NET and KenPom Tracker 23-24 (SU = 84 3/9/24)

[jdubs30]

Pitt will be a Q1 by the end of the year. People here are underrating them.

Pitt has 5 ACC losses which are: Clemson, Syracuse 2x, UNC, Duke. Their OCC losses were Florida on a neutral and Missouri.

They won’t be a tournament team, but I bet they still win 18 games.

 

[jncuse]

So true. Take our win at Pitt as an example. We move up 7, Pitt moves down 12. An erosion of 5 for the ACC. The system is so dumb.

I'd say that is more randomness than anything else. (although Pitt has an underlying factor that could also be responsible for this that impacts our ability to count as this as Q1 by season end - I'll do another post of that)

I can't talk for NET as they don't give team values, but if we look at KP you can easily see how this happens, as some teams get closely bunched around a spot at times.

Here are the ranking values of teams #66-#70
#66. 11.99
67. 11.56
68. 11.51
69. 11.51
70. 11.45

The gap between #66-#67 is larger than the gap between #67-#70. Depending where those gaps are you could see why a team jumps 4 spots after a result, and 7 spots after a similar result.

 

[jncuse]

For all the complaints about the NET system, the results would be little to no different in the long-run. A win vs Pitt becomes less valuable the poorer Pitt is as a team, whether there's a Quad # next to it or not. Same goes with any team in the ACC.

Win the games you need and some you're not supposed to, and the numbers will always take care of themselves. No need to worry over the NET until at least February

Yes with some No. But I agreed with your points at a micro level.

We need to worry about NET on a more higher macro level - especially how our conference does OOC, because it impacts our opportunities downstream. But that is done at this point and ACC didn't dig as huge a hole as it did the past few yeas.

Now go win games and things should work themselves out... there will be some fluidity between Q1 and Q2, but win games (I had 21 as a target) and the numbers will work themselves out.

 

[Sbucketball]

Despite the disheartening blowouts, the beginning of our ACC schedule was the toughest part and we survived it 3-3 and the schedule is easier going forward. There's only one likely unwinnable game ahead, but there's still a handful of Q1 opportunities. We also got through a difficult non-con 9-2. And we haven't lost at home.

 

[atlanticuse]

i miss being a top 10, when we were debating and jockeying for #1 seeds.

 

[Cstate]

The teams original (AP poll) ranking at the time the game was played remains next to their name, so I’m assuming that must come into account somewhat at the end of the year during review. I love the fact we have no bad losses, however the average margin of defeat for all of our Quad 1 games is by 22.8 points. I just don’t see how that is not going to hurt us.

 

[Sbucketball]

The teams original ranking at the time the game was played remains next to their name, so I’m assuming that must come into account somewhat at the end of the year during review. I love the fact we have no bad losses, however the average margin of defeat for all of our Quad 1 games is by 22.8 points. I just don’t see how that is not going to hurt us.

Where did you get that chart from?

 

[jncuse]

Pitt will be a Q1 by the end of the year. People here are underrating them.

Pitt has 5 ACC losses which are: Clemson, Syracuse 2x, UNC, Duke. Their OCC losses were Florida on a neutral and Missouri.

They won’t be a tournament team, but I bet they still win 18 games.

Actually I am very concerned about Pitt being able to maintain a Q1 status by end of year (and alternatively their Q2 status for our home win). Pitt, almost certainly more than any other team in the country has had their KP and NET boosted by 5 high margin victories against bad teams (4 really bad ones in the 300s and Oregon St)

Those 5 games made up about "30% of their value" as of yesterday in a margin based system (which NET has some elements of).. by year end they only make up about 15%. So unless they have other really good results to replicate these positive anamolies (which I don't expect), the NET will inherently fall to some degree. They will need to do well from a true W-L perspective to offset this, and I'm not sure its out there.

People have asked all year why is Pitt so far ahead of us in KP and NET... they certainly don't have a better resume. They have 0 Q1 or Q2 wins, and they have 1 bad loss. I finally dove down into it today and those 5 games are huger than I expected.

Below is the team they played how much they won by, and in brackets is how much Houston the #1 team in KP and NET would have been expected to win by.
Jacksonville - 51 (32)
North Carolina A&T - 48 (37)
SC State - 36 (36)
Binghamton - 29 (32)
Oregon St - 26 (21)

So in those 5 games, about 1/3 of their schedule, Pitt won by 190 points. Houston the top team in the country per KP and NET would only be expected to win those games by 158 points. So for almost 1/3 of their schedule up to yesterday against nobodies, Pitt basically played at the level of the #1 team in the country. It really distorted their values - not sure if you can find a similar anomaly this year.

