NET 2019-2020 Season

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 4 years ago

Rhody83 wrote: ↑4 years ago
TruePoint wrote: ↑4 years ago
rhodysurf wrote: ↑4 years ago

We actually moved up a spot lol
Right. I think 104 was agreeing with me and saying if we hadn’t rallied a little to backdoor into a quasi-respectable final margin and instead lost by 30 it would have maybe cost us a handful of NET spots. Not giving up and rolling over anchored our metrics and actually netted us a small improvement.
NET only has one adjustment for point differential and that is if a team wins/loses by 10 or more. There is no difference in the NET calculation if you lose by 14 or 25. Obviously it helps with the selection process where human input is included.

That isn’t exactly true. It is with respect to margin of victory, but not with respect to efficiency metrics. All those possessions that make the difference between a 14 point game and a 30 point game impact the efficiency numbers - on both ends of the court.

reef · Unread post by **reef** » 4 years ago

Will our NET go down tomorrow with losses by VCU and PC ???

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 4 years ago

If it doesn’t get worse then it has even bigger problems than I already think it has.

KevanBoyles · Unread post by **KevanBoyles** » 4 years ago

VCU NET down 8 from 34 to 42. We stay at 35.

Rhodymob05 · Unread post by **Rhodymob05** » 4 years ago

Lol ok that doesn’t make sense

Rhody15 · Unread post by **Rhody15** » 4 years ago

I figured we'd drop a spot or two with VCU, PC, WV, and Alabama all losing last night.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 4 years ago

Finally URI is ahead of VCU in the NET

Has made no sense with us having beaten VCU both times in head to head competition

But finally George Mason finds a way to right the ship

Nice move up by Richmond to close the gap further between Richmond and VCU

D00D1911-1CE6-4729-B360-939A51967423.png

Section104 · Unread post by **Section104** » 4 years ago

Alabama lost at Auburn and improved from 40 to 39
PC lost at St. Johns by 11 and dropped from 57 to 62
West Virginia lost by 9 to Kansas and dropped from 9 to 10
VCU lost by 5 at home against GMU and dropped from 34 to 42

Rhody15 · Unread post by **Rhody15** » 4 years ago

Somehow someway needs Alabama to crack Top 30.

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 4 years ago

Efficiency matters, but also we’re 2/3 through the season. Teams are more set in their rankings so it’s not going to be as volatile.

1 game out of 24 doesn’t affect nearly as much as 1 game out of 10 or 12.

reef · Unread post by **reef** » 4 years ago

Highly unlikely Bama gets top 30

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 4 years ago

Blue Man wrote: ↑4 years ago Efficiency matters, but also we’re 2/3 through the season. Teams are more set in their rankings so it’s not going to be as volatile.

1 game out of 24 doesn’t affect nearly as much as 1 game out of 10 or 12.

Keep your head on a swivel, man. I tried to make this point about a month ago and was admonished that I was telling people water is wet.

rhodyruckus · Unread post by **rhodyruckus** » 4 years ago

Coach Cox is probably reminding the guys they control their own destiny. You win each game one at a time and you're in the dance. Looking ahead does no good, the guys just have to play and voting and seeding by the committee is out of their control. No need to hype, no need to lobby, just do YOUR job.

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 4 years ago

TruePoint wrote: ↑4 years ago
Blue Man wrote: ↑4 years ago Efficiency matters, but also we’re 2/3 through the season. Teams are more set in their rankings so it’s not going to be as volatile.

1 game out of 24 doesn’t affect nearly as much as 1 game out of 10 or 12.
Keep your head on a swivel, man. I tried to make this point about a month ago and was admonished that I was telling people water is wet.

Lol like the NET, this board tends to be less volatile over time.

I agreed with you then and I agree with you now. NET will end up being a better ranking system than RPI, it'll just take until late Feb/Early March to be accurate.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 4 years ago

Both the RPI and the NET were created by the NCAA. Dan Gavitt and friends wanted a new system.

RPI is still used for NCAA Women’s Tournament Selection and Seeding plus for many other NCAA Sports

I don’t see any other NCAA Sports saying they want to change to the NET in lieu of RPI

It’s absolutely inexplicable that VCU should have been ranked higher that URI in NET - makes no sense

But carry on

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 4 years ago

ramster wrote: ↑4 years ago Both the RPI and the NET were created by the NCAA. Dan Gavitt and friends wanted a new system.

RPI is still used for NCAA Women’s Tournament Selection and Seeding plus for many other NCAA Sports

I don’t see any other NCAA Sports saying they want to change to the NET in lieu of RPI

It’s absolutely inexplicable that VCU should have been ranked higher that URI in NET - makes no sense

But carry on

VCU had significantly better efficiency metrics than us, and didn't have a loss outside of Q2. We got blown out by a really really bad Brown team.

