NET 2019-2020 Season

[RF1]

A-10 NCAA History from its start back in 1977:


YEAR | BIDS | UNITS
=========================
2019 | 2 | 2
2018 | 3 | 5
2017 | 3 | 4
2016 | 3 | 5
2015 | 3 | 5
2014 | 6 | 10
2013 | 5 | 12
2012 | 4 | 7
2011 | 3 | 6
2010 | 3 | 5
2009 | 3 | 6
2008 | 3 | 6
2007 | 2 | 3
2006 | 2 | 3
2005 | 1 | 1
2004 | 4 | 10
2003 | 3 | 4
2002 | 1 | 2
2001 | 3 | 7
2000 | 3 | 4
1999 | 3 | 6
1998 | 5 | 8
1997 | 5 | 9
1996 | 4 | 10
1995 | 2 | 5
1994 | 3 | 6
1993 | 4 | 11
1992 | 3 | 5
1991 | 3 | 7
1990 | 1 | 1
1989 | 2 | 3
1988 | 2 | 7
1987 | 2 | 3
1986 | 3 | 5
1985 | 1 | 2
1984 | 2 | 4
1983 | 2 | 3
1982 | 2 | 3
1981 | 1 | 2 (URI 1st yr)
1980 | 1 | 2
1979 | 1 | 2
1978 | 1 | 3
1977 | 1 | 1

43 SEASON AVERAGE
2.65 bids per year
5 units (games) per year

[bigappleram]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... Type%3Damp

A yearly exercise - 3 bids at least for almost 15 years. Last year was the aberration.

The last 2 years the league would have been 2 bid (2018) and 1 bid (2019) if not for a bid stealer from conference tourney.
4-5 bids is a thing of the past.

[SGreenwell]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... Type%3Damp

A yearly exercise - 3 bids at least for almost 15 years. Last year was the aberration.

The last 2 years the league would have been 2 bid (2018) and 1 bid (2019) if not for a bid stealer from conference tourney.
4-5 bids is a thing of the past.

I might be mistaken, but I think the "bid stealer" thing has also happened quite a bit in the past. Like, one year the final was URI vs. GW, with neither team in a position to get an at-large bid. 2013 and 2014 happened a while ago, but its not like we're talking about the 1970s here.

[ramster]

A-10 NCAA History from its start back in 1977:


YEAR | BIDS | UNITS
=========================
2019 | 2 | 2
2018 | 3 | 5
2017 | 3 | 4
2016 | 3 | 5
2015 | 3 | 5
2014 | 6 | 10
2013 | 5 | 12
2012 | 4 | 7
2011 | 3 | 6
2010 | 3 | 5
2009 | 3 | 6
2008 | 3 | 6
2007 | 2 | 3
2006 | 2 | 3
2005 | 1 | 1
2004 | 4 | 10
2003 | 3 | 4
2002 | 1 | 2
2001 | 3 | 7
2000 | 3 | 4
1999 | 3 | 6
1998 | 5 | 8
1997 | 5 | 9
1996 | 4 | 10
1995 | 2 | 5
1994 | 3 | 6
1993 | 4 | 11
1992 | 3 | 5
1991 | 3 | 7
1990 | 1 | 1
1989 | 2 | 3
1988 | 2 | 7
1987 | 2 | 3
1986 | 3 | 5
1985 | 1 | 2
1984 | 2 | 4
1983 | 2 | 3
1982 | 2 | 3
1981 | 1 | 2 (URI 1st yr)
1980 | 1 | 2
1979 | 1 | 2
1978 | 1 | 3
1977 | 1 | 1

43 SEASON AVERAGE
2.65 bids per year
5 units (games) per year

RF1,
Thanks for putting together.
On the Units, am I assuming correctly that this is the number of games that the teams that got into the tournament played once selected?
If so,
Does this include the as a game if the game was a play-in game in Dayton that was added in recent years? Or is this not counted?

Is it possible for the 2000 and up years to include if there was a bid stolen in that year? Example would be the 14th seed, that the team knocked out, ie Dayton, STILL got an at large.

