forums

Net Rankings Please Explain

TheOriginalCane said:
All of that stuff is true (statistically), but it further points out that the stats should be a starting point for the evaluation, not to mention what the limitations are on the stats themselves.

For instance, why should losing "by 32" be any worse than losing "by 16"? Maybe break losses down into "close games" (9 or fewer points) and "bad losses" (10 or more points) without piling on (statistically). Both of those games were at a tournament, and both of those games involved COVID "injuries". Now I know, I know, people will say that "injuries are a part of the game", and they are when you lose a player for an extended period of time. But the COVID situation has created scenarios in which a team on one night is fundamentally different than the same team on a different night and for no actual basketball reason, such as an injury.

Anyhow, I get the point that we had two double-digit losses at a neutral site tourney (though the worst loss was to a RANKED TEAM), but we also have 18 wins, one of which was on the road against a RANKED TEAM. We cannot control the fact that Duke has been the only consistently-ranked team in the ACC. ****, some other ACC teams might be ranked right now IF MIAMI HADN'T BEATEN THEM. At the end of the day, we have 18 wins, and I don't really care if all 18 were by 1 point each. We beat the teams. And they are not bad teams. Maybe the ACC isn't as stacked as in prior years, but we are beating quality teams on the regular.

Look, if the voters had ranked us when we beat Duke, and then dropped us down when we lost to F$U twice, maybe I would be more forgiving. But our remaining 6 games are against teams with worse conference records than us. We are tied for 3rd in the ACC and we don't have any games left against Duke, Notre Dame, or North Carolina (and we beat two of those three). We can never erase the Alabama and Dayton games, and we don't have any opportunities in the next 6 games to change minds either.

Ultimately, it's all some sort of bizarre joke. If you weren't expected to do well, then you do well, who "above you" can you beat to prove your own legitimacy? I also have a problem with other teams getting slobbered on because "oh, look at the talent they added in the portal", yet when Miami brings in some talented transfers and wins 18-24 regular season games (even if our margin of victory is single digits 18-24 times), we are just "slightly above average expectations".

Watch the games. Nearly every one of our 18 wins involved Miami absorbing the other team's best shot in the first half, followed by halftime adjustments and superior performance in the second half.
Click to expand...
Basically this. Every year. Miami or not related to Miami. The goalposts always seem to change around both selection time for basketball and what the group finds important for football…
 
Advertisement
Our telling me we're ranked low because we have bad defensive stats? That is literally the dumbest metric ever.
 
This morning, Miami is 63rd in NET. I know they don't use RPI, but we're 38 in RPI. 65 in Ken Pom. 71 in Jeff Sagarin.

These rankings are ridiculous.

Right now, all that matters is the fact that Miami is 19-7, 11-4 and in sole possession of 3rd place in the ACC
 
Notsince1985 said:
This morning, Miami is 63rd in NET. I know they don't use RPI, but we're 38 in RPI. 65 in Ken Pom. 71 in Jeff Sagarin.

These rankings are ridiculous.

Right now, all that matters is the fact that Miami is 19-7, 11-4 and in sole possession of 3rd place in the ACC
Click to expand...
And Wake who lost 2 in a row stays at 38
 
Notsince1985 said:
Our telling me we're ranked low because we have bad defensive stats? That is literally the dumbest metric ever.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is.

Net basically uses Kenpom’s efficiency metrics.

We are 21st in offensive efficiency and 156th in defensive efficiency. Our strength of schedule is actually very good at 47… higher than UNC, VT, and Wake.

Our style of play and wins just doesn’t fit in the efficiency metrics. Which is just so insanely stupid. Awful awful awful ranking system.
 
Advertisement
AmherstCane said:
Yes. It is.

Net basically uses Kenpom’s efficiency metrics.

We are 21st in offensive efficiency and 156th in defensive efficiency. Our strength of schedule is actually very good at 47… higher than UNC, VT, and Wake.

Our style of play and wins just doesn’t fit in the efficiency metrics. Which is just so insanely stupid. Awful awful awful ranking system.
Click to expand...
Kenpom had us rated 75th when we went 14-18 in the 2018-19 season. There is absolutely no way that this team is only marginally better than that team.
 
