NET rankings

[fatherspider]

What an absolutely horrific system. Imo it is ruining cbb. This has been the most uninteresting season on memory. Too many NET ranking inconsistencies to point out, and each of them causes the system to be worthless. Teams with 12-13 losses in top NET and because of that they are guaranteed to dance. Think about that… every one of the teams that beat WV (13 losses- 13 teams) got a quad 1 win, and hence each of those teams NET climbs much higher. Obviously it wasnt too hard to beat WV this year, or Iowa St, Ark and a bunch of others. Mediocre teams only playing mediocre teams home/home proves nothing. They get ranked high early because of pre-season predictions and a 11 game OOC where the big teams schedule each other. And after that, the rankings are almost set if a P6 team wins 50% of conference games. Its a disaster really.
Makes for very little drama and too many teams getting in having poor seasons.

 

[fan2011]

West Virginia has an average rank of 22 across computer ranking systems right now, not unique to NET at all https://masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm. The problem is assuming that a team's win-loss record is an accurate measure of the difficulty of beating that team.

 

[97spiderfan]

We are checking in at a really nice 156 in the composite ranking, one spot ahead of Tarleton St, a school that has been playing D-1 basketball for 3 years now. Mooney's been at this thing for 18 years and he has on a par with a school that just started playing D-1 hoops. Fantastic.

 

[Eight Legger]

Dude, they have big wins over Huston-Tillotson and Chicago State AND they swept UT-Arlington and Utah Tech! We should be happy we are even that close to them. And they kicked the crap out of Southwestern Assemblies of God (110-45) last week, which is probably a D-12 power.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

Again, you are overstating the importance of NET. It's just a ranking and sorting system like all the others. Yes, the selection committee uses it but it is not a guarantee of a berth. Every year at least one team ranked lower in NET has gotten an at-large over a team with a higher ranking.

Also, there isn't an infinite feedback loop

hence each of those teams NET climbs much higher.

 

[SFspidur]

"They get ranked high early because of pre-season predictions"

I feel like a broken record. The NET is in no way based on preseason predictions. It's simply based on who you play and the results of those games.

Yes, WVU has a bunch of losses. But their worst loss is to #66 Oklahoma and they've also beaten some top teams, and that all adds up to a good NET ranking.

Conferences like the Big 12 have certainly figured out how to optimize their scheduling for the NET, and unfortunately it involves not playing solid mid-majors. Everybody plays either cupcakes or other good P5s so they can go like 10–3 OOC and then they all help each other in conference play.

As a whole, the Big 12 went 107–22 OOC, including a number of games against quality opponents who themselves won a lot of OOC games. That's how you set yourself to help each other in conference play and dominate in the NET.

And it's going to be true of pretty much any rating system. Relative conference strength is established early in the season, because once conference play starts you're in your own bubble. So go beat a crapload of good teams from other conferences early in the season to prove your conference is the best, and you're all set.

 

[8legs1dream]

Stick us in the Big 12 as a punching bag and watch our NET soar!

 

[fan2011]

Stick us in the Big 12 as a punching bag and watch our NET soar!

Our net would be the same in the Big 12, but our record would be about 9-21.

Put West Virginia in the A10 and they would probably be 28-3 this year, and their NET would still be around 22. And you guys would be complaining it is too low haha.

That is the point of the NET. The same team can have drastically different records given different schedules. The NET, and all predictive ranking systems, try to come up with a ranking that is independent of schedule and measures the actual difficulty of playing a team.

 

[97spiderfan]

Our net would be the same in the Big 12, but our record would be about 9-21.

Put West Virginia in the A10 and they would probably be 28-3 this year, and their NET would still be around 22. And you guys would be complaining it is too low haha.

That is the point of the NET. The same team can have drastically different records given different schedules. The NET, and all predictive ranking systems, try to come up with a ranking that is independent of schedule and measures the actual difficulty of playing a team.

I know the A-10 is down this year. But no way, West Virginia would be 28-3 in the A-10. They were 11-2 in OOC, so that means they would go 17-1 in the A-10. They finished sub .500 in their own conference.

My personal other litmus test if I were on the committee is that you don't finish .500 in your conference, you don't get a bid. If you can't go .500 against your peer conference schools, why should you get a shot in the NCAA, especially when you have schools like Charleston that are sitting at 29-3, have steamrolled through their peer conference schools and might be NIT bound if they don't win their conference tourney.

I know this is all about the Benjamins but the committee has to recognize how the BCS schools are gaming every single advantage, including the NET, to their already huge competitive advantage they have over mid majors.

Plus people love mid majors pulling the upsets in the tournament, who in the heck wants to see West Virginia and Wisconsin, two sub .500 conference teams battling it out in a play in game, outside of West Virginia and Wisconsin fans.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

My personal other litmus test if I were on the committee is that you don't finish .500 in your conference, you don't get a bid.

