NET Ratings

[Rhody72]

Totally meaningless when it comes to head-to-head competition. Is Bucknell really that much worse than URI? Does Harvard lose to URI with a full squad?

[SmartyBarrett]

One more before A-10 play really gets rolling this weekend.

55. VCU
62. Saint Louis
68. Dayton
104. Rhode Island
106. Davidson
148. Saint Joseph's
159. George Mason
160. Duquesne
164. UMass
197. Fordham
209. St. Bonaventure
213. Richmond
288. George Washington
313. La Salle


Non-conference opponents:

58. College of Charleston
87. Providence
99. West Virginia
117. Brown
130. Harvard
149. Hawaii
152. Stony Brook
154. Holy Cross
185. Bucknell
279. Charlotte
305. Bryant
319. Middle Tennessee

[rhodylaw]

From what I see the NET actually seems to be a “fairish” assessment. It ranks our non-conference foes in the exact order I would with about what I would expect for a ranking. I don’t think we played any team that is top tier but I feel like we played a whole bunch of teams that would 50-150. NET rankings match that exactly.

If the NET holds, the A10 schedule will be much easier than the non-conference.

[reef]

PC at 87 they got to be sweating it about now ???

[ramster]

Don't recall a time when New England College Basketball Schools were rated as poorly as this year. Yale is the Class of New England at this time with a ranking of only 79

79 - Yale
99 - PC
108- Vermont
110 - URI
111 - UCONN
114 - Brown
131 - BC
137 - Northeastern
138 - Harvard
164 - Holy Cross
187 - Hartford
195 - UMASS
222 - UMASS - Lowell
226 - Dartmouth
237 - BU
242-Quinnipiac
243 - Sacred Heart
257 - Fairfield
264 - Central Connecticut State
314 - Bryant
338 - Maine
350 - New Hampshire

[Rhodymob05]

I think this NET rating is bogus. NO way Yale is the best team in New England. Vermont cmon. Brown who we beat by 20 is only 4 spots behind URI. BC is 17 behind Brown? Wth lol.

[rambone 78]

It's likely only 1 NE team will finish below 100 in NET by the end of the season.

And that's PC...barf. We could, but we will have to play appreciably better and soon.

[rjsuperfly66]

I think this NET rating is bogus. NO way Yale is the best team in New England. Vermont cmon. Brown who we beat by 20 is only 4 spots behind URI. BC is 17 behind Brown? Wth lol.

I think a lot of Yale has to do with road performance. Yale is 5-3 on the road/neutral, and those losses are to Duke (1), Memphis (70), and Vermont (107). The wins really aren't that notable, as they did beat Miami away from home but their other road wins are California, CSUN, Monmouth, and Bryant. But I think even some of those losses are overrated. Memphis is 9-6. Their best win is Yale. They are 1-5 in neutral/road games. I don't know if they've skewed the efficiency stat in their favor, as they do have a 58 point win in their favor against TN State, a 31 point win against Florida A&M, among others. That should all wash out come conference time. I think with the NET, one of the big factors is that they believe good teams should pound bad teams, so in OOC you have to take advantage of those opportunities.

[reef]

Let's keep PC over 80 !!!

[KevanBoyles]

A few weeks ago someone posted a link to a webpage that broke down Rhodys wins and losses by quadrants. It was in the name of an individual. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

[ramster]

I think this NET rating is bogus. NO way Yale is the best team in New England. Vermont cmon. Brown who we beat by 20 is only 4 spots behind URI. BC is 17 behind Brown? Wth lol.

