NCAA Net Rankings (thru 3/1/21)

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 29, 2011
2,481
554
743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#3
Updated NET rankings


2 Baylor
15 Kansas
17 WVU
12 TTech
11 Arkansas
24 Texas
33 Okla
30 Boynton’s Boys

Today’s win didn’t move us. But WVU is down 2. TTech is a joke.

Still don’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#5
The Net rankings are complete mystery. For example, we have 2 losses to TCU, the net shows that we are 2-1 against Q2 and 2-1 against Q3, while TCU has 1 win against Q1. Obviously, the Quadrant wins are what a team was ranked at the time of the game, not what they are now, which makes no sense. And comparing Tech to OSU is a complete Joke. OSU has more games against Q1, more wins against Q1, fewer games against Q4, a better overall record and swept Tech.....yet Tech is 18 spots higher...there is no logical way to justify that.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,481
554
743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#6
The Net rankings are complete mystery. For example, we have 2 losses to TCU, the net shows that we are 2-1 against Q2 and 2-1 against Q3, while TCU has 1 win against Q1. Obviously, the Quadrant wins are what a team was ranked at the time of the game, not what they are now, which makes no sense. And comparing Tech to OSU is a complete Joke. OSU has more games against Q1, more wins against Q1, fewer games against Q4, a better overall record and swept Tech.....yet Tech is 18 spots higher...there is no logical way to justify that.
I think they have some kind of formula that includes some measure of “game control”. I also have a suspicion it includes turnovers which obviously kills us. FWIW, we’re last in the B12 in turnovers behind, you guessed it, ISU, KSU and TCU. Imagine how good we’d be if we could cut the turnovers. Maybe that’s what the NET is trying to quantify albeit in reverse.

Yesterday we had 20 turnovers. Apparently that’s as important as getting the win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,481
554
743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#7
Updated NET rankings


2 Baylor
15 Kansas
17 WVU
12 TTech
11 Arkansas
24 Texas
33 Okla
30 Boynton’s Boys

Today’s win didn’t move us. But WVU is down 2. TTech is a joke.

Still don’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, things just got more ridiculous.

Updated net rankings after BU beat TT by 15 and UT beat TCU.


2 Baylor
15 Kansas
18 WVU
11 TTech
12 Arkansas
24 Texas
33 Okla
31 Boynton’s Boys

TT moves up 1, Ark goes down 1 we go down 1. Unbelievable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nov 21, 2018
394
135
93
46
Amelia Island, FL
#8
Is anyone actually looking at these rankings? They’re obviously flawed. Kind of reminds me of the old BCS “eye test” rankings. Really though, do the NET rankings matter? Or just coaches and AP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Chairman of the Board

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Mar 17, 2006
14,507
4,475
1,743
Edmond, Ok
#9
Jan 13, 2008
1,293
477
1,713
Corinth, TX & Graz, Austria
#10
This might help explain the whole TCU as a Q2 and a Q3 loss. Home Q3 is almost the same as Away Q2.

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30; Neutral 1-50; Away 1-75.
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75; Neutral 51-100; Away 76-135.
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160; Neutral 101-200; Away 136-240.
Quadrant 4: Home 161-plus; Neutral 201-plus; Away 241-plus.
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,481
554
743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#11
Updated NET rankings


2 Baylor
15 Kansas
17 WVU
12 TTech
11 Arkansas
24 Texas
33 Okla
30 Boynton’s Boys

Today’s win didn’t move us. But WVU is down 2. TTech is a joke.

Still don’t get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, things just got more ridiculous.

Updated net rankings after BU beat TT by 15 and UT beat TCU.


2 Baylor
15 Kansas
18 WVU
11 TTech
12 Arkansas
24 Texas
33 Okla
31 Boynton’s Boys

TT moves up 1, Ark goes down 1 we go down 1. Unbelievable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The rankings I posted just above were a little wrong. They must have only been partially complete. Here’s the correct rankings.

2 Baylor
14 KU
16 Ark
17 TT
23 WVU
24 UT
30 OSU
33 Goons

There must be something about the B12 that is hurrying all but BU and TT.

