Yeah and in general the alter in the year the more data out there where individual games have less impact to moving your number game to game.
NET moves to 91
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
It’s heartbreaking to think that we couldn’t close out the Minnesota and the NW games. If we did we’d be squarely on the Bubble right now.
Can one "play" with the NET to see what the impact would be if we had beaten Lafeyette? Assuming that's what's dragging our NET down, so much, since there's zero doubt we pass the eye test as a tourney team right now and if we get to 11-9 in the B1G, IMO, as that would mean at least 2 more Q1 wins for 6, which is more than 90% of tourney teams will have. The committeee has always said that NET is just one tool they use and that good wins and bad losses factor in, as well as other elements. Yes, we have that horrible loss, but I like to think that 6 Q1 wins are more than enough to overcome that. Remember, Michigan State earned a bid last year despite its No. 70 NET ranking by securing five Q1 wins, including three victories against Top-10 opponents.
It's not one bad loss.
It's one horrible loss PLUS a blown 17 point lead at UMass PLUS getting taken to OT by Lehigh PLUS losing at home to Maryland PLUS losing by 35 to Illinois PLUS blowing shots at road wins at DePaul, Northwestern, and Minnesota.
It's one horrible loss PLUS a blown 17 point lead at UMass PLUS getting taken to OT by Lehigh PLUS losing at home to Maryland PLUS losing by 35 to Illinois PLUS blowing shots at road wins at DePaul, Northwestern, and Minnesota.
We should definitely be penalized for losing to Lafayette and penalized hard.
For a 30 game season, it does seem like the NET is being a little too harsh for 1 game. We need to a better road record to make up for it I guess.
For a 30 game season, it does seem like the NET is being a little too harsh for 1 game. We need to a better road record to make up for it I guess.
Not exactly what you're looking for but: https://barttorvik.com/teamcast.php?&team=Rutgers&year=2022
Flipping Lafayette from a loss to a win takes us from the 31st team out to the 12th team out.
Keep in mind we'd still be 2-2 in Q3 at that point. In the top 50 only Oklahoma (1-1) and BYU (0-0) are .500 or worse in Q3. If you flip Lafayette AND UMass, then we're "first four out" according to this calculator but in reality we'd be in as of now at that point.
Last edited:
Lafayette's Adj EM is -15.03. Purdue's is +27.24. #50 (Colorado St) is +14.05.
The rough cutoff for a bubble team is only ~13 below Purdue and is ~29 above Lafayette. This is why it's not symmetric.
In terms of points per 100 HCA is roughly 5. So Lafayette at home is ~ -20. Purdue on the road is ~ +32.25. So the cutoff is -34 above Lafayette at home and ~18.25 below Purdue on the road. Still not symmetric.
I obviously don't have a NET what-if calculator but I can do that with my own rankings which should have a reasonable correlation. Adding a 1-point win over Purdue on the road moves us from #79 to #69, drops Purdue from #4 to #7.
No quality ooc win
No quality road win
Bad losses
Poor ooc schedule
Potential for 13 plus losses
Poor efficiency ratings
Net 91
Clean profile it aint
You guys are going to force me to reverse engineer the NET entirely aren't you lol.
In my rankings changing the Lafayette game to a one point win moves us from #79 to #69. (Same as adding a Purdue win on the road, so much for not symmetric lol)
Playing around with this... if I enter wins @Wisconsin, vs. Illinois, @Michigan, vs. Wisconsin, and vs. Penn State.... with losses @Purdue and @Indiana.... he still has us as 3rd among the "Last 4 In" at 19-11 (13-7), lol
Stupid criteria but touche.
Will work itself out if we get enough wins
Touche
Stupid criteria but true
(# of wins needed should be schedule adjusted obv but noncon vs con should be irrelevant and once you adjust win thresholds the schedule itself should have no further relevance. Note I am saying this SHOULD be true, not IS true)
Don't really see us getting in comfortable with 13 losses unless it's 20-13. 19-13 is like prime bubble.
Will work themselves out if we get the wins (almost certainly). I mean, I guess we could squeak out close wins and get completely blown out in the losses and still have bad efficiency and bad NET as a consequence. But not very likely.
(It's certainly not a perfect calculator but) You need to click the "DynamaRank" box, which changes our T-Rank based on the results. It should probably be on by default TBH. Under your scenario, the calculator is still assuming we're #96 in his ratings which would be nearly impossible given those wins.
With the box checked, we move up to a 9 seed with those 5 wins.
You need to check the "Use DynamaRank" box at the top. Otherwise it assumes our current efficiency ranks. If you do that and enter the same outcomes it has us as a 9 seed.
EDIT: Lol @kcg88 beat me to it.
