Manipulating the NET | Page 11 | Syracusefan.com

Manipulating the NET

STEVEHOLT said:
Expand...
as always, the Syracuse barstool rep takes what could be a really good point and makes it look laughably stupid. "Syracuse should be over Oregon because they beat them by 20!!" So they should be over UNC also, and then GT should be over Syracuse... Lets also just look at win loss records, and completely ignore who those wins and losses came against... They're not wrong but they don't do themselves justice by making such a sweeping, and largely stupid, point.
 
Marsh01 said:
problem with the NET is you only get .6 credit for a home win where you get 1.4 for a road win. Too skewed
Expand...
it's crazy to involve Google. What do they know about the topic and if you need their competing power, your formula is too complex
 
LoveShack said:
Regarding possessions these box scores, usually posted by Orange79 (thank you by the way) in the game threads list possessions. Feel free to go back and check them. They are most always equal.
View attachment 238265
Expand...

Thank you so much for this!
The discussion was driving me crazy.

If a team gets 12 more offensive rebounds than us (unfortunately not an unfamiliar situation as a Syracuse fan), getting potentially 12 more shots, and we end up losing by 5 points... if you count offensive rebounds as "new possessions", then Syracuse "the loser", would be considered to be the more efficient and better team. Which is absurd.
 
Last edited:
Sudano said:
To add on to your point. It's not deciding who wins the national championship, it's deciding who are the top 68 teams and seed them to then play off for the national championship. Let's not overblow what this is ... It's treating the decision between 68 and 69 like it's the decision between 1 and 2+. (It's really lower seeds because P5 teams are higher)
Expand...
Since they save spots for really bad conferences, it's not a decision between 68 and 69
 
shandeezy7 said:
Yes, they changed it in 2020. There were originally five standalone factors that went into NET ranking. One of them was margin of victory, which was capped at 10 points in the formula. There are now only two components of the NET Ranking:

The remaining factors include the Team Value Index (TVI), which is a result-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home, as well as an adjusted net efficiency rating.

So margin of victory was removed as a standalone factor, but instead of it being on its own and capped at 10 points, it's now baked into the net efficiency rating with absolutely zero controls on it.

www.ncaa.com

DI men’s basketball committee announces change to NET in 2020-21

The NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Committee announced a change to the NCAA Evaluation Tool metric, which debuted during the 2018-19 season and replaced the RPI as the primary sorting tool.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com

This is the tweet explaining the NET Ranking system when it was initially unveiled (you have to click on it to see the whole graphic - thanks, Elon):

Expand...

Thanks.

This is still the first year though that OOC conference performance (by conferences as a whole) have not been well represented in NET as we progress through the season (especially the Big 12)... this is the bigger concern.

2023 there was a strong correlation. (have the numbers to back it up).
Nothing seemed abnormal in 2022.
2021 would be irrelevant to look at since the OOC schedules were shorter in the covid year.
 
I don't think the Big 12 set out to manipulate the NET. At this point last season, the Big 12 had a collectively strong NCSOS, 9th in the country and seven of its 10 teams (BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF hadn't joined) were in the top 30 of the NET. All 7 made the tournament. So there are different ways to skin a cat.

Has the league exposed some points of contention that need to be addressed? Sure. But arguing that it was some sneaky ploy by the Big 12 coaches is giving them too much credit.

That said, coaches will and should raise hell if they go through the process of setting up their non-league schedules based on one version of the formula only for the NCAA to tweak it later on.
 
Last edited:
Cuse181 said:
as always, the Syracuse barstool rep takes what could be a really good point and makes it look laughably stupid. "Syracuse should be over Oregon because they beat them by 20!!" So they should be over UNC also, and then GT should be over Syracuse... Lets also just look at win loss records, and completely ignore who those wins and losses came against... They're not wrong but they don't do themselves justice by making such a sweeping, and largely stupid, point.
Expand...

Yeah well the math substantiating their general point is laid out well in the thread- who cares how they said it- it’s not wrong on the level.
 
To come back to later.


3/13, 6-1
7/13, 3-2
7/13, 2-1
7/13, 4-2
9/13, 3-1
6/13, 2-3
5/13, 1-3
6/13, 4-2
9/13, 0-2
3/13, 4-3

62/130 = 48%
29-20
 
jncuse said:
There is probably (I would say is but I am only 98% confident in what I am writing below) an element of double counting going on when you get road wins.

Here is the problem - if you are going to go with a system that is primarily MOV as your baseline.

It's already giving you a 7 or 8 point "adjustment" for playing on the road instead of at home. Remember the home court advantage is somewhere between 3.5 to 4. So say you win on the road, you probably get a margin reward, and then you get a road win kicker.

I tracked the biggest movers in NET week over week, for about 3 weeks (which is possible with Warren Nolan since they always show the NET at end of prior week). One example is post #8 in the thread below.

