NET Ratings

[ramster]

Here they are - what everyone has been waiting for

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketbal ... t-rankings

[SmartyBarrett]

First iteration of NET Ratings (essentially the 'new' RPI) have been released.

Rhody checks in at 160, good for 8th in the A-10. Here's a look at the entire conference. (Some weird results, but these should normalize as a bigger sample size builds):

40. Duquesne
56. VCU
62. Saint Louis
69. Dayton
100. Davidson
127. Fordham
149. Saint Joseph's
160. Rhode Island
172. UMass
257. George Mason
263. Richmond
275. George Washington
322. St. Bonaventure
336. La Salle


Some other teams of note:

109. Holy Cross
112. College of Charleston
115. Providence
124. Harvard
141. West Virginia
152. Stony Brook
183. Brown
237. Middle Tennessee
295. Bucknell
302. Bryant

Full list: https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketbal ... t-rankings

[rjsuperfly66]

The NET still draws some influence from the RPI which makes them unreliable (although not as much as the RPI) until conference play begins.
It's killing teams that lack Q1/Q2 wins and teams that have Q3/Q4 losses.
If you look at Duquesne's "nitty-gritty" report, they metric solidly because of a #11 SOS (NET metric), a 1-1 Q1 metric, and a 1-0 Q2 metric.
Their Q1 win is Radford (#3 SOS, 1-1 Q1, 2-0 Q2), and their Q2 win is UIC (#1 SOS, 0-3 Q1, 0-0 Q2).
Radford's Q1 win is Notre Dame, and their Q2 wins are UIC and @ William & Mary.
Radford has a NET of 22, a Sagarin of 95, and a KenPom of 131.
Which one is not like the others?
That'll correct, no doubt.

[ramster]

First iteration of NET Ratings (essentially the 'new' RPI) have been released.

Rhody checks in at 160, good for 8th in the A-10. Here's a look at the entire conference. (Some weird results, but these should normalize as a bigger sample size builds):

40. Duquesne
56. VCU
62. Saint Louis
69. Dayton
100. Davidson
127. Fordham
149. Saint Joseph's
160. Rhode Island
172. UMass
257. George Mason
263. Richmond
275. George Washington
322. St. Bonaventure
336. La Salle


Some other teams of note:

109. Holy Cross
112. College of Charleston
115. Providence
124. Harvard
141. West Virginia
152. Stony Brook
183. Brown
237. Middle Tennessee
295. Bucknell
302. Bryant

Full list: https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketbal ... t-rankings

Ouch. State of Rhode Island Basketball is not good
PC - 115
URI - 160
Brown - 183
Bryant - 302

So much for Duquesne and Fordham bringing the A10 Teams down. George Mason, Richmond, St Bonaventure, George Washington and LaSalle are all worse than 250.

[bigappleram]

As RJ said these will correct themselves. West Virginia wont be 141 for long. And Duquesne won't be 40. Not much to read into these at this early date. Look at Ken Pom for better metrics.

[SmartyBarrett]

You don't need to get much further than Loyola Marymount at #10 to realize that this was a bit early for the first release.

[TruePoint]

This is one of the most worthless pieces of data in the history of human kind. I don’t know who at the NCAA decided to release this now when it has negative value, but that person is either an idiot or a gloriously hilarious trollking.

They shouldn’t do this until January, probably, similar to how the CFP selection committee waits until later in the year to release their initial rankings.

There is literally nothing to be gleaned from this, not that PC and URI are actually not top-100 teams, not that Loyola Marymount is a wagon like Hank Gathers just rose from the dead, not that Kentucky is actually an NIT team. It’s literally all worthless.

[OhioRam32]

Here they are - what everyone has been waiting for

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketbal ... t-rankings

Glad to see Fordham is ranked higher than us. LOL

[rjsuperfly66]

This is one of the most worthless pieces of data in the history of human kind. I don’t know who at the NCAA decided to release this now when it has negative value, but that person is either an idiot or a gloriously hilarious trollking.

The NCAA used to send out it's official RPI pretty regularly, so I would say they are trying to follow a similar pattern when it comes to the NET.
I do agree with you that it's completely worthless in it's current form, not unless there was some sort of NET forecast with it.
You can get some trending ideas, but very minimal.
I.E - If Radford is #22 now, they probably won't have a terrible NET at the end of the year (200+).
Likewise, Bryant has a NET of 300+, it's unlikely they'll have a NET lower than 225.
Other than that, I don't know what there is to get from it.