 

[Cstate]

Where did you get that chart from?

Syracuse - NET Rankings and Quad Wins

2024 Syracuse Quad wins for NCAA College Basketball. NET rankings and Quadrants are used to help select teams for the NCAA Tournament during March Madness.

bballnet.com

 

[MGraves5]

The teams original ranking at the time the game was played remains next to their name, so I’m assuming that must come into account somewhat at the end of the year during review. I love the fact we have no bad losses, however the average margin of defeat for all of our Quad 1 games is by 22.8 points. I just don’t see how that is not going to hurt us.

Those are the teams current ranking. Pitt was #68 when we played them last night. Also Gonzaga was much higher when we played and LSU was much lower.

 

[jncuse]

I do think there are some interesting concerns raised about ACC degradation. I don't think its really a big factor for the ACC this year but its a guess, so its worth tracking to see what is happening.

My belief for the SU/Pitt game (net loss of 5) was more random, and also due to the uniqueness of Pitt whose NET abnormally declines as their abnormal amount of positive anomalies get less weight each game.

I'm going to track it for the next week though for ACC Games.

FSU (93) at Miami (57)
Virginia Tech (56) at Virginia (63)
Louisville (232) at UNC (7)

 

[Cstate]

Those are the teams current ranking. Pitt was #68 when we played them last night. Also Gonzaga was much higher when we played and LSU was much lower.

AP top 25 poll rankings

 

[jncuse]

For those looking for team charts similar to the one above their is also Warren Nolan... same concept as above, but I use WN just because it is something I have become familiar with over the years.

Syracuse Orange NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet 2024 Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet for Syracuse Orange 2024 Men's College Basketball. This Is a Duplication of the report used by the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee to Determine At-Large Teams in the national championship tournament with quadrants

www.warrennolan.com

 

[Knicks411]

I was curious, here is the rest of the schedule, along with current NET and what Quad that would be. I'll also throw in where they rank on the bracket matrix, if they're on it.

Miami #57, Q2 (11 seed)
FSU # 93, Q3
NC State #68, Q2
@ BC #86, Q2
@ Wake #46, Q1 (11 seed)
Louisville #232, Q4
Clemson #36, Q2 (5 seed)
UNC #7, Q1 (2 seed)
@ Ga Tech #116, Q2
@ NC State #68, Q1
Notre Dame #156, Q3
Virginia Tech #56, Q2
@ Louisville, #232, Q3
@ Clemson #36, Q1 (5 seed)

So 14 games left, based on the current net 4 Q1, 5 Q2, 4 Q3, and 1 Q4.

Obviously some of these can flip, NC State is 68, if they fall out of the top 75 then @Nc State is Q2, not Q1 (and home NC state falls to Q3 from Q2) By the same token BC is 9 spots away from 75 and making that a Q1.

The quads are nice, but you also need to win some games against teams in the field. Right now all they have is a neutral win against Oregon, who is an 11 (51 in the net, so on any given day they could end up being a Q1). They have 5 games left against teams currently in the field (though Miami is somewhat tenuous), would probably need to win 3 of those to actually be considered.

 

[Blood Orange]

I was curious, here is the rest of the schedule, along with current NET and what Quad that would be. I'll also throw in where they rank on the bracket matrix, if they're on it.

Miami #57, Q2 (11 seed)
FSU # 93, Q3
NC State #68, Q2
@ BC #86, Q2
@ Wake #46, Q1 (11 seed)
Louisville #232, Q4
Clemson #36, Q2 (5 seed)
UNC #7, Q1 (2 seed)
@ Ga Tech #116, Q2
@ NC State #68, Q1
Notre Dame #156, Q3
Virginia Tech #56, Q2
@ Louisville, #232, Q3
@ Clemson #36, Q1 (5 seed)

So 14 games left, based on the current net 4 Q1, 5 Q2, 4 Q3, and 1 Q4.

Obviously some of these can flip, NC State is 68, if they fall out of the top 75 then @Nc State is Q2, not Q1 (and home NC state falls to Q3 from Q2) By the same token BC is 9 spots away from 75 and making that a Q1.

The quads are nice, but you also need to win some games against teams in the field. Right now all they have is a neutral win against Oregon, who is an 11 (51 in the net, so on any given day they could end up being a Q1). They have 5 games left against teams currently in the field (though Miami is somewhat tenuous), would probably need to win 3 of those to actually be considered.

Need to win the home games. Clearly. All winnable with exception of UNC probably. Win on the road against BC, GT, NC St, Louisville. Am I crazy for being optimistic about the finish of the season? I can see 22-9 or 21-10. 13-7 or 12-8 in conference? I must be nuts, but that seems doable and at the least get one ACC tournament win.

