Recursively. That sounds like a word John Hardt would use even tho he doesn't know what it means.
Key Games -- NET standings and eventual bubble implications ..
- Thread starter Section9.RowD
- Start date
Do you think it's possible to find 10-15 ridiculous rankings in the old RPI system? That's probably one of the reasons why a new system was conceived.
Problem is that it may be just a tool but if a team is out side of their box to even consider, which UR is near, the tool is all that matters. Same goes for teams inside their box. It is a tool pretty much only for bubble teams from 40-60. If a team is 70-75 they are virtually dead in the water and they wont even look at the actual wins and loss, Q record. Same goes for teams ranked 35 and below. They are automatically in.
But in NET there are so many very bad rankings, because of the MOV/efficiency nonsense that even teams ranked in the 30-40’s are beyond questionable, same w teams in 60’s and 70’s.
Alright SF, what's the worse ranked NET team to make the NCAA tournament? I think there have been teams in the 70s get in previously?
Rutgers at 77 a couple years ago I believe. Michigan State (70) and Wichita (72) got in the COVID-shortened year before that.
In general, I think the NET seems to be a pretty good system for ranking teams.
But there's no doubt you can find some strange cases if you look for a few minutes. I saw that San Francisco has a NET of 57, despite being 1-6 vs quad 1+2, and 11-0 against quad 4.
But there's no doubt you can find some strange cases if you look for a few minutes. I saw that San Francisco has a NET of 57, despite being 1-6 vs quad 1+2, and 11-0 against quad 4.
Which supports that NET is but one of many data points considered by the Selection Committee.
Yep, there's certainly good correlation between NET and bids, but it's far from the only criterion. You might get an outlier in the 30s that doesn't get in, there's the gray area in the 40s and 50s where some get in and some don't, and then the outliers on the other side that get a bid in the 60s or even 70s because the committee liked something else about them.
Similar patterns holds with RPI, KenPom, etc., as at the end of the day it's a bunch of humans making the decision based on a variety of factors and opinions, not just going down some authoritative list.
Similar patterns holds with RPI, KenPom, etc., as at the end of the day it's a bunch of humans making the decision based on a variety of factors and opinions, not just going down some authoritative list.
The NET exists because the NCAA wanted more attention and needed something of its own that was a “tool” in the decision making process. The NCAA achieved its goal since so many of you are wrapped around the axle on this topic. Just my $0.02.
I think the concern is that since the NCAA developed the NET, it sure seems like it wants to use it more than any of the other rating metrics, even though it claims not to do that. So if NET doesn't like your team, it feels like an uphill battle to make the tourney. Obviously there are examples where that hasn't been the case, but if they were happy with the other options, there would be no NET.
Actually I think they do claim it. The NCAA has said NET is their primary barometer. Not the only one, but their top tool.
simple. because as I've said, the NET benefits teams who run up scores.
I get it. some want to always "play until the whistle". I'm old. I believe in some sportsmanship. when the game is unofficially over and a lesser team concedes and pulls their starters ... the lead team does the same. when you're up 15 and the shot clock is off, you hold the ball and don't shoot a 3 or try to dunk.
I look at the NET and I don't see improvement over the RPI. I see Richmond beating the #16 team in the country and it having no effect.
Xavier is 10-10 and 2-7 in Quad 1 games. what seems more reasonable ... 73 (RPI) or 52 (NET)?
I watched Villanova a couple times. 83 (RPI) seems about right. 49 (NET) doesn't.
Big 12 has 5 of the top 20 teams in the NET. They have 2 in the top 20 RPI.
I understand that concern, and I have it as well, which is why I suggest a cap of some sort to the efficiency calculations. Clearly, in my opinion, the huge blowouts that result in big jumps indicate something needs adjusting.
I'm always pleased with our teams, especially the women, when they dribble out the clock on the last possession with a lead. This is one of very few gripes I've had with Coach Rousell. He seems to want the team to push on even on that last possession (maybe for learning/practice purposes idk), but I love that the ladies ignore him and dribble it out. I think Coach has given up on that one now.
The RPI was also an NCAA created tool for the same purpose. They just updated their tool and renamed it.
Yes. And the NET is way more than just your raw ranking. Each team has a SOS, relative ranking and success for each of those Quads. So, yes right now St. Bonny is one ahead of us in the ranking but if you look into the details of that ranking, the committee is going to see we have a much better resume. Which is why each year, there are teams with NET in the 40 that get left out and teams in the 60's that get in.
The NET to me is like your SAT score. It is an objective measure that you can compare against others. But one person may get into a school with an SAT score of 1200, if they have a bunch of extra-curriculars, sports, etc.. that they were both involved and excelled in. Meanwhile, a kid may have an SAT score of 1250 and not get into the same school because they did not have all of the other stuff that the kid with the 1200 did.
The NET isn't perfect but it is also just a tool, not a complete picture. If we show up at Fordham tonight and crap the bed, we also probably won't be obsessing over our NET tomorrow either, so hopefully our guys take care of business.
Totally agree. Don't crap the bed. Just keep winning.
“Beat the life out of ranked teams?” I guess thats a typo
Spiders soar from 70 to 68 but more importantly stay perfect in the A10. Pitt 5 point win over Wake gets the Annoying NET award for the day since they moved up more than we did when we beat Dayton.
Updates in RED below.
Updates in RED below.
