THE OFFICIAL 2024-2025 NET RANKINGS THREAD

[bac2therac]

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.

That was a giant ROAD win for Ohio State...at 10-8 they were on their way out...but now put the win at Purdue up their along with their outstanding non conference win vs Kentucky plus their neutral site win over Texas and if they Buckeyes can finish 10-10 in league play, they are going to dance. This is the thing where just because a school may be 12-8 in league play that does not mean they have a better resume than a 10-10 school.

OSU is now 3-6 in Q1, 1-2 in Q2, 1-0 in Q3. Clean resume their worst loss was by one point vs Indiana. Their sos overall is 6 and its 29 non conference.

7-5 the rest of the way should get them in. They would be 18-13. This is where their 18-13 trumps the Rutgers 18-13 path and where it differs is the non conference overall sos plus the 2 nifty wins there.

Their rest of their schedule is not all that tough..a game at Illinois, at UCLA but they get Michigan at home. The schools they got 2x was not murderers row..Indiana, Nebraska, Minnesota

 

[bac2therac]

"Have to drop"? It's not based on wins or losses, so it doesn't have to do anything.

agree..they dont have to drop that much because alot of their resume was built up. You had 18 prior games, one game isnt going to make a major ding anymore. You will not see violent swings unless you win or lose by 30. The NET does not care about home win streaks or conference records. Purdue lost to a #35 school in a one possssion game, not surprising they didnt fall that far.

 

[bac2therac]

Minnesota is now up to 107 so Big 18 closing in on putting all their schools into top 100.

 

[goru7]

"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".

Which is my point ? The model is set up and excludes these factors that I think are rather important and most coaches would think they are extremely important which is why it was a sorting tool for years and although on the Team Sheets this year , is not the be all , end all.

 

[RUChoppin]

Which is my point ? The model is set up and excludes these factors that I think are rather important and most coaches would think they are extremely important which is why it was a sorting tool for years and although on the Team Sheets this year , is not the be all , end all.

The NET is intended to show one thing, the results vs Quads look at records vs those teams. They don't just take your NET rank and plug you into an at large bid.

This is why actual humans look at the resumes. But even those won't include "significance" on the team sheets.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

The NET is intended to show one thing, the results vs Quads look at records vs those teams. They don't just take your NET rank and plug you into an at large bid.

This is why actual humans look at the resumes. But even those won't include "significance" on the team sheets.

No doubt. And there’s no perfect system.

However, it seems to me, things have gotten really bad when the sorting tool is saying that an 8-10 team that went up against the 85th ranked SOS is a top 100 team.

It is fundamentally wrong to treat the difference between a one point loss and a one point win the same as the difference between a 5 point and a 7 point win (or loss) because the MOV is the same. Thats what an efficiency based focus does. Winning does (and should matter). The most accomplished teams are selected for the NCAA tournament - not the ones who disappointed but have better talent.

 

[zebnatto]

And careful what you wish for

A super league made up of 32-40 schools likely does not include Rutgers

And then those leagues will have conferences, and those conferences will have divisions with division and conference playoffs.

 

[RUChoppin]

No doubt. And there’s no perfect system.

However, it seems to me, things have gotten really bad when the sorting tool is saying that an 8-10 team that went up against the 85th ranked SOS is a top 100 team.

It is fundamentally wrong to treat the difference between a one point loss and a one point win the same as the difference between a 5 point and a 7 point win (or loss) because the MOV is the same. Thats what an efficiency based focus does. Winning does (and should matter). The most accomplished teams are selected for the NCAA tournament - not the ones who disappointed but have better talent.

I'd much rather play a team that's 10-0 with single possession wins over Q3 teams than a team that's 0-10 with single possession losses to Top 30 teams. Record alone doesn't tell the whole story.

Ohio St is a Top 30 team right now at 11-8.... and NET is saying they'd be a tougher team to beat than UNLV who is also sitting at 11-8 in the MWC. Efficiency is how the teams are sorted into quadrants... that's all NET is, a sorting tool. "This team is tougher to beat than that team" - it says nothing about how many wins/losses they've already compiled, because record doesn't make a team tougher to beat.

Your record is what makes your resume.... how many "tougher" teams did you beat, and how many "weaker" teams did you lose to. That's where your win/loss comes in.

