NET 2019-2020 Season

[ramster]

Who would have thought we would be in the 30s just a month ago? Keep it going.

Answer: Nobody

Read the Keaney Blue Game Thread for the Richmond Loss.....

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8292&start=300

Correction - this guy has always believed!

Believing is one thing. I admire your positivity. But I don’t think you would have even gotten the Coaching Staff to bet that they would win the next 9 games. Truthfully nobody saw a 9 game Win streak and a 39 NET and 14 Rank RPI by this weekend.

[TruePoint]

The guy who “always believed” has said every shitbum team that we’ve played is a trap game. Nothing says confidence in a team like being gripped with anxiety by a game against the 287th best team in the country.

I can say that I always believed that this team could be as good as it’s been over the last month. I think I was at least as high on this roster as anyone here, if not higher - which is exactly why the Brown/Richmond week sucked so bad. I felt it was inexcusable that this team lost both of those games in a week, and I think what has happened since then only makes that much more apparent than it even seemed at that time.

That was also right on the heels of Dana leaving the program, which still sucks (I’m glad the team seems fine but I liked Dana on a personal level, I think he got screwed over and let down by the disciplinary process here, and that is a loss that will continue to hurt us well after this year from a basketball standpoint).

So yeah, I was pretty pissed at that time, and I was right. Anyone who says they saw this team ripping off a months worth of games after the Richmond game ended is straight lying.

[sevegny7]

No we definitely didnt think a 9 game win streak was likely. But expressed that we still believed we had a path to the tourney that was still available if we played to our potential. Others thought we had no such path and the season was over is the difference. I view this a little differently I think that down moment in the season galvinzed them as a unit and made them look in the mirror a little to not have that feeling they felt after those two loses.

[Rhody83]

TP you said after the Richmond game that all the remaining games were “exhibition games” that didn’t mean anything and their only chance to make the NCAA Tournament was to win the A10 Tournament. Making that statement as your stance and now saying “I was right” is a little much. You can admit that you overreacted and were wrong.

[RhodyKyle]

TP you said after the Richmond game that all the remaining games were “exhibition games” that didn’t mean anything and their only chance to make the NCAA Tournament was to win the A10 Tournament. Making that statement as your stance and now saying “I was right” is a little much. You can admit that you overreacted and were wrong.

Drag him!

[DeanDome88]

A season has ups and downs and the team is right about where I thought they would be going into the season. They have a good chance to get into the NCAA tournament without a lot of margin for error. I try to be more of a fan than a critic of our student athletes. I think, as professionals, the coaching staff is fair game for criticism but I've been quite pleased with the overall performance of the staff. The subpar refs on the other hand, they get the wrath that they deserve!

[TruePoint]

TP you said after the Richmond game that all the remaining games were “exhibition games” that didn’t mean anything and their only chance to make the NCAA Tournament was to win the A10 Tournament. Making that statement as your stance and now saying “I was right” is a little much. You can admit that you overreacted and were wrong.

No, I said I was right to say it was inexcusable to lose the Brown game. I was wrong that the season was over after the Richmond game. But, I also didn’t foresee this team winning every game they played for the next month. I think I even said at the time that they weren’t mathematically eliminated but based on how they were playing they might as well be - in other words yes if I knew they were going to do what they’ve done since I wouldn’t have said that. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in not expecting that. I don’t recall one other person saying “don’t worry they won’t lose again until well into February. If someone did say that, then I apologize to that person.

[Rhody83]

TP you said after the Richmond game that all the remaining games were “exhibition games” that didn’t mean anything and their only chance to make the NCAA Tournament was to win the A10 Tournament. Making that statement as your stance and now saying “I was right” is a little much. You can admit that you overreacted and were wrong.

No, I said I was right to say it was inexcusable to lose the Brown game. I was wrong that the season was over after the Richmond game. But, I also didn’t foresee this team winning every game they played for the next month. I think I even said at the time that they weren’t mathematically eliminated but based on how they were playing they might as well be - in other words yes if I knew they were going to do what they’ve done since I wouldn’t have said that. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in not expecting that. I don’t recall one other person saying “don’t worry they won’t lose again until well into February. If someone did say that, then I apologize to that person.

Agree no one said that. But I think a lot of KBers realized that URI was 0-1 in the A10 and could still finish in the top 3.