It’s almost like we’re the anchor. In recent weeks they’ve moved UT, OU, WVU and even TT down while keeping us static. Weird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 29, 2011
2,481
554
743
61
Breckenridge, CO
#12
Is anyone actually looking at these rankings? They’re obviously flawed. Kind of reminds me of the old BCS “eye test” rankings. Really though, do the NET rankings matter? Or just coaches and AP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The committee uses the NET rankings and doesn't really even look at the polls. The also use BPI, Sagarin, and Pomeroy rankings.


https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/mens-basketball-selections-101-selections
KenPom:
34 PSU 10-13 (he loves the B10)
36 OSU 18-7

Sagarin:
16 Wisc (16-11, 0-8 v Top 25)
27 OSU (6-5 v Top 25)

BPI:
2 BU
8 TT
14 Ark
19 KU
23 UT
29 OU
42 OSU

Basically, the committee can do whatever they want.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jan 13, 2008
1,293
477
1,713
Corinth, TX & Graz, Austria
#13
I think they have some kind of formula that includes some measure of “game control”. I also have a suspicion it includes turnovers which obviously kills us. FWIW, we’re last in the B12 in turnovers behind, you guessed it, ISU, KSU and TCU. Imagine how good we’d be if we could cut the turnovers. Maybe that’s what the NET is trying to quantify albeit in reverse.

Yesterday we had 20 turnovers. Apparently that’s as important as getting the win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Net Efficiency is part of it. Offensive Efficiency - Defensive Efficiency.
 
Jan 13, 2008
1,293
477
1,713
Corinth, TX & Graz, Austria
#14
EDIT: Looks like the NET Factors was from an old article. I still think it is Efficiency.
From March, 2020 - CBS: The two remaining components are Team Value Index (TVI) and adjusted efficiency. Gone are winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin.


Original Post:
Net efficiency must be our main detractor.
Scoring Margin might be a secondary issue considering the all the close games and not having a lot of 10+ pt victories.


NET Factors
Team value index (OSU has 1 Q3 loss, Colorado has 3 Q3 losses and is 12th in NET rankings, Creighton has 3 Q3 losses and is 25th in NET rankings)
The value index is an algorithm developed to reward teams who beat good teams. It is a results-oriented component of the NET and is based on game results. It takes into account three factors: opponent, location and winner.

Net efficiency (OSU is #146 offensive efficiency, #73 in defensive efficiency, Creighton (28 OE, 90 DE) and Colorado (30 OE, 32 DE)
Net efficiency is a team’s offensive efficiency minus its defense efficiency.

Winning percentage
Winning percentage is calculated by dividing a team’s wins by its total games played.

Adjusted win percentage
This metric is a winning percentage that is weighted based on location and result. Here is the breakdown:

Road win = + 1.4
Neutral win = + 1
Home win = +.6
Road loss = -.6
Neutral loss = -1
Home loss = -1.4

Scoring margin
(OSU has 3 - 10+ pt losses and only 5 - 10+pt victories. So OSU doesn't blow anyone out ... except Iowa State)
(Creighton 1 - 10+ loss and 11 - 10+ victories)
(Colorado 1 - 10+ loss and 14 - 10+ victories)

Scoring margin is a team’s total points minus its opponent’s points. The winning margin was capped at 10 points per game “to prevent rankings from encouraging unsportsmanlike play,” according to the NCAA.
 
Last edited:
Oct 29, 2004
2,560
659
1,743
Edmond, OK
#18
I wonder what arbitrary ranking system they will come up with next and how it will negatively affect us.
Its pretty obvious after all these years, the more criteria the selection committee has the easier it is to add and leave out any teams that want. Also, create seedings the same way....for financial reasons.

”Well even though team X was 18-7, they were not selected for the tournament because they lost to a Quad 3 team on a Thursday night before Valentine’s Day...and there was a full moon.”

Unbelievable!!
 
Jun 14, 2011
914
740
1,643
#19
Its pretty obvious after all these years, the more criteria the selection committee has the easier it is to add and leave out any teams that want. Also, create seedings the same way....for financial reasons.

”Well even though team X was 18-7, they were not selected for the tournament because they lost to a Quad 3 team on a Thursday night before Valentine’s Day...and there was a full moon.”

Unbelievable!!
But, but, but, if the tide was IN we would have won!