KenPom 2022-2023 KenPom Rankings Thread

[The Polish Rifle]

1 hour ago, royalfan said:

I think some folks might be confused

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, royalfan said:

I think some folks might be confusing using quad wins to evaluate teams versus how the NET ranking is compiled.  Your NET ranking has nothing to do with quad wins and losses.  

 

No confusion. I think the point is to question the validity of the NET algorithm that produces a result that places a team with 4 Quad 3 and 4 losses 30 spots ahead of a team without any.

[hhcmatt]

I'd say this does as good as anyone at explaining the net rankings

Shorthand would be KenPom-esque rankings(net efficiency)  with some emphasis on actually winning games

 

https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/guides/how-to/understand-net-rankings/

[royalfan]

2 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

No confusion. I think the point is to question the validity of the NET algorithm that produces a result that places a team with 4 Quad 3 and 4 losses 30 spots ahead of a team without any.

I think the use of arbitrary quads to evaluate anything is a larger part of where the problems lie.  

[OmahaHusker]

1 hour ago, royalfan said:

I think the use of arbitrary quads to evaluate anything is a larger part of where the problems lie.  

 

I think the Quad system makes sense to me. A win on the road should count more towards your resume than a win at home. 

[Nebrasketball1979]

2 hours ago, royalfan said:

I think the use of arbitrary quads to evaluate anything is a larger part of where the problems lie.  

 

Whether you agree with the methodology or not, the quad designations are not arbitrary if they are applied consistently to everyone.  You or someone could correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that the NCAA committee developed the quad criteria a few years back to help provide context and meaning to computer data. 

 

if we do close out the season on a very nice run, the quad data should be very helpful in painting a positive narrative about this team in comparison to other bubble teams.

[royalfan]

51 minutes ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

 

Whether you agree with the methodology or not, the quad designations are not arbitrary if they are applied consistently to everyone.  You or someone could correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that the NCAA committee developed the quad criteria a few years back to help provide context and meaning to computer data. 

 

if we do close out the season on a very nice run, the quad data should be very helpful in painting a positive narrative about this team in comparison to other bubble teams.

 

Well maybe there is a more appropriate term, but my point is beating the number 6 NET on the road is not the same as beating number 74.  Anything that is lumping them into the same thing is lazy and creates inaccurate views.   There is no logic in calling it a day at 75 instead of 71 or 77.  Thus my usage of the term, but I understand it isn't the exact definition, other than the part where something can be used out of convenience instead of true value which applies perfectly here. 

[OmahaHusker]

16 minutes ago, royalfan said:

 

Well maybe there is a more appropriate term, but my point is beating the number 6 NET on the road is not the same as beating number 74.  Anything that is lumping them into the same thing is lazy and creates inaccurate views.   There is no logic in calling it a day at 75 instead of 71 or 77.  Thus my usage of the term, but I understand it isn't the exact definition, other than the part where something can be used out of convenience instead of true value which applies perfectly here. 

 

They do break down Quad 1 and 2 wins/losses into their own separate tiers as well to try and alleviate that. Not saying it's perfect, but it does help paint a better picture when you get to the record inside the Quads when you're trying to pick between teams.  

 

[MichHusker]

23 hours ago, MichHusker said:

NET rating blind resume game! Let me know what you would think the NET rating is for the following teams

 

Team A

Q1 : 2-1 Q2: 3-1 Q3: 10-0 Q4: 7-0

Team B

Q1: 0-4 Q2: 1-0 Q3: 3-0 Q4: 15-0

Team C

Q1: 0-3 Q2: 1-1 Q3: 4-2 Q4: 13-0

Team D

Q1: 2-11 Q2: 3-3 Q3: 1-0 Q4: 7-0

By the way the teams and their NET ratings are

A- FAU (17)

B- Oral Roberts (37)

C- Liberty (46)

D- Nebraska (94)

 

 

[Ron Mexico]

On 2/15/2023 at 10:33 AM, hhcmatt said:

 

We've come a long way from the RPI as the NET really resembles a Kenpom type ranking.

However, at the end of the day wins and loses are meaningful and both Iona and Yale have compiled wins, even if it's against opponents inferior to ours. On the flipside their NET rankings are meaningless unless they automatically qualify for the NCAA tournament because of those type of opponents. 

The NET uses a secret formula that only the NCAA knows. They can make the numbers do what ever they want and not I'm not going to give them any benefit of the doubt as being an ethical or honest organization. I don't for one second believe that they aren't above manipulating numbers to produce a desired outcome.