Consolidation of conferences and targeted scheduling, though, is making this system more fragile, imo. A conference like the SEC can inflate their rankings early in the season through scheduling, then spend the rest of the season beating up on high-toughness-rating teams. Meanwhile, a weaker conference like the A10 sets themselves up for a conference slate of "weaker team" landmines. It's almost like there needs to be two rating systems, one for the I-A teams that brutalize each other and another for the I-AA teams that have only a small handful of I-A games each year.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I'd much rather play a team that's 10-0 with single possession wins over Q3 teams than a team that's 0-10 with single possession losses to Top 30 teams. Record alone doesn't tell the whole story.

Ohio St is a Top 30 team right now at 11-8.... and NET is saying they'd be a tougher team to beat than UNLV who is also sitting at 11-8 in the MWC. Efficiency is how the teams are sorted into quadrants... that's all NET is, a sorting tool. "This team is tougher to beat than that team" - it says nothing about how many wins/losses they've already compiled, because record doesn't make a team tougher to beat.

Your record is what makes your resume.... how many "tougher" teams did you beat, and how many "weaker" teams did you lose to. That's where your win/loss comes in.

Consolidation of conferences and targeted scheduling, though, is making this system more fragile, imo. A conference like the SEC can inflate their rankings early in the season through scheduling, then spend the rest of the season beating up on high-toughness-rating teams. Meanwhile, a weaker conference like the A10 sets themselves up for a conference slate of "weaker team" landmines. It's almost like there needs to be two rating systems, one for the I-A teams that brutalize each other and another for the I-AA teams that have only a small handful of I-A games each year.

No matter how many times one tries to rationalize it, Princeton still, in my view, has a much better body of work than ND. We beat ND. We didn’t beat Princeton. So despite a couple one point losses to NC State and company, I’m simply not buying it. If you are comparing 2 resumes - one has a win over Princeton and the other has a win over ND, the Princeton win should be viewed more favorably in assessing win quality. NET says otherwise.

 

[RUChoppin]

No matter how many times one tries to rationalize it, Princeton still, in my view, has a much better body of work than ND. We beat ND. We didn’t beat Princeton. So despite a couple one point losses to NC State and company, I’m simply not buying it. If you are comparing 2 resumes - one has a win over Princeton and the other has a win over ND, the Princeton win should be viewed more favorably in assessing win quality. NET says otherwise.

Princeton has virtually no body of work. They have two decent wins over Rutgers and St. Joe's, and just 3 Q2 games (zero Q1 games). They've lost to Wright State, Texas State, Furman, and Loyola-Chicago. They've also won nail biters against really bad Harvard, Dartmouth, Iona, Northeastern, and Monmouth teams. They have a 4-3 Q3 record.

Notre Dame won all their games against bad teams comfortably. They only have one decent win (Georgetown), but have faced 5 Q1 and 3 Q2 teams.

Neither team is very good - but I wouldn't say Princeton was the tougher team. On a neutral court, I'd rather face Princeton again than Notre Dame again.

And pretty much every metric other than RPI agrees.... and RPI has Princeton at 68 (just no) and Notre Dame at 183 (also no).

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Princeton has virtually no body of work. They have two decent wins over Rutgers and St. Joe's, and just 3 Q2 games (zero Q1 games). They've lost to Wright State, Texas State, Furman, and Loyola-Chicago. They've also won nail biters against really bad Harvard, Dartmouth, Iona, Northeastern, and Monmouth teams. They have a 4-3 Q3 record.

Notre Dame won all their games against bad teams comfortably. They only have one decent win (Georgetown), but have faced 5 Q1 and 3 Q2 teams.

Neither team is very good - but I wouldn't say Princeton was the tougher team. On a neutral court, I'd rather face Princeton again than Notre Dame again.

And pretty much every metric other than RPI agrees.... and RPI has Princeton at 68 (just no) and Notre Dame at 183 (also no).

Take a closer look. I don’t think Princeton is good but compared to ND they are. Your entirely going by brand names as the very quad system you are preaching sorts most of Princeton’s opponents fairly similarly to NDs ( ACC stinks). Both teams are 6-0 vs Q4. Again - Princeton is 4-3 vs Q3 while ND is 1-3. Princeton is 2-1 vs Q2 while ND is 1-3. Your right - ND went 0-4 vs Q1 while Princeton didn’t play any Q1s. So basically what your saying is getting blown out once, and losing by 11, 9 and 4 to top teams is not only better than going 3-0 vs Q3 instead, but it’s so much better that it even makes up for having a 2-6 record vs Q2-Q3 compared to Princeton’s 6-4 record.