[ramster]

Maybe this could be looked at as a strength of the NEC
Consider LMU is 7-0 and will likely be 8-0 when playing at nearby UCLA on December 2
LMU was underdog by 6 playing at UNLV and won by 11
Then was underdog to Georgetown by 7 and won by 13
In this regard it’s giving credit where it’s due
Granted things might not hold up but at this point all might make sense

[rjsuperfly66]

Maybe this could be looked at as a strength of the NEC

It's good now but it's predictable what will happen.
SOS will change drastically once conference play starts.
Teams in strong conferences will see the bump.
Teams in weak conferences will see the drop.
You look at the Big East for example, PC has the worst NET at 115.
When all is said and done, most of their conference games will be against NET's better than 100.
That'll be about 14 out of 18 games against Top 100 NET's.
That'll mean plenty of Q1 and Q2 opportunities, plus a much stronger SOS than their OOC.
It looks worse now, because of their middling SOS plus no Q1/Q2 wins.

[ramster]

However if this was last year and we were ranked #10 most of us would be counting the days and hours until next Monday’s ranking came out
Me leading the pack

[adam914]

This headline pretty much says it all.

https://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com ... t-for-now/

[URI2006_Andy]

I am a huge fan of using NET. This first issuance furthers my belief. It’s so early in the season that the rankings don’t mean much. But to dismiss the NET rankings will only continue the unfair trend of using individual subjective beliefs to determine the bracket.

[ATPTourFan]

NCAA Selection Committee still subjectively selects the at large teams and seeds them and positions them in the draw.

[URI2006_Andy]

NCAA Selection Committee still subjectively selects the at large teams and seeds them and positions them in the draw.

Yes, and NET gives the committee an opportunity to be more objective and stay close to a ranking system that was approved by the NCAA after months of consultation with various stakeholders.

For example if Radford ends up 22 in NET, they should not have to worry about being in. (I know they won’t end up 22 before you all give me a lecture on how all the power conference schools have better resumes than Radford.)

[rhodysurf]

Is the NET proprietary? I cant find the actual formula anywhere

[ramster]

NCAA Selection Committee still subjectively selects the at large teams and seeds them and positions them in the draw.

Yes, and NET gives the committee an opportunity to be more objective and stay close to a ranking system that was approved by the NCAA after months of consultation with various stakeholders.

For example if Radford ends up 22 in NET, they should not have to worry about being in. (I know they won’t end up 22 before you all give me a lecture on how all the power conference schools have better resumes than Radford.)

Andy,
I agree with your point.
But isn’t it Ironic that mid majors like Loyola Marymount beats UNLV and Georgetown, lipscomb beats TCU and SMU, Furman beats Villanova, Redford beats Notre Dame (and their only loss comes from Duquesne), and others but we say the Mid Majors will come back down to earth once P5 and BE Conference play starts? That’s the point, right? That maybe the upsets that take place in the NCAA tournament are not such upsets to begin with - maybe the talent gap is not so big to begin with.

[ATPTourFan]

Is the NET proprietary? I cant find the actual formula anywhere

Yes, very. Also elements of it may be quite difficult for third parties to emulate. Not sure we will ever have sites like LIVE-NET.com.

[ramster]

Deadspin’s view of the NET Rating System

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadspin.c ... 666141/amp

[rhodysurf]

Is the NET proprietary? I cant find the actual formula anywhere

Yes, very. Also elements of it may be quite difficult for third parties to emulate. Not sure we will ever have sites like LIVE-NET.com.

ugh that sucks

[rjsuperfly66]

NCAA Selection Committee still subjectively selects the at large teams and seeds them and positions them in the draw.

Yes, and NET gives the committee an opportunity to be more objective and stay close to a ranking system that was approved by the NCAA after months of consultation with various stakeholders.

For example if Radford ends up 22 in NET, they should not have to worry about being in. (I know they won’t end up 22 before you all give me a lecture on how all the power conference schools have better resumes than Radford.)

Andy,
I agree with your point.
But isn’t it Ironic that mid majors like Loyola Marymount beats UNLV and Georgetown, lipscomb beats TCU and SMU, Furman beats Villanova, Redford beats Notre Dame (and their only loss comes from Duquesne), and others but we say the Mid Majors will come back down to earth once P5 and BE Conference play starts? That’s the point, right? That maybe the upsets that take place in the NCAA tournament are not such upsets to begin with - maybe the talent gap is not so big to begin with.

