NET Rankings are Flawed

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Why does NET continue to devalue Iowa States resume? I know there has been talk about offensive efficiency being a significant weight but at some point who you beat and who you lose to has to matter. Iowa State now has SIX Q1 wins and zero bad losses. I just don't get it. How are these two resumes even comparable? Yet Iowa is SEVEN spots higher than Iowa State? I really don't get it.

 

[isuno1fan]

Stop worrying about Iowa.

 

[awd4cy]

Was just looking at that and thought the same thing. Doesn’t make sense. Guess I’m not sure where we were before the TCU loss.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Why does NET continue to devalue Iowa States resume? I know there has been talk about offensive efficiency being a significant weight but at some point who you beat and who you lose to has to matter. Iowa State now has SIX Q1 wins and zero bad losses. I just don't get it. How are these two resumes even comparable? Yet Iowa is SEVEN spots higher than Iowa State? I really don't get it.

View attachment 94925

The nice thing is that any sentient being should be able to glance over at the Quad 1 category and see that there is a disconnect with both rankings.

 

[awd4cy]

Stop worrying about Iowa.

It’s not so much worrying about them as it is the NET ranking. Replace their name with Wisconsin and if we beat them by 20, are 6-4 in Q1 games while they are 0-4 with 1 less overall win and same overall losses, I would be wondering the same thing.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

The nice thing is that any sentient being should be able to glance over at the Quad 1 category and see that there is a disconnect with both rankings.

The committee has been pretty chalk the last few years in regards to NET/ seeding though. That's my concern.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Stop worrying about Iowa.

I'm not worried about Iowa, those two schools are literally polar opposite outliers at this point. My question is why.

 

[ClonesFTW]

I'd like to say I have faith in the committee to actually see these things come March, but I cant.

 

[Didley]

How about Houston at #3 when they're 0-2 in Quad 1. NET seems completely worthless to me.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I'd like to say I have faith in the committee to actually see these things come March, but I cant.

My biggest issue with it all is that its a super secret formula. Yeah I get that they don't want teams to scheme their schedules but it's still going to happen. Putting too much weight into offensive or defensive efficiency is dumb. Beating the breaks off of bad teams shouldn't carry any weight. A solid Q1 resume should not be offset by analytics.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

How about Houston at #3 when they're 0-2 in Quad 1. NET seems completely worthless to me.

And they have FOURTEEN Q3 and Q4 wins. There is no way that's even a top 10 resume.

 

[cyfan92]

NET is also trying to forecast on top of evaluate current resume.

Iowa's remaining schedule is extremely favorable. Ours is tough.

 

[ISUTex]

Stop worrying about Iowa.

It's not Iowa. It's the NET rankings. There is a major flaw somewhere. 0-4 vs 6-4?

 

[Big_Sill]

My common sense based conclusion has always been that any of the commonly referred to grading systems will have significant flaws until the vast majority of the season is complete.... at which time they will work pretty well (but still not perfect) as the reliance on predictive factors decreases, and reliance on the actual data points and results increases.

I'm sure there is an actual explanation somewhere that will confirm or deny my common sense conclusion. I don't care to look that hard.

 

[BryceC]

It's not Iowa. It's the NET rankings. There is a major flaw somewhere. 0-4 vs 6-4?

What is obvious at this point is style points are extremely valuable to your NET ranking. Us at 6-4 in Q1 wins at #27, Wisconsin at #19 with 5-2 record in Q1 wins, etc.

I think the formula could be tweaked a bit to favor actual performance over efficiency metrics, but I'm totally fine with the NET ranking. I want an efficiency component. Don't look now but if we were using the old RPI metric, ISU would be #46 which is absolutely ludicrous. Baylor is #17 in the RPI, and Iona is #18. You get the idea.

NET isn't perfect, but no ranking will ever be perfect. It's MUCH better than what we were using.

 

[dahliaclone]

I don't think anyone is really worrying about Iowa, it just so happens they are someone we've played and there is definitely something goofy because they have literally beat no one. Indiana? Virginia? Minnesota? Great...but how does that equate what Iowa State has done and they're so much higher?

Same could be said for Texas. 2-4 in Q1 wins but they are #16? How?

 

[Cyclonepride]

The committee has been pretty chalk the last few years in regards to NET/ seeding though. That's my concern.

True, but that's an outlier that pops off the page. One would hope that this would be obvious.

 

[CoachBob]

I think 5 factors go into the rankings. Not sure how they are weighted. My guess Iowa has offensive numbers that help them a bunch. We play gritty defense against great offensive teams. They play PSU, Nebby and Northwestern. It may get worse.

 

[cyclones500]

Us at 6-4 in Q1 wins at #27, Wisconsin at #19 with 5-2 record in Q1 wins, etc.

(Edit: I misunderstood @BryceC's point ... but I'll let my side-by-side comparison analysis ride on its own)

One dispute I have with your comparison, Wisconsin's Q1 winning % is better than ISU's, even though ISU has more Q1 wins.

Also if we compare all 4 quads, the separation of 19th & 27th doesn't seem too far out of whack.

UW — 5-2 .. 4-1 .. 1-0 .. 4-0
ISU — 6-4 .. 1-1 .. 0-0 .. 8-0

--> So, W better % at Q1, better record at Q2, fewer Q4 games (more favorable SOS at the low end). (I didn't assess the teams in between, so maybe should be closer to each other)

Granted, other comparisons we could make, like Iowa being 20th with its Q results, are more glaring/puzzling.

 

[BryceC]

One dispute I have with your comparison, Wisconsin's Q1 winning % is better than ISU's, even though ISU has more Q1 wins.

Also if we compare all 4 quads, the separation of 19th & 27th doesn't seem too far out of whack.

UW — 5-2 .. 4-1 .. 1-0 .. 4-0
ISU — 6-4 .. 1-1 .. 0-0 .. 8-0

--> So, W better % at Q1, better record at Q2, fewer Q4 games (more favorable SOS). (I didn't assess the teams in between, so maybe should be closer to each other)

Granted, other comparisons we could make, like Iowa being 20th with its Q results, are more glaring/puzzling.

No I mean Wisconsin should be higher than #19, not that ISU should be above them. A 5-2 Q1 win ratio and an overall record 15-3 should have that team close to the top 10. Instead they are almost 20.