First NET Rankings-#22

[mcspider]

I would love to see some sort of rule that would require a .500 or better record in conference play in order to make the tournament as an at large team. If they want to take into account games played in conference tournaments, I am fine with that too. I know the big boys will never let that happen though.

 

[SFspidur]

I would love to see some sort of rule that would require a .500 or better record in conference play in order to make the tournament as an at large team. If they want to take into account games played in conference tournaments, I am fine with that too. I know the big boys will never let that happen though.

See, this is how we're getting our money's worth with Lunardi...he's making that case too. Interesting twist that only conference tournament wins would count, not losses. So a team with a .500 record in ACC play, for example, couldn't lose their shot via the conference tournament, but a sub-.500 team could play their way in.

http://insider.espn.com/mens-colleg...ket-implement-tournament-eligibility-criteria

 

[spiderman]

I actually don't think you should penalize a team for playing in a really good conference with a .500 rule. if their overall resume is good enough, let them in. even if under .500 in conference.

 

[fatherspider]

We agree that the system rewards teams for scheduling the best teams. You think that's "bad" and that BYU shouldn't be rewarded with a #23 (now #21) ranking for scheduling, and losing to, the very best. They're still 19-7 against one of the toughest schedules in the country (and as much as we focus on those top 3 losses, they didn't go out and schedule a ton of Quad 4 garbage, either). They're 19-4 against teams that aren't likely 1 seeds in the NCAA tournament.

I guess what I'm asking (and not very well, apparently) is: What's the alternative? Who should be rewarded with a top 25 ranking instead of a team that schedules tough and still wins most of their games? Who deserves it more? What does that resume look like?

Almost all of the teams with more than 19 wins are already ranked higher than BYU. Should it be 21-3 Liberty, with two wins against non-Division 1 opponents? Wright State?

Or do we go the other direction and rank the 10th place team from the Big Ten, at 12-11?

Good points but I think that their NET ranking seems inflated thats all, and I see it as their SOS being very high because of those 3 top seed losses. There is no certainty that they would have beaten three other opponents like say Alabama and Auburn away from home either. And if you swapped those loses their ranking wouldnt be 21 or close to it.

Maybe I shouldnt have said it was a flaw in the system but rather just a glitch that can be used to an advantage

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

The Big 10 is benefiting from basically having their entire conference having a good NET ranking. When a team like Purdue is 14-13 and has a NET of 32, that is just messed up. Big 10 teams can go on 3-4 game losing streaks and basically not lose anything in the NET.

Yes, of course. That is how the NET formula works, like it or not.
I thought by calling BS he was implying some shenanigans.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

See, this is how we're getting our money's worth with Lunardi...he's making that case too. Interesting twist that only conference tournament wins would count, not losses. So a team with a .500 record in ACC play, for example, couldn't lose their shot via the conference tournament, but a sub-.500 team could play their way in.

http://insider.espn.com/mens-colleg...ket-implement-tournament-eligibility-criteria

Well, hopefully his ESPN salary is paying for him to make that case, and not our consulting fee.

 

[SFspidur]

I actually don't think you should penalize a team for playing in a really good conference with a .500 rule. if their overall resume is good enough, let them in. even if under .500 in conference.

Lunardi's argument is that there's data showing these teams may not be as deserving as non-P6 teams that are being left out.

He points to there having been 10 teams since 2014 that would have been disqualified due to his rule, and they went a combined 3-10 in the tournament. Non-P6 at-larges with double-digit seeds have gone 12-12, despite being seeded nearly a full line lower on average.

Alternatively, fix/replace the RPI/NET so that these bad teams aren't rewarded simply for being in a tough conference.

 

[VT4700]

Rutgers sure is being rewarded for being in the Big 10. A 35 NET? They had a terrible OOC schedule. They did beat Seton Hall, but lost to Pitt and St Bonaventure, probably their second and third toughest OOC games. They are 9-7 in the Big Ten, but all they have really done is beat mostly average teams at home, and lost to pretty much everyone on the road. They have one road win all year. And, Purdue is 32 with 13 losses? My goodness, Purdue is two spots away from being a quad one win for Rutgers. Come on.

 

[Eight Legger]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. My general thing is that EVERY team is going to win some conference games and lose some. Clemson or Boston College, which normally aren't too good, always beat some good ACC teams just because. And Duke and UVA and Louisville lose to some bad ACC teams, just because. I don't really like rewarding teams who get a couple really good in-conference wins – simply because they have 18 tries a year – but who otherwise don't show much.