I think the problem with that is that UNLV and Georgetown are not particularly great teams.
Georgetown has a KenPom of 89. UNLV has a KenPom of 133.
Both look like long-shots to make the NCAA Tournament, and probably the NIT as well.
So it's really not indicative of things that could happen in the NCAA Tournament, as neither team looks close to that.
Lipscomb has a better argument as their opponents have KenPom's currently of 45 and 85.
Radford's win was against a team with a KenPom of 52 and their loss was to a team with a KenPom of 152.
Is KenPom the end all? No.
But why do we have to overvalue certain teams to make an argument?
Loyola Marymount has a nice early season resume.
Is it overrated by the NET?
Yes, of course.
Their resume is not better than Kansas who has beaten 2 Top 10 teams, 3 Top 50 teams, and whose worst win in a 5-0 start is to a team with a KenPom of 136.
Any system saying that is showing a huge flaw in logic -- there couldn't be any more of an SOS than that, and it'll make the committee turn the NET into an obsolete metric just like they did with the RPI.

[URI2006_Andy]

KenPom is great for predicting who will win if two teams played each other. But that is not the standard that should be used to determine an at-large selection. The standard should be which team has earned the spot. That is what NET seeks to answer.

KenPom is simply a tool that allows you to say my team has a higher probability of beating your team if they were to play each other. KenPom’s own website says it is not designed to tell you who has the better resume.

[rjsuperfly66]

KenPom is great for predicting who will win if two teams played each other. But that is not the standard that should be used to determine an at-large selection. The standard should be which team has earned the spot. That is what NET seeks to answer.

KenPom is simply a tool that allows you to say my team has a higher probability of beating your team if they were to play each other. KenPom’s own website says it is not designed to tell you who has the better resume.

By KenPom’s admission, his metric should not be used for the tournament selection because it doesn’t factor wins and losses. It is a strength metric, in that you can still judge how strong a team is. You can still use them to tell how strong a win or a loss is. I agree with the idea that this metric should not be used for tournament selection, but if I’m trying to figure out how strong a teams victories are, I need a realistic metric to use. It’s clear at this point that is not the NET. Take KenPom out of it, use Top 25 rankings. Anyone saying Loyola Marymount is better than Kansas is majorly flawed. That’s not just roster perception, Kansas has a significantly better resume. You can’t compare Georgetown or UNLV to Tennessee, Michigan St, or Marquette.

[URI2006_Andy]

KenPom is great for predicting who will win if two teams played each other. But that is not the standard that should be used to determine an at-large selection. The standard should be which team has earned the spot. That is what NET seeks to answer.

KenPom is simply a tool that allows you to say my team has a higher probability of beating your team if they were to play each other. KenPom’s own website says it is not designed to tell you who has the better resume.

By KenPom’s admission, his metric should not be used for the tournament selection because it doesn’t factor wins and losses. It is a strength metric, in that you can still judge how strong a team is. You can still use them to tell how strong a win or a loss is. I agree with the idea that this metric should not be used for tournament selection, but if I’m trying to figure out how strong a teams victories are, I need a realistic metric to use. It’s clear at this point that is not the NET. Take KenPom out of it, use Top 25 rankings. Anyone saying Loyola Marymount is better than Kansas is majorly flawed. That’s not just roster perception, Kansas has a significantly better resume. You can’t compare Georgetown or UNLV to Tennessee, Michigan St, or Marquette.

Any assumption I make about how an 11 point win at UNLV compares to an overtime win over Tennessee will have its flaws. I don’t have time to watch every UNLV and Tennessee game and even if I did what makes my “eye test” more accurate than others. That’s the point of NET. It makes that determination based on certain objective factors. Maybe those factors aren’t perfect but they are the ones that have been adopted after consultation with various NCAA stakeholders and analytics people. And more importantly, NET will apply the same factors to every team and every game free from any inherent bias.

[rjsuperfly66]

KenPom is great for predicting who will win if two teams played each other. But that is not the standard that should be used to determine an at-large selection. The standard should be which team has earned the spot. That is what NET seeks to answer.

KenPom is simply a tool that allows you to say my team has a higher probability of beating your team if they were to play each other. KenPom’s own website says it is not designed to tell you who has the better resume.