Thanks

[RF1]

A-10 NCAA History from its start back in 1977:


YEAR | BIDS | UNITS
=========================
2019 | 2 | 2
2018 | 3 | 5
2017 | 3 | 4
2016 | 3 | 5
2015 | 3 | 5
2014 | 6 | 10
2013 | 5 | 12
2012 | 4 | 7
2011 | 3 | 6
2010 | 3 | 5
2009 | 3 | 6
2008 | 3 | 6
2007 | 2 | 3
2006 | 2 | 3
2005 | 1 | 1
2004 | 4 | 10
2003 | 3 | 4
2002 | 1 | 2
2001 | 3 | 7
2000 | 3 | 4
1999 | 3 | 6
1998 | 5 | 8
1997 | 5 | 9
1996 | 4 | 10
1995 | 2 | 5
1994 | 3 | 6
1993 | 4 | 11
1992 | 3 | 5
1991 | 3 | 7
1990 | 1 | 1
1989 | 2 | 3
1988 | 2 | 7
1987 | 2 | 3
1986 | 3 | 5
1985 | 1 | 2
1984 | 2 | 4
1983 | 2 | 3
1982 | 2 | 3
1981 | 1 | 2 (URI 1st yr)
1980 | 1 | 2
1979 | 1 | 2
1978 | 1 | 3
1977 | 1 | 1

43 SEASON AVERAGE
2.65 bids per year
5 units (games) per year

RF1,
Thanks for putting together.
On the Units, am I assuming correctly that this is the number of games that the teams that got into the tournament played once selected?
If so,
Does this include the as a game if the game was a play-in game in Dayton that was added in recent years? Or is this not counted?

Is it possible for the 2000 and up years to include if there was a bid stolen in that year? Example would be the 14th seed, that the team knocked out, ie Dayton, STILL got an at large.

Thanks

It does include the play in games. This accounts for just a few added units as LaSalle and SBU won play in games. The NCAA counts these as full units with the same exact payout.

As for the bids stolen request, good luck with that. It would be pretty subjective. For instance, how would you count URI back in 2017? Some thought they had to win the tournament to get in but the NCAA selection committee rep seemed to indicate afterward they were in regardless. Keep in mind also that the A-10 is not the only league that supposedly "steals" bids. It is just part of the process.

[Running Ram]

"the NCAA does not reveal how their NET system works. Why not? I don’t like the NCAA owning it and keeping calculations private."

Ramster,
I agree with this sentiment.
RPI is not great either, but at least we know the formula.

[adam914]

https://www.si.com/college/2018/11/04/c ... em-explain

[daytonflyerfan]

"the NCAA does not reveal how their NET system works. Why not? I don’t like the NCAA owning it and keeping calculations private."

Ramster,
I agree with this sentiment.
RPI is not great either, but at least we know the formula.

Even if they made the formula public, the p5 would still be jobbing everybody else. I would like them to release a public formula that results in a ranking that is non-negotiable: the ranking would determine the at-large field. No more #60 p5 school getting in ahead of #40 non-p5 school. That will never happen.

[rjsuperfly66]

But the formula is mostly public and the idea that it's not is not accurate. Adam just posted it above. It shows all the different components of the NET, and their formulas to most components, and the order of importance. The only thing we the fans don't have is actual weighting of each section.

That is very different than the NET just being released as a number and no one having any idea what comprises that metric.

[ramster]

So why then RJ is the formula “mostly public”?
Why not 100%?

[rjsuperfly66]

So why then RJ is the formula “mostly public”?
Why not 100%?

I'm all for the weighting being public, but I also don't think that makes a monumental difference. Whether you find out winning percentage is 15 % vs 18% vs 20%, I think that is extraordinarily minor. I think it's far more important to understand the mechanism of what the factors are and how those are calculated, then to figure out what the weighting is.

The formula is obviously not 100% public, but it's not 0% public. It's probably 90% public. Definitely more public than the declaration that "The NCAA does not reveal how their formula works."

[daytonflyerfan]

The NET is not the end all be all anyway. Last year #41 Furman was out but #63 Arizona State was in.

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2019/net-nitty

[ramster]

So why then RJ is the formula “mostly public”?
Why not 100%?

I'm all for the weighting being public, but I also don't think that makes a monumental difference. Whether you find out winning percentage is 15 % vs 18% vs 20%, I think that is extraordinarily minor. I think it's far more important to understand the mechanism of what the factors are and how those are calculated, then to figure out what the weighting is.

The formula is obviously not 100% public, but it's not 0% public. It's probably 90% public. Definitely more public than the declaration that "The NCAA does not reveal how their formula works."

But you didn’t answer my question. Why not have it 100% public? What’s the reason behind that?

