collapse

* Resources


UDM 4

* 2018-2019 SOTG


2018-19 Season SoG Tally
Howard11
S Hauser4
John4
Anim3
Chartouny2

'17-18 * '16-17 *
'15-16'14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Wojo/MU story in The Athletic by tower912
[Today at 12:47:10 AM]


Cracked Sidewalks - fun nostalga playing 2003 MU vs. 2002 Cincy and 2007 Gtown by Marquetteauburn
[May 19, 2019, 11:47:24 PM]


2019 Coaching Carousel by MU82
[May 19, 2019, 10:44:43 PM]


Recruiting as of 5/15/19 by Herman Cain
[May 19, 2019, 10:33:11 PM]


Outsiders View Of Hausers Transfer by Fluffy Blue Monster
[May 19, 2019, 09:30:06 PM]


Seat Donations and Reseating by LloydsLegs
[May 19, 2019, 09:40:24 AM]


Expected MH is Candidate by Newsdreams
[May 18, 2019, 11:39:16 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
Marquette

Madness

Date/Time: Oct 4, 2019
TV: ???
Schedule for 2018-19
24-10

Author Topic: Net Ranking  (Read 6581 times)

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
Net Ranking
« on: February 10, 2019, 12:09:29 PM »
Okay the NET really makes no sense to me...UW loses @ Michigan and actually goes up a spot?? MU beats Nova, and doesn't move. Nova loses and doesn't move. Makes no sense to me.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

MuMark

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2019, 12:24:04 PM »
That's because you are looking at it like it is the RPI.......it's not.....it's a season long metric that is not just wins and losses. UW moved up basically because VT continued its recent drop. Losing a competitive game at Michigan isn't going to hurt you.......we also have no idea how close or far the gap is between teams ranked let's say 10 and 11 is......it coy.d be razor slim or it coukd d be pretty wide.

Nova was supposed to lose to us by 2.....they lost by 1....that's not going to move the needle much either way. If we lose a close one at Nova it will likely have similar results......i.e. It won't hurt us unless teams ranked around us have excellent results in that same time frame.


Nukem2

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3928
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2019, 12:56:21 PM »
Yes, it’s just a system of algorithmic metrics designed by an NCAA contractor that really does not measure head to head competition.  Just a measurement used by the NCAA to sort potential tourney participants.  Even at 21 yesterday, MU was determined to be a 3 seed at this point.  The commmittee still has the final say.

TAMU Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 15411
  • A Reading from Wojo's 1st Slide to the Marquettens
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2019, 03:00:02 PM »
Assuming NET's margins are similar to KenPoms, then Marquette was "supposed" to win by 2. Since we won by 1, there will likely be no movement and if there was it would be negative. Im not sure what the expected margin of the UW game was, but it was probably around the 9 points it ended up being, so again litttle to no change. As Mark pointed out, Uw moved up because VT lost at Clemson. Its not so much that UW moved up, its that VT moved down.

Margins matter more than W/L.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

~Prayer of the Scooper

We R Final Four

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3809
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2019, 03:05:23 PM »
Assuming NET's margins are similar to KenPoms, then Marquette was "supposed" to win by 2. Since we won by 1, there will likely be no movement and if there was it would be negative. Im not sure what the expected margin of the UW game was, but it was probably around the 9 points it ended up being, so again litttle to no change. As Mark pointed out, Uw moved up because VT lost at Clemson. Its not so much that UW moved up, its that VT moved down.

Margins matter more than W/L.
So if we are supposed to win by one, but lose by one.........in NET, it doesn’t have that much bearing because the game was close, as predicted? Am I understanding that correctly?

MuMark

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2019, 03:19:57 PM »
So if we are supposed to win by one, but lose by one.........in NET, it doesn’t have that much bearing because the game was close, as predicted? Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes.....although there is a win/loss element in the rankings.....it's just that nobody knows what it is because the formula isn't known.

If we get blown out at Nova it will hurt our ranking much more then if we lose a close game which may not hurt at all......but you are always subject to the results of teams that are close to you in the rankings.....they can pass you even if you win or in Wisconsin's case this week you can move up because somebody else moves down.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2019, 03:35:55 PM »
See, numbers are fine and all, but I have a real problem with models that use "efficiency" and margins of winning and losing as a part of it. Who cares how efficient you were in a game if you won it?? Or by how much, or hell even where it is. In reality, all that SHOULD matter is whether you won or lost the game. That's the bottom line. To me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Win=Good, Loss=Bad. All this is doing is trying to make some losses not as bad as others...well, there is no such thing as a "pretty" loss. A loss by one or a loss by 10, they are all the same, in the end it goes on the right side of the column. And they all suck. To me, all this does is allow for more of the manta we hear now of "that wasn't a bad loss". Bullcrap! EVERY loss is bad...that is after all why they play the game. Maybe I'm too old school, I don't know. I'd much rather win ugly, then lose "pretty" any day of the weak. These models now say some losses aren't so bad...it is NEVER good to lose. Ever. Or it shouldn't be anyway, no matter if it's basketball, football, or in general.

