NET rankings make no sense

[NWADog]

I saw we dropped a few spots after a win against a bad South Carolina team… I dug a little further into the NET rankings this morning and see that Arkansas is 14th… we are 44th.
Arkansas is 7-10 in Q1-Q2 games and has 1 loss in Q3-Q4 games
Mississippi State is 8-9 in Q1-Q2 games and has 1 loss in Q3-Q4 games
We also beat them at their place… how does this make any sense for them to be 30(!!!) spots ahead of us?

 

[NWADog]

In the last 10 we are 8-2 with 2 very close losses to Bama and on the road to Missouri

Arkansas is 5-5 in the last 10…

We are 20-10 they are 19-11 and safely in…

 

[patdog]

Like any computer ranking, it's only as good as the algorithm it uses. And that one is crap.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

I can't make sense of it either but I think that every time one of our former opponents loses, it hurts.

As they drop, so do we but even then, Arkansas lost to State and they lost more games and lost to LSU for goodness sakes. I don't get it. We got two top 25 wins and Ark? One that I see.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

From the factors they tell us impact NET, the most glaring difference is in the non-conference schedule.

Average Opponent Net for them is 89, for us it's 129. (That's the whole schedule though.)
Non Conference strength of schedule for them is 94, for us it's 237. That plays out in the Q3 and Q4 records. Quad 3 and 4 for them is 10-1 and 2-0. For us it's 4-1 and 8-0. They loaded up in Q3, we loaded up in Q4.

 

[Drebin]

I saw we dropped a few spots after a win against a bad South Carolina team… I dug a little further into the NET rankings this morning and see that Arkansas is 14th… we are 44th.
Arkansas is 7-10 in Q1-Q2 games and has 1 loss in Q3-Q4 games
Mississippi State is 8-9 in Q1-Q2 games and has 1 loss in Q3-Q4 games
We also beat them at their place… how does this make any sense for them to be 30(!!!) spots ahead of us?

I'd take a look at strength of schedule....our schedule in the non-conference pretty much sucked.

 

[patdog]

Quad 3 and 4 for them is 10-1 and 2-0. For us it's 4-1 and 8-0. They loaded up in Q3, we loaded up in Q4.

You simply can't play that many games vs terrible teams. There's no excuse for it. If we move 4 of those Q4 games to Q3 games, we're comfortably in the tournament today.

That said, this is a huge flaw in most all of the computerized ranking systems. They make a distinction between playing the #250 team and playing the #350 team. And yeah, #250 is going to beat #350 most every time. But in games vs top 50 teams, it really doesn't matter, they're both gonna lose and it's not gonna be close.

 

[peewee.sixpack]

I'd take a look at strength of schedule....our schedule in the non-conference pretty much sucked.

Just took a peek at Arkansas and it sucks as bad or worse than ours. The did get beat by Creighton which is a good team but Creighton has been beat twice by Marquette. There is no way this makes any logical sense.

 

[Drebin]

Just took a peek at Arkansas and it sucks as bad or worse than ours. The did get beat by Creighton which is a good team but Creighton has been beat twice by Marquette. There is no way this makes any logical sense.

There are degrees of suckage. Their suckage is better than our suckage. D@A did a pretty good job of breaking it down in his post.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Rigged system

 

[MTNDawg.sixpack]

Jerry Palm said, on the radio this morning, that NET is largely influenced by margin of victory. I have no idea if that is true, but our team is not one that blows people out.

 

[RopeDawg]

I can't make sense of it either but I think that every time one of our former opponents loses, it hurts.

As they drop, so do we but even then, Arkansas lost to State and they lost more games and lost to LSU for goodness sakes. I don't get it. We got two top 25 wins and Ark? One that I see.

We have 3 top 25 wins- Marquette, TCU, A&M

 

[mstateglfr]

Rigged system

Rigged for who?

 

[MSUDC11-2.0]

From the factors they tell us impact NET, the most glaring difference is in the non-conference schedule.

Average Opponent Net for them is 89, for us it's 129. (That's the whole schedule though.)
Non Conference strength of schedule for them is 94, for us it's 237. That plays out in the Q3 and Q4 records. Quad 3 and 4 for them is 10-1 and 2-0. For us it's 4-1 and 8-0. They loaded up in Q3, we loaded up in Q4.

I’ve been beating the drum since the Stansbury era that we’ve gotta stop doing a round robin of the SWAC and MEAC every November/December.

The difference in playing Alabama A&M and playing South Alabama is large. You can still play mid major teams that should be comfortable wins, just play as few games against teams in the 250+ range as possible.

 

[FlotownDawg]

We play way too many SWAC teams. We played three SWAC teams in the pre conference schedule; Mississippi Valley State, Arkansas Pine Bluff and Jackson State. MVSU’s NET ranking is 357, Pine Bluff’s is 327 and JSU’s is 311. That’s ridiculous. There is no reason to play teams that bad.

 

[patdog]

I’ve been beating the drum since the Stansbury era that we’ve gotta stop doing a round robin of the SWAC and MEAC every November/December.

The difference in playing Alabama A&M and playing South Alabama is large. You can still play mid major teams that should be comfortable wins, just play as few games against teams in the 250+ range as possible.

It's not just basketball, it's our entire athletic dept. And it's been that way since way before Stansbury ever set foot in Starkville. Frustrates me to no end. We intentionally sabotage our chances of postseason play and postseason seedings for a few blowout wins early in the season in virtually every sport we play.

 

[RockyDog]

We play way too many SWAC teams. We played three SWAC teams in the pre conference schedule; Mississippi Valley State, Arkansas Pine Bluff and Jackson State. MVSU’s NET ranking is 357, Pine Bluff’s is 327 and JSU’s is 311. That’s ridiculous. There is no reason to play teams that bad.

Ding ding ding. This point was made in November. We had 3 very good OOC wins, but playing THREE SWAC teams very well could be our downfall. Luckily for us, Jans and crew took care of business by getting those impressive wins and not dropping a couple of head-scratchers like the previous staff was known for doing.

If we had played just about ANY Sun-belt, CUSA , or SOCON team in place of 2 of those, we are in great shape. Replace 2 of those SWAC wins with wins against Troy, South Alabama, UAB, Samford, MTSU and we aren't even sweating a bid. Hell, play Northwestern State or Nicholls and they are STILL better than anyone from the SWAC. Point being, there are 3 or 4 mid-major conferences with PLENTY of teams to choose from in our geographic footprint, that wouldn't be a NET/RPI killer like the SWAC teams are.

Don't know who is/was responsible, but that crap should NEVER happen again.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Rigged system

It’s not rigged. Don’t play SWAC and directional schools so much in non conference.

 

[Perd Hapley]

It’s not rigged. Don’t play SWAC and directional schools so much in non conference.

Exactly. People have been b*tching about this since the schedule was first announced, because you could see this scenario coming a mile away. Regardless of sport, the NCAA has made no secret for 25+ years of what teams need to do to impress the selection committees, and it always starts with non-conference scheduling. We were very fortunate that we got the Marquette and Utah wins, because we’d be toast without either one when looking at the rest of the teams we played.

Did the same thing in baseball last year, too. It obviously ended up not mattering, but even if we had finished with 15-16 SEC wins we were still going to be left out of the NCAA’s last year because of our galactically bad nonconference schedule. It makes zero sense that it keeps happening.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Just took a peek at Arkansas and it sucks as bad or worse than ours. The did get beat by Creighton which is a good team but Creighton has been beat twice by Marquette. There is no way this makes any logical sense.

I agree that it is hard to reconcile that they are that far ahead of us, but the schedules are very much not the same. San Jose State, Bradley, UNC-Greenboro, Troy and Fordham are not world beaters and not even NIT teams most likely, but they are clearly higher quality teams than Valley, UAPB, Jackson State and Omaha.

Hogs also beat San Diego State - another top 15 team.

 

[MSUDC11-2.0]

I agree that it is hard to reconcile that they are that far ahead of us, but the schedules are very much not the same. San Jose State, Bradley, UNC-Greenboro, Troy and Fordham are not world beaters and not even NIT teams most likely, but they are clearly higher quality teams than Valley, UAPB, Jackson State and Omaha.

Hogs also beat San Diego State - another top 15 team.

I think people have to realize there is a difference in playing a bad team and playing a team so bad that you should never even have considered scheduling them. Our problem is we schedule way too many of the latter group almost every year.

If you want to throw an in-state SWAC school a bone, OK whatever. But that should be the only game like that you schedule that year. Don’t schedule Mississippi Valley and then also schedule Jackson State, Alcorn, Pine Bluff, Prairie View, Bethune Cookman, Florida A&M, etc.

 

[maroonmania]

Jerry Palm said, on the radio this morning, that NET is largely influenced by margin of victory. I have no idea if that is true, but our team is not one that blows people out.

Margin of victory is one of the worst things to use but yes, I remember something about you want to beat someone at least by 10 points or more because if you do it has a positive impact on your Net ranking. Boyd mentioned that several times when he was here.

 

[FlotownDawg]

Just think if Nicholls’ last second 3-pointer had gone in instead of missing. Just that one loss at home against a team currently 254 in the NET would’ve put us nowhere near the bubble. There are very fine lines in making or missing the tournament.

 

[anon1758050382]

It’s not rigged. Don’t play SWAC and directional schools so much in non conference.

I think most programs understand this. The issue is being able to schedule the opponents you want. If we can start making the tournament regularly, more perennial tournament/bubble teams will be motivated to schedule us.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

It seems it's better to lose to a quad 3 than beat a quad 4.

 

[mstateglfr]

I think most programs understand this. The issue is being able to schedule the opponents you want. If we can start making the tournament regularly, more perennial tournament/bubble teams will be motivated to schedule us.

Again though, that isnt needed. We dont need to swap MVSU at #357 for UAB at #57. All that needs to happen is a swap of MVSU at #357 for Northwestern State at #196 or Mercer at #229. That will improve SOS significantly.
MVSU, Omaha, Jackson State, and AR- Pine Bluff really hurt.

As for improving our NET- I would totally accept 2 road games in December where we play at some small conference schools that are projected to be in the top 240 for NET.
Lets go to Gardner Webb or Texas State- why the 17 not? Some of those December games have more people on the benches than in the stands.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Margin of victory is one of the worst things to use but yes, I remember something about you want to beat someone at least by 10 points or more because if you do it has a positive impact on your Net ranking. Boyd mentioned that several times when he was here.

They took out the margin of victory component last year or the year before. Fear not though, you will still hear some announcers reference it. I was driving recently and heard the University of Houston radio crew talking about in the last minute of their game against Memphis.