Advertisement
I overheard on a Twitter space a couple nights ago that NET ranking factors in point-differential heavily. This would explain VT's #36 NET ranking as they started the season beating Maine by 35, Navy by 20, Radford by 26, SFPA by 30, and Merrimack by 29...

You compare VT's out-of-conf start (due to their weak SOS) to our 4-3 start to the season in out-of-conf play, and it makes sense why they are ranked so high. Thankfully, the tournament committee factors Quad 1 wins heavily and we are 4-1 in that category.
 
***** NET, KenPom, Sagarin, BPI, AP, ESPN, and all the other skewed ranking systems and polls out there. Thankfully, in college basketball it's still decided on the court. Miami just needs to assure themselves a spot in the final 64 and then win once we're there. GO CANES!!!
 
CliftonCane said:
I overheard on a Twitter space a couple nights ago that NET ranking factors in point-differential heavily. This would explain VT's #36 NET ranking as they started the season beating Maine by 35, Navy by 20, Radford by 26, SFPA by 30, and Merrimack by 29...

You compare VT's out-of-conf start (due to their weak SOS) to our 4-3 start to the season in out-of-conf play, and it makes sense why they are ranked so high. Thankfully, the tournament committee factors Quad 1 wins heavily and we are 4-1 in that category.
Click to expand...
Need a couple more games like the UNC rout to move up I guess! That game showed we're capable of blowing a team out but ... right now it's an outlier. Except for our 11 point win vs GT, all other W's vs P5 teams are in the single digits, IIRC.
 
Advertisement
Can someone explain to me the love affair with the Big 12 this year? Admittedly, I haven't watched much of that conference this year and I see they are strong at the top with Kansas, Baylor, Texas Tech, and Texas; but how are Oklahoma and TCU projected in the field? Oklahoma is 14-12 overall and 4-9 in conference play. 4-9!!! Their only marquee wins are Texas Tech and Arkansas early in the season. How are you 5 games under .500 in your conference and projected in the field? Something just doesn't make sense to me.
 
all of these metrics are just tools used by the committee to aid the process but they aren't the only thing used. This is from today's article in the Athletic

"The selection committee emphasizes that the NET mostly is used for the quadrant system and is not really looked at as a pure ranking. Quality wins vs. bad losses, schedule strength and computer metrics are all vital ingredients in the stew."
 
hotshot said:
Need a couple more games like the UNC rout to move up I guess! That game showed we're capable of blowing a team out but ... right now it's an outlier. Except for our 11 point win vs GT, all other W's vs P5 teams are in the single digits, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Winning tomorrow at home vs UVA and winning at Syracuse are our 2 most difficult games left on the sched. KenPom projects us finishing the season 4-1 with that loss being at Syracuse. The committee understands that the NET rankings are not 100% accurate predictors, but in my op Quad 1 wins are indicative. Against Quad 1 competition, UNC is 0-7, ND is 2-5, and WF is 1-3. Not coincidentally, all 3 of those teams are on the bubble or on the outside looking in per Joe Lunardi.

Our objective should be to finish season at worst 4-1, lock up a top 4 seed in the ACC tournament to secure the double bye, and pray we don't have to play UVA a third time. They are a matchup nightmare for us.
 
Advertisement
Looks like we jumped from 67 to 60 by beating up a bad Pitt team. Blowouts help these rankings. Let’s see if we can get another one against BC.

The issue is this team has seriously improved as the season has gone on. We have a lot of close wins against bad teams early in the season that these computers do not like.

Hopefully the human perspective can tell that we are a different team since conference play started.
 
Today

60 in NET

61 in Ken Pom
70 in Sagarin
46 in RPI

The rankings are converging a little. RPI doesn’t care that we beat Pitt, and doesn’t like a home loss to a meh UVA. But the other computers give us some credit for the win being a blowout and the loss being by one possession.
 
The computers definitely hate the 2 point win at FAU and the 6 point win at Fordham. Annoying but it is what it is. If we win out and can blow out BC, I'm hoping we can shoot up into the 40's in NET/Kenpom.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top