Big East Poll , NET Rankings and Team Sheets

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I seem to recall them putting a cap on scoring margin differential at 10 points.  However, it's the efficiency numbers that continue to get aided by larger blowouts.

The goal would be to have a weighted efficiency. With only ~35 games in a college season, each game is about 3% of the season.  A handful of outliers can make a huge impact on efficiency numbers.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This is why I think the net needs to have a diminishing returns factor on margin of victory.  The curve should start to flatten out around 20.  Not a hard cap, just a much slower rise.

The difference between a 1 point win and a 20 point win is huge, but the difference between a 20 point win and a 40 point win is really immaterial.

That would lessen the impact of these outlier blowouts and improve the NET''s functionality.

I could be a fan of that. The downside to that is that it would lead to a slight advantage for slower paced teams and disadvantage for fast paced teams.

We use margin of victory because it is easy to understand and quantify but margin of victory does not equal efficiency. A 10 point win in a 55 possession game is more efficient than a 15 point win in an 85 possession game. The differences in a single game can be negligible but added up over 30 game season and the results could be more significant.

So if we base the start of the diminishing returns on margin of victory (say 20), it is more likely that a fast paced team would hit that point sooner than a slow paced team, even if the slow-paced team is being more efficient than the fast-paced team.

Again, that's not a reason to not do it, but I think the reason they have it the way it is now is because it theoretically evaluates all teams equally, regardless of pace.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I could be a fan of that. The downside to that is that it would lead to a slight advantage for slower paced teams and disadvantage for fast paced teams.

We use margin of victory because it is easy to understand and quantify but margin of victory does not equal efficiency. A 10 point win in a 55 possession game is more efficient than a 15 point win in an 85 possession game. The differences in a single game can be negligible but added up over 30 game season and the results could be more significant.

So if we base the start of the diminishing returns on margin of victory (say 20), it is more likely that a fast paced team would hit that point sooner than a slow paced team, even if the slow-paced team is being more efficient than the fast-paced team.

Again, that's not a reason to not do it, but I think the reason they have it the way it is now is because it theoretically evaluates all teams equally, regardless of pace.

Good points.  So, instead of margin of victory, we have to use a more complicated input.  Margin of victory divided by possessions (efficiency) and then figure out what values are in the outlier range.

Then, the outliers can be weighted less.

[MU82]

It's difficult for me to get behind any system that rewards a coach for keeping his starters in with a 30-point lead and 3 minutes to go.

[Uncle Rico]

It's difficult for me to get behind any system that rewards a coach for keeping his starters in with a 30-point lead and 3 minutes to go.

Not me.  Humiliating your opponent rules

[Daniel]

It's difficult for me to get behind any system that rewards a coach for keeping his starters in with a 30-point lead and 3 minutes to go.

The walk ons who practice hard get penalized with current system. That is one big drawback.   They don’t make it in games much at all

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It's difficult for me to get behind any system that rewards a coach for keeping his starters in with a 30-point lead and 3 minutes to go.

I'll be honest, at the college level, I don't give two craps about running up the score. I know I'm in the minority but I find it more insulting for an opponent to pull their punches. Don't elongate the game, but I'd rather see my opponent run through the finish line instead of goofing around during the home stretch.

What I don't like is that the walk-ons really do get screwed on playing time. They put in so much work to the team and even before the NET, they got rewarded with precious few on the court minutes. Would love if in a true blowout the coach's could come to some sort of gentleman's agreement for both them to empty their bench for the last few minutes.

[lawdog77]

I'll be honest, at the college level, I don't give two craps about running up the score. I know I'm in the minority but I find it more insulting for an opponent to pull their punches. Don't elongate the game, but I'd rather see my opponent run through the finish line instead of goofing around during the home stretch.

What I don't like is that the walk-ons really do get screwed on playing time. They put in so much work to the team and even before the NET, they got rewarded with precious few on the court minutes. Would love if in a true blowout the coach's could come to some sort of gentleman's agreement for both them to empty their bench for the last few minutes.

Imagine how the walkons would feel if they cost the team  a seed line or two. Playing a 4 v 13, versus of 5/12 or 6/11.