[theblueram]

TP you said after the Richmond game that all the remaining games were “exhibition games” that didn’t mean anything and their only chance to make the NCAA Tournament was to win the A10 Tournament. Making that statement as your stance and now saying “I was right” is a little much. You can admit that you overreacted and were wrong.

No, I said I was right to say it was inexcusable to lose the Brown game. I was wrong that the season was over after the Richmond game. But, I also didn’t foresee this team winning every game they played for the next month. I think I even said at the time that they weren’t mathematically eliminated but based on how they were playing they might as well be - in other words yes if I knew they were going to do what they’ve done since I wouldn’t have said that. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in not expecting that. I don’t recall one other person saying “don’t worry they won’t lose again until well into February. If someone did say that, then I apologize to that person.

Agree no one said that. But I think a lot of KBers realized that URI was 0-1 in the A10 and could still finish in the top 3.

I didn't. At the time of the Richmond loss I said the team was not a NCAAT team. Which they weren't. But I knew they had the talent to be. It was all on the coach at that point. Coach Cox has surprised the hell out of me. I knew he did a great job with the scouts on Hurley's team after he took over after that Fordham debacle. But this guy is a really good in game coach. My only critique is he's slow on the TO when other teams make a run. But, his in game coaching is really something and I'm quite glad he is at URI.

[Rhody15]

Wait we’re still talking about Dana freaking Tate hurting this program basketball wise in the future?

Gimme a goddam break.

[TruePoint]

TP you said after the Richmond game that all the remaining games were “exhibition games” that didn’t mean anything and their only chance to make the NCAA Tournament was to win the A10 Tournament. Making that statement as your stance and now saying “I was right” is a little much. You can admit that you overreacted and were wrong.

No, I said I was right to say it was inexcusable to lose the Brown game. I was wrong that the season was over after the Richmond game. But, I also didn’t foresee this team winning every game they played for the next month. I think I even said at the time that they weren’t mathematically eliminated but based on how they were playing they might as well be - in other words yes if I knew they were going to do what they’ve done since I wouldn’t have said that. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in not expecting that. I don’t recall one other person saying “don’t worry they won’t lose again until well into February. If someone did say that, then I apologize to that person.

Agree no one said that. But I think a lot of KBers realized that URI was 0-1 in the A10 and could still finish in the top 3.

Just wanted to add that at this point I was definitely wrong that the season was over at the time - very glad to have been wrong. What we’ve done the last month has been a total shock to me, and one of the best surprises of my life as a sports fan. But, we are not out of the woods yet. Depending on how the next month goes, those two losses in a week as a combination could very possibly cost us a bid in the end. I’m obviously hoping it doesn’t but just because we’ve bounced back doesn’t mean they won’t ultimately be the thing that keeps us out.

[sevegny7]

URI did not move up in the NET rankings over night with the three opponents winning games. It will have to rely on handling GW in order to move a little more before the huge showdown against dayton.

[Rhody83]

VCU jumped in NET from 36 to 32 . They beat 11-11 Davidson at home by 11.

[Rhody83]

If VCU gets to 30th, Rhody gets a Q1 win for the win in Kingston.

[Rhodymob05]

The Net is mysterious sometimes.

[sevegny7]

If VCU gets to 30th, Rhody gets a Q1 win for the win in Kingston.

Yeah I dont truely get that moving up so many spots I could see one or two but 4 spots. Yeah that Q1 potential is key for us too so in the long run wouldnt hurt us haha. Hopefully vcu keeps winning. But the game at davidson should be a NET ranking mover if we can win decisively based on the movement at home by VCU.

[Blue Man]

If VCU gets to 30th, Rhody gets a Q1 win for the win in Kingston.

Yeah I dont truely get that moving up so many spots I could see one or two but 4 spots. Yeah that Q1 potential is key for us too so in the long run wouldnt hurt us haha. Hopefully vcu keeps winning. But the game at davidson should be a NET ranking mover if we can win decisively based on the movement at home by VCU.

I didn’t check but they could’ve had their big wins/losses make moves too. Remember they don’t have a bad loss. We have brown at almost 240 weighing us down.

[Rhody83]

If VCU gets to 30th, Rhody gets a Q1 win for the win in Kingston.

Yeah I dont truely get that moving up so many spots I could see one or two but 4 spots. Yeah that Q1 potential is key for us too so in the long run wouldnt hurt us haha. Hopefully vcu keeps winning. But the game at davidson should be a NET ranking mover if we can win decisively based on the movement at home by VCU.