Rhodymob05,
I went back to the RealtimeRPI to see what they had the New England Teams rated as of January 10. Note that Yale, Vermont and Brown who you are complaining about are even better in the Realtime RPI. Yale from 79 to 66; Vermont a big difference from 108 to 66 and Brown from 114 to 75
I also noted key teams each of these 3 teams lost to and defeated plus their records to date


Don't recall a time when New England College Basketball Schools were rated as poorly as this year. Yale is the Class of New England at this time with a ranking of only 79
79 - Yale - 66 (Record 9-3) (lost @ Memphis, @ Vermont, @ Duke......Defeated California, Miami, Lehigh)
99 - PC - 97
108- Vermont - 61(Record 11-4) (lost @ Kansas, @ Louisville, @ Bucknell, @ Lipscomb......Defeated Yale, Harvard, Northeastern)
110 - URI - 87
111 - UCONN - 156
114 - Brown - 75 (Record 9-3) (lost @ LIU Brooklyn, @ NJIT, @ URI, @ Butler......Defeated Stony Brook, @ San Diego St, @ Canisius))
131 - BC - 125
137 - Northeastern - 118
138 - Harvard - 112
164 - Holy Cross - 123
187 - Hartford - 165
195 - UMASS - 215
222 - UMASS - Lowell - 218
226 - Dartmouth - 214
237 - BU - 265
242-Quinnipiac - 246
243 - Sacred Heart - 234
257 - Fairfield - 302
264 - Central Connecticut State - 225
314 - Bryant - 291
338 - Maine - 319
350 - New Hampshire - 353

[SmartyBarrett]

As of today. Remember when Fordham was higher than URI? Fun times.

45. VCU
62. Saint Louis
67. Dayton
89. Davidson
102. Rhode Island
156. George Mason
157. Duquesne
178. Saint Joseph's
188. UMass
198. St. Bonaventure
209. Fordham
226. Richmond
250. George Washington
261. La Salle


Non-conference opponents:

79. College of Charleston
88. West Virginia
94. Providence
116. Brown
138. Stony Brook
139. Harvard
151. Hawaii
163. Holy Cross
184. Bucknell
275. Charlotte
313. Bryant
327. Middle Tennessee

[SmartyBarrett]

The latest and greatest (counting last night's win over VCU).

57. VCU
68. Davidson
71. Saint Louis
107. Dayton
113. Rhode Island
130. George Mason
145. Duquesne
160. Saint Joseph's
170. St. Bonaventure
200. Richmond
219. UMass
238. Fordham
252. La Salle
261. George Washington


Non-conference opponents:

73. Providence
95. West Virginia
115. College of Charleston
127. Brown
137. Stony Brook
151. Harvard
164. Hawaii
167. Bucknell
198. Holy Cross
224. Charlotte
301. Middle Tennessee
319. Bryant

[RF1]

The latest and greatest (counting last night's win over VCU).

Non-conference opponents:

73. Providence
95. West Virginia
115. College of Charleston
127. Brown
137. Stony Brook
151. Harvard
164. Hawaii
167. Bucknell
198. Holy Cross
224. Charlotte
301. Middle Tennessee
319. Bryant

Our OOC schedule this season is shaping up to be the worst in quite some time. Not a single OOC opponent is likely to receive an at large and the average NET rank is #173.

[urirx]

I don't know NET well enough, but how do we drop after beating a higher ranked team?

[TruePoint]

I believe we were 128 or so coming into the game last night, down from 102 likely because of the impact of playing La Salle over the weekend.

[SmartyBarrett]

I don't know NET well enough, but how do we drop after beating a higher ranked team?

Yeah, the previous NET rankings I posted were from Jan 11th, two days before the George Mason game. TP is correct -- Rhody rose 15 spots with the VCU win.

