2023–24 NET Ratings
- Thread starter SFspidur
- Start date
Yes, with the loser being on the bubble, probably playing in Dayton. Although, Dayton's star has fallen.
Not a chance. Imo. Its sad that the pundits already decided the field two months ago.
Is the Mountain West really that much better that they deserve 6 teams? I dont think so. The A10 top floor home and home would hold their own against MW top 6 but its already been decided I guess.
Last edited:
8legs1dream
Graduate Assistant
It's a damn shame that the 2019 novel Coronavirus put the brakes on the beginning of a MWC/A10 Challenge. Bonehead Bernadette already had to release TWO official statements last week, one about UMASS leaving and the other about the Davidson women season shutdown so that's more work than she is used to doing in a year so don't count on her getting the conference a boost from a challenge like this.
The A-10 need to be talking loudly about our league. The A-10 is not a one big league and you have a team that is leading having gone 17-2 since Mid December and barely even being mentioned with the bubble.
Meanwhile you have teams like Wisconsin, who is 2-7 in their last nine. UVA who scraped by a a bunch of mediocre ACC teams and then gets hammered when it plays anyone remotely good. 25 point loss to Duke, 34 to a Tech team that isn't even an NIT team, losing at home to Pitt.
And yet both of these are still easily in the field. Make it make sense.
Meanwhile you have teams like Wisconsin, who is 2-7 in their last nine. UVA who scraped by a a bunch of mediocre ACC teams and then gets hammered when it plays anyone remotely good. 25 point loss to Duke, 34 to a Tech team that isn't even an NIT team, losing at home to Pitt.
And yet both of these are still easily in the field. Make it make sense.
Gonna have to rant a little bit about net here. I’m in a group chat with a lot of my tech basketball friends so we talk about this stuff quite a bit. Net might actually be the most backwards metric I can think of. In what world does it make sense that beating poopy joes day care academy by 50 makes you a better team than beating an actual good team even by a small margin. This whole margin of victory thing it’s based on is stupid because once teams get up by a certain amount garbage time results really don’t matter so no need to take them into account. needs to be a cutoff with the system once you’re up by a certain amount.
The A10 is actually a prime example of how stupid the net is. You have Dayton who I’m not denying is a good team but is somehow in the top 40 of the net when we’re 70th or whatever??? Dayton played the same group of teams we did and lost more games oh and also lost to us head to head but somehow is 30+ spots better???!!! That makes ZERO sense. If that’s the case then why even play the games? Just put 68 teams in the field at the beginning of the season and go from there. No system is perfect but the old rpi was better because it was more about who you played and who you beat, which is how it should be. Instead we value all these efficiency metrics, bpi, kpi, spi, fbi, HPV, whatever other gobbledy gook they throw at us.
Don’t believe me that the net is stupid? Go look at the net rankings the last few years and the teams all these metrics love typically haven’t fared very well in the tournament. College basketball and sports in general were fine the way they previously were. We just had to let these nerds who eat sunscreen for breakfast and haven’t came out the basement in 15 years come in and ruin sports for us. Games aren’t played on a math worksheet. I could go a lot further into this like how the acc really isn’t that bad a league but is viewed by the net and all these other metrics as a trash league. I’ll sum it all up by saying we need to just bring rpi back; this really isn’t meant to be super complicated.
The A10 is actually a prime example of how stupid the net is. You have Dayton who I’m not denying is a good team but is somehow in the top 40 of the net when we’re 70th or whatever??? Dayton played the same group of teams we did and lost more games oh and also lost to us head to head but somehow is 30+ spots better???!!! That makes ZERO sense. If that’s the case then why even play the games? Just put 68 teams in the field at the beginning of the season and go from there. No system is perfect but the old rpi was better because it was more about who you played and who you beat, which is how it should be. Instead we value all these efficiency metrics, bpi, kpi, spi, fbi, HPV, whatever other gobbledy gook they throw at us.
Don’t believe me that the net is stupid? Go look at the net rankings the last few years and the teams all these metrics love typically haven’t fared very well in the tournament. College basketball and sports in general were fine the way they previously were. We just had to let these nerds who eat sunscreen for breakfast and haven’t came out the basement in 15 years come in and ruin sports for us. Games aren’t played on a math worksheet. I could go a lot further into this like how the acc really isn’t that bad a league but is viewed by the net and all these other metrics as a trash league. I’ll sum it all up by saying we need to just bring rpi back; this really isn’t meant to be super complicated.
Last edited:
I'm good, brooklyn! thanks. I'm just typically unplugged on weekends. Great game!
