This is why NET rankings are gibberish

[18IsTheMan]

Cincy is 5-10 in Q1/Q2 games. We are 9-3. Q3/Q4 records are identical. Not to mention, they are 5-10 in their conference.

Is it just SOS? If so, does it not matter that they have put up a lousy record against that SOS?

 

[Uscg1984]

I don't know who Chip Collins is and if he has a large following, but having people publicly call out the flaws of the NET is a good thing. If the committee knows it's highly controversial, they are less likely to rely on it to screw over a deserving team.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I don't know who Chip Collins is and if he has a large following, but having people publicly call out the flaws of the NET is a good thing. If the committee knows it's highly controversial, they are less likely to rely on it to screw over a deserving team.

I can understand using SOS to differentiate between 2 teams with fairly even records, but it doesn't make sense when there is such a disparity in record. This is partly why I don't see the committee viewing us as a lock just yet. Cincy, even with their mediocre overall record, bad conference record and poor record against Q1/Q2 teams, is still perceived to be a bit better than us. Because they are Cincinatti.

We will not get any breaks from the committee.

 

[Uscg1984]

I can understand using SOS to differentiate between 2 teams with fairly even records, but it doesn't make sense when there is such a disparity in record.

I think somewhere along the way, we get screwed by the NET because we have had a lot of close wins. I'm not sure if it's called an "efficiency" score or what, but I think the close wins against lesser teams have hurt us - which is total bunk, because the ability to win close games is usually an important trait among good teams. I noticed after our 13-point win over Ole Miss had almost as big an impact on our net ranking (we went up 11 spots) as our win over UT did. But, clearly, the win over UT was much more substantial.

 

[Rogue Cock]

I've gotta believe this is the last year for the NET. Their rankings all over simply do not make any logical sense....and when that happens, credibility is completely lost. There is a flaw in their system.....without a doubt.

 

[Deleted11512]

I don't know, but I damn sure like having this gripe!! It beats debating whether you should reject a bid to play in the CBT or whatever that 3rd tournament is! lol

 

[Bubba Fett]

It's that d@mn efficiency element. As long as you are "efficient" in your loses your NET will be higher.

It's nuts.

 

[Prestonyte]

It's that d@mn efficiency element. As long as you are "efficient" in your loses your NET will be higher.

It's nuts.

How do you lose efficiently?
More importantly, why would you want to lose efficiently?

 

[Prestonyte]

Brownell makes a good point.

SVP's One Big Thing: CBB's out-of-conference scheduling game

Clemson Tigers coach Brad Brownell isn't happy about how Big 12 teams approach out-of-conference scheduling. Does he have a point? SVP investigates.

www.espn.com

 

[Viennacock]

An expert today says we are in (I'm not so certain) regardless of what we do down the stretch. He said the floor is a 10 seed if we lose out. 4 seed is possible if we win out. Personally, I think we should be a 2 or 3 seed if we win out. Means we have win the SEC tournament and beat 4 really good teams down the stretch.

 

[LonghornsGamecocks]

An expert today says we are in (I'm not so certain) regardless of what we do down the stretch. He said the floor is a 10 seed if we lose out. 4 seed is possible if we win out. Personally, I think we should be a 2 or 3 seed if we win out. Means we have win the SEC tournament and beat 4 really good teams down the stretch.

If we go 7-0 from here we're a 2 or 3 seed no doubt. We'd be SEC-T Champs, possibly SEC Reg Szn champs, and add 6 or 7 Quad 1 wins to our current resume.

However, if "win out" implies 4-0 reg season but not winning SEC-T, yeah I think 4 is our ceiling

 

[LonghornsGamecocks]

It's that d@mn efficiency element. As long as you are "efficient" in your loses your NET will be higher.

It's nuts.

I think there's legitimate efficiency variables in the equation. Questions are, "how is efficiency defined," and "how heavily is efficiency weighted?"

Strength of Schedule, Strength of Record, True Road Wins, True Neutral Site Wins, the old RPI calculation, maybe AP voter points received, Offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency - I think all of these make legitimate sense in the stew. I just don't know the right ratios of the ingredients.

 

[Viennacock]

If we go 7-0 from here we're a 2 or 3 seed no doubt. We'd be SEC-T Champs, possibly SEC Reg Szn champs, and add 6 or 7 Quad 1 wins to our current resume.

However, if "win out" implies 4-0 reg season but not winning SEC-T, yeah I think 4 is our ceiling

He was talking win-out, including SEC tournament.

He said the two big things they look at are quad 1 and 2 wins (in which we are very good) and quad 3 and 4 losses (also good there). He said quad 1 and 2 losses don't really hurt if you have a good many wins and quad 2 and 3 wins don't really help.

Also said the big margin defeat to Alabama etc. are really irrelevant.