Why are the kenpom and net rankings so different?

[GoBIG BLUE]

Texas is 62 on net yet 40 on kenpom.
I understand kenpom to be a performance statistics based rsnking; so my real question I suppose is how are the net rankings formulated?

 

[fatguy87]

Texas is 62 on net yet 40 on kenpom.
I understand kenpom to be a performance statistics based rsnking; so my real question I suppose is how are the net rankings formulated?

NET is a bit of a black box.

But I would guess one contributing factor might be that Texas is bolstered by their preseason ranking in Kenpom. NET does not have a preseason contribution from what I can tell.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but it's impossible to know for sure as NET's formula is a mystery.

 

[Fox2monk]

Texas is 62 on net yet 40 on kenpom.
I understand kenpom to be a performance statistics based rsnking; so my real question I suppose is how are the net rankings formulated?

Probabaly because they use Torvik’s T-ranking this year. I’d assume there are so,we differences in the models against Kenpom.

 

[JonathanW]

With 350 teams to rank, and each model different from others, it is not surprising to see examples like a 20 spot difference, especially the closer you get to the middle (175). It could be that the calculation is very close for those 20 teams.

 

[St.PatterSoN-54-]

One of them (Kenpom?) heavily weights last season performance to support rankings early in the season. That factor gradually washes out as the season matures.

 

[The_Answer1313]

It's hard to say because the NCAA isn't completely clear on the calculation of NET.

But FWIW the actual ranking of teams is very close. A 20 spot difference might not be all that significant.

Also I think with all these systems, they generally agree with the teams towards the top. The teams that are capable of winning national titles.

 

[UKBB4Ever]

Texas is 62 on net yet 40 on kenpom.
I understand kenpom to be a performance statistics based ranking; so my real question I suppose is how are the net rankings formulated?

KenPompom is only about pace. It's not a ranking. Use kenpompom to bet and go broke. It's fake numbers. He doesn't count an offensive rebound as a possession. That's fine because he's showing pace on paper. Counting an offensive rebound as a possession would make the game look like it was played at a faster pace on paper. But who cares what the paper pace is?

The biggest thing though with not counting offensive rebounds as a possessions is it inflates the PPP numbers. Thus those are fake numbers too. It's just one more thing to the anal ytic types to use to make straw man arguments.

Bottom line, kenpompom removes plays from the game. Removing those plays skews all of his numbers.

 

[HerrosHeroes]

Whatever metric that screws Kentucky the most is what the committee leans on.

 

[Bluesnky]

Net uses this season only so it will have a lot of variability early. Kenpom is still factoring in preseason expectations at this point so it’s more stable but probably a little less accurate.

Also I believe net has an upper limit on margin of victory, and kenpom doesnt.

 

[Padsfs07]

One of them (Kenpom?) heavily weights last season performance to support rankings early in the season. That factor gradually washes out as the season matures.

This is precisely the reason here in early December.