First NET Rankings-#22
- Thread starter LongTimeLurkerFirstTimePoster
- Start date
Vandy is 146 and BC 147. At least they are both quad 3 now. The fewer quad 4s, the better.
They're now a quad 1 currently. On the edge and lot of chances before we play them to fall out of it. Then if we beat them they'd likely fall out too. But maybe they solidify their spot in quad 1, better chance at least now having beat SLU on road. I doubt they end up there but if we're in mix I hope so for our sake.
It wasn't all bad. The Vanderbilt win was good, even with their goofy benches at the ends of the court.
Somewhat less significant to us, but LSU still has a ton of games left against the other top 5 or 6 teams in the SEC. Would be nice to see them lose a few of those, which would get rid of VCU's lone Q1 win. And since they beat them at home, it wouldn't take many losses to solidly remove them from Q1.
Since NET ranking is "relative," movement in the NET on an idle night has more to do with what the teams in your vicinity do, than how your opponents did. Providence had a big win last night, and UVA won on the road, so they moved ahead of us.
None of that matters until we beat them.
Which we will.
Right?
Because we are really good against VCU.
Right?
Observations from the NET - some of which are hopeful, some of which should make us nervous.
The ACC only has 3 teams locked in at this point. Does anyone think the committee is going to put in more teams from the A10 than the ACC?
ETSU appears to be solidly ahead of us. We'd really like for them to win the Southern championship. That Q4 loss to Mercer might bite them in the butt, though, and they don't have many resume-builders left.
Like the A10, the AAC has 6 teams in the conversation. Unlike the A10, their first-place team (Tulsa) is their fifth-ranked team in NET. I think the AAC is going to take a lot of the non-power bids.
The WCC may get 3 teams in this year. It would be nice if one of them wins their tournament.
MWC may get 2.
Other than that, it looks like a bunch of one-bid leagues. Only potential bid-thievery I can see is if UNI doesn't win the MVC, maybe Liberty (though I think they're out if they don't win the ASUN), possibly Yale (could the Ivy league actually get two in?), and if someone like Nevada wins the MWC tourney.
Overall, it looks to me like the non-P6 might get more than last year's 7 at larges. Here's hopin'.
The ACC only has 3 teams locked in at this point. Does anyone think the committee is going to put in more teams from the A10 than the ACC?
ETSU appears to be solidly ahead of us. We'd really like for them to win the Southern championship. That Q4 loss to Mercer might bite them in the butt, though, and they don't have many resume-builders left.
Like the A10, the AAC has 6 teams in the conversation. Unlike the A10, their first-place team (Tulsa) is their fifth-ranked team in NET. I think the AAC is going to take a lot of the non-power bids.
The WCC may get 3 teams in this year. It would be nice if one of them wins their tournament.
MWC may get 2.
Other than that, it looks like a bunch of one-bid leagues. Only potential bid-thievery I can see is if UNI doesn't win the MVC, maybe Liberty (though I think they're out if they don't win the ASUN), possibly Yale (could the Ivy league actually get two in?), and if someone like Nevada wins the MWC tourney.
Overall, it looks to me like the non-P6 might get more than last year's 7 at larges. Here's hopin'.
As captain of team Schadenfreude, I will be rooting against LSU in all 4 of their road games against Top 50 NET teams. I also expect you to root for W&M tonight...
Now if VCU adds 3 Quad 1 wins in a row, that won't matter.
If only we had a way to prevent that...
Good for us:
Xavier over Providence
Purdue over Indiana
USF over Memphis
Bad for us:
Oklahoma over WV
Those would be your bubble teams.
In the sense that we no longer have any remaining Quad 1 games on our schedule, yes.
Hopefully, we have reason to worry about the bubble the first week of March. If we play as we played against Fordham in any of our remaining games, we can pretty much kiss the bubble watch discussion goodbye.
I tend to look at the glass as half-full. I much rather win looking ugly than to lose looking good! People are not expecting us do much, we are going to surprise even those who are suppose to be our fans....
That deserves to be a quad 1. They are a good team with a very good coach. We will be underdogs.
Think it was mentioned here before but can't remember, but does the NET rankings take into account margin of victory and losses. i.e. does only beating Fordham by 6 or losing to VCU by 19 have a major impact on the rankings - or is it very minimal? thought margin played a role, but couldn't tell how much of a role it plays. Obviously winning is key - but is beating a team like LaSalle by 20 points help our rating more than beating LaSalle by 4.
