75 NET
- Thread starter Zak57
- Start date
Embarrassing for the NCAA tbh. But they’ve been good at doing that to themselves lately anyway
Only a 6 place jump after beating Illinois. They went from 13 to 14.
If the NET is going to be a big part of picking tournament teams then it needs to turn down the predictive aspect and turn up the "what actually happened" aspect.
It's mainly used as a sorting tool which is good. But some people may see it as the end all be all which IMO would be a bad use of it.
It's mainly used as a sorting tool which is good. But some people may see it as the end all be all which IMO would be a bad use of it.
It’s an efficiency metric, not a ranking clearly.
A “ranking” should mean if you took any two teams and put them on a neutral court tomorrow, the higher ranked team should win. In that true ranking, Rutgers should be about #10 right now. That’s why rankings get released weekly, because they are supposed to change. But this NET thing seems to not change with the times and try to, I don’t even know what it is trying to say at this point
A “ranking” should mean if you took any two teams and put them on a neutral court tomorrow, the higher ranked team should win. In that true ranking, Rutgers should be about #10 right now. That’s why rankings get released weekly, because they are supposed to change. But this NET thing seems to not change with the times and try to, I don’t even know what it is trying to say at this point
If the new polls came out today. RU would be ranked in the top 25. Yet 75 in this dopey metric. It baffles me that because Iowa beat longwood by 40 in Nov, they have a NET of 20.
Called it in the other thread
I was half kidding but serious.
F the NET.
I was half kidding but serious.
F the NET.
Beat Illinois (NET 13) --> move up 6
Beat Xavier on the road (NET 20) --> move up 12
Lose to Temple on the road (NET 118) --> move down 3
Cool.
Beat Xavier on the road (NET 20) --> move up 12
Lose to Temple on the road (NET 118) --> move down 3
Cool.
We need to learn from this and adjust our scheduling accordingly. Cupcakes are great…until you lose to them.
Last edited:
Agreed, not sure why everyone seems to be forgetting its just an algorithm. One that unfortunately for us seemingly weighs bad losses more than high ranked wins.
And as with any algorithm, it's only as good as its design. Our season is showing that their algorithm doesn't handle nonstandard inputs very well.
The key numbers
Rutgers pts 68.4
Opponents pts 64.6
Margin of Victory(MOV) +3.88, 150th out of 358
That's holding us down the most.
Rutgers pts 68.4
Opponents pts 64.6
Margin of Victory(MOV) +3.88, 150th out of 358
That's holding us down the most.
It's way too sensitive to the games you lose and not nearly sensitive enough to the games you win.
Sounds like the old football rankings. Imperative to run up the score on overmatched teams.
The NCAA supports sportsmanship? LOL
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
This. Hopefully it doesnt keep us out this year but it should be a big wake up call. Youre better off losing 3 q1’s then beating 3 cupcake q4’s
Our non conference sos is 303 where we went a dismal 6-4 and it makes up of almost 40% of our games
Don't worry about the overall NET at this point. Get two more Q1s to close out the year and its meaningless
Don't worry about the overall NET at this point. Get two more Q1s to close out the year and its meaningless
Iowa net at 19 despite 0-6 in quad 1 games. That's all you need to know about this effing metric.
Agreed but the fact it doesn't seem NET values wins over other tourney teams is crazy to me. I know it's easier to beat a Q1 than lose to a Q4 but when you start hitting 4,5,6 Q1 wins it should take that into account more than it does. Teams that can't beat a Q1 but play the scheduling game will still be 1 and done in tourney as they've shown they can't beat the good teams on the court not on the schedule.
Agree. There is something in the formula that does not allow for large gains for beating higher ranked schools
Rutgers is an outlier that broke tge system because their non conference vs conference performances are so disparate
Rutgers is an outlier that broke tge system because their non conference vs conference performances are so disparate
If so, the system in a general way will discriminate against strong teams that rely more on defense than offense. Margins of victory are going to be less in low scoring games.
Not every margin of victory is the same. Also, people haven't considered Rutgers had to adjust the chemistry of the team as Myles, Young, and Mathis moved on to other teams. These guys played big minutes and it showed early in the season how it impacted the team. Geo getting hurt and guys suffering through covid didn't help. The break (covid) was actually a blessing. It allowed the team to hit the reset button while they got healthy. Still, everything wasn't right, but they started to show signs of life. The committee unlike the computer metrics, will see this and consider that. They did it last year for Michigan State and I'm sure they did it for others prior years.
But watching an outlier break the algorithm so badly brings into question how good the algorithm is overall - if it breaks down at the extremes, does it also struggle placing teams that aren't so extreme?
As said above, Iowa is 19... but is 0-6 in Q1. That's almost as much of an outlier as being 75th and 6-3 in Q1.
No one forgets it’s an algo. What people (me) have been saying for weeks is the algo sucks. The algo is written by humans, thus there are good algorithms and bad algorithms.