[MU82]

I'll be honest, at the college level, I don't give two craps about running up the score. I know I'm in the minority but I find it more insulting for an opponent to pull their punches. Don't elongate the game, but I'd rather see my opponent run through the finish line instead of goofing around during the home stretch.

What I don't like is that the walk-ons really do get screwed on playing time. They put in so much work to the team and even before the NET, they got rewarded with precious few on the court minutes. Would love if in a true blowout the coach's could come to some sort of gentleman's agreement for both them to empty their bench for the last few minutes.

I don't care about running up the score, either. If you want to keep a team from running up the score, stop them.

What I care about is that we talk about guys playing a lot of minutes ... but then we keep playing them in a blowout just to chase some metric. Wouldn't it be horrible if one of our starters got hurt because he was playing while a little tired and our team is up 30, or if an opposing player is ticked off that he's losing by 35 and commits a hard foul that concusses one of our guys?

Plus yeah, it's a shame the walk-ons don't get to play.

It's just stoopid to have a 40-point win "count" for more than a 26-point win IMHO.

[brewcity77]

I seem to recall them putting a cap on scoring margin differential at 10 points.  However, it's the efficiency numbers that continue to get aided by larger blowouts.

The margin cap was removed because it effectively gave double credit for the winning team up to 10, since they already get the benefit of the efficiency margin.

I'd like to see the efficiency model be regressive, but also think it would be beneficial to have a game control measure built in. Haslam's model uses that and it would give more credit to a team that won by 10 but led by double digits the whole game than a team who trailed most of the game, made a late run, then bolstered their lead with free throws in the final minute.

[Herman Cain]

Big East NET rankings as of games of February 19, 2023
New  Old
6   6   UConn   
15   15   Creighton   
16   16   Marquette   
27   25   Xavier   
38   39   Providence   
59   59   Seton Hall   
85   85   Villanova   
100   101   St. John's
106   112   Butler   
168   167   DePaul   
231   231   Georgetown   

February 11 Team Sheets . MU is 16
https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2023/net-teamsheets-plus

[withoutbias]

The margin cap was removed because it effectively gave double credit for the winning team up to 10, since they already get the benefit of the efficiency margin.

I'd like to see the efficiency model be regressive, but also think it would be beneficial to have a game control measure built in. Haslam's model uses that and it would give more credit to a team that won by 10 but led by double digits the whole game than a team who trailed most of the game, made a late run, then bolstered their lead with free throws in the final minute.

Let’s make games in February count more than games in November while we’re at it.

[brewcity77]

Let’s make games in February count more than games in November while we’re at it.

Definitely not. It would create far too much bias in the system, so I imagine you'd be strongly against that.

[withoutbias]

Definitely not. It would create far too much bias in the system, so I imagine you'd be strongly against that.

So why are certain minutes of a game more important than others, but certain games in a season are not more important than others?

[MU82]

Let’s make games in February count more than games in November while we’re at it.

That would just kill Marquette. They might even call it the Marquette February Fade Rule.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So why are certain minutes of a game more important than others, but certain games in a season are not more important than others?

Two big reasons for me. The first is that the goal of the NET and the goal of the selection committee are different. The NET's is try to objectively rank who the best teams actually are. The selection committee's goal is to rank teams by what they actually earned on the court.

The second one is that I can see an argument for why playing in blowout could impact a team's (or their opponent's) efficiency. I don't think the same applies for the time of year. Teams let up the intensity in a blowout. They don't let up intensity because it's November.

[brewcity77]

So why are certain minutes of a game more important than others, but certain games in a season are not more important than others?

Game control doesn't make certain minutes more important, it does the opposite. Under the current system, the only minute that effectively matters is the final one, because it only looks at the final score.

For instance, Team A beats Team C 77-70 in 65 possessions. However, Team A opened the game with a 20-3 run and never led by fewer than 15 until the final minute, when Team C hit a trio of threes against just one made FT for Team A. Team B also beat Team C 77-70 in 65 possessions. However, they trailed most of the game, fought back to take their first lead with 2 minutes to play, and bolstered their final margin with made FTs when Team C fouled in the final minute. Whose performance against Team C was more impressive? The NET would recognize both as the same exact result, but Team A dominated until the very end while Team B struggled until the very end.

