One doesn't have to go back far to see how inaccurate tournament predictions are at this point of the season. At this time last year we were being projected as an 8-9 seed.
Daily Tracking the NET: now 102
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
it might be beneficial to RU that there are not a lot of Big Ten teams projected to make the field. Besides the downward trend/Mag loss, another reason we were snubbed is that Big Ten already had a lot of bids..
What may make getting these road wins more difficult, is that 2 of the teams are looking to avenge their loss at the RAC.
Winning the next two, will put Rutgers in the situation to have serious conversations about all of this. Then there will be 3 home games very winnable. Even winning one of the remaining 3 road games should get them to the bubble. Win two, especially Purdue, and they are in, regardless of BTT
What may make getting these road wins more difficult, is that 2 of the teams are looking to avenge their loss at the RAC.
Winning the next two, will put Rutgers in the situation to have serious conversations about all of this. Then there will be 3 home games very winnable. Even winning one of the remaining 3 road games should get them to the bubble. Win two, especially Purdue, and they are in, regardless of BTT
I agree with you to an extent. I don’t actually think it will end up impacting our tournament chances if Seton Hall finishes 74 vs 76.
On the other hand, I do think a decision by the committee to seed a team as an 8 vs a play in 11 provides telling information about what is valued. Boise St didn’t have any great wins. The committee obviously appreciated that they only played 5 Q4 games and liked their 18-9 record against everyone else. Q1-Q3 record provides a reasonable proxy for how you did against teams with a pulse. That’s what really hurt Rutgers compared to the MWC types. We not only went 12-14 overall vs Q1-Q3 but we were only 500 against Q2-3. This year we are 6-2 against that group and I do think that matters when your comparing us to teams that don’t get that many Q1 chances but did well in the next tier level games.
See I disagree here. If you let in a team like Rutgers to the tourney that had 9+ shots at the top tier (we can argue how silly these divisions are - but you have to draw a line somewhere to compare) and got 1 win - every small school in America will be screaming that they can't get any shots and if they ever did get double digit shots they'd certainly get more than 1 win. I don't see the committee making a call in favor of us with that kind of red flag metric.
That's bc they aren't future predictions. They are a snapshot of time as it currently stands
I get the point of counting Q1-3 as "real" games but lumping them all together overvalues Q3 and undervalues Q1. You're then saying a Q1 win = a Q3 win and vice versa
A team would be better off scheduling a ton of Q3 games, then that record looks good almost no matter what they do in Q1 and Q2
That is fine, as long as when you get your at-bats, the teams produce.....last year's results by the 3 other Mountain West teams, didn't get enough discussion IMO......I'm not asking to just look there, look at the schedule and games....the committee doesn't watch, which is my number 1 issue. Putting a random formula together like the NET is just bad.
Unlikely but more importantly perception wise dont really move any needles
I dont have their stats offhand but i bet they were strong in q2
Georgetown is horrible. We were dealt a bad hand yet again in Gavitt games
Providence would have done wonders
Exactly
Schools have 8 more games to play
Things can radically change
Thats why bracketology up to now is worthless
Im just readying a rough look see right now
The NET is not the issue, imo, it’s how the NET is used.
I mentioned this a couple of years ago, that I would like to see only wins evaluated toward who gets a bid. You could apply the NET toward that evaluation.
So for example, a team could earn 1 point for every Quad4 win, 2 points for every Quad3 win, 3 points for every Quad2 win, and 4 points for every Quad1 win. Losses, whether to good or bad teams, are not counted at all.
They didnt break protocal. Nevada likely didnt belong i will agree on that one but its a strong league that does get ooc wins and games the NET system collectively as a conference
Are there caps on leagues? Perhaps we will see going forward with 18 school leagues..by the way none of the 4 coming in next year are even on the bubble...perhaps careful what you wish for with sos
True. My point is to not put too much stock into these guesses when a lot can happen in the last quarter of a season plus conference tournaments. It's like trying to guess the year end closing level of the S&P 500 based on where it's at Labor Day.