And why make part of it public? What sense does that make?

[RF1]

The NCAA created the NET in order to entirely own and control the process it employs to prevent many non power conference teams from crashing the tournament party.

[adam914]

I actually heard they are using chemtrails to manipulate our brains into liking the NET

[ramster]

But if they did would they tell us if the did? How would we know? Or just hint at it? Maybe give us 90% of the info? 50%? Maybe we guess at the %?
They have done such a good job with the transfer, waiver granting process too. Clear, well documented, easy for everyone to understand.

[bigappleram]

Outside of St Bonaventure maybe 4 years ago I cannot remember a case in the last bunch of years where an A10 team has been screwed a bid or more positive seeding due to the selection committee...reality is the league has been treated pretty well IMO. The teams that have done well enough to earn a bid have gotten in, heck the year we sorta tanked out in the last couple weeks I thought we were generously given the 7 bid and awarded the chance to play Oklahoma who was probably the worst of the 10 seeds. So not sure us Rhody fans really have a lot to gripe about here.

Also, the hand wringing over where teams stand now is a bit useless, let the season play out like any data formula the more inputs the more accurate they become. The discrepancies in numbers vs reality will correct themselves and for the most part the right teams will surface to the top. As for Rhody, just keep winning baby!

[Rhode_Island_Red]

The NCAA created the NET in order to entirely own and control the process it employs to prevent many non power conference teams from crashing the tournament party.

Obvious nepotism hire Dan Gavitt has one job: Keep The Cartel from leaving the NCAA.

[rjsuperfly66]

So why then RJ is the formula “mostly public”?
Why not 100%?

I'm all for the weighting being public, but I also don't think that makes a monumental difference. Whether you find out winning percentage is 15 % vs 18% vs 20%, I think that is extraordinarily minor. I think it's far more important to understand the mechanism of what the factors are and how those are calculated, then to figure out what the weighting is.

The formula is obviously not 100% public, but it's not 0% public. It's probably 90% public. Definitely more public than the declaration that "The NCAA does not reveal how their formula works."

But you didn’t answer my question. Why not have it 100% public? What’s the reason behind that?

And why make part of it public? What sense does that make?

I don't know why it's not public, unfortunately I don't have a seat at that table. There could be several reasons. If I had to guess, reason #1 is that there are still tweaks made to the formula every year and it's better to not release anything until they are confident in the formula than have people have full access to the formula and try to turn every single number and change into a conspiracy theory.

If people really cared that much, there is enough information out there that some of these smart nerdy mathematicians could approximately replicate the formula.

[NYGFan_Section208]

The NET is not the end all be all anyway. Last year #41 Furman was out but #63 Arizona State was in.

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2019/net-nitty

If you saw how sausage was made...you probably wouldn't eat it.
If you saw how at-large teams were selected for the NCAAT you'd probably either:
a) never watch it again, or
b) never ever stop biotching about it

It has to remain essentially subjective, or they'd probably be spending even more time in courts than they do now?

[Billyboy78]

The NET is not the end all be all anyway. Last year #41 Furman was out but #63 Arizona State was in.

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2019/net-nitty

If you saw how sausage was made...you probably wouldn't eat it.
If you saw how at-large teams were selected for the NCAAT you'd probably either:
a) never watch it again, or
b) never ever stop biotching about it

It has to remain essentially subjective, or they'd probably be spending even more time in courts than they do now?

Scrape some shit off of the floor and wrap it in intestines. What's not appetizing about that?

[daytonflyerfan]

It has to remain essentially subjective, or they'd probably be spending even more time in courts than they do now?

I do not see why it has to be subjective.

They should make it completely objective: get rid of the selection committee completely and replace them with a public formula.

To make the formula, I would recommend just taking an average of the most popular metrics: Kenpom, KPI, Massey, Sagarin, ESPN BPI, etc. Lots of ratings systems to choose from.

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

[daytonflyerfan]

Eliminating the selection committee is the only way to stop the shenanigans in favor of the p5 that happen every year.

[Rhody74]

Eliminating the selection committee is the only way to stop the shenanigans in favor of the p5 that happen every year.

Has merit but it ain’t gonna happen.

[rjsuperfly66]

It has to remain essentially subjective, or they'd probably be spending even more time in courts than they do now?

I do not see why it has to be subjective.

They should make it completely objective: get rid of the selection committee completely and replace them with a public formula.