Thursday 2/1 - Fewer relevant games tonight for us but here is a short list
Tulane (119) at SMU (39) - First how in the world is SMU 39 in NET? 0-2 Q1, 1-4 Q2, 4-1 Q3 - insanity. Go Greenwave - beat the Methodists.
Coastal Carolina at JMU (67) - CC is at 326 so hopefully assuming JMU doesn't win by 40 they lose ground and we pass them tonight.
Wisconsin (11) at Nebraska (60) - hopefully Badgers win by 20.
Seattle (130) at Grand Canyon (47) - Grand Canyon is 19-2 and another team we really want to lose a game or two before their conference tourney so no chance of a bubble snatcher from the WAC.
Oregon (56) at USC (98) - Go Bronnie.
San Diego at San Fran (58) - Go Toreros.
Tulane (119) at SMU (39) - First how in the world is SMU 39 in NET? 0-2 Q1, 1-4 Q2, 4-1 Q3 - insanity. Go Greenwave - beat the Methodists.
Coastal Carolina at JMU (67) - CC is at 326 so hopefully assuming JMU doesn't win by 40 they lose ground and we pass them tonight.
Wisconsin (11) at Nebraska (60) - hopefully Badgers win by 20.
Seattle (130) at Grand Canyon (47) - Grand Canyon is 19-2 and another team we really want to lose a game or two before their conference tourney so no chance of a bubble snatcher from the WAC.
Oregon (56) at USC (98) - Go Bronnie.
San Diego at San Fran (58) - Go Toreros.
I don't know. Every female I have met from Grand Canyon has been smoking hot.
Funny. No. I know them personally. I have clients in Arizona. And no they were not prostitutes.
Actually I was combining that joke with the fact that 90% of Grand Canyon student are online only, like Liberty and University of Phoenix.
None of last night's night games based on my scan of scores went the way that was better for UR. Argghhh .. just got to keep winning. Go Spiders.
I can legitimately say that I dont think you would find nearly as many so egregious. This MOV and efficiency crap is making me scratch my head. At least with RPI if two teams have similar resumes, they usually have a similar ranking. With RPI, you can compare teams through the Q system and see similar resumes and see crazy ranking discrepancies.
Last edited:
Bonnies or Flyers?? I think Id want the Spiders to be the only team besting the Flyers. And we dont want Dayton win turning into Q2.
I was of the same mindset but I'm not sure what's right. If we end up winning the A10 regular season, I feel like that gives us a pretty good calling card for the NCAA. So if Bona had won, that would have given us effectively a three-game lead on the entire league. But if we need that Dayton win as a super quality one, we need them to keep winning.
We want Dayton to keep winning until they play us again.
So long as we also keep winning so we can stay ahead of them.
Whats really hurting us or will hurt us is the downside of the A10 this year. Just looking at NET right now - probably no one other than Dayton cracks top 50. We are fortunate VCU should stay strong and we get them again, but then not so lucky Davidson, who is playing bad this year. Just not any really good opportunities for UR to get another good win, but many opportunities for bad losses. And we have no one really on our OOC that we beat we can hope will pull us up at some point. UNLV and Charlotte are both around 100.
Our path to the NCAA right now is accumulate as many wins as possible, and then likely make the A10 tourney title game (depending on how many wins we get in regular season).
If we go 16-2 or 15-3 in the A10 which would put us in the 23-24 win section before A10 tourney and don't make it, you could blame our OOC as much as you could blame the poor A10 this year. With that many wins in the A10 - I would lean towards the A10 being down as the bigger issue. Cause even with our weak OOC, we still had a chance to pick up a 2nd Dayton like win vs. Florida and Colorado.
Our path to the NCAA right now is accumulate as many wins as possible, and then likely make the A10 tourney title game (depending on how many wins we get in regular season).
If we go 16-2 or 15-3 in the A10 which would put us in the 23-24 win section before A10 tourney and don't make it, you could blame our OOC as much as you could blame the poor A10 this year. With that many wins in the A10 - I would lean towards the A10 being down as the bigger issue. Cause even with our weak OOC, we still had a chance to pick up a 2nd Dayton like win vs. Florida and Colorado.
We didn't have a weak OOC, we just failed to take advantage of any of the opportunities. We had 5 Quad 1 and 2 games, we just went 1-4 against them. We go 3-2 against those 5 and we are in a lot better shape right now.
Top to bottom, the A-10 isn't really down by recent standards. KenPom has it as the 8th rated conference, which is the best it's been since it was 8th in 2016–17. The last time it was higher was 7th in 2014–15.
The issue seems to be, however, that the improvement has come more from the bottom end rather than the top end. SLU at #238 is the lowest-rated A-10 team in KenPom, which is quite good historically. We've generally had at least one team at 250+ each season.
At the top, aside from a couple of our lowest seasons, we've generally at had at least one very good team and then a couple more floating around the 50 mark. This year we've got Dayton and then a good-sized group in the 80–90 range. Decent for general quality but not offering the big résumé-building opportunities.
The issue seems to be, however, that the improvement has come more from the bottom end rather than the top end. SLU at #238 is the lowest-rated A-10 team in KenPom, which is quite good historically. We've generally had at least one team at 250+ each season.
At the top, aside from a couple of our lowest seasons, we've generally at had at least one very good team and then a couple more floating around the 50 mark. This year we've got Dayton and then a good-sized group in the 80–90 range. Decent for general quality but not offering the big résumé-building opportunities.
Last edited:
