Doesn't NET take efficiency into account?
If it does SMU ranks 58th (offense) & 14th (defense), respectively. RU would be much higher if it wasn't 326th in offensive efficiency.
Quad Rankings
- Thread starter RutgersChow
- Start date
If it does SMU ranks 58th (offense) & 14th (defense), respectively. RU would be much higher if it wasn't 326th in offensive efficiency.
and
where did i disparage" his effort"--you do know he reacted , first, to what I said, in general ,about the brackets being like a reality show as if I was referring to him --I guess he feels he owns that "science" One's skill or intelligence has nothing to do with anyone 's desire to do brackets and many would say it's a waste of time and to just wait for the real brackets. By the way be careful using that word "projection" Bac may scold you.
But that's not what the NET is measuring.
The NET is based on a form of adjusted net efficiency. It is a method of determining the overall strength of a team - how difficult it is to beat that team, essentially. That's the same philosophy used by barttorvik and kenpom, though with different algorithms. It sorts the teams from top to bottom - from the toughest out to the easiest out. The rank in itself is a shorthand for how well the team plays - it has ZERO to do with how deserving the team is, or what they have "accomplished" during the season.
How well you perform AGAINST teams with higher NET rankings shows what level of success you've had against teams who are the "toughest" to beat (and shows how many teams in each bucket you have played). The quadrants also take into account that teams are harder to beat away from your home arena, and especially hard to beat on their home floor.
Your actual NET score is more useful to OTHER teams, to show the quality of their record against YOU (for example, Princeton's NET rank is more important to us than it is to them). You can be a Quad 1 game for another team when they play you on your home floor - yet have no claim at all to a resume that's tournament-worthy (see: Oklahoma last year). Your own ranking is less important than your record, and your record is looked at in chunks of opponent quality.
You can tinker with the thresholds, but that's not going to fundamentally change how the tool is used. No matter what cutoff you use for each bucket, the team immediately next is going to be nearly as good as the last team in the bucket - whether you're talking about the NET, the AP Top 25, or whatever. How much worse is a B+ than an A-? Why limit self-checkout to 20 items instead of 21? There has to be a cutoff set somewhere.
Going into the weeds a bit. Just saying, as a sorting tool it might make sense to sort the NET in Quads of 36 each (the 4th quad would be every team at or above 109). Makes sense to me.
As far as selection criteria by the committee, I realize they use other factors in addition to the NET. I’ve made my comments about NET criteria known on other threads (I’m not a fan of using efficiency as a factor, which I know we disagree on) but that is a separate issue.
Oh I get why we are where we are. I still think St Bonnie’s is a massive anomaly though. They lost to Duquesne too. canicius, Fordham and Duquesne. They don’t have Villanova’s wins.
Offensive efficiency - points per 100 possessions - totally relative to your competition, defenses played against you, length of time players are out with injury and who they are, how hard you play on defense, and your style of play. Almost as silly as the NET.
And that's why I've always agreed with your argument that we should never, ever, ever, ever schedule those bottom of the barrel teams. Total no win situation.
I was watching the Duke game today and the announcer clearly said that they are not using last 10 games as a factor in determining NCAA teams. Is this true? if so, we're gonna be totally screwed unless we win almost every game. I do not believe in the whole "inverse" theory about J Will/Mag will be something they consider.
Yep haven't used it for over a decade
But if you are winning 9 of 11 to end the year you obviously are boosting your resume across the board. Whether Rutgers dug too big a hole is the question
That loss to PSU will be the dagger unless we go 5-2 in these last 7 games. After that, a win in the B1G tourney might help as a tie-breaker if it comes down to RU vs one other team as the last to get in.
I do think that would have a very good chance to get us in. 21 feels like the magic number of sorts.
Even 4-3 with a run to the BIG tourney finals would give us a punchers chance. We’d be 11-4 in that case following Jeremiah’s return.
Exactly. I know they say there’s no recency bias by the selection committee, but that’s like telling a jury to disregard the testimony they just heard.
Sure you should, under certain circumstances.
Hypothetical: RU and Maryland are ranked 50 and 51 respectively. Maryland wins at Purdue by 20. RU beats Stonehill by 1.
Certainly you are not suggesting that RU should remain ahead of Maryland, are you?
No. I am talking absolute score should go up. Maryland's should go up more and likely pass us. In that case we had a missed opportunity. I also think that somewhere between square roots and logs of margins ought to count rather than actual margin and loss of other heretical ideas
I don't know Bac so how can I not like or dislike him --what I don't like is his opinions about many things and his desire to find things wrong at RU especially when we're down.
Lol wait i had Rutgers in the ncaa and multiple times you critcized me for getting itcwrong
So which is it
Knowing basketball is not the same as knowing some of the insane metrics used to evaluate teams.
Of course we should be ahead of MD. We beat them at their place. Head to head should matter more than anything.
You really are clueless if you think that's what I' m talking about. Try your attacks on coaches, players, snow on sidewalks, RU food, the RU athletic department, students getting to a game late and attacks especially when we're down or just losing a game--I can go on and on. Your self centered emphasis on your bracket picks is telling.
I think bac does elite work into the numbers and what's likely to work but is definitely more critical of RU, when it comes to items that suit whatever he believes in.....which is fine but it sometimes runs opposite of what some people believe are the facts.
The OOC schedule of Stonehill and LIU continues to be mentioned as the reason why RU has a low efficiency, but beating Stonehill by 30 would have been more of an aberration if all the other games were also not efficient.
