NET Happenings

[Piratz]

Seton Hall moved up to #66 following the win at Butler. At now 4-2 against Q1, they are second in the country Q1 wins with 4. Only 7 out of 362 teams in America have at least 4 Q1 wins at this point. Wild.

#1 Houston, 4-2
#9 Connecticut, 4-2
#12 Wisconsin, 4-3
#16 Kansas, 5-5
#35 Villanova, 4-0
#42 Texas A&M, 4-4
#66 Seton Hall, 4-2

It seems every year there's a team or two that has a profile like Seton Hall's where the metrics are slow to catch-up to the team's improvement.

For the upcoming homestand, currently St. John's is #34, Creighton #14, Providence #69.

 

[PROF Ed]

I know it's all about the Metrics but really. Nova lost THREE games to Big Five schools

 

[JTSHU]

Its odd these metrics. St johns nova 30 apots higher. Butler around 50. How much do we have to win to be top 50???

 

[Piratz]

All these numbers are really quirky right now. Pretty typical for only January 14th.

 

[SHUSA]

funny we had a good shooting game and limited turnovers and it went up 10.

 

[statenman]

I believe the NET punishes teams that lose to RU at home.

 

[NYC Pirate]

It has been very tough for SHU to move the metric meter the last few weeks. First and foremost, the team just needs to compile wins. Winning as little as 7 more games would make the team a solid Bubble Team. More than that and they should be OK. One at a time as they say. I guess the Creighton game is more important from a metrics standpoint. Right now, SJU is the only concern.

 

[Seton75]

funny we had a good shooting game and limited turnovers and it went up 10.

Which is foolish. It is good to shoot badly and turn it over and win. To shoot well, not turn it over and lose is a waste of time.

 

[JoePeppitone2012]

It’s as if it’s better to lose to good teams with good metrics and beat bad teams with good metrics than to just WIN all the games with bad metrics.

I get it but I still just think their formulas are way off the mark

WINNING is the most important metric and should be weighted as so

 

[JTSHU]

Xavier is .500 and their net is what 43? A .500 record cannot give u a net of 43. That means theres something wrong

 

[HallX2]

I believe the NET punishes teams that lose to RU at home.

And rightfully so.

 

[chickenbox]

I know it's all about the Metrics but really. Nova lost THREE games to Big Five schools

Guess they use the imperial system.

 

[hallwins]

Iowa, USC and Rutgers losses looking worse than 2 weeks ago.

Providence win sinking in impressive category, even though we took the starch out of that team, injury to Hopkins or not.

 

[TomD82]

I believe the NET punishes teams that lose to RU at home.

Almost any home loss gets you punished. And RU net was like over 90 at the time. We lost to St Louis at home a few years ago and it was a net killer.

 

[Piratz]

Xavier is .500 and their net is what 43? A .500 record cannot give u a net of 43. That means theres something wrong

It’ll even itself out but their wins are blowouts and their defense is a real good unit.

 

[TheHall87]

I know it's all about the Metrics but really. Nova lost THREE games to Big Five schools

4-0 against Q1 does a lot of heavy lifting. They've beaten North Carolina (7), Texas Tech (37) and Memphis (50) at a neutral site and beat Creighton (14) on the road. Plus, another top 50 win in Xavier (43).

Xavier is .500 and their net is what 43? A .500 record cannot give u a net of 43. That means theres something wrong

It’ll even itself out but their wins are blowouts and their defense is a real good unit.

Their strength of schedule is carrying them. They've played 10 games against Q1/2 (4-6) and only two against Q4.

Hard to believe they'll probably play more Q4 games in BE play than the non-conference.

We have four more wins than they do but they're all Q4 wins.

X: 8-8 overall. By quad: 2-5/2-1/2-2/2-0
SHU: 12-5 overall. By quad: 4-2/0-2/2-1/6-0

 

[PirateFan94]

Question, at the end of the year is the Net dynamic meaning do they look at you competitors’ net at the time you played them or their final net at the end of the year?

