It is offense driven. If you score a lot of points, it likes you. If you are a defensive team, it doesn't care for you as much.
ISR March to Madness thread
- Thread starter dexterhawk
- Start date
It's got to. Virtually identical records and ISU has the tougher schedule. (KP 27 compared to 65)
That isn't what they say. They take into account offensive and defensive metrics.
That may be what they say, but it isn't how it responds. Beat a team 110-100 and you jump 6 spots. Beat a team 51-50, even if a ranked team, and you may drop a couple
I remember a year where Iowa was pretty decent and Purdue beat us by like 30 plus points and Iowa dropped like 10 plus spots in the NET. I think the NET takes a lot of point differential into its equation. Only thing I can thing of.
ISU was beating bad teams by single digits and Iowa was beating them by 30. Iowa hasn't been blown out much and ISU has had a few games lately where they have. I think that has been more damaging to ISU and beneficial to Iowa. How much it should be worth is another discussion because I always feel a win is a win and a loss is a loss.
Finally something I can agree with you on. ISU wasn't blowing out a lot of teams in the non con. Mostly because they don't have the offensive fire power to do so. They were putting a defensive stranglehold on pretty much everyone though. I'm not sure the NET really rewarded them for that. It's almost irrelevant now though, since there has been some serious defensive regression in recent weeks from ISU.
Point differential is not included in their algorithm. Offensive efficiency carries a ton of weight.
Which makes sense. Not directly accounting for margin of victory/loss, but it stands to reason that net efficiencies are going to correlate pretty well to margin of victory/loss.
So regardless of how it accounts for it, winning big/losing big absolutely matter. If a team is up by 25 and throws the walkons in for 3 minutes, chances are efficiency goes down, and that hurts their NET. Likewise, Iowa getting curbstomped by Wisconsin and Purdue and using their starters to press the hell out of walkons to make the margin respectable well after the game was in the bag absolutely impacted net efficiencies and NET.
I really don't care how it effects ISU or Iowa, having coaching decisions that happen after a game is decided impacting rankings is dumb. By the end of the season, predictive tools like efficiencies should have been worked out of the system, or at least should have very minimal impact. You have thousands of on the court, W/L, SoR data points.
Fran McCaffrey, mediocre basketball coach. Guru at working computer metrics and ranking systems to earn his teams good favor.
It's just 1 data point at end of day. It won't decide seeding and who's in. It will play a part but so does SOR in comparison. Both have oddities and that's why you can't go straight down the sheet of any of these but use it as one piece of data. Iowa is nowhere near the 5 seed NET would have it at.
Is Maryland the worst major conference team in history? Could last year's ISU team beat them? Holy cripes. I suppose Iowa moved up in the NET after beating them?
From everything I can find here is how NET is calculated.
RPI included team's winning percentage, average opponent's winning percentage and average opponent's opponent's winning percentage.
NET includes all of that and added this to it: game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.
RPI included team's winning percentage, average opponent's winning percentage and average opponent's opponent's winning percentage.
NET includes all of that and added this to it: game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.
I think (hope) the selection committee tracks closer to SOR (strength of record) as that seems to be more well rounded. I like it because it is better for ISU and closer to what eye test says. SOR: ISU #30, IA #39.
As for Q1 wins: I think Creighton will climb back into range by end of year. Memphis, probably not. So unless, ISU can knock off someone on the road, they will end up with 6 Q1 wins. IA is sitting on 1 Q1 win and it will be nip and tuck whether Utah St. stays top 50. Their remaining chances are Mich St, @Michigan, @Illinois. Mich St. is 4 spots off Q2 so unless they finish strong may drop to Q2 status. IA could end up anywhere from 3 Q1 wins to 0. Most likely will be 0 or 1.
Edit (2-12): IA is back to 0-5 in Q1 with 3-4 more chances (they added @tOSU back in). I still think they end up with 0 or 1 Q1 wins come selection time.
Last edited:
Went up 2…quad 2 road win.
KSU was the first ISU game I’ve watched since the cyhawk. Brockington is a stud…somebody else needs to step up and give him some help…
Been reading a lot about the net rankings. Your opponents NET apparently means more to the committee than your own….in that regard you guys are still doing good. Need to start winning though.
Hawks need a signature win down the stretch to move up in seeding…just winning the games they’re supposed probably gets them in but we’re talking a 9/10 seed.
It's over after today for ISU. Obviously there are still games to be played, but our team was kind of a one trick pony this year, and that trick has been played out
I wouldn’t say that the 12-0 non conference still counts and there are good wins in there.
Have to steal one on the road after today though
We'll see. The bubble is weak this year so this would be the year to do it. Not counting on it. My expectations are back to where they were preseason. So I'll be thrilled if they can sneak into the NIT as they don't currently appear capable of beating anyone.