1/14/2019 - KENPOM/SAGARIN BIG TEN COMPOSITE RANKINGS
- Thread starter JG10Hawk
- Start date
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
Their team sheet is actually quite impressive. Their 4 losses are all Q1 and they only had 4 games against Q4 opponents.
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately it's their efficiency factoring in. They are 15th in offensive efficiency and 18th in defensive efficiency. In other words they have blown a lot of teams out, especially the poor competition they played. Notice below they only had 1 close non conference game against Clemson outside of losing to Texas Tech. The rest were basically blowouts.
While yes, the margin of victory is capped at 10 in the formula, the efficiency numbers do not have a cap.
I guess if you are going to play bad teams, you better blow them out and run up the score...
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
Just like Nebraska, it's their efficiency being #19 on offense and #24 on defense that's keeping them ranked so high. Kenpom has his adjusted efficiency rankings a bit lower (#21 & #29) but being solid on both ends of the floor keeps you ranked higher than those that struggle on one end.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
mopkins
King Kong
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
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
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
Agreed.. I guess winning by 40+ 3 times vs bad teams helps cover the blemishes...
mopkins
King Kong
I'm sure it all balances out over the long conference schedule, but it almost seems like Offense and Defense efficiency can be fudged with way too much. Almost like Fran should have left all his starters in against weaker competition and blown them out by 60 just to keep the numbers inflated.
Nebraska won a game 106-37 and another game 87-35 so I'm sure that completely skews their metrics.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
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.
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
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...
mopkins
King Kong
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.
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
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.
mopkins
King Kong
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
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
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.
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
Exactly. As it plays out we will get a better feel for how heavily weighted some of the variables are within the formula. I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA continues to tinker with the formula to try and minimize the flaws as they become more apparent.
JG10Hawk
Well-Known Member
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.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
Do they call that putting lipstick on a pig?
I
