I give him credit for calling that PSU loss as their last loss of the season.
NET Rankings are Flawed
- Thread starter BillBrasky4Cy
- Start date
I give him credit for calling that PSU loss as their last loss of the season.
He had their last game (at Illinois) as their only loss. He still has that as their only loss now. Still not happening. I think they go 6-4 and end up 20-11. They sweep Neb, win MN, MI, NW at home and one of at MI, at MD or Mich St at home. They lose at tOSU, at Illinois, and two of three (at MI, at MD, Mich St at CHA).
Explain to me how these resumes are even remotely close to the same? It's almost like Q1 wins don't even matter anymore.
UNI won on the road last night and fell a spot.
Great system we've got here. Just keep it a secret so that it can be manipulated. Nice job guys.
North Carolina is 0-7 in Quad 1 and 5 of those were absolute blowouts and they're 37. This thing is such a farce.
Great system we've got here. Just keep it a secret so that it can be manipulated. Nice job guys.
North Carolina is 0-7 in Quad 1 and 5 of those were absolute blowouts and they're 37. This thing is such a farce.
I agree with the thesis of this board but to then turnaround and quote "quad 1" victories is hypocritical to me. NET is flawed though I agree
The common theme that I see with NET is that it seems significantly weighted towards offensive rating.
For example:
Iowa - 4th in offense
North Carolina - 20th in offense
Loyola - 29th in offense
They are all ahead of us in NET but their wins do not match ours.
For example:
Iowa - 4th in offense
North Carolina - 20th in offense
Loyola - 29th in offense
They are all ahead of us in NET but their wins do not match ours.
So score points, beat up on crappy teams is the key to being rated high? Makes sense.
It's all about offensive output/efficiency. Iowa hangs a ton of points on poor defenses but that's all they have to show for it. The committee has clearly adjusted the weights regarding the value Q1 and Q2 carry because they almost don't even seem to matter this year.
Last edited:
You left out closing the gap in blowouts. Nothing like pressing another teams scrubs with your starters. Fran 100% gets the formula. The non con they played is inexcusable.
There is a scenario where say ISU finishes 6-12 in the league and 19-13 overall but has 8+ Q1 wins and no bad losses...and then an Iowa team that is top 20 NET with an 11-9 league mark and 21 overall wins but ZERO Q1 wins.
Who gets in? Do both get in? Are both left out? I'm not saying it's an either/both/compared against each other only situation. But just shows how crazy the NET is. It's worth noting that a team with ZERO Q1 wins has NEVER received an at large bid.
Who gets in? Do both get in? Are both left out? I'm not saying it's an either/both/compared against each other only situation. But just shows how crazy the NET is. It's worth noting that a team with ZERO Q1 wins has NEVER received an at large bid.
They’re not similar, and the committee wouldn’t even remotely consider this a debate about who to include if it were decided today.
We’re getting penalized for bad offensive efficiency, especially against our Q4 opponents who an NCAA at large bid would typically blow out (Beating Alabama Stateby only 10 is hurting us). It’s a part of Net efficiency (offense-defense) and ours must not be very good.
Our Win % and Adjusted win % are also probably not amazing.
College basketball's NET rankings, explained
Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.
This is the ultimate question and a great 1. If you use the NET rankings fully I'd say today both should get in no question. Iowa State has beaten many many good teams bases off the NET Rankings so it's in. Iowa has a lofty NET ranking so it gets in. If you use it selectively to determine the opponents you've beaten then Iowa's in trouble. If you use it selectively by the individual ranking Iowa States in trouble. I'm really not sure what they'll do or which is best. I lean to be Iowa State and have the quality wins over ranking based off bracketolgists still having teams like Providence as high as a 2.
During the Hoiberg and Orr ears our teams scored a lot of points, played crappy defense and were bad on the road. They would have looked good in the NET rankings (much like TOE) but nobody would have complained they were ranked too high.
This team is severely challenged on offense and the number reflect that.
I'd guess that offense is a big component in NET rankings because most people would rather watch a game with scoring in the70 or 80s as opposed to ones in the 50s and 60s.
This team is severely challenged on offense and the number reflect that.
I'd guess that offense is a big component in NET rankings because most people would rather watch a game with scoring in the70 or 80s as opposed to ones in the 50s and 60s.
I'd guess you're wrong.
If the goal is ranking the teams accurately, watchability shouldn't be a part of the equation. If you look at Final Four participants and national champions in the KenPom era, nearly all of them have elite defenses. An elite offense with a mediocre defense is a recipe to be bounced before the Final Four.
Very tough call. Both teams have highly unusual and historically unique resumes that could enter meme-territory on Selection Sunday if they keep up the trends (Iowa doesn’t win a Q1 game all year and ISU only wins 1 more game this year).
I think Iowa could slide A LOT if they struggle down the stretch given the lack of Q1 wins. Could fall into the 30s on NET and then become a 2019 NC State and get “snubbed” of a bid or be “just in” because of the lack of good wins.
ISU at 18 wins would be an interesting test case given I can’t imagine many teams have played 15+ Q1 games and won 8 of them as well as avoided any Q3/Q4 losses. NET is penalizing them for bad efficiency metrics vs our Q4 opponents too.
There must be a hidden category called "Name on the Jersey" . It seems to be heavily weighted.