By KenPom’s admission, his metric should not be used for the tournament selection because it doesn’t factor wins and losses. It is a strength metric, in that you can still judge how strong a team is. You can still use them to tell how strong a win or a loss is. I agree with the idea that this metric should not be used for tournament selection, but if I’m trying to figure out how strong a teams victories are, I need a realistic metric to use. It’s clear at this point that is not the NET. Take KenPom out of it, use Top 25 rankings. Anyone saying Loyola Marymount is better than Kansas is majorly flawed. That’s not just roster perception, Kansas has a significantly better resume. You can’t compare Georgetown or UNLV to Tennessee, Michigan St, or Marquette.

Any assumption I make about how an 11 point win at UNLV compares to an overtime win over Tennessee will have its flaws. I don’t have time to watch every UNLV and Tennessee game and even if I did what makes my “eye test” more accurate than others. That’s the point of NET. It makes that determination based on certain objective factors. Maybe those factors aren’t perfect but they are the ones that have been adopted after consultation with various NCAA stakeholders and analytics people. And more importantly, NET will apply the same factors to every team and every game free from any inherent bias.

The NET indirectly shows a ton of bias, here is one...
In terms of efficiency, a 20 point win over Duke is the same as a 20 point win over Alabama A&M.
I don’t care about comparing a 12 point win over 1 team to a 25 point win over another though.
It should be about who you beat, first and foremost.
A team whose beaten 3 of the top 50 teams in college basketball should rank higher than a team whose beaten 0 of the top 50 teams in college basketball, especially since Team A has zero losses.
The only way for the NCAA to turn this around and gain credibility is to release the NET from last season.
If people could look at the 2018 ratings, it would shut people up.
Otherwise, it just looks like a moronic, broken attempt at creating a strength-metric when it said it never wanted to be a strength metric.

[URI2006_Andy]

I know I’m outnumbered, but here’s my pitch for NET.

1. Look at the list of schools with the best RPIs to be left out of the tournament and look at the list of schools with the worst RPIs given an at-large spot - It’s clear who benefited when the selection committee strayed from the RPI.

2. Now we have NET and the committee has an opportunity to make decisions based on one objective rating system. NET factors in strength of schedule and strength of victory.

3. I’m skeptical of the motives behind some of the public ridicule against NET. Public ridicule is the best way to get the committee to deviate from NET and we all know the schools that will benefit if that ends up happening.

4. I’m also concerned that the public ridicule of NET will work so well that even the fans of those schools who will be harmed by the committee deviating from NET will join in the public ridicule.

5. To make things worse, going away from an objective rating like NET means more weight to “top 50 wins”. Not top 50 winning percentage or top 50 wins per scheduling opportunity. But top 50 wins, the most discriminatory factor used by the committee. It got to the point where beating a top 50 RPI team was worth more than being a top 50 RPI team. Maybe this made some sense given RPI’s flaws. But now, NET factors in a strength of schedule and strength of victory for each game so there is no need to give additional weight to top 50 wins other than to demonstrate that a team can compete against the top competition.

[rjsuperfly66]

Much of that is true but the one thing missing is efficiency margin. This model is a farce when it comes to that. Efficiency is only as good as who you are efficient against. Kansas beating Tennessee by 5 or whatever they won by is worse than them beating Montana St by 25 with regards to efficiency. While the metric caps margin of victory at 10 points, efficiency is an open-ended statistic with no weight towards opponent. That is a major problem. I also don’t think for efficiency purposes it removes non-D1 opponents. So for example, I’m pretty sure someone like Radford does not face negative consequences for SOS, but gains tremendously from their efficiency and dominance in those games (although not entirely positive on that). That is a major problem. The “strength” of a metric is that it’s supposed to tell you how teams would fare against each other if given the opportunity. It’s supposed to say “Team A didn’t get a crack at Team B, but if they did this is what we think would happen.” It’s supposed to take a teams production against lower conference quality, and attempt to reflect what they might do facing better teams. That is where NET has failed to date. That’s what makes it a lousy tournament metric, to date.

[URI2006_Andy]

I’m not familiar with how the NET formula works. And, as mentioned above by ATP, it is considered proprietary so I may never understand the details. I am aware of the 5 elements that were given to the public: team value index, net effeciency, winning percentage, adjusted win percentage, and scoring margin. RJ, sounds like you have concerns about the net efficiency element. I’d defer to you on that but overall I believe staying close to NET is the best approach when selecting at-large teams. If the committee wants to give more weight to eye test and kenpom when seeding, that’s fair.

