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

[PoppyHart]

The ACC is back to 4 teams in as of now, with Wake being in the last 4 out range right now. The fundamentals of what the conference did OOC, while still subpar, were still nowhere near bad enough to suggest that this conference was a likely "3" or even more crazily a 2 big league.

ACC teams can't go 0-2 when they face each other! 3 is still possible, but 4+ is the clear likely figure right now.

The post by somebody like Rothstein suggesting 2 was quite possible, was shameful level of knowledge.

How do you reckon they justify SHU as last team in when they have (1) two of the best wins out there, (2) a couple strong wins over Butler & Prov. and (3) only 1 really bad loss (USC before they imploded)?
They seriously need 5 or 6 “quadrants”, or a “Super Q1” tier. Wash State has Zona and a bunch of meh. SJU has less.

Edit: As they promptly get curb stomped by Nova.

 

[orangenauburn]

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?

 

[orange79]

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?

I'm not sure that's technically correct.

 

[PoppyHart]

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?

So if we all just back the truck up on the opponent every game, thereby driving the spread higher….

 

[domestu]

The ACC is back to 4 teams in as of now, with Wake being in the last 4 out range right now.

ACC teams can't go 0-2 when they face each other! 3 is still possible, but 4+ is the clear likely figure right now.

Except for their loss to Carolina, all of Wake Forest's losses have been by seven points or less. With five remaining Quad 1 games, Wake has a solid NET ranking and just needs a couple of good wins to get into the NCAAs.

 

[kirbivore]

The post by somebody like Rothstein suggesting 2 was quite possible, was shameful level of knowledge.

He was just trolling for engagement / clicks

 

[Cusefan0307]

UNC
Duke
Clemson
wake
UVA

Pitt

The top 5 all should be in and I think they will be. Pitt has work to do, but I think they can make it too.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

I'm not sure that's technically correct.

View attachment 237606

Our lack of rebounding and 3 point shooting absolutely kills us in the efficiency metrics

 

[OptimusOtto]

 

[OptimusOtto]

How do you reckon they justify SHU as last team in when they have (1) two of the best wins out there, (2) a couple strong wins over Butler & Prov. and (3) only 1 really bad loss (USC before they imploded)?
They seriously need 5 or 6 “quadrants”, or a “Super Q1” tier. Wash State has Zona and a bunch of meh. SJU has less.

Edit: As they promptly get curb stomped by Nova.

The committee does have a 1A and 1B for quad 1 wins. I don't remember the exact criteria but it's something along the lines of: (ex. road Q1 win) 1A = 1-30 / 1B = 31 - 75.

 

[jncuse]

The committee does have a 1A and 1B for quad 1 wins. I don't remember the exact criteria but it's something along the lines of: (ex. road Q1 win) 1A = 1-30 / 1B = 31 - 75.

I assumed the Q1A was midpoint if it did exist. I have seen some say its used others less conclusive.

But if its being implemented, I would say the divisions used by Warren Nolan in his teamsheet analysis are probably accurate. 1-15 for H, 1-25 for N, 1-40 for Away.

You can see the division in the Seton Hall Breakdown. They have two Q1"A" wins which is pretty strong for a bubble team.

Seton Hall Pirates NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet 2024 Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet for Seton Hall Pirates 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

 

[Orangezoo]

View attachment 237706

Be curious to see the general tourney performance of teams with solid ratings on on side of the ball but not so much on the other. Our offensive rating is what hammers us in efficiency both from poor performances in blowouts and lacking in larger gaps in wins

 

[jncuse]

View attachment 237706

As I have mentioned before the positive regarding NCAA selection, is that its ultimately an analytis of wins and losses with a focus on Q1 and Q2 wins, and some deduction for Q3 and Q4 losses. Margin/efficiency which drives NET is not nearly as important as just getting a W or L based on the opponent.

Individual Team NET as long as its within an acceptable range is not really a determining factor. Just like RPI. We have got in with some modest RPI's in the past.

We still need to do work in terms of getting quality in Q1 and Q2, so its not much worth the debate yet. Let's win the next 2 road games and see what happens.

 

[jncuse]

I will say this though based on analysis of NET vs KP movements. NET is much more friendly to road wins than KP is (they have an extra little sauce in their formula that values road wins) ... if we beat Georgia Tech by 1 our KP would remain stable (as that is our expected winning margin) but our NET will probably move up somewhere between 5-10 spots.

We could really help ourselves in NET the next 2 games with 2 wins.

This is based on trends I have seen of the largest movers each week.

 

[sufan59]

View attachment 237706

That NET ranking and Ken Pom may never get high enough to get us in, even if we have a good stretch to end the season and don’t win the ACC tourney. I think the disparity actually makes a lot of sense. We are a young team going up against teams night in and night out that are filled with 5th year seniors. When we win as of late, it really has shown that we have a huge upside as a team. We had a ton of losses where we just didn’t come to play and we were also absurdly inefficient hurting our numbers in significant ways. When we play teams with 5th year seniors they are much more consistent in their play. There bad days is still enough to keep themselves in a game with a much less experienced team. These teams are less likely to improve significantly from November-March. There really is only one game that we have lost this season that I thought we played well enough to win which was Clemson. If we made a few more high percentage shots, that outcome might’ve been different.

