Bracketology and Team Resumes

[TheWatShot 14,001]

Thought we'd get a bigger boost in the NET rankings after last night. Only went up 2 spots to #31. 

[IUc2016 7,121]

2 minutes ago, TheWatShot said:

Thought we'd get a bigger boost in the NET rankings after last night. Only went up 2 spots to #31. 

Saw that. Just from the past few years it seems that the Net doesn’t really care much for close wins at home. 
 

have to win by 10+ or away from home to get a big jump. Still a huge resume win though 

[Stuhoo 80,881]

Bumped up a little in both polls:

10th most other votes received in both polls, so 35th in rankings.

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

This is why I hate NET......

beat Purdue, go up 2 spots.

lose to Michigan, drop 10 spots.

Meanwhile, Michigan goes up 16 spots by beating us and is now ahead of us in NET.  We are 2-2 in Q1, they are 1-4;  of the three other losses each team has, IU's are all Q2 while Michigan has a Q3.

Basically the IU/Michigan game had IU 22 spots ahead of Michigan before the game and then after Michigan was 4 ahead of IU.  

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

2 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

This is why I hate NET......

beat Purdue, go up 2 spots.

lose to Michigan, drop 10 spots.

Meanwhile, Michigan goes up 16 spots by beating us and is now ahead of us in NET.  We are 2-2 in Q1, they are 1-4;  of the three other losses each team has, IU's are all Q2 while Michigan has a Q3.

Ken Pom

Michigan-24

IU- 33

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

5 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Ken Pom

Michigan-24

IU- 33

Prior to the game Pom had IU and Michigan pretty darn close -- I think it was something like IU 26, Michigan 30.  So a change of like 13.  And Pom is totally a predictive tool.

I have a huge problem with a team jumping 16 spots based one one game at this point in the season in NET.  16 spots is 4 seed lines.  And Michigan moved up to 38 from 54 by beating a team that NET now says isn't a top 38 team.

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

9 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

Prior to the game Pom had IU and Michigan pretty darn close -- I think it was something like IU 26, Michigan 30.  So a change of like 13.  And Pom is totally a predictive tool.

I have a huge problem with a team jumping 16 spots based one one game at this point in the season in NET.  16 spots is 4 seed lines.  And Michigan moved up to 38 from 54 by beating a team that NET now says isn't a top 38 team.

What’s seed lines have to do with a teams overall net number?   

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

Just now, Uspshoosier said:

What’s seed lines have to do with a teams overall net number?   

IMO, if NET bears no reflection on seed lines, it's a useless measure.

[HoosierAloha 30,068]

It wasn't like Michigan just beat us by 3 at home. They pretty much dominated us the entire game on the road.

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

26 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

IMO, if NET bears no reflection on seed lines, it's a useless measure.

https://www.google.com/search?q=net+rankings+gavitt&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:b563fd05,vid:0iXztL4ak8Q,st:0

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

1 hour ago, HoosierAloha said:

It wasn't like Michigan just beat us by 3 at home. They pretty much dominated us the entire game on the road.

But it doesn’t change their number of losses.  They are still a 9-7 team who missed having to play Michigan State and Purdue.  And the 16 spots they moved up weren’t just passing us…..they went over a number of teams that didn’t just lose to them by 18.

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

55 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

https://www.google.com/search?q=net+rankings+gavitt&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:b563fd05,vid:0iXztL4ak8Q,st:0

Yeah, doesn’t make it any better.  The only thing I’ll say is it’s better than RPI.  
 

 

[HoosierAloha 30,068]

53 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

But it doesn’t change their number of losses.  They are still a 9-7 team who missed having to play Michigan State and Purdue.  And the 16 spots they moved up weren’t just passing us…..they went over a number of teams that didn’t just lose to them by 18.

USPS would know a lot more than me but I believe efficiency numbers play into it. We were by far their best conference win (other two against the Big 1.o cellar dwellers) and in dominating fashion. They've also played a more difficult schedule by a massive margin like us having one of the weakest noncon SOS and them having one of the harder ones. I guess there is a lot that goes into it.

Barely winning Q1a (?) at home moves the NET needle a little.

Blowing out a Q1b (?) opponent on the road moves the NET needle a lot.

 

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

18 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

USPS would know a lot more than me but I believe efficiency numbers play into it. We were by far their best conference win (other two against the Big 1.o cellar dwellers) and in dominating fashion. They've also played a more difficult schedule by a massive margin like us having one of the weakest noncon SOS and them having one of the harder ones. I guess there is a lot that goes into it.

Barely winning Q1a (?) at home moves the NET needle a little.

Blowing out a Q1b (?) opponent on the road moves the NET needle a lot.

 

And yet their incredibly tough non conference schedule had put them rated 54th overall before playing IU.  

Is Michigan really that different of a team today than they were before IU?  

I don't have a problem with Michigan being regarded better than their record.  They are better than their record.  My problem is in a single game having that much effect on a team's movement.  Remember, IU beat a top five team a few days before and moved up just three spots.  I don't care what the margin was.....is blowing out an up and down 7-11 seed team really more impressive than beating a legitimate 1 to 2 seed team?

I mean, if Michigan wins their next game that home loss to them will now be a quad one loss instead of a quad two.  Why?  Because we played so bad against them.  

IU has one more quad one win than Michigan and only Q1 and Q2 losses.  Michigan can't say that and they have a worse home loss than IU does -- a 13 point one to Minnesota.

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

6 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

And yet their incredibly tough non conference schedule had put them rated 54th overall before playing IU.  

Is Michigan really that different of a team today than they were before IU?  

I don't have a problem with Michigan being regarded better than their record.  They are better than their record.  My problem is in a single game having that much effect on a team's movement.  Remember, IU beat a top five team a few days before and moved up just three spots.  I don't care what the margin was.....is blowing out an up and down 7-11 seed team really more impressive than beating a legitimate 1 to 2 seed team?

I mean, if Michigan wins their next game that home loss to them will now be a quad one loss instead of a quad two.  Why?  Because we played so bad against them.  

The overall numbers are what they are. At the end of the day teams are viewed by what is on their team sheets not by what their overall NET number is.   Michigan would be sorted with other teams near their NET number and as of now wouldnt have a resume that is tournament worthy.  Some Teams with a worse overall NET number would be sorted and looked at and viewed as the better resume.  

[HoosierAloha 30,068]

We could have showed up to the game and competed (lazy take) and wouldn't have to discuss this. We could also test the theory of how much you move up by taking a Q1 team to the woodshed on the road.

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

1 minute ago, Uspshoosier said:

  Michigan would be sorted with other teams near their NET number and as of now wouldnt have a resume that is tournament worthy. 

So what is "near" their NET number?  

Is 58 'near' 38?

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

Just now, brumdog45 said:

So what is "near" their NET number?  

Is 58 'near' 38?

Yep 

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

1 minute ago, HoosierAloha said:

We could have showed up to the game and competed (lazy take) and wouldn't have to discuss this. We could also test the theory of how much you move up by taking a Q1 team to the woodshed on the road.

My problem is that ultimately we've moved to far away from rewarding wins and punishing losses and moved too much in the direction of ovemphasizing the margin of victory.

At the end of the day, my opinion is that we should be rewarding teams based on their wins and losses relative to their schedule and not worrying about point differential.  No one has ever won a conference title based on point differential.

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

2 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Yep 

On neutral courts, one is safely quad one and the other is quad two.

The two teams I've listed are Michigan and Florida State.  I think right now the prevailing thought is Florida State would just be over the bubble but Michigan wouldn't be in.  Yet a neutral court win over Florida State would count as a Q2 and Michigan a Q1.