[ramster]

As many are seeing the A10 as getting 1 Team in the NCAA this year I took this year's RPI and NET Rankings for NBE, A10 and AAC - the 3 non P5 Conferences that could be impacted positively or negatively or not at all by the new NET NCAA System for Selection

If considering under 40 gets teams in the NCAA Tournament (other than Auto Bids)

NBE gets 3 Teams: Villanova, Marquette and St Johns. 4 of the Top 5 in NBE were worse in NET ranging from 7 to 15 slots worse than in RPI
A10 gets 0 Teams: But do get the Auto Bid. Top 5 in A10 in RPI were worse in NET ranging from 10 to 35 slots worse than in RPI
AAC gets 3 Teams: Houston, Cincinnati and UCF. Temple takes a beating with a great 24 in RPI but amazingly 62 in NET - 38 points worst and no NCAA

An oddity is that the bottom teams in all 3 Conferences fare better in NET versus RPI, but most of the Top teams fare worse with several getting knocked out of NCAA bid consideration

Biggest gaps being better in NET vs RPI:
DePaul +53
St Bonaventure +71
Fordham +70
Richmond +59
South Florida +61
UCONN +59

Biggest gaps being better in NET vs RPI:
Seton Hall and Creighton both -15 basically knocking them both out of the NCAA in NET, but in if using RPI
VCU - 22 knocking them out of NCAA with NET
Davidson -23 knocking them out of NCAA with NET
Duquesne -35
Temple - 38 knocking them out of NCAA with NET
Tulsa -24
Wichita State -31
George Washington -31

At this point in time there are a number of A10, NBE and AAC Teams that will not receive NCAA Bids based on NET that would have received them with RPI

Good news for P5 Schools

[rambone 78]

That chart shows just how bad the A10 is right now....barf.

Anybody whose NET is 100 or higher can kiss it.

The A10 has only 3 teams with any shot at an at large.

Unless we can win the rest of them ha ha.

[ramster]

That chart shows just how bad the A10 is right now....barf.

Anybody whose NET is 100 or higher can kiss it.

The A10 has only 3 teams with any shot at an at large.

Unless we can win the rest of them ha ha.

But note Rambone the teams that would have been in NCAA Contention if the RPI were used including VCU, Davidson, Temple, Seton Hall and Creighton

It will be very interesting to compare NET and RPI at season end - especially if some teams do not get in the NCAA Tournament that had big gaps between NET and RPI - and at the same time Teams get IN the Tournament that had bad RPIs but good NETs

NET is not favoring the Upper Tier Teams in these 3 Conferences but NET is more favorable to the bottom tier teams - go figure

[rambone 78]

Like you said ramster….looks like this new NET system is just what the doctor ordered when it comes to the P5's....

Looks like some mid majors are in for a major hose job come March.

NET is going to take preference over RPI.....so the bubble will be unkind for the mids.

Why should we be surprised?

Right now you could count on 3 BE, 3 AAC, and a big fat ZERO A10 at large bids.

I think Lunardi is actually being generous when he currently has 2 A10 teams in.....he's not tuned in to this new system yet and I'll bet he whiffs on more bids than he usually does on Selection Sunday.

[ramster]

Based on what we see now, yes, there will be some very upset teams and some unexpectedly happy teams IF these discrepancies hold up.

It’s still early. Of course nothing says the discrepancies will not even become worse.

At any rate, the A10 having an off year anyway certainly doesn’t need this piling on too.

[rambone 78]

And we wonder why the good A10 coaches leave for P5 jobs.....

Going to be a LOT harder to get invites......who can blame them for wanting to get out, and not just for the money?

The days of the A10 getting more than 3 at large bids are over....yes there may be 4 or 5 deserving teams next year when the league should be better, but there will be just so many bids available....the teams will be in effect cannibalizing each other....

P5's can afford losses in their OOC schedule because their league schedule is so much better, without all of the dreck that a league like the A10 has at the bottom....

URI will have to slam dunk their OOC games in the future.....with very little margin for error there OR in conference. Too many games against shitty teams, and can't afford to lose to them.

[TruePoint]

What is missing from this discussion is any kind of qualitative analysis of whether NET or RPI is more accurate. For instance, if RPI was really bad at judging teams and NET fixed it (I’m not making that argument, just giving one possible argument). That, obviously, is a subjective question but in order to answer it you’d need to do some objective analysis on what metrics drive the difference between NET and RPI.

