Does anyone think the Net rankings assign too much weight to efficiency numbers and overall margin of victory? Alabama is ranked 9th after their loss to us last night. Their resume includes 4 Quad 1 wins and 7 double digit losses. Only 1 of their Quad 1 wins was by double digits. Two of their Quad 1 wins were marginal victories against teams (Auburn & Florida) that later demolished them. The eye test indicates that they are receiving an inordinate amount of credit for their offensive efficiency numbers and their margin of victory over poor to middling teams. Auburn is another good example as they are ranked 5th. They are 1-7 in Quad 1 games. Their only win is Alabama. I’m a believer that the best teams actually win the big games, but the rankings don’t seem to agree.
I'm thinking the same thing. In both NET and Kenpom, Bama getting blown out by the Gators barely affected their ranking. And moved us up only a trifle. But ask any bookie in Vegas... would you still bet on Bama over Florida straight up?
The problem with the Vegas argument is they go off the same types of efficiency ratings that NET partially uses. NET isn't perfect, but show me a computer ranking that is. In Bama's case, the bigger issue arguably is recency bias, or lack thereof. Alabama has lost 4 of their last 6, while NET doesn't consider date/order of games. IMO that's why there's a bigger discrepancy in their ranking versus how we see them today.