Rhodymob05 · Unread post by **Rhodymob05** » 4 years ago

At least that really really bad brown team has put a nice 4 game in streak together.

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 4 years ago

Rhodymob05 wrote: ↑4 years ago At least that really really bad brown team has put a nice 4 game in streak together.

They could win out, make the NCAA tournament, and still not climb the 100 spots we need them to to be a Q2 win by selection Sunday.

Rhodymob05 · Unread post by **Rhodymob05** » 4 years ago

NET improved once again , now 34

Rhody15 · Unread post by **Rhody15** » 4 years ago

Rhodymob05 wrote: ↑4 years ago NET improved once again , now 34

Let’s goooo

Billyboy78 · Unread post by **Billyboy78** » 4 years ago

I'm guessing even if we win by 50 tomorrow, it'll drop?

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 4 years ago

Billyboy78 wrote: ↑4 years ago I'm guessing even if we win by 50 tomorrow, it'll drop?

Maybe. St Joe’s is 237 in the NET, so it will definitely negatively impact our SOS but since we don’t have visibility into how SOS is weighted vis a vis efficiency it isn’t easy to predict what the movement will be. Might as well try to win by 50 just to be safe.

Also, re: ramster‘a post yesterday comparing St Joes to Fordham, the only team in the A10 with a worse NET than Joes’ 237 is Fordham at 275. Their one conference win compared to Joes’ zero does not make them a better program than St Joes, even this year when St Joes is completely flattened ahead of a rebuild.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 4 years ago

Ramster keeps talking about how the NET is not used for any other sport. The NET is a basketball-centric metric so it wouldn't work for any other sport. There would have to be wholesale changes to make it usable by other sports, mainly in the way the metric judges efficiency. The RPI is just who you beat and where, so it's simplicity allows it to be used anywhere by anyone.

I can't speak to why the women's game doesn't use the NET. My guess is a large part of that is because the NET was built for the men's game. And you'll say, "It's basketball, all basketball is the same." Yeah, sure. The difference is that great women's teams dominate the game in a way that great men's teams can't. I'd have to imagine the efficiency aspect of the NET would go haywire in the women's game, not just for the good teams, but imagine the NET impact of a pretty decent team that has to play UCONN three teams in a season, loses by a combined 200 points, but finishes 22-10 but has a weaker NET because of their efficiency. There is just too much dominance there.

That is just an opinion, have no real knowledge as to why the women's game doesn't use NET. The NET is certainly not a one size fits all. Regardless, I think it's still much better than the RPI, although it certainly still needs some smaller tweaks.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 4 years ago

Also, who cares if it’s not perfect. He keeps bringing up Dan Gavitt as if Dan sat down at his computer and developed the system by himself and could engineer it in such a way to screw URI specifically. It makes no sense.

As I’ve said before, the use of efficiency metrics to determine qualification for postseason gives me some pause, but the reality is that everyone is playing with the same system and by the same rules. To the extent the metric has weaknesses, it is incumbent upon the individual teams to identify those weaknesses and exploit them. The RPI, for example, could be hacked by scheduling yourself to be slaughtered by 3 top-10 teams which will buoy your SOS for the entire year - you get much more credit in that system for playing those teams even if you lose each game by 50 points than you would for playing 3 top-30 teams to one possession losses. (If you don’t believe me, look at URI’s RPI this year vs its NET, which is a result of how many highly ranked teams they lost to.) The NET will have things like that that can be exploited, too, and whoever figures it out first will be able to exploit it.

Designing a perfect system to rank teams that don’t play equal schedules is not possible so they do the best they can, and then they weigh additional factors to try to smooth out some of the math issues.

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 4 years ago

The efficiency metrics just means don't schedule a 200 team at home. Better to schedule a 300 team and destroy them. If you schedule a Q4 game at home, better make sure you can beat them by 30.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 4 years ago

True but the NCAA rightly punished NC St last year and told teams heading into the year that you needed to play and beat good competition and not just build a high NET against bad opponents. The teams who benefit the most are the ones who used to schedule D2 or D3 teams because they didn’t want to take the RPI hit. It’s not like next season PC is going to play 3 in Maui and 8 300+ teams. At a minimum next season, PC has 3 in Maui, home URI + B10, at B12. 5 games left, I’d bet one is neutral/road, possibly two. The other 3-4 games would be fluff. Then 20 conference games.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 4 years ago

Or, better said, if you schedule a team that sucks don't also suck right along with them.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 4 years ago

Sure but if the goal is to be the best you can, get the best seeding you can, you can’t play 11 300+ teams, finish 10-8 in a good conference, and be 22-9 entering the tournament. You’ll have a sexy NET but be a 8-9 seed tops. Teams still need to play good OOCs to boost their resume. That’s why the NET will never be an end-all.

