Our NET is really really really irrelevant at this point unless we win 3 of the next 4 so hopefully the believers on this thread stop doing the math formulas and what if scenarios until its even worth looking at again
THE OFFICIAL 2024-2025 NET RANKINGS THREAD
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
I don't think that's right. The Big Ten is ranked as the second best conference in NET and either 2nd or 3rd elsewhere. But also the SEC is way ahead of the Big Ten and Big 12 which are way way ahead of the other power conferences. The Big East is trash, the ACC is mega trash, and the P12 is gone.
In the NET the Big Ten has the #8, #10, #12, #16, #21, #22, #24, #34, #35 teams.
People are not accounting for the concentration of power that has happened because there are basically three power conferences this year. We are going to have a top 25 SOS.
The 2nd best team in the ACC would be #7 in the B1G and they have SEVEN teams ranked lower than the lowest ranked B1G team (#121 Minnesota).
If Rutgers were transported to the ACC with it's #84 NET (which is #16 of 18 B1G teams) they would be #10 out of 19 teams.
If Rutgers were transported to the ACC with it's #84 NET (which is #16 of 18 B1G teams) they would be #10 out of 19 teams.
Top 25 (NET) teams by conference:
SEC 9
B1G 7 (16/25 from these two conferences)
Big 12 5 (21/25 from these three)
Big East 2
ACC 1
WCC 1
SEC 9
B1G 7 (16/25 from these two conferences)
Big 12 5 (21/25 from these three)
Big East 2
ACC 1
WCC 1
Perhaps, but the way I see it, all we have on our resume at this moment is a home win over UCLA and a road win over Nebraska - SOR projects these teams at 11 and 12 seeds currently on the S curve. I get that this is not the end all but early on - I see SOR as the best stand alone metric to project likeliness of a win ending up being high quality on selection day. Meaning - to this point you’ve built a resume and just need to maintain it.
The problem as I see it is that SOR only projects 3 more games for us against 1-6 seeds and none of them are at home. If your going to be a 13 loss team and get picked you’d better have a stack of wins in the first half of that bracket to offset the losses to non-field teams. Thats how it has historically worked.
By the way - NET looks less and less accurate to me every year relative to RPI. I think I say this every year. RPI understands how bad ND is - knows they aren’t close to a top 100 team. RPI also knows that while not great, Princeton isn’t worse than ND and certainly ought to be in the top 100 ahead of ND. Wins and losses should matter more than the damn style points. Our RPI is actually better than our NET right now because the pure results metric system says our profile is cleaner than NET does (we’re perfect in Q3-4 in RPI - 2-2 vs Q2). RPI says our issue is primarily a lot of losses with lack of quality wins which I agree with. To get to 9-3 and pick up the quality wins we would need - one of the losses would probably be to Michigan, but two others would probably end up being to more teams that won’t make the field. We already have 6 losses like that. 8 losses to non At Large teams seems like a lot on a 13 loss overall profile. You’d need a heck of a lot of good stuff to offset it. Do you see my point? The computer numbers only go so far - ultimately you have to have the resume.
Last edited:
Well obviously our resume is shit *now*. We are way off the bubble *now*.
SOR is a very similar metric to WAB and I would imagine it would also be in the 40-45 range if we managed to get to 18-13.
I agree with the fact that wins and losses should ultimately be what matters but I hard disagree with the rest of it.
(1) RPI is not a good wins/losses only system; it's pretty good considering non math guys came up with it ad-hoc in like the year 1452 but by modern standards it is trash.
(2) If you measure better as in "who would be favored on a neutral court tomorrow?" then ND is better than Princeton and pretty much every rating system agrees with this.
(3) Whether NET is "accurate" or not is pretty irrelevant; NET is what they use.
The whole exercise of evaluating Rutgers NCAA tournament at large bid chance is just a bunch of mental masturbation. If I become a billionaire there is a high probability to be able to date a sports illustrated model. The problem with this is that I am not a billionaire and there is no chance I am becoming one. Discussing my chances of this and percentages is just another exercise of mental masturbation. Rutgers is not winning 9 games based upon the 10-9 team that we have seen with our eyes. More likely they go 6-6 or 5-6 which would be perfectly in line with their 10-9 record. They are now 6-9 in their last 15 games.
Why do you keep coming back to say this? I don't care dude, I'm not predicting any of this is going to happen, I fully acknowledge it is a very long shot. You've posted this same response like ten times; if you don't like this convo why don't you just stay out of it?