 

[LeftCoastPirates]

Question, at the end of the year is the Net dynamic meaning do they look at you competitors’ net at the time you played them or their final net at the end of the year?

final NET at the end of the year.

Think about it. The NET was not released until December 3rd.

You played games before that. So how would the committee know what that team was when you played them.

Also if I beat a team ranked highly in December off of a small sample size and that team goes on to being horrific based on their final record / metrics….should I really get credit for a high quality win?

Not a perfect system but only way to evaluate the number…at the end.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Also if I beat a team ranked highly in December off of a small sample size and that team goes on to being horrific based on their final record / metrics….should I really get credit for a high quality win?

Depends, for example RU went downhill terribly after they lost Mag for the year last year. Seton Hall beat them with him. Our high quality win went down the toilet when reality is we beat a good RU team at the time.

 

[SHUisNJsTeam]

I believe the NET punishes teams that lose to RU at home.

Win and you should, lose and you risk postseason! There is really no benefit to playing them.

 

[LeftCoastPirates]

Depends, for example RU went downhill terribly after they lost Mag for the year last year. Seton Hall beat them with him. Our high quality win went down the toilet when reality is we beat a good RU team at the time.

Very rare example.

But Rutgers still played one of the worst OOC schedules in the country with Mag and they lost two of those games. So the computer numbers are what they are for the most part.
Now I know they didn’t play as well without Mag, but it’s not like they lost an All-American off their roster. They lost their defensive glue guy.

Also I don’t believe this kind of analysis was the intent of the original question.

I think they meant if a team was NET 20 when we beat them and end at an 80, how is the win evaluated. Its going to count as an 80 unless their is a massive unique outlier for an injury.

 

[PirateFan94]

final NET at the end of the year.

Think about it. The NET was not released until December 3rd.

You played games before that. So how would the committee know what that team was when you played them.

Also if I beat a team ranked highly in December off of a small sample size and that team goes on to being horrific based on their final record / metrics….should I really get credit for a high quality win?

Not a perfect system but only way to evaluate the number…at the end.

Thanks. I don’t agree with some of your justification though. If a team is a quality team and later loses a key player and goes down the tubes so to speak why should a team that beat them early be punished? We’ve beaten 3 top 25 teams. One is no longer a top 25. Should we lose credit for that?

 

[LeftCoastPirates]

Thanks. I don’t agree with some of your justification though. If a team is a quality team and later loses a key player and goes down the tubes so to speak why should a team that beat them early be punished? We’ve beaten 3 top 25 teams. One is no longer a top 25. Should we lose credit for that?

Now you are comparing NET evaluations to what they were ranked in a subjective voting poll (Associated Press)

Apples to orange comparison.

I have never seen the committee state that they evaluate top 25 wins vs teams that were ranked in the top 25 at the time you play them.

I’ll give you a couple of examples to question that theory that it should count the way you say it should.

Example 1:
We beat Michigan in our 3rd game of the year while they were ranked 4th in the country in the AP polls. They went on to finish 27th in the NET. 17-14 record prior to the dance.
Should we get credit for beating the 4th best team in the country based on a subjective early season poll. Or credit for beating the 27th best team based on overall body of work?

Example 2:
James Madison beat #4 ranked Michigan State on opening night this year. Zero data to rank the Spartans that high other than reputation. Currently MSU is 26th in the NET and 10-7 overall.
Should JMU get credit for a win over a top 5 team when it is all said and done?

 

[PirateFan94]

Now you are comparing NET evaluations to what they were ranked in a subjective voting poll (Associated Press)

Apples to orange comparison.

I have never seen the committee state that they evaluate top 25 wins vs teams that were ranked in the top 25 at the time you play them.

I’ll give you a couple of examples to question that theory that it should count the way you say it should.

Example 1:
We beat Michigan in our 3rd game of the year while they were ranked 4th in the country in the AP polls. They went on to finish 27th in the NET. 17-14 record prior to the dance.
Should we get credit for beating the 4th best team in the country based on a subjective early season poll. Or credit for beating the 27th best team based on overall body of work?