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 4 years ago

Sure I get that. But if you look at teams in a quad mentality, would it be better to schedule at the end of the Q3/Q4 and destroy them? Or would it be better to improve your SOS and schedule the best Q3/Q4? Q1 and Q2 are a different story. You want the best Q1/Q2 schedule you can get. I mean this year an at home Q3 game ranges from UNC to Bowling Green. What gives the most benefit.

rjsuperfly66 · Unread post by **rjsuperfly66** » 4 years ago

theblueram wrote: ↑4 years ago Sure I get that. But if you look at teams in a quad mentality, would it be better to schedule at the end of the Q3/Q4 and destroy them? Or would it be better to improve your SOS and schedule the best Q3/Q4? Q1 and Q2 are a different story. You want the best Q1/Q2 schedule you can get. I mean this year an at home Q3 game ranges from UNC to Bowling Green. What gives the most benefit.

There are multiple ways to look at it -- Obviously if a team is Q3/Q4, are you better off beating Q4 Team 353 by 50 points, or beating Q3 Team 76 UNC by 15? Probably Bowling Green in your scenario. But if you intentionally schedule bad teams into your schedule, there is zero chance those guys could become a Q2 game. Take a ETSU, you get a home game against a decent ETSU game who becomes a Q2 win, versus pounding Team 353 at home by 50 points, what is now more meaningful? The Q2 win. And in other cases, there are other teams who could have been Q2 things just didn't break their way. For most teams, I don't think it's any different than what they used to do. They might intentionally schedule a few cupcakes, but they'll have their tournaments, rivalry games, other top games, home & homes, or challenges, and they'll have 4-5 games left that range from decent mid-majors who could crack Q2 if the stars align to the worst of the worst. Anyone worth anything isn't going to intentionally schedule 7+ 250+ type teams.

reef · Unread post by **reef** » 4 years ago

34 is nice hopefully we won’t drop too much after tomorrow and we keep our solid NET with the week off before Davidson

steviep123 · Unread post by **steviep123** » 4 years ago

rjsuperfly66 wrote: ↑4 years ago
theblueram wrote: ↑4 years ago Sure I get that. But if you look at teams in a quad mentality, would it be better to schedule at the end of the Q3/Q4 and destroy them? Or would it be better to improve your SOS and schedule the best Q3/Q4? Q1 and Q2 are a different story. You want the best Q1/Q2 schedule you can get. I mean this year an at home Q3 game ranges from UNC to Bowling Green. What gives the most benefit.
There are multiple ways to look at it -- Obviously if a team is Q3/Q4, are you better off beating Q4 Team 353 by 50 points, or beating Q3 Team 76 UNC by 15? Probably Bowling Green in your scenario. But if you intentionally schedule bad teams into your schedule, there is zero chance those guys could become a Q2 game. Take a ETSU, you get a home game against a decent ETSU game who becomes a Q2 win, versus pounding Team 353 at home by 50 points, what is now more meaningful? The Q2 win. And in other cases, there are other teams who could have been Q2 things just didn't break their way. For most teams, I don't think it's any different than what they used to do. They might intentionally schedule a few cupcakes, but they'll have their tournaments, rivalry games, other top games, home & homes, or challenges, and they'll have 4-5 games left that range from decent mid-majors who could crack Q2 if the stars align to the worst of the worst. Anyone worth anything isn't going to intentionally schedule 7+ 250+ type teams.

I believe in scheduling as many Q1 and 2s as you possibly can. Especially for URI when the bottom of the A10 is loaded with Q3 and Q4, which you can't lose to. Win a good majority of Q1 and 2 OOC, come in the top 3 or 4 of the A10 and be in the conversation every year. I know, easier said than done, but URI has been able to do this better 3 of the past 4 years.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 4 years ago

You also can’t schedule like you know you’re going to beat anyone by 50. Or even 25. It just seems like human nature is that those types of blowouts happen only a couple times a year. You aren’t going to schedule 11 Q4 teams in OOC and beat all of them by 30+ points.

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 4 years ago

reef wrote: ↑4 years ago 34 is nice hopefully we won’t drop too much after tomorrow and we keep our solid NET with the week off before Davidson

I know, right? We are 4 spots off from being a Q1 win home, away or neutral. Which are the best wins according to the NCAA.