To make the formula, I would recommend just taking an average of the most popular metrics: Kenpom, KPI, Massey, Sagarin, ESPN BPI, etc. Lots of ratings systems to choose from.

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

It seems that simple but it's really not.
Remember the BCS was America's most hated system, and what was the BCS?
An average of a bunch of the most popular metrics.
That said, I've always liked that approach, but many of those guys would disagree.
KenPom has said his metric would need to be altered to be appropriate for the committee.
Most strength metrics act the same way as they are meant to be predictive in nature.
Proof of that can be found below...
These are the following non-P5+BE in the NET: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 6; Top 50 - 12.
KenPom: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 4; Top 50 - 10.
Massey Composite: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 5; Top 50 - 11.
Sagarin: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 7; Top 50 - 9.
BPI - Top 10 - 1; Top 25 - 4; Top 50 - 11.
So the NET is more favorable to non-P5+BE in every category except Top 25 from Sagarin?
The way the talk exists around here, you would think 1-50 is all BE+P5.
The grass is not always greener, although it certain seems like it is.

[daytonflyerfan]

It seems that simple but it's really not.
Remember the BCS was America's most hated system, and what was the BCS?
An average of a bunch of the most popular metrics.
That said, I've always liked that approach, but many of those guys would disagree.
KenPom has said his metric would need to be altered to be appropriate for the committee.
Most strength metrics act the same way as they are meant to be predictive in nature.
Proof of that can be found below...
These are the following non-P5+BE in the NET: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 6; Top 50 - 12.
KenPom: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 4; Top 50 - 10.
Massey Composite: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 5; Top 50 - 11.
Sagarin: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 7; Top 50 - 9.
BPI - Top 10 - 1; Top 25 - 4; Top 50 - 11.
So the NET is more favorable to non-P5+BE in every category except Top 25 from Sagarin?
The way the talk exists around here, you would think 1-50 is all BE+P5.
The grass is not always greener, although it certain seems like it is.

So what? The selection committee seems to ignore the NET on Selection Sunday anyway. Did more non-p5 teams get in last year with the NET? No.

The behavior, especially scheduling behavior, of the non-p5 teams would change if the formula were made public.

[daytonflyerfan]

And people hated the BCS because it was not a playoff iirc, not because there was anything inherently wrong with it.

And I am fine with Kenpom adjusting his formula if it is used to select the teams.

[rjsuperfly66]

It seems that simple but it's really not.
Remember the BCS was America's most hated system, and what was the BCS?
An average of a bunch of the most popular metrics.
That said, I've always liked that approach, but many of those guys would disagree.
KenPom has said his metric would need to be altered to be appropriate for the committee.
Most strength metrics act the same way as they are meant to be predictive in nature.
Proof of that can be found below...
These are the following non-P5+BE in the NET: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 6; Top 50 - 12.
KenPom: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 4; Top 50 - 10.
Massey Composite: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 5; Top 50 - 11.
Sagarin: Top 10 - 2; Top 25 - 7; Top 50 - 9.
BPI - Top 10 - 1; Top 25 - 4; Top 50 - 11.
So the NET is more favorable to non-P5+BE in every category except Top 25 from Sagarin?
The way the talk exists around here, you would think 1-50 is all BE+P5.
The grass is not always greener, although it certain seems like it is.

So what? The selection committee seems to ignore the NET on Selection Sunday anyway. Did more non-p5 teams get in last year with the NET? No.

The behavior, especially scheduling behavior, of the non-p5 teams would change if the formula were made public.

I think that’s the wrong question. The right question is were there more non-P5 teams left out that deserved to be in? If no, than the committee did it’s job. People here all agreed the A10 got the appropriate numbers of bids. The NET and committee should not be allowing teams in to just hit an arbitrary number of bids from each conference. Furman has a decent NET but I don’t recall anyone screaming from the rooftops about them not making the tournament except now to try to prove a point.

[daytonflyerfan]

Ok, how about Murray State, Lipscomb, or Belmont? All had good q1 and q2 totals.

Lipscomb Kenpom 45, Belmont 49, Murray 51.

https://kenpom.com/index.php?y=2019

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2019/net-nitty

[rjsuperfly66]

Sure I just don’t recall anyone being upset about that omissions last year. I don’t remember anyone standing on their pulpit screaming about Lipscomb missing out. If I recall right, it was pretty well understood they needed to win their conference tournament. Heck werent’t they a 4-5 seed in the NIT?