We won a lot of games in '17-18 and finished 4th in the BIG regular season and that wasn't enough because of our Q1 and Q2 game, allegedly. This is on top of finishing the month of Feb regular season going 6-1.  So winning games matters at the end of the day, until it doesn't. 

 

What's hurting us this year is in essence style points, otherwise known as margin of victory (rank is 222. we are 64pts in the negative) and net efficiency (rank is 161). These are a couple of the added metrics for NET that weren't a part of the old RPI. This season we have lost by 10 or more points 13 times. By the way despite what the NCAA says MOV is not capped. Coaches should be fighting for every point in every basketball game down the stretch, despite the score.

 

As for were we stand now, our chances to make the NCAA, outside of winning the conference tournament are slim and none. We have some work to do just be eligible for the NIT. Before this season making the NIT was beyond my wildest dreams. Right now the only thing I want is for us to go 3-1 the rest of the way, which will almost assure a spot in the NIT.

 

 

[HuskerFever]

9 hours ago, royalfan said:

I think some folks might be confusing using quad wins to evaluate teams versus how the NET ranking is compiled.  Your NET ranking has nothing to do with quad wins and losses.  

 

FWIW:

 

 

[millerhusker]

Well, Maryland will definitely be another quad 1 game for us on Sunday. Just beat Purdue. 

[Ron Mexico]

Tell me how KU is ranked 7th in NET when they have 12 Q1 wins. Houston is ranked #1 and they have 4 Q1, which is 1 more than Nebraska.

[hskr4life]

4 hours ago, MichHusker said:

By the way the teams and their NET ratings are

A- FAU (17)

B- Oral Roberts (37)

C- Liberty (46)

D- Nebraska (94)

 

 

 

Team A lost to #124 Middle Tenn tonight.

[hhcmatt]

4 minutes ago, Ron Mexico said:

Tell me how KU is ranked 7th in NET when they have 12 Q1 wins. Houston is ranked #1 and they have 4 Q1, which is 1 more than Nebraska.

 

The NET rankings aren't based on quadrant wins and loses, they're based on adjusted net efficiency. 

[REDZONEDAN]

2 hours ago, millerhusker said:

Well, Maryland will definitely be another quad 1 game for us on Sunday. Just beat Purdue. 

Maybe we’ll move up another spot in the NET rankings if we win.

[hskr4life]

10 hours ago, REDZONEDAN said:

Maybe we’ll move up another spot in the NET rankings if we win.

 

I didn't know if I wanted to "haha" this because of the joke or "upvote" it because it's so freaking true.... so I went with a "like".

Edited February 17, 2023 by hskr4life

[hskr4life]

11 hours ago, hskr4life said:

 

Team A lost to #124 Middle Tenn tonight.

 

That dropped FAU all the way to... checks notes.... 22.

 

MTSU jumped up to 114.

[hhcmatt]

One thing to note about the NET in the KenPom thread is that it's not the end all.  Rutgers made the tournament in 2022 and their NET was 80

[Norm Peterson]

I think some folks might be confused that the people complaining about NET rankings don't understand how NET rankings are computed. Let me just say I don't care HOW the rankings are computed; I only care that the results make sense. And it doesn't make sense for an Ohio State team that is 2-10 in Quad 1 games, and has a Quad 4 loss, and lost to us head-to-head, and has fewer conference wins than us is ranked 35 spots ahead of us in the NET rankings.

 

I don't care how they tabulate their rankings. I'm saying those tabulations require some tweaking to avoid some of these absurd results.

[49r]

Of the top 20 teams in overall Strength of Schedule our KenPom ranking is second lowest:

 

2023 Pomeroy College Basketball Ratings

Data through games of Thursday, February 16 (5075 games)