 

[pearl31]

 

[pwong]

The teams original ranking at the time the game was played remains next to their name, so I’m assuming that must come into account somewhat at the end of the year during review. I love the fact we have no bad losses, however the average margin of defeat for all of our Quad 1 games is by 22.8 points. I just don’t see how that is not going to hurt us.

Having all losses by an avg of 23 pts a game is so much worse than hoping the Oregons and the Pitts of the world somehow sneak into Q1 territory.

 

[Cuse181]

Actually I am very concerned about Pitt being able to maintain a Q1 status by end of year (and alternatively their Q2 status for our home win). Pitt, almost certainly more than any other team in the country has had their KP and NET boosted by 5 high margin victories against bad teams (4 really bad ones in the 300s and Oregon St)

Those 5 games made up about "30% of their value" as of yesterday in a margin based system (which NET has some elements of).. by year end they only make up about 15%. So unless they have other really good results to replicate these positive anamolies (which I don't expect), the NET will inherently fall to some degree. They will need to do well from a true W-L perspective to offset this, and I'm not sure its out there.

People have asked all year why is Pitt so far ahead of us in KP and NET... they certainly don't have a better resume. They have 0 Q1 or Q2 wins, and they have 1 bad loss. I finally dove down into it today and those 5 games are huger than I expected.

Below is the team they played how much they won by, and in brackets is how much Houston the #1 team in KP and NET would have been expected to win by.
Jacksonville - 51 (32)
North Carolina A&T - 48 (37)
SC State - 36 (36)
Binghamton - 29 (32)
Oregon St - 26 (21)

So in those 5 games, about 1/3 of their schedule, Pitt won by 190 points. Houston the top team in the country per KP and NET would only be expected to win those games by 158 points. So for almost 1/3 of their schedule up to yesterday against nobodies, Pitt basically played at the level of the #1 team in the country. It really distorted their values - not sure if you can find a similar anomaly this year.

So this article is making me question the scoring margin part:

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

It says this first: "The NET includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses."

But then it says this later on:

"With the changes announced in May 2020, the NET will no longer use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET."

 

[DCUNITED13]

We just need to win 23 games before the NCAA's. We made Sweet 16 or better 14 of 22 times we won 23 games before the tourney. Sad that last time we won 23 games before the tourney was nearly a decade ago.

year	win	loss	NCAA
77​	26​	4​	sweet 16
79​	26​	4​	sweet 16
80​	26​	4​	sweet 16
86​	26​	6​	2nd round
87​	31​	7​	runner up
88​	26​	9​	2nd round
89​	30​	8​	elite 8
90​	26​	7​	sweet 16
91​	26​	6​	1st round
96​	29​	9​	runner up
98​	26​	9​	sweet 16
2000​	26​	6​	sweet 16
2001​	25​	9​	2nd round
2003​	30​	5​	CHAMPION
2005​	27​	7​	1st round
2006​	23​	12​	1st round
2009​	28​	10​	sweet 16
2010​	30​	5​	sweet 16
2011​	27​	8​	2nd round
2012​	34​	3​	elite 8
2013​	30​	10​	FINAL FOUR
2014​	28​	6​	3RD ROUND

 

[jncuse]

So this article is amking me question the scoring margin part:

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

It says this first: "The NET includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses."

But then it says this later on:

"With the changes announced in May 2020, the NET will no longer use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin. The change was made after the committee consulted with Google Cloud Professional Services, which worked with the NCAA to develop the original NET."

What is confusing is if they are not using winning % (winning games) and not using scoring margin than what the heck are they using? Not much left otherwise

Perhaps in the past they had a mix of ranking systems, and then also weighted adjusted winning % and margin on top of that? And now they are just using ranking systems which inherently already incorporate the two factors.

 

[BlackSquirrels]

I was wondering what topic would fill the enormous vacuum of posts created by the departure of JB since 2-3 zone vs. m2m debates have been left in the past.

The microanalysis of fluctuations in the NET and kenpom rankings is leading at the halfway mark of the season.

 

[pwong]

As of now, we only have 4 Q1 opportunities left

 

[OrlandoCuse]

As of now, we only have 4 Q1 opportunities left

While the chart looks cool it’s pretty much irrelevant because the rankings and related quads change every day. We had 5 remaining Q1 games last night before Clemson lost to GaTech, now we have 4. It will change many more times between now and the end of season.

 

[caribbean44]

As of now, we only have 4 Q1 opportunities left

Math hurts!! Just win please

 

[Cuse House]

LSU leading #22 Ole Miss at half. Rooting for them to make our win look better.