[daytonflyerfan]

Sure I just don’t recall anyone being upset about that omissions last year. I don’t remember anyone standing on their pulpit screaming about Lipscomb missing out. If I recall right, it was pretty well understood they needed to win their conference tournament. Heck werent’t they a 4-5 seed in the NIT?

I just think you are looking at this from the wrong end. I think several arguments could be made that several p5 teams were not deserving. I am sure the fans of Murray, Lipscomb, and Belmont felt that they were deserving.

[rjsuperfly66]

Sure I just don’t recall anyone being upset about that omissions last year. I don’t remember anyone standing on their pulpit screaming about Lipscomb missing out. If I recall right, it was pretty well understood they needed to win their conference tournament. Heck werent’t they a 4-5 seed in the NIT?

I just think you are looking at this from the wrong end. I think several arguments could be made that several p5 teams were not deserving. I am sure the fans of Murray, Lipscomb, and Belmont felt that they were deserving.

Murray was in the tournament last year. Ja Morant ripped Marquette’s asshole apart in Hartford. I had let it go the first time couldn’t let it go again. Belmont was an at-large and won their play-in game. I believe they paraded Byrd for getting his first career tournament win (although I put an * because it was a play-in game but that’s because I’m a cynical bastard).

Also I don’t understand why that’s the wrong approach for looking at it... If a team deserves to be there, they should be there. If a team doesn’t deserve to be there, they shouldn’t be there. We may argue semantics on what that means but that’s how we should be judging teams.

It’s also not a one-sided thing. The committee stuck it to NC St last year and their inflated NET and it’s great that they did.

[adam914]

Well zero good wins and one Quad 4 loss. You don't need any formulas to figure this one out!

[daytonflyerfan]

Murray was in the tournament last year. Ja Morant ripped Marquette’s asshole apart in Hartford. I had let it go the first time couldn’t let it go again. Belmont was an at-large and won their play-in game. I believe they paraded Byrd for getting his first career tournament win (although I put an * because it was a play-in game but that’s because I’m a cynical bastard).

Also I don’t understand why that’s the wrong approach for looking at it... If a team deserves to be there, they should be there. If a team doesn’t deserve to be there, they shouldn’t be there. We may argue semantics on what that means but that’s how we should be judging teams.

It’s also not a one-sided thing. The committee stuck it to NC St last year and their inflated NET and it’s great that they did.

Yeah, fair enough, sloppy research on my part regarding Murray and Belmont.

[daytonflyerfan]

Murray was in the tournament last year. Ja Morant ripped Marquette’s asshole apart in Hartford. I had let it go the first time couldn’t let it go again. Belmont was an at-large and won their play-in game. I believe they paraded Byrd for getting his first career tournament win (although I put an * because it was a play-in game but that’s because I’m a cynical bastard).

Also I don’t understand why that’s the wrong approach for looking at it... If a team deserves to be there, they should be there. If a team doesn’t deserve to be there, they shouldn’t be there. We may argue semantics on what that means but that’s how we should be judging teams.

It’s also not a one-sided thing. The committee stuck it to NC St last year and their inflated NET and it’s great that they did.

I think the win %, not the number of wins, should be looked at with q1 and q2 since the p5's have more q1 and q2 opportunities.

The numbers should mean something, the selection process should be more objective.


Source: final NET rankings before Selection Sunday: https://m.herosports.com/ncaa-tournamen ... kings-ahah

Kenpom rankings are the final end of the season rankings after the NIT and NCAAT were over.

https://kenpom.com/index.php?y=2019


So, let's look at Lipscomb again...Kenpom 45, 2-3 q1, 2-3 q2

Questionable IMO if any of the below were better:

Temple: Kenpom 69, 2-6 q1, 6-2 q2...2-6 q1 really?

Arizona State: Kenpom 57, 3-3 q1, 8-3 q2

Saint John's: Kenpom 88, q1 5-7, q2 5-3

Ohio State: Kenpom 44, q1 4-10, q2 5-3...4-10 q1 really?

Seton Hall: Kenpom 60, 7-8, 7-3

Minnesota: Kenpom 46, 5-10, 7-2...5-10 q1 really?

Washington: Kenpom 48, 2-4, 8-3

Ole Miss: Kenpom 50, 4-10, 3-2...4-10 q1 really?



