New NET Rankings

[hskr4life]

Were just released today.  

 

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings

 

Huskers were #1 and dropped to #14.

 

Texas Tech was #13 and jumped to #3

 

Big 10 has #1, #4, #7, #8, #14, #15, #17, #20.

[hskr4life]

Rounding out our opponents

 

MVSU- #331(Up from #349)

 

SELA- #337 (Down from #263)

 

Seton Hall- #85 (Up from #112)

 

Missouri State- #165 (Down from #114)

 

Western Illinois- #316 (Down from #264)

[hskr4life]

 

[hskr4life]

My initial takes...

 

1.  We need to keep beating up on those teams that are not very good.
2. We need to win at home.  I think this takes into account quite a bit of leverage.  Home losses are bad bad... road wins are good good... opponent is not a huge factor.
3.  It's early and I see a lot of KU people that are really upset.  Remember this will drastically change.
4. We get a daily update on NET rankings from here on out.

[HuskerActuary]

Wow!! I had no idea we were #1 before. This tells me that margin of victory is taken into account  heavily in this ranking system (meaning that NET rankings may end up  being similar to sites like KenPom and Bart Torvik). Again, wow!

[HuskerFever]

3 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

Wow!! I had no idea we were #1 before. This tells me that margin of victory is taken into account  heavily in this ranking system (meaning that NET rankings may end up  being similar to sites like KenPom and Bart Torvik). Again, wow!

 

NCAA said they cap margin of victory at 10 points though, so something isn't adding up.

[bigFRED]

I really like this new system, especially if it continues to like the B1G

[HuskerActuary]

2 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

NCAA said they cap margin of victory at 10 points though, so something isn't adding up.

Ooooh you're right. In that case, I have no flippin' clue how we could have been #1 in any prior version of the rankings. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by HuskerActuary

[hskr4life]

Seeing a lot of KU fans crying about this on social media is hilarious.  Also seeing a lot of negative pub from national media.  Surprising because there are so few data points to go off of so far.  This will be a lot more clear when we get into January and February.     

[HuskerActuary]

How in the bloody hell is Kansas #11 and Nebraska #14? Based on results to date, Kansas should be far more than three spots ahead of us. Makes no sense. I'll need to look into this more later tonight.

Edited November 26, 2018 by HuskerActuary

[kleitus]

What this says is that going .500 in league should get us in the tourney.

 

If we do better then we get seeded higher.

 

I can live with that.

[HuskerFever]

5 minutes ago, kleitus said:

What this says is that going .500 in league should get us in the tourney.

 

If we do better then we get seeded higher.

 

I can live with that.

 

According to Miles and his team of calculators, 11-9 would get us a 5 or 6 seed:

 

 

[bigFRED]

The reason that some teams look higher or lower than they should is because there are 5factors that go into rating them, and one of them is there offensive and defensive efficiency.

For example, Nebraska is the #1 rated defense, and #45 offense.

Kansas on the other hand is #133 defensively, and #52 offensively.

 

The 5 are Team Value Index, Net efficiency, Winning pct., adjusted win pct., and scoring margin.

 

[Huskerpapa]

I guess I am still unsure which ratings count and which do not.  But I will take top 15 at this point

 

[tcp]

i don't trust anything that has us at 14 right now, unless it's a function of SSS. 

 

let's actually beat a high quality team first before we start prancing like peacocks. 

 

and hopefully that's in about 4 hours. 

[bigFRED]

55 minutes ago, Huskerpapa said:

I guess I am still unsure which ratings count and which do not.  But I will take top 15 at this point

 

This replaces the RPI by the selection committee in terms of how they choose what quadrant each team is in

[hhcmatt]

These ratings are about as meaningful as the RPI this early in the year.

[HuskerActuary]

6 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

These ratings are about as meaningful as the RPI this early in the year.

That is true, but you should at least be able to make sense of them based on the actual results of the season so far. Nebraska being within three spots of Kansas is something I don't understand.

 

I'm starting to think that the black-box nature of these rankings will result in many a fan being (perhaps rightfully) frustrated with the rankings due to lack of transparency.

[hhcmatt]

2 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

That is true, but you should at least be able to make sense of them based on the actual results of the season so far. Nebraska being within three spots of Kansas is something I don't understand.

 

I'm starting to think that the black-box nature of these rankings will result in many a fan being (perhaps rightfully) frustrated with the rankings due to lack of transparency.

 

We're #10 in Sagarin.  We're winning games in a way that impresses computers and our only loss is to a team doing the same thing.

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/

[HuskerActuary]

18 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

We're #10 in Sagarin.  We're winning games in a way that impresses computers and our only loss is to a team doing the same thing.

https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaab/sagarin/

Again though, if the margin of victory is capped at 10 points, we wouldn't be that high. Our huge blowout wins is the reason we are still #10 in Sagarin.

 

Maybe the offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency components of the ranking don't have any such caps like the scoring margin does, in which case I could understand our ranking. But that would basically mean there is essentially "cap" like what they advertised.

[HuskerActuary]

45 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

Maybe the offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency components of the ranking don't have any such caps like the scoring margin does, in which case I could understand our ranking. But that would basically mean there is essentially "cap" like what they advertised.

Sorry for all of the posts in this thread, but I think what I quoted is essentially what's going on. The efficiencies don't seem to be capped, and therefore the 10 pt scoring margin advertisement is a little misleading. 

 

At the end of the day, I think this is a good thing for how we should be evaluating teams. I can't believe we were using RPI for the quad system in 2017 for goodness sake. The NCAA just needs to be more transparent about the NET. 

[demone]

Found a pretty good write up about these rankings here:

 

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/release-of-first-net-rankings-creates-more-questions-than-answers-when-ncaa-keeps-formula-a-secret/

 

While it doesn't give specific details or how these metrics are being used, at least it provides an idea of what is being measured. As noted by Husker Actuary above, Palm seems to think the "cap" on scoring margin is rendered basically meaningless because there is no such cap on OE & DE.

[49r]

Clemson is #51, FWIW

[hhcmatt]

 

[bigFRED]

NET rankings as of today.