 

[RUChoppin]

Take a closer look. I don’t think Princeton is good but compared to ND they are. You entirely going by brand names. The very quad system you are preaching sorts most of Princeton’s opponents fairly similarly to NDs. Both teams are 6-0 vs Q4. Again - Princeton is 4-3 vs Q3 while ND is 1-3. Princeton is 2-1 vs Q2 while ND is 1-3. Your right - ND went 0-4 vs Q1 while Princeton didn’t play any Q1s. So basically what your saying is getting blown out once, and losing by 11, 9 and 4 to top teams is not only better than going 3-0 vs Q3 instead, but it’s so much better that it even makes up for having a 2-6 record vs Q2-Q3 compared to Princeton’s 6-4 record.

Sorts them fairly similarly?

Notre Dame's opponents in the NET Top 100
2 - @Duke (8 pt loss)
3 - (n)Houston (11 pt loss)
27 - @Georgia (21 pt loss)
38 - UNC (1 pt loss)
40 - (n)Creighton (4 pt loss)
79 - @Georgetown (21 pt win)
83 - (n)Rutgers (1 pt loss)

Princeton's opponents in the NET Top 100
83 - (n)Rutgers (1 pt win)
86 - @St. Joseph's (8 pt win)

Meanwhile, at the bottom of their respective lists...

Notre Dame's opponents ranked 250+
272 - Stonehill (29 pt win)
289 - North Dakota (17 pt win)
333 - Buffalo (9 pt win)
338 - Le Moyne (27 pt win)

Princeton's opponents ranked 250+
269 - Harvard (4 pt win)
278 - Dartmouth (1 pt win)
284 - Monmouth (4 pt win)
291 - Iona (1 pt win)
319 - Portland (27 pt win)

Princeton has been in 4 life-and-death battles with teams rated 250-300.

Notre Dame has a worse record but is a stronger team. Heads up on a neutral floor, it'd likely be Notre Dame (-5.5), Princeton (+5.5).

And looking ahead.... Notre Dame has 7 more NET Top 100 teams to play, and Princeton has 2. The ACC may be down, but it's still a lot stronger conference than the Ivy.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Sorts them fairly similarly?

Notre Dame's opponents in the NET Top 100
2 - @Duke (8 pt loss)
3 - (n)Houston (11 pt loss)
27 - @Georgia (21 pt loss)
38 - UNC (1 pt loss)
40 - (n)Creighton (4 pt loss)
79 - @Georgetown (21 pt win)
83 - (n)Rutgers (1 pt loss)

Princeton's opponents in the NET Top 100
83 - (n)Rutgers (1 pt win)
86 - @St. Joseph's (8 pt win)

Meanwhile, at the bottom of their respective lists...

Notre Dame's opponents ranked 250+
272 - Stonehill (29 pt win)
289 - North Dakota (17 pt win)
333 - Buffalo (9 pt win)
338 - Le Moyne (27 pt win)

Princeton's opponents ranked 250+
269 - Harvard (4 pt win)
278 - Dartmouth (1 pt win)
284 - Monmouth (4 pt win)
291 - Iona (1 pt win)
319 - Portland (27 pt win)

Princeton has been in 4 life-and-death battles with teams rated 250-300.

Notre Dame has a worse record but is a stronger team. Heads up on a neutral floor, it'd likely be Notre Dame (-5.5), Princeton (+5.5).

And looking ahead.... Notre Dame has 7 more NET Top 100 teams to play, and Princeton has 2. The ACC may be down, but it's still a lot stronger conference than the Ivy.

You conveniently left out the venues of these games and simply listed the NETs. As a major conference team ND never goes on the road and plays a game at places like Harvard. See what happened when Rutgers went to Kennesaw? You’ll say Kennesaw is better than these teams but it’s a circular reference really because Kennesaw’a numbers are helped by beating Rutgers. It’s hard to win consistently on the road. Period.

Meanwhile, ND still has a collection of quad 3 losses that they picked up at home to bad ACC teams and Elon.