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 4 years ago

TruePoint wrote: ↑4 years ago Also, who cares if it’s not perfect. He keeps bringing up Dan Gavitt as if Dan sat down at his computer and developed the system by himself and could engineer it in such a way to screw URI specifically. It makes no sense.

As I’ve said before, the use of efficiency metrics to determine qualification for postseason gives me some pause, but the reality is that everyone is playing with the same system and by the same rules. To the extent the metric has weaknesses, it is incumbent upon the individual teams to identify those weaknesses and exploit them. The RPI, for example, could be hacked by scheduling yourself to be slaughtered by 3 top-10 teams which will buoy your SOS for the entire year - you get much more credit in that system for playing those teams even if you lose each game by 50 points than you would for playing 3 top-30 teams to one possession losses. (If you don’t believe me, look at URI’s RPI this year vs its NET, which is a result of how many highly ranked teams they lost to.) The NET will have things like that that can be exploited, too, and whoever figures it out first will be able to exploit it.

Designing a perfect system to rank teams that don’t play equal schedules is not possible so they do the best they can, and then they weigh additional factors to try to smooth out some of the math issues.

Hey...what did we say about rational, well-thought out takes on this board?

https://giphy.com/gifs/wwe-wwf-dudley-b ... eC3iZHk9CU

KevanBoyles · Unread post by **KevanBoyles** » 4 years ago

Davidson now has a 77 NET. If they get to 75 we have another Q1 opportunity.

DeanDome88 · Unread post by **DeanDome88** » 4 years ago

KevanBoyles wrote: ↑4 years ago Davidson now has a 77 NET. If they get to 75 we have another Q1 opportunity.

True, but it could be hard for them to keep rising if we beat them again. Rhody might just have to dominate Quadrant 2.

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 4 years ago

DeanDome88 wrote: ↑4 years ago
KevanBoyles wrote: ↑4 years ago Davidson now has a 77 NET. If they get to 75 we have another Q1 opportunity.
True, but it could be hard for them to keep rising if we beat them again. Rhody might just have to dominate Quadrant 2.

Us being on their schedule will help, win or lose.

mjg13x · Unread post by **mjg13x** » 4 years ago

We move up from 34 to 32, Richmond climbs from 52 to 47, and VCU sinks ten places from 43 to 53.

scine20 · Unread post by **scine20** » 4 years ago

VCU better be careful or they’ll drop below 75 which would take away the quad 1 win.

ElmCityRhody · Unread post by **ElmCityRhody** » 4 years ago

And PC climbs to 62

Sorry for all you pc
Fans out there

I BLEED KEANEY BLUE

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 4 years ago

In today’s edition of how the F does the NET work...We get more of an uptick for beating trash St Joe’s than PC does for beating a Top 15 squad. Gotta love it.

URI_05 · Unread post by **URI_05** » 4 years ago

It seems like it puts way too much weight on score & efficiency

Rhodymob05 · Unread post by **Rhodymob05** » 4 years ago

mjg13x wrote: ↑4 years ago We move up from 34 to 32, Richmond climbs from 52 to 47, and VCU sinks ten places from 43 to 53.

ElmCityRhody · Unread post by **ElmCityRhody** » 4 years ago

Let this be a lesson to those somehow rooting for PC last night

I BLEED KEANEY BLUE

I WOUKD NEVER ROOT FOR PC

NEVER

PeterRamTime · Unread post by **PeterRamTime** » 4 years ago

KevanBoyles wrote: ↑4 years ago Davidson now has a 77 NET. If they get to 75 we have another Q1 opportunity.

That and our home win over them will transform into a Q2.

We need Duquesne to win today to get back in that Q2 territory.

Rhody83 · Unread post by **Rhody83** » 4 years ago

KevanBoyles wrote: ↑4 years ago Davidson now has a 77 NET. If they get to 75 we have another Q1 opportunity.

Assuming Davidson loses to Rhody (which we all want) they will need to win at least one of these games (possibly 2) - at Dayton, at Richmond and VCU. Their other games are at St Joes (this week) and LaSalle. Wins against those two will not improve their NET.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 4 years ago

PeterRamTime wrote: ↑4 years ago
KevanBoyles wrote: ↑4 years ago Davidson now has a 77 NET. If they get to 75 we have another Q1 opportunity.

That and our home win over them will transform into a Q2.

We need Duquesne to win today to get back in that Q2 territory.

27-25 Duquesne at start of second half
Freshman Maceo Austin out sick today for Duquesne

PeterRamTime · Unread post by **PeterRamTime** » 4 years ago

Good job Dukes!

RAM67 · Unread post by **RAM67** » 4 years ago

Well we have a week off.

Let the KB infighting begin!