RU could win out and not pass 30 on NET for the regular season AND B1G tournament...it has no relevance on seeds or schedule stuff.
75 NET
- Thread starter Zak57
- Start date
UNC's best wins are at home over #37 VTech and #38 Michigan. Their loss to Pitt is at the very bottom of Q3.
Oklahoma St has two wins over teams better than 82nd..... #21 Alabama at home, and #29 Arkansas at home.
Northwestern is hanging its hat on a win @ #37 Michigan State and home vs. #44 Indiana.... their next best win is over us at home.
Understood. What I mean is come Selection Sunday, the tournament field is going to be decided by the selection committee not software nor spreadsheets.
I think given all our positive pub the past week, the selection comittee will be very well aware that our resume is a true outlier to all the biases built into the NET.
Guys the NET is working perfectly and sensibly. Vermont was able to move up 5 spots beating Q4 power New Hampshire.
Point is, it should not have to take positive publicity to make the tourney. Remember that we are RU fans and hyper-focused on our rankings and case for the Tourney and digging into the details. The committee has to look at a wide field of teams and data. They will not have the time and resources to view game by game impacts, highlights, video etc. They will be relying on tools like the NET to help drive the decision making process. Essentially - they are humans making decisions based on faulty algorithms.
There in lies the stupidity of the NET. You should be rewarding wins rather than over emphasizing bad losses. Why the powers that be decided this was a great system is mind boggling. It would be poetic justice if RU is the team that beings it down.
That's one of the reasons why even though I was pretty darn sure we wouldn't lose, I was getting annoyed as our lead continued to shrink last night. Also the late run probably directly led to Ron's injury as Illinois was bringing intense pressure on every inbound.
The thing is, we are (most not all) still not really following CBB enough to know that all of these things are a moving target.
A) OOC Strength of Schedule
B) NET ratings
C) Conference strength
D) Preseason rankings
E) Scheduling holiday tournaments
F) Quad 1/2 wins etc.
If RU was an annual Top 20 program with 9 4/5* kids. Sure, you can Schedule better in the OOC.....but you can do that and have a resume like Michigan, which is likely now going to land with too many losses because they scheduled too many games they could actually lose.
Anyone complaining about the OOC is insane....RU is a player development program and does not walk in the door with 4 and 5* kids all over the roster.
Look at how long it's taken for Cliff to become a force....RHJ was not good the 1st half of his frosh year, shooting 3 for 26 from 3.....Mulcahy has been a kid that played 2 and a half seasons and before hitting the turbo boost button averaged around 6 to 7PPG.
Do we really think you want to switch places with Michigan at 13-10, just because they had a tough OOC schedule?? Their NET is only in the 30s, because they started in the Top 5, not because of their actual resume.
Pike has scheduled based on the rosters and is a player development coach. No one wins anything by being Iowa State and 13-0 in OOC, to be tied for last in the Big 12....how is that better than what RU has accomplished??
There is no perfect resume, everyone has a flaw ...last year the NET was in the 30s and 40s and we were "supposedly" on the brink of not making the dance, until we defeated Minnesota in the season finale....because it wasn't the NET, or OOC fans complaining about, it was the lack of road wins.....this year, no complaints about road wins, go back to NET or OOC schedule....next year it will be something else......LMAO
Enjoy being the hottest CBB for the last week, and stop finding things to complain about.....!!!
A) OOC Strength of Schedule
B) NET ratings
C) Conference strength
D) Preseason rankings
E) Scheduling holiday tournaments
F) Quad 1/2 wins etc.
If RU was an annual Top 20 program with 9 4/5* kids. Sure, you can Schedule better in the OOC.....but you can do that and have a resume like Michigan, which is likely now going to land with too many losses because they scheduled too many games they could actually lose.
Anyone complaining about the OOC is insane....RU is a player development program and does not walk in the door with 4 and 5* kids all over the roster.
Look at how long it's taken for Cliff to become a force....RHJ was not good the 1st half of his frosh year, shooting 3 for 26 from 3.....Mulcahy has been a kid that played 2 and a half seasons and before hitting the turbo boost button averaged around 6 to 7PPG.
Do we really think you want to switch places with Michigan at 13-10, just because they had a tough OOC schedule?? Their NET is only in the 30s, because they started in the Top 5, not because of their actual resume.