But regardless - none of this is really relevant to my point which wasn’t which team is better but rather which team has the better body of work. Princeton has the better resume right now by a pretty wide margin. I don’t care if ND has more talent or would be favored in a game. If the season ended today, my opinion is that Princeton should be viewed by the selection committee as a higher quality win because they have the more accomplished body of work. Everything should be about results. If your opponent overachieved that should benefit you and not attempt to be normalized by efficiency predictors. Their overachievement is an accomplishment in its own right.

 

[RUChoppin]

But regardless - none of this is really relevant to my point which wasn’t which team is better but rather which team has the better body of work. Princeton has the better resume right now by a pretty wide margin. I don’t care if ND has more talent or would be favored in a game. If the season ended today, my opinion is that Princeton should be viewed by the selection committee as a higher quality win because they have the more accomplished body of work. Everything should be about results. If your opponent overachieved that should benefit you and not attempt to be normalized by efficiency predictors. Their overachievement is an accomplishment in its own right.

Ah, see, that's the trick. NET has nothing to do with "body of work" - it's literally a sorting tool to try to determine "which team is better", so that wins against "better" schools and losses against "weaker" schools can be more easily seen/called out in the resume.

You can very easily have a more accomplished body of work, but a lower NET ranking. It happens all the time that higher ranked NET schools are left out because their resume is thin - and that lower ranked NET schools are selected because their resumes are strong. NET doesn't determine how worthy you are of the tournament - just how tough a team you are to play. It's your results vs. NET quadrants that matters more than your raw NET score.

Because of that, ND is scored as a better win (Q2 at neutral) than Princeton (Q3 at neutral), but Princeton is seen as a worse loss.

The argument "this team should have been selected because they have the better NET" isn't valid, because that's not what NET is for. Look at Rutgers making it in 2022 with a NET of 80 and a strong resume, but missing in 2023 with a NET of 40 and a weaker resume. If we won the rest of our games each by 1 point, we'd likely make the tournament and still have a NET no better than 45.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Ah, see, that's the trick. NET has nothing to do with "body of work" - it's literally a sorting tool to try to determine "which team is better", so that wins against "better" schools and losses against "weaker" schools can be more easily seen/called out in the resume.

You can very easily have a more accomplished body of work, but a lower NET ranking. It happens all the time that higher ranked NET schools are left out because their resume is thin - and that lower ranked NET schools are selected because their resumes are strong. NET doesn't determine how worthy you are of the tournament - just how tough a team you are to play. It's your results vs. NET quadrants that matters more than your raw NET score.

Because of that, ND is scored as a better win (Q2 at neutral) than Princeton (Q3 at neutral), but Princeton is seen as a worse loss.

The argument "this team should have been selected because they have the better NET" isn't valid, because that's not what NET is for. Look at Rutgers making it in 2022 with a NET of 80 and a strong resume, but missing in 2023 with a NET of 40 and a weaker resume. If we won the rest of our games each by 1 point, we'd likely make the tournament and still have a NET no better than 45.

Yeah I get it. I personally just preferred the old way where the sorting treated the quality of your wins based on how your opponents resumes turned out overall and not based on how good those teams shoild be based on their talent and efficiency. RPI was very flawed so I understood a formula change. I dont like that the concept of good and bad has changed so drastically to the point where team like ND would barely be in the top 200 in the old system is now propped into the top 100 because of MOV. I can see factoring in MOV as some kind of close call tie breaker but anything more than that seems extreme. Being able to close out a tight game is a sign of a good team in its own right. May also be a reflection of good coaching which is a factor of the team.

 

[RUChoppin]

It has certainly changed the way OOC games are scheduled. Used to be that scheduling a top team from a bad conference would help your RPI with a win.... now it's just another Q3 game that doesn't do anything for you. More valuable these days to beat the 14th team in the SEC than to beat the top team in the MVC.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Getting major conference level HS kids requires NIL, too. And then more to retain them. It's a new world.

Holloway seemingly isn't inspiring a lot of contributions, though, and hasn't been able to get the most out of the roster he's assembled.

Does it? I mean, I’m sure every kid gets a little something but for the most part, I don’t think most teams are paying big money for raw potential outside of the 5 stars and maybe high 4 stars. There are exceptions, but to earn real money most frosh have to first prove themselves. Remember - schools with unlimited funds have been able to simply buy rosters filled with transfers who have already proven what they can do. To be fair - that’s likely the reason why Lathan would’ve spoken out against bringing in a second Ogbole type. He needs to put up stats to be able to market himself.