 

[Orangezoo]

As I have mentioned before the positive regarding NCAA position, is that its ultimately an analytis of wins and losses with a focus on Q1 and Q2 wins, and some deduction for Q3 and Q4 losses. Margin/efficiency which drives NET is not nearly as important as just getting a W or L based on the opponent.

Individual Team NET as long as its within an acceptable range is not really a determining factor. Just like RPI. We have got in with some modest RPI's in the past.

We sit right now at 5-8 in Q1/Q2 wins and 2-7 in Q1. Of that Q1 we are 1-6 vs the top 30 and 1-1 in that tier 2 of quad 1.

Should we somehow go 6-0 then we would add 2 more quad 1 wins and one being in that first tier with and then 2 quad 2 wins in VT and @NCS bringing us up to 8-8 potentially in both but more importantly having 4 q1 wins and 2 in that first tier one being on the road.

I would think that would put us in a pretty strong spot in overall resume. Obviously the Wolfpack getting top 75 and Oregon top 50 would then really help us.

 

[wiseman3]

I did some digging, and the team with the highest NET to ever make the tournament was Rutgers ( NET 77). However, they had 6 quad one wins. There have also been a few others to get in with a ranking in the 70s, but its not many. At minimum, we need to at least get to the 70s to at least be in contention. Coincidentally, Rutgers also missed the dance the next year with a NET of 40 because of a bad schedule.

All in all, get to the 70s and maybe squeak into the 60s, and hope our other metrics are good enough to get us on the bubble

 

[Sherman20]

View attachment 237706

Efficiency metrics just don’t tell the whole story and have their own bias problems.

 

[Sherman20]

That NET ranking and Ken Pom may never get high enough to get us in, even if we have a good stretch to end the season and don’t win the ACC tourney. I think the disparity actually makes a lot of sense. We are a young team going up against teams night in and night out that are filled with 5th year seniors. When we win as of late, it really has shown that we have a huge upside as a team. We had a ton of losses where we just didn’t come to play and we were also absurdly inefficient hurting our numbers in significant ways. When we play teams with 5th year seniors they are much more consistent in their play. There bad days is still enough to keep themselves in a game with a much less experienced team. These teams are less likely to improve significantly from November-March. There really is only one game that we have lost this season that I thought we played well enough to win which was Clemson. If we made a few more high percentage shots, that outcome might’ve been different.

We also should have won at BC if not for that end of first half/beginning of second half meltdown. Those scoring droughts/defensive lapses have killed us all season. The team should be more consistent and better next season.

 

[rottweiler44]

Honest question...what impact would it have if we were able to include a 105-56 win on a neutral floor, even if it were the lowest rated D1 team? The fact that our largest margin of victory is not included in NET because it was a D2 just kills us.

 

[OptimusOtto]

We also should have won at BC if not for that end of first half/beginning of second half meltdown. Those scoring droughts/defensive lapses have killed us all season. The team should be more consistent and better next season.

Yes exactly. Consistent theme across all our losses. Prolonged scoring drought that turns into hero ball. Hopefully last night is a sign that we've turned a corner with quick ball movement and guys picking their spots so we can at the very least have some enjoyable watches down the stretch.

 

[jncuse]

I did some digging, and the team with the highest NET to ever make the tournament was Rutgers ( NET 77). However, they had 6 quad one wins. There have also been a few others to get in with a ranking in the 70s, but its not many. At minimum, we need to at least get to the 70s to at least be in contention. Coincidentally, Rutgers also missed the dance the next year with a NET of 40 because of a bad schedule.

All in all, get to the 70s and maybe squeak into the 60s, and hope our other metrics are good enough to get us on the bubble

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,

 

[jncuse]

Honest question...what impact would it have if we were able to include a 105-56 win on a neutral floor, even if it were the lowest rated D1 team? The fact that our largest margin of victory is not included in NET because it was a D2 just kills us.

For KenPom, we would be #81 or #82 instead of #88 if we beat #362 Mississippi Valley St by 49. So 6 or 7 spots. (you could also argue #79 or #80 if you are trying to find a comp for Chaminade) I'll show the math below. It doesn't kill us because it's just one game, but it has some impact.

I would expect the impact would be similar for NET as they have comparable principles, but its hard to say exactly because NET doesn't have a "score" where you can see the gaps between teams. But I think you can safely conclude our NET would probably be 4-5 spots higher if not a bit more.

I can answer easily under KP, because you can back into numbers.

Here is the math:
Under KP. The worst team in D1 is Mississippi Valley St a truly bad 0-24 team, with an adjusted EM of -33.42. We would be expected to beat them by 28 points. If we win by 49, that excess 21 points over 26 games is worth about 0.81 increase to our EM... so or EM improves from 9.49 to about 10.3...

Now Chaminade might actually be better than Mississippi Valley St... they are on an island at #362... team #361 is about 5 point better on a neutral floor. Miss Valley St is historically bad!

So say we beat a team in the 350's as a better comp to Chaminade, our EM climbs by about 1.00, and we move up to the 79 or 80 position in KP.

 

[jncuse]

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.

 

[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!