Another Win. Another Drop in the NET?

[OrlandoCuse]

i honestly think this shifting algorithm is exactly how the NCAA wants it

their goal isnt fairness for the competitors

their goal is to try and make as many "magic moments" as possible

thus being able to predict games and how teams will matchup and try to get margin of games as small as possible is the ideal...and for that pupose, NET works great

its a predictive algorithm

not actually a ranking algorithm...even though it is used for ranking as well

Let’s be honest, it’s a crap algorithm

 

[jncuse]

I just had a revelation :
Wake has a NET of 31
Cuse has a NET of 84

Both are bubble teams. Maybe the NET doesn't matter as much as we think to the committee. If so, Wake would be a lock. Food for thought.

Typically once a team is between #40 and #70, it really comes down to your quality wins -- it really isn't about NET/RPI

There has been a little more crazy in the NET this year so that range might be #30-#75 (yes we will get to 75 if we beat Clemson, or damn close to it) There are a few more teams in the 30's, or even high 20's, that look so-so.

There are a few more teams in the 70's as well that will be in the discussion potentially - Syracuse, Kansas St, Ole Miss.

 

[Cuse181]

I just had a revelation :
Wake has a NET of 31
Cuse has a NET of 84

Both are bubble teams. Maybe the NET doesn't matter as much as we think to the committee. If so, Wake would be a lock. Food for thought.

We don’t know what the committee thinks. They might end up being a lock. Just because the bracketologists have them out of the bracket doesn’t mean the committee has any intention of doing the same.

 

[Jake]

Typically once a team is between #40 and #70, it really comes down to your quality wins -- it really isn't about NET/RPI

There has been a little more crazy in the NET this year so that range might be #30-#75 (yes we will get to 75 if we beat Clemson, or damn close to it) There are a few more teams in the 30's, or even high 20's, that look so-so.

There are a few more teams in the 70's as well that will be in the discussion potentially - Syracuse, Kansas St, Ole Miss.

Agree, recent history has the committee rewarding your good wins more than penalizing your bad losses.

I’d rather beat Clemson….but lose the double bye to Wake and then pick off another “w” on the secon d day of the ACC tourney before getting into the quarters.

 

[Madbiker]

If they put a team with a NET of 84 in the field the Committee Chair knows he going to get a lot of questions and a lot of criticism for bypassing teams with a much better NET. Do you think he wants to deal with that heat? So taking the path of less resistance is more likely.

 

[pokercuse08]

If they put a team with a NET of 84 in the field the Committee Chair knows he going to get a lot of questions and a lot of criticism for bypassing teams with a much better NET. Do you think he wants to deal with that heat? So taking the path of less resistance is more likely.

This is why it's important for us to put together a resume that gives him easy answers, like...

- 22 wins on the 13th toughest schedule, 40th in strength of record
- Beat UNC at home and Clemson on the road, 8-9 vs Q1/2
- Fourth in the ACC, 8-2 L10 with both signature wins coming in the last 10

 

[djcon57]

This is why it's important for us to put together a resume that gives him easy answers, like...

- 22 wins on the 13th toughest schedule, 40th in strength of record
- Beat UNC at home and Clemson on the road, 8-9 vs Q1/2
- Fourth in the ACC, 8-2 L10 with both signature wins coming in the last 10

yep, just win games. It will sort itself out. I think 2 out of next 3 will be bubble, prob leaning out. 3 of 4 and I think we’re prob in

 

[jncuse]

Agree, recent history has the committee rewarding your good wins more than penalizing your bad losses.

I’d rather beat Clemson….but lose the double bye to Wake and then pick off another “w” on the secon d day of the ACC tourney before getting into the quarters.

Some agreement to your comment, but just want to add some context to my initial point.