We are now 7-5 in Q1/2 games. Here are all the teams between NET 25 and our current NET ranking (70) who have at least 7 Q1/2 wins AND a winning record in those games: Nevada, South Carolina, Northwestern, Washington State, Utah State, FAU, Villanova.
Of those, only Nevada (7-3), South Carolina (7-3), Washington State (6-4), Utah State (7-4) have winning records on the road. Our road record is 7-4.
RPI currently rates the A10 as the #7 league in the nation. The ACC is #6.
Of those, only Nevada (7-3), South Carolina (7-3), Washington State (6-4), Utah State (7-4) have winning records on the road. Our road record is 7-4.
RPI currently rates the A10 as the #7 league in the nation. The ACC is #6.
I continue to believe outside of Top line NET number our profile looks very good. Think we are going to get a hard look if we win out to the A-10 final.
If we don't, then the committee clearly only looks at NET and nothing else, which is not what it has claimed. We are currently in the top 35 in RPI, which should still count for something if in fact all these rating systems are "only" tools. If we end up 16-2 or even 15-3 and the champions of a top-8 league in the country, that honestly should be enough.
We have a prime “this is a really good mid-major, great resume, so we rewarded them with a first four out” kind of resume.
We are currently 56 by RPI, but I agree our general metrics outside of NET look pretty darn competitive, or certainly will if we keep winning.
Wake Forest is 2-9 on the road. 3-11 road/neutral.
But yeah, lock.
But yeah, lock.
RealTimeRPI.com has us in the top-35 range, so i guess there's a little deviation, but yeah, it's a more reflective metric at least for us.
Yes, 100% agree with this. A full-on PR campaign from the A10 office should currently be ongoing, on behalf of UR and Loyola. National broadcasters got an up close look at the league's top 4 teams this weekend and came away with nothing but praise.
Talking points:
#8 conference
UR - 17-2 in last 19 games
Loyola 15-3 in last 18 games
#8 conference
Both: Beat Dayton
Both: underlying numbers don't show how good these teams are bc they rely on defense (KenPom 34UR/33LUC), their pace is slow (KenPom 136UR/183LUC) and therefore they play/win more close games.
#8 conference
UR - recent tourney success as a low seed.
Loyola - recent immense tourney success.
#8 conference
Loyola - Sister Jean
UR - Jordan King, former walk-on
The ACC has been talking non stop for the month about the Big 12 manipulation of the NET. Why are they doing that? To get more ACC teams in the tournament. Haven't heard much from anyone in the A-10. Needs to start with Mooney taking the bull by the horns and saying we deserve to be in.
McGlade should be going on every national radio show she can find this month and launching a social media campaigns with some video snippets explaining the strength of our teams. It doesn't take much to get things spread nationally. It's low-hanging fruit. Do it.
Katz gets it...Spiders at 27, Loyola at 28, Dayton MIA.
www.ncaa.com
Arizona, Baylor rise in first men's college basketball Power 36 of March
Andy Katz breaks down the latest Power 36, top 10 games to watch, team of the week and player of the week for March 4.
www.ncaa.com
Since the NET was created, the at-large bid trend has been:
- NET in the 40's, you're most likely in
- NET in the 50's, it's a true toss up
- NET in the 60's, you're most likely out.
I believe only 2 teams who had a NET in the 60's made it last year (Arizona State at 66 and Pitt at 67) and only one in 2022. We're at least in the realm of possibility currently sitting at 70, but still have tons of work to do to really get on the bubble.
- NET in the 40's, you're most likely in
- NET in the 50's, it's a true toss up
- NET in the 60's, you're most likely out.
I believe only 2 teams who had a NET in the 60's made it last year (Arizona State at 66 and Pitt at 67) and only one in 2022. We're at least in the realm of possibility currently sitting at 70, but still have tons of work to do to really get on the bubble.
Even the 40s are a toss-up.
2023
30s: 8 of 9 at-large candidates got bids (#38 North Texas missed)
40s: 6 out of 10
50s: 1 out of 4
60s: 2 out of 10
70s: 0 out of 10
2022
30s: 8 out of 10 (#39 Oklahoma missed)
40s: 4 out of 9
50s: 3 out of 8
60s: 1 out of 8
70s: 1 out of 10
2023
30s: 8 of 9 at-large candidates got bids (#38 North Texas missed)
40s: 6 out of 10
50s: 1 out of 4
60s: 2 out of 10
70s: 0 out of 10
2022
30s: 8 out of 10 (#39 Oklahoma missed)
40s: 4 out of 9
50s: 3 out of 8
60s: 1 out of 8
70s: 1 out of 10
Last edited:
Is there a website that easily shows this info? Just heard the generics on a podcast and was curious to look deeper into.