Margin of victory is capped at 10. Per this article it is the least weighted component of a team's NET ranking, but the formula is secret so we don't really know exactly how important margin of victory is.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...-bracket-is-built-by-the-selection-committee/
I guess the only way it probably helps more than a little is if you consistently win games by more than 10. So someone like Dayton - who has won 7 out of 11 A10 games by more than 10 points might get a few points boost in the NET. But if you win a game or two here and there, prob not so much.
But I can see it helping/hurting when put head to head with other bubble teams. Not from a net perspective, but just from a committee selection perspective. Don't want to lose to other bubble teams by more than 10.
Up 4 spots last night, moving ahead of Notre Dame, Georgetown, Arizona St. and Virginia.
The 4th-highest ranked A10 team (us) is now ahead of the 4th-highest ranked ACC team (ND). That gives me pause.
VCU fell 8 spots to #42.
The 4th-highest ranked A10 team (us) is now ahead of the 4th-highest ranked ACC team (ND). That gives me pause.
VCU fell 8 spots to #42.
I’m surprised a home loss to a team that was 178 in the NET coming into the game didn’t drop VCU more, even with it being harder to move the needle as we get later in the season.
As for us, I’m sure the committee would find a way to take all four of the teams we moved ahead of before they would take us. Gotta keep winning.
As for us, I’m sure the committee would find a way to take all four of the teams we moved ahead of before they would take us. Gotta keep winning.
Agreed. That's a bad loss. GMU jumped 22 spots, sparing VCU a Quad 4 loss, for now.
Obviously the NCAA doesn't just seed the field straight from the NET, but I just can't see them giving more - or even equal - bids to A10 teams than ACC teams. The ACC had 3 of the #1 seeds last year.
Obviously the NCAA doesn't just seed the field straight from the NET, but I just can't see them giving more - or even equal - bids to A10 teams than ACC teams. The ACC had 3 of the #1 seeds last year.
The NET certainly shows that it Benefits teams that schedule a few great teams and lose to all of them. Evidence is looking at BYU... 7 loses and a NET of 23 but 3 loses are to 3 potential number 1 seeds. Gonzaga, Kansas and SdSU. Loses also to Utah, boise st, san francisco, and st.mary’s.
Best OOC wins were Houston, Utah State and VT.
7 loses for a team in the WCC with maybe 1 signature win doesnt seem like the 23rd best ranked team in the country. Have to think its because of those 3 loses to the top 3 teams that gets them such a high NET. Seems like a terrible flaw in the system but whoever created their schedule should get a call from Hardt.
And while we are at it, how the hell is Stanford “solidly in” at this point. They have one good win... Oregon and one decent win... Oklahoma. Other 4 wins in Pac12 are against bottom dwellers. Lost to Utah, Oregon State and Cal. They too lost to Kansas Butler and Colorado so their SOS looks great even though they lost all of them.
Best OOC wins were Houston, Utah State and VT.
7 loses for a team in the WCC with maybe 1 signature win doesnt seem like the 23rd best ranked team in the country. Have to think its because of those 3 loses to the top 3 teams that gets them such a high NET. Seems like a terrible flaw in the system but whoever created their schedule should get a call from Hardt.
And while we are at it, how the hell is Stanford “solidly in” at this point. They have one good win... Oregon and one decent win... Oklahoma. Other 4 wins in Pac12 are against bottom dwellers. Lost to Utah, Oregon State and Cal. They too lost to Kansas Butler and Colorado so their SOS looks great even though they lost all of them.
Last edited:
father you just set forth why I don't like the NET, I believe it is to slanted for the P6 teams -- where do the top 10 teams come from, generally the P6 conferences, who gets to play them at least twice a year in most cases. When the top 10 refuse to play the mid-majors they get zero chances.
The ACC is way down this year. It’s Duke, Louisville, FSU (who can never be trusted), and then a bunch of meh. I think most the rest of the ACC would be with us, VCU, and URI behind Dayton but a tier above the rest in the A10.
What you're describing isn't the fault of the NET, it's just big schools behaving badly. They would do that whether we had the NET or not.
