Only 6 spot move in the NET
- Thread starter JTSHU
- Start date
It’s about efficiency, but more importantly, the teams in front of you. If they do nothing to drop below, there’s not much you can do, except keep winning.
It’s not about the critics. It’s about us. Just keep up the effort, the spirit, and the focus.
Committing 22 turnovers probably didn't help.
www.ncaa.com
College basketball's NET rankings, explained
Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.
www.ncaa.com
Did you expect to move 10+ spots for a three point home win? Sometimes I wonder what some people expect. Six spots is a pretty decent jump for one win.
Can
Seton Hall outperformed the projected score by 8 points (projected 5 point loss, 3 point win)
St. John's outperformed the projected score by 16 points (projected 6 point loss, 10 point win)
Road wins are more valuable than home wins, especially when the "projected" winning margin is larger
Can only go off Kenpom which is somewhat close to the NET.
Seton Hall outperformed the projected score by 8 points (projected 5 point loss, 3 point win)
St. John's outperformed the projected score by 16 points (projected 6 point loss, 10 point win)
Road wins are more valuable than home wins, especially when the "projected" winning margin is larger
And let’s not forget SHU was No. 113 in NET a few weeks ago. It’s not like they’ve been stagnant in the rankings.
shu's identity has been toughness for the last 10 years and by that i mean they dont translate well to efficiency metrics like the NET
Still don’t get the idea that it’s not always a measure of what you do, but what the teams ranked near you do? It’s pretty clear SHU has done enough to stay with them (rising significantly lately, in fact), but if you win and they win, it’s tougher to climb past them.
It‘s no different than baseball standings or the leaderboard at a golf tournament. You can be hot or cold, but whether you rise or fall is dependent on the results around you.
As for how teams are ranked, it’s explained in the post above. Xavier has obviously been more efficient than SHU, as was on full display in their win over …. SHU.
I think everyone still looks at it without acceptance of what “metrics” entails.
Kenpom
Xavier
Xavier
Seton Hall was really bad in some areas during the non-conference. Lost if games not close. It’s going to take a lot of good data correction to fix. These metrics are not a judgment of a teams profile and are slow to react to positive changes bc it’s aggregate data. The NET does weigh results a bit more than KP, allegedly.
More like Marquette #10 vs. Villanova #26, home vs. road, close game vs. blowout.
Just win.
It’s not just win though according to these metrics its HOW and WHERE you win that will effect a postseason seed
Don’t blow a 10 point lead in the final 90 seconds and we likely move up higher… other qualification to move up higher is to be a big 10 school.
The Rutgers/Xavier losses will be an albatross to our metrics and USC has not exactly been lighting it up either.
They have played 8 quad 1 or 2 games with only two being at home. Also they have played only two teams with a 200+ NET.
The Hall has played only 7 Quad 1/2 games and 3 were at home. also they have played 4 teams with a 200+ NET. In addition the Missouri (117)/ Rutgers (95) games are a Quad 3.
Need to stop bragging about the Missouri win from a metrics perspective. It was good for offensive numbers only.
Would’ve been more helpful had we hung on to the big 19-point lead too. Same as Saturday up 10 on Marquette with ~2 mins to play.
I think you’re misleading the readers here a bit by posting Ken Pom numbers.
For the sake of this conversation Missouri is evaluated as 113 NET instead of 102 Ken Pom.
So the computer is spitting out its results relative to that measurement.
Fans should be looking at this link to follow the Pirates NET performance.
https://bracketologists.com/team/seton-hall-pirates
Check out the link I posted above. Really awesome NET data if you’re into that kind of nerdy analysis like I am.
But the point still stands. Some fans are complaining about the current NET rank while using things like AP rank and Ken Pom to skew their opinion about this number.
It’s only one measure the committee uses to determine who makes the field, but they have leaned on it strongly and absolutely have been using it for seeding purposes.
So we should learn how it works instead of griping about it.
And yes it has its flaws like any other system. If I leave my starters in and blow a team out. It doesn’t value a 30 point win more than a 10 point win. But typically in order to yield that result your offensive / defensive metrics were much better in that game. For a team like Seton Hall to do that, you need to run your starters longer at a detriment to young player development.
I would rather see the player development in those games, which has a longer lasting impact on the season’s overall success and future success as well.
Here's the NCAA site which is where I usually pull info from. https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
The chart is sortable so you can sort by conference or record by quad etc.
As for the rest of this, it's hard to have a discussion where one side doesn't really get how this comes together and uses data from other sources to try to make an argument.
Data ebbs and flows. Sometimes different sections of a chart can be far more competitive than others. That's especially so when the differences in the overall data are measured in tenths or hundredths. As others have noted, the ranking in NET (and KenPom) is affected as much by outside forces (other teams results) as it is by what you do.
Similar threads
