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

[wiseman3]

Appreciate the research.

A few notes though.
1) Rutgers did not miss the NCAA tournament because of its Schedule last year. The real reason they missed the tournament is because they had 5 Q3/ "bad" Losses - they were 2-5 in the Q3 quadrant. 5 Q3 losses is unheard of for a bubble team.

2) I know this isn't the claim you are making above, but I did want to state the bold item which limits comparables. Its not the NET of the 70s that is the disqualifying factor for teams (to prove that you would need to find teams with satisfactory Q1+Q2 and limited bad losses that missed the tournament, and those are hard to find) - its that team in the 70's in NET don't typically have the quality win profile with limited bad losses. They don't have a satisfactory Q1+Q2 record or they have 3,4 or 5 bad losses. That is why they miss. Say we go 5-1 to close, its will be very hard to find comparables to us. Our Q1/Q2 record will be "satisfactory" and we will only have 1 bad loss. We will be an anomaly.

There are basically only 2 paths to a net in the 70s and good enough Q1/Q2/limited bad losses to be considered for the NCAA tournament,
1) A lot of really good Q1 wins to offset the bad.
2) Your win/loss profile is fine but your NET is exceptionally distorted by margin like Syracuse this year,

Oh yeah totally agree. I just like saying get into the 70s for ease of tracking. The only way we get there is wins and hopefully some help by Pitt/Oregon etc. We are on life support, which is much better than I was saying 2 days ago. Not dead yet!

 

[Orangezoo]

What if we tried to include Chaminade and played "as expected" in Q4 games? KP improvement from #88 to #69-#72. As NET has some similar principles to NET probably similar movement, perhaps a few spots less.

That is the estimated impact of "underperforming" in Q4 wins and not getting credit for the 49 point Chaminade win (say I substituted in a 49 win game against #361 IUPUI).

Not showing the math that I did - you will just have to believe me! Similar methodology to above.

Until something changes then the message of you need to win by 30 plus vs the cupcakes needs to be stressed.

 

[jncuse]

Until something changes then the message of you need to win by 30 plus vs the cupcakes needs to be stressed.

Part of it is easier said then done. I'm not sure if blowing those teams out was ever an "option" given how we played those games, but obviously when the opportunity arises you have to keep the pedal down.

My solution as presented other times is create a new NET, which is 50% of this version, and 50% of the old RPI. The weaknesses of each, offset/hedge against each other.

 

[ar inj]

Why is SU's NET what it is?

See the following for only ACC conference games:

Scoring Margin
Team G Off Def Margin
1. North Carolina 14 78.64 69.07 +9.57
2. Duke 13 76.92 68.92 +8.00
3. Wake Forest 13 79.77 72.62 +7.15
4. Virginia 14 66.00 61.93 +4.07
5. Clemson 13 75.77 73.92 +1.85
6. Florida St. 13 76.38 75.85 +0.54
7. NC State 13 71.92 71.54 +0.38
8. Virginia Tech 13 74.46 74.38 +0.08
9. Pittsburgh 13 69.38 70.38 -1.00
10. Miami (FL) 14 71.00 72.36 -1.36
11. Boston College 13 72.69 75.15 -2.46
12. Notre Dame 13 60.54 64.69 -4.15
13. Syracuse 14 73.21 79.21 -6.00
14. Louisville 14 73.07 81.07 -8.00
15. Georgia Tech 13 71.92 80.46 -8.54

 

[Orangezoo]

Part of it is easier said then done. I'm not sure if blowing those teams out was ever an "option" given how we played those games, but obviously when the opportunity arises you have to keep the pedal down.

My solution as presented other times is create a new NET, which is 50% of this version, and 50% of the old RPI. The weaknesses of each, offset/hedge against each other.

I like your solution better- albeit the mentality of just winning those games has to shift to winning them by a good margin more now and while easier said than done you do have to drill that in.

 

[Cusefan0307]

 

[jordoo]

It is interesting because SU seems to be a perfect case this year to highlight the anomaly/soft spot in NET. I think what its really showing is a very young inconsistent team with new coaching. When we are bad we are really bad. When we win the margin is not what it should be due to a couple poor 4 minute stretches.

 

[orangefog]

It is interesting because SU seems to be a perfect case this year to highlight the anomaly/soft spot in NET. I think what its really showing is a very young inconsistent team with new coaching. When we are bad we are really bad. When we win its the margin is not what it should be due to a couple poor 4 minute stretches.

