Since MSG is officially being considered our "home" arena - does that make us NYC's team?
OFFICIAL NET Thread - 2022/23
- Thread starter fatsam98
- Start date
It is until you see some of the other teams in the top 100.
Also they have one truly hideous loss at home to Penn (in the Lafayette category) and a loss to Richmond (comparable to our loss to UMass last year).
Now I’m not saying those other losses are “good” but they at least to mid-majors with winning records and Vandy. 3 Q3 wins is a lot - two the super variety. The next lowest NET of a team with that win profile is in the 60s.
Ah right. They are 11-8 but I forgot that’s because they play a bunch of Central Connecticuts. I guess that loss is nearly as bad.
But I still don’t think their getting a fair shake - mainly because those Q3 wins seem better than their mapping? VCU and Cincy may map to Q3, but they are better wins than many Q2 wins. Temple also has 7 wins away from home.
Good to hear you're better.
The bad taste goes away almost immediately when you are done.
I guess some teams are just built to play close games no matter who they play. Like our team last year. It can’t be a coincidence though when you win three Q1 games.
Maryland to 30. Swapped out Ohio State for Maryland for Quad 1 purposes
FAU falls behind RU as Bac noted but but only drops 3 spots. Not bad for them.
I am willfully ignorant about how NET, RPI, KenPom, etc. are calculated. But I did notice that, unlike RPI used to do, the Rutgers NET ranking did not suffer by playing a terrible team (Minnesota) at home (Jersey Mike's). Is it because they had great stats? huge margin of victory?
Yes, because we destroyed them by 40 points it is considered a quality win by NET .
This was a big problem last year. Forget the Lafayette and Umass losses....how about one possession overtime win over Lehigh. That also hurt. Scoring 48 against freaking Merrimack?
Right now our resume is mostly built on two things: beating Purdue on the road for the single best win in all of MBB, and absolutely demolishing inferior competition. Our road record is mediocre at best. Our Q1 wins on the low end. etc
To add to post above mine, we have beaten all (7?) of our Q4 opponents by 30+ points, including Minnesota.
We're a different team from last year in that regard.
Pike found a way to play the NET and made sure the guys bought into it. It's no accident we kept our starters in against PSU.
Ha ha, that's not a problem for Maryland. Their starters play 36-40 minutes a game, lately (I may be exaggerating), due to a not-so-great bench. It's like it used to be in the seventies...
So if Rutgers won by only five points, would they have suffered in NET? Just trying to understand the difference between NET and RPI.
NET is not supposed to measure margin of victory. Caps it at 10 I think to discourage running up score. Ridiculously low in my opinion.
In any event NET does measure Offense Efficiency which is increased when you do play well and ultimately win by a blow out.
In any event NET does measure Offense Efficiency which is increased when you do play well and ultimately win by a blow out.
Yes - NET’s credit it did address that terrible flaw with RPI. You aren’t punished simply by playing and beating terrible teams they way you were with RPI.
If we only beat Minnesota by five points, either our offensive or defensive efficiency would have been poor. Poor efficiency numbers hurt you in NET.
Last edited:
Our net ranking is too high this year but was too low last year so I’ll take it. Blowing out bad teams shouldn’t count for as much as it does.
Good thing too because our resume is a little soft outside of the net.
The other silly thing about Net is that it doesn't take into account how teams were ranked when you played them. Indiana was #8 when we beat them, Ohio State was #23 when we lost to them by 1 (I know). Why would those games count for less now? Especially if injuries are involved?
Most teams aren't consistent throughout a season, some start hot and get worse, some start poorly and get better, some go up and down all season.
Most teams aren't consistent throughout a season, some start hot and get worse, some start poorly and get better, some go up and down all season.
You're not giving enough credit to a lot of other very good wins. It's not just Purdue and cupcakes
We stomped Indiana, Wake Forrest, PSU, and Maryland
because by the end of the season you get the complete body of work and final resting places of the resumes...all of that factored in
It's hard to measure exactly but WHEN you play a team is so important with most teams going through hot and rough patches throughout the season. Wish we played Iowa and Illinois earlier when they looked terrible for example
the Northwestern, Wake and Ohio State are losing their lusters as we move. Hopefully NW can stay tourney with. PSU not projected in anymore so our value of the wins declining now.
Thats why we need at least one of these next 3 to keep the resume stocked, if we lose all 3, suddenly 7-7 with 3 games in Q3, 2 in Q1 and 1 in Q2
Should that really matter? Should beating North Carolina in November when people thought that they were going to be really good be worth more than beating them now when we know what they are? Or on the flip side, losing to Marquette in November was bad because expectations for them were low, but now it's treated differently?
No good ranking system will look at a team when the game was played rather than looking at their full body of work.
Last edited:
Except the NET doesn’t factor in injuries . Playing Indiana at full strength compared to playing them in the games immediately after they lost Xavier Johnson and Rece Thompson is not the same as they are different teams and it takes a team that had a bench and is considered a good team , a few games to get their bench guys into starter mindsets. So that is why the NET is flawed , unless it is only used as a sorting tool and the human committee can factor those other things in.
Frankly , when you beat a team , does say a lot about a team. Alabama had just demolished 7 SEC teams by like an average 20 points a game. Oklahoma kept on coming close but losing to the BiG 12,teams. Oklahoma beating down Alabama by 30 was an even more impressive win because of when the game was played. Oklahoma is on the bubble but if it gets close , if I was on the committee, I am going to look at that at 1.5 or almost 2 wins. They didn’t sneak by. They demolished them wire to wire. Impressive as heck.
This wouldn't really work though. How would you count the first game (or other early season games before the NET even has anything representing a realistic ranking)?
That's why its used for sorting, getting general strength of teams/schedules, etc. The human committee is factoring in other things at a macro level.
Speaking from a handicapping perspective...In general, a team being "hot" or "cold" is usually more noise than anything. Cappers are still looking at UConn or Alabama's full body of work when making power ratings, and not discounting the first month or two of the season because they've hit a rough patch. Injuries certainly play into it and aren't picked up by any type of computer metric, but that's where the subjective kicks in. But even with injuries, most people over-emphasize their impact in the grand scheme of things.
It's per possession, so pace should come out in the wash. Our AdjO is 108.4 pts/100 possessions, and our AdjD is 88.1 pts..... while Minnesota's AdjO is 100.9 and their AdjD is 103.1
Even with a slow pace, if we aren't beating them by double digits, we're either falling short of our offensive efficiency or defensive efficiency.
I hear you but it doesn’t seem to work that way all the time with NET. OSU’s NET barely flinched when they lost to Minny by 3. Indiana won a close one too and wasn’t that badly impacted.
