NCAA MBB NET 2021-22 and Tournament Bracketology

[KingstonLane]

NET rankings make no sense. Can someone explain the following:

Wyoming at #27
UAB at #43
Chattanooga at #44

I could keep going but seems to be no rhyme or reason why teams are ranked where they are

[ramster]

Dan Gavitt

[Rhody15]

Dan Gavitt

I thought Gavitt made the NET so mid majors would all be ranked low? Shouldn’t we be happy these teams are ranked where they are? Or do we just want to complain about everything?

[Blue Man]

With all the games cancelled this year, I wouldn't look at this as a reliable metric until late February.

It's predicated heavily on last year's numbers and those won't get flushed out until everyone plays a lot more games.

[ramster]

Dan Gavitt

I thought Gavitt made the NET so mid majors would all be ranked low? Shouldn’t we be happy these teams are ranked where they are? Or do we just want to complain about everything?

I’m not complaining. Kingstown Lane was. Address him/her previous post.

[ramster]

I believe NET is this year’s numbers only and we are half way through the season now.
RPI and NET are current year only.

KenPom uses previous year in rankings at a decreasing degree as the season moves along.

[ramster]

Here are URI Rankings today (half way point of season) from Obadiah’s Weekly Games of Interest thread. Compared to the previous Monday a week ago:

NET - 95, up 7 (Sixth in the A-10)
BPI - 79, up 8
Pomeroy - 67, up 12
Sagarin - 87, up 5
Torvik - 78, up 9

[Rhodymob05]

67 Kenpom aint bad you know,

[KingstonLane]

Dan Gavitt

I thought Gavitt made the NET so mid majors would all be ranked low? Shouldn’t we be happy these teams are ranked where they are? Or do we just want to complain about everything?

I’m all for NET making sure mid majors have a fair shot, but I also want the system to have some integrity and predictability.

Wyoming ranked #27 is 2-1 in Q1 games (can’t even figure out who is counting as Q1 besides Utah St) and 0-1 in Q2. Best win being a 2pt win over a 10-7 Utah State team

Meanwhile Providence ranked #33 is 4-1 in Q1 games and 3-1 in Q2

[bigappleram]

Wyoming won at Grand Canyon (14-2) so that could be Q1. They also lost to Arizona who is definitely Q1.

[Rhodymob05]

Can someone explain why the Bonnies are at 92? Incredibly confusing.

[SGreenwell]

Can someone explain why the Bonnies are at 92? Incredibly confusing.

Five of their wins are currently quad 4, which basically count as nothing. They've also played one road game. ETA: Also, because the NCAA doesn't put a number on this, just a ranking, there isn't really any indication of how closely bunched these teams are, or, not.

[Blue Man]

Rhode Island

Rank: 111
Record:11-5
Road: 3-3
Neutral: 1-1
Home: 7-1

Q1 - 0-2
Q2 - 0-0
Q3 - 4-2
Q4 - 7-1

Sorry. I don't care what anyone says. We're more than halfway through our season, with the part of our schedule that we can control in the rearview. Having 85% of our games be Q3 and Q4 opponents is unacceptable and pathetic. The results are bad on their own, but to be a program with a "bar" of conference championships and NCAA births that schedules this softly is unconscionable.

[reef]

111 sounds about right , I can see us in the 100-120 range most of the rest of the year

[ramster]

[Dino611]

Can someone explain why the Bonnies are at 92? Incredibly confusing.

Five of their wins are currently quad 4, which basically count as nothing. They've also played one road game. ETA: Also, because the NCAA doesn't put a number on this, just a ranking, there isn't really any indication of how closely bunched these teams are, or, not.

Also losing at home to Northern Iowa as well as getting blown out by Virginia Tech has to do w it

[ramster]

Can someone explain why the Bonnies are at 92? Incredibly confusing.

Five of their wins are currently quad 4, which basically count as nothing. They've also played one road game. ETA: Also, because the NCAA doesn't put a number on this, just a ranking, there isn't really any indication of how closely bunched these teams are, or, not.

