NET Ranking: On March 17, Iowa is #43. How NET is Determined & What's a QUAD 1, 2, 3 & 4 Win/Loss
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
I was aware of the regional semi provision but not the regional final one. I don’t think it’s a big deal because you can just move a team to a region where there wouldn’t be a conflict.
I still don’t see how it’s close. Iowa is 8-5 in Quad 1/2 and Nebraska is 5-9.
yeah; i don't know. they throw the numbers into the computer and come up with the rankings. hopefully it ends up being a lot more fair than RPI
Boom. PSU road win at NW raises them 11 slots from 85 to 74 and we add a Q1 road victory!
We've also got Nebraska and Ohio State sitting at 33 and 35. Either (or both) getting to 30 add Q1 home wins.
but will they stay there?
i wish Nebbie would move up 3 slots in the NET rankings to become Quad 1 again, too.
Too much up and down in the NET rankings! i honestly did not think there would be this much movement this late in the season (Note that N'western's NET got worse by 13 spots)
NW's drop is more understandable, as PSU's record weighed on their SOS, and losing dropped their efficiency for a double dip. I would guess most teams in that range are pretty close behind the scenes in whatever final metric the NET actually creates, so that small variances like that are just enough to pass a bunch of teams (for better or worse). It's kind of like the bubble this year for resumes. Once you hit the 8 seeds, all the resumes start to blend together, so a big win or bad loss really push you one way or another.
It also put NW on the verge of dropping out of the Top 75. So if NW and PSU both struggle coming up, we actually lose a Quad 1 win.
As I suspected, despite a lofty NET ranking, I checked 2 bracketology websites and Nebbie is out of both. Even more telling, on ESPN’s bubble watch, Nebbie didn’t even get mentioned in the “work to do” section. They were completely omitted from current consideration.
Losing to IL will do that to you as your most recent result coupled with their current kid in general.
More Interesting NET. Kansas moves down 0 spots after a loss to #30 KSU. Kansas State moves up 0 spots after beating Kansas.
Idle Buffalo with their 4-3 record against quad one and quad two combined moves ahead of idle Iowa with 4 quad 1 wins alone. At least buffalo is dominating Quad 3(UNI for example).
Idle Nevada with a strong 0-0 record in quad 1 moves ahead of idle Louisville with 4 quad one wins. Nevada is one of two teams in top 30 with a quad 3 loss. Now they are at #14. How in the heck does a team go over 2/3 of the season without one road game in the top 75?
Hard to imagine there won’t be some tinkering after they watch a season play out. Doesn’t seem to be much of a penalty for not having many/any quad 1 opponents for several teams.
Idle Buffalo with their 4-3 record against quad one and quad two combined moves ahead of idle Iowa with 4 quad 1 wins alone. At least buffalo is dominating Quad 3(UNI for example).
Idle Nevada with a strong 0-0 record in quad 1 moves ahead of idle Louisville with 4 quad one wins. Nevada is one of two teams in top 30 with a quad 3 loss. Now they are at #14. How in the heck does a team go over 2/3 of the season without one road game in the top 75?
Hard to imagine there won’t be some tinkering after they watch a season play out. Doesn’t seem to be much of a penalty for not having many/any quad 1 opponents for several teams.
I am not sure that is true. Is it the ranking when the game is played or end of the regular season?
Much as I like the NET, compared to the RPI, one change they need to implement next year is a PSU filter of some kind.
[EDIT] And, a Nebby filter as well.
Nebraska was # 10 in the NET on Jan 16 (3 weeks ago today); I don't visit their message boards but I wonder what they think of Miles' coaching now? In 3 weeks he takes his team from a possible 3 seed in the NCAA Tournament to the NIT?
Imagine if Fran had done this?
When Fran was without a key player (Cook), Iowa wins both games.
Conversely, when Miles was without a key player (Copeland), Nebbie goes on a 5 game losing streak.
whats weird, is I thought NET was supposed to have figured this all out before they implemented it.
i wish there was someone out there who would do a regular column explaining how things like you described above happen because however they programmed NET is what is causing the "interesting" movement
I agree with you; I don't understand how an 0-0 quad 1 Nevada would be ranked very high because lets face it, their schedule has not been as challenging as a Power 5 school; Iowa has played 9 quad 1 games, for example & has 6 to go! Think about that for a sec; HALF of Iowa's 31 game schedule is quad 1 games. I know we like to bitch about those quad 4 games, but dang. Nevada at 14 seems way too high and like I said, it would be nice for someone to explain why they are so high.
And don’t get me wrong. I realize Nevada is a good team and has a little substance to back it up from last years tourney. I just find it odd that a computer program that supposedly penalizes teams for having too many quad 4 games has seemingly no penalty for having 0 quad 1 games. Just hard to fathom an unbiased computer can rank you as the 14th best team with zero quality wins and being wiped off the court against the 176th ranked team. What kind of formula comes up with that?
I’m also certain the committee will see thru resumes like that and lower their seed. Just can’t grasp the formulas.
I’m also certain the committee will see thru resumes like that and lower their seed. Just can’t grasp the formulas.