It's too much "well you tried hard and came up a little short" mentality that prevails in society now.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

Bocephys

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1978
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2019, 03:45:55 PM »
See, numbers are fine and all, but I have a real problem with models that use "efficiency" and margins of winning and losing as a part of it. Who cares how efficient you were in a game if you won it?? Or by how much, or hell even where it is. In reality, all that SHOULD matter is whether you won or lost the game. That's the bottom line. To me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Win=Good, Loss=Bad. All this is doing is trying to make some losses not as bad as others...well, there is no such thing as a "pretty" loss. A loss by one or a loss by 10, they are all the same, in the end it goes on the right side of the column. And they all suck. To me, all this does is allow for more of the manta we hear now of "that wasn't a bad loss". Bullcrap! EVERY loss is bad...that is after all why they play the game. Maybe I'm too old school, I don't know. I'd much rather win ugly, then lose "pretty" any day of the weak. These models now say some losses aren't so bad...it is NEVER good to lose. Ever. Or it shouldn't be anyway, no matter if it's basketball, football, or in general.

It's too much "well you tried hard and came up a little short" mentality that prevails in society now.

It's a predictive model, that's why they care.  Not to diminish a past win or enhance a previous loss, but to attempt to predict a future result. 

IrwinFletcher

  • Registered User
  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2019, 03:48:01 PM »
See, numbers are fine and all, but I have a real problem with models that use "efficiency" and margins of winning and losing as a part of it. Who cares how efficient you were in a game if you won it?? Or by how much, or hell even where it is. In reality, all that SHOULD matter is whether you won or lost the game. That's the bottom line. To me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. Win=Good, Loss=Bad. All this is doing is trying to make some losses not as bad as others...well, there is no such thing as a "pretty" loss. A loss by one or a loss by 10, they are all the same, in the end it goes on the right side of the column. And they all suck. To me, all this does is allow for more of the manta we hear now of "that wasn't a bad loss". Bullcrap! EVERY loss is bad...that is after all why they play the game. Maybe I'm too old school, I don't know. I'd much rather win ugly, then lose "pretty" any day of the weak. These models now say some losses aren't so bad...it is NEVER good to lose. Ever. Or it shouldn't be anyway, no matter if it's basketball, football, or in general.

It's too much "well you tried hard and came up a little short" mentality that prevails in society now.

And it is about that. That is what the committee put us at 12 even though NET has us at 21. Committee is looking at who you beat and where just like they have done in the past

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2019, 04:31:58 PM »
It's a predictive model, that's why they care.  Not to diminish a past win or enhance a previous loss, but to attempt to predict a future result.

But to predict a future result is futile..We can all make predictions about anything, but it doesn't mean that is what will happen. Numbers don't always tell the story about what "might" happen. Like using Kenpom as an example..his model a lot of times "predicts" the home team will win..Because the #'s say they SHOULD. But the problem I have with that is...what if that home team just isn't as good as the road team?? I will take the better team 99% of the time, (regardless of where it's played and what the #'s might say). and be right, more often than not, I'd bet.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 18965
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2019, 04:35:55 PM »
Who cares how efficient you were in a game if you won it?? Or by how much, or hell even where it is. In reality, all that SHOULD matter is whether you won or lost the game. That's the bottom line. To me, a win is a win and a loss is a loss.

And that's why you're posting on a message board and people like Ken Pomeroy are making money off their algorithms. The reason margin matters is because statistically it is one of the best indicators of future results. Teams that tend to blow their opponents out tend to perform better than teams that beat similar competition by narrow margins. There's a reason everyone that gets paid to do this, from Pomeroy to the Selection Committee have Michigan State ahead of us despite MU having the better record.

