This x1000. This metric (margin of victory) should be shitcanned like yesterday. This explains a lot of the bad end game behavior and is going to lead to more incidents.
NET falls to 80
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
The point of sports should be to win a game. Not score the most points. That’s why this is a stupid metric. It is saying to keep your starters in against Maine and win by 50? Dumb. Some games your strategy is to keep it low scoring, matchups, etc. This metric rewards running up the score, etc which is HORRIBLE
None of this really matters. We need to win 2 more regular season games to get it in. It will not matter what the Net is at that point.
That's an idiotic take. Purdue is one of the best teams in the country. If we lose the next few games, then yes, that would be a huge blow.......
Best of Luck,
Groz
They should add in other metrics like us beating Iowa by holding them tk 49 which is prob a season low
Quote of the game
Courtesy of Boilermakers coach Matt Painter: “(Rutgers) is a good team. That was probably the greatest Quad 2 win in the history of college basketball. They’re unbelievable. If you’ve got better teams than Rutgers going to the NCAA Tournament, it’s going to be the greatest tournament ever. Because they’re fabulous, they’re a team that can win a lot of games in the NCAA Tournament, in my opinion.”
Courtesy of Boilermakers coach Matt Painter: “(Rutgers) is a good team. That was probably the greatest Quad 2 win in the history of college basketball. They’re unbelievable. If you’ve got better teams than Rutgers going to the NCAA Tournament, it’s going to be the greatest tournament ever. Because they’re fabulous, they’re a team that can win a lot of games in the NCAA Tournament, in my opinion.”
This.
I must say I was impressed at how the game never seemed out of reach even when Purdue got up by 16 (or maybe even more?). Since the second half of the Northwestern game this is clearly a different team. It’s not just the Geo and Ron show any longer.
I see that defensive efficiency for RU was their worst of the season and thus the hit to the NET (against a top three offensive team in the country and in their barn to boot).
I’m going to do more research but it seems clear that efficiency numbers aren’t capped by game and efficiency likely represents a full 50% of the NET calc.
Last edited:
Yes, because “margin of victory” went away entirely. Now it’s just net efficiency which is extremely correlated with margin of victory and I don’t believe has any caps on it (but it’s not super clear b/c the exact methodology isn’t released).
LOL
I love this post.
you tell the guy to F off and still wish him good luck and leave your regards
Now give me the wins against Quad 1 against all those teams. It is laughable that RU is so much better than everyone of those teams. The selection is supposed to be about picking the best teams , the teams that beat other NCAA teams or competed well with them and can likely win a game or 2 in the tourney. Rutgers the way we are playing for the last 11 halves has the best chance of any of those other teams.
The UVA site is having a similar discussion about their bubble problems and the NET. Their NET is currently at 81 with a home game against Duke coming up next.
UVA does have a nice win over Providence and a win AT Cameron Indoor but they currently only have three quad 1 wins.
UVA does have a nice win over Providence and a win AT Cameron Indoor but they currently only have three quad 1 wins.
On any day any team can win. But let’s put Vermont, so Dak state, wash state, etc in the B1G and see how they fare. Let’s add in UNC for that matter. They may be in the bottom 4-6.
So Purdue beat an unranked Q3 team on their home court and their NET goes UP by 1 (from 10 to 9), and our NET goes DOWN by 4?
I’d like to know what the expected margin of victory is for a NET 10 team playing at home versus a NET 76 team.
Yes - you could say the same thing. And My comment applies in those games too. I think Illinois’ metrics should take the hit for losing the game. But not also for playing inefficient defense. I think it’s a double dip and often a product of how well the other team plays as much as your own team. The game outcome should be what matters.
Rutgers had their poorest defensive efficiency game of the year so that means Purdue had an exceptional offensive efficiency game.
As the saying goes…All models are wrong but some are useful.
No one would be surprised if NET #22 Alabama won March Madness. Bama already own wins vs. Gonzaga (#1 NET) and Houston (#4 NET) as part of their 7 quad 1 wins.
Plus, Auburn was #9 and lost by 12. Purdue was #10 and won by 12.
Pretty easy to see why Purdue passed Auburn.
Serious question: how does your opponent’s foul shooting impact your defensive efficiency?
