Manipulating the NET

[Fly Rodder]

That’s the problem with a system that relies on its own expectations. It’s somewhat self fulfilling at this point. It’s a flawed metric when winning is what should matter most of all.

Winning is what does matter. Unfortunately this Syracuse team has gotten their doors blown off when they played a good team on the road (UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake, Clemson TBD) or neutral (Zags, Tennessee). Those games happened. Beating some other middling teams doesn't do enough to separate SU from the pack. Lots of middling teams have similar wins. Syracuse needs to win big games, period. Clemson at Littlejohn and a couple of ACCT games. They do that, it doesn't matter what their metrics are, they should be in.

 

[cali315phan]

It's really simple. We win the next 2 and 1 in the tourney, and we're in. We lose to Louisville and we're out.

 

[jordoo]

Winning is what does matter. Unfortunately this Syracuse team has gotten their doors blown off when they played a good team on the road (UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake, Clemson TBD) or neutral (Zags, Tennessee). Those games happened. Beating some other middling teams doesn't do enough to separate SU from the pack. Lots of middling teams have similar wins. Syracuse needs to win big games, period. Clemson at Littlejohn and a couple of ACCT games. They do that, it doesn't matter what their metrics are, they should be in.

I'm not sure if the calculation can be done but it would be interesting to see our difference in NET if all those losses you have listed were single digits.

You are correct of course, bottom line is we need to keep winning no matter what the metric because we haven't clearly distinguished ourselves from the large group of mediocre teams trying to get at large bids.

 

[Red2003]

Winning is what does matter. Unfortunately this Syracuse team has gotten their doors blown off when they played a good team on the road (UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake, Clemson TBD) or neutral (Zags, Tennessee). Those games happened. Beating some other middling teams doesn't do enough to separate SU from the pack. Lots of middling teams have similar wins. Syracuse needs to win big games, period. Clemson at Littlejohn and a couple of ACCT games. They do that, it doesn't matter what their metrics are, they should be in.

Big wins like UNC you mean? UConn is the only team in the league that beat UNC by more this year.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Big wins like UNC you mean? UConn is the only team in the league that beat UNC by more this year.

It was one win at home. Should GA Tech get in? They beat SU, Duke, UNC, Clemson at Littlejohn, and Miss State.

Look, I understand people want SU in the tourney, and there are arguments to be made, but there are 30-40 teams in the same boat as SU each with signature wins and ugly losses.

 

[Red2003]

It was one win at home. Should GA Tech get in? They beat SU, Duke, UNC, Clemson at Littlejohn, and Miss State.

Look, I understand people want SU in the tourney, and there are arguments to be made, but there are 30-40 teams in the same boat as SU each with signature wins and ugly losses.

You said the rest of the bubble. Ga Tech isn't on the bubble.

 

[littlereg]

It was one win at home. Should GA Tech get in? They beat SU, Duke, UNC, Clemson at Littlejohn, and Miss State.

Look, I understand people want SU in the tourney, and there are arguments to be made, but there are 30-40 teams in the same boat as SU each with signature wins and ugly losses.

Your name sure check out because you’re just like the typical fly fisher

 

[jncuse]

Take NET totally out of the equation, and generally the committee does that for bubble teams as selections can be anywhere from NET 40 to NET 70, we are still lacking in Q1, Q2 win profile to get in compared to other teams, but it isn't massive either.

My view from the beginning of the year is that the committee always focuses on Q1/Q2 wins (and Q1+Q2 win %) and then bad losses. Individual NET doesn't really play into the evluation. So our NET deficiencies (margin in losses, not winning by enough against patsies) get limited.

That being said our NET could be high enough that is outside that "acceptable" range. Assuming we win the next 2 games, I can't really find great comparables because we are a bit of an anomaly in the NET era.

Let's see where we are when we (if we) win the next 2 games. Another Q1 game would really help.

 

[CorduroyG]

three games ago we needed 7 straight wins to be considered for an ncaa bid

We have won the first three

Louisville will hopefully be 4

Clemson is THE key game in this whole scenario. Win and then we can probably get in with 2 wins in the ACC tourney which would make 7 in a row. The Chaminade game doesnt count for anything. We need to get our NET number to 50 at worst. Anything above that and its not good. Right or wrong its the reality of todays formula.

Lose to Clemson and its ACC title or bust.

