Declining from 73 before last night’s game. I guess you don’t advance with a win against a lower opponent unless it is an oil painting. Thanks to gonzo for that apt metaphor
Net now 74
- Thread starter HallX2
- Start date
Yet according to Brad Watchel
"The casual fan may not realize it, but Seton Hall beating Georgetown to avoid a second Q3 loss is just as important as any major win the Pirates have already accrued. The hot run continues."
Move down one !
"The casual fan may not realize it, but Seton Hall beating Georgetown to avoid a second Q3 loss is just as important as any major win the Pirates have already accrued. The hot run continues."
Move down one !
He doesn’t clarify that the significance of the win prevented a major drop in the NET if they lost. Hence the importance being just as high.
At some point you can’t keep battling back from an 80+ NET rating.
So no losses to DePaul or Georgetown is paramount. It’s not going to bolster the resume. But it could easily put a black mark on it with a loss. Right now Rutgers is that black mark.
We started low and had a few rough losses. Monitoring it like blood pressure may cause hysteria. Lot's of basketball to play. Just win.
Would you rather they plummet with a loss?
Look at Creighton winning by 26 at DePaul last night. That’s an efficient win. Not just the final score, but the efficiencies built up to achieve it.
Conpare that to the SHU win at Gtown. A win for sure, but the efficiency outputs weren’t good enough to jump the ranking.
I completely appreciate the win. But I also appreciate and somewhat respect the metrics (kind of my thing in general).
Everything about our metrics were solid last night until you get down to the 16 turnovers vs a 200+ NET opponent.
Use the Creighton win vs DePaul as an example. Having a system that properly evaluates the better performance/ quality of that win vs what we were able to accomplish is a good system. It’s never going to be a perfect system. However you have to admit it’s better than what the RPI system provided previously.
Just an FYI I’m pretty sure NET isn’t used to evaluate a team
The idea is to evaluate who a team has BEATEN (and lost to).
So if Seton Hall beats a theoretical team that has a losing record but lost like six close games to great teams, it gets appropriate credit. But teams themselves aren’t (supposed to be) selected based on NET, but on simple wins and losses (who they beat or lost to, not margin of victory). What NET purportedly helps with is adjusting the value of certain wins and losses.
Perhaps the selection committee might get influenced by NET in terms of picking a team but they’re technically not supposed to be.
The idea is to evaluate who a team has BEATEN (and lost to).
So if Seton Hall beats a theoretical team that has a losing record but lost like six close games to great teams, it gets appropriate credit. But teams themselves aren’t (supposed to be) selected based on NET, but on simple wins and losses (who they beat or lost to, not margin of victory). What NET purportedly helps with is adjusting the value of certain wins and losses.
Perhaps the selection committee might get influenced by NET in terms of picking a team but they’re technically not supposed to be.
8-7 the rest of the way and avoiding Quad 3 and Quad 4 losses, will be a NCAA tournament quality resume. To lock it up, add one win in the BET.
I'm curious about the metrics, perhaps someone can explain:
Xavier (7-7): Net 53 - Q1 0-4, Q2 3-1, Q3 1-2, Q4 3-0
Seton Hall (11-5): Net 74 - Q1 3-2, Q2 0-2, Q3 3-1, Q4 5-0
Xavier (7-7): Net 53 - Q1 0-4, Q2 3-1, Q3 1-2, Q4 3-0
Seton Hall (11-5): Net 74 - Q1 3-2, Q2 0-2, Q3 3-1, Q4 5-0
The little red school house beat Indiana at home. That ought to help us a bit.
Your comparison of the two records and incongruent NET scores really reveals the glaring flaws in the math formula used to derive NET scores.
I would imagine Xavier, with much poorer record, is ranked 21 points better than Seton Hall because the formula overvalues how you won. Defense oriented teams will always be at a disadvantage to offense-oriented finesse teams. Xavier is just such a team but also is pretty decent defensively, which is somewhat unusual for a Miller coached team.
