Net Ranking

Mr. Magoo1

Heisman
Nov 15, 2001
15,473
16,321
113
Except it isn't true. You are just declaring it to be true based on nothing. It's not even clear how this discussion got in this thread.

There is nothing to be gained by playing super hard schedules.
Just like you declare the opposite. No, I don’t have supporting documentation and neither do you. It’s all opinions on this board. However, as an AAU coach, I always challenged my teams with difficult schedules and found my teams improved much more than playing garbage teams. I found that playing weaker teams lowered a teams expectations and gave them a false sense of how good they were. Some coaches challenge their teams like MSU and Illinois every year and some avoid competition as much as possible like Pike and some others (John Thompson used to do it in the old days).
It’s no secret that Pike is afraid of tough OOC competition and prefers to pad his record with cupcakes. IMO, you play a weak schedule when you have very young players for them to gain confidence or when you have a lot of newcomers. A veteran team like ours should be in holiday tournaments challenging themselves to get better not struggling against last place patriot league teams at home….and it’s ok to do both but we don’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rutgers56_rivals

fluoxetine

Heisman
Nov 11, 2012
23,529
16,898
0
The major problem with the NCAA selection committee is that they are stupid. They might not be bad, compared to other humans, at trying to eye ball teams and separate the #48 team from the #56 team. Hell, they might even be among the best humans at doing that. The problem is literally no one can do it. All these heuristics (quad 1/2/3/4, non conference SOS (lol), road record (lol)) are just ******** that make them slightly less bad at it. They, for some reason, went to the trouble of designing their own bad version of the good computer rankings that exist and then classify it as "not very important".

Computers can rank teams. The humans are useless unless they are coding computers (hopefully better than they coded them for the NET rankings (!)).
 

fluoxetine

Heisman
Nov 11, 2012
23,529
16,898
0
However, as an AAU coach, I always challenged my teams with difficult schedules and found my teams improved much more than playing garbage teams. I found that playing weaker teams lowered a teams expectations and gave them a false sense of how good they were.
If you "always" challenged them with difficult schedules, how do you know what happened when they played weaker schedules?
 

Mr. Magoo1

Heisman
Nov 15, 2001
15,473
16,321
113
If you "always" challenged them with difficult schedules, how do you know what happened when they played weaker schedules?
If you only play weaker schedules , how do you know what happens when they play stronger schedules?
It’s my opinion from coaching (not college, obviously), and observation over many years. I never liked John Chaney but I always admired his teams for playing anyone anywhere. His teams always got better by March and never panicked in the tournaments…they were used to it. We just played our first big ten game this year on Friday and it looked as if we had never played a game before. Part of this has to be playing low level competition for a month .
 

fluoxetine

Heisman
Nov 11, 2012
23,529
16,898
0
Shocking how many people on the board don’t properly consider SOS
The issue is not so much that people on the board don't properly consider SOS. It's that no one does.

Let's take some examples from football:

Louisiana-Lafayette (lol) is ranked #23 in the CFP playoff rankings, #16 in the AP poll, and #17 in the Coaches poll. Why? Because humans do not know how to properly account for strength of schedule. They are #41 in Massey, #51 in ESPN FPI, #46 in Sagarin.

Penn State has barely received any votes in any of these polls. They are #17 in Massey, #14 in FPI, and #16 in Sagarin.

If you are trying to make the tournament, it is better to be Louisiana-Lafayette than Penn State. Humans will always punish you for the good schedule because they suck and have serious problems looking past the raw win/loss record.

Hell, look at the thread about Minnesota on this very board!
 

kcg88

Heisman
Aug 11, 2017
10,862
17,230
0
The major problem with the NCAA selection committee is that they are stupid. They might not be bad, compared to other humans, at trying to eye ball teams and separate the #48 team from the #56 team. Hell, they might even be among the best humans at doing that. The problem is literally no one can do it. All these heuristics (quad 1/2/3/4, non conference SOS (lol), road record (lol)) are just ******** that make them slightly less bad at it. They, for some reason, went to the trouble of designing their own bad version of the good computer rankings that exist and then classify it as "not very important".

Computers can rank teams. The humans are useless unless they are coding computers (hopefully better than they coded them for the NET rankings (!)).
(Most) Computers rank team strength, not resume strength.

Resume strength is what should matter for making the tournament. Torvik's WAB is a decent measure.
 

Scarlet Blind_rivals

All-Conference
Aug 5, 2001
4,621
4,680
62
#22 Florida(6-1) just got stomped at home 54-69 by #273 Texas Southern(0-7)

** the extra year all across the country has really evened the playing field, we will see many more of these kind of upsets happening to high majors with 5th-7th year Super Seniors, 4th-6th year Super Juniors, 3rd-5th Super Sophomores, 1st-3rd year Super Freshman.
 
Last edited:

Night Man

All-Conference
Jan 8, 2006
29,783
3,710
113
Yeah I've come around on the schedule from the standpoint of: Tournament worthy teams make the tournament, and non tournament worthy teams don't. The schedule almost never matters.

From an entertainment perspective, it sucks but that's what you get with Pikiell
Bite your tongue, the low-major games ARE the entertaining ones this year!
 

Night Man

All-Conference
Jan 8, 2006
29,783
3,710
113
#22 Florida(6-1) just got stomped at home 54-69 by #273 Texas Southern(0-7)

** the extra year all across the country has really evened the playing field, we will see many more of these kind of upsets happening to high majors with 5th-7th year Super Seniors, 4th-6th year Super Juniors, 3rd-5th Super Sophomores, 1st-3rd year Super Freshman.
That's gotta be a first if you layer the numbers a certain way. First time a top 25 team has lost at home by 10+ to a bottom 100 team maybe?
 

Scarlet Blind_rivals

All-Conference
Aug 5, 2001
4,621
4,680
62
This is how silly releasing the NET this early.
Kent St was 2-2 with 2 Non D1 wins,
They lost at home to Towson, 5-3, 6-3
Towson 6.5pt dog went up 106 to 83, 15 pt win
Kent.St 2-3, 127 to 211 with 1 loss at home

Florida -23.5 went from 22 to 57, 6-1 , 6-2, 15 pt loss
Texas Southern +23.5 jumped from 273 to 181, 0-7, 1-7,

Liberty 3-3, 4-3 jumped 160 to 119, -23 with a 36 point win over 0-6 NET 355 Delaware St..

Morehead St didn't cover the 11 pts, vs at home 217 Presbyterian, 5 PT win, dropped 79 to 91.

Illinois 48 to 30, Iowa 9 to 17.

As long as you beat the computer prediction you are fine,
Rutgers is 1-6-1 vs the spread/Computer predicted outcome this year.
 
Last edited:

RUsojo

Heisman
Dec 17, 2010
29,435
28,578
113
A realistic stretch assignment for this team would be an overall .500 record. Honestly, I would give pike a lot of credit if he could get there. I don’t think the players will have much of a desire to fight seeing as where they thought they’d be and how quickly the reality has now set in.

If Pike does that, and drags out this season to like 10/11 wins getting wrecked by 16+ most nights not sure how he ever rebounds.

And would probably only increase the continuing likelihood of Cliff leaving after this year. Whether it’s transfer or more likely G league stash imo


We need this team to FIGHT to get to an overall .500 record and not have the bottom fall out. I’m not sure we can rebound as a program if we go 1-9 or 2-8 in the last 10 given the implications of player movement and public perception. Hopefully they circle the wagons.