So Lunardi has TCU and ISU in comfortably and seeded better than RU...
- Thread starter scarletrat
- Start date
I have wondered all year how this efficiency rating component has impacted things. I believe the B1G is ranked a little lower as a conference and this may be impacting things. The other thing is how they deal with crazy outlier losses like we had.
When I mentioned they would tweak things and we would never know, I am saying they are likely to tweak things like the negative impact of outlier losses. You look at this more than I but I would be shocked if they did a major reconstruction rather than a simple refinement.
- After two seasons of using the NET, the Division I men’s basketball committee decided to tweak the NET in advance of this season, simplifying it to a two-component system. The first is the Team Value Index, a results-based feature that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, particularly away from home. This component was an original part of the NET. The other is an efficiency rating, which is adjusted for strength of opponent and location (home/away/neutral) across all games played.
Overall NET ranking is only one measure the committee looks at, and quantitative metrics (like efficiency, scoring margin, etc) are only a part of the picture. Qualitative metrics are also a key element - which they try to represent in their Quad records to some degree.
And while the NET ranking may have some bearing on selection/seeding, last year shows that it is hardly a determining factor (using the NET rankings from 3/14/21 in the Internet Archive).
NET 9 Colgate was given the 57th overall seed and a 14 seed.
NET 10 Loyola-Chicago was given the 30th overall seed and a 7 seed.
NET 23 WVU was given the 10th overall seed and a 3 seed.
NET 43 Saint Louis was not selected.
NET 49 Duke was not selected.
NET 51 Colorado St was not selected.
NET 64 Georgetown (AQ) was given the 47th overall seed and a 12 seed.
NET 70 MSU was given the 43rd overall seed and an 11 seed (first four)
NET 72 Wichita St was given the 45th overall seed and an 11 seed (first four)
NET 91 Oregon St (AQ) was given the 46th overall seed and a 12 seed
And while the NET ranking may have some bearing on selection/seeding, last year shows that it is hardly a determining factor (using the NET rankings from 3/14/21 in the Internet Archive).
NET 9 Colgate was given the 57th overall seed and a 14 seed.
NET 10 Loyola-Chicago was given the 30th overall seed and a 7 seed.
NET 23 WVU was given the 10th overall seed and a 3 seed.
NET 43 Saint Louis was not selected.
NET 49 Duke was not selected.
NET 51 Colorado St was not selected.
NET 64 Georgetown (AQ) was given the 47th overall seed and a 12 seed.
NET 70 MSU was given the 43rd overall seed and an 11 seed (first four)
NET 72 Wichita St was given the 45th overall seed and an 11 seed (first four)
NET 91 Oregon St (AQ) was given the 46th overall seed and a 12 seed
I really think some Teams/Conferences paid attention to what happened in the Patriot league last year where only Navy and Army had Non Conference games, and how Colgate(14-1) ended up 9th as a model of how to take advantage of the 2020-21 version of the NET in 21-22, some better than others.
it was changed for 2020/2021
but remember less non conference and even some conference games that year for some teams due to covid, this is the first year we get the real effect with a full non conference slate
If the NET is a tool used for seeding and entry in to the field watch out for next year. Teams will not be playing to win, it will be about beating the spread. I think (don't know 100%) strength of schedule really isnt that important for teams in good conference. Rutgers can keep it's current schedule, it just needs to make sure it blows out more teams OOC.
The current NET isn't walkon friendly. If the NET really is being used every possession matters.
they have only 10 schools though, their middle teams Iowa State and TCU are comparable to RU, Michigan. OK is comparable to Indiana. KState and OK state are probably slightly better on average than Maryland/PSU and WVU is probably better overall than the last 3 Big 10 bottom feeders slightly too. Nebby run aside, they were awful for most of the year. Minnesota has been awful
Rutgers wont do that unfortunately, there are programs and athletic directors who know the score and some who pretend like they are above playing the game.
I would like to see the Big 10 drop its challenge games with the ACC, its a weak conference...and even when good those bottom 5-6 will always be terrible...and guess who RU will always be matched with...yep someone from the bottom 7. Cannot wait for a our matchup in the Carrier Dome next season or maybe if we are lucky we travel to NC State...whoop dee damn do
Colgate SOR 63, Loyola Strength of Record 31, WVU 23, Duke was SOR 67, never had a chance. St Louis SOR 71, Colorado St was 61st, 1 seed NIT, MSU SOR 41, Wichita St SOR 48, Georgetown 52, Oregon St 43, Drake 48th, SOR 45
As an amateur bracketologist myself I have found @bac2therac to be better and more informative and more accurate then Joey Brackets at ESPN. In fact I put way more faith in bacs projections.
Is that point in time, or final metrics post-tournament? I'd have to find an archived page.
No - good old MOV-free RPI says this is not accurate. Our RPI is 74. Remarkably similar to where our NET sits.NCAA College Basketball Strength of Schedule Rankings & Ratings
NCAA College Basketball Strength of Schedule Rankings & Ratings from TeamRankings.com, your source for NCAAB computer power rankings.www.teamrankings.com
Overall SOS is linked here.....
RU is 35th
TCU is 31st
Iowa State is 34th
If you can tell us what the difference is between the 34th, 35th and 31st overall SOS, I would love to hear it.
