#52 in The NET Rankings

Uscg1984

Well-known member
Jan 28, 2022
1,499
1,971
113
Obviously, we're beating a dead horse at this point, but make sense out of this:

Grand Canyon #51
Quad 1: 1-0
Quad 2: 2-2
Quad 3: 10-2
Quad 4: 14-0

South Carolina #52
Quad 1: 5-5
Quad 2: 6-0
Quad 3: 6-2
Quad 4: 9-0
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMickeySC

Uscg1984

Well-known member
Jan 28, 2022
1,499
1,971
113
maybe we should not lose by 70 points in two games to one team.

Shesh. barely hit 50 points.
I'm sure that plays a big part in it (and the fact that we won a lot of close games). But if that's the case, then they should display that criteria on the NET website. On the website, they display total record, road, home, and neutral records, and the various quad records. One would think, those are the primary criteria used, otherwise, why display that information? Instead, the primary driver of the NET rankings appear to be criteria that they do not bother to display. It just makes no sense.
 

KingWard

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2022
6,155
6,493
113
After yesterday, and adding it to our previous performance against Auburn and the one in Tuscaloosa and home losses to LSU and Georgia, it begins to accrue some credibility.
 

Prestonyte

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
5,261
5,214
113
Obviously, we're beating a dead horse at this point, but make sense out of this:

Grand Canyon #51
Quad 1: 1-0
Quad 2: 2-2
Quad 3: 10-2
Quad 4: 14-0

South Carolina #52
Quad 1: 5-5
Quad 2: 6-0
Quad 3: 6-2
Quad 4: 9-0
Maybe someone on this board is smart enough to create the ''RIM Rankings'' and say they have a secret formula which never has to be explained and get it validated as legitimate. Obviously, it's possible.
 

Beanerball

Active member
Jul 17, 2023
459
330
63
It makes no damn sense at all. How can winning games, and granted tough road games, not mean more. Oh, well. College athletics just seems to make less and less sense. Let’s win a few more games and prove them wrong
 

Uscg1984

Well-known member
Jan 28, 2022
1,499
1,971
113
Maybe it's driven by the same AI that concluded George Washington was black and Vikings were asian.
 

LonghornsGamecocks

Active member
Feb 24, 2024
412
370
63
From what I can gather, margin of victory has no direct effect. Rather, efficiency is normalized by points scored per hundred possessions and points allowed per hundred possessions. There's an implied margin of victory between those measures.

The "per hundred possessions" concept should also effectively normalize pace of play or points per game distortions. Makes me think the most relevant legacy stats that would proxy the "per hundred" would be FGM% on offense and FGA% on defense.
 

RUMMENIGGE

Active member
Jan 31, 2022
638
393
63
I do not think the NET matches South Caroina's sixth spot seeding. I think a NET in the 50ish range would be a 10 seed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LexCock11

adcoop

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2023
747
920
93
We would not be in the tournament if our NET ranking meant much.
Yep, Indiana State’s NET is 29 and they are out. Pitt is 40 and they are out. NET seems to lean too much towards OOC Scheduling. For example, Clemson is leaning on OOC wins over us, Alabama, and TCU. Committee just seemed to look over Pitt having a better conference record over 20 games and went further in the ACC tournament. Felt Pitt got hosed, but everyone can’t make it in.
 

LexCock11

Joined Nov 26, 2018
Jan 30, 2022
584
1,126
93
Obviously, we're beating a dead horse at this point, but make sense out of this:

Grand Canyon #51
Quad 1: 1-0
Quad 2: 2-2
Quad 3: 10-2
Quad 4: 14-0

South Carolina #52
Quad 1: 5-5
Quad 2: 6-0
Quad 3: 6-2
Quad 4: 9-0

Grand Canyon is a 12 seed and we are a 6 seed. It's been established that the NET is only one of several tools used to evaluate who should be in the tournament. Indiana St was #29 in the NET and did not get in. It's not the be all end all.
 

CockyNChicago

New member
Nov 25, 2022
29
15
3
Obviously, we're beating a dead horse at this point, but make sense out of this:

Grand Canyon #51
Quad 1: 1-0
Quad 2: 2-2
Quad 3: 10-2
Quad 4: 14-0

South Carolina #52
Quad 1: 5-5
Quad 2: 6-0
Quad 3: 6-2
Quad 4: 9-0

I have a strong quantitative analysis game. The Net ranking is pure garbage IMHO. It seems to over-engineer the predictive process and therefore getting too far away from the sole objective - Wins and losses. The proof will be in the pudding though. I have the Net rankings for all NCAA participants and intend to follow how well it does in the tourney.

Also, conference tournament success is different from regular season success and will be different than NCAA tourney success. The key differentiating factor - ability to play on just 24 hr rest. It's the same as why an MLB team can have a record breaking regular season yet falter in a quick Best of 5-7 in the playoffs. Different levels of rest materially impact how well a team plays vis a vis another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prestonyte

Prestonyte

Well-known member
Jun 1, 2022
5,261
5,214
113
I have a strong quantitative analysis game. The Net ranking is pure garbage IMHO. It seems to over-engineer the predictive process and therefore getting too far away from the sole objective - Wins and losses. The proof will be in the pudding though. I have the Net rankings for all NCAA participants and intend to follow how well it does in the tourney.

Also, conference tournament success is different from regular season success and will be different than NCAA tourney success. The key differentiating factor - ability to play on just 24 hr rest. It's the same as why an MLB team can have a record breaking regular season yet falter in a quick Best of 5-7 in the playoffs. Different levels of rest materially impact how well a team plays vis a vis another.
Who did you beat, who did you lose to and who did you play is firm information. The rest is manipulated stats.
 

18IsTheMan

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2022
12,981
11,056
113
Either the NET rankings matter or they don't. Indiana State, who was probably not a tournament-caliber team, nevertheless had a #28 NET ranking. If a team with a #28 ranking doesn't get in the NCAAT, then I'm just not sure what purpose the NET serves.
 

31 Flavors

Member
Feb 9, 2024
44
34
18
I have a strong quantitative analysis game. The Net ranking is pure garbage IMHO. It seems to over-engineer the predictive process and therefore getting too far away from the sole objective - Wins and losses. The proof will be in the pudding though. I have the Net rankings for all NCAA participants and intend to follow how well it does in the tourney.

Also, conference tournament success is different from regular season success and will be different than NCAA tourney success. The key differentiating factor - ability to play on just 24 hr rest. It's the same as why an MLB team can have a record breaking regular season yet falter in a quick Best of 5-7 in the playoffs. Different levels of rest materially impact how well a team plays vis a vis another.
I get the sense the predictive process is actually under-engineered, data-starved and backward-looking, and would do better with richer data, particularly these days with the flow of transfers all over the map.

And later games should most definitely have more weight than earlier games. If it matters to the selection committee, then it should matter in the NET, otherwise what is the point of the NET?

Still, if the records vs. Q1 and Q2 mean anything, the Gamecocks being behind so many teams with far less impressive numbers is a mystery.

I definitely agree about downplaying conference tournament performance. Fatigue matters. Risk of injury matters. Having something/nothing to win/lose matters. Look at the teams that overperformed in any power-conference tourney. Underperformers didn't have much to lose except maybe a key player to injury. Hanging on to a 5 seed isn't worth gassing yourself. Nor is going from a 2 to a 1, for that matter.

As for some of the unfairly labeled "traditional one-bid" conferences, every team's whole season was on the line. James Madison's 31st win of the season was in the Sun Belt championship, and they had to get it. But that's another discussion.
 
Last edited:

18IsTheMan

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2022
12,981
11,056
113
Some in the media are urging people to settle down about the NET rankings, saying the committee does not use the NET as a selection tool but rather uses the NET to sort teams for seeding after they have been selected
 

ToddFlanders

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2022
947
936
93
Some in the media are urging people to settle down about the NET rankings, saying the committee does not use the NET as a selection tool but rather uses the NET to sort teams for seeding after they have been selected

More lies! Or else UNC wouldn't be a 1 seed. They're 7th in the NET - behind 2-seed Tenn, 2-seed Iowa State, 2-seed Arizona, and 4-seed Auburn.

And how about Auburn as a 4-seed when they're ranked #5 in the NET?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 18IsTheMan

ToddFlanders

Well-known member
Jan 20, 2022
947
936
93
From what I can gather, margin of victory has no direct effect. Rather, efficiency is normalized by points scored per hundred possessions and points allowed per hundred possessions. There's an implied margin of victory between those measures.

The "per hundred possessions" concept should also effectively normalize pace of play or points per game distortions. Makes me think the most relevant legacy stats that would proxy the "per hundred" would be FGM% on offense and FGA% on defense.

And herein lies the issue - no one actually knows for sure how the NET works (outside of those that made it). Your explanation seems as plausible as any other - but there's no telling.

If they really think this is the best predictor, then the NCAA should let everyone know exactly what it is based on and exactly how to increase your NET score (as a team and as a conference). They've made the NET algorithm to reflect specific criteria, let everyone know the criteria so teams can play to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LonghornsGamecocks

18IsTheMan

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2022
12,981
11,056
113
More lies! Or else UNC wouldn't be a 1 seed. They're 7th in the NET - behind 2-seed Tenn, 2-seed Iowa State, 2-seed Arizona, and 4-seed Auburn.

And how about Auburn as a 4-seed when they're ranked #5 in the NET?
Yep
 
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login