Of the teams currently in the 50s and 60s of the NET, really only a handful even have a realistic shot at an at-large right now, I would say:
52 JMU (maybe, but a longshot)
53 Northwestern
55 Grand Canyon (maybe?)
56 McNeese (maybe?)
64 Oregon (though national guys are saying they are out right now)
So in reality, we aren't behind 25+ teams, we're behind maybe 5 or 6 outside of the top 49.
52 JMU (maybe, but a longshot)
53 Northwestern
55 Grand Canyon (maybe?)
56 McNeese (maybe?)
64 Oregon (though national guys are saying they are out right now)
So in reality, we aren't behind 25+ teams, we're behind maybe 5 or 6 outside of the top 49.
Bottom line is we never should have let nerds and all their numbers ruin college sports. Eye test is still the best way to decide if these teams are good or not. I realize you have to use some kind of tool but net sucks, rpi was a hell of a lot better.
https://bracketologists.com/ makes it super easy for the past few seasons. Use the date dropdown to go back to Selection Sunday and the list is color-coded by type of bid.
As mentioned several times already in this thread and others...the computers love of Dayton is interesting. Outside of A-10 play (where they have come back to earth recently) the Flyers beat LSU, St. John's, SMU, and Cincinnati. Zero NCAA tournament locks in that group. They had losses against Houston and Northwestern. You can make a very honest case that they don't have a win over one NCAA tournament bound team yet they are inked into everyone's brackets, rankings, and metrics.Katz gets it...Spiders at 27, Loyola at 28, Dayton MIA.
Arizona, Baylor rise in first men's college basketball Power 36 of March
Andy Katz breaks down the latest Power 36, top 10 games to watch, team of the week and player of the week for March 4.
This is a great way to keep mid majors out of the tournament. We don’t get nationally televised games, less opportunities to pass the eye test.
I mean I think the tournament should have a lot of the 15 and 16 seed type of leagues not qualify automatically. That would help solve the issue.
The NCAA should penalize those teams in the Power Conferences that pad their results by playing sub-300 teams. They currently reward this malign behavior.
The NCAA is a monopoly that increasingly serves the interests of the P-4 conferences. The Net ranking is a just a statistical justification to allow the P-4 conferences to push "other" conferences out. If the "other" conferences push back, the P-4 guys will just take their marbles and go play elsewhere. This is just another nail in the coffin of the NCAA.
How do you explain the mountain west being so well regarded by the net then? And also the acc which is historically the best basketball league in the country and not even bad this year somehow being valued so lowly by the net?
Again, good concept to apply margin/efficiency to the metrics, but they over did it. I've also argued that there should be a max margin credit. No difference between winning by 30 vs 20 for example.
I think the field should be expanded to 96 teams. There are many good teams that are left out as it is. That's still only about a quarter of the teams getting in. There would still be arguments about the 97th team that should get in, but realistically that team may have had a good season but not a fantastic season. That and NO TEAMS with sub .500 records in conference allowed.
Don’t agree with expanding at all. Just the current set up needs to be restructured. First step is what you said; a max margin of victory because you’re right, there really isn’t any difference between winning by 20 and 40. Next would be to cut out a lot of the autobid leagues. No more meac, swac, big sky, probably CAA as it currently sits, c-usa, maac, nec, summit league, patriot league, Ivy League teams need to automatically make the field. If they can qualify as an at large then great. Last step and I realize a lot will disagree with this but it’s the most logical would be to have something automatic for at large bid teams in power 5 leagues. Simplest way to do this is if you’re a power 5 team and win 20 regular season games you should automatically be in. Nothing is perfect but this is better than what we have now.
How many Division 1 teams were there when it went to 64. What percentage was that 64, and how many now to have that same percentage?
Almost all of our games and any A-10, Mountain West game are on TV, lots of opportunities if you are on the committee to see games on any teams close to the bubble. If we win out and they keep us out after going 20-2 over our last 22, playing in the 8th hardest conference, it will be because of looking at things like the NET which clearly many of the BCS programs have figured out how to make their number look pretty in that.
hate your idea of reducing auto bids. why? to get the 5th best A10 team added? like they earned it?
our auto bid when we were the 15 seed beating Syracuse would never have happened under your proposal.
UMBC over UVA
FDU over Purdue
Saint Peters over Kentucky ...
the greatest upsets in NCAA history don't happen without autobids.