Everyone knows the RPI formula, and to me the beauty was in its simplicity. Here is a graphic showing the NET criteria:



To, me it appears they are double-counting some things and I have long argued that efficiency ratings are good for handicapping games for gambling purposes but aren’t fair to use for ranking teams, since the only thing that matters in real sports is whether you won or lost. In pro sports, the standings aren’t based on efficiency numbers and people would lose their shit if a team with a better record was left out of the playoffs in favor of a team with better efficiency metrics, and rightfully so. The difference is that college teams necessarily play an unbalanced schedule. I thought the RPI dealt with that adequately by factoring in strength of schedule (using opponents record and opponents’ opponents’ records) and weighing road games favorably compared to home games.

[rambone 78]

TP, I guess it doesn't matter which is more accurate, they are going with NET over RPI, right or wrong.

You would think they would still factor in RPI ratings in the overall evaluation of things....but my guess is they [the committee] will twist things around enough to try and justify whatever decisions they make when selecting teams to the NCAA tourney.


Like was said, how are they going to judge teams that have a big gap between NET and RPI, versus teams that have a small gap? Or will it matter?

I can hear the screaming already on SS night......

[Rhodymob05]

This net is too complicated for me.

[TruePoint]

TP, I guess it doesn't matter which is more accurate, they are going with NET over RPI, right or wrong.

You would think they would still factor in RPI ratings in the overall evaluation of things....but my guess is they [the committee] will twist things around enough to try and justify whatever decisions they make when selecting teams to the NCAA tourney.


Like was said, how are they going to judge teams that have a big gap between NET and RPI, versus teams that have a small gap? Or will it matter?

I can hear the screaming already on SS night......

People seem confused about this. The NET is replacing RPI, it isn’t another factor to consider along with RPI. As far as the NCAA is concerned, RPI doesnt exist anymore. RIP RPI.

[rjsuperfly66]

At this point in time there are a number of A10, NBE and AAC Teams that will not receive NCAA Bids based on NET that would have received them with RPI

The reality is that the RPI was growing more and more archaic by the season. Teams with RPIs in the 30s and 40s jumped by teams with RPIs in the 60s and 70s. Why? Because RPI was a simplistic stat that was easier to manipulate. It was impossible to say with the RPI "Team X with an RPI of Y would be in the tournament," unless they had a top 25 RPI. Teams would willingly play D2 teams over 250+ RPI teams because that would mean no RPI ramifications versus negative RPI ramifications. Same could be said for programs that did not fill their entire schedule because fear of playing bad opponents. On one hand, it's smart. On the other hand, shows a flaw in the system. The information you illustrated doesn't change anything for me. I know the BE is a 2-3 bid conference looking for 1-2 bubble teams. It's a "reload" season. And I think many of your fellow fans here would feel the same about the A10. So maybe the NET is more negative, but would you rather have an RPI of 45 and be left out of the tournament or a NET of 60 and left out of the tournament. At least with the NET, you might know you are in trouble versus the RPI where no one had any idea.

NET is going to take preference over RPI.....so the bubble will be unkind for the mids.
Why should we be surprised?

I don't believe this. The bubble was already unkind to the mids under the old system. This will always be the prime example -- Colorado St in 2015. They had a high-20s RPI in the MWC Tournament, and a key player who was injured but could have played. Their coach decided to rest the player, assuming they were a "lock" for the tournament, and they lost. They finished with an RPI of 30, and ended up in the NIT. There is no way of knowing what that team's NET would look like, but my guess is that it would be closer to 50-55. And at that point, does the coach play the star player knowing they are really on the bubble rather than thinking they are safe when they really aren't?