[rjsuperfly66]

I’m not familiar with how the NET formula works. And, as mentioned above by ATP, it is considered proprietary so I may never understand the details. I am aware of the 5 elements that were given to the public: team value index, net effeciency, winning percentage, adjusted win percentage, and scoring margin. RJ, sounds like you have concerns about the net efficiency element. I’d defer to you on that but overall I believe staying close to NET is the best approach when selecting at-large teams. If the committee wants to give more weight to eye test and kenpom when seeding, that’s fair.

I too would like to stay close to the NET. I love what hockey has created with the pairwise which seeds all teams and makes the committee simply responsible for the geographics. But I can also see egregious oversights with the system in its current form that I would like to see adjusted/changed to make the system viable in that role. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see Kansas has a better resume than Loyola Marymount. That is my only concern. NCAA eliminates all concerns by showing what the NET would have looked like last season. If those rankings looked mostly right, people like me will shut up and be more trusting. NCAA should have done that from the start. They invited the bad publicity.

[NYGFan_Section208]

Man, there is a lot of nerdine$$ in the NCAAT $election busine$$.
For what is, at the end of the day, still a very subjective process.

[theblueram]

Updated Rhody Rankings:

NET - 120
RPI - 87
Kenpom - 115
Sagarin - 98

[SmartyBarrett]

Just for the hell of it...

NET ratings are starting to look a little more normal. Rams 5th in the A-10.

62. Dayton
72. Davidson
74. VCU
79. Saint Louis
120. Rhode Island
127. Saint Joseph's
134. Duquesne
146. UMass
184. George Mason
191. Fordham
206. Richmond
253. St. Bonaventure
315. George Washington
338. La Salle


And the rest of URI's opponents:

100. College of Charleston
101. West Virginia
103. Harvard
111. Providence
148. Brown
150. Holy Cross
159. Stony Brook
269. Bucknell
297. Middle Tennessee
332. Bryant

[TruePoint]

URI should finish the non-con at 6-5 at worst, with a shot to steal an extra game next weekend or in Hawaii. I had hoped for 7 or 8 wins, and that has felt like overly optimistic for a few weeks now. Still, 6-5 given the well established turnover from the top of the program to the bottom coming into the year is not the absolute worst result, which stands in contrast to the general sentiments of this board (where several people have gone so far as to call for the coach’s firing and the benching of one of the team’s premier players already). You’re really a dismal Stony Brook performance away from being in a position where things are completely on schedule. To me, it’s just further reinforcement of the idea that fans can get too caught up in the game-by-game aesthetics and aren’t focused on the big picture.

[SmartyBarrett]

62. Dayton
72. Davidson
74. VCU
79. Saint Louis
120. Rhode Island
127. Saint Joseph's
134. Duquesne
146. UMass
184. George Mason
191. Fordham
206. Richmond
253. St. Bonaventure
315. George Washington
338. La Salle

I could very easily see this being the final A-10 standings heading into Brooklyn.

[RhowdyRam02]

Who's called for the coach's firing? I think I came the closest when I hinted that if we only won around 12 or fewer games it shouldn't be a guarantee that he returns next season.

[RF1]

URI should finish the non-con at 6-5 at worst, with a shot to steal an extra game next weekend or in Hawaii. I had hoped for 7 or 8 wins, and that has felt like overly optimistic for a few weeks now. Still, 6-5 given the well established turnover from the top of the program to the bottom coming into the year is not the absolute worst result, which stands in contrast to the general sentiments of this board (where several people have gone so far as to call for the coach’s firing and the benching of one of the team’s premier players already). You’re really a dismal Stony Brook performance away from being in a position where things are completely on schedule. To me, it’s just further reinforcement of the idea that fans can get too caught up in the game-by-game aesthetics and aren’t focused on the big picture.

URI plays 12 OOC games so 6-5 is not complete. My hope is to minimally get at least one win in HI and beat MTSU at home. That alone would result in a 6-6 record. Grab a 2nd win in HI and they would be 7-5. Add a third win in HI or beat WVU and they end the OOC at 8-4. My thinking is that 6-6 or 7-5 are likely the best records we could reasonably expect given what we have seen.

Do not sleep on URI first opponent Bucknell out in Hawaii. That will be a very tough game for Rhody.

[steviep123]

Are they guaranteed 3 games in Hawaii or do they have to win one to get a 3rd game?

[RF1]

Are they guaranteed 3 games in Hawaii or do they have to win one to get a 3rd game?

