As of 2/13 the NET on the Insights page is doing what you say it should be: 108.2-96.8 = 11.4. BUT my Net RANK is #57. For what that's worth. Sorry i got past where a screen shot would have shown that it wasn't working properly. Given my record and the level of competition, my NET RANK is WAY too high. I know that's not the issue you're talking about. Just saying.

Ok, so the math on the Insights page was not incorrect, thought I was losing my mind. And we're speaking to the same thing, your NET Ranking is based on an algorithm that accounts for strength of schedule using the Net Rating and game location to place teams in quadrants with various weightings for wins and losses (Quadrant 1 wins on the road weighted heaviest, Quadrant 4 losses at home weighted heaviest). In real life the model factors in margin of victory to a point with a cap in an attempt to prevent teams from running up the score to improve ranking. Obviously it's debatable if any analytics metric is accurate, but the game is doing a calculation in determining your NET Ranking, and the Net Rating on the Insights page is simply a team efficiency metric using offensive and defensive ratings (points/possession x 100) that is involved in the equation.

If you care to I'd love to look at the save and see why you're ranked how you are (https://gofile.io/uploadFiles). I'm sure there is logic behind it.

(Pretty sure I’m the one who was confused initially, muddying the waters and then attempting to clarify, but I genuinely like analyzing things and would be up for figuring out why your NET ranking is better than you feel it should be)

I believe that what Wayne is experiencing is what I've thought with regard to "net ranking" in CB21...that often the net ranking is too high for low prestige programs with weak schedules but good records.

Yeah, I think I just confused things by misunderstanding Wayne's issue, attempted to add clarity to the confusion I added, and ultimately he's where he started. Maybe there is value in my replies to others who read over this thread, but Wayne I'm sorry - I was trying to help but didn't

Attempting to bring things back to the NET Ranking being high for low prestige programs with weak schedules, I think this has to do with WS using their own NET formula; because I can't find the official formula/algorithms anywhere online - it's an NCAA secret.

Now the real formula involves two components; Team Value Index and Adjusted Net Rating. The Adjusted Net Rating modifies the efficiency metric based on opponent and location. The Team Value Index is an algorithm that looks at essentially the same things but has a historical element that favors historically good teams. The Adjusted Net Rating is given more weight than the Team Value Index but the two combine resulting in the NET Ranking.

From what I can tell, and with my curiosity piqued will look into further, the game is using raw Net Rating not an adjusted Net Rating. It's possible an adjusted Net is calculated under the hood however looking at a small sample size of quadrants this doesn't appear to be the case. Another key aspect to overranked small schools would be the Team Value Index. Because that is a complete black box aside from the general description found online, and favors historically good teams, I'd guess this isn't in the games calculation, although some form may be.

If we could force wins on the schedule this would be easy enough to figure out but I will need to do some thinking on a workable methodology in order to truly identify/propose a solution the problem.

Paying more attention to this, I think the easiest fix is using prestige as a substitute for the secret Team Value Index portion of the equation. This would heavily grade high prestige teams preventing low prestige schools from having high rankings with good records.

PointGuard wrote:I believe that what Wayne is experiencing is what I've thought with regard to "net ranking" in CB21...that often the net ranking is too high for low prestige programs with weak schedules but good records.

That's kind of realistic though... look at what happened with Colgate last season. It's an accurate simulation of a flawed metric. Generally it gets more reasonable after a month or two, I don't pay it much attention at the start of a season.

locus wrote:

PointGuard wrote:I believe that what Wayne is experiencing is what I've thought with regard to "net ranking" in CB21...that often the net ranking is too high for low prestige programs with weak schedules but good records.

That's kind of realistic though... look at what happened with Colgate last season. It's an accurate simulation of a flawed metric. Generally it gets more reasonable after a month or two, I don't pay it much attention at the start of a season.

This is a good point, due to the nature of the calculation there is a lot of 'noise' in the rankings for a while. The game may actually be a pretty good representation of the real thing as small schools with good records/efficiency do show up high early in the year but get pushed out later.