I still don't understand Nebraska's high ranking. Even when I dissect their schedule I still don't understand it.
I'm confused by a few too...Notably ISU honestly, who still has high numbers after a terrible week.
Where did you get that team sheet? That's a great one.
good info, thanks. It still doesn't make a ton of sense to me from just an eye ball test because really none of their wins are very impressive at all.
Clemson is their "best" win but who has Clemson beaten? they are 0-3 in the ACC and their best win is maybe at an 8-7 south carolina?
Nebraska's Q2 wins are against a pretty bad Creighton team (who also beat Clemson) and a decent Seton Hall team?
All that earns them a #13 ranking? Its...weird
Agreed.. I guess winning by 40+ 3 times vs bad teams helps cover the blemishes...
good info, thanks. It still doesn't make a ton of sense to me from just an eye ball test because really none of their wins are very impressive at all.
Clemson is their "best" win but who has Clemson beaten? they are 0-3 in the ACC and their best win is maybe at an 8-7 south carolina?
Nebraska's Q2 wins are against a pretty bad Creighton team (who also beat Clemson) and a decent Seton Hall team?
All that earns them a #13 ranking? Its...weird
Must be that efficiency rating thing JG10 is talking about. I did notice that almost all of their Q2, Q3, and Q4 wins were blow outs, which probably has a big impact.
But I think we are starting to notice the flaws of the NET system.
Yep, based on the 5 components of the NET formula that the NCAA released, #2-5 don't factor in the strength of opponent. Simply win by 10+ points and do so by being efficient on both ends of the floor (net efficiency being the key). So basically destroy bad teams and actually get rewarded the same as if you destroyed a good team.
The only unknown is #1 of the 5 components in how they compute what a "good team" is.
I'm not sure how they weight the 5 components but if it's evenly split, 80% of their formula doesn't factor in the opponent played...
Just seems to me like Nebraska really gamed the system by annihilating some really bad opponents. Seems opposite of what they're trying to accomplish with these NET rankings.
Pretty much... They did away with the "Opponent Winning Percentage" and the "Opponent's Opponent Winning Percentage" from the RPI and replaced it with the net efficiency and scoring margin (capped at 10). They got rid of those because teams were trying to exploit it by not playing the projected bottom teams from the smaller conferences.
If you ask me, they should have left those pieces in there and used them to help compute an adjusted net efficiency rating so one can't inflate their efficiency rating by playing bad teams. ie what Kenpom does with his adjusted efficiency ratings.
I guess ultimately all I care about is Iowa getting in and not getting screwed over, but I look at the rankings as they stand right now and have a ton of questions.
I do think Iowa is a top 30 team right now though, so at least they got that part right
I know what you mean. Like you mentioned, it will probably get straightened out as the season goes along. Most teams are either at or just over the mid point of their season. Now that conference play has started, the skewed numbers from bad opponents will start to become more diluted with the more balanced competition.
Any metrics based system will have some flaws just like a human based ranking does. It will be interesting to see how the numbers turn out at the year to see how many of those teams are still ranked high that don't pass the eye test.
It absolutely was a mistake and was the first thing I noticed when glossing over the 5 components they released. Makes very little sense to have no opponent strength factor involved for 4 of the 5 components they are using.True, but many people including myself said that to include an efficiency metric without including an SOS component to that is a mistake and we're seeing it now.
Agreed.. I guess winning by 40+ 3 times vs bad teams helps cover the blemishes...
Big Ten Kenpom/Sagarin Composite Rankings:
View attachment 4834
Top 10 Conference Rankings:
View attachment 4835