Efficiency matters because statistics show efficiency matters. It is valued because time and time again the best teams in the metrics generally prove to be the best in March as well.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #11 on: February 10, 2019, 04:36:20 PM »
And it is about that. That is what the committee put us at 12 even though NET has us at 21. Committee is looking at who you beat and where just like they have done in the past

But...this is where the NET is flawed and the seed is right I think(and I guess in the end that's all that matters), MU's NET is ONLY as low as it is because of two losses by 20pts and a home win closer than the computers expected it to be. You know what?? That's still two losses, and it's still one win.

Purdue's seed is extremely flawed imo. If the main criteria is who you beat and where...Purdue beat literally NO ONE in the non conference. Yet, they are the highest #3 seed because of their wins in a conference that is overrated(regardless of what the #'s say)?? That doesn't add up to me..That's saying in some cases it matters who you beat in non conference, and it other cases it's well "we can overlook no good wins in the non conference because you beat this team IN conference". Shouldn't be that way.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 932
  • Has your band begun to rust?
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #12 on: February 10, 2019, 04:50:15 PM »
The Big 10 is like the Big East was the past couple of years.  A couple strong teams, maybe a 4-5 seed, and a bunch of above average ones that will fall in the 7-10 seeding range.  So at the end of the tournament they may not have a great record as a conference, but they haven't been terrible this year.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2019, 04:51:03 PM »
And that's why you're posting on a message board and people like Ken Pomeroy are making money off their algorithms. The reason margin matters is because statistically it is one of the best indicators of future results. Teams that tend to blow their opponents out tend to perform better than teams that beat similar competition by narrow margins. There's a reason everyone that gets paid to do this, from Pomeroy to the Selection Committee have Michigan State ahead of us despite MU having the better record.

Efficiency matters because statistics show efficiency matters. It is valued because time and time again the best teams in the metrics generally prove to be the best in March as well.

Okay, but if you look at Kenpom's model..almost every B10 team is top 100..because of how efficient they are. That's fine, but most of those teams just aren't any good. Look at some of their kenpom rankings...

Nebraska(13-11)-36
Indiana(13-11)-45
Minnesota(16-8)-55
Penn St(8-15)-61
Northwestern(12-10)-66
Illinois(9-15)-71

Those teams are a combined 71-60 and none of them are very good basketball teams...yet, none are lower then top 75 in the country(using kenpom's model).  What they all have in common(like most of the B10 teams do), is they all play REALLY slow...it seems to me, that these "models" like slow playing teams as far as efficiency goes. So when a Purdue or a Michigan State loses to one of these teams it doesn't "look" that bad based strictly in the numbers...yet in reality these are BAD to TERRIBLE losses. Anyone that watches basketball should know that. The system isn't perfect by any stretch, the B10 proves that out yearly I think..it's not that they are that good, it's because they play so slow, and thus, that helps their efficiency #'s, whether they actually win games or not. It's flawed...they can take their numbers and predict games, and I will use my eye test of who I think is the better team(more talented) and I'd be willing to bet over the course of a season the results would not be SIGNIFICANTLY different.

You know what they say about statistics right?? "There are lies, damn lies and then there's statistics".
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 04:53:25 PM by muguru »
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

MuMark

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2019, 05:15:56 PM »
If you use your eye test and bet money against Pomeroy you will be poor in a hurry.

There is a reason vegas uses Pomeroy and similar predictive models when making betting lines....

The reason those teams have poor records is because they are in the toughest conference this season......top to bottom. When you play against more teams that can beat you you lose more games......and sometimes teams get worse as a season goes on......which has happened with teams like Indiana and Oklahoma.....but they still get credit for how they did earlier in the season.

its easy to say somebody else is wrong......make up the guru list of the top 100 teams .....publish them ....justify them...since your eye test is so on target I'm sure you could make lots of money.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 18965
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2019, 05:22:47 PM »
If you judge any model by its worst example, the model will look bad. All of those teams have proven capable of beating quality teams.

And frankly, if your eye test tells you Minnesota is bad, I think you may need to have your vision checked.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11335
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2019, 05:32:20 PM »
I was a little "worried" (for lack of better word) about the NET and how it would affect us, but those concerns have been allayed by this first seeding release. Even though the NET says we should be a 5 or 6 seed, the committee put us at a 3. That means the NET is just one of many factors the committee is considering, and there's nothing wrong with that.

"We need journalists who are on the side of victims, on the side of those who are persecuted, excluded, thrown away and discriminated against ... situations of suffering that often are in the dark, or have light shining for a moment only to return to the darkness of indifference."

