ADVERTISEMENT

Key Games -- NET standings and eventual bubble implications ..

SOS should be based on W/L against like teams just as they have done it for many yesrs. Use a few months worth of results, get a ranking then compare.
Nothing is perfect but now they are trying to make it perfect and turning it into nonsense. Way too many horrible rankings compared to actual W/L resume. I think we can go down the list and find 10-15 ridiculous rankings.
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.
 
If they are both just tools, and they are, why does the NET irk you so much? It's just an attempt at refining RPI, which was solely based on scheduling. The NET, like RPI did, also needs refinement from its current state.

The committee can use both, one, or none at their will.
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.
 
SOS should be based on W/L against like teams just as they have done it for many yesrs. Use a few months worth of results, get a ranking then compare.
Nothing is perfect but now they are trying to make it perfect and turning it into nonsense. Way too many horrible rankings compared to actual W/L resume. I think we can go down the list and find 10-15 ridiculous rankings.
But how do you determine "like" teams?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.spider
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?
 
Didn't Dayton have a really high RPI/NET rating and still miss the tourny? Like 30s

Haven't there been AP ranked teams not get in as well? Utah State?
 
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.
 
NC State (33) and Clemson (35) missed in 2019. Oklahoma (39) missed in 2022. North Texas (38) missed last year.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
If they are both just tools, and they are, why does the NET irk you so much?
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PalmTreeSpidUR
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.
The RPI was also an NCAA created tool for the same purpose. They just updated their tool and renamed it.
 
Which supports that NET is but one of many data points considered by the Selection Committee.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Wednesday 1/31 - While our focus is on what hopefully will be a dominant game in Rose Hill, a number of other relevant games tonight. Lots of road times we should be rooting for tonight.

Notre Dame at Virginia (47) - 7pm - ESPN2 - Will be shocked if UVA doesn't wallop the Irish after a 22 point loss in December but any loss or even a close game would further cause bubble doubts. UVA wallops Notre Dame moves up from 47 to 45.

Northwestern (59) at Purdue - 6:30 PM BTN - 13.5 line and unless Purdue wins by 25 don't expect NW to drop much. Northwestern jumps from 59 to 55 getting the NET overtime bonus against a top 5 team.

Alabama at UGA (78) - 6:30 PM - SECN - A solid Alabama win would be nice to push back an improving UGA. - Was nice that UGA collapsed in the 2nd half - Drops from 78 to 82.

St Johns (35) at Xavier (52) - 6:30 PM FS1 - Best for the Pitino gang to take Xavier to 10-11. Xavier favored by 1.5. Not what we wanted to see here. Xavier wins by 11 and jumps 4 to 48. Fear they are heading to an 18-16 type record and a chance to get in to tourney.

Baylor at UCF (72.) 7pm ESPN+ - Need to avoid UCF getting another Q1 win since they beat KS earlier this season. The Bears did what we needed them to do winning by 8. UCF sticks at 72.

Wake Forest (44) at Pittsburgh (65) - 7pm ESPN+ Line is Pitt -1.5. A nice Wake double digit win might move Pitt behind us if all goes well tonight for the Spiders. Pitt wins at home by 5. Moves up from 65 to 61.

Wich State (148) at Tulsa - Our loss could still become Q3 if Wich State has a strong last 6 weeks. Go Shockers. Wich State collapses in the 2nd half and lose by 11. Drops from 148 to 159 and gets close to making our Q3 loss have little chance of being Q2.

GMU (83) at St. Joes (86) - Given our 2 games against GMU, hoping GMU has won tonight and get closer to the magical 75 that might give us 1 more Quad 1 game. GMU loses a close one. GMU drops one to 84 - SJU up 1 to 85.

Florida (41) at Kentucky - 8pm ESPN. Wildcats favored by 5.5. Looking like our Q1 FL loss will stay Q1 unless Gators collapse. Florida wins a thriller and jumps from 41 to 36. Seem this one will say at a Q1 loss for us.

Rice vs. Memphis (68) - 8pm ESPN+ - Expect Memphis to stop the bleeding today but they are finding the way to be close too of off the bubble after being 10th ranked only a few weeks ago. Memphis loses to Q4 Rice - drops below us at 76 - hopefully they are close to being done unless they win the American,

UNI (101) vs. Bradley (63) - 8pm CBSSNBowen Born one of the key reasons we lost was out sick for the Drake game on Saturday - Hopefully he is back and would be real nice for UNI to find a way to pull this one out. Bradley moves up 4 to 59 after UNI fails to give them much of a game.

UAB at North Texas (71) - 9pm ESPNU - UAB has been playing well lately and hopefully they can take down North Texas that is favored by 6.5. North Texas loses at home - falls below us from 71 to 77.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
Thursday 2/1 - Fewer relevant games tonight for us but here is a short list

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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT