2023-24 NET ratings thread
- Thread starter Styre
- Start date
Exactly - because as mentioned above, winning by less than you're expected to win by (among other things) could end up hurting you. If Maryland were favored to win by five and only beat NU by 1, it would be NU going up in the rankings despite all of us being crushed by the loss.
There's no system that's perfect, but all of these rankings need to be taken with a grain of salt, no matter who you trust.
And of course as long as NU wins, none of that will matter.
There's no system that's perfect, but all of these rankings need to be taken with a grain of salt, no matter who you trust.
And of course as long as NU wins, none of that will matter.
Sounds like the football team. We won 8 games and had a negative overall point differential.
It's tougher in bball because football has the "win 6 and go to a bowl". For bball, in the past, 20 wins and a winning B1G record would be a shoo-in for the tourney. Not sure that's the case now, especially with the 💩 teams at the bottom that could turn out as "bad losses" for us. And, of course, our hilarious history in the BTT
I mean rpi has UConn correctly ranked higher than alabama so there’s that. Basketball, unlike football, has a sufficient sample size that overall record is a good way to rank teams (certainly for power 6 teams). At the lower levels more granular analysis could be helpful.
Again, UConn’s resume is way better than Alabama’s. Like way better. Any ranking that has them lower than bama is worthless.
Don't fall for it. My example is correct.
Efficiency is Points Scored / Possession.
When two teams play, they basically have the same number of possessions.
So you are looking at Points Scored - Points Allowed.
That is Margin of Victory with a very minor tweak to enable people to talk about Pace of Play / Tempo.
Last night we expected Maryland to score a certain number of points, based on NU's defense and Maryland's offense. If they exceeded that expected number of points (per possession if you want to make it seem complicated) then their Adjusted Offensive Efficiency goes up and our Adjusted Defensive Efficiency goes down.
Thats really all there is to it. Everybody does little variations on the same principles.
Yep. Illinois was +30 against NU, and maybe the ratings didn't EXACTLY reflect winning by 30, but the ratings for both teams reflected them doing all the things that contributed to winning by 25-35 points (I put the range in because there's always a little luck).
By the same token, using the same 10-point range (and I will admit that is just a range I made up), it's possible that Maryland was up to seven points "better" than NU last night or as much as 13 points "worse." If NU was supposed to be five points better than Maryland but Maryland's numbers suggest they "won" by seven, that hurts NU.
It makes sense on a full-season timeline and comparing all teams to each other, but obviously a single-game result makes a difference to fans/teams much more. Maryland isn't going to feel good that they were presumably "better" than NU last night, nor is Northwestern going to be upset they were "worse." A win's a win.
By the same token, using the same 10-point range (and I will admit that is just a range I made up), it's possible that Maryland was up to seven points "better" than NU last night or as much as 13 points "worse." If NU was supposed to be five points better than Maryland but Maryland's numbers suggest they "won" by seven, that hurts NU.
It makes sense on a full-season timeline and comparing all teams to each other, but obviously a single-game result makes a difference to fans/teams much more. Maryland isn't going to feel good that they were presumably "better" than NU last night, nor is Northwestern going to be upset they were "worse." A win's a win.
RPI was really bad, because it sucked at accounting for the strength of your opponents. Not what we're talking about here.
The Ratings Power Index (RPI) was made up of three components: A team's winning percentage. Average opponent's winning percentage. Average opponent's opponent's winning percentage.
That's apparently not true at all. We win and we fall in the rankings. What you should say is, "As long as NU runs up the score like jerks or loses close to great teams, then we're fine." I used to think winning mattered. It seems not so much anymore.
Yeah, I’m not arguing RPI is good. Who did you beat should be the question. Alabama’s best win is probably Oregon. UConn has beaten unc, Gonzaga, Texas ceeighton. You want to argue close losses count, maybe if the resumes are similar.
The NET, KenPom, Torvik, etc are all designed to be predictive indicators - i.e. would team A beat team B if they played tomorrow. This is like Sagarin's Predictor metric. Other measurements like Strength of Record or Torvik's wins above bubble are strictly about who you beat accounting for the strength of the opponent.
So, to use the example, we have Team A - Bama:
Predictive: NET - 5, KenPom - 8, Torvik - 5
Results: SOR - 32, WAB - 28
and Team B - UConn:
Predictive: NET - 9, KenPom - 5, Torvik - 8
Results: SOR - 2, WAB - 2
Bama's predictive metrics look better because they have a 6 point loss to NET#2, a 3 point loss to NET#15 on the road, a 22 point win over NET#25 Indiana St at home, and they absolutely obliterated all of their Quad 2 and lower opposition, with the exception of a home loss to NET#38 Clemson by 8 and a win over NET#244 Vandy by 3 on the road. Their NET Noncon strength of schedule is 19, with their worst opponent being NET#260, compared to UConn's 94, who played 5 teams ranked between #325-362.
Everyone agrees UConn has a better resume than Bama, but if the two played now on a neutral court, the predictive ratings would expect Bama to win a close game.
So, to use the example, we have Team A - Bama:
Predictive: NET - 5, KenPom - 8, Torvik - 5
Results: SOR - 32, WAB - 28
and Team B - UConn:
Predictive: NET - 9, KenPom - 5, Torvik - 8
Results: SOR - 2, WAB - 2
Bama's predictive metrics look better because they have a 6 point loss to NET#2, a 3 point loss to NET#15 on the road, a 22 point win over NET#25 Indiana St at home, and they absolutely obliterated all of their Quad 2 and lower opposition, with the exception of a home loss to NET#38 Clemson by 8 and a win over NET#244 Vandy by 3 on the road. Their NET Noncon strength of schedule is 19, with their worst opponent being NET#260, compared to UConn's 94, who played 5 teams ranked between #325-362.
Everyone agrees UConn has a better resume than Bama, but if the two played now on a neutral court, the predictive ratings would expect Bama to win a close game.
Last edited:
I appreciate the explanation. So a team that has come close to beating good teams (A for effort) would be favored over a team that has beaten several good teams. Color me skeptical
I meant in terms of the committee selecting NU, not that the computers will improve our ratings. If NU goes 24-7 this year, it won't matter if the NET ranking is 65. It may hurt them a seed line or two (and that's not nothing), but it's not like an 18-14 Michigan State with a #20 rating would necessarily get in ahead of a #65 NU team that is 24-7 and beat them twice.
Right, and conversely, because the selection committee doesn't only use the NET ratings, UConn would still likely be seeded higher than Alabama if the tournament started today. Similarly, if NET was the only metric used, NU would miss the tournament at #73, but right now we're close to being a consensus tournament team.
Going all the way back to my initial point...
I tried to determine how the NET rating was using the much-discussed QUAD 1-4 wins and losses, thinking that they had a weighting system for each of the 8 categories. (Otherwise, why have them?)
Turns out that the categories don't really mean anything - the QUADS have no meaning in the NET rating.
And yet, basketball experts like Robbie Hummel will say "They have a big opportunity for a QUAD 1 road win" or things like that.
I'm glad we had this conversation!
I tried to determine how the NET rating was using the much-discussed QUAD 1-4 wins and losses, thinking that they had a weighting system for each of the 8 categories. (Otherwise, why have them?)
Turns out that the categories don't really mean anything - the QUADS have no meaning in the NET rating.
And yet, basketball experts like Robbie Hummel will say "They have a big opportunity for a QUAD 1 road win" or things like that.
I'm glad we had this conversation!
The quad wins have meaning for the selection committee when comparing teams. It's not NU's ranking that matters; the opponents' ranking is important for listing NU's quality wins and bad losses.
I don't blame Hummel for this. A Quad 1 road win IS a big deal, whether it feeds into the ratings or not, and certainly is important to the people deciding who goes to the tourney and where they're seeded.
"Hmm...NU has a NET of 53 - that's borderline, but they have 6 quad 1 wins. They're in! Meanwhile Grand Canyon is 28-4 with a NET of 27 and is 0-1 in Quad 1 games. They're out!" They might like the 27 more or the 6 wins more, or they might treat them equally. Who knows? Just another good data point.
All I know is the farther we distance ourselves from Chicago State by winning, the less that game will matter. If NU finishes 19-13 with a loss in its first BTT game, a bad NET rating (thanks to Chicago State and company) will probably doom them. If they're 22-11 or something, a bad NET rating probably won't matter. Just win baby!
