Explaining the NCAA’s NET: What’s good, what’s bad, what’s unknown

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[samspann1]

I think that it's obviously too early to gauge the quality of the NET rankings, but I definitely don't like that margin of victory is a criteria for the NET rankings.

It's almost as if a team that's winning a game handily in the 2nd half is penalized for resting its starters and giving backups and walk-ons PT.

 

[Marty McFly]

I'll piggy back off of that and it essentially counts scoring margin twice. Totally inflates the metrics of some teams.

 

[SBU72]

So when a team moves from one quad to another, it can affect your NET? Like a team you beat while in quad 1 loses its top player and later drops to quad 2 will lower your NET.

 

[Marty McFly]

to my knowledge the NET ranking determines if you are quad 1 or 2, etc. To determine your net you have to factor in some variations of these variables:

1. Team Value Index (the results-oriented portion of the formula, which factors in strength of schedule)
2. Net Efficiency (points scored and points allowed on a per-possession basis)
3. Winning Percentage (overall D-I winning percentage)
4. Adjusted Win Percentage (accounting for locations of games)
5. Scoring Margin (capped at 10 points)

It looks like an inherently flawed tool, based as I said above counting scoring margin twice. One capped at 10 points, and the other (net efficiency), which is basically scoring margin on a per possession basis (which is uncapped). So while the RPI had its flaws it didn't factor in scoring margin at all, while now we transition to it basically being counted twice. This has created some odd teams being highly ranked in the NET.