The Net rankings are losing my trust

dogie · Post by **dogie** » March 10th, 2024, 8:22 am

SwaggieAggie wrote: ↑
March 7th, 2024, 9:26 am
A win isn’t a win unless you win by 20.

I think the NET algorithm must not even consider the concept of a win or loss.

cval · Post by **cval** » March 10th, 2024, 8:31 am

Nope. W/L means nothing. Only how far you RUTS.

Ignoring who won the game (the whole purpose of playing) is a serious flaw in the system.

FloridaAggie13 · Post by **FloridaAggie13** » March 10th, 2024, 8:35 am

We are several spots below a team we swept.

FL350Aggie · Post by **FL350Aggie** » March 10th, 2024, 8:45 am

Gotta love the inevitable drop after a Q1 win at home.

utaggies · Post by **utaggies** » March 10th, 2024, 9:05 am

This late in the season the results of a single game is not going to have a tremendous effect on NET movement. RUTS certainly has an effect. But here’s the secret sauce to the NET recipe: beat the spread and move up; fail to cover the spread and move down. The Aggies were a 3.5 point favorite last night and didn’t cover. The net result (did anyone catch my cleverness?) is that USU moved down.

Here’s an interesting tidbit. TeamRankings ranks the Aggies as the #6 team in the conference behind all the likely suspects (Ken Pom does likewise) but the most likely to win the conference tournament.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-baske ... rm=Utah+St.

NVAggie · Post by **NVAggie** » March 10th, 2024, 9:17 am

Stats are for losers

Sl7vk · Post by **Sl7vk** » March 10th, 2024, 9:35 am

utaggies wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 9:05 am
This late in the season the results of a single game is not going to have a tremendous effect on NET movement. RUTS certainly has an effect. But here’s the secret sauce to the NET recipe: beat the spread and move up; fail to cover the spread and move down. The Aggies were a 3.5 point favorite last night and didn’t cover. The net result (did anyone catch my cleverness?) is that USU moved down.

Here’s an interesting tidbit. TeamRankings ranks the Aggies as the #6 team in the conference behind all the likely suspects (Ken Pom does likewise) but the most likely to win the conference tournament.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-baske ... rm=Utah+St.

Did Kansas beat the spread yesterday? They moved up 3 spots after losing by 30.

Edit. Whoops got it backwards. They moved down.

NVAggie · Post by **NVAggie** » March 10th, 2024, 9:36 am

Maybe their efficiencies in that loss made the difference?

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » March 10th, 2024, 1:24 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 8:20 am
Yup we dropped and New Mexico improved. Their algorithm is seriously flawed.
We are behind a 17-14 Villanova team.

It looks to me like both teams' ratings remained basically unchanged. USU dropped one spot because we got passed by Nevada and Texas Tech while Florida dropped below us. Meanwhile New Mexico got passed by Colorado and Indiana State.

And if anything, this is evidence that the algorithm worked. The computers thought USU would win by 3.5, which was almost our exact margin of victory, so it stands to reason that both teams' ratings should remain unchanged. Also, a reminder that the NET is a rough measure of relative strength and that small movements are essentially meaningless, particularly when our tournament ticket is already booked.

Sl7vk · Post by **Sl7vk** » March 10th, 2024, 1:52 pm

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 1:24 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 8:20 am
Yup we dropped and New Mexico improved. Their algorithm is seriously flawed.
We are behind a 17-14 Villanova team.
It looks to me like both teams' ratings remained basically unchanged. USU dropped one spot because we got passed by Nevada and Texas Tech while Florida dropped below us. Meanwhile New Mexico got passed by Colorado and Indiana State.

And if anything, this is evidence that the algorithm worked. The computers thought USU would win by 3.5, which was almost our exact margin of victory, so it stands to reason that both teams' ratings should remain unchanged. Also, a reminder that the NET is a rough measure of relative strength and that small movements are essentially meaningless, particularly when our tournament ticket is already booked.

Vegas thought we would win by 3.5. Don’t need the computers if we already have sportsbooks.

Coloraggie · Post by **Coloraggie** » March 10th, 2024, 1:58 pm

When I look at NCAA Net I see New Mexico dropped 2 spots and USU dropped 1. I would say with our 2 point win when favored by 3.5 that neither of our teams actual score moved a lot. USU got passed by Nevada with their win against UNLV. New Mexico got passed by Colorado and Indiana St who both had wins. It shows that the raw scores are very close in these ranges.

Aggie84025 · Post by **Aggie84025** » March 10th, 2024, 2:37 pm

Just glad NM stayed a Q1.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » March 10th, 2024, 4:07 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 1:52 pm

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 1:24 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 8:20 am
Yup we dropped and New Mexico improved. Their algorithm is seriously flawed.
We are behind a 17-14 Villanova team.
It looks to me like both teams' ratings remained basically unchanged. USU dropped one spot because we got passed by Nevada and Texas Tech while Florida dropped below us. Meanwhile New Mexico got passed by Colorado and Indiana State.

And if anything, this is evidence that the algorithm worked. The computers thought USU would win by 3.5, which was almost our exact margin of victory, so it stands to reason that both teams' ratings should remain unchanged. Also, a reminder that the NET is a rough measure of relative strength and that small movements are essentially meaningless, particularly when our tournament ticket is already booked.
Vegas thought we would win by 3.5. Don’t need the computers if we already have sportsbooks.

Vegas makes money. They adjust the odds to prevent anything else happening: thus, the likeliest thing that just happened is the casinos, etc chose a spread the Lobos were likely to cover without winning. Has nothing to do with any other math than the house winning.

StanfordAggie · Post by **StanfordAggie** » March 10th, 2024, 4:12 pm

USU78 wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 4:07 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 1:52 pm

StanfordAggie wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 1:24 pm

Sl7vk wrote: ↑
March 10th, 2024, 8:20 am
Yup we dropped and New Mexico improved. Their algorithm is seriously flawed.
We are behind a 17-14 Villanova team.
It looks to me like both teams' ratings remained basically unchanged. USU dropped one spot because we got passed by Nevada and Texas Tech while Florida dropped below us. Meanwhile New Mexico got passed by Colorado and Indiana State.

And if anything, this is evidence that the algorithm worked. The computers thought USU would win by 3.5, which was almost our exact margin of victory, so it stands to reason that both teams' ratings should remain unchanged. Also, a reminder that the NET is a rough measure of relative strength and that small movements are essentially meaningless, particularly when our tournament ticket is already booked.
Vegas thought we would win by 3.5. Don’t need the computers if we already have sportsbooks.
Vegas makes money. They adjust the odds to prevent anything else happening: thus, the likeliest thing that just happened is the casinos, etc chose a spread the Lobos were likely to cover without winning. Has nothing to do with any other math than the house winning.

Anyone with even basic knowledge of statistics and predictive modeling can build a model to predict point spreads within a couple points of Vegas. Vegas will adjust the odds slightly to keep betting even on both sides of the line, particularly for bigger games. But they can't go too far from what the computer models predict or everyone with any knowledge of statistics will take Vegas to the cleaners.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » March 10th, 2024, 9:25 pm

It's still an unscrupulous business, just like the sorry NCAA.

Upcoming Events

Event Results