Big Jump in the NET Rankings with the A&M Win
- Thread starter Uscg1984
- Start date
Yep. We'll never get above low 40s. I think waaaaay too much emphasis is put on OOC. At this point the OOC is pointless. You play 18 conference games. I don't think the committee will pay too much attention to our net. However, for all of the "let the computers decide" people, you will be happy there are humans in the room when it comes to our seeding. We are living proof of why it takes a hybrid approach.We jumped from #48 to #47.
WBB will never have this problem for this reason with our present coach. She bites off a lot, schedule-wise. But I'll say this, the way things were, Paris was right to set the OOC bar lower at this time.
''Efficiency'' raises its ugly head again. lolWe jumped from #48 to #47.
Yeah, he approached the schedule brilliantly. It was one that didn't necessarily help us, but didn't hurt us either. Gain momentum, gain confidence, eat in conference play.
I guess we are penalized because we haven’t really dominated many teams.
Yep...our style of play alone will cause that. Frankly, I'd rather have the wins.
There is a win column and a loss column - dominant column doesn't exist.
You don't have to dominate to win a championship - only takes one point, one run, etc.
I think it is a combination of factors. We have had limited success in the sport so the expectations are not there. We are not a real athletic team. We are just efficient. So, our success won't pop out at you right away. Our OOC was pretty soft and we didn't play in any of the primary holiday tournaments to gain eyeballs. We play a contained, sort of boring style that will not attract attention unless you are a fan of that program. Sort of like Bo Ryan's Wisconsin teams.
Exactly. The net is there to differentiate teams with similar resumes. It's not an end all, be all.
The expectations have nothing to with the net calcs though. It's low for 2 reason: The non con schedule and we're one of the slowest teams in the country on O. We don't get many possessions, and we don't score a lot.
How far in advance are games scheduled? I would have thought more than 1 - 2 years, but I'm assuming a shorter time frame? Maybe OOC games are shorter time frames?
Yes, somehow they have Cincinnati a bit higher than us, even though our résumé is much, much, much, better.
I don't understand why net rankings has any significance at all. Margin of victory should not carry any weight as some teams will give up and play subs at some point.
All that really matters is wins, losses and strength of schedule.
MOV isn't included in the net. Or I should say it's not directly included. If you beat a team by more than other teams have beaten that team you will get more credit in the NET. And I don't disagree with that.
OOC basketball schedules are months in advance, longer in the case of big matchups. Football years in advance but allowing for the odd cancelations that require improvising.
What's interesting is that the NET website lists the Quad 1, Quad 2, Quad 3, and Quad 4 records for every team, so you would assume these are the most important factors in determining the overall ranking. There is no column for "efficiency," or scoring margin or anything like that, so one would assume these are fairly minor factors. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
Consider our quad records compared to #15 St. Mary's:
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
SC 3-3 6-0 5-2 9-0
St Mary's 4-2 3-2 4-2 11-0
They have a slightly better Q1 record, we have a significantly better Q2, we have similar Q3s and Q4s and they have played even more "fog up a mirror" teams than we have. Yet they are 32 positions higher in the rankings. If challenge anyone to make sense out of that.
Consider our quad records compared to #15 St. Mary's:
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
SC 3-3 6-0 5-2 9-0
St Mary's 4-2 3-2 4-2 11-0
They have a slightly better Q1 record, we have a significantly better Q2, we have similar Q3s and Q4s and they have played even more "fog up a mirror" teams than we have. Yet they are 32 positions higher in the rankings. If challenge anyone to make sense out of that.
WE might not make the tournament.
2019 NC State (NET: 33); 2019 Clemson (35); 2019 Texas (38); 2019 Furman (41); and 2021 Penn State (42) were left out.
and last year OK ST (47), Rutgers (40) and even UNC (46) failed to make the tournament.
If they'll leave out an UNC at 46 they'll definitely leave us out.
2019 NC State (NET: 33); 2019 Clemson (35); 2019 Texas (38); 2019 Furman (41); and 2021 Penn State (42) were left out.
and last year OK ST (47), Rutgers (40) and even UNC (46) failed to make the tournament.
If they'll leave out an UNC at 46 they'll definitely leave us out.
I agree, I don't think we're as much of a lock as people think. Yes, I think we have done enough to make the tournament, and It would be pretty stunning, though, if we were left out. I don't know about UNC's NET ranking last year, but they finished the regular season 19-12 (11-9).
If we can go 2-1 in our final 3, which will be extremely tough, we'll finish in the top 25 and be a lock. For a school like us, you just can't leave any doubt in the minds of the committee.
We are a lock. You will drive yourself nuts trying to make any sense of the net and how it relates to the actual selections. But that's the thing I've been saying the whole time. It's only a piece of the puzzle. Focus on Q1 record first. That's going to be the most important barometer in their selections. If you have proven over the course of a 32 game schedule that you cannot compete against good teams, you're not getting in. Here are those teams' Q1 records that were referenced:
NCST - 3-9
Clem - 1-10
TX - 6-10
FU - 1-5
PSU - 3-12
OSU - 6-12
RU - 4-7
UNC - 1-9
We are currently 3-3. A better exercise would be to go through and see how many teams that were .500 in Q1 got left out. My guess is that's a very short list. And of the ones that did, they likely had a bad Q3/Q4 record. That's what happened to Clem last year. They were 4-4 in Q1. But they also had 5 Q3/Q4 losses. The committee wants teams that compete with other good teams, and don't lose to bad teams.