													Strength of Schedule						NCSOS
Rk	Team	Conf	W-L	AdjEM	AdjO		AdjD		AdjT		Luck		AdjEM		OppO		OppD		AdjEM
7	Kansas	B12	21-5	+23.43	116.4	19	92.9	14	69.6	71	+.086	34	+12.82	1	110.4	6	97.6	1	+6.53	24
54	Oklahoma	B12	13-13	+13.33	111.3	64	98.0	51	65.5	282	-.026	250	+12.23	2	109.9	11	97.6	2	+3.97	60
21	West Virginia	B12	15-11	+18.68	116.4	18	97.7	45	68.5	124	-.060	309	+11.78	3	110.8	3	99.0	5	+2.42	94
31	Michigan St.	B10	16-9	+16.95	110.2	79	93.3	17	64.9	305	+.029	114	+11.65	4	111.5	1	99.8	13	+4.99	43
2	Alabama	SEC	22-4	+27.20	116.8	15	89.6	4	73.4	2	+.072	41	+11.16	5	110.1	8	98.9	4	+9.60	6
96	Nebraska	B10	13-14	+7.52	106.1	158	98.6	63	66.6	227	+.043	84	+11.07	6	110.5	5	99.4	9	+1.63	114
10	Baylor	B12	20-6	+22.27	122.0	1	99.8	78	66.8	215	+.051	66	+10.86	7	110.3	7	99.4	10	+2.23	97
15	Iowa St.	B12	17-8	+19.75	110.4	74	90.6	7	64.9	304	-.007	204	+10.52	8	110.9	2	100.4	27	-1.41	214
29	Oklahoma St.	B12	16-10	+17.36	108.4	111	91.1	9	67.8	159	-.039	273	+10.20	9	109.5	16	99.3	7	+0.59	150
70	Wisconsin	B10	15-10	+11.42	106.0	161	94.6	27	63.2	347	+.045	77	+10.18	10	110.6	4	100.5	30	+0.83	143
44	Oregon	P12	15-12	+14.83	113.6	33	98.8	67	66.7	221	-.032	258	+10.05	11	108.8	34	98.8	3	+5.86	31
9	Texas	B12	20-6	+22.62	117.9	12	95.3	32	69.4	83	+.032	107	+10.01	12	109.9	10	99.9	16	-1.06	196
12	Creighton	BE	17-9	+21.89	114.6	27	92.7	13	67.9	154	-.094	344	+9.87	13	110.0	9	100.1	19	+5.66	34
110	Butler	BE	13-14	+5.53	103.9	197	98.3	57	66.1	256	+.017	145	+9.71	14	109.9	12	100.2	20	+0.93	140
22	Xavier	BE	19-7	+18.65	119.3	8	100.7	90	71.3	25	-.005	200	+9.64	15	109.8	14	100.2	21	+3.73	66
64	Washington St.	P12	12-15	+12.15	110.3	77	98.1	53	64.2	325	-.120	358	+9.26	16	109.1	27	99.9	14	+4.34	50
58	Ohio St.	B10	11-15	+12.86	114.8	25	102.0	110	66.7	223	-.180	363	+9.21	17	108.7	40	99.5	11	-2.85	258
26	Kansas St.	B12	19-7	+18.00	112.2	51	94.2	22	70.1	47	+.036	95	+9.18	18	108.4	45	99.2	6	-1.65	224
60	Seton Hall	BE	16-11	+12.58	105.6	167	93.1	15	67.1	196	+.000	190	+8.75	19	109.2	23	100.5	29	+3.21	79
20	Indiana	B10	18-8	+18.86	115.3	23	96.4	36	68.1	142	+.002	180	+8.72	20	109.2	21	100.5	31	-3.84	287

[Nebrasketball1979]

6 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

One thing to note about the NET in the KenPom thread is that it's not the end all.  Rutgers made the tournament in 2022 and their NET was 80

If we win our final four regular season games, we will certainly be on the bubble.  It might still be on the wrong side but we will be part of the conversation heading into the BIG tournament 

[OmahaHusker]

54 minutes ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

If we win our final four regular season games, we will certainly be on the bubble.  It might still be on the wrong side but we will be part of the conversation heading into the BIG tournament 

 

TRank has them 9th team out if they won their final four regular season games. 

 

 

It has them 1st team out if they went all the way to the B1G championship and lost to Purdue, after winning the last four regular season games.

 

 

[MichHusker]

34 minutes ago, OmahaHusker said:

 

TRank has them 9th team out if they won their final four regular season games. 

 

 

It has them 1st team out if they went all the way to the B1G championship and lost to Purdue, after winning the last four regular season games.

 

 

For the sake of my sanity I have to believe we dont need like 7 more Q1 wins just to be a bubble team. 

[OmahaHusker]

14 minutes ago, MichHusker said:

For the sake of my sanity I have to believe we dont need like 7 more Q1 wins just to be a bubble team. 

 

Despite what TRank says, I think 20 wins and they're in, no matter the result in the B1G championship. That's 7 straight wins that would have national attention. 

 

19 we'd be sweating. Maybe a 50/50 chance, but that's more than likely a #1 or #2 NIT seed. That's when you'd hope a North Carolina/Kentucky/Villanova aren't also on the bubble with you. 

 

18 isn't enough.

Edited February 17, 2023 by OmahaHusker