I’m not evaluating either system per se - simply comparing the side by side output on Warren Nolan for Rutgers opponents and observing that the RPI data looks a heck of a lot less fraudulent than NET for many of them. Check it out.
Rutgers Men's Basketball Schedule Scores & Stats | WarrenNolan.com
The 2025 Men's Basketball Schedule for the Rutgers Scarlet Knights with today’s scores plus records, conference records, post season records, strength of schedule, streaks and statistics.
ND clearly the most obvious NET fraud.
The teams that lose a lot of close games are going to be "NET frauds" (and kenpom frauds, and TRank frauds, and every rating system that uses points frauds).I’m not evaluating either system per se - simply comparing the side by side output on Warren Nolan for Rutgers opponents and observing that the RPI data looks a heck of a lot less fraudulent than NET for many of them. Check it out.
Rutgers Men's Basketball Schedule Scores & Stats | WarrenNolan.com
The 2025 Men's Basketball Schedule for the Rutgers Scarlet Knights with today’s scores plus records, conference records, post season records, strength of schedule, streaks and statistics.www.warrennolan.com
ND clearly the most obvious NET fraud.
ND is ranked #360 in Luck on kenpom.
2 times I posted it, fair enough, to each his own. I hope the highly improbable does happen, but still say it’s more realistic (also highly improbable) to win the conference tournament at this point as a way to make the tournament than the at large route.
Maybe I had you confused with someone else, fair enough, if it was only twice.
Like I said I don't think you're *wrong*. It's just, you know, we are on the message board for a team that is pretty much out of contention but not 100% completely out of contention, it seems like a natural thing to talk about. Just like if you are down 10 with three minutes left often the answer is "it's not happening, all this talk about how we can come back is just pointless" but that won't stop us from talking about it.
I don’t know about all the rest of it, but using the term mental masturbation two times in one paragraph is somewhat indicative of where you are, ah, mentally. 😁
this …6-5/13-9 and we are in the conversation
At some point …we need to get above .500
In confremce to get into the bubble convo AND get the overall record a few games over .500
In the old days, I would be happy with an NIT bid given that 4 of our 5 starters are freshmen, like year 1 of the Sellers/Dabney era. But it’s a different world now.
Sorry but that doesn’t quite explain the relative disparity. I understand Princeton didn’t play a great schedule but they are 12-4 with three losses of 6 points or less. One line loss of a MOV more than that. ND has lost 6 games by 7+ points. Yeah - I know ND played a harder schedule but that alone doesn’t explain it. Princeton is 4-3 vs Q3 and 2-1 vs. Q2. ND is 1-3 vs both Q3 and Q2.
Princeton at 119 NET while ND is 90 is ridiculously counter reflective of actual game outcomes, which Is clearly observable in the pure results based system despite all its other flaws (Princeton 68 and ND 182). The difference says NET is giving a bad 8-10 team credit for losing to Duke by 9.
Notre Dame has 5 Q1 and 2 Q2s left, we can make a case for them too...in fact we can make a case for any power 5 residing in top 100 or even beyond..usc, stanford, washington, oklahoma state, georgetown, south carolina...that doesnt mean we have to just because there is a 3% chance
ND is significantly ahead of Princeton in Kenpom and virtually every other similar MOV based rating system. It’s not a NET specific thing.
I mean it would be pretty normal for the message boards of any of those teams to be having similar discussions; I don’t know why you’d want to have them here. This is the Rutgers message board.
No issues with you talking about it, I get it. I am just annoyed as yesterday should have been a win along with all the other should have been win games that we have had this year. In my mind we would actually be 13-6 or even 14-5 based upon all of the “should have won” games, but the frustrating reality is we are 10-9. This year’s team is more frustrating than last year as that group was just bad and talentless. But the most frustrating part for this year is that even with 2 guys who are combining for about 40 points per game, we are still getting the same results as last season and really we are not better than last year. More interesting to watch, but not necessarily better. Hopefully, the not 100% completely out of contention part you speak of happens and we are given some sort of interesting February and into March to watch. This team has broken me of all hope and expectations for the postseason, that’s all.
ND is simply a very clear example of why the efficiency metrics don’t belong in the selection process for any post season tournament. Doing so is basically indirectly saying that because ND lost by only 11 and 9 to top teams like Houston and Duke it should be assumed that if they played more Q3 games they would stockpile wins. But they are 1-3 vs Q3. The fact that Princeton is nearly 30 spots behind them in NET is madness. Princeton is 4-3 against Q3. They have a better record against Q2 also. Against Rutgers (common opponent) they won while ND lost. No 8-10 team thats only played 4 Q1 games with a losing record against Q3 should be considered a top 100 win for anyone IMO - I don’t care what KenPom says. They have 2 total wins that aren’t Q4. Heck it wouldn’t matter if they had lost all the Q1 games by one (which wasnt even close to the case). Georgia blew the snot out of them. Losing two of the others ones by 9 and 11 isn’t even anything great. All they’ve got is a lone 4 point Creighton loss.
