you run the risk of overrating lucky teams.  

[Kdug]

3 hours ago, 5fouls said:

It's not neceassarily where we are ranked, but where we are ranked in relation to our peers from the Big Ten.  You say we cant ignore the first 3.5 months.  I say you cant ignore the last 3 weeks either.

A win over MSU in Sunday should mean more than struggling against Army in November.  It just does.  

 

Ageeed, you don’t ignore the last 3 weeks either. Which is why I said we’ve played like a tourney caliber team during that stretch. But that’s only 5 games out of the 32 we’ve played. You can’t just ignore the other 27 games, or 85% of the season, of mostly mediocre to bad basketball. If we would’ve played like this most of the season, we would be in the tourney. Unfortunately we didn’t, and we dug a hole too deep both in terms of wins and losses and efficiency metrics.

I’d bet most of the top 100 teams have a stretch of games where they’ve looked tourney caliber. But it’s about doing that consistently throughout the year, not just the last 5 games of the year.

Edited March 15 by Kdug

[Kdug]

1 hour ago, 94hoosier said:

I get the margin of victory but not for 70 spots. We played in the conference played the same teams have the same record. 70 spots behind is ridiculous. We have 4 losses to the top 6 net teams and 3 more to top 22 net teams

thats 7 of the 13 to top 22 net teams

wins over 2 top 25 net teams. 

Not saying we belong in.  But we should be in the conversation. Overall record and win quality stack up to other bubble teams. 

Again, I think there’s a substantial gap in overall efficiency (which is what the NET is) between MSU and IU. 70 spots doesn’t seem all that off from what I’d expect when looking at the results. Pure wins and losses we’re closer to MSU, but even then MSU has wins over some top tier teams like Baylor and Illinois, while IU’s best win is probably vs MSU or Wisconsin (and basically nothing after those 2), who are mid to lower seeded teams. There’s also a reason MSU is in the bubble conversation, and that’s because their resume isn’t as strong as their efficiency numbers. IU is very weak in both areas.

And I don’t know that citing IU’s losses to top teams - almost all of which we got blown out in - is a good argument for us being in or close to being in. Who cares if you played good teams if you can’t compete with them. If anything that shows that we can’t compete consistently with good competition.

[HoosierDom]

1 hour ago, 5fouls said:

Teams evolve over the course of the year.  Putting so much weight on Margin of Victory in November while discounting a head to head matchup last week is stupid.

Margin of victory is so easily distorted, too. On either side of a decided game, I feel like we're always the team that dribbles out possessions and gives the other teams layups. Efficiency numbers are tightly packed, I'm sure that costs us 5-10 spots.

[Drroogh]

Well that loss ought to improve MSU’s NET🤷‍♂️

[BruceDouglas]

5 hours ago, 5fouls said:

You cant make this shiat up.

We have the same overall record as MSU

We have the same Quad 1 record as MSU.

We have a better Quad 2 record than MSU.

We own a head to head win over MSU.

We are 70 spots behind MSU in the NET.

[IowaHoosierFan]

21 minutes ago, Drroogh said:

Well that loss ought to improve MSU’s NET🤷‍♂️

Losing close to the #3 NET team by 5 points on a neutral court, probably doesn't hurt them at all.

[Maedhros]

My problem with the NET is its not being used in a manner consistent with the way it was designed.

It's clear from this season that NET ratings are weighted heavily toward efficiency metrics. Those measures, like KenPom and Torvik, are predictive. They tell you what you should expect from teams going forward, even project spreads in a matchup between any two teams. What those measures don't tell you is what a team has accomplished over a season.

NCAA Tournament selection is supposed to be about your resume. Who did you play. Who did you beat. Who beat you. Yes, we need a way to sort teams, a way to identify which games are quality wins and which are bad losses. That's a fine use for efficiency metrics. But efficiency doesn't care if you won or lost. As long as the NET is going to depend so heavily on efficiency metrics, a team's own NET ranking shouldn't be used a proxy for the worthiness of their resume.

I'm as much an advocate for analytics as anyone, but wins and losses have to matter. Six wins in a row by one point over lousy teams still wins you a National Championship. And the thing is, we have statistics that measure resumes. We could use Wins Above Bubble or Strength of Record. By WAB, Indiana started the day at 53 and Michigan St at 52. Those numbers make a lot more sense, based on actual outcomes, than the two teams being ranked 70 spots apart.

I have no problem saying that on a neutral floor, Michigan St would be the favored team. That's a categorically different thing, though, than saying MSU is more deserving of an NCAA Tournament bid.

Edited March 15 by Maedhros

[BobSaccamanno]

I think there are problems with the NET but it’s basically the law.  I may disagree with a law that says I can’t rob a store just because I’m hungry, but it doesn’t change the fact that I have to follow the process and work within the rules to satisfy my hunger.