You can't say more than a dozen times today that Wisconsin losing to Iowa by 2 in OT (OT games are looked at differently), that RUs win is being "devalued", with every loss.....it makes no sense whatsoever....Wisconsin was a 1.5 underdog to Iowa on the road and the game went to OT and Wisconsin controlled thr game for the most part. It's not like they lost by 25.
And the notion that the committee doesn't take the last 10 to 12 games into account, is also either a lie or its not.....they want to believe it's not, but if it wasn't, the committee spoke when asked about RU last year and pulled out of thin air that RUs production or lack thereof after Mags injury, was a factor.
The committee and NET, OOC schedule, road wins, Q1, Q2, Q3 all of this nonsense is to distract people with a bunch of nonsense variables.
If the committee doesn't use the last 10 games as an indication, then the committee should not have mentioned Mag whatsoever, especially when I don't think the entire committee, could pick Mag out of a lineup, if you showed the 4 players on a screen and said "pick the player who is actually Mawot Mag"....
These items are just double talk and contradict themselves 5 different ways to suit whatever result they want to justify for any teams resume You can't say as a guideline the last 10 games don't matter, then hammer RU about the last 10 games last year and then blindly ignore, how RU looks with Jeremiah Williams, Ogbole and essentially Mag back a year later.
RU has played FOUR games with JWill and Ogbole back and the "last 10 games or so" has to be considered.....discussing Stonehill or whether Seton Hall, Maryland or whatever stays Q1 vs Q2, is a dog chasing his tail for the next month.
RU is clearly a different product with Williams and Ogbole playing or in the lineup. If the "metrics" want to say that doesn't matter, then we can't pick and choose when it matters to suit someone's argument. An obvious indication is winning 4 in a row and beating Michigan by 10 on the road, and Wisconsin by 20+ in the process.....while winning at Maryland probably would have been by 7 to 8+ points, if not for a stupid Tech called on Simpson.
My own guess is 5-2 down the stretch for RU, with no blowout losses in those 2 losses/ games, would clearly indicate "NCAA caliber team". And I believe that the B1G tournament results do matter, so if we don't beat Purdue at Mackey, but beat Wisconsin, Illinois or Purdue or anyone in the projected field in the B1G tournament, would be a factor.
The OOC schedule of Stonehill and LIU continues to be mentioned as the reason why RU has a low efficiency, but beating Stonehill by 30 would have been more of an aberration if all the other games were also not efficient.
You can't say more than a dozen times today that Wisconsin losing to Iowa by 2 in OT (OT games are looked at differently), that RUs win is being "devalued", with every loss.....it makes no sense whatsoever....Wisconsin was a 1.5 underdog to Iowa on the road and the game went to OT and Wisconsin controlled thr game for the most part. It's not like they lost by 25.
And the notion that the committee doesn't take the last 10 to 12 games into account, is also either a lie or its not.....they want to believe it's not, but if it wasn't, the committee spoke when asked about RU last year and pulled out of thin air that RUs production or lack thereof after Mags injury, was a factor.
The committee and NET, OOC schedule, road wins, Q1, Q2, Q3 all of this nonsense is to distract people with a bunch of nonsense variables.
If the committee doesn't use the last 10 games as an indication, then the committee should not have mentioned Mag whatsoever, especially when I don't think the entire committee, could pick Mag out of a lineup, if you showed the 4 players on a screen and said "pick the player who is actually Mawot Mag"....
These items are just double talk and contradict themselves 5 different ways to suit whatever result they want to justify for any teams resume You can't say as a guideline the last 10 games don't matter, then hammer RU about the last 10 games last year and then blindly ignore, how RU looks with Jeremiah Williams, Ogbole and essentially Mag back a year later.
RU has played FOUR games with JWill and Ogbole back and the "last 10 games or so" has to be considered.....discussing Stonehill or whether Seton Hall, Maryland or whatever stays Q1 vs Q2, is a dog chasing his tail for the next month.
RU is clearly a different product with Williams and Ogbole playing or in the lineup. If the "metrics" want to say that doesn't matter, then we can't pick and choose when it matters to suit someone's argument. An obvious indication is winning 4 in a row and beating Michigan by 10 on the road, and Wisconsin by 20+ in the process.....while winning at Maryland probably would have been by 7 to 8+ points, if not for a stupid Tech called on Simpson.
My own guess is 5-2 down the stretch for RU, with no blowout losses in those 2 losses/ games, would clearly indicate "NCAA caliber team". And I believe that the B1G tournament results do matter, so if we don't beat Purdue at Mackey, but beat Wisconsin, Illinois or Purdue or anyone in the projected field in the B1G tournament, would be a factor.
Last edited:
To me , you've just made sense and is consistent with my original post about the subjectivity of Ncaa's.
Of course the process is subjective. No one would argue that it is not.
NET is a tool. The NCAA has subjectively determined that it is a better tool than the one they used to use, RPI. I believe they are right. But it is still only a tool. Some teams with lower NET ratings are always selected over teams with higher ones.
Objectivity is a myth. Even if you made your at large selections solely on the results of your chosen tool, with no human intervention, there is still subjectivity as to what goes into the tool.
Not every criticism is an attack. And just because the criticism of things pile up sometimes, doesn't mean that they aren't valid or things that need to be addressed.
I appreciate your perspective but I feel that you are just being hypersensitive when you view Bac's posts.
It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about in this area, so why do you think it makes sense to comment on it? You won't see me arguing with you about how to teach correct shooting form or whatever, and there's a reason for that.
Similar threads