My comment was just a general observation comparing the output from the old results based system to the newer upgraded system that tries to fairly factor in style points. I think it would be hard to make a case right now that NET provides a better proxy for ranking overall body of work than RPI. I’m not talking about shifts of a few spots up or down but drastically inaccurate anomalies. Perhaps its just the sample of RU opponents and the opposite is observable in a similar number of other teams. I haven’t looked that closely obviously.
But when I see a team with a losing record after 18 games, no good wins and very few tries against Q1 ranking in the top 100 it screams flaw to me. Princeton is 6-4 vs Q2 and Q3 combined. ND is 2-6. No matter how you try to justify their comparative NETs with advanced metrics, it just doesn’t fly. It’s not like Princeton even played a bunch of Q1 games and lost them big.
Last edited:
Right I agree with all of the philosophical stuff here but for me it's just the way it's pointed out seems to try to argue that the NET is "wrong". It's not "wrong" it's just measuring something you don't want it to measure.
But RPI still sucks. Look at WAB or SOR. In WAB Princeton is 84th and Notre Dame is 173rd.
I didn’t intend to say the math is wrong (we don’t even know the exact math on NET right?). It’s also unclear if its static or the formula gets tweaked each year. I was just observing that after glancing at the side by side on our opponents, the NET output this year looks really bad. Hard to argue that - don’t you think? As said - maybe that’s a random fluke in the RU opponent sample. Don’t know.
I like SOR. At the end of the season my view is it’s the best stand alone metric to use for seeding. RPI generally is fairly well correlated with it though looping / blending issues with the formula and all. Both result based first and foremost. SOR doesn’t punish in the same flawed way for beating bad teams.
WAB cannot be used as a stand alone metric IMO -it just doesn’t provide enough team to team differentiation. ND, RU and Princeton are all perfect against Q4. Namely too many teams would have the same record if they played the exact same overly soft schedule.
I hate to break the bad news or future news to fans about this Non conference, SOS, NET ranking nonsense.....the whole point of the process and giving a corrupt organization like the NCAA the teeth and power to randomly pick schools with no accountability, is why the FOX Vegas tournament from Marxh 31st to April 6th is created.
Once there is an alternative tournament that generates ratings and shows similar talented players that isn't on TruTV or TNT and is a National Broadcast, is it a matter of time before that National Broadcast on FOX, takes a gradual rating away from the NCAA tournament.
The NCAA tournament is about making a bracket selection with people or offices that literally have no idea what Wichita State is in comparison to Colorado State.
BUT
If you give this about 3 to 5 years and make the Vegas FOX tournament a NIL revenue stream that takes Dylan Harper and Ace Bailey if RU doesn't make the NCAAs, good luck trying to tell fans that they're not going to watch that FOX sponsored tournament.
AND, it will end the charade of who you scheduled OOC, WAB and other nonsense of trying to determine whether RU, or UNC or Texas is the most likely team that would draw ratings if the NCAA doesn't select these bubble schools.
Do I think it's extremely relevant to see NET and bubble discussion?? It is, IF the selection process was CLEAR and didn't have 7 to 8 variables that a selection committee just randomly decides is the one they want to use one year and then they ignore the next year.
I cannot wait for the end of the NCAA as a governing body and the end of the NCAA March Madness. Give me a legitimate tournament with the best players on National TV, not cable......and let those schools play it out, instead of inviting Princeton, Colgate and other schools that collect checks for doing nothing but showing up and winning a substantially inferior league.....
Let those schools play on TruTV let's move on to seeing the best players or rosters compete for a real championship, not having UConn play 3 or 4 non Power 5 rosters before the NCAA final game vs Purdue. No one wants to see UConn play San Diego State, Gonzaga and a 16 seed as a 30 point favorite.
Once there is an alternative tournament that generates ratings and shows similar talented players that isn't on TruTV or TNT and is a National Broadcast, is it a matter of time before that National Broadcast on FOX, takes a gradual rating away from the NCAA tournament.
The NCAA tournament is about making a bracket selection with people or offices that literally have no idea what Wichita State is in comparison to Colorado State.
