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

[Sbucketball]

Does anyone know recent outliers in terms of making the tournament as an at-large with a high net? My assumption is high 50s/low 60s is pushing it but I’m sure there are a few exceptions.

High 70s has made the tournament. That's an outlier, but I'm pretty sure each year there's a few high NET teams that get in.

 

[M2MPrinciples]

I can't really disagree here. I think the Quad stuff, while well-intentioned, has caused the discourse around bubble teams to get toxic. Results have to matter, and it's really hard to find the balance between awarding bids based on objective info that's still pretty arbitrary and cryptic vs. "vibes", but I personally think it's gone too far.

 

[shandeezy7]

Does anyone know recent outliers in terms of making the tournament as an at-large with a high net? My assumption is high 50s/low 60s is pushing it but I’m sure there are a few exceptions.

Rutgers a couple years ago made it as an at-large with I believe a 77 NET ranking. That's the lowest, as far as I know.

 

[Consigliere]

Actually, Pitt dropped to 56 after getting crushed by Wake yesterday. That dropped them from a Q1 to a Q2.

SU currently:

Q1: 2-7
Q2: 3-1
Q3: 7-2
Q4: 4-0

Quad 1 away is 1-75

 

[blust2i3d4]

Rutgers a couple years ago made it as an at-large with I believe a 77 NET ranking. That's the lowest, as far as I know.

But B1G is everybody's favorite conference.

 

[pokercuse08]

Anything that forces teams to run up the score in blowouts, or protect your margin on the wrong side of a blowout is stupid. It's stupid for sportsmanship, and it's stupid for developing your depth and younger players.

Perhaps more than that, anything that locks in conference power before conference play starts is stupid, and punishes conferences/teams that get better as the year goes on.

Margins and efficiency should factor in, but they shouldn't be a dominating factor.

Let's say we win the next 3 and lose at Clemson, then go 1-1 in the ACCT with the loss to UNC/Duke. We'll be 21-12, two of our best wins down the stretch, and 2 months removed from those blowout losses. In the old system there would be a lot of talk about, "They played tough teams all year, and they went from getting blown out by them to competing and snagging a marquee win over UNC at home, then at NC State."

But instead it's like, "Oh, their NET sucks, NEXT!" If that's the case, then we were dead on January 14.

 

[Niastri]

Rutgers a couple years ago made it as an at-large with I believe a 77 NET ranking. That's the lowest, as far as I know.

If we go 3-1 the rest of the way, them go 1-1 in the ACCT. That would earn us 0 or 1 additional quality wins and move our net up to the 60s? What if we go 4-0 and 2-1? Does that get us to the 50s?

Does anybody have a solid sense of the NET movements this late?

 

[shandeezy7]

If we go 3-1 the rest of the way, them go 1-1 in the ACCT. That would earn us 0 or 1 additional quality wins and move our net up to the 60s? What if we go 4-0 and 2-1? Does that get us to the 50s?

Does anybody have a solid sense of the NET movements this late?

I have to think that if offensive/defensive efficiency is weighted as heavily as it would appear, then there really isn't a ton of opportunity to greatly improve our NET, aside from scoring on every possession and shutting out our next four opponents.

I think if they were somehow able to win their last four regular season games, that could at least get their NET ranking up to a spot where it's not not unfathomable for them to make it and they'd at least be taken into consideration. A NET in the 80's/90's means they are likely discarded from the conversation immediately.

 

[upperdeck]

its interesting that the NET mostly shows quad data at a glance but other data really drives the rankings

 

[blust2i3d4]

This is the dumbest metric ever created!

But B1G and SEC love the system, they have the most money to buy the best players. So if they win a game, they won big. And if they lose a game to a less league school, they lost by one or two points. The NET will always favor B1G and SEC. The problem with ACC is that we are getting much less money from media companies so we cannot pay good money to athletes like B1G and SEC schools.

 

[hoopsupstate]

It’s ironic two teams we beat twice are still ahead of us in the NET.

 

[blust2i3d4]

If we go 3-1 the rest of the way, them go 1-1 in the ACCT. That would earn us 0 or 1 additional quality wins and move our net up to the 60s? What if we go 4-0 and 2-1? Does that get us to the 50s?

Does anybody have a solid sense of the NET movements this late?

I think we can get to lower 50's if we go 4-0 and 2-1. The seeding has to be this way.
1 UNC 3 losses
2 Duke 4 or 5 losses
3 UVA 6 losses
4 Wake 7 losses
5 SU 8 losses
6 Pitt 8 losses
7 NC st 8 losses
8 Clemson 10 losses
We need to even the loss earlier by Wake. Then by tie breakers we have higher seeding than Pitt and NC st because we swept them in regular seasons. Clemson has to have 10 losses, two more than us. So in the end we clearly have better resume than Pitt, NC state and Clemson. If ACC sends five teams, both Wake and SU go. If ACC sends four teams, we have better than 50/50 chance than Wake since they have three OOC losses on a very weak schedule.

