Updated SEC team NET rankings after bloody Wednesday
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
Jan. 3 we were #22 in the NET, so we are moving up slowly but surely. Just keep winning.
NET is so stupid right now. They need to release this in February like the CFB playoff standings.
Re: Tx A&M. Good news, a win there would be a Q1 win. Bad news, ESPN's predictor has them as a 65% favorite. We'll need everyone's A game Saturday. A win puts us into the top 5 AP after this week's carnage. Let's not be part of that!
MSU at home next week is currently a Quad 1 game now too. Win the next two and gotta be feeling pretty good about a 2 seed, with a good chance to move up to a 1 if you keep winning
Tough game. Need a healthy Thiero Saturday.
In ACC news Miami's quad 5 loss has dropped them 23 spots, which frankly is kinder than the 3 year post season ban they deserve for losing at home to Louisville.
i still don't understand the net rankings. every year it just doesn't make sense. how is bama at 5 with 1-5 quad 1. how is byu at 4 with 1-2 quad 1.
I don't understand it either. If you look at BYU (12-3) and UConn (14-2) as an example, they look like this:
Quad 1
BYU: 1-2
UConn: 5-2
Quad 2
BYU: 1-1
UConn: 2-0
Quad 3
BYU: 2-0
UConn: 0-0
Quad 4
BYU: 8-0
UConn 7-0
How does that come out to BYU being ranked higher than UConn? I know it's early and things will shake out, but how does that make any sense?
Efficiency metrics like Kenpom like them. No quad 3/4 losses. They blow teams out. We should have 40-50 pieced Texas A&M commerce and Stonehill but our defense has truly stunk this year at times. We have plenty of Quad 1 opportunities on the schedule ahead. If we keep winning the net will take care of itself.
It’s hard to tell sometimes, but look how terrible UConn’s quad 4 wins are 😂 compared to BYU. It’s really impressive. And one of their quad 1 losses is very nearly a quad 2 loss.
I'm still trying to figure out how a and m is gonna score enough to beat UK. The bad news for them is UK is due for a good 3 point shooting game.
I see a lot of talk about wins, and little about efficiency and none about scoring margin. People talk about it like it's an rpi. Those days are long gone. everybody loved Kenom before. Well no we're using a practical mirror of it.
Auburn beat Arkansas by 30 and it rocketed them up. That's what you have to look at as well.
Auburn beat Arkansas by 30 and it rocketed them up. That's what you have to look at as well.
NET is absolute garbage!
The NET just needs to evolve into a point system.
5 points for a Q1 win
3 points for a Q2 win
1 point for a Q3 win
0 points for a Q4 win
-0 points for a Q1 loss
-2 points for a Q2 loss
-3 points for a Q3 loss
-5 points for a Q4 loss
Simple as that. No crazy algorithms, etc. Just an example obviously.
Rankings determined by number of points.
5 points for a Q1 win
3 points for a Q2 win
1 point for a Q3 win
0 points for a Q4 win
-0 points for a Q1 loss
-2 points for a Q2 loss
-3 points for a Q3 loss
-5 points for a Q4 loss
Simple as that. No crazy algorithms, etc. Just an example obviously.
Rankings determined by number of points.
I think Kentucky being at 17th, despite winning enough games to move us to top5, tells us that we're not quite winning these games as well as we could or should (for lack of better wording). Said it the other day, we didn't look "great" despite a double digit win over a decent Mizz team.
Something still feels just a little off. Maybe just need more reps with the bigs and adjusting without Adou? Maybe still working towards playing as a more cohesive unit?
Something still feels just a little off. Maybe just need more reps with the bigs and adjusting without Adou? Maybe still working towards playing as a more cohesive unit?
We battled in Florida....and it did not matter about the refs or the unbelievable amount of 3's they made....
I actually feel good about the texas a&m game, I think UK does well and could even win by double digits.
It will be interesting to see who the refs are.
I actually feel good about the texas a&m game, I think UK does well and could even win by double digits.
It will be interesting to see who the refs are.
Would have been nice if UF had won last night. Hopefully they don't fall apart and that W stays a Quad 1.
agree sir! i don't get it. i know it's a bit skewed since it's so early into conference season but still....
