|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1,451
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
1
4
Jan 26, 2024, 11:02 AM
|
|
More net rating anomalies. Per sports reference, Gonzaga has the 99th toughest schedule in the country while ours is 24th. For net rankings, their game last night has Not been calculated, so we have identical records at 13-5
They are 3-5 against quad 1 and 2 teams while we 6-4. The average net ranking of their quad 1 and 2 games is 55. The average net ranking of quad 1 and 2 teams we have played is 48.
They are 10-0 vs quad 3 and 4 teams. While we are 7-1. The average net ranking of the quad 3 and 4 teams they have played is 246. The average net ranking of quad 3 and 4 teams we have played is 181.
Their net rating is 27 and ours is 32.
Make it make sense!!
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [27344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10121
Joined: 2/14/13
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
3
Jan 26, 2024, 11:10 AM
|
|
they didnt lose to quad 3 or 4. Whats so hard about that?
When you are ranking the top teams losing to a crappy team weighs more than beating a top team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
2
Jan 26, 2024, 11:16 AM
|
|
so we have played a significantly harder schedule than them and have the same record. Our worst loss was to a team with a 130 net, yet their worst loss was to a team that has a net rating of 106. This is a difference of 24 spots.
Their second worst loss has a net rating of 81 while ours was 63 which is a 18 spot difference.
Seems like that should be close to a wash, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10121
Joined: 2/14/13
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
3
Jan 26, 2024, 11:18 AM
|
|
technically yes....and they are only 5 spots ahead of us so algorithmically speaking it could only be a few hundredths difference. I think the zero in the quad 3 and quad 4 loss column is putting them over the edge. I mean 27th vs 32nd is gotta be splitting hairs anyways right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
6
6
Jan 26, 2024, 11:25 AM
|
|
He really, really doesn't understand math. Or much of anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79424]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13093
Joined: 9/24/18
|
Gonzaga vs Clemson
7
7
Jan 26, 2024, 11:34 AM
|
|
He really didn’t want you to “make it make sense “ . . . but thanks for explaining it so simply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Gonzaga vs Clemson
1
Jan 26, 2024, 11:38 AM
|
|
Saying we lost a quad 3 game doesn't make it make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
2
Jan 26, 2024, 11:27 AM
[ in reply to Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson ] |
|
Sure the difference is negligible, but we have played a significantly harder schedule. They have 0 quad 1 wins and we have 3. They have 2 quad 2 losses and we have 0. Im not saying our ranking is off, but theirs is way too high.
Looking at their schedule they have 4 quad 1 opportunities. One to kentucky, 1 to san fransisco, and 2 to st mary's. Dont even get me started with saint mary's being at 18. That is even more of a joke than gonzaga. They have 2 quad 3 losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
2
Jan 26, 2024, 11:53 AM
|
|
Will someone explain to this doofus that margin of victory is also a part of the NET ranking (he has me on ignore) before he starts his 100th thread about a ranking system he doesn't understand.
The old RPI system was purely a win/loss equation. It did not take into account any margin of victory.
Clemson RPI 13 Gonzaga RPI 61
The NET system takes margin of victory into consideration but is capped at 10 points
Clemson NET 32 Gonzaga NET 27
THE ELO system takes margin of victory into consideration without limit.
Clemson ELO 47 Gonzaga ELO 27
The KenPom system is possibly the most sophisticated rating system. Here is a good overview: https://www.onthebanks.com/2019/12/9/21002735/kenpom-rankings-explained-how-to-better-evaluate-rutgers-basketball-big-ten-ncaa-steve-pikiell
Clemson KenPom 33 Gonzaga KenPom 19
There is also the Massey Composite, a composite of 55 different ranking systems.
https://masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cb
Clemson Hi 11 Low 53 Avg 29
Gonzaga Hi 11 Low 70 Avg 33
The NET is not a boogeyman. It is in line with most other major ranking systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
1
Jan 26, 2024, 12:49 PM
|
|
I saw you replied, and since nobody else has made it make sense, i figured you might add some value. I know pathetic. You will go back to being ignored after this thread. Unfortunately, you stepped on a rake like you normally do. Any more brain busters?
Margin of victory actually goes in the favor if the good guys in my view. If it's not in favor of us, then it is a wash.