Pike has scheduled based on the rosters and is a player development coach. No one wins anything by being Iowa State and 13-0 in OOC, to be tied for last in the Big 12....how is that better than what RU has accomplished??
There is no perfect resume, everyone has a flaw ...last year the NET was in the 30s and 40s and we were "supposedly" on the brink of not making the dance, until we defeated Minnesota in the season finale....because it wasn't the NET, or OOC fans complaining about, it was the lack of road wins.....this year, no complaints about road wins, go back to NET or OOC schedule....next year it will be something else......LMAO
Enjoy being the hottest CBB for the last week, and stop finding things to complain about.....!!!
You're missing the worst one... Houston. Just moved UP from NET 6 to NET 4, after losing their last 2 games and Q1 is 0-3.
Holy crap - totally did. I started looking at Iowa and went down, not thinking you could be better than 19th with no Q1 wins.
Houston's signature win is a neutral site victory over #54 Oklahoma St (12-13).... yet are #4 in NET. That's ridiculous. Their next best win is also neutral site over #59 Oregon. Otherwise, they don't have a win against a team in the Top 70, but they've certainly run up the score in games against teams >100
There it is. NET is about how many points you score, not really W-L record. Stupid metric
The models LOVE Houston, even though they haven't beaten anyone. Humans look to be more skeptical.
Computers:
#2 - Bart
#4 - NET
#7 - Kenpom
#10 - Sagarin
Then the human polls
#14 - AP
#15 - Coaches
It'll be close. Road wins against good teams are gold, and the NET thinks Iowa is a really good team. Enough for Michigan to move up 7 spots? Not sure. They probably move up 5-9, depends on margin of victory.
Iowa is also at risk of dropping outside the top 30. Not after tonight, but the rest of their schedule is very difficult.
We’re not just beating Q1 teams, we’re beating the top echelon of Q1 teams (all ranked around 15th in the country, which is top 4% of all D1), plus a win over then-number-1 Purdue.
Of course, even if Michigan moves into the top 30, we'll just knock them right back out next week . . .
Iowa averages over 80 points a game resulting in wide scoring margins and they have no bad losses.
Yes, Iowa has put up big numbers against bad schools.
Against Q4 teams, they average 95 ppg and allow 66 ppg. Against Q1 teams, they've averaged 67 ppg and allowed 76 ppg.
They've built a great resume beating up on bad teams. They only have 2 wins against teams with a NET better than 80 - #44 Indiana (16-9, 7-8 B1G) and #65 Utah St (14-12, 6-8 MWC). Their best road win is by 1 point over #81 Virginia.
Iowa 84.0 pts scored
Opponents 71.3 scored
Margin of Victory +12.71, 13th,
#19 Iowa(17-7) SOS +4.98
#75 Rutgers(16-9) 150th +3.88 SOS +5.48
Margin of victory is a % in either the NET's Team Value Index or the Net Adjusted Efficiency they use. Every computer model has us above 75, KP 68, ESPN's BPI 68, Sagarin 56, KPI(Win %) 53rd, T-Rank 72.
4- Houston (0-3)... 3rd +18.13 SOS +4.16 (AAC 7th)
19 - Iowa (0-6).... 13th +12.71 SOS +4.98 (B1G 2nd)
36 - VTech (0-5) 52nd +9.08 SOS +4.62 (ACC 5th)
45 - UNC (0-7) 119th +5.27 SOS +6.77 (ACC 5th)
67 - Fresno St (0-3) 68th +7.86 SOS +2.31 (MWC 8th)
69 - Vermont (0-1). 15th +11.88 SOS -5.00 (AE 26th)
79 - Toledo (0-1) 26th +11.31 SOS -1.86 (MAC 20th)
80 - Towson (0-2) 60th +8.27 SOS -2.42 (Colonial 14th)
82 - Furman (0-4), 47th +9.29 SOS -1.14 (Southern 12th)
84 - Syracuse (0-6) 171st +2.88 SOS +6.95 (ACC 5th)
87 - Ohio (0-2) 58th +8.54 SOS -3.13 (MAC 20th)
88 - Richmond (0-1) 141st +4.31 SOS +2.80 (A10 10th)
92 - Clemson (0-5) 168th +3.23 SOS +5.73 (ACC 5th)
46 Wash St(0-3) 55th +8.79 SOS +4.81 (Pac12 6th)
Do you know if their margin of victory account for quality of opponent? That is to say, is running up the score on Q4 teams more valuable than winning Q1 games?
