The fact that they are listed at 25-1 to win it all shows how much stock the “experts” put into these rankings. Do they even watch the games? This team stinks.
First NET Rankings-#22
- Thread starter LongTimeLurkerFirstTimePoster
- Start date
I know the NET is not an absolute, but it is a major major influencer. In most cases they use it to determine who is in and who doesnt have a chance.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.
The point of this initial discussion was that the NET is flawed in its ranking of some teams and how those inflated rankings inflate other teams ranking, all of which are only in P6 conferences. My point has always been that the system is very flawed.
I think we agree on much here, Dont really understand where we disagree anymore lol so I think we move on.
4 teams right now. We'll see.
If they get 7 in, I'll buy you a drink.
When Stanford beats Colorado tonight, I'm going to say a prayer for you though......I worry your head might explode.
Yes I posted that. Courtesy of jerry palm. It was Georgia back in 2000 or 2001. They also had an insane ooc SOS that he said won’t be beat.
I don’t think we’ll see one this year. U would have to be 3 games or less over .500. The main candidates would seem to be Purdue or MN and I don’t see it happening. If they get in they’d be above that threshold.
5 teams are in now and UCLA is almost a lock IMO after last nights win and being first in the conference. I have to think that every regular season champ in PAC12 has been invited. Horrible OOC but leading the league should mean that the league sucks and most teams in it are over rated. Looking at the PAC12 every single team should be on the bubble except Oregon.
And if it wasnt for this crappy NET lol they would be.
UCLA is still out of most brackets. I realize there is some updating to do.
If they do get in, I gotta believe it will be at the expense of another Pac-12 team.
Wait a minute, didn't you just say a team with a NET over 60 has no chance? UCLA is at 75. How are they a lock?
Good point. Because they are about to win the regular season championship and i cant see them leaving out the champs of the All Powerful PAC12.
UCLA has 45,500 enrollment and about 500,000 living alumni. Lot of NCAA eyeballs
If they win PAC12 reg season outright and dont get a bid Bill Walton will blow up his bong and spend an entire 40 minute game whining about the injustice of his beloved bruins.
I think UCLA has at USC to play. A week ago I knew I wanted UCLA to win. Now?
Im exploding. These “locks” in the PAC12 are losing to every single bubble team. Crazy
Agreed. It is crazy.
Wichita State escapes Temple last week and SMU today.
ESPN calls this the wildest bubble in years. That's not just clickbait.
It really shows you that many of these P6 teams are very mediocre this year. Everyone of these teams in the PAC12 except a couple should be on the bubble, except Oregon maybe. They are all mediocre and it is showing. The whole conference has 10 losses or more practically.
LOL. Yes, Walton will go off on the "CONFERENCE of CHAMPIONS" winners being left out. That guy is crazy. I was listening to a clip in which he was talking about scaring his grand kids - telling them about crushing there bones and drinking there blood - and after a couple minutes the guy doing the game with him says: Bill we just missed two minutes of game action.
But yes, with our lack of relevancy and powers that be against us, we are in a tight spot.
And predictably, you know exactly what is going to happen when 6 or 7 PAC 12 teams make the tournament...there will be 1 or 2 left after the first round.
Seriously, how can Duke lose 3 of last 4 to unranked teams and not drop a single spot in NET? Absolutely insane.
And Arizona loses 3 in a row and drops only 3 spots and is now 11 with a record of 19-10.
Even more insane.
This system blows my mind. Somebody please explain the madness behind it.
And Arizona loses 3 in a row and drops only 3 spots and is now 11 with a record of 19-10.
Even more insane.
This system blows my mind. Somebody please explain the madness behind it.
Unless they play against 11 loss teams from the Big10 or Big12.
Last edited:
Steady at #48 after Sunday's games. We passed Rhode Island though which could be important, but got passed by Minnesota. Fatherspider you'll love this - Minnesota lost to Wisconsin, Wisconsin dropped 3 places from #27 to #30 and Minnesota (13-15) moved up 3 places from #49 to #46.
GO FIGURE!!! This doesn't add up at all. This is a mostly rigged system, something must give.
Minnesota could be #10 in the NET, it doesn't matter. They're not moving up on the list that matters.
That is beyond ridiculous. So frustrating how the NET puts so much weight on margin of victory and efficiencies. Wisky beat Minn. That is all that should matter!!
Agreed I'm not concerned with Minnesota stealing our spot, just pointing out an oddity I noticed.
I do think there is at least a small issue with a ranking system where you can win a game (which is the ultimate goal of sports) and move down while the team you beat moves up. Seems like the value of the actual win should outweigh any other metrics.
