Yes, the article is 2 weeks old now. Should have clarified that was where the text came from.
NET Rankings are Flawed
- Thread starter BillBrasky4Cy
- Start date
Yes, the article is 2 weeks old now. Should have clarified that was where the text came from.
Whether intended or not, offensive efficiency is clearly heavy weighted. Recently Iowa and ISUs net efficiencies were almost identical, Iowa had 0 quad 1 wins and ISU had 7. We don’t need to know the formula to draw the conclusion that offensive efficiency is extremely overweighted. Basically Iowa’s resume is bad except for offensive efficiency and avoidance of bad losses. ISUs resume is good except for offensive efficiency. Iowa is like 25 spots higher.
But they also have a better efficiency margin. They are +17 per 100 possessions and ISU is closer to +8 (those are from raw ppp numbers).
The other problem is we do not have any variable data with the rankings... only the rank to compare.
You'd have to go through and compare ratings of extreme offenses and defenses to get any idea and even then we likely don't have enough information.
No idea on the specific formula but for better or worse it aligns much more with a predictive model that uses MOV efficiency data than a pure resume metric that evaluates strength of record.
Efficiency should matter a bit but only if you are winning the games against better competition. Is being efficient as a whole a good indicator as a whole? Probably. But as you dig deeper you will see that a team like Iowa is efficient against the poor teams, and average to bad against good teams. Therein lies the problem. A team can shoot 75% from the floor, dominate the glass, and score a ton of points against diarrhea university and then lose to Iowa state by 20 and still in those two games show they are efficient on offense. Seems like a problem yeah? At some point you have to not just beat the crap teams.
Please don't take my comments as a defense of NET. Biggest problem is lack of transparency.
One thing to start watching. As great as our 8 Q1 wins are, we could be down to half that a week from now.
Creighton is losing at DePaul right now and they're teetering on that Q1/Q2 line as it is.
Xavier is in a slump with a massive tough stretch ahead of them.
Memphis is winning but a loss and they're likely back to Q2
Iowa has two tough games ahead of them...
Creighton is losing at DePaul right now and they're teetering on that Q1/Q2 line as it is.
Xavier is in a slump with a massive tough stretch ahead of them.
Memphis is winning but a loss and they're likely back to Q2
Iowa has two tough games ahead of them...
So why aren't we rewarded for playing 15 to their 6? Disagree. It is rewarding coaches who are willing to be utterly classless. Ie. run up scores. Leave starters pressing when the other team puts in the C team and foul down 8 with 11 seconds to go. Its the sleazy coach Olympics.
Xavier isn't dropping 30 even if they lose out. The only loss that would drop them more than 4 spots a pop is georgetown.
Memphis is going to have to lose 3 of their last 5 to drop out.
Creighton is a real possibility,
I want to get super rich, found my own college, and name it "Diarhhea University".
This is why the Nitty Gritty sheets further break down the Quads into Quad 1a and Q1b and Q2a and Q2b. This doesn't solve the problem but does give a little more granularity since the gap described goes from #1 on the road to #30 at home to #1 on the road only grouped with #15 at home. Still a significant spread but not nearly as wide. And, when they get to the point of seeding they have all of those games clearly laid out in the quads so they can see just how good of wins the teams have at a glance.
It helps, but why not just use WAB to account for each game result instead of creating buckets and counting records in each. An all encompassing value makes it so much simpler.
The NET rankings themselves are not that important. The Quad W-L results derived from NET are important.
Out of NET, SOR, KPI, Sagarin, KenPom, and BPI, last season's final Seed List and at large selections correlated the least with NET rankings. They correlated the most with ESPN's SOR (same for 2019) so if you are going to pay attention to any individual rankings, pay most attention to SOR where ISU is currently #30 and Iowa is #44.
And since NET was started in 2019, no Power 6 at large team selected has had zero Q1 wins like Iowa currently has. They will need at least one to get an at large bid.
Also, NET correlates most closely with KenPom which has always placed far too much emphasis on MOV/Net Efficiency factors. NET does likewise.
And I should add relative to ISU, no team that was more than 4 games below .500 in regular season conference play has received an at large bid. If ISU finishes 6-12 or worse, I don't think they will get an at large bid despite their Q1 wins and even with JP on the Selection Committee.
There has also never been a team that's more than 4 games under .500 in conference, undefeated in the non-conference, has every team in their conference in the top 70, has no bad losses, and an abundance of tier 1 wins.
There just isn't a direct historical equivalency to our resume this year so being the first team to do something in regards to selection is very possible. Whether it be first team with 8+ quad 1 wins to not make the tournament or first team more than 4 games under .500 in conference to make the tournament.
I cannot sit idly by while you disparage my beloved DU. They run just as hard as anybody. And while they may not be solid, they can go on some streaks and they are known to have sneaky and dangerous spurtability that, on the right night, can bring the best in the nation to their knees.
This is the point people are missing. All those other teams in the past with poor conference records didn't get passed over because of their conference record. It just happened that no other team prior with a conference record as poor as ISUs may end up being had a tourney worthy resume overall.
ISU quite possibly is going to be an outlier. Not so much because the committee picks them despite the conference record, but more because no team is going to have such a stark difference between noncon and conference performance, while having so many Q1 games.
So more accurately, ISU is having something of an anomaly of a season, regardless of the tourney.
Excellent points.
"First time for everything" potential with this season.
Now, the cautious side of me says, "I'd rather not have to find out." Get 3 more wins (if by chance that isn't enough, so be it ... since the resume we'd have if that occurs is plenty sufficient, historically).