Their margin of victory against teams in Q1 is -8.7/g
I don't think it does, it just calculates the whole picture in parts like 1/27th, 1/28th, 1/29th, 1/30th or 1/31st.
Is this right?....how is Dayton at 55 with 8-3 in Q4... while we're at 75 with 6-1 Q4
simply mindboggling
It’s worthless anyway because it’s an average. Team X plays 5 games they blow one team out by 45 and win the other 4 each by 1. The average margin of victory is double digits (10). Meanwhile 4 of 5 games were nailbiters. If they are going to look at point margin, it should be count based. How many 2 possession or less games were played?
How about this one... Blow out a bad Butler team at home, move up 10 (St John's jumped us going from 78 to 68)
Our scoring differential per posession is killing our NET score.
Scoring differential per game is not the same measure but a good proxy for where we stand relative to everyone else and we are #100 with an average of 3.9 points per game. We surely should have done a combined 50 points better against Lafayette, Lehigh and Merrimack and that would improve us to 5.9 per game and shoot us all the way up to #64.
Add another 12 points differential combined against UMass and NJIT and we move up to #58.
And nobody would be complaining about our NET.
The way we are playing our NET won’t matter anyway. But it’s our own doing that is making an issue out if it.
Scoring differential per game is not the same measure but a good proxy for where we stand relative to everyone else and we are #100 with an average of 3.9 points per game. We surely should have done a combined 50 points better against Lafayette, Lehigh and Merrimack and that would improve us to 5.9 per game and shoot us all the way up to #64.
Add another 12 points differential combined against UMass and NJIT and we move up to #58.
And nobody would be complaining about our NET.
The way we are playing our NET won’t matter anyway. But it’s our own doing that is making an issue out if it.
So you're saying it best to run up the score on bad teams to show you are a better team? I see it as "false/fools" gold. Say we beat Lafayette and company by 50 points but lose to Ohio State, Wisconsin, etc., by 5 points, chances are our NET is higher, but the team is not as good. Losing to bad teams is unacceptable, but it happens. Winning consistently against perceived top teams gives more insight into the makeup of your team. Even a blind man can see the difference.
We played horrific in non conference play. That matters. Its 1/3 of the season. We struggled with cupcakes. Its part of our story
I really do not think we can win them all to finish the regular season.....If we win half or better, there will be pressure for
RU to be included in the NCAA.
It could come down to a choice of two teams, and our
run of 4 ranked wins, and counting, should seal the deal
there always has to be SOME human gut feeling input when they get down to the borderline teams.....we then have a lot going for us...
The scoring differential (per possession) is not the be-all and end-all of the NET. And the NET ranking is not the only criterion the selection committee uses. But the coaches agreed to and know the NET formula, so if you schedule cupcakes you know going into the game that you have to win by a big margin. Otherwise, don’t schedule those games.
People can also point to the Lafayette loss at home … the year RU WBB won the WNIT they lost to UMASS that kept them out of the NCAA. But if RU finishes top 6 in B1G and wins a tourney game, can’t see them not getting in. Would be awesome to get to 20 wins (or more).
I know we have struggled against cupcakes, but the system devalues wins against the better teams. How else can you explain a jump of 10 spots for St. John's against Butler at home? Didn't we just beat a much better team at home by a good margin? This is why the human element will never be removed from the final say. The NET and other analytics don't consider outside factors, such as when the losses occurred, injuries, etc. What other team can say they have rolled on several ranked teams in a row? I'm sure the committee will take all of this into consideration.
I know I sound condescending, but I work in data analytics for a living. Analytics are for nerds who need to feel included in decisions. It's a way to have yourself in the game and become an essential part of the outcome. Data can always be twisted to fit the narrative.
The data isn't clean if you value similar info as different. Losing should not hold more value than wins, as more data comes in. The losses shouldn't grow in importance as more wins come in. That seems to be the case with Rutgers fans.