1. They have been pretty punishing to bad losses recently - Clemson and Rutgers last year as examples.

2, What makes Syracuse, Kansas St and Ole Miss (in the 70's this year) interesting this yearis that they have an acceptable amount of Q1 and Q2 Wins (if we beat Clemson) but no bad losses. Typically teams in the 70's will have some clear wart in terms of quality wins or bad losses. And this year there are 3 teams that could have arguably "enough" wins, and no real bad losses.

3. Regarding "w" on the second day. For me it depends. oking at teams in the 11-14 range potentially -- if we can add a Q2 win over Miami or Virginia Tech that is good. But there is also a good chance we play 4 of the other teams from the first day who would be Q3. . I would rather avoid than waste our energy on those 4 teams.

 

[Niastri]

Red needs to change his strategy next year with big leads. There comes a point where you can take your foot off the gas and basically guarantee a win by wasting time on offense. That's great if the goal is to win games, but if the goal is to get into the tournament, winning games isn't enough.

The difference between us and 60th in KenPom (a good proxy for NET, and we can actually see the numbers) is about 70 points. They've left at least half of that on the floor in the last four games by going into cruise control mode.

What we needed is 31 games where we fire the ball up court to find an open Bell to shoot a last second three, no matter the score. Up 20, down 20? It doesn't matter.

If Bell takes those 31 extra threes, especially in garbage time when he's not even really being guarded, we get our 60-70 points back, no problem.

It's disgusting, but being chat is going to cost Red and the team big time this year. I found myself being a little angry at Mintz driving out the clock last night, instead of trying to increase the margin.

The NET is a travesty.

 

[jncuse]

This is why it's important for us to put together a resume that gives him easy answers, like...

- 22 wins on the 13th toughest schedule, 40th in strength of record
- Beat UNC at home and Clemson on the road, 8-9 vs Q1/2
- Fourth in the ACC, 8-2 L10 with both signature wins coming in the last 10

A few problems with that though. (I'll get to the simple answer I would give at the end in bold)

1) They won't state the Last 10 part. That one I'm close to a 100% certain on. That part doesn't matter to them, and they are pretty clear about that.

2) Regarding SOS. I don't even think there is a global SOS metric anymore under this NET system which is pretty crazy. Which is part of the reason more Q4 games are being played now vs 2018 (the last year of the RPI) certainly stand to be corrected though.

The SOS of 13 (or 15) that you are using, I assume is based on RPI or some other measure? Are they going to quote that since its not a derivative of NET. If there is a SOS for NET, it would be closer to the #39 SOS that is deemed by KP.

3) Is Strength of Record one of the key metrics they consider? Just asking. I don't think its a derivative of NET.

I think the simple answer they give with out getting into metrics that aren't NET related and will be more verbal " Syracuse getting in was simply an analysis of quality wins and their losses that we do with all teams. Syracuse had two top half marquee Q1 wins in UNC and Clemson, which a number of bubble teams with multiple Q1 wins were not able to match in quality. They only had one bad loss that was just outside of the Q2 line which again was very competitive versus the other teams we analyzed on the bubble. They competed well during their conference play adding additional quality wins at home and the road. Their NET was impacted by their efficiency in some losses and victories lesser teams. But this is ultimately an analysis of wins and losses."

 

[DuxburyO]

A few problems with that though. (I'll get to the simple answer I would give at the end in bold.

I think the simple answer they give with out getting into metrics that aren't NET related and will be more verbal " Syracuse getting in was simply an analysis of quality wins and their losses that we do with all teams. Syracuse had two top half marquee Q1 wins in UNC and Clemson, which a number of bubble teams with multiple Q1 wins were not able to match in quality. They only had one bad loss that was just outside of the Q2 line which again was very competitive versus the other teams we analyzed on the bubble. They competed well during their conference play adding additional quality wins at home and the road. Their NET was impacted by their efficiency in some losses and victories lesser teams. But this is ultimately an analysis of wins and losses."

You’re hired!