Gonzaga +20 (2 Q4 Road Wins by 67 points)
Drake +20 (2 Q4 Wins, one on the road, won by 70 points)
Virginia +16 (2 Q2 Wins, one road, won by 17 points)
Colorado +14 (Q2 Win + Q4 Win, both home, won by 49 points)
Syracuse +12 (Q1+Q2 Win, one road, won by 14 points)
Providence +11 (Q4 Road Win, won by 38 points)
New Mexico +11 (Q1 Win + Q4 Road Win, won by 32 points)
St. Mary's +10 (Q1 Road Win at San Fran)

It's pretty clear that road wins are by far the biggest mover. Road wins should be valued more, but it seems the double counting really comes into play here.




syracusefan.com

An Early 2024 Bracket Matrix Follow (or other Tourney Stuff if you Want)

As of this morning per the matrix = 0 (which of course is right call) Before tip off next game = ?? It won't be high, but it will not be zero either. We have made clear progress this week in our resume with a Q1 and a Q2 win (I would very much disagree with the few people that put us in, but...
syracusefan.com syracusefan.com
Expand...
Blowing out Louisville would do wonders for us...need a double digit away win!
 
jncuse said:
There is probably (I would say is but I am only 98% confident in what I am writing below) an element of double counting going on when you get road wins.

Here is the problem - if you are going to go with a system that is primarily MOV as your baseline.

It's already giving you a 7 or 8 point "adjustment" for playing on the road instead of at home. Remember the home court advantage is somewhere between 3.5 to 4. So say you win on the road, you probably get a margin reward, and then you get a road win kicker.

I tracked the biggest movers in NET week over week, for about 3 weeks (which is possible with Warren Nolan since they always show the NET at end of prior week). One example is post #8 in the thread below.

Gonzaga +20 (2 Q4 Road Wins by 67 points)
Drake +20 (2 Q4 Wins, one on the road, won by 70 points)
Virginia +16 (2 Q2 Wins, one road, won by 17 points)
Colorado +14 (Q2 Win + Q4 Win, both home, won by 49 points)
Syracuse +12 (Q1+Q2 Win, one road, won by 14 points)
Providence +11 (Q4 Road Win, won by 38 points)
New Mexico +11 (Q1 Win + Q4 Road Win, won by 32 points)
St. Mary's +10 (Q1 Road Win at San Fran)

It's pretty clear that road wins are by far the biggest mover. Road wins should be valued more, but it seems the double counting really comes into play here.




syracusefan.com

An Early 2024 Bracket Matrix Follow (or other Tourney Stuff if you Want)

As of this morning per the matrix = 0 (which of course is right call) Before tip off next game = ?? It won't be high, but it will not be zero either. We have made clear progress this week in our resume with a Q1 and a Q2 win (I would very much disagree with the few people that put us in, but...
syracusefan.com syracusefan.com
Expand...
Shouldn't teams be penalized for home losses too if you are going to weight road wins by that much?

Example: Clemson is a good team, but they have 4 home losses. It would seem to me they should be penalized a bit for having a mediocre record at home, but because they are 9-5 road/neutral the road wins seem to outweigh the home losses. I haven't dug into this, but at least that's how I would expect such a formula be designed. The home losses probably don't hurt them because their road/neutral is weighted higher.
 
Marsh01 said:
problem with the NET is you only get .6 credit for a home win where you get 1.4 for a road win. Too skewed
Expand...
yep and those weights are just made up numbers
 
M2MPrinciples said:
I don't think the Big 12 set out to manipulate the NET. At this point last season, the Big 12 had a collectively strong NCSOS, 9th in the country and seven of its 10 teams (BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF hadn't joined) were in the top 30 of the NET. All 7 made the tournament. So there are different ways to skin a cat.

Has the league exposed some points of contention that need to be addressed? Sure. But arguing that it was some sneaky ploy by the Big 12 coaches is giving them too much credit.

That said, coaches will and should raise hell if they go through the process of setting up their non-league schedules based on one version of the formula only for the NCAA to tweak it later on.
Expand...
If there is one thing colleges can figure out, it's how to game rankings. They suck at everything else but they know how to do that
 
Fly Rodder said:
No, they're real numbers.
Expand...
yeah i know they're real, they are 0.6 & 1.4. Appreciate you pointing that out. But basically they are arbitrary and I am sure some nerd could come up with an explanation/justification for them but so could someone else for other weights.
 
Cusefan0307 said:
Shouldn't teams be penalized for home losses too if you are going to weight road wins by that much?

Example: Clemson is a good team, but they have 4 home losses. It would seem to me they should be penalized a bit for having a mediocre record at home, but because they are 9-5 road/neutral the road wins seem to outweigh the home losses. I haven't dug into this, but at least that's how I would expect such a formula be designed. The home losses probably don't hurt them because their road/neutral is weighted higher.
Expand...

The original NET ranking formula had Adjusted Winning Percentage as a standalone component. Losses were basically reversed from wins, so a road loss was -0.6, a neutral loss was -1.0 and a home loss was -1.4. I assume that is still the calculation housed within the Team Value Index component, but it doesn't seem like there's actually any way to know.
 
The best way to handle this system in the future is start every season as a clean slate.
Then after all the early season games are done and the conference seasons start.
That's when you start to use the Net, that helps keep teams from gaming the system.
 
Millhouse said:
If there is one thing colleges can figure out, it's how to game rankings. They suck at everything else but they know how to do that
Expand...
If that's the case then Jim Phillips has some explaining to do for why we couldn't be similarly aligned, and Brad Brownell should be calling out his peers (maybe he is privately) instead of other conferences or the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sbucketball
    • Like
Strength of ACC; NET & KenPom Tracker (24-25)
Replies
0
Views
385
Sbucketball
Sbucketball
jncuse
    • Like
Tracking the ACC OOC vs Other Leagues (24/25)
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
jncuse
jncuse

Forum statistics

Threads
170,574
Messages
4,899,824
Members
6,004
Latest member
fsaracene

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
223
Guests online
1,325
Total visitors
1,548
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom