KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

Can someone explain to me how this is a top 100 team Net Rankings? Here are the wins:

LaSalle NET 261
Delaware State NET 357
Oklahoma NET 44
Penn NET 184
BC Net 226
St John Net 78
St Joes Net 243
GTown x2 Net 255

This team is 9-10 as well but is a top 100 team.

This game is rigged.

Their schedule strength is Top 30 - 25th by one metric, 27th by another. So, they're probably getting credit for playing tough teams (Q1 + Q2 games) even if they're losing. Also, while they're a Top 100 team, they're pretty safely off the bubble - like in the 70 or 80 range. They're one game under .500 playing that schedule, so yeah, I think they're probably better than St. Louis, which is an A-10 school within 10 KenPom spots than them. With that many losses "banked," I kind of doubt they can get into NCAA tournament consideration.

SGreenwell wrote: ↑1 year ago Their schedule strength is Top 30 - 25th by one metric, 27th by another. So, they're probably getting credit for playing tough teams (Q1 + Q2 games) even if they're losing. Also, while they're a Top 100 team, they're pretty safely off the bubble - like in the 70 or 80 range. They're one game under .500 playing that schedule, so yeah, I think they're probably better than St. Louis, which is an A-10 school within 10 KenPom spots than them. With that many losses "banked," I kind of doubt they can get into NCAA tournament consideration.

So how are they a top 100 team? Like if Austin Peay plays all top 100 teams in non con and loses. are they a top 100 team?

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago Can someone explain to me how this is a top 100 team Net Rankings? Here are the wins:

LaSalle NET 261
Delaware State NET 357
Oklahoma NET 44
Penn NET 184
BC Net 226
St John Net 78
St Joes Net 243
GTown x2 Net 255

This team is 9-10 as well but is a top 100 team.

This game is rigged.

The team is Villanova.

Its losses are to:
Temple NET 152
Michigan State NET 42
Iowa State NET 10
Portland NET 187
Oregon NET 66
UConn NET 7
Marquette NET 18
Xavier NET 17
Depaul NET 171
Butler Butler NET 81

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago

SGreenwell wrote: ↑1 year ago Their schedule strength is Top 30 - 25th by one metric, 27th by another. So, they're probably getting credit for playing tough teams (Q1 + Q2 games) even if they're losing. Also, while they're a Top 100 team, they're pretty safely off the bubble - like in the 70 or 80 range. They're one game under .500 playing that schedule, so yeah, I think they're probably better than St. Louis, which is an A-10 school within 10 KenPom spots than them. With that many losses "banked," I kind of doubt they can get into NCAA tournament consideration.

So how are they a top 100 team? Like if Austin Peay plays all top 100 teams in non con and loses. are they a top 100 team?

Probably not. But what do you want here? Ultimately, it's pretty irrelevant where you slot in for NET once you get past the Top 40 or so, maybe Top 60 if you care about the NIT. No one is going to care if URI finishes at NET 70, 150, 200 or 250, because all of them are out of tournament consideration. I don't love NET as a metric because it seems to overvalue crappy wins - hence why Fordham was pretty high for a hot minute - but ultimately, there isn't a great way to do this unless you force teams to play more games OOC against teams of varying quality. The six teams near Villanova in the NET rankings are Nebraska, VCU, Tulane, Grand Canyon, LMU and SIU, who range from 9 to 13 wins, so it's not like they're radically out of place.

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago

SGreenwell wrote: ↑1 year ago Their schedule strength is Top 30 - 25th by one metric, 27th by another. So, they're probably getting credit for playing tough teams (Q1 + Q2 games) even if they're losing. Also, while they're a Top 100 team, they're pretty safely off the bubble - like in the 70 or 80 range. They're one game under .500 playing that schedule, so yeah, I think they're probably better than St. Louis, which is an A-10 school within 10 KenPom spots than them. With that many losses "banked," I kind of doubt they can get into NCAA tournament consideration.

So how are they a top 100 team? Like if Austin Peay plays all top 100 teams in non con and loses. are they a top 100 team?

I think what's missing in your "lose" component, is how they lose? If you play a tough SOS and lose every game by 1 point (the most "unlucky" team), you may very well have a NET around 100. If you play a tough SOS and lose every game by 40 points, you'll have a NET in the 300s. Same is true for wins and bad opponents - a team that is undefeated against the worst SOS in the country and won every game by a point might have an NET in the 200s. A team undefeated against the worst SOS in the country who wins every game by 40 might have a NET in the 40s. Will be an empty, unrewarded NET by the committee but that's where it'll fall.

Can someone explain to me how Liberty is NET 46? Q1 0-3 Q2 1-1 Q3 4-2 Q4 13-0. They are 1-4 vs Q1 and Q2 and lost 2 games to Q3???

Bar, I haven’t looked at Lib’s game results but I will guess….

Their losses are all close road losses, combined with a few blowout Q2 and Q3 road wins?

Two of their losses are to Alabama and Northwestern, that’ll help.

Yeah it looks like they beat every Q4 team by 20. Might be a formula going forward. Play the worst teams in the country and blow them out.

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago Yeah it looks like they beat every Q4 team by 20. Might be a formula going forward. Play the worst teams in the country and blow them out.

That's why team sheets also have their KenPom, Sagarin, and KPI rankings on there. NET isn't the only metric used.

RhodyKyle wrote: ↑1 year ago

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago Yeah it looks like they beat every Q4 team by 20. Might be a formula going forward. Play the worst teams in the country and blow them out.

That's why team sheets also have their KenPom, Sagarin, and KPI rankings on there. NET isn't the only metric used.

You think the NCAA is giving weight over their own NET rankings? Not.

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago

RhodyKyle wrote: ↑1 year ago

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago Yeah it looks like they beat every Q4 team by 20. Might be a formula going forward. Play the worst teams in the country and blow them out.

That's why team sheets also have their KenPom, Sagarin, and KPI rankings on there. NET isn't the only metric used.

You think the NCAA is giving weight over their own NET rankings? Not.

A quick google search would spare you being wrong.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-me ... %20bracket.

Liberty is basically a better version of Fordham. Gaudy record against bad opponents, but they've beat the crap out of them more. They'd probably have to win out to warrant serious NCAA tournament consideration, which I doubt they're going to do, and each loss is going to be a bad hit to their NET most likely. I couldn't find a breakdown of team NET at the time of earning their berth, but last year, the first four out had NETs of 40, 42, 44 and 58, according to Wikipedia (Oklahoma, Texas A&M, SMU, Dayton).

Liberty beat Bryant at the Mass Mutual Center by 20

RhodyKyle wrote: ↑1 year ago

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago

RhodyKyle wrote: ↑1 year ago

That's why team sheets also have their KenPom, Sagarin, and KPI rankings on there. NET isn't the only metric used.

You think the NCAA is giving weight over their own NET rankings? Not.

A quick google search would spare you being wrong.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-me ... %20bracket.

You must be one of those guys that believes everything they read.

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago Yeah it looks like they beat every Q4 team by 20. Might be a formula going forward. Play the worst teams in the country and blow them out.

Tbr, Your suggestion above could be one to log as an answer to one of SG’s questions in his opening post of his Juan Bid thread.

The NET rankings for the A-10 as of the morning of 2/13/2023 are below. URI has the 14th best NET rank in the A-10 at #230. Only Loyola has has a worse rank. Just two league teams are now in the top 100 with each of them being far outside the typical NCAA selection ranks. If either of them (Dayton and VCU) were to win the A-10 Tournament, the league very likely would garner just a single NIT bid to match its lone NCAA team. That would equate to the A-10 having just two teams make a reputable postseason tournament. I would have to imagine that would be a near all time low for the 45+ year history of the A-10.

Check out the NET breakdown detail for the league. The A-10 as a whole has just a single Quad 1 win to date - SLU over PC at Mohegan Sun. Furthermore, the league's members have played just 20 Quad 1 games. The CAA, with two fewer members, has participated in 29 Quad 1 games to date. Kansas, all on its own, has had 16 Quad 1 games.

I'm actually not sure the 84th ranked team gets an NIT bid...

RF1 wrote: ↑1 year ago The NET rankings for the A-10 as of the morning of 2/13/2023 are below. URI has the 14th best NET rank in the A-10 at #230. Only Loyola has has a worse rank. Just two league teams are now in the top 100 with each of them being far outside the typical NCAA selection ranks. If either of them (Dayton and VCU) were to win the A-10 Tournament, the league very likely would garner just a single NIT bid to match its lone NCAA team. That would equate to the A-10 having just two teams make a reputable postseason tournament. I would have to imagine that would be a near all time low for the 45+ year history of the A-10.

Check out the NET breakdown detail for the league. The A-10 as a whole has just a single Quad 1 win to date - SLU over PC at Mohegan Sun. Furthermore, the league's members have played just 20 Quad 1 games. The CAA, with two fewer members, has participated in 29 Quad 1 games to date. Kansas, all on its own, has had 16 Quad 1 games.