The ACC was a freaking joke last year. UNC went 7-13 against Q1/Q2 competition. They essentially gamed the NET with a tough noncon that didn't penalize them for losing. Same thing the B12 is doing this year.
I think we should be a lock. But there are teams with better NET rankings that have been left out. I'm not arguing we shouldn't be a lock or that we haven't done enough. Like I said, it would be pretty stunning if we were left out, but there are teams who are stunned every year.
We are not a lock.
A lock means that you will get in if you lose the rest of your games. Not the case for us. We need a rating better than 30 to get in. Not a 64 as many people say because many of the automatic qualifiers are small conference winners who have bad ratings and take up many of the available slots of the 64 (65/66) playoff teams.
I have a feeling that we will beat all remaining regular season games!
I don’t have the same feeling for the SECT or the NCAAT.
A lock means that you will get in if you lose the rest of your games. Not the case for us. We need a rating better than 30 to get in. Not a 64 as many people say because many of the automatic qualifiers are small conference winners who have bad ratings and take up many of the available slots of the 64 (65/66) playoff teams.
I have a feeling that we will beat all remaining regular season games!
I don’t have the same feeling for the SECT or the NCAAT.
We're not getting left out for losing to UF, UT, and MSU. It's just not happening. We don't need a NET of 30 or better. And that's a good thing bc we could run the table and not have that. But it doesn't matter.
Yeah there are so many variables. Some team makes a crazy run in a conference tournament and wins to take an automatic qualifier spot when they would not have otherwise made it. One year not too long ago, there was rash of teams who stole automatic qualifying bids and it caused a bit of chaos.
If we lost out and lost our first game of the SECT.
It could happen. Probably won't. It wouldn't be unprecedented. Put it this way, we won't get any benefit of the doubt from the committee. At all.
Last edited:
I think we're in, but I'd sleep a lot easier with just one more win. 12 conference wins would be bulletproof and "bubble"-proof.
Right. I'd like to just make it airtight from anyone's perspective. From my perspective, it already is. But I'm a fan. I have to assume the committee is looking for reasons to keep us out. Maybe they aren't that sinister.
We are without a doubt a lock now. That Ole Miss win sealed the deal.
2019
NC State 24-12 record but 3-9 in Quad 1
Clemson 20-14 record but 1-10 in Quad 1
Texas 21-16 record, 6-10 Quad 1, 2-8 on the road and only 8-10 in conference.
Furman 22-8 record but 1-5 in Quad 1 and a non-con SOS of only 195 which is pretty poor for a smaller conference seeking an at large bid.
2021
Penn State 11-14 was there record enough said.
2023
UNC 1-9 in Quad 1 and 20-13 overall.
Rutgers team while having a decent 4-7 Quad 1 record also had a 2-5 Quad 3 record and was 19-15.
Ok State has the best case of the 3 but it's record of 20-16 did them in.
We are 23-5 with a Quad 1/2 record of 9-3 with only 2 bad losses of the season. With at least 4 games left, even if we lose out we will still have a pretty respectable 23-9 record. That would mean we still would have a positive Quad 1/2 record and our on road record would still be strong as well. This isn't 2016, right now we're only playing for seeding for the tournament.
Last edited:
How many teams are in each quadrant? Are they equally distributed? I count 362 teams in D1. Does that mean that Q1 consists of 90-91 teams? Just doing a quick scan, I see that we're 8-4 against the current top 25% of the teams in D1, with Georgia as the only loss among the remainder.
Not quite as simple. Home Q1 is top 30. Neutral Q1 is top 50. Away Q1 is top 75.
Those things may be true but the NET is strictly an algorithm that doesn't take into account the history of the program, athleticism and the tournaments that we played in. It does have offensive and defensive efficiency factors but apparently we don't score well in those. Because it is proprietary, we can't see exactly why we are given a score. We just get to see vague references to the areas being scored.
I've been trying to make this point in some other posts but most fans on this site refuse to believe it. We could be in real danger due to exactly the reasons you mention. Most of the committee doesn't follow us regardless of how big a splash some of our upsets have been. The NET is the biggest component for filtering teams for the tournament and we may get filtered out before we even have a chance to make a cut. It's happened to us before in the pre-NET days but with a similar type of system.
The post you are agreeing with proves that the net has a loose correlation to whether or not a team makes it. We are a national story. LP is a strong contender for national coach of the year. We’re a top 20 AP team. To say the committee isn’t paying attention is laughable.
The NET is NOT the biggest filter. It if we’re, then more too 68 teams would get it. The biggest filter is Q1/Q2 record. You’re not getting in if you can’t compete there. It’s not that complicated.
The qualm I have is that there are teams above us in the NET rankings who have considerably worse Q1/Q2 records than we do.
Funny, talking to my parents on the phone. They live in PA. My mom was talking all about the women's game against Arkansas last night. She watches every women's game and is always talking about the women. She said "I don't know who to follow for men this year. I used to like Duke when Kryzewski was there, but they aren't good as this year." I said "How about the Carolina men!? We're having our best season in like 30 years."
She said "You don't hear anything at all about the men. Isn't that sad?"
As good as we have been, we aren't getting the national recognition some might think.