I didn’t check but they could’ve had their big wins/losses make moves too. Remember they don’t have a bad loss. We have brown at almost 240 weighing us down.

Rhody needs to start winning by 10+ against all their weak A10 opponents. Letting UMass make that run at the end of the game hurt Rhody’s NET. VCU won by 11 last night.

[DC_Rams]

Yeah I dont truely get that moving up so many spots I could see one or two but 4 spots. Yeah that Q1 potential is key for us too so in the long run wouldnt hurt us haha. Hopefully vcu keeps winning. But the game at davidson should be a NET ranking mover if we can win decisively based on the movement at home by VCU.

I didn’t check but they could’ve had their big wins/losses make moves too. Remember they don’t have a bad loss. We have brown at almost 240 weighing us down.

Rhody needs to start winning by 10+ against all their weak A10 opponents. Letting UMass make that run at the end of the game hurt Rhody’s NET. VCU won by 11 last night.

I promise you, how much they win by is not a part of the game plan. The goal is to win, first.

[sevegny7]

Yeah I mean as a part of the team whether it's the coach or players that is how you have to approach it. Expecting or trying to blow teams out never works out and most times turns into a lose by not taking the other team seriously. But as fans and the metrics we do take that into account just trying to improve our position as much as possible. Just keep winning each game ahead of you and focusing on one game will get the job done. But doing what they did today will definitely help.

[Blue Man]

I don’t think anyone in their right minds thinks the team is playing to win by 10.

Just win.

As fans we can root for the metrics - but the metrics aren’t the end all be all and when the committee is choosing between teams - they’re looking at wins and not close losses.

[reef]

Yeah it was just frustrating other night when up 15 under 3 and we win by 6

Some people just look at final score and don’t realize that we led by about 10 the whole way

[Rhody83]

I don’t think anyone in their right minds thinks the team is playing to win by 10.

Just win.

As fans we can root for the metrics - but the metrics aren’t the end all be all and when the committee is choosing between teams - they’re looking at wins and not close losses.

The staff wants the team to perform well in every game. If they perform well they will win by double digits against the weak teams in the A10. Do you think Coach Cox was happy with the finish against UMass? He wasn’t. If they finished well they would’ve won by 12-15 points.

[Rhody83]

Yeah it was just frustrating other night when up 15 under 3 and we win by 6

Some people just look at final score and don’t realize that we led by about 10 the whole way

As in some people, you can include the NET which provides a bonus for wins of 10 points or greater.

[SmartyBarrett]

KenPom jumped to 43 with today's win.

[ramster]

Comparison of A10 Teams on Sunday Morning Feb 9

• Too bad we don't use RPI for Mens Basketball for Selection Criteria any more with URI holding on to a #15 Ranking

• Except for the past 2 years we would all be going nuts over a Top 15 RPI National Ranking but we know the NCAA Dumped it

• The NCAA created the RPI, so I look with great interest in why I should trust the NET when the same organization created both

Things that don't seem to make sense in the A10 Data

• Why should VCU be ahead of URI in ANY Data? URI 15 vs VCU 36 in RPI seems right. URI 39 VCU 32 in NET is wrong. URI 55 VCU 37 in ESPN's BPI is preposterous. How can URI have Strength of Schedule 42 vs VCU 75, plus URI beat VCU twice, plus URI is (10-1)(18-5) vs VCU (7-3)(17-6) makes no sense. No way should NET, BPI and Ken Pom have VCU ranked ahead of URI. RPI lends itself much closer to having it right common sense wise

• Gut checking URI to National Sports Writers, URI is knocking on the Top 25 Poll ranked 30, but with wins this week over UMASS and GW so their 30 Ranking will move up. 16 Teams besides the Top 25 Teams received Votes with URI receiving 18 Votes - that number will at least triple this Monday, possibly more. VCU received ZERO Votes. No A10 Team except Dayton with 1,271 received votes further illustrating the flaw for NET, BPI and Ken Pom to have VCU ranked higher than URI

[bigappleram]

Now we get the benefit of the effects of efficiency metrics within the NET and climb to 35!!

Can you smellllll what the Rock is cookin!!

[bigappleram]

This is another great one from their board. Now besides having any knowledge of teams outside the Big East they also cannot read. While I do agree that VCU has inflated NET rankings, like 50% of the BE does as well, this Friar fan must struggle with reading. VCU has zero Q3 losses, and I believe is something like 3-6 in Q1/Q2 games.

“Anyone else wonder how VCU had a net of 34 with a combined q1&2 of 5 and 4 and 3 Q3 loses ?”

[KevanBoyles]

UVA loses on the road to Louisville (5 NET) and goes up five in NET from 56 to 51. So even losing to Dayton Tuesday will probably lead to a higher NET and it will be even better if we win.

[rhodylaw]

I had my doubts about the NET rankings, and yes there are still flaws, but over a season of data i think it mostly gets it right. We aren’t the 15th best team in the country (RPI) we are probably better than 35 but not by much. I still have issues with the quadrants. 75 away is NOT the same as 30 at home and it skews towards conferences like the BE where bottom teams still have top 75 NETs by association. Q1 should be in my opinion top 30 home, top 40 neutral, top 50 away.

[Rhodymob05]

NET jumped from 39-...35 yesterday.

[Blue Man]

Ramster -I agree that it's sort of headscratching to be so far apart on RPI and NET. So I dove into in a bit (but I don't have a degree in math, and for some reason even when I did have the classes I avoided Tyler Hall like the plague) - I think the efficiency piece matters a lot more than we really understand.

RPI was a much more simple formula - who did you play, where did you play them, and did you beat them. That's certainly a great way to balance things out - but it doesn't give you credit for playing a good team close (sort of like every URI team under Baron - I feel like our NET would've been insane some years). It was also pre-weighted, i.e. the rankings started out understanding that Duke is a better team than NJIT.

NET, while taking who, where, and the result into the equation, cares equally (or more) about "how you played" as well. Everyone also starts out the same - so at the beginning of the year a 10 point win against Duke and a 10 point win against NJIT carry exactly the same benefit. As the year goes on, I think the results also go on a sliding scale...for example, a big win against a good team is the only way to balance out a big loss against a "bad" team...but there are so many more "bad" than good teams. 353 teams in the NCAA...and a Q1 game maxes out at 75 away. A Q2 game maxes out at 135 away.

Also, when you look at the nitty gritty team sheet - you see that Q1 and Q2 have their own "quadrants," which leads me to believe there's almost a second "quadrant system" that takes place on Selection Sunday. So a "bad" loss could be anything outside of the top 100 in some scenarios...meaning that the further you go into the "bad" territory, the more a loss there can hurt you, and the more a bad loss can hurt you. i.e. a 10 point loss to a team outside of the top 150 might look the same as a 30 point loss to a top 10 team (if the efficiency metrics weren't capped).

When you look at the "how did you play" based on the end-game results, I start to get the picture - even just comparing URI to VCU.

URI's has 3 "blowout" losses. One by 18 to Q1 #8 Maryland, and one by 13 to Q1 #27 LSU. The real problem is the 10 point blowout to Q3 #227 Brown. Our average margin of defeat is by 10.8 points. I believe the efficiency from margin of victory is capped at 10 points.. so our "capped" loss margin would be by 8.6. Average loss by quadrant (with efficiency cap):

Q1 loss - 12 (8.3)
Q2 loss - 8 (8)
Q3 loss - 10 (10)

To try and balance those losses out, you need the blowout wins. URI has 11 of those, 0 in Q1, 4 in Q2, 5 in Q3, and only 2 in Q4. Our average win is by 11.71...but the 10 point efficiency cap brings that down to a capped margin of victory by 8.4, negating the 31 point drubbing of GW and the 22 point one over the Dukes.

Q1 win - 9 (9)
Q2 win - 11.8 (9.2)
Q3 win - 13.28 (8.14)
Q4 win - 11.6 (9)

So if you think of it this way, so far we haven't "blown out" the teams we needed to, looking at Q3 and Q4...but our average loss in Q3 was a blowout. The cap forces you to look at individual games, and limits the anomaly factory of just playing 1 good game and scraping by the others.

By comparison, look at VCU with an overall losing margin of 8.5, capped at 7.5:

Q1 loss - 9.75 (8.25)
Q2 loss - 6 (6)

No bad losses is the biggest thing they have going. But they also win big, often; 14 blowout wins, including 13 of their 14 Q3/Q4 games. They averaged 15.47 (8.8)

Q1 win - 2 (2)
Q2 win - 13 (7.5)
Q3 win - 12.62 (9.12)
Q4 win - 23.33 (10)

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that we've hurt our efficiency metrics with a bad blowout loss to Brown, and we don't have enough Q1 blowouts to put the efficiency metrics back in our favor. Now that the rankings are starting to become less fluid, we won't see the jumps we did a month ago.