Also losing at home to Northern Iowa as well as getting blown out by Virginia Tech has to do w it

St Bonaventure now is ranked NET 99
NET - Losses to:
52-Northern Iowa (home) 80-90
16-UCONN Prudential Center NJ 64-74
53-Virginia Tech Charlotte NC 49-86
76-Dayton (away) 50-68
96-George Mason (away) 66-75

[ramster]

URI with a 4.93% chance to win the Automatic Qualifier in the A10 Tournament

I don't recall the race for the AQ ever being this close with so many teams as possibilities. No team as high as 19%


Seed Team Win
4.1 Saint Louis - 18.57%
3.3 VCU - 17.52%
2.2 Davidson - 17.06%
3.8 Dayton - 13.28%
4.6 St Bonaventure - 13.12%
6.1 Richmond - 9.65%
7.5 Rhode Island - 4.93%
5.4 George Mason - 4.69%
10.3 U Mass - 0.47%
10.3 St Josephs - 0.42%
10.9 Fordham - 0.12%
12.1 Duquesne - 0.08%
13.0 La Salle - 0.05%
11.4 George Washington - 0.02%

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncb/confer ... 0-bracket/

[NYGFan_Section208]

URI with a 4.93% chance to win the Automatic Qualifier in the A10 Tournament


https://www.teamrankings.com/ncb/confer ... 0-bracket/

Tip:. Use "Find on Page" instead of scrolling down to find us. Then, when you do, scroll up and take a look at all the perennial powerhouses above us.

Did you change the link? First time I looked it was all schools and when I went back, it was just A10...

[Jersey77]

The WCC and Mountain West currently lead the way for Mid-Major rankings in the NET.
The AAC has 6 teams in the top 100 NET rankings.

[theblueram]

I'm trying to understand the Net Rankings, but they just don't make sense. Here are two teams records and the Net:

Team A: Q1 5-1, Q2 5-1, Q3 4-0, Q4 6-0. Net is 26.

Team B: Q1 2-1, Q2 1-0, Q3 5-1, Q4 11-0.


Guess the Net of Team B.

[Rhodymob05]

Yea, I've heard all the NET explanations and I still see serious issues with it.

[ramster]

And the NET formula is secret

But it is the best system as we have been told many, many times.

[SGreenwell]

I'm trying to understand the Net Rankings, but they just don't make sense. Here are two teams records and the Net:

Team A: Q1 5-1, Q2 5-1, Q3 4-0, Q4 6-0. Net is 26.

Team B: Q1 2-1, Q2 1-0, Q3 5-1, Q4 11-0.


Guess the Net of Team B.

As I understand it, one of the biggest components is efficiency - the AdjEM on KenPom is a decent stand-in for this. I cheated and looked up the team you're talking about, and 1) they beat the crap out of most teams, even if it's weaker competition and 2) their two losses, one was to the #1 team in the nation right now, and the other was an early season loss by eight.

Last year, it wasn't like Houston or Loyola-Chicago played in incredible conferences, but they were both highly ranked by AdjEM. In 2018-19, Wofford and Nevada would fit the profile. There's usually at least one or two "small" conference schools a year that deserve to be at-large teams or ranked teams.

[theblueram]

I'm trying to understand the Net Rankings, but they just don't make sense. Here are two teams records and the Net:

Team A: Q1 5-1, Q2 5-1, Q3 4-0, Q4 6-0. Net is 26.

Team B: Q1 2-1, Q2 1-0, Q3 5-1, Q4 11-0.


Guess the Net of Team B.

As I understand it, one of the biggest components is efficiency - the AdjEM on KenPom is a decent stand-in for this. I cheated and looked up the team you're talking about, and 1) they beat the crap out of most teams, even if it's weaker competition and 2) their two losses, one was to the #1 team in the nation right now, and the other was an early season loss by eight.

Last year, it wasn't like Houston or Loyola-Chicago played in incredible conferences, but they were both highly ranked by AdjEM. In 2018-19, Wofford and Nevada would fit the profile. There's usually at least one or two "small" conference schools a year that deserve to be at-large teams or ranked teams.

So the importance isn't on playing and beating good teams, just beating the crap out of bad teams? Seems something is wrong with the formula.

[SGreenwell]

I'm trying to understand the Net Rankings, but they just don't make sense. Here are two teams records and the Net:

Team A: Q1 5-1, Q2 5-1, Q3 4-0, Q4 6-0. Net is 26.

Team B: Q1 2-1, Q2 1-0, Q3 5-1, Q4 11-0.


Guess the Net of Team B.

As I understand it, one of the biggest components is efficiency - the AdjEM on KenPom is a decent stand-in for this. I cheated and looked up the team you're talking about, and 1) they beat the crap out of most teams, even if it's weaker competition and 2) their two losses, one was to the #1 team in the nation right now, and the other was an early season loss by eight.