It has certainly changed the way OOC games are scheduled. Used to be that scheduling a top team from a bad conference would help your RPI with a win.... now it's just another Q3 game that doesn't do anything for you. More valuable these days to beat the 14th team in the SEC than to beat the top team in the MVC.

Correct - and in my view, that was not a positive change overall for the sport. There are a lot of variables that go into the level of difficulty of a particular game. Trying to assign SOS metrics to talent level using advanced metrics that aren’t well aligned with outcomes isn’t working. The 14th best SEC team will blow out the NET 300 types by more than the autobid contenders on their home courts every time. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily easier to beat the autobidders in one off games.

Case in point - look at our track record against mid-major types away from home. I’m not sure we’ve beaten one of them under Pike. Like literally it might be a donut? At Fordham - L. At UMass - L. At Kennesaw - L. At Stonybrook L. Neutral losses - Princeton (2), St Bonnies, Temple. I must be missing a few games that perhaps we won. But point still stands - our record through the years in these games has been horrendous.

Thats why I say - you can’t just look at ND blowing out the worst low majors at home in front of a packed South Bend crowd and conclude much of anything. Princeton has played 5 total home games this season. One was a rivalry game vs Monmouth that likely had a neutral crowd. They lost to Loyola (12-7). Beat Akron (13-5) and Columbia (11-5) in close games at home. The only “bad” team they played at home was Iona in the very first game of the season. Comparing this schedule to ND’s is apples to oranges.

 

[bac2therac]

NET slips a spot to 84.

 

[seansherm]

NET slips a spot to 84.

Oh no, our spot on the bubble in tenuous at best now

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

It has certainly changed the way OOC games are scheduled. Used to be that scheduling a top team from a bad conference would help your RPI with a win.... now it's just another Q3 game that doesn't do anything for you. More valuable these days to beat the 14th team in the SEC than to beat the top team in the MVC.

It’s wrong. Thanks for bringing up the MVC. They are the poster child this year for the flaws in the system. Poor Drake. They are 17-2. What else do they have to do to get in the conversation? Lunardi, after all, doesn’t even have them in his next 4 out. A once would have been clear contender for at large with a respectable RPI in the 30s, Drake is banished with a NET in the 60s which is not within striking range for a MVC team.

Tell me though - what else could they have done to get in the conversation? BAC in past years talks about mid-major frauds but this year’s Drake isn’t one of them. They scheduled 3 major conference games and won all of them - all on neutral floors. They beat Vandy (currently projected in the field) by double digits. It’s not their fault KState and Miami stink, but look, they beat Miami by double digits and while the KState game was a nail biter, it’s not like KState hasn’t played some good teams close. They only lost at Kansas by 10.

By all counts, Drake should at least be in the conversation if they keep winning.

 

[fluoxetine]

Poor Drake. They are 17-2. What else do they have to do to get in the conversation?

Schedule someone OOC and failing that don't lose Q2 and Q3 games.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Schedule someone OOC and failing that don't lose Q2 and Q3 games.

They scheduled 3 major conference opponents away from home. Vandy a likely tournament team. They won all of them. All but 5 of their wins were by double digits. I guarantee you that very few major conference teams ahead of them in the NET that they’d be competing with:

A)would have a better record than 17-2 against their schedule with both losses by single digits.

B)would have 12 double digit wins against their schedule. Only 5 single digit wins.

Disagree? Outside of the very best teams pretty much every team has a few close calls against bad teams. The major conference teams get to play mid majors mostly on their own floor and there are still close calls. If you doubled the number of games they played against these teams and made it where half of them weren’t at home, there’d be more losses and certainly even more close calls.

Oh by the way - Rutgers hasn’t beaten anyone yet by double digits who clogs in better than NET 170 (home or away). And oh yeah, the home wins over Columbia and Merrimack (NET 170 and 182) are also our only double digit wins inside of NET 240.
Drake has double digit wins over Vandy (neutral 38), FAU (neutral 119), Belmont (137), Indiana St (road 222).

 

[fluoxetine]

They scheduled 3 major conference opponents away from home. Vandy a likely tournament team. They won all of them. All but 5 of their wins were by double digits. I guarantee you that very few major conference teams ahead of them in the NET that they’d be competing with:

A)would have a better record than 17-2 against their schedule with both losses by single digits.