-- Pope Francis

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2019, 06:02:16 PM »
I was a little "worried" (for lack of better word) about the NET and how it would affect us, but those concerns have been allayed by this first seeding release. Even though the NET says we should be a 5 or 6 seed, the committee put us at a 3. That means the NET is just one of many factors the committee is considering, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree with this, I was pleasantly surprised to see them as a #3 seed(I NEVER trust the committee). However, I am a little concerned judging by who they had as the last #2(MSU), and the top #3(Purdue)(both surprised me), that MU can't go up much more other then to maybe move up the three line a spot or two. To me, if MU somehow managed to win out(including the Big east tournament), that there is still no way MU can get to a #2 seed. Oh well, it is what it is I suppose.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11335
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2019, 06:05:44 PM »
I agree with this, I was pleasantly surprised to see them as a #3 seed(I NEVER trust the committee). However, I am a little concerned judging by who they had as the last #2(MSU), and the top #3(Purdue)(both surprised me), that MU can't go up much more other then to maybe move up the three line a spot or two. To me, if MU somehow managed to win out(including the Big east tournament), that there is still no way MU can get to a #2 seed.

You don't know that's true at all.

I hope we get to find out.
"We need journalists who are on the side of victims, on the side of those who are persecuted, excluded, thrown away and discriminated against ... situations of suffering that often are in the dark, or have light shining for a moment only to return to the darkness of indifference."

-- Pope Francis

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2019, 06:08:49 PM »
If you judge any model by its worst example, the model will look bad. All of those teams have proven capable of beating quality teams.

And frankly, if your eye test tells you Minnesota is bad, I think you may need to have your vision checked.

Minnesota is the best of that group no question, but if anyone thinks Penn State, Northwestern, Nebraska, Illinois are good teams(and not as good as their Kenpom #'s say) , then they haven't watched nearly enough basketball. They aren't.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2019, 06:15:01 PM »
If you use your eye test and bet money against Pomeroy you will be poor in a hurry.

There is a reason vegas uses Pomeroy and similar predictive models when making betting lines....

The reason those teams have poor records is because they are in the toughest conference this season......top to bottom. When you play against more teams that can beat you you lose more games......and sometimes teams get worse as a season goes on......which has happened with teams like Indiana and Oklahoma.....but they still get credit for how they did earlier in the season.

its easy to say somebody else is wrong......make up the guru list of the top 100 teams .....publish them ....justify them...since your eye test is so on target I'm sure you could make lots of money.

Kenpom had Indiana beating OSU today 67-65. This is a perfect example...I would ask why?? Ohio State is a better team. IDC where Indiana is playing them. Is OSU much better?? Probably not, but still better and for me, if it's close like that I will always go wit hthe better team.  Tomorrow night he has TCU beating Kansas 75-74 @ TCU. Kansas wins that game..period. Anyone think Kansas isn't better then TCU even with all their issues right now?? That's two examples of why I have issues with "predictive" models.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

YoungMUFan4

  • Registered User
  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2019, 06:21:37 PM »
If it's so easy you should be making bank betting on the games...

MuMark

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2019, 07:21:16 PM »
TCU is at home.......home court advantage is an actual thing.......it helps to play at home.

Kansas has already lost at West Virginia this season..now there is a bad team......you might be right......Kansas might win.....wouldn't surprise me.......but before you bet on it.....might want to check out Kansas's  record in true road games this season........it ain't good......and that was with Vick.

muguru

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3031
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2019, 07:29:56 PM »
TCU is at home.......home court advantage is an actual thing.......it helps to play at home.

Kansas has already lost at West Virginia this season..now there is a bad team......you might be right......Kansas might win.....wouldn't surprise me.......but before you bet on it.....might want to check out Kansas's  record in true road games this season........it ain't good......and that was with Vick.

I know they have stunk on the road..But I think they beat TCU tomm night.
“Being realistic is the most common path to mediocrity.” Will Smith

We live in a society that rewards mediocrity , I detest mediocrity - David Goggi

I want this quote to serve as a reminder to the vast majority of scoop posters in regards to the MU BB program.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 18965
  • Alan Bykowski
    • Brew City Ball
Re: Net Ranking
« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2019, 07:34:29 PM »
Minnesota is the best of that group no question, but if anyone thinks Penn State, Northwestern, Nebraska, Illinois are good teams(and not as good as their Kenpom #'s say) , then they haven't watched nearly enough basketball. They aren't.

Nebraska was good and has been in freefall since losing one of their best players. Their numbers are boosted by what they did with a full roster. The rest you list are 60 or below, which is typically teams at best on the bubble. Being ranked 60-75 isn't an indication of being good, certainly not for a high major.