 

[jncuse]

What we needed is 31 games where we fire the ball up court to find an open Bell to shoot a last second three, no matter the score. Up 20, down 20? It doesn't matter.

If Bell takes those 31 extra threes, especially in garbage time when he's not even really being guarded, we get our 60-70 points back, no problem.

It's disgusting, but being chat is going to cost Red and the team big time this year. I found myself being a little angry at Mintz driving out the clock last night, instead of trying to increase the margin.

The NET is a travesty.

Not saying margin should dictate anything either - it should be ultimate W's and L's and that is what it usually comes down to. But let's be honest about what is crushing our NET - its not what we are doing in minute 40 / last minute of games that is killing our NET.

We are getting killed by NET because of what we are doing between between the 20 minute mark and the 38 minute mark in games where we had bigger leads. Couldn't keep the momentum for whatever reason. Again it shouldn't be a determining factor -- it should be about wins and losses.

Teams aren't boosting their NET's in minute 40 where the ins and outs probably offset as each other. They are boosting their NET's by stretching their leads in the second half and keeping the pedal down.

 

[jncuse]

This team has a strange mentality when it has a bigger lead - rotation size is part of the issue of course but not all of it. Totally disregarding NET impact of this - just concerns from winning and losing.

Seing this team continually give up bigger leads is concerning moving forward. It might not bite us in the butt against Louisville and Notre Dame... but against somebody better it certainly could.

 

[GoSU96]

If the NET is going to be such a huge factor in getting into the tournament, college basketball is no longer about wins and losses, it's about margins. Is that stupid? In my opinion, yes. But what good is our record and resume right now? We're on zero out of 97 brackets on Bracket Matrix. St. John's is in 35/97 at 17-12. Villanova is in 19/97 at 17-12.

We can play the game "right" and miss the tourney when we should be in, or be under-seeded when we do get in, or we can acknowledge the metrics being used and play accordingly.

What’s going to happen when a coach is chasing points, takes early shots, and ends up losing games? They have won 4 games in a row managing the end of games and trading time for margin and getting the win.

 

[jncuse]

What’s going to happen when a coach is chasing points, takes early shots, and ends up losing games? They have won 4 games in a row managing the end of games and trading time for margin and getting the win.

Let's take NET and margin totally out of this. Purely talk winning basketball games.

I think the bolded comment claiming its game management is "very generous" view of the way we played significant portions of games in the second half recently - not just taking the air out of the ball with 4 minutes left.. We have played poorly with leads ... we have done some really dumb plays with leads... we have not rebounded well with big leads. Our poor play in these games is not in the last 4 minutes where we suppress our offense. Its typically problematic earlier in the second half

I bring this up not as a NET concern. But more of a team winning concern. This team simply does not play well with some big leads recently, its not game management for the most part, and it could bite us against a better team.

Although it is great that we jimp to nice leads over and over.

 

[GoSU96]

Let's take NET and margin out of this. Purely talk basketball, and winning games.

I think the bolded comment claiming its game management is "very generous" view of the way we closed games of late. We have played poorly with leads ... we have done some really dumb plays with leads... we have not rebounded well with leads. Losing much of the 19 point lead and Notre Dame 29 point halftime lead around the 8-12 minute of the second half is not game management.

I bring this up not as a NET concern. But more of a team concern. This team simply does not play well with leads recently, its not game management for the most part, and it could bite us against a better team.

They have purposefully gone late in the clock with leads. Not getting as many stops as they should has nothing to do with that. And they won those games.

 

[jncuse]

They have purposefully gone late in the clock with leads. Not getting as many stops as they should has nothing to do with that. And they won those games.

We were up 15 against NC St at the half. They tied the game with 5 minutes left in the game.
Losing that lead in the first 15 minutes of the second half was not "end of game" management.

We were up 29 against Notre Dame. By the 8 minute mark they were within 4 points. Losing 25 points of our lead before the 8 minute mark, is not "end of game" management.