Q1 games - winner clemson
Clemson: Margin of Victory 8. Margin of defeat 8 Zags margin of victory: None. Margin of defeat: 10
Q2 games - winner clemson
Clemson: margin of victory: 8 margin of defeat: none
Zags: margin of victory: 8 margin of defeat: 3
Q3 games - winner zags
Clemson: margin of victory 5. Margin of defeat 3
Zags: Margin of victory: 7. Margin defeat: none
Q4 games - wash
Clemson: margin of victory: 10 margin defeat: none
Zags: margin of victory: 10 margin defeat: none
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
You don't know what you are talking about
1
Jan 26, 2024, 1:01 PM
|
|
you are literally arguing with math. I gave you the information of 4 specific models and the hi/lo/average of 55 models and I'm the one stepping on a rake? you really might be dumb as a stump. Not understanding the variables is a you problem. Have you factored in Adusted Win Percentage? Have you factored in Net efficiency? It isn't just that you don't understand - it's that you are making no effort to understand and then crying like a baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: You don't know what you are talking about
Jan 26, 2024, 1:11 PM
|
|
You told me that the reason i was wrong because of margin if victory and i just proved that wrong. Lmao.
Now you are moving goal posts.
You even admitted you dont know the formula, so why are you trying to sound educated on it?
We have played a way tougher schedule, we have played better quad 1 and 2 teams, as well as better quad 3 and 4 teams per net rankings. Our record is the same. The margin of victory is a wash at best in your case.
I'm not saying the math is wrong, im saying the algorithm is stupid. Do you really think i was saying there was an error in the algorithm that was screwing clemson over? Lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: You don't know what you are talking about
Jan 26, 2024, 1:14 PM
|
|
If it is not an outlier from the 55 other methodologies (it's not) then your argument is not with me nor is it with the NET ranking. Your argument is with math. If you don't think math should play any role in the selection of teams in a sports tournament that would be a more legitimate position than the one you are currently taking.
You are also arguing with a formula designed to provide the best rank upon conclusion of the season while the season is still in play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: You don't know what you are talking about
Jan 26, 2024, 1:20 PM
|
|
All the different rating systems have different formulas and in turn have vastly different rankings as you have shown. You are acting like all the rating formulas are exactly the same with the only variance being margin of victory. That is blatantly incorrect.
Considering my analysis, it looks like RPI is the most accurate. Considering they have st mary's 66 and gonzaga 62.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: You don't know what you are talking about
Jan 26, 2024, 1:34 PM
|
|
That is not what I said at all. I only highlighted it because it is a significant variable. I most certainly did not say or imply that it was the "only" variable. Gonzaga's NET is a 30 when their average of all models is a 33. You arguing they should be 62 is an outlier by +33 by the average of all. St. Mary's at 66 would be an outlier of +30. Net is an outlier from the ranking average of -3 Gonzaga, + 5 Clemson, and -14 St. Mary's.
If you like RPI best then you'll be relieved to know that through the 2023 season there is a stronger correlation between RPI and making or not making the tournament than the actual NET rankings.
Finally, the only limiting factor on Clemson making the tournament is where they finish in ACC standings. Barring finishing below .500 in conference play, Clemson will be safely in by both ranking systems. But the ACC is not going to get more than 5 teams in the tourney. Clemson will need to finish in the top 6 to be one of those 5.
Message was edited by: viztiz®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [682]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 1021
Joined: 12/1/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [67853]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 115487
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
2
Jan 26, 2024, 11:45 AM
|
|
Does anyone understand how this thing is caclulated because when I hear people close to the sport talk of it they seem to not understand it with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
Jan 26, 2024, 12:19 PM
|
|
I don't think the exact formula is known which is why most sites that publish it only update as the NCAA page does. The "Quadrants" are easily understood but the the effect of margin of victory seem a little more nebulous. If you view it in the context of all the other ranking systems (https://masseyratings.com/ranks?s=cb) it is a pretty conservative system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
Jan 26, 2024, 12:56 PM
|
|
So you dont know the formula, yet you talk about this ranking system, but i cant? Wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
Jan 26, 2024, 1:12 PM
|
|
so you're just gonna continue to ignore that it is inline with virtually every other ranking system?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44054]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32967
Joined: 2/22/03
|
So ridiculous.
1
1
Jan 26, 2024, 11:47 AM
|
|
I'm sure this is Brownell's fault somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: So ridiculous.