Therefore the NET sucks. F the NET!! Lol!
I wonder if a big NET may actually work in our favor. There are no unbiased basketball people who think that RU is the 75th most tournament worthy team. It may make the argument to ignore the NET from the RU decision easier.
If our NET was 50, people could argue it was accurate and give it more credence in the selection process
If our NET was 50, people could argue it was accurate and give it more credence in the selection process
These are the teams with no Q1 wins in the NET Top 100:
4 - Houston (0-3)... best win is over #52 Oklahoma St at neutral site
19 - Iowa (0-6).... best win is over #44 Indiana at home
36 - VTech (0-5)
45 - UNC (0-7)
67 - Fresno St (0-3)
69 - Vermont (0-1)
79 - Toledo (0-1)
80 - Towson (0-2)
82 - Furman (0-4)
84 - Syracuse (0-6)
87 - Ohio (0-2)
88 - Richmond (0-1)
92 - Clemson (0-5)
There's no reason that Iowa should be 19 by "not losing to bad teams" when they haven't actually beaten any good teams.
Right now Iowa's signature win is at home vs. #44 Indiana, and their next best is a neutral site game over #65 Utah State
Edit: to add Houston
4 - Houston (0-3)... best win is over #52 Oklahoma St at neutral site
19 - Iowa (0-6).... best win is over #44 Indiana at home
36 - VTech (0-5)
45 - UNC (0-7)
67 - Fresno St (0-3)
69 - Vermont (0-1)
79 - Toledo (0-1)
80 - Towson (0-2)
82 - Furman (0-4)
84 - Syracuse (0-6)
87 - Ohio (0-2)
88 - Richmond (0-1)
92 - Clemson (0-5)
There's no reason that Iowa should be 19 by "not losing to bad teams" when they haven't actually beaten any good teams.
Right now Iowa's signature win is at home vs. #44 Indiana, and their next best is a neutral site game over #65 Utah State
Edit: to add Houston
Last edited:
agree...but, this year will be used to tweak/fixt it.
because I think every reasonable person will agree that the weighting it uses for bad losses is clearly not passing any rational person's sniff test.
put simple, Rutgers broke the NET
Colgate last year top 20 broke the system as well
Agree that Colgate also broke the algorithm. They finished at 30, but they also only had 1 opportunity in Q1. Iowa has had plenty of opportunities to win games against better opponents.... and just haven't been able to.
Looks like Iowa has 3 more Q1 opportunities at the end of the year.... vs. MSU, @Michigan and @Illinois
Look at some of the teams extremely ahead of RU in the NET and it pretty much tells you what you need to know about how valid the algorithm is. Too much weight on Quad 4, Road records and whatever other "efficiency" factors that go unsaid.
Sorting tool my ***. Pretty much of a joke of a calculation.
- North Carolina who hasn't beaten anyone of note and has zero Quad 1 wins is 30 spots ahead of us
- Oklahoma State with a losing record is 23 spots ahead of us LOL.
- Northwestern is 9 spots ahead of us
Sorting tool my ***. Pretty much of a joke of a calculation.
| RANK | SCHOOL | CONFERENCE | RECORD | ROAD | NEUTRAL | HOME | QUAD 1 | QUAD 2 | QUAD 3 | QUAD 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | UConn | Big East | 18-7 | 4-4 | 3-1 | 11-2 | 2-6 | 7-1 | 2-0 | 7-0 |
