Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, hskr4life said:

 

Simply amazing how far the conference has come in one year.  Makes you wonder what the quads would have looked like last year with the NET vs the RPI...

Winning the games you are expected to win helps. I don't recall all the bad non conference losses last year but Big 10 teams losing to Canisius, Stony Brook, Robert Morris  and IUPUI (think couple of those are right) killed the RPI which couldn't be overcome by playing those poor RPI conference teams. Last years conference weakness is replaced with conference strength this year.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I know we have goals bigger than just making the tournament, but Bart Torvik's numbers are still holding strong that we will only need 19 wins to make the tournament. I'll believe it when I see it - 2

Updated Quad Current Rankings:     Not a huge change from 2 weeks ago, as there weren't a lot of games. Currently, the rankings say somewhere between 22 and 24 Quad1/2 games on ou

Everyone is good until we beat them 

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, rr52 said:

Winning the games you are expected to win helps. I don't recall all the bad non conference losses last year but Big 10 teams losing to Canisius, Stony Brook, Robert Morris  and IUPUI (think couple of those are right) killed the RPI which couldn't be overcome by playing those poor RPI conference teams. Last years conference weakness is replaced with conference strength this year.  

 

You got me thinking. So I might as well share. Here are all of the current defeats from Big Ten teams along with the current NET rankings of those teams:

 

Michigan: N/A

Ohio State: Syracuse (58)

Indiana: Arkansas (84), Duke (1)

Michigan State: Kansas (15), Louisville (24)

Wisconsin: Virginia (2), Marquette (14), Western Kentucky (124)

Minnesota: Boston College (104), Ohio State (22)

Nebraska: Texas Tech (5), Minnesota (46)

Maryland: Virgina (2), Purdue (29), Seton Hall (50)

Purdue: Virgina Tech (16), Florida State (23), Michigan (3), Texas (72), Notre Dame (62)

Iowa: Wisconsin (13), Michigan State (9)

Northwestern: Fresno State (68), Indiana (19), Michigan (3), Oklahoma (18)

Rutgers: St. John's (37), Michigan State (9), Wisconsin (13), Fordham (174), Seton Hall (50)

Penn State: DePaul (133), Bradley (190), Maryland (42), Indiana (19), NC State (8), Alabama (81)

Illinois: Georgetown (123), Fresno State (68), Iowa State (27), Xavier (74), Notre Dame (62), Nebraska (12), Ohio State (22), Missouri (69), FAU (172)

 

Here's the losses broken out:

1-25: 22

26-50: 7

51-75: 8

76-100: 2

101-125: 3

126-150: 1

151-175: 2

176-200: 1

201-353: 0

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hskr4life said:

 

Simply amazing how far the conference has come in one year.  Makes you wonder what the quads would have looked like last year with the NET vs the RPI...

 

RPI was a lot harder on the B1G than predictive metrics were. You could see that pretty much bear itself out in the post-season (PSU/UM for example). It's so Nebrasketball that they switched from RPI to a hybrid metric the year after RPI really hurt us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated Quad Current Rankings:

 

image.png

 

Not a huge change from 2 weeks ago, as there weren't a lot of games. Currently, the rankings say somewhere between 22 and 24 Quad1/2 games on our schedule.

 

Looking at last year, Power-5 teams that had at least 10 Q1/Q2 wins nearly all ended up with a seed of 7 or higher.  Only 3 didn't and they all were .500 or worse against Q1/Q2 teams, receiving seeds of 8, 9, and 10. So it's logical to think that getting to 10 Q1/Q2 wins almost certainly will equal a bid.

 

According to NET current rankings, we have a 4-2 Q1/Q2 record right now with 17 more chances. So if we can get to 12 or 13 Q1/Q2 wins total (that'd be playing roughly .500 basketball the rest of the way) you'd think that'd be a minimum 7 seed with plenty of room to climb.

 

We're up to #10 in NET rankings through yesterday.

 

An oddity - RPI doesn't like our team (#37) but loves our schedule with 17 Q1 games total and 3 Q1 wins already. Probably another example of why RPI is such a bad metric compared to the much better options out there. Just for a weird comparison to last year, Kansas had 15 Q1 games played on selection Sunday, 'Nova and Virginia each had 13. UNC had 22. Michigan St had 7. Texas had 17, won only 6, and made the field as a #10 seed.

 

Edited by throwback
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, throwback said:

An oddity - RPI doesn't like our team (#37) but loves our schedule with 17 Q1 games total and 3 Q1 wins already. Probably another example of why RPI is such a bad metric compared to the much better options out there.

Every year I try to look at the RPI and make sense of how teams are ranked - and every year I come away with the same conclusion - Its a terrible and confusing metric. This year we have two top 20 RPI wins and our losses are both top 50 RPI teams. Somehow there is a team ahead of us without a top 40 RPI win and a loss to a 120+ RPI team. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Polish Rifle said:

Every year I try to look at the RPI and make sense of how teams are ranked - and every year I come away with the same conclusion - Its a terrible and confusing metric. This year we have two top 20 RPI wins and our losses are both top 50 RPI teams. Somehow there is a team ahead of us without a top 40 RPI win and a loss to a 120+ RPI team. 