Purdue outscored us by 11 points at the foul line, and won the game by 12 points. Suppose they missed those 11 free throws and we made 2 more free throws and won the game.
Would our defensive efficiency be better? Would our NET still go down? If not, why not? Because we wouldn’t have done anything differently on defense, and still would have been fouling Ivey too much.
It's not the free throw percentage, but the free throw rate... Basically, how often your defense put them on the line, not how many points they got from free throws.
So is it true then, that we could have beaten them 74-73 (if they missed 11 more FTs and we made 2 more), and our defensive efficiency would still have been so bad that our NET would still have gotten worse?
Not a chance. You don’t go backwards because you beat the #10 NET team in their building.
So why is our defensive efficiency (and not simply the margin of victory) being given as the reason our NET score went down?
We could have played the exact same defense but if Purdue misses say, 9 more FTs it would have been a 1 possession loss on the road to the NET 10 team, and I’m guessing our NET would have improved if that were the case.
These metrics are so lame.
If someone can't see RU is playing like a top 25 team in the country right now, they have no idea what they are doing.
Let me guess, a bunch of lawyers and tech dorks who never played came up with these algorithms.
If someone can't see RU is playing like a top 25 team in the country right now, they have no idea what they are doing.
Let me guess, a bunch of lawyers and tech dorks who never played came up with these algorithms.
This is not how it works. It’s just points scored and allowed per possession. What Choppin is talking about is part of a four factors model which is not what the NET or net efficiency are.
So now the home cookin and whistle is part of the equation, what a joke
I have zero problem if it is only used to gauge strength of schedule. When it comes to evaluation of one's resume it should be binary. You either get a 0 or a 1 in the win column. What the score was should be eliminated from conversation.
Because the NET is a function of our Offensive Efficiency - Defensive Effenciency, Strength of Schedule, Home/Away, and W/L record adjusted for Opponent and Location.
Yesterday our SoS went up and our Efficiency went down. Obviously our unadjusted W/L record went down but it’s not clear how much that was mitigated by it being against the #10 NET team on the road.
We went backwards because - using the NET formula - the negatives were larger than the positives.
I don’t like the formula either. But it was agreed to by coaches and ADs. It‘s not something that an outsider imposed on them.
It’s also important to keep in mind that what we see are rankings, not absolute scores. It’s possible to improve your score but go down in the rankings if the teams behind you improve their scores by more than you did.
as a tool for SOS OK, but thats where it has to end.
If you want to maximize NET go ahead and schedule Merrimack, but make sure you cover the kenpom ot bart spread AND let team know exactly what the goal is.
We pushed yesterday from a net adjusted efficiency standpoint. Our declining could have been a function of the teams around us having a good game and moving ahead of us
This makes more sense to me. You’re the first one to mention that possibility. Muchas gracias.
Yes, agreed. This is why I like measures like “wins above bubble”. It allows margin to matter for SOS calculation but the only way to improve your own rating is to win. Whether it is by 1 or 100 it doesn’t matter.
Our offensive efficiency has gone from 101 to 107.1 on Kenpom since February 1 which is a huge jump. Cannot locate the Twitter post but since February 1 it is the 7th best in the country along with teams like Gonzaga. Our defensive metric was also improved but not by as much because we gave up 11-24 threes against MSU and 10-18 threes against Ohio State. So our efficiency differential was negligible but we won both games and beat MSU by 21. That is the biggest indictment of the NET in any decision making process ( I know it is a sorting tool, but some people do not) . Now yesterday because we couldn’t stop fouling or got called for some stuff that put Purdue and Ivey at the line often , our NET takes a hit , even though our offensive efficiency went up again. That is the stuff that needs to be tweaked and eliminated from the formula.
I wonder how many teams around us that moved up in NET would have done better against Purdue. I’m guessing none, but your point is well taken.
I am a huge believer that WAB is the best metric I know of. How much better or worse are your with your schedule with the team square on bubble.
Now it is a measure that will downplay Q1 and Q4 games relative to what our fans want to see.
if NY Knicks are 47-35
And NJ Nets are 46-36 we don’t check and look at Q1 records. The Knicks are ahead. WAB tries to standardize the schedule each team plays
Not many games were played on Sunday. Everyone played in Saturday
If there is a combo of win percentage and efficiency you probably have your answer in a world with no external forces.