It feels like in the P5 conferences, any team that wins a couple of those kinds of games get a ridiculous amount of credit for it, whereas in a conference like the A1-0, god forbid you are a top 3 or 4 team and you lose a conference game to LaSalle or Fordham. It's like the instant kiss of death.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Yeah, it's ridiculous. My general thing is that EVERY team is going to win some conference games and lose some. Clemson or Boston College, which normally aren't too good, always beat some good ACC teams just because. And Duke and UVA and Louisville lose to some bad ACC teams, just because. I don't really like rewarding teams who get a couple really good in-conference wins – simply because they have 18 tries a year – but who otherwise don't show much.

It feels like in the P5 conferences, any team that wins a couple of those kinds of games get a ridiculous amount of credit for it, whereas in a conference like the A1-0, god forbid you are a top 3 or 4 team and you lose a conference game to LaSalle or Fordham. It's like the instant kiss of death.

In the ACC and Big 10, they now get 20 cracks at it!

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Lunardi's argument is that there's data showing these teams may not be as deserving as non-P6 teams that are being left out.

He points to there having been 10 teams since 2014 that would have been disqualified due to his rule, and they went a combined 3-10 in the tournament. Non-P6 at-larges with double-digit seeds have gone 12-12, despite being seeded nearly a full line lower on average.

Alternatively, fix/replace the RPI/NET so that these bad teams aren't rewarded simply for being in a tough conference.

There is no rule that forces the committee to just take the top 36 non-AQs in NET and put them in the tourney. They're humans and can use their discretion to do exactly what we're all advocating here - they left NC State and Clemson out last season in favor of teams with "worse" NET rankings. So having a great NET ranking isn't necessarily a reward in and of itself.

 

[SFspidur]

Spiders hold at #43.

SLU jumps 10 spots to #69 to push that back up to a Q2 loss.

VCU drops from 49 to 56.

 

[Gallipoli]

Spiders hold at #43.
SLU jumps 10 spots to #69 to push that back up to a Q2 loss.
VCU drops from 49 to 56.

How sweet it is!

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Wow - you got those numbers early! Have you hacked the NET formula?

 

[gcarter52]

I have the numbers too!

 

[Eight Legger]

Down five to 48. Liberty is 49, Virginia 50.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Down five to 48. Liberty is 49, Virginia 50.

Fell behind Alabama, USC, Arkansas, Providence, and UNI.

 

[Eight Legger]

Yeah, back to needing to root for a bunch of other teams to lose again. Fun stuff.

 

[mr.spider]

Yeah, back to needing to root for a bunch of other teams to lose again. Fun stuff.

Nothing really changed last night. Disappointing, of course. Chance to get above the crowd and feel comfortable missed. But I fully expected this to be the toughest of the last 10. So not a huge surprise.

We are fully capable of winning the next 4. Will be a challenge, but it certainly can be done. Then win the quarterfinal game, and then we are talking possibilities and feeling optimistic again.

It does feel frustrating to be 20-7 and having a really good season and still have your back against the wall. This is a ncaa caliber team, which is why it feels demoralizing to still be in such a fight for respect. Just get it done, guys. At-large is still possible, and winning the tournament is doable too.

 

[coach fezz]

I think only NCAA if we win a10 tournament. Very sorry to see big game loss. becomes reputation now.

 

[MrTbone]

I think only NCAA if we win a10 tournament. Very sorry to see big game loss. becomes reputation now.

I don’t think we’re that far yet. We came up big against VCU at home when needed, so this team has shown it can win when needed. But this was certainly a missed opportunity. I don’t think it kills us but our margin is really thin.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

I think only NCAA if we win a10 tournament. Very sorry to see big game loss. becomes reputation now.

I don’t think we’re that far yet. We came up big against VCU at home when needed, so this team has shown it can win when needed. But this was certainly a missed opportunity. I don’t think it folks us but our margin is really thin.

You both make good points. The VCU win was a big win at a big time, but unfortunately they keep losing (and mostly looking bad doing it), which makes it less impressive. Don't get me wrong - that is the only unfortunate thing about VCU losing.

Our two best wins came early in our non-conference, and in our very first conference game.

 

[gcarter52]

The fight that our team has developed will serve them well doing the conference tournament and on to the ncaa's....Go Spiders!!

 

[spider fan]

Need top 4 A-10 finish for the double bye and need to win one, probably two in A-10 tournament. Best case of course is to win three in A-10 tourney and get automatic.

 

[urmite]

Need top 4 A-10 finish for the double bye and need to win one, probably two in A-10 tournament. Best case of course is to win three in A-10 tourney and get automatic.

Top 4 is likely. But I don’t want to win out and end up #4 and facing Dayton in the second game.
We need to beat out one of SBU or URI...

 

[VT4700]

Need top 4 A-10 finish for the double bye and need to win one, probably two in A-10 tournament. Best case of course is to win three in A-10 tourney and get automatic.