NET isn't perfect but I think people are confused about standings because they are looking at the incorrect thing.
This isn't based on wins/losses. It's very much based on margin of victory which does a better job at predicting future success compared to just W/L record.
Look at margin of victory and that should help answer questions.
These systems essentially all boil down to the same exact thing.
Given Team A ranking and Team B ranking, Team A is supposed to win by X amount. That's the line. If Team A wins by more than X amount and they keep doing this over many games, naturally it's assumed that Team A is a bit better than their current ranking and thus they move up.
It works in losses too. Say you are predicted to lose by 20 but you only lose by 10. Well maybe you are a bit better than the system suggests (or the opponent is worse or maybe a mixture of both). It's a constant adjustment taking place.
Nothing is perfect but given lots of these things fall in line with Vegas lines, I think this is the best we are going to have here.
BYU and Bama can be seen as "too high" but the truth is that those teams would be favored on a neutral court against the teams below them.
This isn't based on wins/losses. It's very much based on margin of victory which does a better job at predicting future success compared to just W/L record.
Look at margin of victory and that should help answer questions.
These systems essentially all boil down to the same exact thing.
Given Team A ranking and Team B ranking, Team A is supposed to win by X amount. That's the line. If Team A wins by more than X amount and they keep doing this over many games, naturally it's assumed that Team A is a bit better than their current ranking and thus they move up.
It works in losses too. Say you are predicted to lose by 20 but you only lose by 10. Well maybe you are a bit better than the system suggests (or the opponent is worse or maybe a mixture of both). It's a constant adjustment taking place.
Nothing is perfect but given lots of these things fall in line with Vegas lines, I think this is the best we are going to have here.
BYU and Bama can be seen as "too high" but the truth is that those teams would be favored on a neutral court against the teams below them.
For example UK is currently 16th in Kenpom.
They are predicted to beat Texas AM by 1 point 79-78.
If they win by 1 point, they will stay basically the same in the ranking
If they lose by 1 point, they will ALSO stay the same in the ranking.
One is a W, one is a L. Both will have the same net effect. This is why Bama can be rated as high as they are.
They are predicted to beat Texas AM by 1 point 79-78.
If they win by 1 point, they will stay basically the same in the ranking
If they lose by 1 point, they will ALSO stay the same in the ranking.
One is a W, one is a L. Both will have the same net effect. This is why Bama can be rated as high as they are.
Having said all that, the committee will DEFINITELY look at W/L record. So that's the reason you see Bama high in the NET and Kenpom but only currently predicted to be a 7 seed on Bracket Matrix.
But to be honest it's also the reason they will probably be favored against better seeds and probably upset some teams as well.
But to be honest it's also the reason they will probably be favored against better seeds and probably upset some teams as well.
I get all of that, but in the case of BYU and UConn, the system is flawed. It's not just a W/L thing...it's the quality of the opponents they have played and beaten. While margin of victory is a factor, there is a problem with the system when UConn has 4 more quad 1 wins, 1 more quad 2 win and less losses to quad 1 and 2. That means margin of victory is weighted too heavily imo.
So, BYU would be favored on a neutral court against UConn? I'm genuinely curious.
NET being a little flawed does play somewhat.
I mean on kenpom UConn is still 5th. BYU 12th. So UConn would probably be favored by 1-2 looking at the efficiency margins.
I tend to think these things work themselves out in the end.
BYU is clearly going to face a bunch of high quality opponents in conference.
If they fall off they will be adjusted downward. It’s entirely possible that they earned the rating in the system based on what they have played but also slip. Actually before the back to back losses they were 4th in KP. So they already moved down 8 spots in the last two games
I do think tho we tend to have a big school bias. We see a BYU near the top of the rankings and it doesn’t pass the smell test. But they just did more with the schedule they had than other teams. I guess we’ll see shortly what that translates to in big games.
BYU is clearly going to face a bunch of high quality opponents in conference.
If they fall off they will be adjusted downward. It’s entirely possible that they earned the rating in the system based on what they have played but also slip. Actually before the back to back losses they were 4th in KP. So they already moved down 8 spots in the last two games
I do think tho we tend to have a big school bias. We see a BYU near the top of the rankings and it doesn’t pass the smell test. But they just did more with the schedule they had than other teams. I guess we’ll see shortly what that translates to in big games.
