NET Rankings

[msudawg200]

Hard to understand how a road win over a top 40 NET team only bumps us from 27 to 26. Meanwhile Auburn jumps 4 spots with a home win over Bama.

The positive is that Wofford and St Mary’s both jumped a few spots and are now quadrant 1 wins. We now have 5 quadrant 1 wins as it stands today with Clemson knocking on the door as a possible 6th. Very solid.

 

[Go Budaw]

Hard to understand how a road win over a top 40 NET team only bumps us from 27 to 26. Meanwhile Auburn jumps 4 spots with a home win over Bama.

The positive is that Wofford and St Mary’s both jumped a few spots and are now quadrant 1 wins. We now have 5 quadrant 1 wins as it stands today with Clemson knocking on the door as a possible 6th. Very solid.

The formula is trash. Simple as that. We picked about the worst year possible to finally play a decent NC schedule (although improvement in that area was needed without a doubt). Fortunately for us, we navigated it quite well, and are sitting pretty regardless of what metric you look at. Just keep winning and everything else will take care of itself.

We’re now two thirds of the way through a brutal 6-game stretch, where we play all 6 games against Top 40 teams, and 4 of those 6 against Top 25 teams. 2-2 so far, and if we can finish it out at 3-3, we will be 5-5 overall with a great chance of a 5-3 or 6-2 finish. That would put us in 4-5 seed territory.

 

[KentuckyDawg13]

Yet AP rankings dropped MSU out of the top 25. Coach's poll still has us @ #21.
AP doesn't make sense considering UofL lost @ home and didn't move in the rankings.

 

[Tractorman]

We are top 5 in Quadrant 1 wins

whatever that does for the resume

quad 1

 

[PineGroveBully]

Jay Bilas's line every March is "every team has proven they can lose, but who have they beat?"

 

[MSUDC11]

I think we’d be a solid 6 seed with an outside shot of being a 5 if the season ended today. We’ve got a chance to really solidify our resume with a good week this week. LSU is 20 in the NET, Kentucky is 6.

There’s so much that goes into these formulas that it’s hard to know what affects what. We beat Ole Miss on the road which is a quality win, but as a result we knocked them down in the rankings so they aren’t ranked as highly as they were when we beat them and it also means our loss to them last month drops farther down in quality. It’s a complicated science that I’m not even sure the NCAA has a solid grasp on.

 

[The Fatboy]

You would think they would take this system and run it against some historical data and see how it stacked up against other past polls, rankings and tournament seeding.

 

[Go Budaw]

You would think they would take this system and run it against some historical data and see how it stacked up against other past polls, rankings and tournament seeding.

Except even if they did that, it only tells if the current NET ranking would put the same teams in the tournament that were in there that given year under the old system. It does nothing to to say how successful some “first four out” team would have been if they made the tournament. The whole purpose of the new NET rankings was to improve upon the flaws of the old RPI rating, therefore a comparison analysis on how it would have done in selecting teans previous years SHOULD actually reflect vastly different results for the teams on the fringe. This is because the implication is that teams were getting screwed under the old system. Therefore, if the results compare favorably by selecting all the same teams, then the whole thing is an abject failure and is completely pointless.

 

[PineGroveBully]

Only the NCAA can develop a system where you lose ground but winning games