| 19 | Iowa | Big Ten | 17-7 | 3-5 | 1-0 | 13-2 | 0-6 | 5-1 | 4-0 | 8-0 |
| 21 | Alabama | SEC | 17-9 | 2-5 | 3-2 | 12-2 | 7-5 | 4-2 | 6-2 | 0-0 |
| 22 | Saint Mary's (CA) | WCC | 19-6 | 5-4 | 2-2 | 12-0 | 2-6 | 4-0 | 4-0 | 9-0 |
| 23 | Xavier | Big East | 17-8 | 4-3 | 1-1 | 12-4 | 5-6 | 4-0 | 4-2 | 4-0 |
| 26 | Colorado St. | Mountain West | 19-3 | 4-2 | 4-0 | 11-1 | 2-2 | 7-0 | 3-1 | 7-0 |
| 27 | Michigan St. | Big Ten | 18-7 | 5-3 | 3-2 | 10-2 | 4-5 | 5-2 | 5-0 | 4-0 |
| 31 | Marquette | Big East | 17-9 | 4-5 | 2-1 | 11-3 | 7-6 | 2-3 | 3-0 | 5-0 |
| 34 | Seton Hall | Big East | 14-9 | 4-5 | 1-1 | 9-3 | 4-6 | 4-2 | 4-1 | 2-0 |
| 35 | Boise St. | Mountain West | 19-6 | 7-2 | 3-1 | 9-3 | 4-2 | 4-3 | 5-0 | 6-1 |
| 36 | Virginia Tech | ACC | 16-10 | 5-5 | 1-2 | 10-3 | 0-5 | 5-3 | 5-2 | 6-0 |
| 37 | Michigan | Big Ten | 13-10 | 3-6 | 2-1 | 8-3 | 2-7 | 3-2 | 4-1 | 4-0 |
| 39 | Oklahoma | Big 12 | 14-12 | 2-6 | 3-1 | 9-5 | 3-9 | 4-2 | 1-1 | 6-0 |
| 40 | Memphis | AAC | 15-8 | 4-5 | 1-1 | 10-2 | 4-2 | 2-4 | 5-2 | 4-0 |
| 41 | North Texas | C-USA | 16-4 | 6-0 | 2-2 | 8-2 | 1-1 | 2-2 | 4-1 | 9-0 |
| 42 | Iowa St. | Big 12 | 17-9 | 3-5 | 2-0 | 12-4 | 8-7 | 0-2 | 1-0 | 8-0 |
| 43 | San Diego St. | Mountain West | 16-6 | 2-4 | 2-1 | 12-1 | 2-5 | 2-1 | 5-0 | 7-0 |
| 44 | Indiana | Big Ten | 16-9 | 2-6 | 1-0 | 13-3 | 2-6 | 2-3 | 4-0 | 8-0 |
| 45 | North Carolina | ACC | 18-8 | 5-3 | 0-3 | 13-2 | 0-7 | 4-0 | 7-1 | 7-0 |
| 46 | Washington St. | Pac-12 | 14-10 | 5-2 | 0-2 | 9-6 | 0-4 | 3-2 | 8-3 | 3-1 |
| 48 | UAB | C-USA | 17-6 | 4-4 | 1-1 | 12-1 | 2-1 | 2-2 | 4-2 | 9-1 |
| 49 | SMU | AAC | 18-6 | 6-4 | 0-2 | 12-0 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 8-1 | 6-1 |
| 50 | Chattanooga | SoCon | 20-5 | 11-4 | 0-0 | 9-1 | 1-2 | 2-0 | 9-2 | 8-1 |
| 51 | Mississippi St. | SEC | 14-11 | 0-7 | 2-2 | 12-2 | 2-8 | 1-1 | 5-2 | 6-0 |
| 52 | Oklahoma St. | Big 12 | 12-13 | 2-7 | 2-1 | 8-5 | 2-10 | 4-2 | 2-1 | 4-0 |
| 53 | BYU | WCC | 17-8 | 6-4 | 3-2 | 8-2 | 3-3 | 4-4 | 3-0 | 7-1 |
| 54 | Florida | SEC | 16-10 | 2-6 | 3-1 | 11-3 | 1-7 | 3-2 | 5-0 | 7-1 |
| 55 | Dayton | Atlantic 10 | 18-8 | 4-4 | 3-0 | 11-4 | 3-2 | 4-3 | 3-0 | 8-3 |
| 56 | Saint Louis | Atlantic 10 | 17-8 | 4-4 | 2-0 | 11-4 | 1-3 | 2-3 | 4-2 | 10-0 |
| 57 | TCU | Big 12 | 16-7 | 4-2 | 3-1 | 9-4 | 4-4 | 3-3 | 3-0 | 6-0 |
| 58 | Notre Dame | ACC | 18-7 | 7-3 | 0-3 | 11-1 | 2-5 | 4-1 | 7-1 | 5-0 |
| 59 | Oregon | Pac-12 | 16-8 | 5-1 | 0-3 | 11-4 | 2-3 | 4-2 | 3-3 | 7-0 |
| 60 | Davidson | Atlantic 10 | 20-4 | 8-1 | 3-2 | 9-1 | 2-1 | 2-3 | 8-0 | 8-0 |
| 61 | Missouri St. | MVC | 19-8 | 7-3 | 2-1 | 10-4 | 1-2 | 3-1 | 7-4 | 8-1 |
| 62 | Kansas St. | Big 12 | 14-11 | 5-4 | 0-2 | 9-5 | 5-8 | 2-3 | 1-0 | 6-0 |
| 63 | Miami (FL) | ACC | 19-7 | 7-2 | 2-2 | 10-3 | 4-1 | 5-4 | 5-2 | 5-0 |
| 64 | VCU | Atlantic 10 | 17-7 | 8-1 | 1-2 | 8-4 | 2-2 | 4-4 | 5-1 | 6-0 |
| 65 | Utah St. | Mountain West | 14-12 | 3-6 | 4-1 | 7-5 | 1-7 | 4-2 | 4-1 | 5-2 |
| 66 | Northwestern | Big Ten | 11-12 | 3-5 | 1-1 | 7-6 | 1-10 | 3-0 | 1-2 | 6-0 |
| 75 | Rutgers | Big Ten | 16-9 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 13-2 | 6-3 | 2-3 | 2-2 | 6-1 |