To, me it appears they are double-counting some things and I have long argued that efficiency ratings are good for handicapping games for gambling purposes but aren’t fair to use for ranking teams, since the only thing that matters in real sports is whether you won or lost. In pro sports, the standings aren’t based on efficiency numbers and people would lose their shit if a team with a better record was left out of the playoffs in favor of a team with better efficiency metrics, and rightfully so. The difference is that college teams necessarily play an unbalanced schedule. I thought the RPI dealt with that adequately by factoring in strength of schedule (using opponents record and opponents’ opponents’ records) and weighing road games favorably compared to home games.

I believe this was something that was brought in more to favor non-P5 teams. The complaint every season was that "It is not our fault that we don't play a bunch of Top 25 and Top 50 teams in conference, so it's easier for ACC teams to pick up Q1/Q2 wins." Efficiency is supposed to help equalize that, ideally by saying "Ok, you might not be able to play Duke, Virginia, UNC, Louisville, Syracuse, etc., but let's compare efficiency in games to see how similar you are." Yes, W/L is important (and is part of the equation), but if Minnesota is beating a top 25 team at home by 1 and VCU is beating LaSalle at home by 1, Minnesota's output from that game should be far more impressive than VCU's, just like it was before. Now, if VCU beats that bad LaSalle team by 20 points, the efficiency portion of the NET might make that win equal if not exceeding the Top 25 win.

Like was said, how are they going to judge teams that have a big gap between NET and RPI, versus teams that have a small gap? Or will it matter?

The NCAA has already said several times that the RPI is dead. Comparing it now is just beating a dead horse.

[ATPTourFan]

Nice post RJ.

[ramster]

At this point in time there are a number of A10, NBE and AAC Teams that will not receive NCAA Bids based on NET that would have received them with RPI

The reality is that the RPI was growing more and more archaic by the season. Teams with RPIs in the 30s and 40s jumped by teams with RPIs in the 60s and 70s. Why? Because RPI was a simplistic stat that was easier to manipulate. It was impossible to say with the RPI "Team X with an RPI of Y would be in the tournament," unless they had a top 25 RPI. Teams would willingly play D2 teams over 250+ RPI teams because that would mean no RPI ramifications versus negative RPI ramifications. Same could be said for programs that did not fill their entire schedule because fear of playing bad opponents. On one hand, it's smart. On the other hand, shows a flaw in the system. The information you illustrated doesn't change anything for me. I know the BE is a 2-3 bid conference looking for 1-2 bubble teams. It's a "reload" season. And I think many of your fellow fans here would feel the same about the A10. So maybe the NET is more negative, but would you rather have an RPI of 45 and be left out of the tournament or a NET of 60 and left out of the tournament. At least with the NET, you might know you are in trouble versus the RPI where no one had any idea.

Like was said, how are they going to judge teams that have a big gap between NET and RPI, versus teams that have a small gap? Or will it matter?

The NCAA has already said several times that the RPI is dead. Comparing it now is just beating a dead horse.

RJ,
I am not trying to say which is better. I am trying to show the differences in the two systems. Since the NET has never been used I do not know if it will turn out better, worse or the same as the RPI. I even said let's see what things look like at the end of the season when all of the Conference games have been played.

Some questions for you and others:
1) The 3 conferences, A10, NBE and AAC all got more favorable overall rankings with the NET: NBE +55, A10 +122 and AAC +64. Why would this be?
2) While all 3 conference got better rankings with NET than in RPI to date, the Top half of each Conferences was considerable worse in NET vs RPI while the bottom half of each Conference was much better with NET vs RPI. Why is this? What makes the Top half teams worse and the bottom half so much better?
3) I understand the NBE and A10 being down years -
- Villanova goes from RPI 14 to NET 24 - a big drop
- Marquette stays the same at 20 - ok
- St John's goes from RPI 32 to NET 39 - will cost them a seed or two
- Seton Hall from RPI 41 to NET 56 - no way they get in the NCAA with NET 56
- Creighton from RPI 46 to NET 61 -
If picking teams now Seton Hall and Creighton would likely be in the NCAA - but not with the NCAA going with their own invented NET
What do you think about this? Should these two NBE Teams legitimately be out? I'm guessing you say yes since you say the RPI is completely out - and I agree. But does this seem right with the NET?