It's probably because they beat RPI 300 teams while we beat RPI 340 teams. Makes me mad that we used it for so long. Maybe quadrants weren't what screwed us last year maybe it was just RPI. Anybody know what our NET Ranking would've been last year?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cjbowbros said:

It's probably because they beat RPI 300 teams while we beat RPI 340 teams. Makes me mad that we used it for so long. Maybe quadrants weren't what screwed us last year maybe it was just RPI. Anybody know what our NET Ranking would've been last year?

No one knows. The NCAA hasn't released that info and said that they don't plan on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest Quad Table -- based on today's ratings (which of course can change over the next several weeks)...

 

image.png

 

PSU actually moved into Q2 after the loss last night in NET rankings, and at this point, the trip out there will be Q1. PSU figures to be right on the cut-off line all season. 

 

Next 3 games are Q1/Q1/Q2 

 

Still have 9 Q1 games to play and 6 Q2, according to current NET rankings - lots of chances

 

Currently we have 5 Q1/Q2 wins - playing .500 the rest of the way would get us to 12-13 Q1/Q2 wins before the B1G tourney.

 

NU sits at #14 in NET and #48 in RPI. I'm going to say I'm in favor of move away from RPI.

 

Edited by throwback
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, throwback said:

Latest Quad Table -- based on today's ratings (which of course can change over the next several weeks)...

 

image.png

 

PSU actually moved into Q2 after the loss last night in NET rankings, and at this point, the trip out there will be Q1. PSU figures to be right on the cut-off line all season. 

 

Next 3 games are Q1/Q1/Q2 

 

Still have 9 Q1 games to play and 6 Q2, according to current NET rankings - lots of chances

 

Currently we have 5 Q1/Q2 wins - playing .500 the rest of the way would get us to 12-13 Q1/Q2 wins before the B1G tourney.

 

NU sits at #14 in NET and #48 in RPI. I'm going to say I'm in favor of move away from RPI.

 

 

Since we don't know for sure then... I think it's fair to assume that we would have been much higher last year in the NET as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hskr4life said:

 

Since we don't know for sure then... I think it's fair to assume that we would have been much higher last year in the NET as well.

 

Relatively true. Better, but I'm not sure a ton better, as far as last season. The B1G is really helping NU out this year with the schedule and going to 20 games... Last year, not so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, throwback said:

Latest Quad Table -- based on today's ratings (which of course can change over the next several weeks)...

 

image.png

 

PSU actually moved into Q2 after the loss last night in NET rankings, and at this point, the trip out there will be Q1. PSU figures to be right on the cut-off line all season. 

 

Next 3 games are Q1/Q1/Q2 

 

Still have 9 Q1 games to play and 6 Q2, according to current NET rankings - lots of chances

 

Currently we have 5 Q1/Q2 wins - playing .500 the rest of the way would get us to 12-13 Q1/Q2 wins before the B1G tourney.

 

NU sits at #14 in NET and #48 in RPI. I'm going to say I'm in favor of move away from RPI.

 

I know RPI just sucks but NET rank is funky too. It’s benifiting us a lot but Penn State just moved up for losing by 6. What? The maximum amount you can “lose” by in the simulation is 10. Would they have moved up if they lost by 30, which the computer would see as 10? And overall they are ranked 74 with a 7-9 record. It seems to me that they could make the tournament with a losing record!? A top 45 RPI team from the B1G was almost a guaranteed bid in the last 15 years. And if they win half of their games from here on out I would guess they’d get to top 45 NET. To me that’s getting into strange territory but maybe their schedule is just that hard and they deserve it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cjbowbros said:

I know RPI just sucks but NET rank is funky too. It’s benifiting us a lot but Penn State just moved up for losing by 6. What? The maximum amount you can “lose” by in the simulation is 10. Would they have moved up if they lost by 30, which the computer would see as 10? And overall they are ranked 74 with a 7-9 record. It seems to me that they could make the tournament with a losing record!? A top 45 RPI team from the B1G was almost a guaranteed bid in the last 15 years. And if they win half of their games from here on out I would guess they’d get to top 45 NET. To me that’s getting into strange territory but maybe their schedule is just that hard and they deserve it.

This is not quite correct. In only one of the components is the scoring margin capped at 10. The efficiency components have no such cap and therefore you still benefit from winning big, which is how we are #13.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HuskerActuary said:

This is not quite correct. In only one of the components is the scoring margin capped at 10. The efficiency components have no such cap and therefore you still benefit from winning big, which is how we are #13.

Great information I really want to understand this and it seems like you have it down. That makes more sense. My only question is what is an example of an efficiency component?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cjbowbros said:

Great information I really want to understand this and it seems like you have it down. That makes more sense. My only question is what is an example of an efficiency component?

 

There are five components to the ranking. The NCAA hasn't been fully transparent about how each one works or how they are weighted, and I'm not sure if anyone has completely reverse-engineered it yet (I saw Bart Torvik got close), but here they are:

 

  • "Team Value Index" which rewards you for who you have beaten, taking into account location of the game. This is kind of like strength of record
  • "Net Efficiency" which is basically how many more points per possession you score than your opponent. This is where Nebraska has got to be pretty strong based on our big wins. This component likely lines up closely with KenPom, I would guess
  • Winning percentage
  • Adjusted winning percentage, based on location
  • Scoring margin <-- this is the one that is capped at 10

 

It's kind of a weird system and I'm sure they will tweak it. It's just strange that some of those components are so clearly overlapping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...