13-15 Minnesota is ahead of 22-7 Richmond and 21-7 Virginia in the net. Big Ten teams get more credit for beating 13-15 Minnesota than ACC teams get for beating 21-7 Virginia. Big Ten teams that we are on the bubble with could get a quad one neutral site win for beating 13-15 Minnesota in their conference tourney. 
It seems the closer we get to the end of the season, the worse NET gets. I was cool with it for awhile this year, but this is getting absurd.
Yep... this is what I’ve been saying. Whats worse is that a lose to Minnesota will not affect your ranking at all. Nothing is a bad loss and everygame is a good/great win. But as Choppin keeps impressing upon us, its just a measure and hopefully the committee sees thru it. Im not so convinced.13-15 Minnesota is ahead of 22-7 Richmond and 21-7 Virginia in the net. Big Ten teams get more credit for beating 13-15 Minnesota than ACC teams get for beating 21-7 Virginia. Big Ten teams that we are on the bubble with could get a quad one neutral site win for beating 13-15 Minnesota in their conference tourney.
One thing it does say is that if we do win our remaining reg season games with a win or two in the tourney to get in, we could make some noise. These P6 teams are mostly mediocre.
What's most annoying to me about the computers rating the Big 10 and Pac-12 so highly is history.
The Big 10 hasn't produced a national champion in twenty years. The Pac-12 drought is even longer!
I realize it's just current year data being plugged into their algorithms, but come on.
Well, I can explain the Duke thing pretty easily, but I think your question was rhetorical.
Arizona? I got nothin. Overrated.
How can you explain the Duke thing?Well, I can explain the Duke thing pretty easily, but I think your question was rhetorical.
Arizona? I got nothin. Overrated.
Having UCLA leading the PAC12 after such a horrible ooc with a 75 net, should say one thing about the rest of the league... it is weak and the other teams arent very good. Buttttt Noooooo. That cant be the caee.
That is exactly how they would view the A10 if one a team has a poor OOC and then rises in conference. They would sat the whole conference is weak.
The NET is an absolute F’en joke!!!! How is that possible? Because they kept the game close. Holy crap!!!
And it does hurt us because we would be 47 at least. And every single thing that happens affects everything else. What a damn disgrace this ranking system is.
OK, I'll give it a go. Sorry, it's long. [Here is the tl/dr version: Duke didn't drop after going 1-3 because all of the teams immediately below them also **** the bed]
We have to agree on two things for it to make any sense:
- The Top 5 have been pretty stable for the last few weeks, forming their own tier: Baylor, Kansas, Gonzaga, SDSU, Dayton (in any order).
- To drop Duke from #6, you have to move someone else up to #6.
If we knew the NET ratings, I bet they'd form a bell curve like most other ratings systems - which usually means the teams at the very top and bottom are more "spread out" than the mediocre teams in the middle. I'll save that for maybe another post, fan2011 can either back me up or shoot it full of holes.
But it's important here.This was the "2nd Five" the day before Duke lost to NC State:
6 - Duke 22-3
7 - Maryland 22-4
8 - Arizona 18-7
9 - West Virginia 19-7
10 - Louisville 21-5
It's conceivable with only 3 losses that Duke was nipping on the heels of the Top 5 and had a little distance between themselves and #7-#10. Maybe you flip them with MD after the NC State loss, but you're not dropping them further. I already know how you feel about #8.
Then what - MD loses that Saturday, Duke wins, and you flip them back?The day before Duke lost to Wake:
6 - Duke 23-4
7 - Arizona 19-8
8 - Florida St. 24-4
9 - Creighton 21-6
10 - Maryland 22-5
Hmm. You gonna put the Seminoles at #6? Maybe.
And finally, before Duke-UVA:
6 - Duke 23-5
7 - Florida St. 24-4
8 - Creighton 21-6
9 - Maryland 23-5
10 - Louisville 23-6
That same day, FSU lost to Clemson. Creighton got blown out by St. John's. Maryland got blown out by Michigan St.
The three teams right below Duke before they went 1-3?
Maryland went 1-2.
AZ went 1-3.
WV went 0-3.
And that's why Duke didn't move down. Who else could be #6?
I suspect the gap between Duke and the Top 5 is wider than it was two weeks ago.