For the A10
-VCU goes from RPI 35 to NET 57 a huge 22 slot drop
- Davidson goes from RPI 45 to NET 68 - a huge 23 slot drop
So going by NET the A10 will only have the A10 Champion - a 1 bid league. I agree it will be 1 bid with the new NET rankings - it's obvious no 57 or 68 NET team is getting in

For AAC:
Top 4 are close - much better than NBE and A10 EXCEPT for Temple
- Temple RPI 24 goes to NET 62. How can this be?

6-1 Houston (19-1) RPI 10, NET 7 but Nationally Ranked #17. Why do both systems have Houston so high?
6-1 Cincinnati (17-3) RPI 28, NET 33
5-1 Temple (15-4) RPI 24, NET 62 - Why is Temple 38 Slots lower in NET? Temple gave 19-1 Houston it's ONLY loss and NET has Houston 10?
5-1 UCF (15-3) RPI 28, NET 33

If I was Temple I'd be asking a lot of questions. What to you think makes Temple's Ranking so bad at 62? No way they get an NCAA Bid with that

[ramster]

Here are two good articles comparing the NET and RPI at this point in the season

https://thebiglead.com/2019/01/21/the-n ... t-being-1/

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2 ... ch-madness

[theblueram]

Interesting Ramster. I just did the same for the Big 10 to see if the NET had the same effect. Of the 14 teams, 11 teams' NET was the same or lower than RPI. MSU has an RPI of 2 and a NET of 3. Can pretty much disregard that. So just Maryland (RPI 16 vs NET 20) and Minnesota (RPI 38 NET 61) had Higher NET than RPI. BIAS?????

One team to study on how to beat the NET is NC State. They have an RPI of 119 but a NET of 30. Clearly out based on RPI, but clearly in based on NET. Looking at their results, they have many blowouts against teams with an RPI of 150 and above. They have beaten 10 teams with an average RPI of 285 by an average of 30 points. Guess you just schedule cupcakes and blow them away it seems. Their record is 15-4, so they are 5-4 to teams with an RPI under 150.

[TruePoint]

Good find on NC State

[theblueram]

And Lunardi has them as an 8 seed. They have beaten three top 100 RPI teams. 33 Auburn, 89 Penn St and 90 Pitt. This is going to be interesting.

[Ramulous]

Whichever tool they use they will use it to screw mid-major non Power schools

[Running Ram]

Whichever tool they use they will use it to screw mid-major non Power schools

truth

[ramster]

Interesting Ramster. I just did the same for the Big 10 to see if the NET had the same effect. Of the 14 teams, 11 teams' NET was the same or lower than RPI. MSU has an RPI of 2 and a NET of 3. Can pretty much disregard that. So just Maryland (RPI 16 vs NET 20) and Minnesota (RPI 38 NET 61) had Higher NET than RPI. BIAS?????

One team to study on how to beat the NET is NC State. They have an RPI of 119 but a NET of 30. Clearly out based on RPI, but clearly in based on NET. Looking at their results, they have many blowouts against teams with an RPI of 150 and above. They have beaten 10 teams with an average RPI of 285 by an average of 30 points. Guess you just schedule cupcakes and blow them away it seems. Their record is 15-4, so they are 5-4 to teams with an RPI under 150.

This is noted in the articles I posted as well. The more you blow out the opponent the better. Delay going to the bench. Also an advantage to teams with Top HS players on the bench so even when it comes to garbage time their bench players continue to pour it on - not necessarily intentionally either but it is certainly recognized in NET metrics.