The NCAA likes to say that NET isn’t everything, it’s just another tool in the toolbox. They keep NET, but I wish they kept RPI as a tool as well.
It’s like we explained to you last week… the quadrants are a category….. beating No 1 and No. 75 on the road are both Quad 1, but the numbers within are vastly different. Same goes for every other game.
Xavier has obviously been more efficient than SHU. And a 20 point win over SHU obvious factors into the rating for both teams.
I‘d love for SHU to win a game by 20, or to beat DePaul in Chicago by 26. Not just for the win, but for the efficiency values that come with it.
Remember also that wins like that don’t just cement your own profile, but also help separate you from the field.
Honestly think that GT is going to have 2-3 knockoff wins in big East play this year. The volume in which they shoot the 3 is crazy. If they have a hot night and the opponent is cold then it’s a run away for the Hoyas
And Creighton didn't even move from #14 NET after last night's win. Had they beat DePaul by say, 5 points, they would have dropped. DePaul is such an anchor on every Big East team. Anyone who loses to them is going to have a big black mark on the resume.
This isn't the case at all. Xavier is 77th in adjusted offensive efficiency. Where it excels is on defense. #24 there.
Totally agree they can knock off most P6 teams on a hot night easily with shooting like that
As an aside to that, the fact that they didn’t makes me think they may ultimately be alongside UConn as the team to beat when all is said and done.
Well my point still stands: Efficiency trumps actual victories over high ranked teams. Xavier only won 7 games, none of a caliber to Seton Halls 3 big wins, but is ranked much higher. That is a very flawed metric.
No single game has that metrical power. That loss was bad for Seton Hall only because of its manner. If we lost by 5, our net may have increased.
Xavier is a really curious case to say the least when looking at the NET.
Positives
NET Strength of schedule: 17 (SHU: 51)
NET OOC SOS 51 (SHU: 216)
Average NET opponent: 103 (SHU: 130)
Wins against St Mary (51) Cincinnati (31)
3 losses on the road to top NET teams
Purdue (3), SJU (35), Nova (32)
And a loss at home to #1 NET Houston.
When they have won it’s been by a margin of 18. So their efficiency numbers are most likely good.
And haven’t taken a lopsided loss like that besides the game against St John’s.
Negatives
Losses at home to Oakland (141) and Delaware (129)
O-4 vs quad 1
Eye test right now give me Seton Hall.
On paper metrics, SHU is behind them in a lot of categories.
USC / IOWA / RUTGERS are unfortunately metric draining loses. Keep winning and the numbers will balance. But those are killers.
You are correct that efficiency trumps actual victories in metrics like NET and KP. It is a weakness of the system and guys like Pomeroy are quick to say that metrics shouldn't be the main factor in choosing At-Large teams.
It is important to know that the NCAA is looking more at who you beat and your total resume. NET is used to put teams in different Quadrants so that Wins & Losses can be weighed in some manner but Overall Resume with Quality of Wins & Losses is still the main criteria used to select Tournament teams.
You said it best. “Quality of Wins and Loses”.
There have been numerous topics of 11 or 12 BE wins and you have to be in.
We tend to forget about the quality. There was a path to get to 11 BE wins without having beaten the top teams in the conference.
Now that they have 3 of those under their belt the conversation of how the quality of 11 or 12 wins impacts the resume is completely different.
