First NET Rankings-#22
- Thread starter LongTimeLurkerFirstTimePoster
- Start date
Watching Washington State at 13-15 Washington. This is a Quad 1 game for Washington State... LOL. What a f’en joke. The whole NET system is a sham.
You just made my point. Their OOC schedule wasn’t strong enough.
(They were robbed though...some great A-10 wins that year.)
Wisconsin's OOC schedule wasn't too strong this year and they lost a bunch of games but hey, they must have gotten so much better since then, lol.
How did that make your point?
About our schedule? Our season is not over and we still have a chance at a bid. And your point was to get on my memory about A-10 teams gliding to bids with 20+ wins instead of having to win their last few, but it was your memory that forgot about St. Bona. Funny how you questioned my memory, then I proved you wrong with my St. Bona. example, and you responded by saying I proved your point? Good one.
Anyone else think its absolutely nuts that Duke loses to NC State and Wake Forest in consecutive games and does not go down in Net at all. Still at 6. More F'en madness. Shows that there is no chance to have a bad loss.
I can't believe guys like Lunardi are falling for this BS, but I guess his job is just trying to pick the final field not try to justify it.
Right now the crap PAC12 is gonna get 7 teams in... Why? because of inflated rankings like AZ, which boosts the whole leagues NET. Such garbage.
I can't believe guys like Lunardi are falling for this BS, but I guess his job is just trying to pick the final field not try to justify it.
Right now the crap PAC12 is gonna get 7 teams in... Why? because of inflated rankings like AZ, which boosts the whole leagues NET. Such garbage.
Yep. Lunardi, Palm, and others
base their brackets on what they think the committee will do. I think they have questioned the NET in some of their question and answer sessions.
base their brackets on what they think the committee will do. I think they have questioned the NET in some of their question and answer sessions.
My point is that the A-10 is strong enough that a ~22-win team should be feeling very good about getting a bid as long as their OOC schedule was good enough. Bona had a very weak OOC schedule that year (and didn't win their two decent shots against 'Cuse and Hofstra), and they got left out.
Here we are talking about the Spiders potentially being at 24-25 wins and it still being iffy. If that win total doesn't have you comfortably in from the A-10, the schedule wasn't strong enough.
In the system that was used back then, RPI, Spiders would be comfortably in, as they would be this year. Not in the heavily flawed, BS NET.
fatherspider, before I respond, I want you to know where I'm coming from. I think we're on the same side of this issue in a lot of ways. I have a meritocratic attitude about the NCAA tourney. I want more non-P6 representation. I believe the NCAA has generally done a poor job at this. I would much rather see a 20+ team from a "lesser" conference get in than a P6 team that couldn't even win 20 games. The P6 are mercilessly trying to squeeze out the little guys; most notably with the expansion of the conference schedule to 20 games.
Ironically, 2011 - the last tourney we appeared in - was such a divisive (and weird) event for "college hoops nation." On our side, we could point to Butler and VCU and say "look at what happens when you give the non-P6 teams a chance." But that was also the year the Big East set a record with 11 bids. While UConn was the AQ, they were a mortal lock. So the P6 advocates could say "Ha! A team that finished in a three-way tie for ninth in their conference won the national championship." And they've kind of dug in their heels ever since, acting entitled to bids deep into their conference standings.
TBC.....
Ironically, 2011 - the last tourney we appeared in - was such a divisive (and weird) event for "college hoops nation." On our side, we could point to Butler and VCU and say "look at what happens when you give the non-P6 teams a chance." But that was also the year the Big East set a record with 11 bids. While UConn was the AQ, they were a mortal lock. So the P6 advocates could say "Ha! A team that finished in a three-way tie for ninth in their conference won the national championship." And they've kind of dug in their heels ever since, acting entitled to bids deep into their conference standings.
TBC.....
We moved up 1 spot in the NET to #51 after last night's games, passing UVA. Not really sure which results caused that.
Most computer rankings (which is what the NET is) have a MOV component. Especially the predictive ones. RPI does not, that is true. Assuming your apostrophe was intentional, I'm pretty certain (but please correct me if I'm wrong) the committee members have always been permitted to use "various computer metrics" which can include Sagarin, KenPom, etc. when forming their opinions on teams under consideration. Those metrics all use MOV. SRS is pretty much all MOV.