Last year, it wasn't like Houston or Loyola-Chicago played in incredible conferences, but they were both highly ranked by AdjEM. In 2018-19, Wofford and Nevada would fit the profile. There's usually at least one or two "small" conference schools a year that deserve to be at-large teams or ranked teams.

So the importance isn't on playing and beating good teams, just beating the crap out of bad teams? Seems something is wrong with the formula.

More like beating the crap out of *any* team consistently. Good teams consistently win by large margins, regardless of opponent strength. It's kind of a "best way we can do" situation though, since short of abandoning conferences or radically expanding the number of OOC games, there isn't really a way to make sure teams are playing schedules of more equal strength. I would also add this the team you're citing *does* have 2 quadrant one wins, and their sole Q1 loss was against Auburn.

[ramster]

theblueram,
In May 2020 Dan Gavitt and Team modified the NET.
The description of the changes attached.

"While we will continue to monitor the metric, I don't anticipate any additional adjustments for several years," Gavitt said. "We believe this change will result in more precision throughout the season and will be easier for our membership and the public to understand."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... t-ratings/

[rjsuperfly66]

I'm trying to understand the Net Rankings, but they just don't make sense. Here are two teams records and the Net:

Team A: Q1 5-1, Q2 5-1, Q3 4-0, Q4 6-0. Net is 26.

Team B: Q1 2-1, Q2 1-0, Q3 5-1, Q4 11-0.


Guess the Net of Team B.

As I understand it, one of the biggest components is efficiency - the AdjEM on KenPom is a decent stand-in for this. I cheated and looked up the team you're talking about, and 1) they beat the crap out of most teams, even if it's weaker competition and 2) their two losses, one was to the #1 team in the nation right now, and the other was an early season loss by eight.

Last year, it wasn't like Houston or Loyola-Chicago played in incredible conferences, but they were both highly ranked by AdjEM. In 2018-19, Wofford and Nevada would fit the profile. There's usually at least one or two "small" conference schools a year that deserve to be at-large teams or ranked teams.

So the importance isn't on playing and beating good teams, just beating the crap out of bad teams? Seems something is wrong with the formula.

Adjusted efficiency is based on opponent, so I think spread is a relatively easy way to measure this (since spread is also predominately based on metrics). With adjusted efficiency, a team favored to win by 8 who wins by 18 should see a decent bump. A team favored to win by 8 who wins by 2 or worse, loses, will at best probably stay even. So just simply pounding bad opponents isn’t good enough because adjusted efficiency is supposed to account for performance in those games. If you play a real suckbag team and are favored by 25, you probably need to win by 35+ to see any movement on that one-off game.

[ramster]

As I understand it, one of the biggest components is efficiency - the AdjEM on KenPom is a decent stand-in for this. I cheated and looked up the team you're talking about, and 1) they beat the crap out of most teams, even if it's weaker competition and 2) their two losses, one was to the #1 team in the nation right now, and the other was an early season loss by eight.

Last year, it wasn't like Houston or Loyola-Chicago played in incredible conferences, but they were both highly ranked by AdjEM. In 2018-19, Wofford and Nevada would fit the profile. There's usually at least one or two "small" conference schools a year that deserve to be at-large teams or ranked teams.

So the importance isn't on playing and beating good teams, just beating the crap out of bad teams? Seems something is wrong with the formula.

Adjusted efficiency is based on opponent, so I think spread is a relatively easy way to measure this (since spread is also predominately based on metrics). With adjusted efficiency, a team favored to win by 8 who wins by 18 should see a decent bump. A team favored to win by 8 who wins by 2 or worse, loses, will at best probably stay even. So just simply pounding bad opponents isn’t good enough because adjusted efficiency is supposed to account for performance in those games. If you play a real suckbag team and are favored by 25, you probably need to win by 35+ to see any movement on that one-off game.

Which is why Tammi called time out in a recent game when we were up by 20 points with 2 minutes left in the game to make sure we continued to play hard. It's critically important when you could potentially be a bubble team. Also important to seeding.

[reef]

The WCC and Mountain West currently lead the way for Mid-Major rankings in the NET.
The AAC has 6 teams in the top 100 NET rankings.

Good for the WCC and Mountain west possibly getting 4 teams in and the A10 will struggle to get 2