1
Jan 26, 2024, 11:58 AM
|
|
I know that you know better because you have extolled the virtues of KenPom over RPI and NET in the past. I know you look at it. I know that you know it has Gonzaga higher and us lower than the NET currently does. Your indignance towards the NET is obviously fake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22741]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11552
Joined: 10/12/14
|
Re: So ridiculous.
Jan 26, 2024, 12:18 PM
[ in reply to So ridiculous. ] |
|
Such a troll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7167]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10142
Joined: 6/27/07
|
i've seen this all before...***
1
Jan 26, 2024, 12:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64593]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 88998
Joined: 3/27/01
|
I firmly believe there is a subjective element to it...
Jan 26, 2024, 12:13 PM
|
|
because if it was entirely objective, little nuisances like this wouldn't occur so frequently. It's akin to the BS "eye test" that EsecPN leans on to substantiate their self-serving biased agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: I firmly believe there is a subjective element to it...
Jan 26, 2024, 12:43 PM
|
|
It is a purely mathematical model and is line with most others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
Jan 26, 2024, 12:16 PM
|
|
Since you all asked for it, i will do a similar comparison to st mary's. This one is even more mind boggling.
st mary's SOS is 74 while ours is 24. They are 15-6 while we are 13-5.
They are 4-4 vs quad 1 and 2 teams while we are 6-4. The average net ranking of quad 1 and 2 teams we have played is 48. Theirs is 45.
They are 10-2 vs quad 3 and 4 teams and we are 7-1. The average net ranking of quad 3 and 4 teams they have played is 203. Ours is 181. Their 2 quad 3 home losses came to teams with a net of 121 and 149. Our single quad 3 home loss came to a team with a net of 131.
They have a net ranking of 18 and ours is 32.
So to be clear, we have a better SOS, better record vs quad 1 and 2 teams, and better record vs quad 3 and 4 teams. They have 1 more bad loss than we do. They are 14 spots ahead of us in net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
2
Jan 26, 2024, 12:23 PM
|
|
Is this all you have left? Preemptively complaining about rankings so you can justify your flip/flop when Brad doesn't make the tourney? Ken Pom has St. Mary 25th Clemson 33rd. ERMAGOD THE BIAS!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [789]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 961
Joined: 10/4/09
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
Jan 26, 2024, 12:26 PM
[ in reply to Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson ] |
|
Simplidied
Gonzaga + Basketball = Historical Relevance
Clemson + Basketball = No Historical Relevance
How do you become and stay relevant. Stop losing to shiddy teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27344]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10121
Joined: 2/14/13
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
1
Jan 26, 2024, 12:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson ] |
|
they have played 3 more games than us. Which dilutes the averages. Here's a baseball analogy...if i play 10 games and hit .450 through those 10 games and another guy plays 80 games and hits .350 through those 80 games, who do you think the higher ranked hitter would be?
This is all math and analytics, bias has nothing to do with it. Maf is Maf...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [140604]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33881
Joined: 12/5/10
|
Its known in the business as the CBB effect.
1
Jan 26, 2024, 12:30 PM
|
|
Unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Its known in the business as the CBB effect.
2
Jan 26, 2024, 12:34 PM
|
|
You’d think someone whose initial equal College BasketBall would be better at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5014]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6047
Joined: 10/9/08
|
Dont lose to teams you should beat and it solves the problem***
Jan 26, 2024, 12:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2669]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 8366
Joined: 8/12/14
|
Re: Dont lose to teams you should beat and it solves the problem***
Jan 26, 2024, 12:57 PM
|
|
Why is st mary's so high then? They have 1 more bad loss than us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16921]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10775
Joined: 1/25/07
|
Re: Dont lose to teams you should beat and it solves the problem***
Jan 26, 2024, 1:05 PM
|
|
Obviously because the Pythagoreans had an innate bias against Clemson and worked this into the very fabric of modern mathematics so that you could cry more on the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [65530]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33280
Joined: 12/3/03
|
Obviously, the NET considers a Quad 3/4 loss much more severely damaging than a
Jan 26, 2024, 12:52 PM
|
|
Quad 1 or 2 win is considered helpful.
But, it all depends on who you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1374]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1811
Joined: 1/2/20
|
Re: Net ratings - Gonzaga vs Clemson
Jan 26, 2024, 2:27 PM
|
|
You and viz tiz have way to much time on your hands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 36
| visibility 1,451
|
|
|
50