No system is perfect...but I do think the NET gets it mostly right, and it will continue to be more accurate by the end of the year. I wouldn't mind them averaging the NET/RPI together and providing some other type of score...but oh well.

Might as well just go beat Dayton tuesday.

[Bill Koch]

Ramster -I agree that it's sort of headscratching to be so far apart on RPI and NET. So I dove into in a bit (but I don't have a degree in math, and for some reason even when I did have the classes I avoided Tyler Hall like the plague) - I think the efficiency piece matters a lot more than we really understand.

RPI was a much more simple formula - who did you play, where did you play them, and did you beat them. That's certainly a great way to balance things out - but it doesn't give you credit for playing a good team close (sort of like every URI team under Baron - I feel like our NET would've been insane some years). It was also pre-weighted, i.e. the rankings started out understanding that Duke is a better team than NJIT.

NET, while taking who, where, and the result into the equation, cares equally (or more) about "how you played" as well. Everyone also starts out the same - so at the beginning of the year a 10 point win against Duke and a 10 point win against NJIT carry exactly the same benefit. As the year goes on, I think the results also go on a sliding scale...for example, a big win against a good team is the only way to balance out a big loss against a "bad" team...but there are so many more "bad" than good teams. 353 teams in the NCAA...and a Q1 game maxes out at 75 away. A Q2 game maxes out at 135 away.

Also, when you look at the nitty gritty team sheet - you see that Q1 and Q2 have their own "quadrants," which leads me to believe there's almost a second "quadrant system" that takes place on Selection Sunday. So a "bad" loss could be anything outside of the top 100 in some scenarios...meaning that the further you go into the "bad" territory, the more a loss there can hurt you, and the more a bad loss can hurt you. i.e. a 10 point loss to a team outside of the top 150 might look the same as a 30 point loss to a top 10 team (if the efficiency metrics weren't capped).

When you look at the "how did you play" based on the end-game results, I start to get the picture - even just comparing URI to VCU.

URI's has 3 "blowout" losses. One by 18 to Q1 #8 Maryland, and one by 13 to Q1 #27 LSU. The real problem is the 10 point blowout to Q3 #227 Brown. Our average margin of defeat is by 10.8 points. I believe the efficiency from margin of victory is capped at 10 points.. so our "capped" loss margin would be by 8.6. Average loss by quadrant (with efficiency cap):

Q1 loss - 12 (8.3)
Q2 loss - 8 (8)
Q3 loss - 10 (10)

To try and balance those losses out, you need the blowout wins. URI has 11 of those, 0 in Q1, 4 in Q2, 5 in Q3, and only 2 in Q4. Our average win is by 11.71...but the 10 point efficiency cap brings that down to a capped margin of victory by 8.4, negating the 31 point drubbing of GW and the 22 point one over the Dukes.

Q1 win - 9 (9)
Q2 win - 11.8 (9.2)
Q3 win - 13.28 (8.14)
Q4 win - 11.6 (9)

So if you think of it this way, so far we haven't "blown out" the teams we needed to, looking at Q3 and Q4...but our average loss in Q3 was a blowout. The cap forces you to look at individual games, and limits the anomaly factory of just playing 1 good game and scraping by the others.

By comparison, look at VCU with an overall losing margin of 8.5, capped at 7.5:

Q1 loss - 9.75 (8.25)
Q2 loss - 6 (6)

No bad losses is the biggest thing they have going. But they also win big, often; 14 blowout wins, including 13 of their 14 Q3/Q4 games. They averaged 15.47 (8.8)

Q1 win - 2 (2)
Q2 win - 13 (7.5)
Q3 win - 12.62 (9.12)
Q4 win - 23.33 (10)

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that we've hurt our efficiency metrics with a bad blowout loss to Brown, and we don't have enough Q1 blowouts to put the efficiency metrics back in our favor. Now that the rankings are starting to become less fluid, we won't see the jumps we did a month ago.

No system is perfect...but I do think the NET gets it mostly right, and it will continue to be more accurate by the end of the year. I wouldn't mind them averaging the NET/RPI together and providing some other type of score...but oh well.

Might as well just go beat Dayton tuesday.

Just one clarification here, and I think it might save a lot of folks from banging heads against walls:

Efficiency is a simple concept at its root -- how many points you average and allow per possession (or 100 possessions). There are other more complicated variables for teams who have the same numbers in those categories, but that's the very remedial explanation. So with that, we go to Saturday.