If we’re looking at NET as the end all be all youre right. But hopefully the committee looks at other things. Other than NET our metrics are tournament worthy, but i guess our blowout losses have killed our NET.

Clemson is an enormous game any way you slice it.

 

[jncuse]

If we’re looking at NET as the end all be all youre right. But hopefully the committee looks at other things. Other than NET our metrics are tournament worthy, but i guess our blowout losses have killed our NET.

Clemson is an enormous game any way you slice it.

2 Things

1. The committee has always minimized individual NET and individual RPI. That is why we got in with an RPI of 72 (or low 70's) one year. See my post above (post #183(

2. The biggest factor in killing our NET has actually been our inability to get high margin victories against Q3 and Q4 teams. Not that the blowout losses helped either. But I compared the two in the NET Thread about a month ago. It didn't get better when we consider our 2 and 3 point wins against the Ville and the Dame at home.


Typically the tournament selection is about who you beat and who you lost to, so if we can get some quality wins (which we still need) we might have a shot.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Here is the clip I was referring to

SVP's One Big Thing: How the Big 12 has gained an advantage - ESPN Video

Scott Van Pelt says the Big 12 is the best basketball conference, but questions why the NET rankings seem to work in its favor.

www.espn.co.uk

 

[Fly Rodder]

You said the rest of the bubble. Ga Tech isn't on the bubble.

I said big winS. UNC is one game. GaTech has more big wins than Syracuse, including Syracuse. The individual game doesn't matter much because most all teams (including those in the bottom third of a conference) have 1 or 2 signature wins.

Win games, stop worrying about NET rankings.

 

[pwong]

 

[FrancoPizza]

I still think we need more. Probably Clemson, Duke, or UNC in the ACCT. The blowout losses kill us.

I think at some point we have to accept that we dug our own hole to a large extent. We can gripe about the metrics, but take a look at KenPom for instance. We used to consistently be in the top 20 on offense and defense in KenPom when we were really good. Efficiency and point margins have a reasonable correlation. We have not been consistent enough to blow teams out over a full 40 minutes, and we have lacked the leadership and resiliency to get back up when we get punched in the mouth.

If the "experts" choose to lean heavily on NET or take it with a grain of salt is really out of our control. The fact is this team just flat out quit in MULTIPLE games earlier in the season and we are trying to rationalize why that shouldn't hurt us. Yes, we are playing better in the last couple weeks, but GT is included in that streak as an ugly stain that we can't wash off.

I do think the margin of defeat will be overlooked IF we can win these last 2 games. Assuming we can play well and beat Louisville without white knuckling it, then JGIII may be the person standing between us and a possible NCAA bid.

 

[Marsh01]

If we’re looking at NET as the end all be all youre right. But hopefully the committee looks at other things. Other than NET our metrics are tournament worthy, but i guess our blowout losses have killed our NET.

Clemson is an enormous game any way you slice it.

how you beat teams and how you lose to teams play a huge factor. As much as i loathe uconn look at what they did last season. NET of 8 to end the regular season. Underrated as a 4 seed and they beat the tar out of everyone in the tourney. Pretty good indicator of how good they really were.

The blowout losses we have had this season haven not helped our cause whatsoever

 

[Red2003]

I said big winS. UNC is one game. GaTech has more big wins than Syracuse, including Syracuse. The individual game doesn't matter much because most all teams (including those in the bottom third of a conference) have 1 or 2 signature wins.

Win games, stop worrying about NET rankings.

And I said bubble. Find me a bubble team that has two top 10 wins. I’m sure there’s a few but not 30-40 like you said

 

[pwong]

 

[Red2003]

I think at some point we have to accept that we dug our own hole to a large extent. We can gripe about the metrics, but take a look at KenPom for instance. We used to consistently be in the top 20 on offense and defense in KenPom when we were really good. Efficiency and point margins have a reasonable correlation. We have not been consistent enough to blow teams out over a full 40 minutes, and we have lacked the leadership and resiliency to get back up when we get punched in the mouth.

If the "experts" choose to lean heavily on NET or take it with a grain of salt is really out of our control. The fact is this team just flat out quit in MULTIPLE games earlier in the season and we are trying to rationalize why that shouldn't hurt us. Yes, we are playing better in the last couple weeks, but GT is included in that streak as an ugly stain that we can't wash off.