I guess someone could view what we did with our 19 point lead last night with 7 minutes to go against a bad team, as "end of game" management to get the win. I don't agree, but I can at leastsee some merit to that.

 

[DCUNITED13]

Its crazy that winning on the road is not judged (factored) more in the current setting. Below is a brief chart of the current top 25. This as a group has won only 61% of their road games. And 7 of the top 25 have a non winning record on the road. Someone told me this is the worst in many many years.

We need the win at Clemson as this would be our 20th win (As counted by the NCAA for D1 as we are including Chaminade in the total). We would almost be break even on the road (5-6). I like our chances to go Dancing witha win at Clemson and 1 Win the the ACC Tourney.

		W	L
1​	HOUSTON	6	3
2​	PURDUE	6	3
3​	UCON	6	3
4​	TENNESSEE	7	3
5​	MARQUETTE	6	5
6​	ARIZONA	6	3
7​	KANSAS	3	6
8​	IOWA ST.	5	4
9​	UNC	7	2
10​	DUKE	6	4
11​	AUBURN	4	5
12​	CREIGHTON	7	4
13​	ILLINOIS	5	5
14​	ALABAMA	5	4
15​	BAYLOR	4	4
16​	KENTUCKY	6	3
17​	SAINT MARYS	9	0
18​	SOUTH CAROLINA	7	3
19​	WASH ST.	6	4
20​	SAN DIEGO ST	5	7
21​	DAYTON	5	5
22​	UTAH ST.	7	4
23​	GONZAGA	8	2
24​	FLORIDA	3	6
25​	SOUTH FLORIDA	7	3
		146	95	60.6%​

 

[pokercuse08]

A few problems with that though. (I'll get to the simple answer I would give at the end in bold)

1) They won't state the Last 10 part. That one I'm close to a 100% certain on. That part doesn't matter to them, and they are pretty clear about that.

2) Regarding SOS. I don't even think there is a global SOS metric anymore under this NET system which is pretty crazy. Which is part of the reason more Q4 games are being played now vs 2018 (the last year of the RPI) certainly stand to be corrected though.

The SOS of 13 (or 15) that you are using, I assume is based on RPI or some other measure? Are they going to quote that since its not a derivative of NET. If there is a SOS for NET, it would be closer to the #39 SOS that is deemed by KP.

3) Is Strength of Record one of the key metrics they consider? Just asking. I don't think its a derivative of NET.

I think the simple answer they give with out getting into metrics that aren't NET related and will be more verbal " Syracuse getting in was simply an analysis of quality wins and their losses that we do with all teams. Syracuse had two top half marquee Q1 wins in UNC and Clemson, which a number of bubble teams with multiple Q1 wins were not able to match in quality. They only had one bad loss that was just outside of the Q2 line which again was very competitive versus the other teams we analyzed on the bubble. They competed well during their conference play adding additional quality wins at home and the road. Their NET was impacted by their efficiency in some losses and victories lesser teams. But this is ultimately an analysis of wins and losses."

I think SOR is still a key metric, but I don't know for sure. You're right on SOS and L10, although I think L10 may still matter behind closed doors. If I were them I'd want more than a qualitative answer, though. It leaves you open to so much criticism, as opposed to being able to throw out a quantitative reason. But that may also just be how my brain works, I tend to be more numbers driven.

But let's be honest about what is crushing our NET - its not what we are doing in minute 40 / last minute of games that is killing our NET.

We are getting killed by NET because of what we are doing between between the 20 minute mark and the 38 minute mark in games where we had bigger leads. Couldn't keep the momentum for whatever reason. Again it shouldn't be a determining factor -- it should be about wins and losses.

Right, I think Red may be going to a slower offense to waste more time earlier than he perhaps should under normal circumstances but especially in the NET era.