Is the NET really slanted for P6 teams? The #1, #2, and #5 in NET are non-P6 teams. KenPom has those three teams at #4, #2, and #6. Massey Composite has them at #5, #2, and #7. So, relative to most other computer ranking systems, the NET actually appears to be slanted in favor of the non-P6 teams, at least at the top.
In the first year of NET, 7 non-P6 teams got at-large bids. The last year before NET, only 5 got bids.
I still believe this year there is the potential for at least 7 and maybe more.
Look, I have no vested interest in defending the NET. It's only in its second year, and it's just a tool. But so far, the evidence doesn't suggest a P6 bias, at least not in comparison to the alternatives.
The Big 10 is making hay out of the NET, when 75% of the conference has a NET in the Top 40, every game is a Quad 1 opportunity. And teams the Ohio State, Michigan, and Minnesota who have losing in conference records are somehow still considered safely in the tournament.
I would love an additional rule that says you have to finish .500 or above in conference to be eligible for the NCAA.
I would love an additional rule that says you have to finish .500 or above in conference to be eligible for the NCAA.
Hey we're 35 in RPI. Maybe we don't realize it changed and we scheduled to the old RPI. Brilliant!
Just saw that myself. Interesting! Ten spots ahead of VCU. I like this RPI stuff...
SBU is counting their Quad resume using RPI, instead of NET, especially since they are 64.
You're 100% correct about the ACC being way down this year. But the ACC is likely to get better than they "deserve" just based on their pedigree. The committee isn't supposed to do that, but history suggests they will.
I was out with a bunch of guys last night, all college basketball fans, almost all from P6 schools. (No, not just the ACC) We talked about this very issue, and consensus was that the committee will probably "reach" on a couple of ACC teams, not at the expense of mid-majors, but at the expense of some of those sub-.500 Big 10 teams that the NET seems to love so much.
I agree but when a team benefits just because they played great teams and lost, it doesnt make sense. So right now, if UR scheduled gonzaga instead of Alabama away, we would likely have a much higher NET even though both games were loses. The WCC teams like BYU and St. Mary’s are killing the NET because they play and lose to Gonzaga twice since it makes there SOS much better. Its a bad system.
Neither team has played Gonzaga twice, yet.
I'd argue that BYU has a great NET because they played the 8th best non-conference schedule in the country, beating Houston, Utah State and Virginia Tech in the process.
St. Mary's went 4-1 in Q1 & Q2 non-conference games, beating Wisconsin, Arizona St., Utah St., and Nevada.
Contrast that with a team that only played three Q1/Q2 games in their OOC.
They challenged themselves in non-conference play, and are being rewarded for it. That has some merit.
Last edited:
I think u just proved my point... they have the 8th best rated ooc schedule because they played Kansas and SDSU, losing to both. I think scheduling great teams and sacrificing a couple loses then schedule some cupcakes and a couple mid level teams is a great strategy. Stupid that it is though.
My point didnt relate to St Mary’s per say though I believe that there SOS gets a big boost because they play GU twice each year... but since u mentioned them, they lost to Winthrop and Pacific and all of the wins you mentioned may be quad 1 or 2 but non are very impressive. We know Wisconsin is only good at home. Utah St is 9-5 in the MW. Nevada is having a down year compared to recent years.
Last edited:
Choppin, you make valid points, but according to my count 33 of the top 40 are P-6 teams, only 7 are non-P6. Gotta believe their 33 IC opportunities for 6 conferences result in a greater number of Q1 & 2 opportunities than the 7 in the other 27 ? conferences. Look not naive, any system is going to favor the P-6 conferences, and they likely have the better teams most years. But things can be done to counteract the padding of NET rankings by losing to a bunch of top ranked teams, the suggestion above is one I have advocated for years. If you don't finish in the top half of your conference win the auto or you don't make the dance.
I 100% agree with you there. Still don't see what that has to do with NET, though.
Every ranking system has that bias.I guess I'm not sure what you're advocating here? Don't play good teams, because that is "stupid?" Scheduling a bunch of cupcakes and going 13-0 OOC is better than losing a couple of marquee games?
What is "bad" about a system that has ranked a couple of mid-majors ahead of traditional powers?
It sounds like you are unimpressed with BYU's resume, and even less impressed with St. Mary's. BYU is 5-7 in Quad 1/2 games. St. Mary's is 7-4. Who are the teams that are more impressive, and more deserving of being #23?
I would only like to see some guards put in so the mids have at least a fighting chance to make the dance.