Three games guaranteed.

Game 1 Bucknell
Game 2 TCU or Charlotte
Game 3 TBA (depending on outcome of other games)


http://www.gorhody.com/sports/m-baskbl/2018-19/schedule

[theblueram]

Why is Bucknell considered tough? They’ve won one game against a team with a winning record. Their rpi is 308. This would be a very bad loss for us.

[TruePoint]

Right I forgot the third game in Hawaii, so just bump up everything I said there by one game. Main point though is that I think 5 losses is acceptable OOC for this group this season, and fewer is even better.

[SmartyBarrett]

The latest.

63. Saint Louis
72. VCU
76. Dayton
95. Rhode Island
108. Davidson
113. Duquesne
120. Saint Joseph's
145. UMass
184. Fordham
188. George Mason
223. St. Bonaventure
245. Richmond
300. George Washington
339. La Salle


And the non-con foes:

61. College of Charleston
94. Providence
104. Harvard
124. West Virginia
141. Holy Cross
144. Stony Brook
148. Brown
228. Bucknell
304. Middle Tennessee
330. Bryant

[reef]

Looks like Charleston is becoming a better loss day by day

[RhowdyRam02]

If they stay in the top 75 they'll be a quadrant 1 game

[SmartyBarrett]

The latest (now with a few more opponents added).

56. VCU
71. Saint Louis
77. Dayton
104. Davidson
110. Rhode Island
114. Saint Joseph's
146. Duquesne
156. UMass
168. Fordham
181. George Mason
196. St. Bonaventure
229. Richmond
304. George Washington
314. La Salle


And the non-con foes:

67. College of Charleston
72. Providence
118. Harvard
125. West Virginia
141. Hawaii
145. Brown
158. Holy Cross
167. Stony Brook
180. Bucknell
270. Charlotte
303. Middle Tennessee
328. Bryant

[NYGFan_Section208]

NCAA Selection Committee still subjectively selects the at large teams and seeds them and positions them in the draw.

Correct. And NET, RPI, AC/DC, and all the rest will have the same amount of influence (zero) as the Billboard Top 40.
The ratings systems suck people in, and create nerdy conversation, making them think they have "insight" into who's in and who's not.
But, it doesn't work that way...never has, never will...too much ching at stake.

[Rhode_Island_Red]

NCAA Selection Committee still subjectively selects the at large teams and seeds them and positions them in the draw.

Correct. And NET, RPI, AC/DC, and all the rest will have the same amount of influence (zero) as the Billboard Top 40.
The ratings systems suck people in, and create nerdy conversation, making them think they have "insight" into who's in and who's not.
But, it doesn't work that way...never has, never will...too much ching at stake.

Obvious nepotism hire Dan Gavitt has one job: Don't annoy the Cartel.

[rhodylaw]

The latest (now with a few more opponents added).

56. VCU
71. Saint Louis
77. Dayton
104. Davidson
110. Rhode Island
114. Saint Joseph's
146. Duquesne
156. UMass
168. Fordham
181. George Mason
196. St. Bonaventure
229. Richmond
304. George Washington
314. La Salle


And the non-con foes:

67. College of Charleston
72. Providence
118. Harvard
125. West Virginia
141. Hawaii
145. Brown
158. Holy Cross
167. Stony Brook
180. Bucknell
270. Charlotte
303. Middle Tennessee
328. Bryant

I think this shows that we had a pretty challenging non-conference schedule despite the names on the front of the jerseys not being sexy. If we were 7-4 (or 8-3) at this point we would likely have a top 50ish Net rating which very few would have predicted going into the season.

Amongst the A10 we are sitting where we expected to be in the upper middle of the league. I expect a strong finish to the season.

[NYGFan_Section208]

NET = Not Ennything Tourney-related

[theblueram]

I was looking at the NET vs RPI, to see the impact of the new NET. Currently there are 16 non P5 schools in the NET top 50. of those, 5 are not in the RPI top 50. There are 8 non P5 in the RPI top 50 that are not in the NET top 50. It's going to be interesting come selection time as to who is going to gripe. Also, this gives the committee the opportunity to select based on the discrepancies. Take one school for RPI value, another for NET value. Like Vanderbilt, they have an RPI of 115 but an NET of 42. And Syracuse, they have an RPI of 93 but a NET of 59. On the flip side, you have Arizona with a NET of 61 but an RPI of 43. They can bake this cake multiple ways to justify a team getting a bid.