They were 9-2 in Q2 and 6-2 in Q3. Warren Nolan site is neat. You can pull up NET by year and click on any team for the breakdowns by quad (just have to back out the games played in the NCAAs or NITs because he assigns those their respective quads too).
NET Ranking - Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com
2023 Men's College Basketball NET Ranking: NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) a ranking of teams based on five factors, team value index, net efficiency, winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage, and scoring margin.
In hindsight, it’s actually not really unreasonable if the committee decided to comparatively focus on the metrics that are closer to apples to apples when comparing teams. 15-4 Vs Q2-3 is worlds better than 8-8. We were 4-7 in Q1 and while two of those wins were way better than anything on Boise’s resume, it’s also not like they played a bunch of high Q1 games and lost them at a more frequent rate than us (they were 3-5 in Q1, albeit easier games but again, it’s hard to compare what one team did to what another team would’ve done in games they didn’t play).
NET is only a sorting tool, as per bac. If we win the rest of our games, not understanding what difference an improved offensive efficiency would make.
What if we win them all with elite defense and just enough scoring, regardless of offensive efficiency?
Also, if we do run the table, which is the best possible outcome, then our NET is only affected by what other teams do.
The only caveat would be improving our NET by running up the score in each game we win, an element of NET that I hate. To me a win is a win, same as it is in the NCAA tournament, where margin of victory means nothing.
Seems like some want to stress the importance of NET, while some want to downplay it, and oddly, some do both.
Guess it takes more than 4 losses in a row to drop out of the top 25, Wisconsin at number 20 now.
Now we need them to stay there by winning (other than our game at their place).
Well this is a thread specifically about discussing the NET so I'm asking about how much an improved offensive efficiency would impact it
If NET wasn't important at all, we wouldn't have a season long thread on it
It's only 1 factor, but getting our NET down specifically it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb can only help our chances
Richard Kent predicted 16 which I thought was wild after 4 straight losses. They need to turn it around ASAP or they are out. Hopefully they can to make our win look better
I understand that. What I’m asking is, should offensive efficiency matter if we win all the rest of our games?
If the answer is yes, then the NET is very flawed, imo.
Well we already know this team will never lose again
If we win out nothing else matters obviously we will be in
If we by some miracle lose a couple games, then yes offensive efficiency is part of the NET so playing more efficient on offense will help. The defense is already #2 and will be elite rest of season. There isn't much room for improvement there. There is obviously a ton of room to move up in offensive efficiency though
Boise deserved to go last year, i think Nevada is the one we should all have issues withThey were 9-2 in Q2 and 6-2 in Q3. Warren Nolan site is neat. You can pull up NET by year and click on any team for the breakdowns by quad (just have to back out the games played in the NCAAs or NITs because he assigns those their respective quads too).
NET Ranking - Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com
2023 Men's College Basketball NET Ranking: NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) a ranking of teams based on five factors, team value index, net efficiency, winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage, and scoring margin.www.warrennolan.com
In hindsight, it’s actually not really unreasonable if the committee decided to comparatively focus on the metrics that are closer to apples to apples when comparing teams. 15-4 Vs Q2-3 is worlds better than 8-8. We were 4-7 in Q1 and while two of those wins were way better than anything on Boise’s resume, it’s also not like they played a bunch of high Q1 games and lost them at a more frequent rate than us (they were 3-5 in Q1, albeit easier games but again, it’s hard to compare what one team did to what another team would’ve done in games they didn’t play).
Lol, I know you know I was exaggerating to make a point. Even if we go 6-2 the rest of the way, to finish 19-12 and 11-9 in conference, I’m guessing our NET will be 75 or better.
I would hate to think our offensive efficiency is what would keep us out with that record, especially finishing 9-2 down the stretch WITH a key player added (as opposed to having one removed, like last year), AND with the #2 defense in the country.
Margin of victory was removed from NET. It apparently now has only two elements.
