2023–24 NET Ratings
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
but if they're going to use a new and supposedly improved formula for ranking teams, then that new formula should more accurately reflect the teams that will dance, and the 1st 4 out, etc...
otherwise what's the point of a new formula? a proper formula should almost take the committee out of the equation.
otherwise what's the point of a new formula? a proper formula should almost take the committee out of the equation.
Yes, and most of the posters are still angry about our ranking and big moves, just like a few years ago. The committee isn't picking the bubble teams based on NET ranking.
As fan2011 correctly pointed out, the focus should be on our resume, which arguably looks better than any of the Gilyard-Golden Era years...thanks to NET
Yeah, I agree. We are 6-5 our whatever against Quads 1 and 2, which is one of the best records in that 35+ range, and yet the same system that judges us very favorably there also judges us pretty unfavorably in general, given that. It's weird.
Last edited:
We were only on bubble once during Gilyard Golden years. That was 19-20. I liked our resume back then better. Weren’t we 38 NET? That’s a big difference even factoring that ours will go up if we keep winning. We also had a win over B10 champ Wisco which was major feather in our cap.
The quad 1 & 2 wins overall will be very similar. I agree that is factor let’s hope big factor. Yes if we win out we can arguably be better positioned. If u r comparing our resume now to our final 1 in 19-20 then 19-20 is definitely ahead. If u projecting our final resume this year that’s a little different but idk what u r projecting. Winning out is still a big ask. Would love to see it. Our margin is 1 loss at best imo rest of reg season which is very thin. Winning the A10 outright is what we’re counting on. & I think ncaa committee is more likely to cut a major conf team a break on weaker NET than non major if they both have decent quad 1/2 records. Meaning your NET is less important if u r on bubble and u r a P6 team but I guess i would have to see historical selections on that.
If the NET resume is so good for UR, why doesnt that correlate to a better ranking? That is the reason many see the NET as a shit system. Many teams have resumes that dont justify the ranking, both good and bad.
And you can say the committee doesnt pick teams by NET ranking but if the Spiders NET is near 65 with 6 Q1 and 2 wins, its the NIT.
Because they are meant to measure different things. The NET ranking is supposed to measure how difficult your team is to beat on any given night, and the resume is what your team has accomplished over the season. The selection committee has in the past rewarded teams with good resumes and not necessarily selected the strongest teams.
Turns out you can have better wins than another team, but still not be favored when you play them on a neutral court.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
I saw some infographic a week ago that showed UVA and some terrible Big10 team (can't remember which) were back to back in the NET on a particular date a few weeks before that, then over that time span UVA had gone 6-1 and the Big10 team went 2-4 and the Big10 team had a better NET at the end of it.
in effect, yeah.
I want the committee to pick the field, but I think if they're "improving" the mathematical formula then that formula should come pretty darn close to ranking the at-large teams.
Last edited:
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
According to bracketologist we were indeed 38 NET. We also had 6 quad 1 and 2 wins. Same as we have now. Except in 19-20 3 of those were Quad 1 wins. This year we have 1. So clear advantage quad 1 in 19-20. We can't get another Quad 1 win this year. We do have opportunity for 2 more quad 2 wins, getting us to 8. Of course it's possible those quads change, possibly for the worse, we don't know.
Objectively I don't see us with an arguably better resume than 19-20. I wish we did, and I would gladly say so. But to me 19-20 is just better. Again, there is still resume work to do. If we win out while outright winning A10 I'm very confident we'll get in for instance, and that would be a big resume add. But odds of that r low, but not crazy low I think our team can do it, still a big ask. I'm less confident with 1 more reg season loss, we'd have a case but it would be interesting.
That 19-20 team was solidly in imo. Granted I didn't want to lose that 1st round A10 game. Right to label us as bubble but we were the right side of bubble. Remember Lunardi was kind of a dolt, don't go by him.
When we have the work I think is still required it's hard for me see how our current resume is better than 19-20. Let's just hope we have a strong case and find our way in, that is what matters.
This is indeed a fun team, but u still gotta finish when u would otherwise end up 3 for 19 NCAA. That's primarily on the Moon man. We had that one year we lost to VCU in Brooklyn that cost us bid (1st team out), 19-20 no guarantees but we got screwed by Covid but then had the makeup Covid years. We just don't get the opportunity nearly often enough so we r due with the Bubble...I hope.
19-20 had a NET of 38?? And that team was not guaranteed to be in. Makes you think this years team has little at large selection chance with net of 70 but a 17-1 conference record would be hard to ignore.
Let's say the 25th best team in the country plays nothing but Quad 1 games. They go 11-20 on the season.
The NET should still rank them around #25.
They shouldn't get an at large bid.
The NET should still rank them around #25.
They shouldn't get an at large bid.
Expecting about an 8-spot drop tomorrow and probably the official end of our at-large hopes. Disappointing way to see that happen.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
I'd love to sit on the committee. After awhile, it would be hard for them to breathe, and maybe I could get them to make some changes.
That scenario should not result in a NET of 25. If all of those are close, that team might be higher ranked than expected but no where near 25.
Of course there's no guarantee, but we were in great shape for a bid that year!
79 -> 73 .. (another example of how winning on the road with a high efficiency rating/margin is the magic NET trick it would seem)
Last edited:
For the flip side, see the Spider women who slipped from 49 to 52 after a close home win over an average team. Loyola actually rose from 168 to 161 with the loss.
Yep. I know Mr. Spider was saying u wouldn’t see those jumps this late but u also have…
Pitt up 7
McNeese up 6
Princeton up 7
Wash St up 5
Creighton up 5 (& they had been 18)
What’s in common they all won easily over mediocre or bad teams. Yet u beat a much better team in a close game less benefit.
And honestly, that makes sense. As a top 50 team, we should probably have been able to handle Loyola better than we did. And they did well to play us close on the road.
Yeah, you have to do something extraordinary OR have an unusual sequence of positive or negative results from all the many teams you've played to date, all trending the same way on that night to see a big shift this late in the season.
My comment I believe was on the vcu vs Richmond women's game. We won by about 6 or 7 I believe against a team generally on our level - maybe 20 spots lower. And so that result or similar might not be super surprising, so it won't move the needle too much with 25+ games already played.
VCU drops from 71 to 78 making our loss to them go to Q2.
We jump past VCU and move from 73 to 71 and also pass UCF who lost last night,
We jump past VCU and move from 73 to 71 and also pass UCF who lost last night,
UMass also moved from 91 to 83. If they can get to 75, that would upgrade our loss to a Q2. Regardless, it’s already not a terrible loss other than the fact it happened at home.
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
Quadrant 1 == 1-5
Quadrant 2 == 4-4
Quadrant 3 == 6-0
Quadrant 4 == 6-0
If that is a #26 ranked NET sheet then I'm the King of Denmark. I know the NET lovers will be along shortly to tell me how far off-base I am, I don't care.
Quadrant 2 == 4-4
Quadrant 3 == 6-0
Quadrant 4 == 6-0
If that is a #26 ranked NET sheet then I'm the King of Denmark. I know the NET lovers will be along shortly to tell me how far off-base I am, I don't care.
Again, need to look at more than the meaningless quad tiers, which can give a false separation between similar teams. But those W-L numbers do not look impressive. Margin matters, and it should to some degree. Clearly, NET overweighs margin, though.
Man if only Wichita could be a little better than 2-11 in conference that should be a Q2 loss. Bad luck there
I think you mean, man if only we somehow didn’t lose to a team that is 2-11 in their conference. That game is on us, shouldn’t have to fret how they are doing.