Screenshot 2023-02-13 at 10-39-06 DI Men's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings NCAA.com.png

RF1, 1 NCAA bid and 1 NIT bid (hopefully) is Ivy League standard. Nothing against the Ivy’s but that is a real bad season for the A10.

Hopefully, the A10 gets back to 2-3 NCAA Tourney bids annually plus a few NIT invites. I don’t think that is unreasonable under this new NET reality IF all conf members or most are in agreement on how to adapt.

If you haven’t already, I would suggest spending some spare time reviewing the charts SG posted in his Juan Bid thread - particularly the Adjusted Efficiency #’s.

If the regular season A-10 champ (Seed #1) fails to win the tournament, they automatically get an NIT bid.

Wow how far this league has fallen !!

Jdrums#3 wrote: ↑1 year ago

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago Yeah it looks like they beat every Q4 team by 20. Might be a formula going forward. Play the worst teams in the country and blow them out.

Tbr, Your suggestion above could be one to log as an answer to one of SG’s questions in his opening post of his Juan Bid thread.

Edit: ooph! Major brain fart. I just realized I confused SG and ATP above. It’s ATP’s thread. Sorry guys.

It’s a big club and you ain’t part of it - George Carlin.

The A10 needs to get creative and figure out ways to game the friggin’ system in basketball better than other Non-P5/P6 conferences and do it urgently, imho, because 3-5 years more of this years shit show performance by the A10 and it will be battling to be a 13-11 Net rated conference ( with the Missouri Valley, Ivy League, Sun Belt, etc) and the climb into the top 10 (7-9 at least) Net rated basketball conferences consistently will be a friggin’ pipe dream ( …because you have to be asleep to believe it - George Carlin).

At that point, the top tier A10 programs will leave - one way or the other by joining another conference or starting a new one - to save their basketball programs and not waste the financial investments they have made over the past ten years.

We will see how many programs stick around in the A10 when the NCAA Tourney credits dry up to a mere trickle.

The A10 is capable of being the top high mid-major conference more years than not if it collectively gets it shit together versus going along with one foot in and one foot out.

Plant a frickin’ mole on the Net formulation committee if you have to. Quit the f’n whining and wake the F up! And I don’t give a flying shit if the NCAA, P5, and NBE likes the A10 Commissioner or not. Earn back respect.

The A10 is still scheduling for RPI. Beating a 300 ranked team by 25 is better now than beating a 125 ranked team by 8. As much as the schedules of the P5 OOC are a bunch of cupcakes, that is how they enter conference play with high NET rankings.

NET isn't some huge secret, even if you can't peek at the exact formula. (I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been reverse engineered at this point, but I'm sure it'll happen soon enough.) It seems to factor: 1) wins 2) "quality" of competition via the quadrants and 3) margin of victory. KenPom uses many of the same metrics with different weights - The Top 9 teams in NET are the Top 9 teams in KenPom, albeit in a slightly different order. It's definitely way better than RPI, which is easier to exploit.

The biggest impediment to mid-majors getting higher up in NET remains a scheduling bias issue - that there isn't enough fluidity in OOC scheduling anymore - and not because some formula is biased against them. I'm not sure how you "fix" that, short of making the season longer, or if the NCAA gets more aggressive with forcing power conference teams to schedule more challenging games OOC. (I'm not sure if a mechanism even exists for them to do that, or what the right way to do it would be.)

URI is now just 14 spots from being the worst NET ranked team in the A-10. Rhody is today at 254 and Loyola is at 268. URI still has yet to play at Loyola. A loss in that game could send URI to the bottom 15th seed in the A-10 Tournament as well as the worst NET rank in the league. The bottom for this program cannot get much lower than this.

This season by winning percentage records is among the eleven worst in the last 50 years of Rhody hoops:
2022-23 | 8-19 .296 Miller *YTD
2012-13 | 8-21 .276 Hurley
2011-12 | 7-24 .226 Baron
2004-05 | 6-22 .214 Baron
2001-02 | 8-20 .286 Baron
2000-01 | 7-23 .233 DeGregorio
1999-00 | 5-25 .167 DeGregorio
1994-95 | 7-20 .259 Skinner
1984-85 | 8-20 .286 Malone
1983-84 | 6-22 .214 English
1974-75 | 5-20 .200 Kraft

The troubling part of the list above is that 7 of the 11 worst seasons in the past five decades came in just the last 25 years.

SGreenwell wrote: ↑1 year ago NET isn't some huge secret, even if you can't peek at the exact formula. (I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been reverse engineered at this point, but I'm sure it'll happen soon enough.) It seems to factor: 1) wins 2) "quality" of competition via the quadrants and 3) margin of victory. KenPom uses many of the same metrics with different weights - The Top 9 teams in NET are the Top 9 teams in KenPom, albeit in a slightly different order. It's definitely way better than RPI, which is easier to exploit.

The biggest impediment to mid-majors getting higher up in NET remains a scheduling bias issue - that there isn't enough fluidity in OOC scheduling anymore - and not because some formula is biased against them. I'm not sure how you "fix" that, short of making the season longer, or if the NCAA gets more aggressive with forcing power conference teams to schedule more challenging games OOC. (I'm not sure if a mechanism even exists for them to do that, or what the right way to do it would be.)

SG, you (not you personally but, the conf as a whole) take the attitude that you (the conference) will do whatever it takes - stuff you mention above, others have posted and stuff we haven’t thought of yet.

Use every club in the golf bag. Otherwise, go play miniature golf with the kids.

RF1 wrote: ↑1 year ago URI is now just 14 spots from being the worst NET ranked team in the A-10. Rhody is today at 254 and Loyola is at 268. URI still has yet to play at Loyola. A loss in that game could send URI to the bottom 15th seed in the A-10 Tournament as well as the worst NET rank in the league. The bottom for this program cannot get much lower than this.

This season by winning percentage records is among the eleven worst in the last 50 years of Rhody hoops:
2022-23 | 8-19 .296 Miller *YTD
2012-13 | 8-21 .276 Hurley
2011-12 | 7-24 .226 Baron
2004-05 | 6-22 .214 Baron
2001-02 | 8-20 .286 Baron
2000-01 | 7-23 .233 DeGregorio
1999-00 | 5-25 .167 DeGregorio
1994-95 | 7-20 .259 Skinner
1984-85 | 8-20 .286 Malone
1983-84 | 6-22 .214 English
1974-75 | 5-20 .200 Kraft

The troubling part of the list above is that 7 of the 11 worst seasons in the past five decades came in just the last 25 years.

For a more apples to apples comparison, you can see the KenPom rank going back to the 2001-02 season

2011-12 225
2001-02 237
2022-23 240
2004-05 251

That's the 4 times out of 22 tracked seasons where our KenPom ranking was 200 or worse.

Looking at your data and mine, one thing is clear, URI is not a program that can ride out a bad coach, if we try we REALLY bottom out. We should have fired Cox after year 3

Article by
Andrea Adelson
ESPN Senior Writer

Interesting

- ACC commissioner Jim Phillips told ESPN on Saturday that he will meet with his league's men's basketball coaches and athletic directors as soon as the season ends to discuss ways to be more "proactive" and "aggressive" in changing the narrative surrounding the conference.

The ACC got only five bids this season to the men's NCAA tournament, a big disappointment to Phillips and to those inside his league. He remains steadfast in his belief that Clemson and North Carolina should have made the tournament.

"We're paying too much attention to the NET. I'm just not there on that," Phillips said.

rjv wrote: ↑1 year ago Article by
Andrea Adelson
ESPN Senior Writer

Interesting

- ACC commissioner Jim Phillips told ESPN on Saturday that he will meet with his league's men's basketball coaches and athletic directors as soon as the season ends to discuss ways to be more "proactive" and "aggressive" in changing the narrative surrounding the conference.

The ACC got only five bids this season to the men's NCAA tournament, a big disappointment to Phillips and to those inside his league. He remains steadfast in his belief that Clemson and North Carolina should have made the tournament.

"We're paying too much attention to the NET. I'm just not there on that," Phillips said.

I saw that , I like that move by their commish

Unc and Clemson did not deserve bids.

steviep123 wrote: ↑1 year ago Unc and Clemson did not deserve bids.

Definitely could’ve made a case for Clemson, but we deserved a bid as much as UNC did this year. They sucked.

Ken Pomeroy@kenpomeroy2h
Schedule who you want. Let's have a selection process that isn't based on Quad 1 scheduling opportunities that aren't available to many teams. It's 2023 and we know the quality of any win on a team's schedule without having to resort to Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 shortcuts.

Yes KenPom!

