NET Rankings are Flawed
- Thread starter BillBrasky4Cy
- Start date
We did move up as a 7th seed on bracket matrix though- I truly think we will be rewarded for our quality wins come Selection Sunday.
Oh I don’t disagree but don’t kid yourself, the committee values NET. Yes, they will view Iowa State as an outlier but the main point is that the current formula is bad. In general NET doesn’t like the Big 12 outside the top 4 teams. After Texas the fall off is really steep yet this is unanimously the toughest and deepest league in the country.
Six comparable teams, yet one of these has a NET that is 14-35 spots higher than the others.
Nameless jerseys: rank the teams.
I have 3 - 1 - 4 - 2 - 5 - 6
My reasoning: Q1+2 wins against SOS, #3 has most (11) wins and particularly most Q1 against one of hardest SOS. Same reason I put Team 1 over Team 4 for second.
Nameless jerseys: rank the teams.
I have 3 - 1 - 4 - 2 - 5 - 6
My reasoning: Q1+2 wins against SOS, #3 has most (11) wins and particularly most Q1 against one of hardest SOS. Same reason I put Team 1 over Team 4 for second.
Net needs to be retooled this off-season. So much wrong with it.
IMO I just think we need to be honest about what NET is - it's an efficiency metric that doesn't give a crap about wins and losses. By that regard, it's right in line with most of the efficiency metrics.
Now, if it's used for that purpose to identify the overall quality of teams a team has beaten, using the Quad system, I think it has merit.
If it's used as a baseline of who gets in, I have a problem. Like others have said, SOR most closely resembled the actual seeding and who got in last year. If they use a results metric to determine who gets in, but an efficiency metric to determine the quality of wins, well that actually makes some sense.
We're still quite early in the process, NET is only a few years old and we only have a few data points on how it will be used. We'll learn a lot this year. The good news is ISU is in the tourney, the question is at this point how they will be seeded.
I'm going off of NET for both the NET ranking and their SOR for each team...comparing what seed teams would be based on those. As @BryceC said, it looks like SOR might be more in line of what seed teams will be.
Iowa State NET: 37 (equates to a 10 seed)
Iowa State SOR: 25 (7 seed)
TCU NET: 49 (13 seed)
TCU SOR: 32 (8 seed)
North Carolina NET: 40 (10 seed)
North Carolina SOR: 28 (7 seed) they HAVE to be an outlier because no one is seeding them this high
Iowa NET: 19 (5 seed)
Iowa SOR: 33 (9 seed)
Iowa State NET: 37 (equates to a 10 seed)
Iowa State SOR: 25 (7 seed)
TCU NET: 49 (13 seed)
TCU SOR: 32 (8 seed)
North Carolina NET: 40 (10 seed)
North Carolina SOR: 28 (7 seed) they HAVE to be an outlier because no one is seeding them this high
Iowa NET: 19 (5 seed)
Iowa SOR: 33 (9 seed)
Well that makes sense because Virginia lost at home to Florida State (net 102) and dropped 4 spots (78 to 82). <jimlad>
Hey remember when two weeks ago there was absolutely no way our men would make the NCAA Tournament? And you continued to double down on that despite me and several others saying it didn’t look good but until there was not enough games to get to 6 or 7 conference wins we still had a shot.
Well….oops.
i just dont understand people infatuation and outcry with where ISU stands in this NET ranking. i get that it can be head scratching but, this is a tool used to grade your opponents and ultimately the quality of your wins. not a ranking used for straight seeding. honestly, ISU deserves its ranking. they have shown that they are a very bipolar team that can be victim of both itself and a bad matchup. TOE is a very consistent offensive threat that can be tough to matchup against for a lot of teams.
the bigger outcry IMO is that TOE (and offensively inflated NETs like them) has blessed so many teams in the B1G with quad 1 wins when they really shouldn't be worthy of handing those out. a home win against TOE is quad 1 which is BS. this has just further inflated a top heavy league with the weak middle and pathetic bottom.
the bigger outcry IMO is that TOE (and offensively inflated NETs like them) has blessed so many teams in the B1G with quad 1 wins when they really shouldn't be worthy of handing those out. a home win against TOE is quad 1 which is BS. this has just further inflated a top heavy league with the weak middle and pathetic bottom.
in relation to my above post.... this SOR is going to be the data the committee pulls from these NET rankings. the actual NET of each team is going to be far less important.
Iowa NET=5 seed? Iowa..................................................................5 seed???????
This is just insane. I get it that there is a lot of anger on here about the NET ratings, but it seems highly deserved. At some point, you have to come up with a system that makes common sense. I get that it won't hurt us this year, but the fact the NCAA promotes this as a credible evaluation of quality is a complete joke. Maybe actually beating some good teams should count for something? 9 Q1 wins and we drop? JFC.
Iowa NET=5 seed? Iowa..................................................................5 seed???????
Exactly. This is why so many question why net is so prominent. Granted iowa seems to be an outlier but still makes no sense.
Yeah it definitely matters. This isn’t just an Iowa State thing, there are way to many teams over and under valued. If there is going to be bias it should be eye test driven, not a flawed analytics formula.
