The Big 12 ‘gaming’ the NET is bonkers to me. Is anyone else seeing all the chatter online? Even Scott VanPelt talked about it on Sportscenter last night. I don’t get it.
The amount of butthurt from countless people about
- Thread starter dahliaclone
- Start date
It's objectively true but them's the rules so you might as well use them to your advantage.
The league has done a fantastic job with it.
The league has done a fantastic job with it.
There's no such thing as gaming the system. At worst, it's exploiting an existing advantage which was already available to everyone else. At best, it's a system of measure factually showing the conference is strong and others are in denial of this.
I guess but when we made this schedule how were we supposed to know we were gonna be this good? And Iowa has been doing this for YEARS. Just strange it’s such a hot topic now.
It's amusing. I think other conferences are at their breaking point when it comes to hearing how good the Big 12 is. And I'm here for it.
And what isn't talked about is how the Big 12 as a conference has done very well playing good teams from other conferences as well.
I mean this is what teams have always done. Teams scheduled to take advantage of RPI as well. That is nothing new. But also, NCAA doesn't just seed based on your NET ranking so it's a stupid thing to complain about anyway.
The same argument can be made against teams in conferences like the B1G, ACC, and PAC 12 that suck balls. Are they gaming the system by having a bunch of really sh!tty teams? The non-con SOS obsession is hitting new heights when in reality NIL and the portal have changed the strengths of teams early in the season. Non con aside, when push comes to shove, the Big 12 and SEC deserve to be rewarded for having to play a ridiculous conference slate. Notice how none of this was an issue when the B1G and ACC were both really strong conferences...
It's nothing but East Coast biased media trying to create a narrative that props up their teams.
The net like any of these metrics-based formulas, factors in the quality of the opponent and the performance based on that. Yeah, we blew out some bad teams. But the same media types would be hammering us if we had only beaten those bad teams by 5.
And really any "gaming" is a few game difference at best. Almost every P5 team plays a few real games, a bunch of scrubs, and then 18-20 conference games. ISU in particular, yeah we have some truly atrocious teams, but the difference between those and teams in the 150,200,250 range is really minimal in terms of expected outcome for tournament level and especially top 25 level teams.
And the flip side how do we know which “buy” game teams are going to be #289 or number #311? Or #199 va #201. The system includes how badly you beat a given team for a reason.
There wouldn't be a word about it if it were the B1G and that's all we need to know.
You’re right honestly. The fact that a team like Iowa is even in discussion for a bubble team is solely on the fact they’re beating mediocre big ten teams
Yep and in reality the difference between a Q3 and Q4 game is almost zero. Those are all bad teams that you are most likely playing on your home court.
Yup. You hit on something I was trying to get at but didn’t how to say it. Thanks.
And add games that we get assigned, like DePaul. We didn't have any control of that game. That was a game versus a power 6 conference opponent, they just happen to be historically bad for a P6 opponent, entirely out of our control.
And the final blow is that everyone is playing by the same rules. This isn’t some kind of built in advantage for the Big 12. Butthurt is absolutely the correct label here.
It’s exactly what the SEC does in football.
It’s also hard when you sign up for these tournaments. One year we get Villanova, UNC and UConn. Little did anyone know UNC would not make the tourney despite starting season #1 and then UConn would go on to win it.
Orlando was bound to be weaker but Texas A&M has underachieved along with some others in the field.
Then next year Maui is an absolute gauntlet. 7 teams are in top 32 of NET right now (4 of top 9).
Also, Big 12-Big East challenge is random and not our fault Iowa is terrible.
Objectively speaking, we could probably help ourselves with some buy games that are Q3 instead of Q4.
KU played a strong non conference with some good wins. Ironically these same talking heads spreading this conspiracy are the ones justifying KU being ahead of us because of how good their non conference was.
Houston scheduled Xavier, A&M, Utah (more underachievers) and beat Dayton.
Baylor has Michigan State, Duke, Auburn, and Florida. Not exactly dodging people.
It’s also hard when you sign up for these tournaments. One year we get Villanova, UNC and UConn. Little did anyone know UNC would not make the tourney despite starting season #1 and then UConn would go on to win it.
Orlando was bound to be weaker but Texas A&M has underachieved along with some others in the field.
Then next year Maui is an absolute gauntlet. 7 teams are in top 32 of NET right now (4 of top 9).
Also, Big 12-Big East challenge is random and not our fault Iowa is terrible.
Objectively speaking, we could probably help ourselves with some buy games that are Q3 instead of Q4.
KU played a strong non conference with some good wins. Ironically these same talking heads spreading this conspiracy are the ones justifying KU being ahead of us because of how good their non conference was.
Houston scheduled Xavier, A&M, Utah (more underachievers) and beat Dayton.
Baylor has Michigan State, Duke, Auburn, and Florida. Not exactly dodging people.
Yep, the NCSOS rating will look a lot different between schedules filled with those two groups, but really for any team at our level the difference is negligible. You would expect blowouts in both sets of games