This seems like a reasonable use for the Quads. Essentially its a one-line summary of a season. But..... if the NET ratings were any good, they wouldn't need the Quads to enable humans to "correct" for the obvious problems with the NET.
It's pretty simple, right? The Chicago State loss dragged our NET down 36 spots. It's important that we don't have another bad loss the rest of the way. Might be hard for the NET to be 1-50 at this point, but the key is going to be whether the Chicago State game is just a crazy outlier ...... or something more.
I don’t see a drop of 16 spots in seeding caused by one horrendous loss.
I feel that many are way overstating the Chicago State loss. Yeah, it was bad and it hurts, but by the time the committee is selecting teams, it will hopefully just be a footnote on our season ("oh, that was during winter break when Barnhizer/Nicholson were both hurt and students weren't at the game. Move them down a seed line, but Barnhizer and Nicholson being healthy make them so much better! I think a five seed sounds about right.").
Chicago State only comes into play if NU fades down the stretch and they truly are a borderline team.
Chicago State only comes into play if NU fades down the stretch and they truly are a borderline team.
i have the loss to CSU being worth about 15 spots in the NET.
Most of that is offset by blowing out MSU.
A complaint about NET….
Because the B1G is way below average this season and NU never plays much of a non conference schedule, that Chicago State loss is turning into one of the more punitive losses in major college basketball. The 36 spot drop put NU in an absolutely terrible position given their overall schedule.
For anyone keeping track of NU’s chances at the tournament beyond the click bait bracketology nonsense and the BTN guys that are just being fed that nonsense from Decourcy, they have effectively disappeared.
NU is currently NET 78. As it stands, that would be - by a 5 spot margin - the worst NET rated team to ever receive an at large bid (2019 St John’s got in at NET 73 with a 21-13 record and 5 quad 1 wins).
Unfortunately, because the B1G is riddled with NET 100 caliber teams, there’s basically no way to make up ground either. NU has actually dropped spots with their last 2 wins (dropped 2 after winning at Penn state and dropped 3 after beating Maryland). Their next 3 games (Illinois, Ohio state and Purdue) and the penultimate game (at Michigan State) are the only 4 remaining games on the schedule that would give the Cats a NET boost.
Long story short… I find it unfortunate that 1 loss - as bad as it was - has such an outsized impact on a team’s chances of making the tournament. NU would be VERY comfortably in right now if they had won that Chicago State game. Conversely, having lost that game, they have very little chance at making the tournament. That just seems irrational.
Because the B1G is way below average this season and NU never plays much of a non conference schedule, that Chicago State loss is turning into one of the more punitive losses in major college basketball. The 36 spot drop put NU in an absolutely terrible position given their overall schedule.
For anyone keeping track of NU’s chances at the tournament beyond the click bait bracketology nonsense and the BTN guys that are just being fed that nonsense from Decourcy, they have effectively disappeared.
NU is currently NET 78. As it stands, that would be - by a 5 spot margin - the worst NET rated team to ever receive an at large bid (2019 St John’s got in at NET 73 with a 21-13 record and 5 quad 1 wins).
Unfortunately, because the B1G is riddled with NET 100 caliber teams, there’s basically no way to make up ground either. NU has actually dropped spots with their last 2 wins (dropped 2 after winning at Penn state and dropped 3 after beating Maryland). Their next 3 games (Illinois, Ohio state and Purdue) and the penultimate game (at Michigan State) are the only 4 remaining games on the schedule that would give the Cats a NET boost.
Long story short… I find it unfortunate that 1 loss - as bad as it was - has such an outsized impact on a team’s chances of making the tournament. NU would be VERY comfortably in right now if they had won that Chicago State game. Conversely, having lost that game, they have very little chance at making the tournament. That just seems irrational.
I look at it as they are a solid 12 minutes away from being a topic team jn the country.
Last four minutes of Chicago St, Wisconsin and Nebraska hurt a bunch.
Little margin for error going forward, but still a fun team to watch. Fingers crossed
Last four minutes of Chicago St, Wisconsin and Nebraska hurt a bunch.
Little margin for error going forward, but still a fun team to watch. Fingers crossed
So here's the actual update, with NU tumbling to #78, which is historically not a great spot to be in if you're thinking NCAAs.
