Net Rankings vs. SOR

[BryceC]

So, there has been a lot of talk about Net Rankings and how the Big 12 has manipulated it. Probably true, but I thought I'd check Net rankings against SOR, which is a results based metric which should throw out the benefit of beating bad teams by a lot. Historically SOR actually more closely relates to seeding and who makes the dance. What happens?

Well, first off, the Big 12 looks better actually. 9 teams in the top 31 of the SOR and the average ranking of the teams in the conference goes from 46.4 to 44.6.

I'm starting to get a little annoyed with the narrative around the Big 12 manipulating the NET. Every metric shows the Big 12 as very good. Results based metrics would greatly benefit several teams in the Big 12, especially KU, OU, TT, and TCU. People can be unhappy with the noncon but it hasn't hurt the league regardless of the metric.

	NET	SOR
Houston	1	2​
Iowa St.	8	7​
BYU	10	22​
Baylor	14	10​
Kansas	17	8​
Texas	34	30​
TCU	38	28​
Oklahoma	42	27​
Texas Tech	43	31​
Cincinnati	45	66​
UCF	66	86​
Kansas St.	74	48​
Oklahoma St.	114	124​
West Virginia	144	136​
Average	46.42857​	44.64286​

 

[madguy30]

How do the other conferences stack up?

Does Wisconsin get scrutiny for being on the 4/5 line due to their non-conference schedule that they weren't even that successful vs.?

 

[BryceC]

How do the other conferences stack up?

Does Wisconsin get scrutiny for being on the 4/5 line due to their non-conference schedule that they weren't even that successful vs.?

Wisconsin - #22 in NET, #23 in SOR.

There just isn't some huge divergence in these numbers at this point in the season. All of the metrics sort of flatten out by the end of the season.

 

[cyfan92]

I'm ok replacing NET with Wins Above the Bubble (WAB). See it sorted here:

https://barttorvik.com/?sort=34&begin=20231101&end=20240501&conlimit=All&year=2024&top=0&hteam=&quad=5&rpi=#

 

[Cyhig]

I'm ok replacing NET with Wins Above the Bubble (WAB). See it sorted here:

https://barttorvik.com/?sort=34&begin=20231101&end=20240501&conlimit=All&year=2024&top=0&hteam=&quad=5&rpi=#

Wait… the big 12 is still by far the best conference with this metric.

Big 12 must be finding ways to skew this data!!

 

[cyfan92]

The basic explanation for WAB is that it is precisely what the name sounds like: the number of wins a team has above a typical bubble team’s expectation. In other words, it answers the question, “How many more wins does Team A have than the number of wins a bubble team would be expected to have against the same schedule?”

For example, if Team A is 14-2, and a bubble team would be expected to go 11-5 against Team A’s schedule, then Team A will have a WAB of 3. A negative WAB indicates a team that has won fewer games than what would be expected of a bubble team against its schedule; if Team A were instead 10-6 against that same schedule, its WAB would be -1. A notable feature of WAB is that it doesn’t take into account margin of victory. It isn’t attempting to predict future results, rather it’s analyzing the strength of a team’s résumé based purely on wins and losses.

Introducing Wins Above Bubble

The method behind one objective measure of résumé strength

herhoopstats.substack.com

 

[CloneSt8]

The question for me is: are tgenon- onferen e scheduling practices of the teams in the B10, SEC, ACC, Big East, etc. significantly different than the B12? The rhetoric makes it seem like the others are allschefuling top ten teams while the B12 teams are scheduling the littlesisters of the pour.

 

[BryceC]

The question for me is: are tgenon- onferen e scheduling practices of the teams in the B10, SEC, ACC, Big East, etc. significantly different than the B12? The rhetoric makes it seem like the others are allschefuling top ten teams while the B12 teams are scheduling the littlesisters of the pour.

It's a matter of degree. Our Noncon SOS is because we got a little unlucky with the tourney, A&M, VCU, and VTech just aren't that good. Also, we scheduled a lot of teams in the 300+ range, whereas a lot of teams scheduled more in the 200+ range, but the fact is you expect to beat all of those teams anyway so it really doesn't matter to me.

 

[Gunnerclone]

It's a matter of degree. Our Noncon SOS is because we got a little unlucky with the tourney, A&M, VCU, and VTech just aren't that good. Also, we scheduled a lot of teams in the 300+ range, whereas a lot of teams scheduled more in the 200+ range, but the fact is you expect to beat all of those teams anyway so it really doesn't matter to me.