We need a head of analytics to study the “law” and translate it for the staff so we can optimize it as it stands.   The head of analytics can do a number of other things like study where players are maximized and weaknesses they can improve, combinations of players that succeed and don’t, how to maximize efficiency based on the data and certain plays, apply strengths vs weaknesses with the opponent, etc.  

Edited March 15 by BobSaccamanno

[Kdug]

6 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

My problem with the NET is its not being used in a manner consistent with the way it was designed.

It's clear from this season that NET ratings are weighted heavily toward efficiency metrics. Those measures, like KenPom and Torvik, are predictive. They tell you what you should expect from teams going forward, even project spreads in a matchup between any two teams. What those measures don't tell you is what a team has accomplished over a season.

NCAA Tournament selection is supposed to be about your resume. Who did you play. Who did you beat. Who beat you. Yes, we need a way to sort teams, a way to identify which games are quality wins and which are bad losses. That's a fine use for efficiency metrics. But efficiency doesn't care if you won or lost. As long as it's going to depend so heavily on efficiency metrics, a team's own NET ranking shouldn't be used a proxy for the worthiness of their resume.

I'm as much an advocate for analytics as anyone, but wins and losses have to matter. Six wins in a row over lousy teams still wins you a National Championship. And the thing is, we have statistics that measure resumes. We could use Wins Above Bubble or Strength of Record. By WAB, Indiana started the day at 53 and Michigan St at 52. Those numbers make a lot more sense, based on actual outcomes, than the two teams being ranked 70 spots apart.

I have no problem saying that on a neutral floor, Michigan St would be the favored team. That's a categorically different thing, though, than saying MSU is more deserving of an NCAA Tournament bid.

They use both resume and efficiency metrics, with resume metrics historically be given more weight. IU is poor in both, which is why we aren’t in the conversation. MSU is slightly higher in the resume metrics they use (KPI and SOR) and has good efficiency, which is why they’re considered in as a 10 seed

[Maedhros]

1 minute ago, Kdug said:

They use both resume and efficiency metrics, with resume metrics historically be given more weight. IU is poor in both, which is why we aren’t in the conversation. MSU is slightly higher in the resume metrics they use (KPI and SOR) and has good efficiency, which is why they’re considered in as a 10 seed

Even in Strength of Record, we're sitting at 51. MSU is at 46. KPI likes us the least of the resume metrics at 60, with MSU 39. 

Meanwhile the NET has us 94 and MSU 24. For both teams, those ranks are within just a few spots of their efficiency metrics at KenPom, Torvik, and ESPN's BPI. It's very apparent the NET is weighted toward efficiency, not resume.

Somehow the NET has Indiana ranked lower than we are anywhere else, including KenPom, Torvik, BPI, Massey, EvanMiya, WAB, SOR or KPI.

[Kdug]

Just now, Maedhros said:

Even in Strength of Record, we're sitting at 51. MSU is at 46. KPI likes us the least of the resume metrics at 60, with MSU 39. 

Meanwhile the NET has us 94 and MSU 24. For both teams, those ranks are within just a few spots of their efficiency metrics at KenPom, Torvik, and ESPN's BPI. It's very apparent the NET is weighted toward efficiency, not resume.

Somehow the NET has Indiana ranked lower than we are anywhere else, including KenPom, Torvik, BPI, Massey, EvanMiya, WAB, SOR or KPI.

The NET is meant to be an efficiency metric. My point is that even the resume metrics would have us 10-20 spots outside of the tourney assuming 40ish at large bids after the auto bids. We just really don’t have a case at this point whether you look at resume or efficiency.

If we beat Nebraska and Illinois, our resume would probably be more comparable to a bubble teams. But then the issue is we’ll be compared to other bubble teams with similar resumes, but likely better efficiency.

[Seeking6]

1 minute ago, Maedhros said:

Even in Strength of Record, we're sitting at 51. MSU is at 46. KPI likes us the least of the resume metrics at 60, with MSU 39. 

Meanwhile the NET has us 94 and MSU 24. For both teams, those ranks are within just a few spots of their efficiency metrics at KenPom, Torvik, and ESPN's BPI. It's very apparent the NET is weighted toward efficiency, not resume.

Somehow the NET has Indiana ranked lower than we are anywhere else, including KenPom, Torvik, BPI, Massey, EvanMiya, WAB, SOR or KPI.

That's been my biggest complaint. When numbers have a variance of almost 200% something has to be corrected....and one thing I've noticed in recent weeks is more and more people including some noteable online guys have been hammering the NET rankings and using Sparty and Wisconsin as examples.

Full disclosure though. I've hated numbers since my Canes were eliminated from the BCS title game in 2000 in favor of Florida St who were beaten by Miami earlier that year.

 

[hoopsta007]

So essentially we should switch to using Vegas point spreads for results.  In NET world some wins aren’t actually wins and some losses aren’t actually losses anymore?