this net stuff makes no sense.
- Thread starter kurt cloverdales
- Start date
thought the same thing when CBS put up the graphics.
Has to be the blowouts versus the good teams and then skirting by against the early season cupcakes. Plus losing too many home games we should have won, or at least not lost by 15.
Saw Osterman link a "expert" on Twatter that said if IU would have lost to FGC vs. winning and would have blown out some of the early season games vs. just barely winning....he guessed our NET would be 30-40 spots higher. Let the absurdity of that sink in! So winning doesn't really matter...only if you win big. So teams don't get early games to work into their lineups...you better ride your horses and just bludgeon everyone you can.
To support your last sentence.....
Losses that hurt us: Penn State at our home, 85-71, Northwestern at our home, 76-72,
At Penn State again, 83-74, Although Penn State is bottom of conference, that's the point... we should have beat them twice. And Northwestern is in the Top 4.... that would have helped us a lot.
Add Rutgers to that list, and you have the 4 games that have IU on the outside looking in.
that's right.... I missed them in the game list. On top of that... we only played Rutgers one time and that was at their place.
Teams have figured out how to game the efficiency portion of the NET. Schedule a bunch of 300+ ranked teams in the non-conference and beat them all by 30-40 points to artificially inflate their efficiency metrics. The Big 12 as a whole did this and majority of their teams had inflated NET rankings to start the conference season and they barely dropped in the rankings once they started beating up on each other night in and night out.
IU did themselves no favors, but the blueprint is out on how to manipulate the NET going forward unless some major changes take place. Still, at the end of the day a level of common sense comes into the equation. The committee absolutely still looks at each individual resume and there is still some aspect of the eye test. Win enough Q1 and Q2 games and then your NET starts to get overlooked.
IU did themselves no favors, but the blueprint is out on how to manipulate the NET going forward unless some major changes take place. Still, at the end of the day a level of common sense comes into the equation. The committee absolutely still looks at each individual resume and there is still some aspect of the eye test. Win enough Q1 and Q2 games and then your NET starts to get overlooked.
So You consider margin of loss encouraging setting up a Hostess Cupcake early season schedule, and You end up with a good Indiana State team maybe sitting out the Tournament despite a great record and being ranked in the top 25 because they can't get enough Big Conference Schools to schedule them for fear of having an early season loss.
I just looked up Michigan States games, because I thought that this year, they played some high ranking teams pre-season, They played Duke (9) @ home, Arizona (5) @ AZ and Baylor (11) @ home.
So I was wondering how that was going to work into their NET.
I don't know the ins and outs of how NET ranking is done but if margin of victory has that big an impact it's a seriously flawed ranking. There are many reasons why a game (especially an early-season game) could end up lopsided, or close when you would have expected more of a blowout. Coach is experimenting with lineups and watching how his bench players do in a game setting instead of running up the score. Or a Team gets down and folds rather than rallying. Or some key players are sick or injured. There's a place for margin of victory as a tiebreaker or secondary factor but it should not override wins and losses.
Duke (Chicago) and AZ (Palm Springs) were both semi-neutral games and Baylor was played in Detroit. They smoked Baylor and were at least respectable in the losses to AZ and Duke, a big reason why their NET didn't drop. IU dropped almost 30 spots after losing by 28 to Auburn for what it's worth.
Thanks for the info and clarification Indy. Appreciate your response.
That is precisely what the Big 12 did, and it worked for them.
It’s the efficiency metrics. We give up almost 75 while scoring 72. Plus to many 10 point losses.
Need ten point wins and no ten point losses. They cap them at ten points.
so there it is. We scraped by too many cupcake games...plus way too many 10+ losses throughout the season.
Either way, this isn't a sweet 16 team. Getting into the tourney the past 2 years was nice for a change...but getting run off the court each time didn't seem to build a lot of program momentum.
I think its a flawed metric. So I hope the committee uses it as one of many tools, rather than some sort of central basis for decisions.
But its not like this team shines in any of the other tools they could use. KenPom is 86, our record against other likely NCAA tournament teams is horrible...AND the margins are bad as well.
2-10 against teams currently projected as in the field by Lunardi
Average score of 81-68
We were 0-10, with a worse margin before the Wisky and MSU wins.
We aren't an NCAA tournament team, unless we win the BTT.
But its not like this team shines in any of the other tools they could use. KenPom is 86, our record against other likely NCAA tournament teams is horrible...AND the margins are bad as well.
2-10 against teams currently projected as in the field by Lunardi
Average score of 81-68
We were 0-10, with a worse margin before the Wisky and MSU wins.
We aren't an NCAA tournament team, unless we win the BTT.
It's easy to see where this team messed up.
Less than 10 point wins against cupcakes FGC, Army, Wright St, Louisville (this year), Morehead St.
Getting blown out by more than 10 by Auburn, UCONN, Nebraska, Purdue (2x). In fact, we're lucky that NET stops at 10 (I think).
Less than 10 point wins against cupcakes FGC, Army, Wright St, Louisville (this year), Morehead St.
Getting blown out by more than 10 by Auburn, UCONN, Nebraska, Purdue (2x). In fact, we're lucky that NET stops at 10 (I think).
I think it probably does stop at 10 point margin...but the metrics that led to those margins don't have caps on them, I don't believe. They are weighted for competition level, but if you're playing inefficient basketball, its going to hold you back in these ratings systems. We're 86 in KenPom...so its not like the NET is wildly out of whack versus the efficiency ratings.
drilling down deeper into the season...those two losses to Penn State probably doomed this team more than anything else. Flip those two games only and we're tied for 3rd in the B1G and sitting at 20-11/12-8.
side note- hard to believe Maryland finished next to last in the conference.