1. TVI - Team Value Index, which the NCAA describes as a "result-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home". The don't give a formula for that - but it's some sort of adjustment factor to weigh strength of opponents and home/away/neutral.
2. Adjusted net efficiency, based on net points per 100 possessions.
That's it.
The more efficient you are in beating your opponents, the better.... which means both offensive and defensive efficiency. Wins away from home and against stronger opponents are more heavily weighted than home wins against weaker opponents.
Thanks Choppin. Glad they removed margin of victory from the formula.
Still, I would hate to see RU left out if we get to 19-12, based on offensive efficiency in getting to that record.
I'm not saying it will but every bit helps when you're on the bubble
I do think it helps the human element if people on the committee see Rutgers is elite defensively and average offensively vs thinking Rutgers is a completely one dimensional team with an elite defense and terrible offense
Of course you’re right about the committee.
I just don’t see the point of using offensive and defensive efficiency at all, when calculating the NET. As long as you win, what difference does it make how you did it?
Let’s hope the NET is not adopted by MLB to determine who makes the playoffs. If you’re a low-scoring team that wins with pitching and defense, you’re screwed.
They removed margin of victory but net efficiency is just tempo adjusted margin of victory.
It doesn’t matter whether you win with offense or defense; if you win, for example, a 65 possession game by 5 points you will have the same net efficiency margin whether the score is 15-10 or 155-150.
It doesn’t matter whether you win with offense or defense; if you win, for example, a 65 possession game by 5 points you will have the same net efficiency margin whether the score is 15-10 or 155-150.
As we know the committee is made of people who have biases, etc. Last year it was widely discussed by most who report on bball that we were the team that got squeezed. The committee was pretty clear it related to Mag’s injury and their belief we were not the same team.
Bac knows this stuff inside and out, and he may disagree with me but notwithstanding the Q1 performance thus far, if RU makes a big run down the stretch and somehow ends up at 19-12, the committee is going to be a very tough spot. Are they really going to keep out a B1G team that goes 11-9 and finishes the regular season going 9-2? Also, let’s not forget that even putting aside JWill, Mag wasn’t healthy yet for losses to Princeton and Wake.
Yeah, I get it — after typing it I don’t even believe my BS fantasy. Haha.
Bac knows this stuff inside and out, and he may disagree with me but notwithstanding the Q1 performance thus far, if RU makes a big run down the stretch and somehow ends up at 19-12, the committee is going to be a very tough spot. Are they really going to keep out a B1G team that goes 11-9 and finishes the regular season going 9-2? Also, let’s not forget that even putting aside JWill, Mag wasn’t healthy yet for losses to Princeton and Wake.
Yeah, I get it — after typing it I don’t even believe my BS fantasy. Haha.
There are literally 3-4 virtual locks right now. When that number is a dozen then it is officially time
This year Nevada’s NET is the poster child for the systems flaws. To be 18-5 with their profile and be behind St John’s right now is just criminal. They are getting a raw deal right now at 47. Two games got away from them and they lost big. Ok fine. Maybe they should’ve won a couple games by more than they did. Fine again.
But poor efficiency shouldn’t be having the impact it’s having. 5 quad wins in 7 tries. RPI must know they are undervalued.
There are 362 teams of widely varying strength, and each team plays less than 10% of the others. Schedules are also widely varying, such that some teams play a lot of strong teams and others play a lot of weak teams. There has to be some way to determine whether a win over Team X should be given more/less weight than a win over Team Y beyond just win/lose.
By contrast, the MLB has just 30 teams of much greater parity than college basketball, and every team now plays every other team. The variance in strength of schedule is much much smaller, such that it's easier to just go by wins/losses.
The NET is good, or fine at least, if they are using it the way they seem to be using it which is to evaluate other teams strength of schedule / resume and not as a direct input to the selection. Though they could just use Kenpom and get basically the same results.
The NET is bad as a tool for direct selection IMO which is why the NIT experiment is bizarre to me.