I’m sure ISU get a big pat on the back from these morons next year since we fell in to a good pre-con tournament in 2024.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

It's a matter of degree. Our Noncon SOS is because we got a little unlucky with the tourney, A&M, VCU, and VTech just aren't that good. Also, we scheduled a lot of teams in the 300+ range, whereas a lot of teams scheduled more in the 200+ range, but the fact is you expect to beat all of those teams anyway so it really doesn't matter to me.

This!!! The difference between those teams are really small and pretty much all of those games will be at home. The ACC just needs to be better and this isn't even a discussion. The east coast media can't handle the fact that the Big 12 has been the premier basketball conference for over 5 years.

 

[dahliaclone]

This!!! The difference between those teams are really small and pretty much all of those games will be at home. The ACC just needs to be better and this isn't even a discussion. The east coast media can't handle the fact that the Big 12 has been the premier basketball conference for over 5 years.

And will be for years to come now

 

[Sigmapolis]

You could accuse the Big 12 of "manipulating" a ranking system if it's assessment of the Big 12 was somehow an outlier. But seems literally every system is producing the same conclusion:

Best conference. Suck it, haters.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Is this really that much of a narrative? I saw both Clemson and Pitt’s coaches whining about it. But they clearly have ulterior motives: Clemson thinks they’re underseeded in mock drafts, Pitt is on the wrong side of the bubble.

The media stories I’ve seen on it are all defending the Big 12, via “ACC you could do this too and have before”, “Big 12 had the 9/32 toughest NCSOS last year, so this isn’t consistent”, and “even if the Big 12 had a tougher NCSOS, their NET rankings would be similar to what they are now”

 

[alarson]

The basic explanation for WAB is that it is precisely what the name sounds like: the number of wins a team has above a typical bubble team’s expectation. In other words, it answers the question, “How many more wins does Team A have than the number of wins a bubble team would be expected to have against the same schedule?”

For example, if Team A is 14-2, and a bubble team would be expected to go 11-5 against Team A’s schedule, then Team A will have a WAB of 3. A negative WAB indicates a team that has won fewer games than what would be expected of a bubble team against its schedule; if Team A were instead 10-6 against that same schedule, its WAB would be -1. A notable feature of WAB is that it doesn’t take into account margin of victory. It isn’t attempting to predict future results, rather it’s analyzing the strength of a team’s résumé based purely on wins and losses.

Introducing Wins Above Bubble

The method behind one objective measure of résumé strength

herhoopstats.substack.com

Isn't that roughly the same thing as SOR, just SOR looks at it from the perspective of a 25th ranked team?

 

[alenz95]

Keep in mind this criticism is coming from biased sources, those being ACC teams worried about making the dance.

 

[QBEagles]

Even if you take margin of victory out of the equation, the Big 12 is still 1st in ELO and RPI. And beating up on weak opponents was the opposite of how you'd want to manipulate RPI. Running up the score does technically help in efficiency metrics, but it's not that significant.

And regardless of what the Big 12 is doing, the ACC is a pretty distant 5th in most rankings. They just haven't been good in the 20s outside of a nice tourney run in 22.

 

[LivntheCyLife]

I wish the tournament committee would just officially make it strength of record or wins above bubble or similar. Something that creates a global standings where each win moves you up (and no margins of victory effect except in the underlying rankings of opponents). I think it'd be more fun to watch the late regular season and conference tournaments knowing exactly where you are in the standings.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

I wish the tournament committee would just officially make it strength of record or wins above bubble or similar. Something that creates a global standings where each win moves you up (and no margins of victory effect except in the underlying rankings of opponents). I think it'd be more fun to watch the late regular season and conference tournaments knowing exactly where you are in the standings.

Do they not look at those? Not sure what all is in the team sheets. My understanding is the NET is just one of the tools they use to choose/seed teams, which makes the ACC complaints even more ridiculous

 

[Icky_Mettle]

 

[LivntheCyLife]

Do they not look at those? Not sure what all is in the team sheets. My understanding is the NET is just one of the tools they use to choose/seed teams, which makes the ACC complaints even more ridiculous

I think they do have access. But I was suggesting just get rid of the committee as SOR has an extremely high correlation with who gets in the tournament and how they are seeded. Just using it would have little effect on the field and allow fans to track in real time.

The other idea I have is they should do it by allocating team slots by conference based on past 2-3 year performance and then maybe 10 or so wildcards. Somewhat similar to wrestling.