And I don't see how Juwan Howard is still employed by the U of M in another week.
Last edited:
This says margin of victory no longer explicitly used (asNorth points out still embedded in stats). I didn’t realize they changed it. Prior to this it was 10 pts.
From NCAA website-
“No longer will the NET use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET.”
From NCAA website-
“No longer will the NET use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET.”
Here is the link for the full article-
www.ncaa.com
The NET, explained: NCAA adopts new college basketball ranking
The NCAA has developed the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) a ranking system that will replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool used to evaluate teams.
www.ncaa.com
Avenging wins v. PSU, Huskers, and IL will add 2 Q1 wins for 7 straight … it might be enough ... barely … yes much of the rest of the season could be the boat anchor dragging hopes to the bottom of Lake Lemon.
Simple explanation…
We have too many shit losses and not enough quality wins.
But it would be interesting to see what our NET would be even with those games flipped. Would 1 or 2 games move the rankings that much? We've been buried behind most other teams in the B10 all season, including teams like Maryland and Ohio State, who we swept. Same with Kenpom.
Doesn't seem to meet the eye-test. People say it's the small margins of victory in November and December. If so, that seems a statistical anomaly more than a reliable measure. Not arguing we're a tournament team. Just that our ranking relative to other teams in the conference seems odd
I also think getting totally shellacked by Auburn and UCONN was very damaging. If you could have a beer with Galen of the link I posted, he could probably answer all those pretty effectively. So weird that we have the same overall and B10 record as MSU and beat them head to head, and they're like 25th and we're 90th? The big difference to me is they blasted Baylor. Obviously the computers don't like our body of work!
yeah I too wondered if flipping the two PSU games (who doesn't carry a high net to begin with) would have a huge impact on our Net rankings. Maybe not. But when was the last time a team that finished tied for 3rd AND finished 4 games over .500 in the B1G NOT get an at-large bid? My guess is...not since they expanded to 64 teams forty years ago.
Edit- just looked it up and the home loss vs Penn State was a quad 3 loss...our only Q3-4 loss this year....and on our home court..and those losses really hurt the Net. And they beat us by 10+. That may have been the most damaging loss of the year.
Also the beatdowns we got early on (UConn, Auburn) were considered neutral site games (not away games for IU) so they hurt more than if we played them on their home court.
Last edited:
It's a combination of both. IU was initially slotted in the early 100s when the first NET rankings were released and with the B10 being as bad as it is there just isn't room for growth. Early season slim winning margins and blowout losses to UConn and Auburn really factored in.
The complete opposite can be said for a lot of the B12 teams. I think 9 or 10 of the 14 B12 team all debuted in the top 50 when NET was first released. And those teams have been beating up on each other all year keeping solid NET rankings intact.
I'll copy what I posted on the premie. The 2 teams aren't really close:
MSU
3-8 Q1
5-5 Q2
6-0 Q3
4-0 Q4
At a glance, they are similar but there are some big differences.
- IU has a Q3 LOSS. Not only a loss but a 15 point blowout loss at home to PSU. MSU has no losses past Q2.
- MSU has better Q1 wins:
14 - Baylor
15 - Ill
29 - ISU
So, 2 top 20 and none below 30. IU has 0 top 20 and 1 win was over 55 OSU on the road. This matters. Not all quad wins are created equal. MSU's are clearly of a higher magnitude.
Q2 wins mostly a wash.
Q3/Q4 - Past the really bad Q3 loss for IU this is also an area for separation. IU struggled to win many of their Q3/Q4 games and had several single digit wins. MSU mostly destroyed their Q3/Q4 slate. Its not even close
Q3 average margin of victory:
17.3 - MSU
8.5 - IU
Q4 average margin of victory:
32.5 - MSU
10.8 - IU
Blowout losses (10+ points:
8 - IU
3 - MSU
So, if you look at things with any depth you see that MSU stands out quite a bit from IU. IU did not have signature wins this season. They have worse losses (by metrics and by margins) and they struggled to beat bad teams. The gap is quite large, honestly.
That's a huge swing on a couple games against top 5 teams for us, and 1 win against a top 20 for MSU. I hope CMW has somebody figuring out the math for next year's scheduling.
well, in fairness, MSU that day dominated Baylor about like Auburn and UCONN did to us. I think the UCONN game was even closer. I couldn't believe how MSU dominated Baylor, regardless of final scores, imo, they were in control pretty much throughout.
Last edited:
Thanks, very helpful. Of course, there are about 60 teams between MSU and IU in the rankings.
It's absolutely because of the blowouts. A B12 representative on the Committee this year had the point differential removed from the NET ratings. This has allowed the B12 to exaggerate their true ratings.
Read more here.
There are, but this was all controllable by IU on the court. Way too many blowout losses. Struggled to beat too many cupcakes. No signature wins. Gaming the system doesn't fix any of that. We couldn't blowout the bad teams we played as is and we were absolutely destroyed way way too many times in losses.
This can't be the way it is NOW. Otherwise how is Houston ahead of Purdue? The comparison of the two's schedules are stark, yet Houston is higher in the NET. It has more to do with the removal of the cap on blowout wins, like I mentioned earlier.Here is the link for the full article-
The NET, explained: NCAA adopts new college basketball ranking
The NCAA has developed the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) a ranking system that will replace the RPI as the primary sorting tool used to evaluate teams.
In fact the most recent article on the NET
College basketball's NET rankings, explained
Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.
www.ncaa.com
Only refers to this link:
NET rankings: What to know about college basketball's new tool to help select the NCAA tournament field
The NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee has a new tool that hopefully should crystalize the ranking system before the selection and seeding of teams for the 2019 NCAA tournament.
www.ncaa.com
The one you linked seems to be subverted.
Similar threads