I agree 100%, but that has nothing to do with NET.

 

[fatherspider]

Our net would be the same in the Big 12, but our record would be about 9-21.

Put West Virginia in the A10 and they would probably be 28-3 this year, and their NET would still be around 22. And you guys would be complaining it is too low haha.

That is the point of the NET. The same team can have drastically different records given different schedules. The NET, and all predictive ranking systems, try to come up with a ranking that is independent of schedule and measures the actual difficulty of playing a team.

I can't agree with that. They have laid some serious eggs this year and would likely have lost 4 or 5 games in the A10. You are saying they would have 12 more wins? Almost every game they play in conference is a Q1 and that is just bullshit. Never a bad lose.
They are 3-8 on the road, and have lost to the bottom 3 in the league, but miraculously, with 5 wins in conference, all of those teams are still Quad 2 games on the road.

 

[fan2011]

I can't agree with that. They have laid some serious eggs this year and would likely have lost 4 or 5 games in the A10. You are saying they would have 12 more wins? Almost every game they play in conference is a Q1 and that is just bullshit. Never a bad lose.
They are 3-8 on the road, and have lost to the bottom 3 in the league, but miraculously, with 5 wins in conference, all of those teams are still Quad 2 games on the road.

Unfortunately we will never be able to test out what would happen, but yes I do believe that WVU could go 17-1 in the A10 this year pretty easily. Can you point to a loss they have against a team that isn't better than everyone in the A10 this year?

 

[GKiller]

Unfortunately we will never be able to test out what would happen, but yes I do believe that WVU could go 17-1 in the A10 this year pretty easily. Can you point to a loss they have against a team that isn't better than everyone in the A10 this year?

Hard to do when all their NETS r higher than all A10 teams. And these p6 teams rarely go on road in OOC. But guess what if they did they'd lose to lower ranked teams. So u r right we can't test but I believe they'd lose road games in A10 even tho A10 is weak. "17-1...pretty easily" is just silly talk imo. They don't play those games OOC bc they realize they'd lose some.

 

[SpiderK]

I am sure we missed the Net.

 

[fatherspider]

Has another A10 team in history had a 15-3 conference record and not even been considered for a bid? Crazy how far this league has dropped. I mean Fordham is 12-6 and 2 seed.

 

[wr70beh]

Fordham should get an NIT bid when all is said and done. For a team like that? That’s a successful season.

 

[spiderman]

there's no patent on the formula. your conference needs to win a boatload of games in the OOC, including some against good teams. Big 12 won 83%. if the A10 ever won 83% of OOC games, we'd send a bunch of teams too.

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

Richmond is as guilty as any team in the league for the ATSF (A-10 suck factor) in the OOC. Spiders never go 12-1 OOC, there are always land mines. Same holds true across the conference and the cumulative effect drags the conference down. Hell, Fordham probably had a better OOC record this year than UR has had under Moon.

That said, a few years ago the BE completely gamed the numbers, old school style. Like 6 or 7 of their 10 teams played OOC schedules that resulted in OOC SOS like 225-300+. Predictably they all had great OOC records. Then miraculously after playing the 3 teams that played tough schedules and were good (Nova, etc) as well as playing one another all the overall SOS of each school jumped into top 50, just by playing one another. I'm talking 100s of spots jumps and the whole league ended up top 75 I think. St. Johns in particular had a horrid OOC SOS yet were just fine by end of year. I think this was 2020 and I was way into those fraudulent numbers because the Spiders were on the bubble and I was pissed that BE bubble teams were getting the "of course team X is in" treatment.

 

[Wood Hall]

there's no patent on the formula. your conference needs to win a boatload of games in the OOC, including some against good teams. Big 12 won 83%. if the A10 ever won 83% of OOC games, we'd send a bunch of teams too.

How many were home games? Or neutral site games? Probably 10% of the Big 12's OOC games were true road games, if that. Pretty seldom does an A-10 team ever play only 10% true road games OOC.

We played 11; five at home, two neutral, four on the road.

 

[spiderman]

How many were home games? Or neutral site games? Probably 10% of the Big 12's OOC games were true road games, if that. Pretty seldom does an A-10 team ever play only 10% true road games OOC.

We played 11; five at home, two neutral, four on the road.

the NET adjusts for road/nuetral/home games. yes, it's tough for mid-majors to get home games. we're sometimes guilty of that too. nobody wants to go on the road against a lower level program that can hurt them.

 

[SFspidur]

Seems like most of the A-10 teams come pretty close, only playing 2–3 road games. They just have to do it against lower-quality opponents.

 

[GKiller]

lol if true gotta protect the big conf bids...

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

the NET adjusts for road/nuetral/home games. yes, it's tough for mid-majors to get home games. we're sometimes guilty of that too. nobody wants to go on the road against a lower level program that can hurt them.

Like William & Mary