OFFICIAL NET Thread - 2022/23

[PSAL_Hoops]

It does a good enough job to be useful as a sorting tool.

Maybe. I guess it depends how bothered you are by its flaws relative to the flaws of the old RPI system.

In the old RPI system used for years and years, 14-6 St Louis would be sitting in great shape at 42. We’d have said their blind resume includes wins over 22 and 40 (both pretty solid field teams in Memphis and Providence). Decent wins over 75 and 85 (SI and Drake). Two games against RPI 36 (VCU) left on the schedule. Their worst losses wouldn’t have been perceived to be that bad - single digit losses at RPI 111 (@ UMass) and home vs 160 (a 14-7 team).

In the NET system though, these Q3 and Q4 blemishes are seemingly unrecoverable with their garbage Net of 85.

Now, I’m not saying St Louis should be in the field, but I sure think they should be in ahead of 11-9 OSU. If your curious - under the old, pure win system, OSU would be sitting at RPI 99. Completely out of the discussion sitting at 2 games above 500.

 

[bac2therac]

Rpi had its issues but at least winning a game mattered

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Any school losing 6 of 8 shouldnt be ranked 7

True - but I’m less bothered by this one than OSU in talking about using the metric as a sorting tool for field selection. If it’s not used for seeding, its more okay in this case since UConn clearly still has a field worthy resume.

Net says RU is 19. RPI says we’re at 46 (big discrepancy) but neither system “fails” in assessing our field worthiness. We’d still be solidly in under the old system at 46 with a road win over RPI 3, home wins over 34, 49, 50 and 52. That would’ve been plenty good enough - and these metrics have never historically been used for seeding.

In OSU’s case - they’d have barely been an RPi top 100 team with no real signature. Did an RPI 99 team ever even make the NIT under the old system as At Large?

 

[kcg88]

Not when it has uconn 7

Who should be ahead of them? How many? If your point is that UConn should be 13th instead of 7th I would say that's a rather negligible difference.

 

[fluoxetine]

Why is there a weighting at all? Why not just value the OOC and conference slate the same and base it on the opponent regardless of whether or not it’s a conference game.

What you describe is what they do. They don’t weight the games.

Maybe. I guess it depends how bothered you are by its flaws relative to the flaws of the old RPI system.

In the old RPI system used for years and years, 14-6 St Louis would be sitting in great shape at 42. We’d have said their blind resume includes wins over 22 and 40 (both pretty solid field teams in Memphis and Providence). Decent wins over 75 and 85 (SI and Drake). Two games against RPI 36 (VCU) left on the schedule. Their worst losses wouldn’t have been perceived to be that bad - single digit losses at RPI 111 (@ UMass) and home vs 160 (a 14-7 team).

In the NET system though, these Q3 and Q4 blemishes are seemingly unrecoverable with their garbage Net of 85.

Now, I’m not saying St Louis should be in the field, but I sure think they should be in ahead of 11-9 OSU. If your curious - under the old, pure win system, OSU would be sitting at RPI 99. Completely out of the discussion sitting at 2 games above 500.

Rpi had its issues but at least winning a game mattered

I didn’t have a strong opinion on RPI until I started looking it up to include in my comparison as requested by PSAL.

After looking at it more closely, it sucks. Like sucks really really hard. Virtually any other computer ranking would be better

 

[bac2therac]

Who should be ahead of them? How many? If your point is that UConn should be 13th instead of 7th I would say that's a rather negligible difference.

Half the Big 12

 

[biazza38]

Who should be ahead of them? How many? If your point is that UConn should be 13th instead of 7th I would say that's a rather negligible difference.

13th and 7th isn’t negligible.
If the tournament went by this, 7 would have you one the 2 line and 13 would have you on the 4 line. That’s significant

 

[Big boy stan]

What you describe is what they do. They don’t weight the games.

Since the formula is a top secret, I am not sure how you know this.

I actually think in the big picture, it is important to give the OOC games a bit of extra weight. Leagues generally play OOC early and then settle into their conference games late. The early OOC games are what decides how strong the different conferences are compared to each other and who the Q1 and Q4 teams are. Once you get into league play in a conference that did well in OOC and has a bunch of good NET numbers, winning and losing has little impact. The same is true if your conference did poorly OOC

OSU is a great example of this. With the BIG having one of the best NET averages and a bunch of teams with NETS better then 60 in December, going 1-6 with a bunch of Q1 loses only dropped them to a NET 27.

 

[fluoxetine]

Since the formula is a top secret, I am not sure how you know this.

It's not that top secret, they've given broad strokes about how it's calculated. But yes, I haven't seen the code, so I can't say with literal certainty.

I actually think in the big picture, it is important to give the OOC games a bit of extra weight. Leagues generally play OOC early and then settle into their conference games late. The early OOC games are what decides how strong the different conferences are compared to each other and who the Q1 and Q4 teams are. Once you get into league play in a conference that did well in OOC and has a bunch of good NET numbers, winning and losing has little impact. The same is true if your conference did poorly OOC

OSU is a great example of this. With the BIG having one of the best NET averages and a bunch of teams with NETS better then 60 in December, going 1-6 with a bunch of Q1 loses only dropped them to a NET 27.

You are arguing for giving OOC less weight.

 

[fluoxetine]

But also you misunderstand why Ohio St (and UConn) haven't dropped that far. It's about the relative margins of their wins and losses, not about weightings of OOC games.

 

[fluoxetine]

Going back to RPI discussion for a sec, current Big Ten RPIs:

#3 Purdue
#30 Michigan St.
#34 Maryland
#46 Rutgers
#47 Wisconsin
#49 Indiana
#52 Northwestern
#71 Illinois
#73 Penn St.
#76 Iowa
#83 Michigan
#87 Nebraska
#99 Ohio St.
#228 Minnesota

#46 Rutgers is behind North Texas, Charleston, Oral Roberts, Missouri, VCU, Clemson, Kent St., Saint Louis

RPI is not good. Whatever flaws NET has it is way better than this.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

What you describe is what they do. They don’t weight the games.



I didn’t have a strong opinion on RPI until I started looking it up to include in my comparison as requested by PSAL.

After looking at it more closely, it sucks. Like sucks really really hard. Virtually any other computer ranking would be better

It “sucks” for ranking. No question.

For sorting and field selection that’s more debatable. The entire B12 does not belong in the top 77 (a stone throw away from clean sweep of all conference Q1 and Q2 games).

TT is 10-10. They still have no Q1 and Q2 wins. Zero. They have a grand total of 2 Q3 wins. Temple would beat the snot out of everyone they beat, but yet our neutral loss to Temple gets bucketed with their home win over Eastern Washington. RPI understands that TT isn’t close to a fringe Q1/2 team. It ranks them at 176 -much closer to Minnesota (who actually has 2 better wins than them and no losses worse than anybody TT actually defeated).

 

[bac2therac]

It “sucks” for ranking. No question.

For sorting and field selection that’s more debatable. The entire B12 does not belong in the top 77 (a stone throw away from clean sweep of all conference Q1 and Q2 games).

TT is 10-10. They still have no Q1 and Q2 wins. Zero. They have a grand total of 2 Q3 wins. Temple would beat the snot out of everyone they beat, but yet our neutral loss to Temple gets bucketed with their home win over Eastern Washington. RPI understands that TT isn’t close to a fringe Q1/2 team. It ranks them at 176 -much closer to Minnesota (who actually has 2 better wins than them and no losses worse than anybody TT actually defeated).

Exactly

Texas Tech is garbage. They dont belong that high

 

[kcg88]

13th and 7th isn’t negligible.
If the tournament went by this, 7 would have you one the 2 line and 13 would have you on the 4 line. That’s significant

For the 80th time nobody is seeding based solely on NET

 

[RU848789]

yeah looks like February 6 or 7. That puts us at 5 weeks of in depth bracketology. Just think anything more is too soon. I have not even done any kind of attempt at a bracket even in my own personal time.

Next week probably just a write up piece with a general outline of how things stand. Looks like last year I did this on Feb 7 so looks like I am breaking my own rules and will do bracketology a week earlier this season...I think a few years back i didnt start one until maybe the 18th of Feb

It's like starting a winter storm thread 5 days out, lol, but I don't really care about starting either early - I just enjoy the analysis and what-ifs.

 

[bac2therac]

It's like starting a winter storm thread 5 days out, lol, but I don't really care about starting either early - I just enjoy the analysis and what-ifs.

Well there are peeps starting weather and bracketology threads 60 days out

 

[RU848789]

Well there are peeps starting weather and bracketology threads 60 days out

I think we can both agree that that's just ridiculous...

 

[ScarletDave]

I’m starting to get really sick of all these computer rankings in college basketball. By far the sport that makes it the biggest deal. This is sports, win the game, that’s it. Stupid to use scoring margin at all in a metric to decide season-defining things like the championship participating teams I’m sorry. Objective should be winning that should be 90% of the ranking and the other 10% can be people trying to rationalize “losing close to good teams” or whatever else

 

[RUfanSinceAnderson]

I’m starting to get really sick of all these computer rankings in college basketball. By far the sport that makes it the biggest deal. This is sports, win the game, that’s it. Stupid to use scoring margin at all in a metric to decide season-defining things like the championship participating teams I’m sorry. Objective should be winning that should be 90% of the ranking and the other 10% can be people trying to rationalize “losing close to good teams” or whatever else

I think strength of who you beat matters though.

 

[Scangg]

If they changed it to value wins more and efficiency less, would that disincentivize good teams from scheduling other good teams OCC and play more cupcakes to guarantee the wins and boost their NET that way?

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

If they changed it to value wins more and efficiency less, would that disincentivize good teams from scheduling other good teams OCC and play more cupcakes to guarantee the wins and boost their NET that way?

Not exactly - it hurt you in RPI to play the worst teams. You wanted to play teams who would end up with inflated overall records of their own. Because the opponents’ record component of the formula has a ton of weight.

Ideally - to exploit the formula in non-conference play you’d want to play more Quinnipac types (14-5) and avoid TT types (10-10). But def don’t want the worst teams on the schedule like CC or Sacred Heart.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I think strength of who you beat matters though.

It does. But the fact that TT “came close” to winning against some good teams shouldn’t define their strength as much as it does in the NET (using this as the standing example).

Minnesota’s recent performance in the BIG epitomizes this. 5 out of their last 7 conference games decided by 5 points or less. One win. One OT loss. They’ve taken some poundings too, don’t get me wrong.

But so has TT. TT has taken less efficiency adjusted “poundings” and has a better overall record, but then again, TT has barely played any Q2 or Q3 games (3 total). They lost the one Q2 game at home to Oklahoma. And beat the 2 fringe Q3 teams at home (Eastern Washington ame Louisiana Tech by 6 and 9 points). Minny beat their Q4 opponents too - they just played less games against them.

Basically what I’m saying is the available efficiency evidence out there that TT is a fringe Q1/Q2 team relative to Minnesota being a Q3/Q4 team (with risk of moving to Q4/Q4) has to be flawed because it isn’t remotely apples to apples. Yet with one win, TT would move to top 75 which means every road game against them piles on Q1 wins for B12 teams and home games Q2. Meanwhile the best we can hope for is Minny counting as a Q3 game.

 

[fluoxetine]

Texas Tech at #75 seems fine. Not really sure what the issue is. In general I think teams could schedule games against NBA teams, lose them all, and a lot of people would say “well look how bad their record is, they must be bad”

Even completely throwing out scoring margin, Texas Tech is ranked below every single team they’ve lost to:
#19
#27
#13
#10
#65
#9
#8
#14
#18
#25

 

[RUtrumpet92_rivals498139]

Swapped w Creighton. Down to 20.

 

[kcg88]

Bubbletology: USC replaces Arizona State as the Trojans defeated UCLA and the Sun Devils lost at Washington. Utah and Arizona State are now both right near the cut line.

 

[LeapinLou]

RU drops to #20. Barring an *** whoopin, unlikely the game against Iowa this weekend will do much to change that.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Texas Tech at #75 seems fine. Not really sure what the issue is. In general I think teams could schedule games against NBA teams, lose them all, and a lot of people would say “well look how bad their record is, they must be bad”

Even completely throwing out scoring margin, Texas Tech is ranked below every single team they’ve lost to:
#19
#27
#13
#10
#65
#9
#8
#14
#18
#25

Makes sense, huh? Sure it does. Until you realize that Minny could’ve done no worse in binary stats than exactly what TT did. I mean, you can’t dispute that right? Heck - even Central CT could do no worse than 0-10.

So then you move on to the wins. Minny beat every Q4 team they played just like TT did. 5-0 vs. 8-0. Minny is 0-3 vs. Q2. TT is 0-1 (neither beat a Q2 opponent but Minny actually has a Q1 win over OSU that TT doesn’t have). Let’s consider it a wash - that’s fair, no?

So I guess you’d tell me TT’s grand success in 2 Q3 games is the big differentor, huh? That’s all that’s left. Minny is 1-2 in Q3 while TT is 2-0. TT has a pair of single digit home wins over fringe Q3 mid majors 144 and 157. Minny’s neutral Q3 win over California Baptist 138 is indesputably better than these (since not at home), but again whatever.

I’ve now dissected everything except Minny’s 2 extra Q3 losses. One was a single digit loss to UNLV (NET 80) - TT hasn’t played any comparable games to this. The other was a bad loss to DePaul (158) but you cannot tell me that one loss should differentiate these teams by 3.5 quads. DePaul beat Xavier and lost to fellow B12 team Okie State by 4. They are better than EW and L-Tech despite the NETs but whatever again. Even if not, one bad game is not enough to explain a gap of NET 77 to NET 216.

 

[fluoxetine]

Makes sense, huh? Sure it does. Until you realize that Minny could’ve done no worse in binary stats than exactly what TT did. I mean, you can’t dispute that right? Heck - even Central CT could do no worse than 0-10.

So then you move on to the wins. Minny beat every Q4 team they played just like TT did. 5-0 vs. 8-0. Minny is 0-3 vs. Q2. TT is 0-1 (neither beat a Q2 opponent but Minny actually has a Q1 win over OSU that TT doesn’t have). Let’s consider it a wash - that’s fair, no?

So I guess you’d tell me TT’s grand success in 2 Q3 games is the big differentor, huh? That’s all that’s left. Minny is 1-2 in Q3 while TT is 2-0. TT has a pair of single digit home wins over fringe Q3 mid majors 144 and 157. Minny’s neutral Q3 win over California Baptist 138 is indesputably better than these (since not at home), but again whatever.

I’ve now dissected everything except Minny’s 2 extra Q3 losses. One was a single digit loss to UNLV (NET 80) - TT hasn’t played any comparable games to this. The other was a bad loss to DePaul (158) but you cannot tell me that one loss should differentiate these teams by 3.5 quads. DePaul beat Xavier and lost to fellow B12 team Okie State by 4. They are better than EW and L-Tech despite the NETs but whatever again. Even if not, one bad game is not enough to explain a gap of NET 77 to NET 216.

Do you actually believe Minnesota is better than Texas Tech? Texas Tech has a scoring margin of +7.5 vs NET SOS of 29th, Minnesota has a scoring margin of -4.70 vs NET SOS of 38th. Texas Tech is ranked above their best win and below their worst loss.

TT would crush Minnesota. Minnesota is awful.

 

[RUChoppin]

Minnesota is riding the Big 12's coattails in NET... and it looks like it's almost a feedback loop at this point. Big Ten is benefiting from this a bit, too.

75% of the Big 12 is in the Top 25 in NET, with OklaSt at 51, Okla at 65, and TTech at 75. They haven't played a team lower than 65 since 12/27.... when they had annihilated three 300+ teams (similar to what we did). Their entire schedule is Q1 on the road and no worse than Q2 at home. They'll have 17 Q1 games at season's end.

 

[bac2therac]

Do you actually believe Minnesota is better than Texas Tech? Texas Tech has a scoring margin of +7.5 vs NET SOS of 29th, Minnesota has a scoring margin of -4.70 vs NET SOS of 38th. Texas Tech is ranked above their best win and below their worst loss.

TT would crush Minnesota. Minnesota is awful.

I would say there isnt much difference. Both are schools that have trouble winning against quality schools. Minnesota did win at Ohio State, now that win certainly is losing its luster but good lord Texas Tech best win is EASTERN WASHINGTON!!!!! and they lost to Ohio State on a neutral court.

The Red Raiders are complete trash, they very well could be 0-17 in q1. They could not even beat the two mediocre big 12 schools AT HOME

Their non conference sos is 321 and they ran up over 100 points with 40 plus margins against 3 giant Q4 turds, if not their net would be closer to 100

so no why on earth would they crush Minnesota

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Do you actually believe Minnesota is better than Texas Tech? Texas Tech has a scoring margin of +7.5 vs NET SOS of 29th, Minnesota has a scoring margin of -4.70 vs NET SOS of 38th. Texas Tech is ranked above their best win and below their worst loss.

TT would crush Minnesota. Minnesota is awful.

But yet somehow Minny beat their one common opponent by 3 on the road, and TT lost by 7 at a neutral site…

Look - I get that how team A and B did against the same team isn’t always a great indicator, but neither is performance against cupcakes. Some bubble teams are built to crush Q4s easier than others (see our team last year).

 

[Scarlet Blind_rivals]

Texas Tech
182 NW St 73-49
305 Tx Southern 78-54
339 Louisville 70-38
*244 G'Town 79-65*
*233 Nicholls St 78-71*
319 Jackson St 102-52
353 Houston Christian 111-67
347 SC St 110-71

Minnesota
292 W. Mich 61-60
350 St Francis(NY) 72-54
313 C. Mich 68-60
307 Ark.-PB 72-56
284 Chicago St 58-55

I would say Texas Tech has a much stronger Offensive game plan and skill sets than Minnesota that would rate them much higher than Minnesota in the NET but the results on a Neutral court would probably resemble the Georgetown or Nicholls St games.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Texas Tech
182 NW St 73-49
305 Tx Southern 78-54
339 Louisville 70-38
*244 G'Town 79-65*
*233 Nicholls St 78-71*
319 Jackson St 102-52
353 Houston Christian 111-67
347 SC St 110-71

Minnesota
292 W. Mich 61-60
350 St Francis(NY) 72-54
313 C. Mich 68-60
307 Ark.-PB 72-56
284 Chicago St 58-55

I would say Texas Tech has a much stronger Offensive game plan and skill sets than Minnesota that would rate them much higher than Minnesota in the NET but the results on a Neutral court would probably resemble the Georgetown or Nicholls St games.

To me, it’s equally as meaningful that Minnesota beat the same decent opponent (OSU in a more hostile environment) than that TT beat a bunch bad teams by a bigger margin. It looks like Minnesota had 2 close calls against bad teams. Our team from last year performed far worse early against equally bad competition.

 

[kcg88]

Page 21 of people conflating team quality with resume quality.

 

[fluoxetine]

People literally think they’re the same thing because they believe in a magical winner quality that kicks in when the game is close.

 

[bac2therac]

Texas Tech does not have a resume for anything except as a bottom feeder in its conference

Minnesota right off the bat has better wins

 

[RutgHoops]

Page 21 of people conflating team quality with resume quality.

People literally think they’re the same thing because they believe in a magical winner quality that kicks in when the game is close.

You have folks who believe that beating the #182 team by 24 points is no different than beating the #292 team by 1 point. I very much disagree, but not sure you are going to be successful with your explanations. Understanding math (and science) has taken a beating over the last few years. I choose to no longer participate in the debate as my chosen profession requires me to understand how numbers work.

 

[kcg88]

Texas Tech does not have a resume for anything except as a bottom feeder in its conference

Minnesota right off the bat has better wins

Yes but who cares about resume for bad teams? Here are the four most impressive results for both:

Team A:
Lost by 6 at #13
Lost by 3 vs. #10
Lost in OT vs. #53
Lost by 2 at #9
Wins over #145 and #149, no other in the top 200
Worst loss is to #53. That's their only loss to a team rated #50 or worse.
Five biggest margins of victory: 50, 44, 39, 32, 24

Team B:
Win at #20
Lost by 4 vs. #23
Lost by 4 at #61
Lost by 3 at #69
Wins over #20 and #132, no other in the top 280
Worst loss is to #136. Eight losses to teams rated 50 or worse
Five biggest margins of victory: 18, 16, 8, 3, 3

Texas Tech is playing much better teams than Minnesota and just hasn't fluked their way into a win yet. If Texas Tech played Ohio State and Wisconsin and Nebraska instead of Kansas, TCU, and Texas they'd probably have a win too. They are the bottom feeder in their conference but their conference is insanely good.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Yes but who cares about resume for bad teams? Here are the four most impressive results for both:

Team A:
Lost by 6 at #13
Lost by 3 vs. #10
Lost in OT vs. #53
Lost by 2 at #9
Wins over #145 and #149, no other in the top 200
Worst loss is to #53. That's their only loss to a team rated #50 or worse.
Five biggest margins of victory: 50, 44, 39, 32, 24

Team B:
Win at #20
Lost by 4 vs. #23
Lost by 4 at #61
Lost by 3 at #69
Wins over #20 and #132, no other in the top 280
Worst loss is to #136. Eight losses to teams rated 50 or worse
Five biggest margins of victory: 18, 16, 8, 3, 3

Texas Tech is playing much better teams than Minnesota and just hasn't fluked their way into a win yet. If Texas Tech played Ohio State and Wisconsin and Nebraska instead of Kansas, TCU, and Texas they'd probably have a win too. They are the bottom feeder in their conference but their conference is insanely good.

TT did play OSU. They lost.

The purpose of the quad system is to be a sorting tool for resume analysis. Who Vegas thinks would win a future match up based on perceived talent level shouldn’t matter. For the most part, a Q1 win should mean you beat an At Large caliber team or, at absolute worst, a true bubble team. Teams like Texas Tech who have 10 wins (8 quad 4 and the two others quad 3 by single digits) should not count as Q1 or Q2 wins for other teams. TT has a Q3 level resume - meaning they will not even be in contention for NIT at large. That’s what I have a problem with. TT will end up a Q1 road win because eventually TT will beat one of the better teams in their league, just like NW State beat TCU on a given day. Play enough games - you’ll win one eventually.

 

[RUChoppin]

Yes but who cares about resume for bad teams? Here are the four most impressive results for both:

Team A:
Lost by 6 at #13
Lost by 3 vs. #10
Lost in OT vs. #53
Lost by 2 at #9
Wins over #145 and #149, no other in the top 200
Worst loss is to #53. That's their only loss to a team rated #50 or worse.
Five biggest margins of victory: 50, 44, 39, 32, 24

Team B:
Win at #20
Lost by 4 vs. #23
Lost by 4 at #61
Lost by 3 at #69
Wins over #20 and #132, no other in the top 280
Worst loss is to #136. Eight losses to teams rated 50 or worse
Five biggest margins of victory: 18, 16, 8, 3, 3

Texas Tech is playing much better teams than Minnesota and just hasn't fluked their way into a win yet. If Texas Tech played Ohio State and Wisconsin and Nebraska instead of Kansas, TCU, and Texas they'd probably have a win too. They are the bottom feeder in their conference but their conference is insanely good.

You're talking about one team edging out the other, like we were comparing 140 to 150.. but TTech is 75 and Minnesota is 215.