THE OFFICIAL 2024-2025 NET RANKINGS THREAD
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Come on, yes every team has injuries but we are a totally different team without MAYBE the best point guard and top 10 player in the US!
As for PSU, he's had slow first half's and come on strong in second half a lot...NO WAY we are 1-7 with him healthy...NO way...Minimum 2/3 more wins...Huge difference to the record and feel...BTW, those two losses you mentioned could have been wins as well so they wash out the ND and SH wins...
How many more losses do you think Dayton can take? They have a weird mid-major resume having played such a tough non-conference and won a bunch of those games.
We’re not close to a field team though and at this point their loss count is now only 3 below us. Their wins are good but I’d think they need to remain at least 2 losses below the major conference bubble to have a chance. Does that sound right?
Sorry to circle back to thjs, but rewatching first half. You're first paragraph here. JWill plays four minutes and is taken out at 6-2. He returns to the game five minutes later and the lead has gone to 19-6. He missed most of big run. Minute later he scores on one end then comes down and gets beat on a cut, but an off ball foul saves him. Then he commits the foul on the three after the lead hits 23-6. He was playing D w active hands, but Jac has missed two open 3's w JWill in front of him. Commits the 10 sec turnover, although I'm not sure that was ten, then sends Jac to the foul line with his foul.
I don't think he was as bad as I originally thought, but really wasn't a big reason for the lead.
I understand you aren’t questioning the math but I think a lot of people make similar complaints without making that distinction.
WAB is well suited as a direct evaluation of a team’s tournament worthiness but not as well suited for SOS or quad evaluations for the reasons mentioned above. It’s centered at the bubble and will lose fidelity for teams that are far from the bubble.
I should also note that WAB still uses the efficiency numbers to determine how much a given win is worth, so it’s still in some way doing the thing you don’t like but it is pushing it further from view.
they needed to win last night to put themselves back in decent position....right now they need to run the table to get back into the field and really the only significant tough game in there is a trip to vcu. I just do not think its in the cards for the Flyers
It’s fine to use the efficiency numbers in some way, but NET heavily prioritizes them in a way that skews the ranking of teams where it actually could matter from a selection perspective moreso than the other systems and in a seemingly more unfair way. That’s my issue with it.
RPI correlates more to WAB. Both are far from perfect and are especially problematic once you get to the 200s (like WAB). But those systems do a better job of not excluding teams that have the quality wins and low loss counts from the top 40 or so (solid field classification). SDSU should be nowhere near the bubble with the wins it picked up non-conference and only 5 losses. Drake has 2 losses and only played 8 Q4 games. There is no way they should be pushing the 60s right now.
RPI would occasionally include teams like Southern Miss at the top with gaudy records and a collection of wins over other mid majors with gaudy records. While perhaps flawed, this was less bothersome to me than the omissions I’m describing above. At least it meant those teams won a lot of games against teams with a pulse. VCU just picked up their best win of the season by far. The A-10 is better than the MVC but not enough so for the discrepancy considering Drake’s resume. Winning should matter most.
Wins and losses matter based on the strengths of the teams you beat or lost to, not the records of the teams you beat or lost to. That's why RPI isn't a great measurement.
Your raw NET score, in a similar vein, isn't especially meaningful for selection. It's just there to reflect your relative strength related to other programs. Selection is not based on strength, but on what you have accomplished, which is what the quadrants are for.
It's not perfect, no system will be for all teams, but adding in wins and losses to the ranking system would make it worse, not better, imo.
Your raw NET score, in a similar vein, isn't especially meaningful for selection. It's just there to reflect your relative strength related to other programs. Selection is not based on strength, but on what you have accomplished, which is what the quadrants are for.
It's not perfect, no system will be for all teams, but adding in wins and losses to the ranking system would make it worse, not better, imo.
With RPI it was rare for a team outside the top 50 to get selected (and virtually impossible for midmajors). You could look at it for a quick and dirty picture. NET doesn’t seem to provide that. It cares a ton and punishes heavily for a bad day where a team finds a way to win.
SDSU for example is getting crucified for needing OT vs Air Force. Who cares? They won the game. We lost to Kennesaw. The two things are vastly different. On another day they beat Houston on a neutral floor. We didn’t beat Alabama. They are NET 50. We are NET 72. If they take a loss and we win another game we’d be close to even. There’s no way that should be the case. We’re right where we deserve to be IMO. SDSU should be in the low 30s.
