NCAA's NET Ratings

#3
#3
Meh, probably doesn't mean anything at this point. I assume the testing was done to optimize the accuracy of the model at tournament time.

Hopefully anyway...
 
#4
#4
I don't know how the NET rankings work but if it's like RPI then it'll probably be really weird early in the season
 
  • Like
Reactions: RollerVol
#6
#6
Ds9-w_VXgAAJpPz.jpg:large
 
  • Like
Reactions: RollerVol
#11
#11
golfballs said:
No, it’s not too early to tell that these rankings are complete garbage
Click to expand...
I think they'll be fine in the long run as long as you keep in mind their intended purpose.

The NCAA tournament committee isn't interested in a predictive measure that ranks team strengths in order of how likely they are to win on a given night (i.e. KenPom's rankings or yours if I remember correctly.) They are intended to rank the teams in order of the strength of their record. The efficiency rankings don't account for who actually wins the games, just looks at their adjusted points per possession statistics etc. and weights them. They also have the benefit of weighting in recruiting class and the previous year's results.

Because this is purely a quality of record metric, it's going to take time to work itself out. Doesn't mean its garbage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RollerVol
#12
#12
Vols410 said:
I think they'll be fine in the long run as long as you keep in mind their intended purpose.

The NCAA tournament committee isn't interested in a predictive measure that ranks team strengths in order of how likely they are to win on a given night (i.e. KenPom's rankings or yours if I remember correctly.) They are intended to rank the teams in order of the strength of their record. The efficiency rankings don't account for who actually wins the games, just looks at their adjusted points per possession statistics etc. and weights them. They also have the benefit of weighting in recruiting class and the previous year's results.

Because this is purely a quality of record metric, it's going to take time to work itself out. Doesn't mean its garbage.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no serious person can look at those rankings and tell me they aren’t garbage. The entire point is to improve a ****** metric like RPI. And it appears they just went and replaced it with another ****** metric.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RollerVol
#13
#13
golfballs said:
Sorry, no serious person can look at those rankings and tell me they aren’t garbage. The entire point is to improve a ****** metric like RPI. And it appears they just went and replaced it with another ****** metric.
Click to expand...
We'll see. Pretty sure their only purpose is to be a good measure of choosing the NCAA tournament teams and seeds. If anything, it was stupid of them to publish them this early before they can stabilize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RollerVol
#14
#14


Collinear is not ideal... but it’s basically RPI plus a margin component. Did they pay some high schoolers to come up with this?
 
#15
#15
Vols410 said:
We'll see. Pretty sure their only purpose is to be a good measure of choosing the NCAA tournament teams and seeds. If anything, it was stupid of them to publish them this early before they can stabilize.
Click to expand...
There are problems with this regardless of how early they released it. At the very least they could provide some back tested results to show how it would have ranked teams in each of the last 10 seasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol and therealitytheory
#17
#17
bleedingTNorange said:
GA Southern & Radford both have Top 10 rpi’s, like I said it’s too early to tell, my guess is come conference play these rankings will look much more accurate.
Click to expand...
The RPI is terrible! That’s the entire reason they came up with this. So trying to rationalize it by comparing to the RPI just proves what junk it is. Lol

And regardless of how it might change come conference play, the logic being used is flawed. It basically RPI 2.0. In fact it might be even worse
 
#18
#18
golfballs said:
The RPI is terrible! That’s the entire reason they came up with this. So trying to rationalize it by comparing to the RPI just proves what junk it is. Lol

And regardless of how it might change come conference play, the logic being used is flawed. It basically RPI 2.0. In fact it might be even worse
Click to expand...
Out of curiousity, what would you add to it?
 
#19
#19
Vols410 said:
Out of curiousity, what would you add to it?
Click to expand...
At the very least I would add adjusted efficiency. And get rid of raw efficiency and drop scoring margin.