Example 2:
James Madison beat #4 ranked Michigan State on opening night this year. Zero data to rank the Spartans that high other than reputation. Currently MSU is 26th in the NET and 10-7 overall.
Should JMU get credit for a win over a top 5 team when it is all said and done?

Well by this logic we Beat UConn when they were fifth. Should we now say we beat #1?

 

[lr591902]

Well by this logic we Beat UConn when they were fifth. Should we now say we beat #1?

Yes you should

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Well by this logic we Beat UConn when they were fifth. Should we now say we beat #1?

If you go with that we beat #1 but don’t have 3 top 25 wins only 2 since PC dropped out.

 

[Piratz]

 

[chickenbox]

If we sha totally wanted to blow, them out, wouldn't have put in the deep bench (and probably would have called a timeout or two)

 

[sami]

Kenpom up to 54, find out net tomorrow but in that range.

 

[SHUSA]

Kenpom up to 54, find out net tomorrow but in that range.

if they didnt drop the lead by 5 in the waning minutes you think it goes more?

 

[sami]

if they didnt drop the lead by 5 in the waning minutes you think it goes more?

Maybe. We picked up some negative metrics in that run (was 8-0). Turnover, missed shot, defensive fg% on their makes. But who really knows.

Just keep winning.

 

[thehall07]

if they didnt drop the lead by 5 in the waning minutes you think it goes more?

This isn’t serious right ?

 

[nutterforthree]

This isn’t serious right ?

It is. His point is well taken. If Net is all about metrics, then that run at the end of the game hurt the team, however small.

Using metrics like this is the dumbest thing in the world- but it is what it is.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

If you’re worried about 5 points, the points we missed on layups early in the game would be the place to start. But 5 points is possibly moving us up one spot. It’s January 17th, unless something like top 5 in NET is the goal, we can achieve anything we want at this point by just winning.

 

[Piratz]

NET moved up to 58. So we’ ve jumped about 20 spots in 2 games. Keep winning.

I think around the Missouri game we were 113 or something so we’re moving.

 

[Hall Is Life]

The NET is the reason Kadary was still in the game with 3:00 left up 20+ points. Sha is in tune with how the system works and for that reason, our best player got hurt. Hopefully it’s not serious but if he has to miss time, you can blame the NET and the ridiculous rewarding of running up the score. Terrible system. I understand there has to be a way to rank 362 teams but running up the score shouldn’t be one of them.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

The NET is the reason Kadary was still in the game with 3:00 left up 20+ points. Sha is in tune with how the system works and for that reason, our best player got hurt. Hopefully it’s not serious but if he has to miss time, you can blame the NET and the ridiculous rewarding of running up the score. Terrible system. I understand there has to be a way to rank 362 teams but running up the score shouldn’t be one of them.

I would think getting Brown minutes is more important than the NET on January 16th unless you plan on being a bubble team.

 

[Hall Is Life]

I would think getting Brown minutes is more important than the NET on January 16th unless you plan on being a bubble team.

I don’t understand this board and their calling for Brown. He’s in essence the 4th point guard on the roster behind Kadary, Dawes, and Wusu. He will be recruited over as many years as he stays here. He’s a nice player but there is no importance in getting him minutes right now. With that said, if Sha could do it over, Brown would have been in that game before Kadary took that hit. Very unfortunate.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

I don’t understand this board and their calling for Brown. He’s in essence the 4th point guard on the roster behind Kadary, Dawes, and Wusu. He will be recruited over as many years as he stays here. He’s a nice player but there is no importance in getting him minutes right now. With that said, if Sha could do it over, Brown would have been in that game before Kadary took that hit. Very unfortunate.

We have no depth. The other 2 guys you mentioned behind Kadary get 30 minutes per game already. This is about getting Brown minutes so those other guys can get more of breather or give Sha more options if a couple of them get in foul trouble or God forbid have to miss a game.

 

[Wolf11642]

Malachi is never getting minutes and rightfully so. He lacks the size, physicality, and explosiveness to play at this level. Sha would have Sanders run the point over him