Just to add fuel to the fire, SBU had an RPI of 29 that year and likely would have had a 79 NET.
Not really. It depends on who you beat and who you lost to. Even with the hiccup to Radford, just beating Bama would have put us in great shape right now. But, even as things are now, I still think we are in great shape if we win our next 4. Not all bubble teams can say that. The way the system is set up now, you have to schedule smart. The last thing a mid major wants to do is over schedule and go 8-5 OOC. Even with another good win, that might mean you need to go 15-3 IC.
I would take this schedule every year. We went 1-2 against quad 1 teams OOC and still went into conference play with a good chance at a bid, even with a 3rd loss to Radford. Why change anything? And next year, with some of these teams being on the road, it will be even better from a quad standpoint.
Maybe Dayton's win helping us just enough, and Davidson's loss not hurting as much. I think those are the only teams either of us has played that played last night. But, I guess with the NET every game might have some kind of trickle down effect.
Just to add fuel to the fire, SBU had an RPI of 29 that year and likely would have had a 79 NET.
And I think Tulsa, who somehow got in over them, had an RPI of around 70.
A10 issue is Fordham and LaSalle. These two teams almost always pull down the league. Others have bad years (St. Joes this year), but most of the other teams will be near or top 100 teams most years. LaSalle and Fordham really don’t have the facilities to compete at this level.
Maybe they can beat VCU by more than 10...Davidson dropped 3 spots to 74. Wish they would have lost by less than 15. That crazy margin of victory factor strikes again.
I'm sorry, I thought I had addressed this point when I said "AZ was too high." (AZ was not ranked 7th with 6 Pac12 losses, btw) As of last Sunday, Arizona was 14th in the Massey Composite of computer rankings. The NET had them 8th, which while in the upper part of their range, is not some huge outlier (someone had them 4th). KenPom had them 13th. Sagarin had them 22nd, which is probably more to your liking. ESPN had them 8th. But they're still a solid Quad 1 no matter where they fall in that range.
Auburn was #19 in the Massey Composite: 25 in NET, 33 in KenPom, 24 in Sagarin, 28 in ESPN. The gap is certainly narrower, but all of the "big boys" had Auburn ranked below Arizona, and the NET is not some crazy outlier. Again, the reason Auburn is held down is their 5-0 OT record (those games are essentially ties to the computers), and their OOC schedule. When Richmond is the strongest OOC opponent you faced, you're not going to get a lot of love from the computers.
Yes, I get all that. These computer rankings are a feedback loop. These power conference teams just lift each other up. Inflated NET begets more inflated NETs. Yes. It favors P6. Mid-majors will have a difficult time getting a really good NET ranking. Yes. My question remains: If the committee still "gets it right" in spite of these inflated, crappy NET rankings......so what?
I notice you ignored the main points of my post.
The author of the article you posted explicitly said the NET was better than RPI.
Last year, more mid-majors made the tournament under this "total crap" system than did the year before the total crap system was put in place. How on Earth did the authors of this total crap system allow that to happen?
Clemson and NC State were two beneficiaries of this "total crap" last year. VCU was ranked right between the two. VCU, a mid-major victim of this total crap, was a lock for the NCAA. Clemson and NC State went to the NIT.
Belmont and Temple, two mid-majors, were in the last four in. Their total crap NET rankings were way crappier than several P6 teams that did not make the tournament.
Yes, I understand that. I've already conceded that. That is how predictive computer rankings work. The computers are merely saying that on a neutral court, the higher ranked team is more likely than not going to beat the lower ranked team, according to their model. That's all.
Maybe the 11th best team in the Big 10 really would go 6-4 against 3rd best team from the A 10 on a neutral court. I don't know for sure. Do you?
That's still not saying anything about them being more tournament-worthy.
Who are the victims of this injustice? Was Belmont a victim last year? Temple? VCU?
How are they being injured? By having a NET ranking too low?
Clemson and NC State last year had great, inflated NETs - and they weren't even in the first four out!
Is there some team from a one-bid league with a triple-digit NET that should be considered for a bid?
Rutgers is in the Big 10, by the way.
I don't care that Minnesota has a better NET than we do. Neither does the committee! They are well behind us in every bracket projection. If we get in the tournament, and Minnesota doesn't, yet MN has a NET ranking ten slots higher than we do, are you going to be upset? We shouldn't be upset. We should say, "Hey Gophers, Nice NET. Enjoy the NIT! Have a cookie."
