Net guesses?
- Thread starter HallX2
- Start date
It’s strange. They are the largest Catholic school by enrollment and have plenty of money and a basketball legacy that was great but is fading fast. Why they never went big time for a coach is a real mystery and huge mistake. I know for a fact Ackerman wants the third largest tv market to be owned by TBEC. She told me this in her first year and included st. John’s in the conversation. Fox negotiations are always on her mind.
Nice bump by 10 to #64 NET, official. KenPom was 12 to #56.
For the body of work this team has shown over 21 games that’s about right. We’ve improved by ~50 points in the NET since conference play began. I believe it was #113 around the Missouri game.
In terms of results and profile, we’re an NCAA Tournement team right now despite others with better NET ratings bc we’ve turned the corner since December. And that’s how it works. Metrics just 1 important component.
For the body of work this team has shown over 21 games that’s about right. We’ve improved by ~50 points in the NET since conference play began. I believe it was #113 around the Missouri game.
In terms of results and profile, we’re an NCAA Tournement team right now despite others with better NET ratings bc we’ve turned the corner since December. And that’s how it works. Metrics just 1 important component.
That’s a huge jump for beating a hapless DePaul team. Such a strange system. I’ll take it though.
Its aggregate stats and so many teams are so close. Big differentiators like how you play to earn a 33-point win is a big deal. And the road is weighted.
The swing between losing a game at home to a Q3 team and how badly we played versus a crisp win, idk, but I’d bet probably 15 slots. It’s hard to tell as the formula isn’t published but you can sort of figure it out by now.
It's interesting beating down a DePaul team with good metrics on the road is worth more than a home win against Marquette who was ranked. That's just the way it is
With 9 games left. If we finish 6-3 we certainly can hang our hat on those 3 wins
South Carolina beats a top 5 team away and jumps 10, we jump 10 for beating a pathetic DePaul. How does that make sense for SC??
Nova is almost a .500 team and under .500 in conference. Its nuts
Regarding Rutgers, our NET on December 8th was 82. It was 116 on December 10th. We saw a bump of +18 with win over Missouri, +15 with win over UCONN, +12 with win at Providence, +6 for win over Marquette, +10 with win at Butler and +8 for win against St John's.
Translation - the Rutgers loss really hurt on NET. Nonetheless, that loss appeared to be the turning point in our season, so at this point, i am fine with it. Quite frankly, the loss to Providence at home bothers me more.
Translation - the Rutgers loss really hurt on NET. Nonetheless, that loss appeared to be the turning point in our season, so at this point, i am fine with it. Quite frankly, the loss to Providence at home bothers me more.
Increasing our NET by that percentage for beating DP is patently ridiculous. I wonder if holding a hapless team under 40 is the reason. lol
Rutgers hurt the NET a lot more, definitely. Providence isn’t a bad team. Rutgers is.
The home loss to PC was very frustrating bc we blew a lead. But given the circumstances of no KR and off a 3OT heartbreaker with zero depth I sort of understood the collapse. Different vibe than sitting there embarrassed and leaving early against RU; I was stunned that we had dropped so low.
NET ranking and moves need to be looked at in context.
Nobody here knows what our NET point value is -- that's the actual number the formula spits out when all its calculations are complete. So, one has no idea whether we needed five points to move 10 places or 500 points to move 10 places. Likewise with South Carolina, maybe they needed 5,000 points to move from 49-39. The reality is the differences in that point value I referenced above is likely in the hundredths or thousandths of points.
Let's look at last night's games: Seton Hall wins by 33, holds its opponent to 39 points -- more than 25 below its average -- and 22% shooting. On the our side we shot 51% from the floor. DePaul dropped in the NET ranking from 300 to 311. You have to understand that is nearly impossible to do when you're ranked that low. It speaks to how far below their established benchmarks their numbers were on Tuesday night.
South Carolina's move on the other hand was largely driven by the fact they played the No. 4 ranked NET team. It's a road win against a team more than 40 positions above you. It should go without saying that beating teams ahead of you matters.
SC held Tennessee nearly 20 points below their scoring average and to 36.2% shooting and 23.8% on threes. UT's season averages are 44.6% and 33.7% respectively. SC's problem was they were not efficient shooting either (33.9% overall and 34.5% on threes). Meanwhile, Tennessee dropped only one spot, to No. 5, meaning a home loss to a top 50 team didn't appreciably hurt them from an analytic standpoint.
Nobody here knows what our NET point value is -- that's the actual number the formula spits out when all its calculations are complete. So, one has no idea whether we needed five points to move 10 places or 500 points to move 10 places. Likewise with South Carolina, maybe they needed 5,000 points to move from 49-39. The reality is the differences in that point value I referenced above is likely in the hundredths or thousandths of points.
Let's look at last night's games: Seton Hall wins by 33, holds its opponent to 39 points -- more than 25 below its average -- and 22% shooting. On the our side we shot 51% from the floor. DePaul dropped in the NET ranking from 300 to 311. You have to understand that is nearly impossible to do when you're ranked that low. It speaks to how far below their established benchmarks their numbers were on Tuesday night.
South Carolina's move on the other hand was largely driven by the fact they played the No. 4 ranked NET team. It's a road win against a team more than 40 positions above you. It should go without saying that beating teams ahead of you matters.
SC held Tennessee nearly 20 points below their scoring average and to 36.2% shooting and 23.8% on threes. UT's season averages are 44.6% and 33.7% respectively. SC's problem was they were not efficient shooting either (33.9% overall and 34.5% on threes). Meanwhile, Tennessee dropped only one spot, to No. 5, meaning a home loss to a top 50 team didn't appreciably hurt them from an analytic standpoint.
The formula is right here.
College basketball's NET rankings, explained
Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.
www.ncaa.com
Question should be:
1. Are of these weighted equally? If so, that's wrong. The biggest weighting should be on who u beat and where.
2. Early season losses shouldn't be weighed as much as the season goes on vs 2nd half.
Remember Bilas always said it should be who u play and who u beat. Committee also used to stress how you are playing down the stretch. Should you be judged in March for November/december losses but rolling since?
I do agree with some of the metrics. If team A barely beats the same teams as team B, but team B wins by an average of 10, then Team B should get the higher ranking as you Team B is clearly more dominant. However what if you are a defensive minded team that wins. The metrics say you have to be rally good offensively and defensively. Or what if you are a high powered offense that does play much defense, but in the end wins?
1. Are of these weighted equally? If so, that's wrong. The biggest weighting should be on who u beat and where.
2. Early season losses shouldn't be weighed as much as the season goes on vs 2nd half.
Remember Bilas always said it should be who u play and who u beat. Committee also used to stress how you are playing down the stretch. Should you be judged in March for November/december losses but rolling since?
I do agree with some of the metrics. If team A barely beats the same teams as team B, but team B wins by an average of 10, then Team B should get the higher ranking as you Team B is clearly more dominant. However what if you are a defensive minded team that wins. The metrics say you have to be rally good offensively and defensively. Or what if you are a high powered offense that does play much defense, but in the end wins?
We can have an AI based formula created on the biggest supercomputers by the most brilliant programming geniuses after years of painstaking research and you know what, there is gonna be a lot of bitching about who is in the tourney and what is their seed.