For sorting at the bottom I do agree NET is likely a good deal better. In a pool comparing a collection of teams with bad records, RPI rewards the teams that lost to teams with better records point blank. This renders the bottom half of the pack rankings pretty worthless. My contention is that the systems that prioritize results do a better job at evaluating for all purposes (sorting included in the top 150 or so) which is really what’s most important.
Last edited:
Pretty significant if they fall to Q3
Also USC and Iowa are Q2 home games currently but can easily slip to Q3
There are only 2 teams with 14 Q1 game...
Auburn 12-2 (3-0)
Rutgers 4-10 (2-0)
4 teams with 13 Q1s
Arizona 7-6 (2-0), Kentucky 7-6 (0-1), Oregon 7-6 (2-2), Illinois 6-7 (4-1)
8 teams with 12 Q1s, Tennessee 8-4 (2-0), Purdue 7-5 (2-0), Texas A&M 7-5 (5-0), Wisconsin 7-5 (5-0), UCLA 6-6 (4-0), Ohio St 5-7 (3-3), Indiana 2-10 (3-0), and South Carolina 1-11 (0-1)
7 teams w 11 Q1s ranging from 5-6 Ole Miss, WVU, Nebraska, 4-7 Baylor, 3-8 Ariz St, USC, and Minnesota.
2-6 vs these teams with @ Oregon, @ Purdue, vs USC, vs Minn to come.
We will finish with a top 10 SOS.
Also, Alabama 10 (7-3), Maryland 10 (5-5), NW 10 (2-8)
Mich St 9 (5-4), Michigan 8 (5-3), Penn St 9 (1-8), Iowa 9 (0-9)
Notre Dame 0-4, 2-5
Auburn 12-2 (3-0)
Rutgers 4-10 (2-0)
4 teams with 13 Q1s
Arizona 7-6 (2-0), Kentucky 7-6 (0-1), Oregon 7-6 (2-2), Illinois 6-7 (4-1)
8 teams with 12 Q1s, Tennessee 8-4 (2-0), Purdue 7-5 (2-0), Texas A&M 7-5 (5-0), Wisconsin 7-5 (5-0), UCLA 6-6 (4-0), Ohio St 5-7 (3-3), Indiana 2-10 (3-0), and South Carolina 1-11 (0-1)
7 teams w 11 Q1s ranging from 5-6 Ole Miss, WVU, Nebraska, 4-7 Baylor, 3-8 Ariz St, USC, and Minnesota.
2-6 vs these teams with @ Oregon, @ Purdue, vs USC, vs Minn to come.
We will finish with a top 10 SOS.
Also, Alabama 10 (7-3), Maryland 10 (5-5), NW 10 (2-8)
Mich St 9 (5-4), Michigan 8 (5-3), Penn St 9 (1-8), Iowa 9 (0-9)
Notre Dame 0-4, 2-5
This chart underscores how important the games against Iowa, USC, and Washington are if we want to play in a postseason tournament. Hopefully, the team is healthy enough to win those plus Minnesota and we would be a lock for a postseason tournament.
pretty easy...if Rutgers wants to make the big 10 tourney or is deserving...they have 4 games against bottom half schools and 3 of them are at home....Iowa has a 17 ppg guy out for the year and are reeling..if RU cannot beat them at home i do not want to here one excuse flu or no flu. RU isnt the only school to go through flu or injuries or have a bunch of freshmen learning their way. At some point you have to step up on the court and deliver and stack wins...unfortunatley this team hasnt won more than 2 games in a row since the sisters of the poor part of the schedule
Spot on. The NCAA tournament is the stuff of fantasy when you have one two-game winning streak in conference and no winning streaks of 3 or more games.
This team simply hasn't gotten it done.
Not being able to string together three wins a row is proof that this is truly a .500 team. If they win those four games, finish 16-15, then let’s say they go 1-1 in conf. tourney, they would be 17-16. A total of 48 teams go to the NIT (32) and the new Vegas tournament (16). Big Ten is guaranteed 2 spots at Vegas tourney. I think if they finish over .500, maybe they win won more and go 18-15, I think they may go to some sort of postseason tournament.