B)would have 12 double digit wins against their schedule. Only 5 single digit wins.

I thought you thought MOV was irrelevant?

Disagree? Outside of the very best teams pretty much every team has a few close calls against bad teams. The major conference teams get to play mid majors mostly on their own floor and there are still close calls. If you doubled the number of games they played against these teams and made it where half of them weren’t at home, there’d be more losses and certainly even more close calls.

I kind of disagree yes. At 17-2 Drake is +1.0 WAB which means that roughly 40 teams would be expected to be 17-2 or better against that schedule.

 

[fluoxetine]

Also look at Kenpom's "Luck". Forget for a second about whether what it measure is truly "luck" or not, the statistic basically tells you whether a team's W/L record is better or worse than their expected W/L based on their kenpom rating.

A team like ND is 3rd to last meaning that they are much worse on a W/L basis than on an efficiency basis. Drake is slightly ABOVE average (really almost exactly zero though, +.017) meaning that at their #74 kenpom rating 17-2 is their expected record. They don't need to be better than #74 to explain their record.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I thought you thought MOV was irrelevant?

I kind of disagree yes. At 17-2 Drake is +1.0 WAB which means that roughly 40 teams would be expected to be 17-2 or better against that schedule.

I think it should be irrelevant, but since NET says it’s not, I’m pointing out that that shouldn’t be the reason their numbers are low in this case. NW is in the NET top 50 with several close calls against bad teams.

The bottom line is if what Chop was saying that the purpose of NET is to serve as a sorting tool, it’s failing in Drake’s case. 2-0 vs Q1 and 1-1 vs Q2 should be a very solid profile with only one Q3 blemish. For a 2 loss mid-major that should translate into solid positioning but the computers don’t like Drake for some reason. That was my point. The outputs seem less and less consistent each year to me.

Regarding WAB - yes, 41 seems way more reasonable and much more aligned with RPI’s output of 35 than NET’s output of 64.

 

[bac2therac]

It’s wrong. Thanks for bringing up the MVC. They are the poster child this year for the flaws in the system. Poor Drake. They are 17-2. What else do they have to do to get in the conversation? Lunardi, after all, doesn’t even have them in his next 4 out. A once would have been clear contender for at large with a respectable RPI in the 30s, Drake is banished with a NET in the 60s which is not within striking range for a MVC team.

Tell me though - what else could they have done to get in the conversation? BAC in past years talks about mid-major frauds but this year’s Drake isn’t one of them. They scheduled 3 major conference games and won all of them - all on neutral floors. They beat Vandy (currently projected in the field) by double digits. It’s not their fault KState and Miami stink, but look, they beat Miami by double digits and while the KState game was a nail biter, it’s not like KState hasn’t played some good teams close. They only lost at Kansas by 10.

By all counts, Drake should at least be in the conversation if they keep winning.

Its too early for serious bracketology

Drake is definitely in the running as is UC Irvine

 

[RUChoppin]

I think it should be irrelevant, but since NET says it’s not, I’m pointing out that that shouldn’t be the reason their numbers are low in this case. NW is in the NET top 50 with several close calls against bad teams.

The bottom line is if what Chop was saying that the purpose of NET is to serve as a sorting tool, it’s failing in Drake’s case. 2-0 vs Q1 and 1-1 vs Q2 should be a very solid profile with only one Q3 blemish. For a 2 loss mid-major that should translate into solid positioning but the computers don’t like Drake for some reason. That was my point. The outputs seem less and less consistent each year to me.

Regarding WAB - yes, 41 seems way more reasonable and much more aligned with RPI’s output of 35 than NET’s output of 64.

Will try to post more later, just on a quick break from work. Drake is #64 in NET, making them a Q1 away game and a Q2 home game for opponents. Not sure how that's failing them.... beating them is hard, which is why it would count as a good Q1/Q2 win.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Will try to post more later, just on a quick break from work. Drake is #64 in NET, making them a Q1 away game and a Q2 home game for opponents. Not sure how that's failing them.... beating them is hard, which is why it would count as a good Q1/Q2 win.

