That is true, but Minnesota's effiency ratings would likely be better playing in WCC, which would improve their ranking. So yes, wins and losses are not a direct input, but it is also indirect. There are many attributes that dictate KenPom, not simply strength of schedule...so it is not crazy to think MN would perform better in metrics if they played in WCC.
This is circular logic. How is strength of schedule determined? Wins and losses still matter. It definitely matters for the Net rankings.
Strength of schedule is determined by the strength of your opponents, which is determined by the strength of their opponents, which is determined by their opponents, etc... which you are right is circular and the ratings have to be iterated (which is what rating systems like KenPom do). As for the Net it is mainly based on adjusted net ratings because Ohio State is still #29 at 11-10. Point being is that Minnesota's current KenPom rating would not really change if they moved to the WCC tomorrow because yes, while their team efficiency would improve, it would be against worse opponents which would offset the improvement. If that were false then there would be a huge market inefficiency in vegas lines against high major and mid major teams (since Vegas lines closely track Kenpom lines).
And that is why the Net ranking needs to be adjusted because wins and losses matter. I don’t care if you lose all your games by 1 point you still didn’t win but your Net could be really good
By that logic, UNC Wilmington, who’s currently 153 in KenPom with losses to UCONN by 36, Oklahoma by 21, and Hofstra by 24, should be ahead of us in the polls because they have a better W/L record.
We are not talking about taking the current ratings and then moving to WCC tomorrow. The theoretical assumption was that MN played in WCC the entire year with their current squad. The strength of schedule would have been worse, but I would anticipate that the efficiency metrics would be substantially better for MN as a whole, thus improving their net ratings. MN's terrible efficiency metrics in non-conference could never be overcome in the B1G and got even worse once league play began. However, I can nearly guarantee it looks much different and closer to 100 than 191 if they played entire year in WCC (assuming they were able to compete for top 4 in the league, which I personally still think is a stretch). When you start winning basketball games, your metrics begin to get much better by nature. Ohio State is a curious case of being propped up because, up to this week, they were only losing close single-digit games to better than average teams (not including terrible loss to MN). MN on the other hand, was getting blasted regularly. I do not think that would have happened in the WCC for them (with exception of possibly playing St. Mary's and Gonzaga), especially as they start winning basketball games. Therefore, it still is not a stretch that Minnesota could have been close to top 100 in KenPom if they played in WCC this year.
A lot of assumption and conjecture here. What is the point of this continued arguing about it? You can say yes it will and more people can say no it wont. I "know" you have no idea how KenPom calculates SOS and adjusted EM. So there.
Efficiency ratings like NET take strength of opponent into account. Instead of getting blasted in the B1G, they might have squeaked out wins in the WCC. But because the strength of their schedule in the WCC is weaker, those extra wins would not help their opponent adjusted efficiency ratings. Playing in the WCC would have no impact on Minnesota‘s NET ranking.
It’s pretty easy to prove otherwise.
Minnesota also beat Ohio State.
I believe we have a real shot at getting as high as a 4 or 5 seed. If Illini can win the remaining 5 home games and win 2 out of the 5 road games, then that would get us to 22-9 (13-7). I think we have a really good chance at a 5 seed if we finish with around 22 wins.We’re up to a 6-seed on Bracket Matrix. The other 6’s? Auburn, Indiana and Duke
no I am saying W/L should be a factor. An ugly win should be rewarded more than a pretty loss and a team should be punished for a bad loss. I think Net overall is good but there should be a way to modify it slightly
Wins and Losses are the primary metric. NET is a tool more so to judge the quality of such wins and losses (and thus strength of schedule) more so than a means of ranking the teams. There's a reason they don't just seed teams in accordance with NET rating and call it a day.
We're going to be the vastly under seeded team this year.
Not if we keep winning…23-8 (14-6 B1G) is probably our ceiling and we would have 15+ quad 1/2 wins..that’s a 3/4/5 seed most likely and would be just right.
This is 100% accurate, and I apologize to the board, because I believe that my statements were causing contention last night, when in fact it was not intended.
Why did you do this to us? I'm now hooked...
