Started By
Message
re: NET Rankings through last night’s games
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:35 am to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:35 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:I think the NET should factor in the efficiency numbers, but they are way too much of a factor in NET ever since they simplified their formula. That’s my biggest issue with NET. It moved more towards the efficiency metrics which ignore wins and losses.
They're ranked high in the NET because their efficiency numbers are super high, which the NET values a ton (and shouldn't, IMHO).
1
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:36 am to Legionfield
quote:
Don’t bring me down, SOG
No need to be down - we have a solid team that has gotten light years better as the year has progressed. Staff has done an awesome job in what everyone knew would be an off year as we waited for another talented crew to come in next year. At this point Oats has shown that his floor for a bad season is a #6-9 seed NCAA Tournament team. Sign me the frick up.
This post was edited on 1/18/24 at 11:37 am
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:37 am to WDE24
quote:
I think the NET should factor in the efficiency numbers, but they are way too much of a factor in NET ever since they simplified their formula. That’s my biggest issue with NET. It moved more towards the efficiency metrics which ignore wins and losses.
100% agree - my shouldn't was specifically to the "ton" part.
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:37 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:So Auburn’s App State loss is a good loss, right?
A road win over #76 shouldn't be a whole exponential amount different than a road win over #75.
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:38 am to SummerOfGeorge
Maybe the 2 polls should have a showdown
This post was edited on 1/18/24 at 11:39 am
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:38 am to WDE24
quote:
So Auburn’s App State loss is a good loss, right?
It's certainly not a terrible loss. Probably wouldn't rise to "good" territory, but far from awful. Appy is a solid, top 100 level team and it was a road game.
This post was edited on 1/18/24 at 11:40 am
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:39 am to SummerOfGeorge
It was Quad 1 2 days ago and may be by next week too
Regardless, it’s a bad loss because I watched how poorly we played.
Regardless, it’s a bad loss because I watched how poorly we played.
This post was edited on 1/18/24 at 11:40 am
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:40 am to WDE24
quote:
It was Quad 1 2 days ago and may be by next week too
Road games are hard. Road games against solid mid-majors in a packed gym who have focused on it since the offseason are even harder. It's most predictable "one team isn't locked in while the other is and all of a sudden you are in a dog fight type games" that exists in CBB. And it's why teams rarely schedule them
.This post was edited on 1/18/24 at 11:42 am
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:41 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
but it doesn't heavily weigh efficiencies
This is my main problem.
I just ran a scenario through Torvik Teamcast where UGA is 22-9 (12-6) and we are still projected to miss the tournament with a NET of 72 and a WAB of 22.
I’m not saying that this would happen, but it just shows how bad the formula is right now. It’s like “You guys won a lot of games and beat a lot of good teams, but your offensive rebound rate wasn’t good enough. Let’s work on that next year.”
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:44 am to diddlydawg7
quote:
This is my main problem.
I just ran a scenario through Torvik Teamcast where UGA is 22-9 (12-6) and we are still projected to miss the tournament with a NET of 72 and a WAB of 22.
I’m not saying that this would happen, but it just shows how bad the formula is right now. It’s like “You guys won a lot of games and beat a lot of good teams, but your offensive rebound rate wasn’t good enough. Let’s work on that next year.”
Yea, I'd imagine that if UGA did win all those games their efficiencies would have had to have increases, so it would be a bit moot. These things do tend to even out as the season goes on, but there are always 3-4 teams that are efficiency darlings that always find ways to lose close games against good teams and are still super high in the NET.
I will say, the committee has seemed to have seen through those types of teams (like it used to with the MVC and MW teams in the RPI era that magically scheduled their way into the Top 30 every year).
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:54 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Yea, I'd imagine that if UGA did win all those games their efficiencies would have had to have increases
I thought so too, but we’re 11-1 over our last 12 and have barely moved up in efficiencies. What it means, I’m not quite sure.
In fact, the only game where our efficiencies did move up a bit was the close loss to Tennessee.
Somehow, we are winning games we aren’t supposed to win but aren’t moving up in efficiencies. It’s maddening.
Posted on 1/18/24 at 11:57 am to diddlydawg7
quote:
Somehow, we are winning games we aren’t supposed to win but aren’t moving up in efficiencies. It’s maddening.
I'd guess because the efficiencies do not like South Carolina, Arkansas or Missouri (especially the last 2). You guys are pretty ranked pretty significantly ahead of Arkansas and Mizzou on Torvik and KP. I'd imagine if you play well over your next 4 you'd get bumped.
Posted on 1/18/24 at 12:06 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
I'd guess because the efficiencies do not like South Carolina, Arkansas or Missouri (especially the last 2). You guys are pretty ranked pretty significantly ahead of Arkansas and Mizzou on Torvik and KP
We weren’t at the time.
Before @ Mizzou
MIZ: 102
UGA: 95
After @ Mizzou
MIZ: 116
UGA: 90
Before @ SC
SC: 54
UGA: 82
After @ SC
SC: 69
UGA: 79
We were supposed to lose both games on the road. We won. Teams move down 15 spots for losing to us but we move up 3-5 for winning. I just don’t know how that’s supposed to make sense.
ETA: it seems we have a habit of winning games in which both teams look bad efficiency wise.
This post was edited on 1/18/24 at 12:10 pm
Posted on 1/18/24 at 12:08 pm to diddlydawg7
quote:
Before @ SC
SC: 54
UGA: 82
After @ SC
SC: 69
UGA: 79
That one is interesting - I did think UGA would get a bit bigger bump after that one.
Posted on 1/18/24 at 12:10 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:Guess not. So if Bama wins, still no good wins amirite?
Is beating a team with no good wins and only good losses really a good win?
Posted on 1/18/24 at 12:13 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
That one is interesting - I did think UGA would get a bit bigger bump after that one.
That game is the reason I’ve been whining so much the last couple days.
I was being patient and was confident it would work itself out, but it seems we have a habit of beating teams in a way where both teams look bad efficiency wise
The same thing happened with FSU. They moved down big time when we beat them on the road but we only moved up a bit. Granted that was earlier in the season when the formula is even more imperfect
This post was edited on 1/18/24 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 1/18/24 at 1:24 pm to diddlydawg7
Won’t pretend to be an expert on NET but I fully believe if Georgia gets to 9 SEC wins they’ll make the tourney. And it’s very doable with the remaining schedule and 3 wins in the bank.
Posted on 1/18/24 at 1:27 pm to Captain Falcon
State largely has not really budged since the start of SEC play. Briefly went up to 27 after beating Tennessee but then back down after Bama. Need to take care of Vandy on Saturday and then another big stretch of games awaits, three Q1 road games and a home game against Auburn in the middle.
Posted on 1/18/24 at 1:44 pm to diddlydawg7
UGA Q1 record is 1-2 and 3-2 in Q2 with losses on neutral sites which kills y’all…in fact, UGA is 0-3 on neutral sites which is a killer
Posted on 1/18/24 at 1:50 pm to diddlydawg7
quote:
FSU
Has terrible losses in Q3. They are 3-3 in Q3 games which anchors them…FSU is a meh win.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News