We want top 3 finish, not 4. Winning last four, and getting to the conference finals makes us all but a lock. We would clearly be the A-10s second choice if that happens, and 26-8 would be enough. If we win out, but lose to Rhode Island in the semis, we would likley be on the bubble at 25-8, and it would just depend on how we match up with the other bubble teams. I still think we would have a pretty good shot here, but you just never know how all the other teams are going to finish. And, how many one bid conferences turn into two when the wrong team wins their tourney.

 

[SpiderRick]

Do we have any Q1 wins at all?

And I'm curious, have we beaten ANY team in which we were the underdog? I truly don't know but don't recall any.

 

[urmite]

Do we have any Q1 wins at all?

And I'm curious, have we beaten ANY team in which we were the underdog? I truly don't know but don't recall any.

https://bracketologists.com/team/richmond-spiders

Davidson needs up 1 NET

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Do we have any Q1 wins at all?

And I'm curious, have we beaten ANY team in which we were the underdog? I truly don't know but don't recall any.

Rick,
Rhode Island and Wisconsin are Q1 wins. We have won as an underdog three times - those two games, and at Davidson.

 

[gospidersgo]

Down another spot to #49 this morning. Minnesota somehow moved from #51 to #42 with a road quad 3 win at Northwestern.

 

[Eight Legger]

Minnesota has the worst profile of any bubble team. I’m not concerned about them at this point.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Down another spot to #49 this morning. Minnesota somehow moved from #51 to #42 with a road quad 3 win at Northwestern.

It was probably more the nature of the win. Even though margin of victory is capped at 10, there are still efficiency metrics that carry a bigger weight in the NET formula. A 26 point victory is a good way to boost those numbers.
Also, Ohio State - a team Minnesota swept this season - scored a big win against first place Maryland, who the Gophers have yet to play. I'm sure that helped.

But like EL said, their resume isn't great. They're still a .500 team; a high NET isn't going to do them much good.

 

[gospidersgo]

But like EL said, their resume isn't great. They're still a .500 team; a high NET isn't going to do them much good.

I agree and I hope you're right. But I keep seeing them listed as a bubble team or in the next four out on lists and you know they'd love any excuse to include another Big 10 team.

 

[gcarter52]

I am still waiting for the NCAA's projection....private brackets are just that private....I won't be up or down by what they each say!...Keep winning Spiders!

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Ken Pomeroy was the guest (I believe for the first time ever) on the latest March Madness podcast. He was a good listen.
Here are some of the highlights about the NET:

• It's a big improvement over RPI.
• It appears to him that NET weighs margin of victory even more than he does (which is a lot). That is odd because according to the NCAA, MOV is the least important factor in the NET - and we know it's capped.
• As much as certain posters like to whine about how many Big 10 teams are in the Top ___ in the NET, he says it's justified (no, not the whining) and made a good case for why it's actually a good thing for a team like ours. (For reference, KenPom has 12 Big 10 teams in his Top 37.) I'm paraphrasing from memory here - The committee isn't just going to put all those teams in just because they have good NET/KenPom statistical rankings. That's not how they're using the tools. A .500 team with a great NET isn't getting in. But a bubble team who beat one or more of those Big Ten teams in non-conference play should embrace the fact that all those Big 10 teams are lifting each other up, because it makes the bubble team's resume look better - deservedly so. So a team like Richmond, who's best win is Wisconsin, should be happy that the Big 10 has kept their NET in the top 30, even with 10 losses.

Other highlights:
Dayton has the highest 2 point efficiency rating in the 24-year history of his system.
He's a Hokie - I'm sure many of you knew that but it was news to me. He developed his rating system in grad school at Wyoming. Laramie was boring.

 

[97spiderfan]

Minnesota isn't even on the bubble currently. I guess they could win out and make some noise in the Big 10 tournament and put themselves there, but being that they are a .500 team in late February, their record kind of indicates that is not in the cards for them.

 

[9Legs]

The 3 Virginia teams are bunched 49.50,51- How is Liberty so high? UVA is 9-6 versus Quad 1&2 UR 4-6, Liberty 1-1 yet both are ahead of UVA. I don't understand how Liberty could even be close?????

Net Richmond (49) Liberty (50) UVA (51)
SOS 81 295 77
Quad 1 2-4 0-1 3-3
Quad 2 2-2 1-0 6-3
Quad 3 6-1 3-1 5-1
Quad 4 10-1 20-1 5-0

 

[fatherspider]

Are we rooting for Miss St or Alabama?

 

[VT4700]

Good question. I know who we are rooting for. UNC. They lead NC St by 4 mid 2nd half.

 

[VT4700]

We probably want Miss St. Would rather be on the bubble with Miss St than Bama. Let's get Bama the heck out of here so our head to head loss won't be a factor with them.