URI averaged 1.07 points per possession, which is right on its season average. But URI only allowed 0.67 points per possession, which is its best of the season (by far) and well below its previous season average of roughly 0.93. You're now a top-30 defense per KenPom.

The result of that? Your best KenPom rating of the season. And since KenPom mirrors the efficiency component employed in NET, you can reasonably infer that was part of the move to 35 in the NET.

The effect of beating teams by the magical 10 points is being overstated frequently in this argument. It's more about how the game plays out. Using efficiency, URI could potentially lose some ground winning a 100-possession game 107-97 (scoring its offensive average but allowing more than its defensive average).

[TulaneGradRamFan]

I like Blue Man's analysis and explanation for the current positioning of URI in the rankings. I wonder if what appears on the surface to be an unjustifiably low ranking could be avoided if the only teams URI would be scheduled to play against each season would be non-conference teams in Q1-Q3. From now on, just don't have the team play any out of conference teams in Q-4. That would certainly prevent the most harmful potential blow-out losses against games that should be won. Is that doable/possible?

[Blue Man]

Ramster -I agree that it's sort of headscratching to be so far apart on RPI and NET. So I dove into in a bit (but I don't have a degree in math, and for some reason even when I did have the classes I avoided Tyler Hall like the plague) - I think the efficiency piece matters a lot more than we really understand.

RPI was a much more simple formula - who did you play, where did you play them, and did you beat them. That's certainly a great way to balance things out - but it doesn't give you credit for playing a good team close (sort of like every URI team under Baron - I feel like our NET would've been insane some years). It was also pre-weighted, i.e. the rankings started out understanding that Duke is a better team than NJIT.

NET, while taking who, where, and the result into the equation, cares equally (or more) about "how you played" as well. Everyone also starts out the same - so at the beginning of the year a 10 point win against Duke and a 10 point win against NJIT carry exactly the same benefit. As the year goes on, I think the results also go on a sliding scale...for example, a big win against a good team is the only way to balance out a big loss against a "bad" team...but there are so many more "bad" than good teams. 353 teams in the NCAA...and a Q1 game maxes out at 75 away. A Q2 game maxes out at 135 away.

Also, when you look at the nitty gritty team sheet - you see that Q1 and Q2 have their own "quadrants," which leads me to believe there's almost a second "quadrant system" that takes place on Selection Sunday. So a "bad" loss could be anything outside of the top 100 in some scenarios...meaning that the further you go into the "bad" territory, the more a loss there can hurt you, and the more a bad loss can hurt you. i.e. a 10 point loss to a team outside of the top 150 might look the same as a 30 point loss to a top 10 team (if the efficiency metrics weren't capped).

When you look at the "how did you play" based on the end-game results, I start to get the picture - even just comparing URI to VCU.

URI's has 3 "blowout" losses. One by 18 to Q1 #8 Maryland, and one by 13 to Q1 #27 LSU. The real problem is the 10 point blowout to Q3 #227 Brown. Our average margin of defeat is by 10.8 points. I believe the efficiency from margin of victory is capped at 10 points.. so our "capped" loss margin would be by 8.6. Average loss by quadrant (with efficiency cap):

Q1 loss - 12 (8.3)
Q2 loss - 8 (8)
Q3 loss - 10 (10)

To try and balance those losses out, you need the blowout wins. URI has 11 of those, 0 in Q1, 4 in Q2, 5 in Q3, and only 2 in Q4. Our average win is by 11.71...but the 10 point efficiency cap brings that down to a capped margin of victory by 8.4, negating the 31 point drubbing of GW and the 22 point one over the Dukes.

Q1 win - 9 (9)
Q2 win - 11.8 (9.2)
Q3 win - 13.28 (8.14)
Q4 win - 11.6 (9)

So if you think of it this way, so far we haven't "blown out" the teams we needed to, looking at Q3 and Q4...but our average loss in Q3 was a blowout. The cap forces you to look at individual games, and limits the anomaly factory of just playing 1 good game and scraping by the others.