And the same things could be said about the exclusion of other teams, such as the 1 and 2 seeds in the NIT. It all just seems so random when the last 8 or so teams, the 10 and 11 seeds, are picked. I would like to see more objectivity.

[rjsuperfly66]

I think it's in the best interest for us not to go case by case, as I think we would both argue opposite sides on nearly every team and not convince the other on anything. My point about no one complaining about omissions was solely to say that I don't think there were many people stamping their feet about anyone being left out for any of the last several years. I don't think there has been one like that since Monmouth.

I do agree I would like to see it less subjective. If you want to make the argument for 51 over 48, fine. The committee has always said they will account for injuries as long as that player comes back and is impactful, so that counts for something as well. That said, how do we get it so we can't even argue who has the better resume between 70 and 50? That's the current issue, which was the same issue with the RPI. It relegates the NET to being pretty useless like the RPI, versus a useful tool that it was intended to be.

Thoughts:

The idea of a new system came from a very obvious reason. There were people like me who say "My team plays in a conference where 16 out of 18 games are Top 50 or Top 100. I don't care as much about conference record ... put them in an easy conference with 5 Top 100 games and they will also go 15-3 or 14-4 and have a nice W/L record too." Then there were people on the other side who said "It's not my fault my team plays in a weaker conference. They can only beat the teams on their conference schedule, if they could play more Q1/Q2 games they would." Both sides are right.

The replacement system was supposed to be able to account for that. A replacement system was supposed to say "Yeah, VCU played George Washington, but they killed them as they should have, and the way they produced was still impressive" versus "They beat George Washington and they stink, what does that tell us?" The NET is slightly better at this than the RPI, but I don't think it accomplishes what it needsto.

The NCAA should be using adjusted efficiency against raw efficiency, as I think raw efficiency creates the opening for people to rightfully feel the need to step in and analyzing. Just look at NC St last year -- "You stunk against Q1/Q2 teams but you destroyed Q4 teams and that helped your efficiency which artificially inflated your NET." If adjusted efficiency were to be used, they would have still received a positive bump from those Q4 beatdowns, but it would have been nothing compared to using completely raw data as in many of those games. When analyzed at the end of the year, the output of beating NET 300+ teams would have been that they should have won by 20-25+ points anyway, so winning by 30 wasn't really that great.

And I think that's the problem -- People are still peeling the onion and analyzing resumes and going "Hmm, they have a good NET, but a lot of that is their efficiency from dominating 20+ tomato cans. What would that look like if they consistently played a harder schedule?" That's my argument for adjusted efficiency. That's why I think it's stupid to not include it. Under the current NET, it would make no sense for NC St or PC to schedule nothing but Q4 tomato cans unless there was a committee sitting there saying "We are going to penalize you if you do that." But they can't just penalize NC St for playing tomato cans, they have to look at the impact on efficiency from everyone. Decent teams with many Q3/Q4 games are likely going to benefit from raw efficiency against those opponents, only to have it used against them by the committee.

Fix it. It's like my feeling with the RPI. If we are going to use it against a team to have high raw efficiency against a hodge podge of mediocre opponents, let's fix that hole so the team with a NET of 30 or 40 or 50 has a more realistic idea of where they really stand versus letting the committee correct it. Maybe a team who currently has a NET of 35 and misses the tournament has an updated NET of 55 with adjusted. Great! At least they don't end up feeling "screwed" by a sour committee. And if a team dominates with adjusted efficiency, we know they are truly deserving of that 35 ranking and didn't "abuse" a hole in the system and get the respect and seeding they deserve.

Just one man's opinion.

[rambone 78]

Well said RJ.....but I guess there's another team in RI that doesn't have to worry about all of this, this year anyway.

[URI2006_Andy]

The A-10 is likely getting 3 teams in, maybe 4.

No way, Dayton might be the only 1 getting a bid if Dayton wins the A10T. Looking like 2, Dayton and somebody else winning the A10T. VCU is barely hanging on right now, Mason, Richmond, and Duquesne have fallen off. Nobody else is contending right now, but things can change I suppose. Sorry to insult you guys.

Also, SLU only has 2 losses, they have a chance.

Your assuming Dayton is going to steamroll though the A-10. I’m not sold they will win the A-10 regular season. It would not surprise me if VCU or Davidson win the regular season.

And, even if Dayton is the best team, they will likely lose 3 or 4 games which will provide Q1 wins to other teams contending for an at-large. Let’s not forget URI went 3-2 vs Dayton and VCU last year. They do that this year, they got a shot at an at-large.