I do think the margin of defeat will be overlooked IF we can win these last 2 games. Assuming we can play well and beat Louisville without white knuckling it, then JGIII may be the person standing between us and a possible NCAA bid.

you’re not wrong on giving up in some games. GT is an inch away from a Q2 loss and they have wins over the top 3 acc teams. That won’t cost us as much as FSU at home. No one is trying to compare us to the glory days. I’m posting on these threads because I think we have a shot to be on the bubble in our next 3-5 games. I also look at a lot of current bubble teams and know we can beat them.

 

[OrangeTown]

how you beat teams and how you lose to teams play a huge factor. As much as i loathe uconn look at what they did last season. NET of 8 to end the regular season. Underrated as a 4 seed and they beat the tar out of everyone in the tourney. Pretty good indicator of how good they really were.

The blowout losses we have had this season haven not helped our cause whatsoever

Stop wasting time and get the ACC Tournament projections thread started.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Take NET totally out of the equation, and generally the committee does that for bubble teams as selections can be anywhere from NET 40 to NET 70, we are still lacking in Q1, Q2 win profile to get in compared to other teams, but it isn't massive either.

My view from the beginning of the year is that the committee always focuses on Q1/Q2 wins (and Q1+Q2 win %) and then bad losses. Individual NET doesn't really play into the evluation. So our NET deficiencies (margin in losses, not winning by enough against patsies) get limited.

That being said our NET could be high enough that is outside that "acceptable" range. Assuming we win the next 2 games, I can't really find great comparables because we are a bit of an anomaly in the NET era.

Let's see where we are when we (if we) win the next 2 games. Another Q1 game would really help.

The problem is Q1/Q2 are based off the NET.

 

[jncuse]

The problem is Q1/Q2 are based off the NET.

And problem for the ACC is that based on how the conference does in OOC. It sucked as a group in 2022, 2023, and sucked but not as bad in 2024.

Yes the B12 appears to have found a way to take advantage of things this year compared to others -- unlike in 2023 when they were actually were good. Byt NET is still essentially driven by how your conference does in OOC play. The numbers back that out -- and yes I have them -- but no one seems to ever care when I post them, so why bother.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

And problem for the ACC is that based on how the conference does in OOC. It sucked as a group in 2022, 2023, and sucked but not as bad in 2024.

Yes the B12 appears to have found a way to take advantage of things this year compared to others -- unlike in 2023 when they were actually were good. Byt NET is still essentially driven by how your conference does in OOC play. The numbers back that out -- and yes I have them -- but no one seems to ever care when I post them, so why bother.

So then since the vast majority of ooc games take place early in the year, essentially the conference rankings are heavily weighted to a small sample in a short time that isn’t even representative of team quality when the tourney takes place.

This is especially disadvantageous to young teams with new pieces.

 

[jncuse]

So then since the vast majority of ooc games take place early in the year, essentially the conference rankings are heavily weighted to a small sample in a short time that isn’t even representative of team quality when the tourney takes place.

This is especially disadvantageous to young teams with new pieces.

144- 168 games is not really a small sample. All the P6 conferences have young teams with new pieces, so they are on equal footing in the regard.

We were more competitive this year than the past, but when a conference like the B12 (2023 and not 2024) has 30 quality OOC wins and 2 bad losses (with only 10 teams) , and the ACC has 21 quality wins and 19 bad losses, then they should get a lot more respect than us.

Its arguable that the MWC perhaps does benefit from early season, as they probably have older more experienced and cohesive teams.

 

[Orangezoo]

So how much you win by is performance? That’s a slippery slope and his argument is missing the point.

 

[Orangezoo]

144- 168 games is not really a small sample. All the P6 conferences have young teams with new pieces, so they are on equal footing in the regard.

We were more competitive this year than the past, but when a conference like the B12 (2023 and not 2024) has 30 quality OOC wins and 2 bad losses (with only 10 teams) , and the ACC has 21 quality wins and 19 bad losses, then they should get a lot more respect than us.

Its arguable that the MWC perhaps does benefit from early season, as they probably have older more experienced and cohesive teams.

Hopefully we can get back to being one of the programs regularly top 25 and assist Duke UNC and UVA in anchoring the conference. All 3 have had their own struggles with Miami and FSU having short cycles of being at/near the top. Really it’s the Ville and SU with the brand and support program wise to make a solid top 5 year in year out and thus without that we are stuck with Clemson, Pitt and Wake trying to fit that role when they belong as the bubble teams that get in because of the top 5 not the wins you point to as quality wins.