Ideally, I think they should use just a combination of adjusted efficiency and and adjusted win%, except not simply weighted based on location, but also on quality of opponent. And yes, these results would still be wonky early season but not this bad. But that’s a seperate issue. They could either start from a basis using LY results. Still not perfect. Or just wait until halfway through conference play to release them.
 
#20
#20
golfballs said:
At the very least I would add adjusted efficiency. And get rid of raw efficiency and drop scoring margin.

Ideally, I think they should use just a combination of adjusted efficiency and and adjusted win%, except not simply weighted based on location, but also on quality of opponent. And yes, these results would still be wonky early season but not this bad. But that’s a seperate issue. They could either start from a basis using LY results. Still not perfect. Or just wait until halfway through conference play to release them.
Click to expand...

This is the main issue, it’s also why CFB doesn’t release their stuff after Week 1, people are gonna whine for no reason.
 
#22
#22
golfballs said:
At the very least I would add adjusted efficiency. And get rid of raw efficiency and drop scoring margin.

Ideally, I think they should use just a combination of adjusted efficiency and and adjusted win%, except not simply weighted based on location, but also on quality of opponent. And yes, these results would still be wonky early season but not this bad. But that’s a seperate issue. They could either start from a basis using LY results. Still not perfect. Or just wait until halfway through conference play to release them.
Click to expand...
Strong agree, suprised to see they only look at “net efficiency” without adjusting for opponent. I guess they feel like that’s fixed by the incorporation of the RPI-like scale they throw in to factor in SOS but that’s not a good way at all to calculate efficiency.
 
#23
#23
well, it's a well known fact that humans will experiment with something until they totally screw it up...:D

PS. but, yes, way to early for release and for us to know anything until the end of the season...entertainment for the masses...

GO VOLS!
 
#24
#24
Vols410 said:
Strong agree, suprised to see they only look at “net efficiency” without adjusting for opponent. I guess they feel like that’s fixed by the incorporation of the RPI-like scale they throw in to factor in SOS but that’s not a good way at all to calculate efficiency.
Click to expand...

John Gasaway apparently also agrees
Why the NCAA's new hoops rating is all wrong
Goodness knows, if the NET really does stagger into March with a random evaluative spray pattern like what we see now, the men's basketball committee will take the "just one tool" mantra to heart and ignore the thing entirely. That would be the correct decision.

In the meantime, the worst-case scenario here is that coaches will look at these rankings and conclude that they should run up the score whenever possible. It would be hard to blame them.

Despite the NCAA's pledge to "cap" scoring margin at 10 points, this first cut of NET rankings appears to correlate pretty well with raw per-possession scoring margin. And, in this case, "raw" means without factoring in the quality of the opponent.

Again, look at Ohio State, the best team in the country to this point in the season according to the NET. Sure, the Buckeyes won road games at Cincinnati and Creighton by eight and nine points, respectively. That's impressive, no doubt about it.

Still, what may have given Chris Holtmann's team an additional boost is the fact that OSU won home games by 27 (against Cleveland State), 28 (South Carolina State) and 46 points (Purdue Fort Wayne). To put it bluntly, this would be the worst possible incentive structure for the sport.

If the NET were to be taken at face value, major-conference coaches would be forgiven henceforth for scheduling nothing but home games in the early season against the weakest opponents available. Build that scoring margin in November and December, and then hold on as best you can in conference play.

Surely it won't come to this, but, again, the question is why are we even having this discussion? More to the point, why are we having this discussion during the season?
Click to expand...
 
#25
#25
golfballs said:
John Gasaway apparently also agrees
Why the NCAA's new hoops rating is all wrong
Click to expand...
If the NET were to be taken at face value, major-conference coaches would be forgiven henceforth for scheduling nothing but home games in the early season against the weakest opponents available. Build that scoring margin in November and December, and then hold on as best you can in conference play.

It does factor in the location of games, so I'm not getting his point here.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top