Talking Points: Why is IU's NET ranking so bad? Revisiting Big Ten predictions.
BLOOMINGTON – Scott Van Pelt put together a compelling package recently on Big 12 basketball, the NCAA’s NET ranking and how the conference perceived to be America’s best this season effectively gamed the formula to give itself a collective advantage.
I won’t break down all the details here — seriously, you should watch it — but the gist is essentially that the Big 12 figured out the NET leans toward teams with great efficiency margin, scheduled a ton of empty calorie nonconference games, ran up scores as often as possible and boosted everyone’s numbers accordingly. That way, when conference play rolled around, nearly every conference game was a Quad 1 opportunity.
At time of writing, the Big 12 has six teams in the NET top 25, and 10 in the NET top 50.
There’s nothing wrong with what the Big 12 did. The league should, frankly, be commended for such joined-up thinking. It’s just worth referencing now, as Indiana hits the postseason sixth in its own conference, with eight Quad 1+2 wins, four true road wins and virtually no chance of reaching the NCAA tournament without winning the Big Ten tournament this weekend in Minneapolis. Because they sit at essentially the opposite end of the spectrum to the Big 12.
Insider: Senior-day win offers glimpse into future, one that *might* work after all.
'He's been a totally different player.' Kel'el Ware carries IU, rebuilds draft stock
Despite their late-season surge, the Hoosiers struggle in virtually every key computer ranking. Bart Torvik has them No. 78 nationally, Ken Pomeroy No. 86. Crucially, the Hoosiers remain No. 93 in the NET.
No team ranked lower than NET No. 77 (Rutgers, 2022) has ever been selected into the field at large.
It’s not a strength-of-schedule problem. The Hoosiers are 15th nationally in SOS, per Pomeroy. Their nonconference offering is an empty slate because they failed to beat anyone meaningful out of conference, but they also didn’t lose anything unlosable in non-league either, and they at least challenged themselves with games against UConn, Auburn and Kansas.
The problem lies in their efficiency. More specifically, the ways they won compared to the ways they lost. Defeats have been heavy — 20 to UConn, 28 to Auburn, a combined 31 to Nebraska, a combined 41 to Purdue — and wins have been close. Even against guarantee-game opponents, margin of victory did Indiana few favors: six points against Florida Gulf Coast (NET 245), eight points against Army (NET 340), one point against Morehead State (NET 106), and so on.
Per Dylan Burkhardt of UMHoops, IU finished with the third-lowest efficiency margin — adjusted offensive efficiency minus adjusted defensive efficiency — of any Big Ten team in league play. Only one other team, Iowa, finished .500 or better in conference play and finished outside the top six.
All of this contributes to Indiana’s woeful computer numbers, and Indiana’s woeful computer numbers are the thing holding the Hoosiers’ NCAA tournament resume firmly underwater right now. There is virtually no path to an at-large bid for them in Minneapolis because of them.
Now, you might have known that. We even discussed some of it in last week’s Talking Points. But there are a couple of conclusions worth pulling from the data for Mike Woodson going forward.
First, how you win matters. Teams that struggle to make shots, score efficiently or roll up big numbers — even against bad opponents — give themselves a lot more to do on the back end. As Woodson remakes his roster this offseason, he must recognize the need for a more efficient and prolific offense, and recruit accordingly. The Hoosiers cannot be a grind-it-out squad prone to heavy losses more often than blowout wins and expect these formulas to treat them any differently.
Second, is there a conversation to be had somewhere around said formulas, and how they begin to bake numbers in at a time of such constant churn in college basketball? Numbers and trends tell us teams that are overly portal-reliant in terms of raw roster numbers don’t tend to fare well in seasons immediately following significant roster turnover.
Coaches need to be aware of the need for greater synergy right away (to hit the ground running, basically). Figuring things out late in the season probably isn’t overly conducive to robust rankings.
Lastly — and not just related to IU, of course — we ought to ask to what extent we want the Big 12’s apparent scheduling strategy to pay off as it seems to have this season. There are merits to both sides of that argument.
What shouldn’t be in doubt are Indiana’s takeaways. There need to be lessons learned from this season, what strategies help build an appealing NCAA tournament resume, what failings hurt the same and how to best plan accordingly. Of all the ways IU should grow from this season’s frustrations, this might top the list.
Revisiting Big Ten predictions
The most wonderful time of the year. That moment when you realize just how foolish I am.
Here’s how we’ll do this: 1 through 14, we’ll put down the media’s pick, my vote and the final result, for side-by-side comparison. I am ready to be nourished by your hatred and scorn.
Media No. 1: Purdue
Osterman No. 1: Michigan State
Final No. 1: Purdue
Yea, my bad.
I had Purdue No. 2, and still thought the Boilermakers were a contender. It’s just really hard to repeat so I went with a team we all pretty clearly overrated. Ultimately, the Spartans never replaced Joey Hauser or found a consistent offense-defense formula, and as a result wound up among the most disappointing teams in the league.