By comparison, look at VCU with an overall losing margin of 8.5, capped at 7.5:

Q1 loss - 9.75 (8.25)
Q2 loss - 6 (6)

No bad losses is the biggest thing they have going. But they also win big, often; 14 blowout wins, including 13 of their 14 Q3/Q4 games. They averaged 15.47 (8.8)

Q1 win - 2 (2)
Q2 win - 13 (7.5)
Q3 win - 12.62 (9.12)
Q4 win - 23.33 (10)

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that we've hurt our efficiency metrics with a bad blowout loss to Brown, and we don't have enough Q1 blowouts to put the efficiency metrics back in our favor. Now that the rankings are starting to become less fluid, we won't see the jumps we did a month ago.

No system is perfect...but I do think the NET gets it mostly right, and it will continue to be more accurate by the end of the year. I wouldn't mind them averaging the NET/RPI together and providing some other type of score...but oh well.

Might as well just go beat Dayton tuesday.

Just one clarification here, and I think it might save a lot of folks from banging heads against walls:

Efficiency is a simple concept -- how many points you average and allow per possession (or 100 possessions). So with that, we go to Saturday.

URI averaged 1.07 points per possession, which is right on its season average. But URI only allowed 0.67 points per possession, which is its best of the season and well below its previous season average of roughly 0.93. You're now a top-30 defense per KenPom.

The result of that? Your best KenPom rating of the season. And since KenPom mirrors the efficiency component employed in NET, you can reasonably infer that was part of the move to 35 in the NET.

That makes much more sense.

[Blue Man]

I like Blue Man's analysis and explanation for the current positioning of URI in the rankings. I wonder if what appears on the surface to be an unjustifiably low ranking could be avoided if the only teams URI would be scheduled to play against each season would be non-conference teams in Q1-Q3. From now on, just don't have the team play any out of conference teams in Q-4. That would certainly prevent the most harmful potential blow-out losses against games that should be won. Is that doable/possible?

That’s always the goal lol, it’s just hard to get those agreements.

The key now is road games because you can play a Q2 road game against the #135 team in the country.

We put together a phenomenal OOC schedule. It’s our conference that’s the problem. Conference play is why we have to go 5-2 down the stretch to feel safe, and why PC can play their way into the field.

[DeanDome88]

In my opinion Rhody's quadrant 1 losses this season were all pretty tall tasks. If I understand the system correctly each of those teams (Maryland, LSU and West Virginia) would still have been quadrant 1 even if we played them on our home floor. I am all for Rhody playing top competition hopefully we can get really strong teams signed up for home and home series moving forward.

[DeanDome88]

I like Blue Man's analysis and explanation for the current positioning of URI in the rankings. I wonder if what appears on the surface to be an unjustifiably low ranking could be avoided if the only teams URI would be scheduled to play against each season would be non-conference teams in Q1-Q3. From now on, just don't have the team play any out of conference teams in Q-4. That would certainly prevent the most harmful potential blow-out losses against games that should be won. Is that doable/possible?

That’s always the goal lol, it’s just hard to get those agreements.

The key now is road games because you can play a Q2 road game against the #135 team in the country.

We put together a phenomenal OOC schedule. It’s our conference that’s the problem. Conference play is why we have to go 5-2 down the stretch to feel safe, and why PC can play their way into the field.

I'd love nothing more than PC to make its way into the field and put on a collision course for a matchup with the Rams, the whole state would go mental.

[bigappleram]

In my opinion Rhody's quadrant 1 losses this season were all pretty tall tasks. If I understand the system correctly each of those teams (Maryland, LSU and West Virginia) would still have been quadrant 1 even if we played them on our home floor. I am all for Rhody playing top competition hopefully we can get really strong teams signed up for home and home series moving forward.

For more perspective on this Maryland and West Virginia are 25-0 on their home courts this year. Any spin of “missed opportunities” is just wishful thinking when they play in Top 3 leagues and NO ONE has beat them on their home court. Very hard to project this out but ideally with the way the NET works you are looking for a couple true road games with P5s more in the 50s/60s then in the Top 10.

[URI_05]

In my opinion Rhody's quadrant 1 losses this season were all pretty tall tasks. If I understand the system correctly each of those teams (Maryland, LSU and West Virginia) would still have been quadrant 1 even if we played them on our home floor. I am all for Rhody playing top competition hopefully we can get really strong teams signed up for home and home series moving forward.

For more perspective on this Maryland and West Virginia are 25-0 on their home courts this year. Any spin of “missed opportunities” is just wishful thinking when they play in Top 3 leagues and NO ONE has beat them on their home court. Very hard to project this out but ideally with the way the NET works you are looking for a couple true road games with P5s more in the 50s/60s then in the Top 10.