I think you're right. That's why the North Carolina game may be (hopefully), a turning point for this team. It seems in past games against decent teams, we folded under adversity. Against UNC, we fought the whole game. If we can play like that, we can win the rest of our games.

 

[Orangezoo]

It is interesting because SU seems to be a perfect case this year to highlight the anomaly/soft spot in NET. I think what its really showing is a very young inconsistent team with new coaching. When we are bad we are really bad. When we win its the margin is not what it should be due to a couple poor 4 minute stretches.

And yet despite being bad at times we also have only two not so great losses in terms of competition being vs BC on the road and FSU at home both of which are borderline vs losing to teams like below 150 in the net. BC is even only a Q2 loss anyways.

It’s the margin of loss vs top 30 teams and Wake. Very odd profile given we’ve beaten pretty much everyone we should have.

 

[jordoo]

I think you're right. That's why the North Carolina game may be (hopefully), a turning point for this team. It seems in past games against decent teams, we folded under adversity. Against UNC, we fought the whole game. If we can play like that, we can win the rest of our games.

Yep, because the most attainable improvement in season, especially for young teams is greater consistency in all areas.

 

[jordoo]

And yet despite being bad at times we also have only two not so great losses in terms of competition being vs BC on the road and FSU at home both of which are borderline vs losing to teams like below 150 in the net. BC is even only a Q2 loss anyways.

It’s the margin of loss vs top 30 teams and Wake. Very odd profile given we’ve beaten pretty much everyone we should have.

The big losses are what they are. I don't find the BC FSU losses strange. They are games we played poorly in, against bad teams but still could have won if we had more consistent production. Again both games featured those brutal 4+ minute stretches of almost no production.

 

[Orangezoo]

The big losses are what they are. I don't find the BC FSU losses strange. They are games we played poorly in, against bad teams but still could have won if we had more consistent production. Again both games featured those brutal 4+ minute stretches of almost no production.

So not strange for us as a team but a somewhat unique profile that is showing how efficiency is flawed without the other half of the equation

 

[Eric15]

Part of it is easier said then done. I'm not sure if blowing those teams out was ever an "option" given how we played those games, but obviously when the opportunity arises you have to keep the pedal down.

My solution as presented other times is create a new NET, which is 50% of this version, and 50% of the old RPI. The weaknesses of each, offset/hedge against each other.

Hypothetically, let's say we were having the same exact season we are having right now, but it was like 2005. The NET wasn't a thing yet. Current RPI/SOS is 29/4. In this alternate reality does Lunardi, etc. have us as like a projected 8/9 game?

 

[jordoo]

Hypothetically, let's say we were having the same exact season we are having right now, but it was like 2005. The NET wasn't a thing yet. Current RPI/SOS is 29/4. In this alternate reality does Lunardi, etc. have us as like a projected 8/9 game?

LOL, probably. But that is a great example of why they wanted something better than that system. Teams had figured out how to game that system by losing to really good teams. That gave them good SOS and then those good teams also boosted their RPI without the original team having to beat quality teams. So somewhere in between these metrics may be the sweet spot as jncuse mentioned above.

 

[TexanMark]

I think you're right. That's why the North Carolina game may be (hopefully), a turning point for this team. It seems in past games against decent teams, we folded under adversity. Against UNC, we fought the whole game. If we can play like that, we can win the rest of our games.

I said early in the season this team should be much better by February. I hope I'm right...Cuse flashed on Tuesday. Can they string 3 or 4 wins together to get into ncaa tournament consideration?

Unless they flop badly I think the NIT bid is solid at the moment.

 

[jncuse]

Hypothetically, let's say we were having the same exact season we are having right now, but it was like 2005. The NET wasn't a thing yet. Current RPI/SOS is 29/4. In this alternate reality does Lunardi, etc. have us as like a projected 8/9 game?

My Answer (in terms of 2018) is we would still likely be out, but we would be in the first 4/first 8 out discussion, which is more favourable than now. So much closer to the NCAA tournament than now.

-----

I can't answer in terms of 2005 -- things were different back then (no quads, no kickers for road wins), but I can answer in terms of 2018 -- the last year the RPI was used.