It will be end of season. They produce updated rankings and team sheets daily. PSU was idle and dropped to 76 today, so back to Q2.
The efficiency metric needs to be tweaked. We all now that margin of victory is capped at 10 but efficiency is uncapped and, probably the bigger issue, the NET’s efficiency rankings don’t account for quality of opponent. Look at the teams that are ranked high without the Q1 wins and you’ll see that they blow out inferior teams.
That makes sense. I refuse to look into things, I prefer to just complain.
If what you say is accurate, I could see how that could skew things. I wonder if in a few cases it is skewing things more than anticipated. I’d be curious if there is a way to see if beating the 250th ranked team by 40 is giving more credit than beating the 90th ranked team by 1.
I’m sure no formula is going to be perfect, or agreeable to everyone. It’s just kind of interesting to look at it’s flaws(in my opinion).
That makes sense. I refuse to look into things, I prefer to just complain.
If what you say is accurate, I could see how that could skew things. I wonder if in a few cases it is skewing things more than anticipated. I’d be curious if there is a way to see if beating the 250th ranked team by 40 is giving more credit than beating the 90th ranked team by 1.
I’m sure no formula is going to be perfect, or agreeable to everyone. It’s just kind of interesting to look at it’s flaws(in my opinion).
Here’s an article that discussed it earlier in the year.
https://es.pn/2TQIAqX
I don’t understand why they are doing this. Are they trying to set up their own version of the BCS down the road ( not final 4 but final 16). Or are they going to go by the Net 16 for the most part to set that up for success. Otherwise there are too many sources, ratings, etc.
good questions. i am guessing they are just trying to build up momentum to Selection Sunday.
what i will be interested in seeing is how the NET Top 16 match up with the Selection Committee's Top 16.
I'll be sure to check it out. BTW I cut the cable chord on Sunday. Lost my BTN channel by doing that, but I signed up for Youtube TV and I can still watch it.
Correct. KU wasn't penalized for losing a road game that they were supposed to lose and KSU wasn't rewarded for winning a home game that they were supposed to win. That said, it's just a numerical oddity that neither moved even one spot.
I think the best way to look at it is the team sheet, it gives you a good idea. They include 5 other metrics on there. Sagarin, KenPom, BPI are all "predictive" metrics, so they take margin of victory, efficiency, all of that stuff into consideration. KPI and SOR are "results" metrics, which measure your record against your strength of schedule generally. There are a few the difference between the two is huge.
Nebraska is a good example. Average "predictive" metrics for Nebraska are 26.7. Average "results" metrics are 64.5. Since NET rankings basically average the two, they get drug all the way up #33 in NET.
I've always been a results guy, as I think the NCAA tourney should be a reward for success during a season, not necessarily a reflection of who the absolute best teams are.
I actually have seen Penn State called out as a case study in the limitations of the arbitrary quad cutoffs by some other bracketologists. Noting that the B1G quad records are jumping around daily depending on which side Penn State has been falling. Right now, we should be big Penn State, Northwestern and Illinois fans to see if they can all creep into the top 75 and be Q1 road wins (PSU, NW) or Q2 home wins.
Glad to see more chatter identifying this limitation, and I'd like to see more where they look at AVG NET Ranking of wins and losses (probably split by venue and conference/nonconference).
I also saw a note where someone (I think related to the committee, perhaps this year's chairperson?) mentioned they don't expect the full formula to be released to the public during the season. I'd expect they'll at a minimum bring in some of the data folks and have them sign NDAs to review it and look for improvements.
Glad to see more chatter identifying this limitation, and I'd like to see more where they look at AVG NET Ranking of wins and losses (probably split by venue and conference/nonconference).
I also saw a note where someone (I think related to the committee, perhaps this year's chairperson?) mentioned they don't expect the full formula to be released to the public during the season. I'd expect they'll at a minimum bring in some of the data folks and have them sign NDAs to review it and look for improvements.
nebby is a good example of a team for which the NET ranking fails to sort them properly. Beating up on bad, but not the 50 or so worst teams, should not be rewarded apparently in the way it is with their criteria.
Right, I'd like to see it expanded to show the Home/Road/Neutral and Conference/Nonconference splits.
what channels do you get?Gotta figure it out lol but there's plenty to enjoy there and I get my BTN back.
do you get all the local CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX channels?
how much is it per month?
Thanks!
so if we lose tonight do we drop to 30?
why not, right? we drop 2 spots when we don't play! so what's another 6 spots when you lose?
grrrrrr........
can you believe that Nebbie was #10 in the NET rankings on Jan 16? Somehow they are still #36 today!
The locals are included and it’s 45 a month. The great thing is that it has unlimited recording and you can invite four or five “family” members that don’t even have to live with you. My daughter is in college and she is able to piggyback and so are my retired parents who are down south. I can’t remember if it’s four or five but you can invite them to use your membership. Unlimited TV in your own household as far as I can tell as long as you have a streaming box for that TV or a smart TV.
dang; that is a good deal.
who is your internet provider? what is that cost / month?
So all you need is a Wi Fi router in your house in order to stream to all of your TV's, correct?