I'm confused. What is a conference tourney game with a mid-major against a P6 team?
This X 1000.
Those that pushed back when we criticized the schedule pre-season would use straw-men like "if we schedule more Q1 games, what makes you think we would win them?" Even Lunardi joked "well you can't just schedule Duke 10 times" - to quote my friend fatherspider, "Not to be a jerk, but DUH."
It doesn't need to be Q1. It doesn't even need to be P6 teams. There are several mid-major Q2 teams in our region. Just shore up the low end of the schedule.
We know going into the season - being in the A10 - we're already going to have some Q4 games. Add two more for the early season tournament. Why schedule three more?
It's baffling we've scheduled four Big South teams in the past two seasons. That conference ain't good. More harm than help. Plus, we're 1-3 against them.
Particularly Hampton. Finding a team that was likely higher than 135 seems possible.
Replacing USA with a Top 75 home game that we were likely to win would be more difficult.
What sucks about them using these metrics is that these do not determine which teams have the best resume over the course of the season based on the only thing that should matter... wins snd loses compared to schedule. These metrics are used to determine which teams are better than others on paper... ie. who would beat who one on one. That should not be the criteria at all in determining who get in tourney.
There does need to be sone limit on just using wins and losses. If you are 25-6 and your toughest opponent out of 31 is Longwood, should you get an at-large? St Bonaventure say yes.
On the other hand, if 23 of your opponents are in the Top 100, and you go 16-15 by playing better than the other bubble teams on 60% of possessions, should you get an at-large? Most fans say no.
We are up 3 spots to #48 this morning, passing Minnesota, Arizona St and Liberty.
Dayton is now up to #3.
Dayton is now up to #3.
Correct. It was fairly easy to figure out how to manipulate your schedule in order to boost your RPI.
I did say “wins and losses compared to schedule.”
There have been teams barely over .500 who got in because of high SOS. I am fine w that as long as they beat some good teams in their 16 wins and didnt lose to a few of the 150+ teams they nay have scheduled and that is what the RPI calculated.
Besides record compared to schedule, what other factors should determine what teams had the better resume? Im not asking what team is likely better but which has the best resume, which should be the only thing that matters.
What about if you play 20 Q1 games and win 6 of them, including 5 at home? That's the kind of team we are up against.
Not sure I am the person to answer your question.
But as to historically, did I read that only 1 team that didn’t win at least 4 more games than they lost got an at-large in the last 25 years? If so, we will see if any of the P6 conferences test that this year...
Who knows whether the author actually investigated the true effectiveness of the NET. He seems to be saying one thing and then just flipping with something else. He doesnt back up the claim that the NET is better w any facts at all and likely is just stating that because other “experts” have and it is here to stay.
I think the committee put the MM’s in that you mentioned to keep the balance acceptable but it wasnt because the crap NET rewarded them. They put them in despite the crap NET because if they stuck w the crap NET rankings the only MM that would definitely get in each year would be the Zags. So you disproved your statement that the Crap NET system produced 7 at-large teams... totally not true. The committee just decided to put them in. And who knows how many MM’s were totally discredited because of the NET and possibly should have gotten consideration.
Tea and what about when 7 of those Quad 1’s shouldn’t even be close to Quad 1’s like Depaul, St. Johns, Minn, and on and on and on.
And what do you know... the amazing 11 NET AZ Wildcats just gave another PAC12 team an incredibly huge resume boosting win. The conference should give them a banner for their amazing contribution to getting 7 teams in the dance from a weak conference.
Yeah, it was a total hack job. Who posted that article, anyway?
OMG that IS my point. I never stated the NET system "produced" 7 at-large teams. The opposite, in fact. The NET...or RPI....or whatever ranking system you want to evaluate doesn't produce at-large teams. The committee does. The NET is NOT a selection system. That is the whole point. Describe it however you want..."put them in despite the crap NET"....fine....the committee doesn't just blindly "stick with the crap ____ rankings." They never have!
You are placing far more importance on the NET rankings than the committee does.
UNC Greensboro was the only MM in the first eight out. Memphis was a 3 seed in the NIT, but had a NET of 46, and two MMs with worse NETs - Belmont and Temple - got bids. So, one.....maybe.