Agree but our resume is still very incomplete right now. Plenty of opportunity left over these next few weeks/7 games and a few of these can go away or improve. So much can happen the next month across the country, the bubble will work itself out.
To be a tournament team we need to get the quality road wins, efficiency rating continues to improve and NET continues to improve. Then the flags don’t look as bad or numerous.
Its not 1 loss, its 4. Lafayette, Umass, Depaul and Northwestern. You can even throw in the loss to a depleted Minny team if you want. I said it in another thread, the difference now is that Paul has decided he is taking control of the team and has become a legit scorer. Also lets not forget the MD loss at home.
I don’t believe that one. Flip UMass and Lafayette to wins and we aren’t close to in? Flip Minnesota and Northwestern too and barely in?
Flip UMass and Lafayette to wins, and we'd be in the First Four out, which is solidly on the bubble.
Northwestern is not a bad loss. They have a 66 Net ranking. Even Depaul is not a terrible loss
The Lafayette and Umass games arent just bad, they are really bad. They were supposed to be tune up games and we lost them.
Was just talking about bart's model, not what would realistically happen. Flipping those two puts us as his 4th out with a 14.8% bid chance right now (not sure if it's also considering the difficulty of the road ahead of us, or not).
For now, see where they are at the end. Depaul will be close to last in the Big East and NW's net will be much lower.
RU's defense played a large role in that "bungling". Ohio State was 6-6 from 3 at one point in the 2nd half, tough to hang with any team that does that. They are a highly rated/regarded team loaded with talent. Will do damage in the NCAAs. Have a relatively soft remaining B1G schedule so still are a threat to finish high in the standings. Will be interesting to see the spread for the Illinois game. Not many teams in the country will be favs when playing at the RAC.
Big East is pretty strong this year in the NET, though, so being toward the bottom of that conference isn't necessarily terrible.
6 - Villanova
17 - UConn
21 - Xavier
24 - Marquette
25 - Providence
33 - Seton Hall
76 - Creighton
85 - St. John's
104 - DePaul
130 - Butler
213 - Georgetown
DePaul has 8 regular season games left, and 4 of them are against the bottom half of the conference (@Gtown, vs. Butler, vs. SJU, and vs. Creighton)
I'm not so sure Northwestern won't finish on a nice run.
At Illinois - loss
Purdue - loss
At Minnesota - could easily win
Nebraska - could easily win
At Penn State - could win (not as easy)
At Iowa - could win (not easy)
Minnesota - should win
If they go 4-3 in those games, I don't think their net falls far.
Creighton at 76 and Miami at 72 are both bubble teams who are projected in today by most if today was selection sunday. If RU gets itself the needed wins, they likely gets into the 60s and low 70s , I dont think our NET will break the top 60
Just checked it again, and it looks like we'd be 5th out with those two flipped (with the projected record over our last games, not including a tournament prediction). If you drop all the remaining games out of the model, it has us in the Last Four In with those two games flipped to wins.
You have to click the "DynamaRank" button (as kcg said up above).
It’s actually been pretty consistent since about early January, maybe late December. We’ve tended to move +/-8 spots with each win or loss for the most part. MSU gave us a big jump because it was a blowout and at this point winning any of our road games should give us 10-14 spots, maybe more if it’s a ranked blowout.
4-3 with at least one road win and at least one conference tourney win would hopefully net us maybe 15-17+ spots and get our NET into the 70s.
Like I asked earlier...Will our chances improve with wins against OSU and @ Whisky
We are beating both teams this week..already nabbed 1 win
We are beating both teams this week..already nabbed 1 win
I've post our 5 most impactful results to our NET before, UMass, Minnesota, DePaul or NW aren't in our bottom 5. It is Lafayette, @ Illinois, Maryland, @ PSU, and OT Lehigh shot 27-72, 37.5%, 1-13 from 3 despite the win. 73 pts 81 possessions.
When you enter future wins and losses for RU, I’m curious how the “calculator” accounts for every other game played by D1 teams during that time (especially for other bubble teams) which would affect our projected seeding, I would think.
It just uses the baseline projected records for every team you haven't entered a result for.
The problem is, the NET is only one factor they look at but most (all?) of the other factors are inputs into the NET. Most of the top criteria other than NET are things like road wins, quadrant records, etc.
Our best case is ending up at 7+ Q1 wins with at least 1 more on the road and at least 1 neutral court so those metrics are passable. Would also likely get our NET into the 65-79 range.
Rutgers is ranked as the most inconsistent team in college basketball largely based on the bad road losses and the two losses at home against Lafyette and Maryland.
Not heartbreaking. We could have easily lost at Nebraska, against Purdue and last night. It more or less evens out.
I understand it. I just think it is bad construct and bad statistics as that one point has far too much leverage