[ramster]

Whichever tool they use they will use it to screw mid-major non Power schools

truth

It’s looking bad for non P5 teams, good for P5s
Don’t know why this should surprise anyone with the NCAA NET. Will be interesting when selection Sunday comes this year. Looking forward to that night in March.

[ramster]

Interesting Ramster. I just did the same for the Big 10 to see if the NET had the same effect. Of the 14 teams, 11 teams' NET was the same or lower than RPI. MSU has an RPI of 2 and a NET of 3. Can pretty much disregard that. So just Maryland (RPI 16 vs NET 20) and Minnesota (RPI 38 NET 61) had Higher NET than RPI. BIAS?????

One team to study on how to beat the NET is NC State. They have an RPI of 119 but a NET of 30. Clearly out based on RPI, but clearly in based on NET. Looking at their results, they have many blowouts against teams with an RPI of 150 and above. They have beaten 10 teams with an average RPI of 285 by an average of 30 points. Guess you just schedule cupcakes and blow them away it seems. Their record is 15-4, so they are 5-4 to teams with an RPI under 150.

Amazing. 119 RPI and 30 NET. Can’t blame NC State for running up the scores either. Ya think the developers of the NET didn’t see running up the scores coming? Especially when they declare the NET the new guide.

[TruePoint]

Interesting Ramster. I just did the same for the Big 10 to see if the NET had the same effect. Of the 14 teams, 11 teams' NET was the same or lower than RPI. MSU has an RPI of 2 and a NET of 3. Can pretty much disregard that. So just Maryland (RPI 16 vs NET 20) and Minnesota (RPI 38 NET 61) had Higher NET than RPI. BIAS?????

One team to study on how to beat the NET is NC State. They have an RPI of 119 but a NET of 30. Clearly out based on RPI, but clearly in based on NET. Looking at their results, they have many blowouts against teams with an RPI of 150 and above. They have beaten 10 teams with an average RPI of 285 by an average of 30 points. Guess you just schedule cupcakes and blow them away it seems. Their record is 15-4, so they are 5-4 to teams with an RPI under 150.

This is noted in the articles I posted as well. The more you blow out the opponent the better. Delay going to the bench. Also an advantage to teams with Top HS players on the bench so even when it comes to garbage time their bench players continue to pour it on - not necessarily intentionally either but it is certainly recognized in NET metrics.

This is actually not totally accurate. The NET cuts off after one team is up by 10, so whether you beat a team by 12 or 40 doesn’t matter.

[theblueram]

I mean NC State has an SOS of 283. Study this one hard. Because this is the new formula for scheduling. I don't tweet, but if I did I would ask Lunardi about this.

[rambone 78]

It might work for NC State of the ACC....but it won't work for URI of the A10.

One league is just a little better than the other....ha ha

[theblueram]

It might work for NC State of the ACC....but it won't work for URI of the A10.

One league is just a little better than the other....ha ha

That's their current SOS as of today. They only played 6 games in the ACC and are 3-3. I would take entering A10 play with a NET of 30.

[rjsuperfly66]

Two quick points—

TP, while MOV is capped at 10 points, efficiency has no cap. Since efficiency is essentially offensive points per possession - defensive points per possession (not that simple but pretty close), blowing opponents out can definitely impact the NET.

Ramster, the only problem with your analysis is that you are assuming RPI impacted seeding, which it never did. You can’t just say, “Their RPI was 7 spots lower so they’ll lose a seed or two in the new system.” It never worked that way. That’s how teams with RPIs of 30 missed the tournament and teams with RPIs in the high-40s have seen 8 seeds, because their RPI had no bearing on their seeding.

[ramster]

Two quick points—

TP, while MOV is capped at 10 points, efficiency has no cap. Since efficiency is essentially offensive points per possession - defensive points per possession (not that simple but pretty close), blowing opponents out can definitely impact the NET.