I know that it always works itself out. I chose BYU in my argument totally based off their lack of success/games against quad 1 and 2 games. Pope has done a nice job there so no issues for me that it’s BYU.
The entire Quad thing is very stupid. You are lumping together a large amount of teams as if they are equals. They are perfectly capable of figuring each team individually.
Yeah it's silly.
I get why they do it that way tho. It's easier for the committee to say Team A is 5-0 in Q1 games than to say well they beat this team who was ranked 10th and this team who was ranked 15th etc.
But yeah. Not all Q1 wins are equal.
U also run into this dumb thing where at the end of seasons we are rooting for teams that are on the "fringe" to do well to jump into Quads to make the resume look better
As if it matters if a team is ranked 49th or 50th lol.
Not necessarily gaming but there is something that can be said about that. Lot of times this whole Quad 1 thing is based on opportunity. Wins count more than losses. It makes more sense to play as many Q1 games as possible. You might lose a ton but you'll also grab a few of them thus making the resume look good.
It's very opportunity based.
It boils down to who did you play, and who did you beat. Look at Alabama, high in metrics and good SOS but has 0 good wins. Therefore protected as a 7/8 seed.
We have some good wins but our SOS is crap. Just keep beating good teams and we'll be okay. Our SOS will go up once we get deep into conference play as well as kenpom and NET rankings.
We have some good wins but our SOS is crap. Just keep beating good teams and we'll be okay. Our SOS will go up once we get deep into conference play as well as kenpom and NET rankings.
Yep. Keep beating the spread and we'll slowly move up.
Since the UNCW game, we are 6-0 against the spread. None of the games were odes to our glory or demonstrations of overwhelming strength but just a string of solid performances causing a steady rise in the predictive ratings since the UNCW debacle.
Neither Alabama or BYU would be favored on a neutral court over UK. That is absurd.
Right now the Feb 24th game vs Alabama we are only favored by 1 and we are the home team so yeah it's entirely possible they would be favored.
Granted it doesn't always line up with Vegas but it's awfully close most of the time.
NET is optimized to rank teams in March. It's an algorithm.
Here's a hypothetical though. If Kentucky never lost to UNC-Wilmington, what would these computer models show in terms of line predictions?
Now, in the real world, how much stock you put into that loss is a matter of opinion, but I'd argue that that game is not a predictor of future Kentucky success / failure. People could disagree with that. That's fair, but the computer models are going to do what computer models do.
Here's a hypothetical though. If Kentucky never lost to UNC-Wilmington, what would these computer models show in terms of line predictions?
Now, in the real world, how much stock you put into that loss is a matter of opinion, but I'd argue that that game is not a predictor of future Kentucky success / failure. People could disagree with that. That's fair, but the computer models are going to do what computer models do.
Obviously losing that game by 7 when we were predicted to win by 18 takes a bit of a hit in computer models. As it should. I mean we shouldn't be throwing out any results.
That being said, the models treat it like it is........just one game.
Kenpom currently has us at 16th.
It's pretty cool you can actually go back and looking at the ratings archive just to see how much of an effect that game did have. We lost 1.65 in our efficiency margin.
Let's say we won that game and we won it by what we were predicted to (by 18). We would currently be ranked 13th in the system compared to 16th. Had we just won the game? Probably either 14th or 15th.
So that one game really didn't move things. It was after all just one game.
The real reason we are 16th and not say 6th is because over the course of 14 games, while we've compiled an impressive 12-2 record, we haven't won in nearly as dominating fashion as some of the other teams rated higher. That's just the reality of this.
When you have Arizona beat a 37th ranked Colorado by 47 and a 23rd ranked Utah by 19, that moves the needle.
When Alabama beats 62nd ranked South Carolina by 27, that moves the needle.
Auburn beating Arkansas by 32.
We beat UF by 2 points. In a game we were predicted to win by about that much. We beat Missouri by 13 when I think the line was.......13, We came into the season ranked 16th in Kenpom and we are currently 16th. Because we are doing exactly as expected. Nothing less but nothing more either.
Last edited:
Similar threads
