NET 81
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
DI Men's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com
Get NCAA college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today Coaches poll and the NCAA NET Rankings.
www.ncaa.com
Just saw it also.
13 spot jump. Still a joke and I understand the components. We've broke the NET.
13 spot jump. Still a joke and I understand the components. We've broke the NET.
If we win 3 more its like like our NET will be in the 60s. That will be fine
It doesn't work like that. Lafayette and Maryland beat Rutgers
Meaning 3 more including Big Ten? Any combination of 3 in the next seven will get us in?
Yes of course. Q1 are based on NET which changes daily.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Yeah I noticed that as well. But I believe the worst NET to make the NCAA tournament was MSU in the 70s. Fair to say, if RU can go 3-3 the rest of the way, they will be, at worst, in the 70s.
I know it doesn't work like that, but the committee is comprised of people and not some metric-based computer. They look at the entire picture. The November/December issues are considered, but the February/March play is too. I'm glad the committee doesn't rely on some geek to decide the field of 64 teams.
It seems like the NET weighs a Q3/4 loss more heavily than a Q1 win.
For some reason, comparing RU to Dayton struck me when looking at this morning’s rankings:
Rutgers:
NET 81
Overall 15-9
Road 3-7
Neutral 0-0
Home 12-2
Q1 5-3
Q2 2-3
Q3 2-2
Q4 6-1
Dayton:
NET 59
Overall 17-8
Road 3-4
Neutral 3-0
Home 11-4
Q1 3-2
Q2 3-3
Q3 2-0
Q4 9-3
Dayton clearly plays a much weaker schedule (12 Q4 games compared to our). Lost 3 of those Q4 games compared to our 1. Fewer Q1 wins, but 22 spots ahead? Maybe it places a lot of weight on neutral site wins? Maybe it places a lot of weight on Q3 losses (we have 2, they have 0)? I don’t know why Dayton jumped off the page for me, but they did.
For some reason, comparing RU to Dayton struck me when looking at this morning’s rankings:
Rutgers:
NET 81
Overall 15-9
Road 3-7
Neutral 0-0
Home 12-2
Q1 5-3
Q2 2-3
Q3 2-2
Q4 6-1
Dayton:
NET 59
Overall 17-8
Road 3-4
Neutral 3-0
Home 11-4
Q1 3-2
Q2 3-3
Q3 2-0
Q4 9-3
Dayton clearly plays a much weaker schedule (12 Q4 games compared to our). Lost 3 of those Q4 games compared to our 1. Fewer Q1 wins, but 22 spots ahead? Maybe it places a lot of weight on neutral site wins? Maybe it places a lot of weight on Q3 losses (we have 2, they have 0)? I don’t know why Dayton jumped off the page for me, but they did.
I find it funny how everyone but Rutgers fans is expecting the worst (no NCAA tourney). Visiting other boards besides B1G boards, they are convinced that Rutgers is in as long as they don't collapse down the stretch. We have to get past this "sky is falling BS."
Washington State still having a top 50 NET when their two best wins are at #91 Stanford and at #129 Utah is incredible.
One game at a time. Let's beat Illinois and get into the low 70s on Thursday morning.
Dayton has a better OOC schedule and those 3 quality neutral site wins are huge vs one super road win for RU. Also a 30 point road win at q1 VCU helping
The closest profile to RU since they have the q4 issue to overcome burlt RU is significantly ahead of them in the bubble pecking order.
Net is a joke. We are one spot behind TOWSON!!! They are 0-1 Q1; 1-0 Q-2; 8-3 Q3; 10-2 Q4.
Id like a big 10 tourney win for good measure
19 is the number im pretty comfortable with
The NET should only ever be just 1 factor and a sorting tool and the numbers today are ridiculous and inconsistent. UCLA lost to USC who was NET 29 and stayed at 14 did not drop. Texas got blown out at Baylor who was struggling and stayed at 15 with no drop. Look at the 3 teams around Michigan . Michigan for some reason dropped 6 spots not 1 or 2 from 30 to 36 despite losing to # 18 Ohio State where UCLA never moved losing to # 29 USC. Oklahoma lost to Kansas , who was top 10 , but climbed from 40 to 37, not stayed at 40 for keeping it close and still losing or maybe going up 1 for the good effort but up 3. Finally UNC that has been blown out by 20 or more 5 times this year and somehow was 41 in the NET beat a terrible Florida State team (NET 97) at home by 20 and somehow gets rewarded and moves up 3 to 38.
Rutgers move up only 13 was not enough. Our offense efficiency of 119 and shooting 51 from the field and 58% from 3 and 89# from the line , coupled with our defensive efficiency , where Wisconsin shot 47% from the field and 21 % from 3, when added to it being a road victory against a # 19 NET Wisconsin deserved a larger move upward.
Thankfully the humans get to see our teams performance.
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
What would you define as a collapse? Because 2-4 isnt exactly a collapse but that likely leaves us out
Some of the analysis here makes my brain freeze
Posters recency bias..smfh. its body of work
Posters recency bias..smfh. its body of work
I'm talking about going 3-3 down the stretch. My issue is the support from some of the fans. We have fans who like to suck the d*ck of every team and sh*t on our team.
The fact that Towson is next to us in NET is a joke.
Look at where Iowa is. 0-6 vs quad 1. Is this NET the most flawed computer algorithm in the history of mankind?
How about Iowa's resume?
#19 Iowa 16-7 *0-5* 5-2 4-0 7-0
W 109-73 to #149 Longwood 14-6
W 89-57 to #218 Kansas City 12-10
W 86-69 to #265 UNC Central 8-11
W 108-82 to #315 Alabama A&M 6-18
W 109-61 to #336 W.Michigan 3-19
W 85-51 to #293 Portland St. 6-15
W 93-62 to #276 SELA 10-12
W 92-71 to #207 W. Illinois 13-11
+245 in 8 cupcakes carries alot of NET weight
Q2s wins,
W @ 77 Virginia by 1, W N 58 Utah St by 19, W Vs 42 Indiana by 9,
W @ 96 Minnesota by 10, W @ 103 Maryland 110-87
Very Washington State-y with more blowouts than Washington St.
A collapsing Indiana or a road win over Virginia as your best wins?
Which resume are you taking Rutgers or Iowa?
#19 Iowa 16-7 *0-5* 5-2 4-0 7-0
W 109-73 to #149 Longwood 14-6
W 89-57 to #218 Kansas City 12-10
W 86-69 to #265 UNC Central 8-11
W 108-82 to #315 Alabama A&M 6-18
W 109-61 to #336 W.Michigan 3-19
W 85-51 to #293 Portland St. 6-15
W 93-62 to #276 SELA 10-12
W 92-71 to #207 W. Illinois 13-11
+245 in 8 cupcakes carries alot of NET weight
Q2s wins,
W @ 77 Virginia by 1, W N 58 Utah St by 19, W Vs 42 Indiana by 9,
W @ 96 Minnesota by 10, W @ 103 Maryland 110-87
Very Washington State-y with more blowouts than Washington St.
A collapsing Indiana or a road win over Virginia as your best wins?
Which resume are you taking Rutgers or Iowa?
Last edited:
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Disagree. The problem is some look at the data and numbers and historical precedent and others just suck the dick of our team/program with scarlet glasses. Like yesterday you had said we had bad fans for not having confidence wed go into wisconsin and thinking we’d win (i actually thought we would win), but then you look at the stats and it shows the past 2 seasons with fans in stands we were 4-15 in big ten games on the road with 2 of the 4 coming against nebraska
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
@bac2therac - If we took just the one home loss against Lafayette out, what do you think our NET would be and how would we be sitting?
No loss outside Q 1 & 2 and great efficiency giving them great computer numbers
I agree its a pedestrian resume
2-4 and losing the first round of the B1G is like a borderline collapse? 2-4 and winning a game is bubbalicious
A
anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy
Guest
Depends on margin of victory. Lets say we beat lafayette by 10. Wed probably be around 70. Now if we blew out merrimack and lehigh as well, were comfortably around 65ish