First NET Rankings-#22
- Thread starter LongTimeLurkerFirstTimePoster
- Start date
It sort of feels every year like the committee will make a questionable decision or two every year by letting a mediocre P6 team in over a very good mid-major team and then cite whichever stats or metrics are in their favor while ignoring the rest.
But he did seem to fade a bit as he started to say the PAC12 deserved 9 teams around 9:30
i agree Ply... just looking at the proposed brackets you see that they are used to a high degree. There are so many teams with almost the same exact records in P6 conferences and some are locks w low seeds, some are on the bubble and some are not even in the discussion and it seems to be all because of the ranking.
Last Year's Bubble (last four in are in order, I don't know about first four out)
----------------------Last Four In
47 Belmont
56 Temple
63 Arizona St.
73 St. John's
--------------------First Four Out
60 UNCG
52 TCU
59 Alabama
54 Indiana
----------------- NIT 2 seeds (not necessarily next 4 out, but illustrative)
33 NC State
53 Creighton
38 Texas
35 Clemson
In most cases they do what now?
All the NET discussion has me wondering - has anybody reverse engineered this thing yet to at least get close to figuring it out. I'm sure people smarter than me have tried to take a stab at this, anyone seen anything?
They don't publish the NET ratings, so I can't imagine where one would start. While we know Kansas is #1, we have no idea what their "score" is.
Yes I get that. But we know most of the factors that go into it and we can see the movement up and down based on results so I was just curious if any stat geeks had cracked the code.
And where does Davidson land? Still top 75, or did this margin of victory issue hurt us last night?
Not out yet, but all the more reason to root for them on their senior night.
Can they end better than 75 with 3 losses to UR?
we don't get the numbers, don't understand how they are arrived at and in the end, the committee will make the final decision based on human gut feelings, using all of those numbers as excuses BUT we are discussing at large with this team, it has been a while and it feels good.
Spiders up to 42! Moved past Oklahoma, Alabama, Providence, Wichita, Minnesota, and Arkansas.
Davidson slips two spots to 76. Duquesne up to 89.
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
Davidson slips two spots to 76. Duquesne up to 89.
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
That was a huge move at this point in the season. If we can keep our Net in the low 40s I think we are in. We just need to keep on winning.
I don't think our NET score is gonna mean that much to the committee. Look at the NETS of who made it last year vs who didn't. St. Johns and Arizona St had NETS in the 60's and 70's and made it while NC State and Clemson had NETS in the 30's and didn't.
Think the committee is much more nuanced with their selections and I think we have a lot of those factors in our favor (overall record, road record, strength of league, number of wins should all be positive factors for us).
We HAVE to win our final game and first game in the A-10 tourney at a minimum though to continue to feel this way. A win in the semi's to me would certainly lock us into the field in my opinion.
Think the committee is much more nuanced with their selections and I think we have a lot of those factors in our favor (overall record, road record, strength of league, number of wins should all be positive factors for us).
We HAVE to win our final game and first game in the A-10 tourney at a minimum though to continue to feel this way. A win in the semi's to me would certainly lock us into the field in my opinion.
Also, LaSalle is 160 and Mason is 161. We want them to be 160 or higher for quad 3 home games. Along with Davidson, where these three teams finish could be huge. One of the Davidson games will be quad 2 regardless. And the road games at LaSalle and Mason are quad 3. So, with those six games, we could do as well as:
1 quad 1, 1 quad 2, and 4 quad 3s, or as bad as 0 quad 1s, 1 quad 2, 3 quad 3s, and 2 quad 4s.
Right now, with those 6 games, we have 0 quad 1, 1 quad 2, 4 quad 3, and 1 quad 4. Our team sheet is 2-2, 2-4, 10-1, and 9-0. It would be nice to get that third quad one win, and keep our quad 3 and quad four wins in single digits.
Last edited:
Sure, but everything else being equal, I'd sure rather have a NET of 42 than 48. We're in the range where we need every scrap of benefit we can get.