 

[Madbiker]

Not too long ago RPI was the be all, end all for tournament selection. RPI is based solely on wins and losses and strength of schedule. Syracuse is currently 32 in RPI.
NET is based largely on advanced analytics including offensive and defensive efficiency ratings. Syracuse is currently 90 in NET.

Cuse is 3-7 in Quad 1 wins.
Wake is 1-6 and has a NET of 40
Pitt is 2-5 and has a NET of 47
NC State is 1-6 and has a net of 75.

And NET is now the preferred metric?

And check out some of the sheets from other conferences.
RPI led teams to schedule up as opponents W-L and SOS were paramount. NET doesn't reward that strategy. So you are better off playing and soundly beating mid majors than competing against teams from power conferences.

If RPI needed tweaking, fine. But the disparity in our ranking shows that there is no common ground in the two systems. This really needs to be addressed and made more transparent

Not saying we deserve a bid with our current resume, but the only thing truly keeping us out of the discussion is our NET. Using the old RPI system we are on the good side of the bubble.

RPI was junked by the NCAA because the mid majors complained it was biased against them because they could not schedule many games against P5 schools and never at home. Almost every decision made by the NCAA regarding tournaments has been to placate the mid majors and try to get more of them into both the NCAAT and the NIT.

NET uses a formula that discounts who you play and heavily counts metrics like offensive and defensive efficiency. This obviously helps scores for mid majors and P5 teams who beat up weaker opponents. Margin of wins/loses counts too and this has really hurt Syracuse's NET due to the way too many 20 points losses to ranked teams. Any team's NET will be better if they play a lot of weak dogs and beat them up badly. Something to consider in making future schedules under this dumb system.

 

[orangenauburn]

Three teams ahead of Cuse because they ran up Q4 wins?

James Madison is 55 (17-0)
McNeese St is 51 (14-1)
San Francisco is 59 (14-2)

You're telling me NCAA those three teams are better resumes than Syracuse?

Bradley is 68 - went 14-4 in Q3 and Q4 games
N Texas is 75. 1-8 v Q1/2

Grand Canyon is 45. Went a whopping 3-2 v Q1/2. Clearly schedule tough.

Net is a joke.

 

[pearl31]

not here to whine about our lot in NET life, as we're a v mediocre and inconsistent team... but looking at some of the teams that are ranked like 50 spots ahead of us, it's just bonkers

 

[Cusefan0307]

Ironically if they had the NET around in 2007 and 2008 instead of the RPI we probably would have been a 6-8 Seed instead of playing in the NIT.

 

[gocuse44]

If we go 3-1 the rest of the way, them go 1-1 in the ACCT. That would earn us 0 or 1 additional quality wins and move our net up to the 60s? What if we go 4-0 and 2-1? Does that get us to the 50s?

Does anybody have a solid sense of the NET movements this late?

4-0 to end the regular season and need just 1 win in the acc tourney and we are in. No way a 22 win Syracuse team is left out

 

[orangenauburn]

4-0 to end the regular season and need just 1 win in the acc tourney and we are in. No way a 22 win Syracuse team is left out

Hasn't that happened before ...

 

[orange79]

Both Pitt games are Q1/Q2 - (road win Q1 = 1-75/ home win Q2 = 30-75). NC State dropping to 80 knocked that both those wins down a tier. Need to root for NC State to finish strong and end up in the top 75.

Quad 1 away is 1-75

Right. I was referring to the home win. Should have been more specific.

 

[djcon57]

Thanks for nothing, LSU. Just blew it vs Kentucky

 

[djcon57]

Thanks for nothing, LSU. Just blew it vs Kentucky

Yessssss reverse jinx strikes again.

 

[Sherman20]

Many good points, but there are always some outliers. Seems we may be one this year. If we had beaten GT and FSU I wonder what the NET would have been right now.

And How about BC on the road and Clemson at home? We could have won both of those games before the meltdowns.

 

[domestu]

Does anyone know recent outliers in terms of making the tournament as an at-large with a high net? My assumption is high 50s/low 60s is pushing it but I’m sure there are a few exceptions.

A lot of teams from the major conferences with 20 or more wins and a NET ranking in the 40s and 50s did not make the NCAA Tournament last year. Six schools with a NET ranking of 45 or higher got at-large bids in 2023. NC St-45, Penn St- 48, Miss St-49, USC-50, Arizona St- 66, and Pitt-67.

 

[Sherman20]

Actually, Pitt dropped to 56 after getting crushed by Wake yesterday. That dropped them from a Q1 to a Q2.

SU currently:

Q1: 2-7
Q2: 3-1
Q3: 7-2
Q4: 4-0

No, Pitt is Q1. 1-75 ranked teams on the road is a Q1.

 

[Cuse181]

Actually, Pitt dropped to 56 after getting crushed by Wake yesterday. That dropped them from a Q1 to a Q2.

SU currently:

Q1: 2-7
Q2: 3-1
Q3: 7-2
Q4: 4-0

huh? Q1 wins on the road are 1-75