BUT
If you give this about 3 to 5 years and make the Vegas FOX tournament a NIL revenue stream that takes Dylan Harper and Ace Bailey if RU doesn't make the NCAAs, good luck trying to tell fans that they're not going to watch that FOX sponsored tournament.
AND, it will end the charade of who you scheduled OOC, WAB and other nonsense of trying to determine whether RU, or UNC or Texas is the most likely team that would draw ratings if the NCAA doesn't select these bubble schools.
Do I think it's extremely relevant to see NET and bubble discussion?? It is, IF the selection process was CLEAR and didn't have 7 to 8 variables that a selection committee just randomly decides is the one they want to use one year and then they ignore the next year.
I cannot wait for the end of the NCAA as a governing body and the end of the NCAA March Madness. Give me a legitimate tournament with the best players on National TV, not cable......and let those schools play it out, instead of inviting Princeton, Colgate and other schools that collect checks for doing nothing but showing up and winning a substantially inferior league.....
Let those schools play on TruTV let's move on to seeing the best players or rosters compete for a real championship, not having UConn play 3 or 4 non Power 5 rosters before the NCAA final game vs Purdue. No one wants to see UConn play San Diego State, Gonzaga and a 16 seed as a 30 point favorite.
No one eants to see 17-14 schools who underachieved play each other
If the Vegas tournament took the top schools who snub the ncaa thats different
But no Rutgers vs Wake Forest or Iowa vs Vanderbilt no one gives a shit
Sounds like you want the nba where it doesn't matter what your record is...watch paid players dribble and shoot
If the Vegas tournament took the top schools who snub the ncaa thats different
But no Rutgers vs Wake Forest or Iowa vs Vanderbilt no one gives a shit
Sounds like you want the nba where it doesn't matter what your record is...watch paid players dribble and shoot
Disagree. Real college basketball fans would rather see a competitive game with two major conference schools, especially with NBA lottery picks involved, than see UConn annihilate a 25-5 Lipscomb team.
Historical college basketball ratings say otherwise.
Yeah thats why the Nit is so great🙄
Now people are arguing for lesser ourneys with inferior teams just because of the name...wow just wow
Loyola Chicago George Mason St Peters and Butler wave hello..
And careful what you wish for
A super league made up of 32-40 schools likely does not include Rutgers
A super league made up of 32-40 schools likely does not include Rutgers
I’m sure our game vs Minny will blow the ratings away with people clamming to see our 2 NBA lottery picks. Not.
So I guess watching UConn or Duke destroy a no name 16 seed will "blow the ratings away"?
Back to the NET discussion , this NET gets more bizarre every day. UCLA stops Wisconsin’s 7 game win streak and Wisconsin was 21 and UCLA 34 and guess what UCLA goes down to 35 and Wisconsin stays at 21. I don’t care it was a 1 point game at the end as Wisconsin hit a late 3 but they have to drop and UCLA has to go up , even a few spots.
Ohio State beats Purdue and climbs 5 spots to 30 and is now a Quad 1 again. Purdue only takes a 3 spot slide from 10 to 13 despite losing to a 2-5 conference team on a 3 game losing streak at home no less. Similar argument I made last week with Rutgers being a 8-9 point underdog as the NET model doesn’t account for the significance of beating Purdue at Mackey or Nebraska at Lincoln where long win streaks were in place.
Ohio State beats Purdue and climbs 5 spots to 30 and is now a Quad 1 again. Purdue only takes a 3 spot slide from 10 to 13 despite losing to a 2-5 conference team on a 3 game losing streak at home no less. Similar argument I made last week with Rutgers being a 8-9 point underdog as the NET model doesn’t account for the significance of beating Purdue at Mackey or Nebraska at Lincoln where long win streaks were in place.
What are the ratings for Rutgers games this year?
Real college basketball fans would not like to watch Rutgers struggle defensively and play ISO on offense. Offensively, we are a low IQ team.
who is watching that game where there are 3 other usually compelling games on at the same time.
did virginia blow away umbc, how about Purdue and St Peters
yeah but lets watch 17-14 Oklahoma State battle 17-14 Stanford..what a matchup...and did you hear about Rutgers..yeah they are 16-15 even though they had 2 NBA lottery picks...lets watch them for the trainwreck vs 18-13 Wake Forest
"Have to drop"? It's not based on wins or losses, so it doesn't have to do anything. It's certainly not based on things like streaks or "significance".
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Podcast Rutgers Re-Hires Robb Smith as Co-DC and We Have....Thoughts- Latest: -RUFAN4LIFE-