If you think about it, if there are 10 minutes left and you use 30 seconds every possession, and your opponent uses 10 seconds, each pair of possessions takes up 40 seconds. You'll each get 15 possessions. If you average 0.5 points per possession and they average 1.5, both extreme, they can only close a 15-point gap.

Assuming Judah playing iso ball in the last 6-8 seconds averages around 0.8 points per possession at worst, you can take the air out of the ball pretty early. But it's going to kill your NET.

What’s going to happen when a coach is chasing points, takes early shots, and ends up losing games? They have won 4 games in a row managing the end of games and trading time for margin and getting the win.

What good is winning games if you don't get in the tournament? I'm not saying you should be treating it like a shooting gallery either. But run the offense, keep taking open shots as they present themselves, and try to keep the margin up.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I think SOR is still a key metric, but I don't know for sure. You're right on SOS and L10, although I think L10 may still matter behind closed doors. If I were them I'd want more than a qualitative answer, though. It leaves you open to so much criticism, as opposed to being able to throw out a quantitative reason. But that may also just be how my brain works, I tend to be more numbers driven.


Right, I think Red may be going to a slower offense to waste more time earlier than he perhaps should under normal circumstances but especially in the NET era.

If you think about it, if there are 10 minutes left and you use 30 seconds every possession, and your opponent uses 10 seconds, each pair of possessions takes up 40 seconds. You'll each get 15 possessions. If you average 0.5 points per possession and they average 1.5, both extreme, they can only close a 15-point gap.

Assuming Judah playing iso ball in the last 6-8 seconds averages around 0.8 points per possession at worst, you can take the air out of the ball pretty early. But it's going to kill your NET.


What good is winning games if you don't get in the tournament? I'm not saying you should be treating it like a shooting gallery either. But run the offense, keep taking open shots as they present themselves, and try to keep the margin up.

If last 10 mattered we wouldn’t have got in 2016 and 2018, but we would have in 2017. It hasn’t mattered for at least a decade and they always stress “body of work”. They dumped last 10 because it was hard to compare teams that had unbalanced schedules due to 15-20 team conferences.

 

[OCESIP]

If they put a team with a NET of 84 in the field the Committee Chair knows he going to get a lot of questions and a lot of criticism for bypassing teams with a much better NET. Do you think he wants to deal with that heat? So taking the path of less resistance is more likely.

Exactly. The computer is impervious to criticism.Whoever
developed the algorithm won't have near the criticism
that normally is generated against individual committee
members basing their decision on other traditional
factors. The NET is a convenient out.

 

[OCESIP]

If last 10 mattered we wouldn’t have got in 2016 and 2018, but we would have in 2017. It hasn’t mattered for at least a decade and they always stress “body of work”. They dumped last 10 because it was hard to compare teams that had unbalanced schedules due to 15-20 team conferences.

While I agree that the entire season results should be the primary
consideration, as a tie breaker some consideration should be
given to how a team is performing at the end. The reality is it seldom
is the same that started back in October, for better or for worse.

 

[dasher]

Exactly. The computer is impervious to criticism.Whoever
developed the algorithm won't have near the criticism
that normally is generated against individual committee
members basing their decision on other traditional
factors. The NET is a convenient out.

There was a number that Hancock used last night that was 37.5 and that only one team ever didn't get in the tournament with that number. And ours is a bit better. Didn't catch what number that was. But I liked that.

 

[dasher]

While I agree that the entire season results should be the primary
consideration, as a tie breaker some consideration should be
given to how a team is performing at the end. The reality is it seldom
is the same that started back in October, for better or for worse.

I don't think it is asking the comm to look who you played the last 10.

 

[Cusefan0307]

While I agree that the entire season results should be the primary
consideration, as a tie breaker some consideration should be
given to how a team is performing at the end. The reality is it seldom
is the same that started back in October, for better or for worse.

How do you do that? You can’t compare teams if one is playing, Duke, UNC, or UVA compared to someone playing Louisville, BC, and Georgia Tech.