They still run LIVE RPI data on Warren Nolan. We are
RPI - 32
Q1 - 1-6 under RPI, 2-7 under NET
Q2 - 3-2 under RPI, 3-1 under NET
Overall 4-8 under RPI, 5-8 under NET.
NET actually helps our "quality" win outlook. Because of Pitt.

As of this morning our RPI is #32... there have been some P6 teams that missed the tournament with RPI's in the 30's. I believe the lowest is somewhere between 31 and 35 IIRC.

Similar to now individual RPI or NET isn't going to put you over the top, it was still a selection based on Q1/Q2 wins and bad losses. And we lack in that. But we would certainly get more "benefit of the doubt" under the RPI.

I think the comments would be more like "Syracuse is a bit of a dilemma with the high RPI. If Syracuse can get 1 or 2 more quality wins they would be a lock" Now 1 or more 2 Q1/Q2 wins doesn't lock us into anything.

 

[jncuse]

Hypothetically, let's say we were having the same exact season we are having right now, but it was like 2005. The NET wasn't a thing yet. Current RPI/SOS is 29/4. In this alternate reality does Lunardi, etc. have us as like a projected 8/9 game?

A few other things on this.

#1) In the age of RPI, our RPI would not be #32 - our SOS would not be #5. Because other P6 teams would be scheduling differently. Just a rough guess but it would be somewhere close to 40. Not because RPI is calculated differently.

But because teams around us would be trying to avoid the things that killed the RPI (sub 300 games) and looking for easily winnable home games in the 100-250 range instead, the closer the number to 100 the better, Now there is no real incentive to "avoiding terrible teams" under the NET.

There is no penalty under NET for playing those teams (as long as you beat them up margin wise). The Big 12 would have never played as many Q4, sub 300 games back in 2018. Now they are playing them now, and railroading the teams by huge margins.

 

[Sherman20]

Nebraska and Butler are in? What a joke.

 

[Sherman20]

We’re 44th in Strength of Record. Which would translate to around an 11th seed.

2024-25 Resume Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN

View the 2024-25 Resume Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance of the season.

www.espn.com

 

[PoppyHart]

Nebraska and Butler are in? What a joke.

They each have 3 Top 25 NET wins. The Purdue win is the ultimate tie-break (along with SHU over UCONN).

 

[kirbivore]

LOL, probably. But that is a great example of why they wanted something better than that system. Teams had figured out how to game that system by losing to really good teams. That gave them good SOS and then those good teams also boosted their RPI without the original team having to beat quality teams. So somewhere in between these metrics may be the sweet spot as jncuse mentioned above.

Mountain West. Also teams that could afford it would schedule road games vs. the lower 1/3 ranked teams to pump up the RPI.

 

[blust2i3d4]

According to a Chris Carlson tweet, NET is essentially based off success versus spread

Is that really the best metric to be using? Spread success?

If this is true, this is extremely unfair to small league schools. Small schools can steal a win here and there, but in the end, it doesn't matter because B1G and SEC can have great players with big wing spread. Their wins will be most big and the loss is like by one or two points. Changing to NET from RPI is the conspiracy by B1G and SEC. They know they will send much more teams to NCAA tournament by using NET.

 

[OCESIP]

Years ago the committee recognized that teams evolve during the course
of the season, and as a result how they ended (ie last 10 games) was
a factor in selection. This is especially significant in today's age of the portal. Coaches
often have brand new pieces that need time to evolve and develop. Wins and
loses at the end of your season are more reflective of what you are as a team.

I'm no NET expert, but I don't think this is part of the NET formula and it
should be.

 

[23Zone]

Just keep winning and everything will take care of itself

 

[littlereg]

A few other things on this.

#1) In the age of RPI, our RPI would not be #32 - our SOS would not be #5. Because other P6 teams would be scheduling differently. Just a rough guess but it would be somewhere close to 40. Not because RPI is calculated differently.

But because teams around us would be trying to avoid the things that killed the RPI (sub 300 games) and looking for easily winnable home games in the 100-250 range instead, the closer the number to 100 the better, Now there is no real incentive to "avoiding terrible teams" under the NET.

There is no penalty under NET for playing those teams (as long as you beat them up margin wise). The Big 12 would have never played as many Q4, sub 300 games back in 2018. Now they are playing them now, and railroading the teams by huge margins.

Isn’t this sorta irrelevant though because we would have scheduled differently as well then. You can’t change one input for one, but not the other.