[PeterRamTime]

The A-10 is likely getting 3 teams in, maybe 4.

No way, Dayton might be the only 1 getting a bid if Dayton wins the A10T. Looking like 2, Dayton and somebody else winning the A10T. VCU is barely hanging on right now, Mason, Richmond, and Duquesne have fallen off. Nobody else is contending right now, but things can change I suppose. Sorry to insult you guys.

Also, SLU only has 2 losses, they have a chance.

Your assuming Dayton is going to steamroll though the A-10. I’m not sold they will win the A-10 regular season. It would not surprise me if VCU or Davidson win the regular season.

And, even if Dayton is the best team, they will likely lose 3 or 4 games which will provide Q1 wins to other teams contending for an at-large. Let’s not forget URI went 3-2 vs Dayton and VCU last year. They do that this year, they got a shot at an at-large.

No way in hell Davidson will win the A-10 regular season. Have you watched them? You think we have problems?

Wouldn't even say it is likely Dayton will lose 3 or 4 games. They are one of the best A-10 teams I've ever seen.

If Dayton doesnt win the A-10 regular season I will change my username to " I was wrong "

[NYGFan_Section208]

No way, Dayton might be the only 1 getting a bid if Dayton wins the A10T. Looking like 2, Dayton and somebody else winning the A10T. VCU is barely hanging on right now, Mason, Richmond, and Duquesne have fallen off. Nobody else is contending right now, but things can change I suppose. Sorry to insult you guys.

Also, SLU only has 2 losses, they have a chance.

Your assuming Dayton is going to steamroll though the A-10. I’m not sold they will win the A-10 regular season. It would not surprise me if VCU or Davidson win the regular season.

And, even if Dayton is the best team, they will likely lose 3 or 4 games which will provide Q1 wins to other teams contending for an at-large. Let’s not forget URI went 3-2 vs Dayton and VCU last year. They do that this year, they got a shot at an at-large.

No way in hell Davidson will win the A-10 regular season. Have you watched them? You think we have problems?

Wouldn't even say it is likely Dayton will lose 3 or 4 games. They are one of the best A-10 teams I've ever seen.

If Dayton doesnt win the A-10 regular season I will change my username to " I was wrong "

I'll take "the field" for a sixer.
ETA: And I won't care if you change your username or not

[rambone 78]

URI's defense last night was worse than the Giants this season.

And that's saying something,

Dayton will win the conference, short of a major injury to Obi.

Some of you are totally delusional.

[NYGFan_Section208]

I'll still take "the field" ...with the season hardly started...give me the field.

Reef, luke, anyone...can we get some odds on that?

[reef]

The A-10 is likely getting 3 teams in, maybe 4.

No way, Dayton might be the only 1 getting a bid if Dayton wins the A10T. Looking like 2, Dayton and somebody else winning the A10T. VCU is barely hanging on right now, Mason, Richmond, and Duquesne have fallen off. Nobody else is contending right now, but things can change I suppose. Sorry to insult you guys.

Also, SLU only has 2 losses, they have a chance.

Your assuming Dayton is going to steamroll though the A-10. I’m not sold they will win the A-10 regular season. It would not surprise me if VCU or Davidson win the regular season.

And, even if Dayton is the best team, they will likely lose 3 or 4 games which will provide Q1 wins to other teams contending for an at-large. Let’s not forget URI went 3-2 vs Dayton and VCU last year. They do that this year, they got a shot at an at-large.

Maybe VCU can win the regular season highly unlikely but no way Davidson does just can’t see it

[KevanBoyles]

Net up 10 this morning to 80 and the Brown loss is Q3.

[URI2006_Andy]

Shows you how close these rankings are. Move up 10 spots without playing a game. Teams 30-100 not much difference. Going to come down to who plays well and consistently wins games in conference.

[RamStock]

Can we put a rest to the NET rankings and how the teams we play on our schedule fared now.

[Roz]

And then we are over 100

[RF1]

NET rankings only matter for the NCAA and NIT. This team is going to neither.

[RhodyRams916]

NET rankings only matter for the NCAA and NIT. This team is going to neither.

Unless they win the A10 tourney

[Rhodymob05]

Current Net-86 (jumped 4 sports from 90)
Current Kenpom-85
RPI- 69 (nice)

A nice little bump, but we need to win a LOT.