Game control would adjust for that. The current system does not. As a result, it would make all of the minutes matter, not just the score at the end of the last one.

[withoutbias]

Game control doesn't make certain minutes more important, it does the opposite. Under the current system, the only minute that effectively matters is the final one, because it only looks at the final score.

For instance, Team A beats Team C 77-70 in 65 possessions. However, Team A opened the game with a 20-3 run and never led by fewer than 15 until the final minute, when Team C hit a trio of threes against just one made FT for Team A. Team B also beat Team C 77-70 in 65 possessions. However, they trailed most of the game, fought back to take their first lead with 2 minutes to play, and bolstered their final margin with made FTs when Team C fouled in the final minute. Whose performance against Team C was more impressive? The NET would recognize both as the same exact result, but Team A dominated until the very end while Team B struggled until the very end.

Game control would adjust for that. The current system does not. As a result, it would make all of the minutes matter, not just the score at the end of the last one.

I guess it depends on where the games are played. But I’d agree with the net. Both teams won by 7. Both teams end up with 1 win and 0 losses for that day, and for their records.

I’d rather be a team that wins 6 straight 1 point games coming from behind in the NCAA Tournament than a team that wins 5 games by 15+ and then loses by 1 at the buzzer in the national title. One had a more dominant NCAA Tournament run. The other won a national championship.

[brewcity77]

I guess it depends on where the games are played. But I’d agree with the net. Both teams won by 7. Both teams end up with 1 win and 0 losses for that day, and for their records.

I’d rather be a team that wins 6 straight 1 point games coming from behind in the NCAA Tournament than a team that wins 5 games by 15+ and then loses by 1 at the buzzer in the national title. One had a more dominant NCAA Tournament run. The other won a national championship.

The NCAA Tournament isn't a valid comparison. The NCAA metric is designed to determine the best teams for inclusion to the tournament. Once the tournament starts, the NET has no bearing nor influence. It only matters until Selection Sunday.

The NET exists for at-large selection. Which means the results of a league regular season title (since plenty of league champs are left out every year) or a conference tournament title (their selection is determined regardless of NET) have absolutely zero bearing on what the NET should be evaluating. The best team is the one that controls their opponent the best, and that will be a better predictor than simply end of game margin. If the NCAA can do better (and they certainly can) then they should.

[tower912]

Wisconsin lost!  It may hurt MU's NET!  Who cares?

[CountryRoads]

Wisconsin lost!  It may hurt MU's NET!  Who cares?

The badgers are only on the bubble because they beat a very highly ranked and currently first place big east team.

[Herman Cain]

 Big East NET rankings as of games of February 11, 2023
New  Old
9   6   UConn   
13   15   Creighton   
15   16   Marquette   
26   27   Xavier   
43   38   Providence   
60   59   Seton Hall   
85   85   Villanova   
99   100   St. John's
108   106   Butler   
170   168   DePaul   
232   231   Georgetown
February 12 Team Sheets. MU is 15
https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2023/net-teamsheets-plus

[MuggsyB]

I just looked at the NET and did not see Wisconsin in the top 75.  Is there an NET cut-off line NCAA/NIT tournament?

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I just looked at the NET and did not see Wisconsin in the top 75.  Is there an NET cut-off line NCAA/NIT tournament?

Rutgers made the First Four last year with a NET of 75.  They also had 7 Q1 wins.  That's the best resumé comparison for the Badgers.

Wisconsin has a NET of 80 and 5 Q1 wins.  (USC is no longer Q1 after 2 straight losses dropped their NET to 62.)  Badgers need to go 4-2, likely needing one win over Rutgers or Purdue, to have a shot.

It might come down to how much the committee values Q1 wins vs computer metrics like NET and Kenpom.  And if the eye test is a factor, that definitely hurts the Badgers. 

[brewcity77]

I just looked at the NET and did not see Wisconsin in the top 75.  Is there an NET cut-off line NCAA/NIT tournament?

I break down Wisconsin's resume on Cracked Sidewalks today. Their NET hurts, but they have more Q1 wins & fewer bad losses than anyone on the bubble. I was talking to a number of bracketologists last night and this morning, and it seems the consensus is they are still in, but I lean just out at the moment. Not beating their cupcakes by 40 is taking a toll.