Last edited:
That actually is a decent explanation and thank you for it but if accurate, all it really does is make it more obvious that the entire system and possibly all systems of its kind are complete BS.OK, I'll give it a go. Sorry, it's long. [Here is the tl/dr version: Duke didn't drop after going 1-3 because all of the teams immediately below them also **** the bed]
We have to agree on two things for it to make any sense:
One of the things that has always bothered me about the NET is that we don't actually know what a given team's "NET" is! They don't publish the NET score/rating/whatever you want to call it, they just sort the teams 1-353 and put out the list. I don't know why they do this; perhaps they figure some math nerd will back into their formula if they publish the ratings? Most major computer rankings publish the number that their rankings are based on - for KenPom it's Adjusted Efficiency Margin, for example. With NET, we just get the rankings - no number. So it's very possible - I would even say likely - that Duke's "rating" actually fell, but the teams from #7-#10 weren't doing anything to stake a claim for #6. I believe I asked you after Duke lost to Wake, "Who should be #6?" It's not easy to answer that!
- The Top 5 have been pretty stable for the last few weeks, forming their own tier: Baylor, Kansas, Gonzaga, SDSU, Dayton (in any order).
- To drop Duke from #6, you have to move someone else up to #6.
If we knew the NET ratings, I bet they'd form a bell curve like most other ratings systems - which usually means the teams at the very top and bottom are more "spread out" than the mediocre teams in the middle. I'll save that for maybe another post, fan2011 can either back me up or shoot it full of holes.
This was the "2nd Five" the day before Duke lost to NC State:
6 - Duke 22-3
7 - Maryland 22-4
8 - Arizona 18-7
9 - West Virginia 19-7
10 - Louisville 21-5
It's conceivable with only 3 losses that Duke was nipping on the heels of the Top 5 and had a little distance between themselves and #7-#10. Maybe you flip them with MD after the NC State loss, but you're not dropping them further. I already know how you feel about #8.
The day before Duke lost to Wake:
6 - Duke 23-4
7 - Arizona 19-8
8 - Florida St. 24-4
9 - Creighton 21-6
10 - Maryland 22-5
Hmm. You gonna put the Seminoles at #6? Maybe.
And finally, before Duke-UVA:
6 - Duke 23-5
7 - Florida St. 24-4
8 - Creighton 21-6
9 - Maryland 23-5
10 - Louisville 23-6
That same day, FSU lost to Clemson. Creighton got blown out by St. John's. Maryland got blown out by Michigan St.
The three teams right below Duke before they went 1-3?
Maryland went 1-2.
AZ went 1-3.
WV went 0-3.
And that's why Duke didn't move down. Who else could be #6?
I suspect the gap between Duke and the Top 5 is wider than it was two weeks ago.
Does the same explanation pertain to how WV is still 21 at 19-10 after losing 6 of last 7 games? Only a few behind them played well enough to get above them over these last 3 weeks?
These rankings are created by self imposed geniuses who think they can cure all complications through a math formula and all just accept their formula results as truth, when they are far from it. Many want to believe their formula is telling the truth as to what teams are most worthy because it is simple to agree and to question them complicates matters.
But they are very flawed.
One thing to keep in mind is that the NET is a tool that is used by the selection committee, it is not the end all, be all of what gets you in. How much they use it I'm sure depends on how they're comparing teams directly. Just like SOS, record, conference strength, etc.
+1. We are getting way too caught up in the NET. It is just one evaluation tool. I think our road record, lack of bad losses (save Radford, which is Radford wins Big South isn't going to be viewed as such) and if we do finish second in a well respected A-10 this year will way in our favor.
I think there is no way, the A-10 is 1 bid league this year. We have 7 teams in the Top 100 NET, and we only get 1 bid. I think the A-10 gets two bids and possibly 3 if someone besides Dayton, us, or Rhody wins the A-10 tournament.
Jerry Palm answered some interesting questions on NET today, you can learn a hell of a lot more from Palm than you can from Joe freakin' Lunardi that's for damn sure.
I think all know that it is a tool not the end all but I think we all agree that it is a major tool since it is THE NCAA's metric.
My personal discussion here is only stating the obvious madness of the system and pointing out obvious wrongs, not because I think that the NCAA is only using the NET to select teams but just because.
Just go to his twitter page. It was Q&A on there, he does those occasionally.
https://twitter.com/jppalmCBS?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Bob Black actually displayed a really good understanding of the process this morning.
While he acknowledged some of the NET rankings are baffling, he remarked that they are a very small part of the human committee's evaluation of teams.
"Various computer metrics" (of which the NET is but one) is literally the last item on the list of resources at the committee's disposal.
While he acknowledged some of the NET rankings are baffling, he remarked that they are a very small part of the human committee's evaluation of teams.
"Various computer metrics" (of which the NET is but one) is literally the last item on the list of resources at the committee's disposal.
Similar threads