Ramster, the only problem with your analysis is that you are assuming RPI impacted seeding, which it never did. You can’t just say, “Their RPI was 7 spots lower so they’ll lose a seed or two in the new system.” It never worked that way. That’s how teams with RPIs of 30 missed the tournament and teams with RPIs in the high-40s have seen 8 seeds, because their RPI had no bearing on their seeding.

Exactly right RJ. The cap is 10 but efficiency has an impact. Win by 50 points and play your bench that potentiall has ESPN top 100 players on it vs a 250 to 350 team and you rack up some strong efficiency numbers.

This is clearly identified with the two articles I posted. Look at the first 3 games of the season and it’s easy to see how NCState got high ratings as they won games by 50 points each that they were favored by 25 in. They had great efficiency in racking up those points against vastly inferior opponents

Writer says you could schedule at weak opponents like Maine in Maine’s home court to get the away credit plus win by 50 with great efficiency and double dip. Most likely this will get tweaked by the ncaa because it’s an obvious flaw.

As for seeding I’d argue that RPI is used for seeding, just as Top25 rankings, everything plays into seeding including simple opinions, even prejudiced opinions.

Are you saying NET will have zero influence on Seeding?

Keep in mind too that the NCAA has not made public all in the NET formulas. Only select info at this time so nobody but those holding the keys know all. That Canberra both a good thing and a bad thing.

[NYGFan_Section208]

"Pay no attention to that man rating system behind the curtain!", shouted the wizard NCAA.

[TruePoint]

I agree that the NCAA is likely to tweak the formula a lot over the first several years to address outliers that pop up, like NC State, which makes trying to replicate their scheduling model very risky. Again, the thing that was good about RPI was it’s simplicity. A model with so many components, many of them complicated and all of it proprietary, leaves a lot of room for mistakes and errors where things are overlooked until they pop out during the season, at which point it is too late to do anything about.

I really feel like the problem with NET isn’t that it is intentionally set up to be biased towards one thing or another, but that the more complicated you make something the more can go wrong with it, and the NCAA just isn’t smart or competent enough to come up with a system that works with so many finely tuned components.

[KevanBoyles]

However, the NCAA moves slower than a turtle. So scheduling and planning to take advantage of this perceived loophole in the next year or two would make some sense.

[rjsuperfly66]

Are you saying NET will have zero influence on Seeding?

NET will have some undertermined impact on seeding, but likely significantly more impact than the RPI had.

Take my example of Colorado St in 2015 - using the logic that RPI impacts seeding, an RPI of 30 would have them as an 8 seed. They did not make the tournament.

Or take Marquette in 2017 - they had an RPI of 67 and finished with a 10 seed. RPI has zero bearing.

If the committee is going to do their own thing, I just hope the NET ends up closer to their reality whereas the RPI became useless due to those large discrepancies. If the NET is a superior system to the RPI, no one with an NET under 40 should miss the tournament and no one with a NET over 55-60 should be a candidate for tournament inclusion. If that does not happen, the system needs to be tweaked. The smartest thing the NCAA could have done was release the NET with the 2017-2018 data so fans could see how it compared to the seed list.

[theblueram]

Are you saying NET will have zero influence on Seeding?

NET will have some undertermined impact on seeding, and likely significantly more impact than the RPI had.

Take my example of Colorado St in 2015 - using the logic that RPI impacts seeding, an RPI of 30 would have them as an 8 seed. They did not make the tournament.

Or take Marquette in 2017 - they had an RPI of 67 and finished with a 10 seed. RPI has zero bearing.

If the committee is going to do their own thing, I just hope the NET ends up closer to their reality whereas the RPI became useless due to those large discrepancies. If the NET is a superior system to the RPI, no one with an NET under 40 should miss the tournament and no one with a NET over 55-60 should be a candidate for tournament inclusion. If that does not happen, the system needs to be tweaked. The smartest thing the NCAA could have done was release the NET with the 2017-2018 data so fans could see how it compared to the seed list.

Can you explain NC State?