42 Xavier (7-7)
Kenpom
68 Seton Hall (11-5)
Kenpom| Mon Nov 6 | 205 | Saint Peter's | W, 70-59 | Home | 1-0 | |||||
| Sat Nov 11 | 328 | Fairleigh Dickinson | W, 85-55 | Home | 2-0 | |||||
| Wed Nov 15 | 243 | Albany | W, 96-71 | Home | 3-0 | |||||
| Sat Nov 18 | 298 | Wagner | W, 72-51 | Home | 4-0 | |||||
| Thu Nov 23 | 61 | USC | L, 71-63 | Neutral | 4-1 | |||||
| Fri Nov 24 | 53 | Iowa | L, 85-72 | Neutral | 4-2 | |||||
| Wed Nov 29 | 230 | Northeastern | W, 88-75 | Home | 5-2 | |||||
| Tue Dec 5 | 13 | Baylor | L, 78-60 | Away | 5-3 | |||||
| Sat Dec 9 | 87 | Rutgers | L, 70-63 | Home | 5-4 | |||||
| Tue Dec 12 | 188 | Monmouth | W, 70-61 | Home | 6-4 | |||||
| Sun Dec 17 | 104 | Missouri | W, 93-87 | Semi-Away | 7-4 | |||||
| Wed Dec 20 | 6 | Connecticut | W, 75-60 | Home | 8-4 | 1-0 | ||||
| Sat Dec 23 | 42 | Xavier | L, 74-54 | Away | 8-5 | 1-1 | ||||
| Wed Jan 3 | 45 | Providence | W, 61-57 | Away | 9-5 | 2-1 | ||||
| Sat Jan 6 | 15 | Marquette | W, 78-75 | Home | 10-5 | 3-1 | ||||
| Tue Jan 9 | 184 | Georgetown | W, 74-70 | Away | 11-5 | 4-1 |
I hate this whole NET crap. A win is a win. So stupid that teams are punished for not running up a score.
When comparing the two teams the numbers that stand out to me are SOS and non-conference wins.
Xavier has two top 50ish OOC wins and Seton Hall's best OOC win is NET 118. Plus, they have the head-to-head win.
Yes, Xavier has some "bad losses" but those teams are 129 and 141 in the NET. Those ranks are better than any non-P5 opponent we played. It probably doesn't hurt that until last night, only one other team had come within single digits of Houston.
I think LCP says it best. Eye says Seton Hall but the "numbers" fall on their side for now.
We can worry about this if the NCAA decides they are going to pick the field strictly based on NET. They don't and thus it's simply one more thing in the Selection Committee's tool box.
It’s a data point in a moment of time. No one should let this upset them on January 10th when our team is performing well escapes me. I posted it for informational purposes only.
This is important to realize when you take this as a whole.
Creighton carved up DePaul on Tuesday night. They won by 26, shot nearly 50% from the floor and committed just six turnovers. Yet, they didn't move. That's partly because their numbers don't really jump off the page on either end of the floor -- other than margin of victory. Also, they beat the worst P6 team in the country (by NET). And that team fell from 286 to 294.
We played well. Did some good things and some not-so-good things. We shot 60% overall and we committed 17 turnovers. We won by four against NET 212. While we dropped one place, they moved up four. That's going to happen with these teams because they are a drag on the conference from a metrics standpoint.
Just for grins, I picked a few other games from Tuesday to see the NET effect. You'll notice a trend here.
Kentucky 90 Missouri 77. Kentucky wins at home by 13 and drops from 17 to 18 while Missouri holds at 118.
Alabama 74 South Carolina 47. The Tide rolled at home and held flat at No. 6. The now 13-2 visitors dropped from 42 to 55.
LSU 77 Vanderbilt 69. The Tigers win by eight at home and dip two spots to No. 98. Vandy, on the other hand, jumped eight spots with the loss and now sits at No. 239
Nevada 67 Air Force 54. The Wolf Pack improve to 15-1 with a double digit win over the Falcons. Nevada holds at No. 30 while AFA moves up one place to No. 233.
Each game is one data point in the accumulation of data.
Xavier looking pretty good at home vs. UConn. Tough as nails on the boards and one of the conference's best shooters in Olivari.
We need to keep winning, steal one on the road at Butler and protect home court starting with Johnnie's. It won't be easy. They are deep, and very good at every position. Taking 2/3 at home during the next home stand would be very good.