I meant “Failing” in the sense that at 64 being a mid-major they are far removed from the at large picture because of their NET. Seems to me their sorting data (sorting their wins and losses - not where they map for other teams) presents a blind resume picture of a team that should at least be on the bubble. Likely the good end of selection was today. In the RPI system, I think they would be included in most field projections as of right now. Because of their NET - not even in Lunardi’s next 4 out.

 

[RUChoppin]

I meant “Failing” in the sense that at 64 being a mid-major they are far removed from the at large picture because of their NET. Seems to me their sorting data (sorting their wins and losses - not where they map for other teams) presents a blind resume picture of a team that should at least be on the bubble. Likely the good end of selection was today. In the RPI system, I think they would be included in most field projections as of right now. Because of their NET - not even in Lunardi’s next 4 out.

I wouldn't say they are "far removed from the at large picture" - and certainly not because of their NET, which as a raw number has next to nothing to do with selection. We're still more than a week out from February - no bracketology at this point should be trusted, and especially not Lunardi's.

They are favored in all of their remaining games, and get Bradley at home. If they run the table, or at least avoid any more Q3/Q4 losses, they'd likely be in a bid-stealer situation if they failed to win the MVC tournament.

They're a "good win" for other teams, and their destiny is in their hands for an at-large bid. I'd say they're doing pretty well in the NET system, as is #61 Bradley. MVC could conceivably get two bids this year if things break right.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I wouldn't say they are "far removed from the at large picture" - and certainly not because of their NET, which as a raw number has next to nothing to do with selection. We're still more than a week out from February - no bracketology at this point should be trusted, and especially not Lunardi's.

They are favored in all of their remaining games, and get Bradley at home. If they run the table, or at least avoid any more Q3/Q4 losses, they'd likely be in a bid-stealer situation if they failed to win the MVC tournament.

They're a "good win" for other teams, and their destiny is in their hands for an at-large bid. I'd say they're doing pretty well in the NET system, as is #38 Bradley. MVC could conceivably get two bids this year if things break right.

There are first times for everything but I don’t ever recall a midmajor outside the top 50 of the prevailing system getting an At Large bid. Bradley is NET 61 by the way. While the ranking difference between 61 and 64 is splitting hairs, it doesn’t make sense for Bradley to be ahead of them either. Drake has a much better profile along with the head to head win at Bradley and one less loss.

 

[RUChoppin]

There are first times for everything but I don’t ever recall a midmajor outside the top 50 of the prevailing system getting an At Large bid. Bradley is NET 61 by the way. While the ranking difference between 61 and 64 is splitting hairs, it doesn’t make sense for Bradley to be ahead of them either. Drake has a much better profile along with the head to head win at Bradley and one less loss.

Only thing Bradley has going for it vs. Drake is a clean sheet in Q3/Q4. Really is splitting hairs between them, if they both win out (other than against each other), I think the MVC has a shot at an at-large this year.

In 2022, Wyoming was 58th out of the Mountain West and got an at-large. In 2021, Wichita St was 70th as an at large out of the American (but that was a weird year).

Usually lower-NET mid-major teams like that stumble down the stretch and pick up a bad loss that keeps them out.

 

[bac2therac]

Drake is in the running for an at large should it finish 26-5

 

[RUChoppin]

Thats why I say - you can’t just look at ND blowing out the worst low majors at home in front of a packed South Bend crowd and conclude much of anything. Princeton has played 5 total home games this season. One was a rivalry game vs Monmouth that likely had a neutral crowd. They lost to Loyola (12-7). Beat Akron (13-5) and Columbia (11-5) in close games at home. The only “bad” team they played at home was Iona in the very first game of the season. Comparing this schedule to ND’s is apples to oranges.

Princeton also played Harvard and Dartmouth at home - both bad teams, both squeakers. Columbia's also not a good team, but they're not as bad as Harvard/Dartmouth. The challenge in the Ivy is that there are usually 2-3 good/decent teams, and 5-6 bad teams - and the good/decent teams' OOC schedules are usually very light on challenging games. They pick up a bad loss or two against other Ivies, and that shuts them out of at-large contention. The Ivy League has never had an at-large bid in men's basketball, NET or RPI.

Edit: I'm assuming the first part of that post was meant for the Holloway thread?

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Only thing Bradley has going for it vs. Drake is a clean sheet in Q3/Q4. Really is splitting hairs between them, if they both win out (other than against each other), I think the MVC has a shot at an at-large this year.