QUAD 1 (3-4)
H #2 Purdue - W
A #11 Illinois - L
A #13 Wisconsin - L
H #15 Dayton - W
H #21 Michigan State - W
N #40 Mississippi State - L
A #56 Nebraska - L
QUAD 2 (1-0)
A #121 Penn State - W
QUAD 3 (3-0)
H #99 Maryland - W
N #109 Arizona State - W
N #199 Rhode Island - W
QUAD 4 (6-1)
H #252 Jackson State - W
H #268 Western Michigan - W
H #270 Northern Illinois - W
H #289 Chicago State - L
H #295 Binghamton - W
A #310 DePaul - W
H #361 Detroit Mercy - W
This week sees a Quad 1 home game against Illinois and a Quad 2 home game against Ohio State.
QUAD 1 (3-4)
H #2 Purdue - W
A #11 Illinois - L
A #13 Wisconsin - L
H #15 Dayton - W
H #21 Michigan State - W
N #40 Mississippi State - L
A #56 Nebraska - L
QUAD 2 (1-0)
A #121 Penn State - W
QUAD 3 (3-0)
H #99 Maryland - W
N #109 Arizona State - W
N #199 Rhode Island - W
QUAD 4 (6-1)
H #252 Jackson State - W
H #268 Western Michigan - W
H #270 Northern Illinois - W
H #289 Chicago State - L
H #295 Binghamton - W
A #310 DePaul - W
H #361 Detroit Mercy - W
This week sees a Quad 1 home game against Illinois and a Quad 2 home game against Ohio State.
The Illini game is a must-win, but the OSU game is a MUST-WIN. Gotta take the few chances we have left to grab good wins.
The NET rating is not based on wins against the Top 100 or whatever the Quads might seem to be. It is based essentially on margin of victory or defeat (re-branded as "efficiency") relative to the teams you play.
Its the scores that matter, not the wins and losses.
NU would not be "comfortably in" had we beaten Chicago State. In fact, beating them by 2 is just about as bad as losing by 2. We were supposed to beat them by 24. Had we won by 2, its still our most damaging game of the season.
We have a number of "bad wins" that drag our NET rating down.
Believe it or not, we get punished more for beating Western Michigan by 4 than we get credited for beating Purdue by 4.
These scores all hurt... Binghamton (72-61) is a -11 win.
Western Michigan (63-59) is a -16 win.
Chicago State (73-75) is a -24 loss.
Jackson State (74-63) is a -9 win.
Illinois (66-96) is a -18 loss.
The NET rating rewards you for blowing teams out. It punishes you for not blowing out bad teams.
Most strangely, it acts as if the 2 points you score at the buzzer to beat a good team are about as important as the 2 points you score at the buzzer to beat East_West University by 30.
Point of emphasis - it is very difficult for a conference to improve its overall rating after conference play has started, so 11-9 in the Big Ten is probably not going to cut it this year.
Agree points you win by do matter and NU does ot do a good job at that.
But just seeing that loss in quad4 always sticks out as reminder to someone just taking a peek.
But just seeing that loss in quad4 always sticks out as reminder to someone just taking a peek.
I'm feeling more sick and pessimistic about this stuff today, but maybe it's because it's Monday.
So though we'll all be thrilled with a one-point victory over Illini, and it'll certainly not HURT NU, a one-point victory when NU is expected to lose by five (for example - I don't know the actual spread) won't move the needle that much, at least in the NET rankings.
So the key is to do to good teams what NU did to Michigan State. Take a game they might be expected to lose and not only win, but win big. Let's get going!
So though we'll all be thrilled with a one-point victory over Illini, and it'll certainly not HURT NU, a one-point victory when NU is expected to lose by five (for example - I don't know the actual spread) won't move the needle that much, at least in the NET rankings.
So the key is to do to good teams what NU did to Michigan State. Take a game they might be expected to lose and not only win, but win big. Let's get going!
Do you think, for example, that the demise of the Big Ten-ACC Challenge has harmed the conference's strength of schedule by removing all those strong teams from the schedule?
(Why did it end, again?)
It ended because it was an ESPN event and the Big Ten no longer has a TV contract with them.
From the get-go, I didn't think the Cats had quite enough depth to get back to the tourney this year. That may account for the late fadeouts (tired legs). Still, it's a fun team to watch if you just temper your expectations, and certainly a much better season than the disaster that followed our last NCAA berth which had a lot more talent.
Similar threads