No question about it. We want every thing they look at to be as good as possible. Overall record is really good, road record is really good, we have a really good out of conference win, our out of conference schedule is acceptable, and we can finish second in our conference, only behind a dominant Dayton team. Even though they might take NETs in the 50s, and leave out NETs in the 30s, we might as well hope to get our NET into the 30s so we can have that going for us as well.
If Dayton beats Rhode Island tonight we finish 2nd in the A10 regular season. How does the committee leave out the 2nd place finisher in the 8th best conference in America?
You're right, and yet it is ridiculous to think that how NET quantifies teams like these two should have any bearing on whether we or anyone makes or misses the tournament. Yet, here we are.
LaSalle and Mason are better then 200+ NET teams and light years better than 300+ plus NET teams. Yet, the net treats them the same for home wins if they are 161 or higher. They really need another category for 200-plus or 250-plus Net. We've got all these quad four wins, but four of them are in that 161 - 200 range while other teams have seven or eight higher than 200.
It won't.
That whole argument is just silly. The committee isn't going to say "Well, they beat 161 George Mason twice.....no, hold the phone! GMU is 160!!! That changes EVERYTHING!"
Small school with small fan base that doesn’t travel well to games. Those are the real qualifications behind the selection committee decisions. Any of us that own or run a business know this is how it really works.
I agree we have to at least win two more. Away against the Dukes is a must. They are a pretty good team and senior night is always an emotional one. It will be a battle I believe.
97 just pointed out that St. Johns and Arizona St had NETS in the 60's and 70's and made it while NC State and Clemson had NETS in the 30's and didn't.
so why are you guys so worried about daily NET changes?
so why are you guys so worried about daily NET changes?
I think you are wrong. The NCAA has created a box system to simplify matters. You are right that they will not think of the actual ranking number of the teams we beat but that actually proves the point. They will only look at the Quad wins and not the number associated with that Quad game at all.
A computer is likely spitting out the resume of each team based on Quads... 3-2 Q1, 3-4 Q2... etc. I don't see them delving into where each teams ranking actually is and if a team is 76 it is a Q2 game and that is all they will see.
I just saw a segment with Steve Lavin saying which teams are in or out and all he did was repeat their Quad 1 record each time. Do you think he looked deeply into how close those games were to being Q2, or if the teams they beat actually deserved the ranking? Of course not. If we only show 2 Q1 wins we are going to have a hard time getting in.
Last edited:
This should be very close to one of the things the committee gets...
https://bracketologists.com/teamsheet/richmond-spiders
Last edited:
Because we follow all things Spider basketball - our record and results, opponents results, NET, etc. If the NCAA uses it in some way to help pick tourney teams why wouldn't we follow it? We know it's not the be all end all.
I dont think that is very promising and it shows how important it is to have teams that are right on the border between Quads to rise. This doesn't show that two of the Quad 2 games are one ranking spot from being a Quad 1. Or that 3 of the Q4 games are one spot from being Q3 and the committee won't care.
I think that they put St. John's and AZ in last year is a bad thing for us because it was likely that they each had a bunch of Q1 wins. A bunch of bad losses but a bunch of Q1 wins, just like every other team in the P6.
Maybe you can say that they don't look at NET ranking that much but I think the Quad system is likely the most important criteria they use now. And because even the worst P6 schools have decent NET every single one of their games is Q1 or 2. But I've said this a hundred times and if you choose not to believe it them so be it. Its as obvious as Joe Lunardi's speech impediment.
<Sigh> I know I'll never convince you, and our athletic department lickspittle is going to like every post you make disagreeing with me.
But Jerry Palm just did a Q&A and he said pretty much word for word what I've been saying to you the past week or so. You don't think he knows how it works either?
And no, I don't think Lavin looked that closely. He's not on the committee.
The committee spends a lot of time on this.
Last edited:
to me, we look just like Joel (tom cruise) in RISKY BUSINESS, when the princeton rep, visiting his home during the escort party, looks over his resume and states pretty good work but not quite princeton material now is it to which Joel responds, sometimes you just have to say what the fu$$, looks like the university of illinois!
Last edited:
Similar threads