KenPom: man of the people

ramster wrote: ↑1 year ago Ken Pomeroy@kenpomeroy2h
Schedule who you want. Let's have a selection process that isn't based on Quad 1 scheduling opportunities that aren't available to many teams. It's 2023 and we know the quality of any win on a team's schedule without having to resort to Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 shortcuts.

Somewhere, obvious nepotism hire Dan Gavitt is laughing to himself and saying, "silly man."

Yeah we need to avoid what FU did winning 24 games with a NET of 130

reef wrote: ↑1 year ago Yeah we need to avoid what FU did winning 24 games with a NET of 130

I mean sign me up for that next season.

Don't see how anyone here would complain about that in Year 2.

Sign me up for 24 w's any old way, right now. At least that'd pretty much guarantee you're competitive in your tourney.
Because I'm too lazy to look, when was the last 'disappointing' 24 win season here? Can't recall anything like that recently...

NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑1 year ago Sign me up for 24 w's any old way, right now. At least that'd pretty much guarantee you're competitive in your tourney.
Because I'm too lazy to look, when was the last 'disappointing' 24 win season here? Can't recall anything like that recently...

Started 19-3 in 09/10 only to shit the bed down the stretch and finish 26-10 overall with a loss to UNC in the NIT semis.

I’d consider that a *slightly* disappointing 26 wins considering where we were 22 games into the season.

ramster wrote: ↑1 year ago Ken Pomeroy@kenpomeroy2h
Schedule who you want. Let's have a selection process that isn't based on Quad 1 scheduling opportunities that aren't available to many teams. It's 2023 and we know the quality of any win on a team's schedule without having to resort to Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 shortcuts.

Quadrants were created to help mid/low majors. Remember the old system was like Top 25, Top 50, Top 100. Quadrants (which started with the RPI) were supposed to create more chances for those teams to have quality games, especially in conference play.

There will always be the need for a comparative line to say whether a certain win is good or great or whether a loss is bad. KenPoms own site acknowledges this, by listing next to a game whether it is an A game or a B game, his version of a quality assessment for matchups.

theblueram wrote: ↑1 year ago Can someone explain to me how this is a top 100 team Net Rankings? Here are the wins:

LaSalle NET 261
Delaware State NET 357
Oklahoma NET 44
Penn NET 184
BC Net 226
St John Net 78
St Joes Net 243
GTown x2 Net 255

This team is 9-10 as well but is a top 100 team.

This game is rigged.

Theblueram,

You could have been among reporters at the A10 SemiFinal Team press Conference and asked Travis Ford of St Louis your question on NET.
I was at the A10 Tournament and had heard about Ford's comments but did not play til now.

Good to see a Head Coach speaking his mind on the subject.

His comments on NET are between the 8 minute and 11 minute mark of the toughly 20 minutes St Louis got in the Press Conference.



https://atlantic10.com/sports/2022/8/10/MBB23.aspx

NYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑1 year ago Sign me up for 24 w's any old way, right now. At least that'd pretty much guarantee you're competitive in your tourney.
Because I'm too lazy to look, when was the last 'disappointing' 24 win season here? Can't recall anything like that recently...

I mean we have 5 24 win seasons or better in our history.

2 NCAA second rounds, an NIT "final four", an Elite 8, and a Sweet 16.

Even Jim Baron didn't schedule as pathetic as Fordham did. Jim Baron had 5 20 win seasons and they're used as a punchline around here. Fordham got to 24 wins because they went 12-1 in an embarrassing OOC SOS that ranked outside of the top 300.

If you win 24 games and you're not invited to a single post season tournament that's a pathetic season. It would sicken me to know I wasted money and time on a team that had zero intention of legitimately competing.

That style is beneath our coaching staff's expectations, our program's expectations, and frankly what should be everyone else's expectations.

Thankfully, our staff doesn't use hollow win totals as a scheduling barometer, and next year's OOC is already significantly better than what Fordham did with Seton Hall, PC, and some combo of Miss State/NW/WSU. If we get 24 wins next year, it would be a legit success and culminate with a bid.

On the eve of the NET being released, I'm going to look at our NET vs Penn State. They should be very similar based on record. Let's hope so. I don't trust the NET.

Any guesses on our NET ?? I will guess 232

I'm guessing 160.

Edit: After looking at our wins, we will def be in the 200's.

192 to start. Bryant is 156, PC 61, brown 283

theblueram wrote: ↑5 months ago On the eve of the NET being released, I'm going to look at our NET vs Penn State. They should be very similar based on record. Let's hope so. I don't trust the NET.

They are very similar.

170 for them, 192 for us.

So I take it you trust the NET now?