This alone is a big change in approach that you need to take due to NET replacing RPI.

[adam914]

I like Blue Man's analysis and explanation for the current positioning of URI in the rankings. I wonder if what appears on the surface to be an unjustifiably low ranking could be avoided if the only teams URI would be scheduled to play against each season would be non-conference teams in Q1-Q3. From now on, just don't have the team play any out of conference teams in Q-4. That would certainly prevent the most harmful potential blow-out losses against games that should be won. Is that doable/possible?

Its possible, but can be difficult. Like Blue Man said, its definitely the goal. But lots of scheduling (not all) is done fairly well in advance, so it can be hard to predict where a team might be by the time the game comes around. Coaches leave, players transfer, guys get hurt etc.

[Rhodyram]

I like Blue Man's analysis and explanation for the current positioning of URI in the rankings. I wonder if what appears on the surface to be an unjustifiably low ranking could be avoided if the only teams URI would be scheduled to play against each season would be non-conference teams in Q1-Q3. From now on, just don't have the team play any out of conference teams in Q-4. That would certainly prevent the most harmful potential blow-out losses against games that should be won. Is that doable/possible?

If a big concern is losing to Quad 4 teams on the road then we have bigger issues. The Brown game was a rare exception- not the rule.

[rhodylaw]

In my opinion Rhody's quadrant 1 losses this season were all pretty tall tasks. If I understand the system correctly each of those teams (Maryland, LSU and West Virginia) would still have been quadrant 1 even if we played them on our home floor. I am all for Rhody playing top competition hopefully we can get really strong teams signed up for home and home series moving forward.

We had that WVU game - if we had come out of there with the W we would be all set. We gave ourselves 3 shots at that top W, I think that is a good schedule for us.

[DeanDome88]

In my opinion Rhody's quadrant 1 losses this season were all pretty tall tasks. If I understand the system correctly each of those teams (Maryland, LSU and West Virginia) would still have been quadrant 1 even if we played them on our home floor. I am all for Rhody playing top competition hopefully we can get really strong teams signed up for home and home series moving forward.

We had that WVU game - if we had come out of there with the W we would be all set. We gave ourselves 3 shots at that top W, I think that is a good schedule for us.

I am not really knocking our schedule and state again I want to play top competition. My point is that we had tougher chances in quadrant 1 than most teams typically do and hopefully when people review our season come tournament selection time that might be realized. I think Rhody is truly a top 30 team and a little bit stronger than our net ranking.

[KevanBoyles]

After yesterday our 3 point defense is ranked 7th in the country. We also seem to be giving up quite a few offensive rebounds lately. It appears to me that they have made it their defensive strategy to stop the three ball even at the expense of having someone like Mitchell from UMass torch us underneath the basket.

Notice how high the hedge outs are lately. I think they’re doing this because they have two very active, mobile, and strong defensive players in both Langevine and Harris which adds to the 3 point defense and openly invites our opponents to go to the paint.

[reef]

35th in NET sounds freakin awesome !!

[Rhody83]

In my opinion Rhody's quadrant 1 losses this season were all pretty tall tasks. If I understand the system correctly each of those teams (Maryland, LSU and West Virginia) would still have been quadrant 1 even if we played them on our home floor. I am all for Rhody playing top competition hopefully we can get really strong teams signed up for home and home series moving forward.

We had that WVU game - if we had come out of there with the W we would be all set. We gave ourselves 3 shots at that top W, I think that is a good schedule for us.

I am not really knocking our schedule and state again I want to play top competition. My point is that we had tougher chances in quadrant 1 than most teams typically do and hopefully when people review our season come tournament selection time that might be realized. I think Rhody is truly a top 30 team and a little bit stronger than our net ranking.

The Committee will look at who the Q1 teams were. NET is a tool they use. It isn’t the system that selects the field. Big difference losing at #8, at #9 and neutral #27 (what URI did) than at #17, at #43, at #45 and at #60 (what Cincinnati did).

[reef]

I knew when cox put that OOC schedule together he gave us the best chance to dance. Kudos to him

[Rhodymob05]

42 in today’s Kenpom, up 1 spot.

[bigappleram]

I compared our scheduling strategy to the old school John Chaney/Temple model. Play a bunch of really tough OOC games, take your lumps, then come into conference play with a battle tested group. We are seeing the fruits of that strategy with our play over the last month. Just like Temple used to do.