Again, there are media parrots that feed inaccurate and just false information.
So, to repeat again, your OOC schedule does NOT impact your seeding, or anything.....what impacts your seeding or NET, if you believe in NET are efficiency and margins of wins, not overall wins and losses.
RU is penalized for not winning by 15 to 20 vs Lehigh, Merrimack and other lower rated teams....the wins aren't enough in regard to efficiency or metrics, the expectation was to win by whatever the expected metrics stated.
If RU was favored by 15 points and wins by 6, NET rating and efficiency ratings will drop, irregardless of the reason why.
With a similar / slightly better blended schedule, Iowa State won 2 more games than us and lost 1 less. In simplest analysis - that explains them being ahead a seed line or two. You can attribute one of those extra wins to us not playing Rider but understand that if you added another cupcake, our blended SOS would be worse than 35.
I think it is after NCAA but most of those teams were 1 and done, 3 WVU, round of 32, lost to 11 Cuse might have dropped them. Drake beat Wichita, then lost so they probably swapped. Oregon St was probably around Georgetown numbers before their run. 8 Loyola beat a 9 and 1, lost to 12 Oregon St in the 16 probably started lower then the 31 finish, and Oregon St lost to 2 Houston in 8.
thanks...the hard part is that for any bracketologist its not just numbers crunching, what you might think makes perfect sense, unfortunately you have to have an idea of what the committee is thinking also, and the members change every year, you can only go off of some past history. What gets me is the committee will almost always use one criteria to justify a selection while using another to justify why they left another team out.
That is why Rutgers cannot rest easy. When you have warts on the resume you are at the mercy of how the selection committee hands. I always say you need to do as much work to keep it out of the selections committees hands
Thats why I advocate for a strong schedule OOC. Not only does RU have bad losses OOC, they do not have a quality win out of conference nor even a non conference road win...thats brutal and they also conspire to keep them net at its spot of 76 right now
B1G benefits by this, assuming they win games. If teams didn't play a lot of tough OOC games there would be no way to gauge whether one conference is better than another.
I think this year more than any other (because of the NET) is really difficult to know what the committee is thinking.
Looking at it from a RU prespective it is really hard to know how a committee deals with our great wins and great losses
BAC, If you were to compare two RU resumes, which do you think looks better? One where they go 9-0 against this years OOC? Or going 6-3 OOC with losses to 3 mid level tournament teams and wins against 6 weak schools similar to this years OOC
Not completely true. The ACC is the worst it has been in maybe forever . Their 23 wins are a fraud as 15-20 of them are against your favorite word”garbage “. We have a similar OOC strength of schedule but are 34 th overall because of how strong the BIG 10 is and I think Wake is 101 and that is frankly a gift as it probably should be 125-150.
if they played 1 tough game and won it they would be above first four right now, they scheduled even worse than RU...yes 40 spots is worse. they won vs garbage schools much like UNC but UNC played a better schedule, beat Michigan and then punched their ticket by beating Duke. Wake has only beaten UNC and ND
Big 12 has great metrics but I think they are overrated at the top 6. They are 10 deep but neither Kansas, Baylor , Texas Tech or Texas put the fear of a definite loss in anyone ‘s minds. They have been underwhelming. To me top of the SEC is the strongest followed by BIG 10 and Big 12 tied. At the end of the day , just because you came close to beating a top 6 team but didn’t over and over again as compared to a team like ours that beat all the top teams over and over (7-4 overall home and away ) , there has to be a reward for the winners.
Rutgers lost to Minnesota and Northwestern, those are bad teams and they lost to Maryland at home
No doubt but Rutgers should play in one of those MTE tournaments like most B1G schools do.
It's an easy to ensure at worst 2-3 games against Q1/Q2 competition and prevent the schedule strength from dipping into the 300s.
None of them are bad teams if their NET is 100 or less. Minnesota was undefeated in the OOC and they have fallen down because of the BIG 10 gauntlet. Northwestern has been in the 60-75 NET range all year and had some OOC wins that helped. Maryland is in the 80’s and they beat us on the night that Fatts and Ayala got hot , just like they did in beating Michigan State , Ohio State and taking Purdue to the wire without Ayala . Plus you always forget we beat Maryland on the road by 11 , which counteracts the loss at home. Stop pushing the narrative that it is a bad loss., Not to anyone who watches college basketball. All of those 3 teams have beaten the top of the conference or played close games and lost ( just like you citing the Big 12 teams like Oklahoma , TCU , Kansas State, and Iowa State, and WVU ) , who have lost a ton to the top of the conference. I do not see anyone from the B12 saying losing to TCU or those other teams , even WVU a bad loss
TCU is in the tournament, why would that be a bad loss, how in the world are you comparing them with Maryland or any of the big 10 dregs. Ditto for Iowa State...they are comparable to RU and Iowa not Maryland and Minnesota
yes Minnesota and Northwestern are bad and Nebby as well...losing to WVU is also a bad loss at the end of the day
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Football Analytical look at Rutgers Football's QB1 Athan Kaliakmanis- Latest: IL Lusciato
-
Basketball Rutgers to participate in Players Era, an NIL Incentivized Tournament- Latest: High Quality H2O
-
