Wrap your brains around this . Rutgers is 5-1 against teams in the Top 30 of the ******* NET , beating #9, # 18, #19, #26 and # 30 and losing at # 12. Playing # 20 tomorrow and in 2 weeks , along with playing #12, and#9 and # 30 again. If we end up 8–3 or 7-4 against the top 30 , I do not give a shot what our Net number is because there will be a few humans in the committee room with brains and common sense.
You always are a snarky *** and it is no different here. The NET sucks get that through your tiny brain. Next time you post try to compliment a player or coach of our team without a backhanded compliment. You are 1 terrible fan
I replied with a comparison with numbers to the guy who only posted “what a joke” and I’m the snarky one…
I think the big take away from this thread is that what you are saying isn't true. Take away losses to UMASS and Lafayette and substitute them for losses against Duke and UNC, and we are likely in the driver's seat for a bid.
That's a resume argument though. If we played as badly in those games (which means losing to Duke by like 50) and getting handled by UNC as well our overall resume might be better but our NET ranking wouldn't be significantly better.
Three points. 1. It seems to me that it's highly unlikely that we would lose to any teams by those margins. Just intuitively, I don't think we expose ourselves to the downside of the equation as much. 2. The resume builder is just fine also. Even with no impact on NET, it still makes sense to make this kind of scheduling change. 3. I can't imagine what the numbers would be like if we played Gonzaga every game. But the reverse is also true. What if we played Lafayette every game and won all of them? Not good for NET or resume. Again, just intuitively, it seems like the big downside exposure, plus the lack of upside exposure, means that playing Patriot League type teams is a bad idea.
The Gonzaga thing was a joke, but in response:
You stole my thunder. I was going to mention that the worst NET of teams with 5+ Quad wins was 39 except for us at 92. And we're 5-3 in Quad 1 while Iowa State is 5-7.
I don't think it has the disproportionate impact some people think. The problem is we had a bunch of other horrible, horrible games:
Yes - but that’s true of a lot of other teams too (having the close call wins).
Okay - I’ll bite with the BYU counter.
Not true at all. If we replace losses to UMass and Lafayette with say loses to Kentucky and USC our NET would be way higher.
Rutgers has two more Q3 losses than BYU, and BYU still has a much better strength of schedule, though this gap will narrow over the next few weeks. BYU has 6 road wins plus 2 neutral wins. Rutgers has 2 road wins and 0 neutral wins. BYU has 4 Q1 wins and 4 Q2 wins. Rutgers has 5 Q1 wins and 1 Q2 win.
If we get to 12-8 it means we got another road win (Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, or Michigan). Along with Nebraska and Maryland, that's 3.
Right, and if we get to 11-9 with 2 road wins that means we have 4. The 2 neutral site wins in my hypothetical would also be helpful since those get looked at and conference record doesn’t.
Oh I see what you're saying. I think it's more just a "bird in the hand" thing. If we get to 12-8 we should be safe. If we're 11-9, then it's a must to win games in the BTT.
Makes sense. Just so frustrating that we’re in this position. Hopefully we can get to 12-8 and win a couple after that so there’s no doubt and we get a decent seed.
First conference tournament game is going to be our most dangerous game when it comes to the resume. Likely going to be against a lesser quality team than we have scheduled and we can’t drop that it we are in contention at that point.
About the same.
A bit better, yeah.
For a close OT loss? Yes.
Meh. I mean it's not like I think BYU is super good or something.
This is just incorrect. If you played those games at the same adjusted efficiency it would have no impact on that part of the NET. The RPI/Team Value Index portion would be higher but that seems to have a significantly lower weighting than the efficiency portion.
This is a fact, but it's a fact that doesn't contradict anything I've posted in this thread.
All coaches know it's what you have to worry about when it comes to making the tournament at large and stress it in practice.
My point wasn’t that it’s a bad statistical profile. They are IN on most forecasts while most bracketologists don’t even have us on the radar.
You think we played badly at the beginning of the year because we were overly concerned about net efficiency margin? What?