In 2022, Wyoming was 58th out of the Mountain West and got an at-large. In 2021, Wichita St was 70th as an at large out of the American (but that was a weird year).

Usually lower-NET mid-major teams like that stumble down the stretch and pick up a bad loss that keeps them out.

I don’t see Bradley as a legit at large candidate. Drake’s resume is way better. As BAC said, Drake could get an At Large bid with 5 losses. Bradley would have no chance unless they won out until their conference tourney finals. But even then, they’d have 4 losses with a win at Drake being their signature win having gone 1-2 against Drake. So it’d be a long shot.

Vandy is probably a tournament team. Beating them on a neutral floor is a huge signature win on Drake’s resume. Bradley doesn’t have a win like that. Drake also won at Bradley which is a better win than any of Bradley’s wins (the SF win is decent but I think it was at home). And they have one less loss which is important too. I don’t think it’s splitting hairs - Drake clearly has the better profile right now (in terms of Bradley having a clean resume, Drake doesn’t have any Q4 losses - just one Q3 so still pretty clean).

 

[RUChoppin]

I don’t see Bradley as a legit at large candidate. Drake’s resume is way better. As BAC said, Drake could get an At Large bid with 5 losses. Bradley would have no chance unless they won out until their conference tourney finals.

Vandy is probably a tournament team. Beating them on a neutral floor is a huge signature win on Drake’s resume. Bradley doesn’t have a win like that. Drake also won at Bradley which is a better win than any of Bradley’s wins (the SF win is decent but I think it was at home). And they have one less loss which is important too. I don’t think it’s splitting hairs - Drake clearly has the better profile right now (in terms of Bradley having a clean profile, Drake doesn’t have any Q4 losses - just one Q3 so still pretty clean).

Both Drake and Bradley would need to win nearly every remaining game to get an at large. Way too many landmines in the MVC.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Both Drake and Bradley would need to win nearly every remaining game to get an at large. Way too many landmines in the MVC.

As BAC said, Drake would get serious consideration as a 5 loss team on selection day. They currently have only 2 losses in 17 games against D1. So they could potentially afford to lose 2 more of their remaining 12 games before their conference tournament. Again - that Vandy win is worth a lot for a mid major.

In contrast Bradley does not have a signature win like this. They probably cannot afford to take another loss before the conference tournament.

 

[RUChoppin]

As BAC said, Drake would get serious consideration as a 5 loss team on selection day. They currently have only 2 losses in 17 games against D1. So they could potentially afford to lose 2 more of their remaining 12 games before their conference tournament. Again - that Vandy win is worth a lot for a mid major.

In contrast Bradley does not have a signature win like this. They probably cannot afford to take another loss before the conference tournament.

Depending on who they lose to. If Drake picked up three Q3/Q4 losses, that would probably drop them out of consideration. There are several landmines in the MVC that you definitely don't want to lose to.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Depending on who they lose to. If Drake picked up three Q3/Q4 losses, that would probably drop them out of consideration. There are several landmines in the MVC that you definitely don't want to lose to.

Yeah - there are a few landmines. Missouri St is probably the most dangerous one up next - some close games so maybe more talented than their record. They still have 2 games against them. They already beat the other 2 really bad teams easily once and will have to do it again. Anything is possible but the default prediction would probably be that they win these games. It’ll be the road games vs 11-7 types that’d be statistically more likely to trip them up. But yeah, anything is possible.

My point is this. You say selection won’t ultimately be based on the NET and you may be right. The motivation to redesign the system in the first place was inspired by the Southern Miss teams of the past with gaudy RPIs that routinely got stubbed by the committee. “Fixing” the primary metric was supposed to help with those types of perception issues. I personally think it was better for the computer numbers of these types of teams to be overrated and left to the humans to sort out due to lack of quality wins, than the reverse where the humans need to be relied on to pull them back into the equation despite outlier NET numbers. Even if they continue to win, it’ll be hard for either Drake or Bradley to move from the 60s into the 40s based on their remaining schedule. RPI currently has both of them in the 30s. Bradley would be sorted out for sure if Selection was today and they lost the autobid.

 

[bac2therac]

NET rises 3 spots to 81

 

[PiscatawayMike]

It appears Drake could wind up being Monmouth in 2016.

https://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/2016/03/monmouth_snubbed_by_ncaa_tournament_selection_comm.html