Media No. 2: Michigan State
Osterman No. 2: Purdue
Final No. 2: Illinois
In my defense, everybody else felt similarly about Michigan State, so I wasn’t alone in overestimating the Spartans. And Illinois was picked fourth, so we’re not far off from the final result there either.
Media No. 3: Maryland
Osterman No. 3: Illinois
Final No. 3: Nebraska
Nebraska snuck up on all of us. Illinois did not.
Media No. 4: Illinois
Osterman No. 4: Wisconsin
Final No. 4: Northwestern
Good for Chris Collins. The Wildcats sustained when a lot of folks, me included, wondered if last season was a flash in the pan.
Media No. 5: Wisconsin
Osterman No. 5: Iowa
Final No. 5: Wisconsin
Not much variance here. The Badgers looked like title contenders for a spell but fell off badly, losing eight of their last 11.
Media No. 6: Indiana
Osterman No. 6: Indiana
Final No. 6: Indiana
And here we all are. This isn’t exactly how we’d have expected IU to land here. And in a normal year, sixth in the league would be a lot closer to the NCAA tournament bubble than the Hoosiers currently are. But in the end, this was the one spot that lined up in all three columns. Any Indiana fan who sees this season as a disappointment is justified. But thanks to the Hoosiers’ late-season surge, it winds up a far cry from disaster.
Media No. 7: Ohio State
Osterman No. 7: Maryland
Final No. 7: Iowa
I obviously didn’t expect Maryland to finish in the bottom four, but I never liked the Terps as high as the consensus did. Turns out even I overrated them.
Media No. 8: Northwestern
Osterman No. 8: Rutgers
Final No. 8: Michigan State
*shrugs*
Media No. 9: Iowa
Osterman No. 9: Michigan
Final No. 9: Minnesota
Ben Johnson deserves a lot of credit for this season. The Gophers were seen as clearly bottom of the pile before a ball was tipped, and they managed to fight their way onto the bubble. They’ve got a lot of work to do in Minneapolis but they’ll have friendly crowds, and if they can find their way to a Friday upset of Purdue, who knows? Not sure he should win it, but Johnson should absolutely be in the final group for coach of the year.
Media No. 10: Rutgers
Osterman No. 10: Northwestern
Final No. 10: Ohio State
My bad Wildcats. That’s on me.
Media No. 11: Michigan
Osterman No. 11: Ohio State
Final No. 11: Penn State
Mike Rhoades made it work faster and better than a lot of folks expected in State College. Ace Baldwin should have a COVID year if he wants one, so there’s a path to improvement next season as well.
None of us saw the Michigan meltdown, necessarily, but results suggest as a voting bloc we were right not to be too bullish on the Wolverines.
Media No. 12: Nebraska
Osterman No. 12: Nebraska
Final No. 12: Maryland
Maryland struggling so thoroughly surprised a lot of folks. Nebraska performing as it did surprised virtually everyone.
Media No. 13: Penn State
Osterman No. 13: Penn State
Final No. 13: Rutgers
With two of the top three recruits in America bound for Piscataway, there’s a more promising future around the corner for Steve Pikiell.
Media No. 14: Minnesota
Osterman No. 14: Minnesota
Final No. 14: Michigan
The opposite is true for Juwan Howard in Ann Arbor. Howard has IMG top-25 forward Khani Rooths lined up, but questions at several other positions. Based on some of the Crisler Arena crowds Michigan played in front of near the end of this season, fan energy around that program is hitting 10-year lows right now. Football is flying high at Michigan, but basketball is sinking fast.
My final All-Big Ten ballot
For transparency’s sake, as always. No deviations between Big Ten and AP ballots. Individual awards specific to one or the other as noted:
FIRST TEAM
Zach Edey, Purdue
Braden Smith, Purdue
Tyson Walker, Michigan State
Marcus Domask, Illinois
Boo Buie, Northwestern
SECOND TEAM
Terrence Shannon, Illinois
Jahmir Young, Maryland
Coleman Hawkins, Illinois
Dawson Garcia, Minnesota
Kel’el Ware, Indiana
ALL-FRESHMAN (BIG TEN)
Mackenzie Mgbako, Indiana
Owen Freeman, Iowa
Cam Christie, Minnesota
John Blackwell, Wisconsin
Gavin Griffiths, Rutgers
Coach of the year: Matt Painter, Purdue
Player of the year: Zach Edey, Purdue
Newcomer of the year (AP): Marcus Domask, Illinois
Freshman of the year (Big Ten): Mackenzie Mgbako, Indiana
Defensive player of the year (Big Ten): Ace Baldwin, Penn State
Sixth man of the year (Big Ten): Mason Gillis, Purdue
Assistant coach of the year (Big Ten): Brandon Brantley, Purdue
Follow IndyStar reporter Zach Osterman on Twitter: @ZachOsterman.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Why IU basketball's NET ranking stinks; Big Ten predictions revisited.
