Net Rankings

[Orangezoo]

So interesting here- UK before today's win was 7-13 and 77 in the Net. They beat a ranked UT team on the road and imagine at 8-13 they scoot into the top 70. I'm sorry but that is nuts. If an 8-13 team can be in striking distance of a bid on the metrics well then the NET is showing its flaws just like every other metric. I mean all those teams who beat UK at home have a Q1 win now.

 

[Orangezoo]

We pushed up to 46 after yesterday. Duke is 55. UK as per my original point jumped 13 spots to 64. 8-13 record and per the metrics would be a a bubble team if going strictly by the net. Just wow.

 

[Orangezoo]

Also UK is 48 in Ken Pom while we are 51.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

We pushed up to 46 after yesterday. Duke is 55. UK as per my original point jumped 13 spots to 64. 8-13 record and per the metrics would be a a bubble team if going strictly by the net. Just wow.

Are there any rules about a team with a losing record receiving an at-large?

 

[Cusefan0307]

So UK has 3 really good wins against Florida, Tennessee and LSU. Their metrics are good because they have played a tough schedule, but I have a hard time seeing them get an at large although I believe there’s no rules against it.

 

[Bball44]

Are there any rules about a team with a losing record receiving an at-large?

No such rule for either NCAA or NIT.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

No such rule for either NCAA or NIT.

I didn't think so, but I wanted to check before declaring Kentucky "in" if they so much as tread water from here on out.

 

[upperdeck]

No such rule for either NCAA or NIT.

surprised there isnt any rule when there are rules in the other NCAA sports where they pick teams.

 

[Bball44]

surprised there isnt any rule when there are rules in the other NCAA sports where they pick teams.

The NIT actually had a winning record requirement and removed it a couple of years ago for some reason.

 

[Orangezoo]

So UK has 3 really good wins agains Florida, Tennessee and LSU. Their metrics are good because they have played a tough schedule, but I have a hard time seeing them get an at large although I believe there’s no rules against it.

Yeah some good wins and a tough schedule being enough to have the metrics though shouldn't be possible if you are five wins under .500. I think that games below .500 should have a weighting coefficient to normalize the data somehow.

 

[upperdeck]

I would like an over .500 and some kind of record in conf too.. maybe no more than 2 under .500. I know the big boys dont wont want it. The b10 is deep but going 5-9 in the B10 where you get 7-10 chances to win good games shouldnt get you in over teams going 20-2.. MSU talk is heating up again and they have played awful most of the season. but they will need to beat someone anyway

 

[Orangezoo]

Penn St is another example. They are 7-11 with a Net of 41. They have the number one SOS.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Penn St is another example. They are 7-11 with a Net of 41. They have the number one SOS.

It's really an effect of what conferences dominate the Out of conference schedules. The ACC was terrible so our metrics aren't going to get better playing ACC teams. The Big 12, SEC, and Big 10 were good in the non conference so even their crappy teams have good metrics. I do think maybe too much weight has been added to November and December.

 

[Orangezoo]

To counter my own point the prevailing theory would be that with a normal non conference UK would be more like 13-13 and PSU 14-11 etc. That still seems like it essentially turns all the cupcakes into exhibitions where the risk outweighs any reward you get.

 

[syrBossHogg]

Is the NET still using the efficiency component? If yes I think the fact that they've lost relatively close games is also playing a part

 

[upperdeck]

take 2 teams one plays 10 games against good teams and wins 2 another plays those same 2 teams and wins 2.. who is better the team that went 12-8 with 2 good wins an 10 losses or the team thats 18-2 with 2 good wins.. most likely all the metrics will rank the 12-8 team higher but there sure had way more chances to show it with losses.

 

[Orangezoo]

One thing that this year highlights is that the number of conference games, as it has increased generates a circular effect for these metrics. The ACC has snuck a couple teams outside the circle but otherwise operates 50-125. The Big Ten and Big 12 owns 1-75. The SEC overlaps the Big Ten operating more in 25-100. All those conferences have outliers of course like Nebraska and Texas A&M but the point still stands. If a bunch of teams who win enough games in a high performance conference it creates a circular impact in the metrics to keep everyone up higher even so much as to artificially do so by nature of the teams with losing records still being good wins and not being bad losses.

 

[Bball44]

One thing that this year highlights is that the number of conference games, as it has increased generates a circular effect for these metrics. The ACC has snuck a couple teams outside the circle but otherwise operates 50-125. The Big Ten and Big 12 owns 1-75. The SEC overlaps the Big Ten operating more in 25-100. All those conferences have outliers of course like Nebraska and Texas A&M but the point still stands. If a bunch of teams who win enough games in a high performance conference it creates a circular impact in the metrics to keep everyone up higher even so much as to artificially do so by nature of the teams with losing records still being good wins and not being bad losses.

This might be why JB said going to 20 game conference schedule would limit ACC at large bids. In a nornal year having 2 less non-conference games, most likely wins, hurts the metrics.

 

[Briancuse]

Are there any rules about a team with a losing record receiving an at-large?

You can't get an at large bid with a losing record. Uk has to win the sec tourney which could happen.

 

[EnviroSciGuy]

You can't get an at large bid with a losing record. Uk has to win the sec tourney which could happen.

Looks like there is some disagreement here about that, but I'm too distracted by other things to look it up myself

 

[Orangezoo]

So it's highly unlikely but if for some crazy reason NC St sneaks into the top 75 of the net, we win out, VT and UNC get into the top 25 net we could end the season with 5 Q1 wins. That would put us in the 5-8 seed line depending on others.

 

[Briancuse]

Looks like there is some disagreement here about that, but I'm too distracted by other things to look it up myself

Disagreement about what? You have always had to.be over 500 to get an at large bid.

 

[Orangezoo]

Disagreement about what? You have always had to.be over 500 to get an at large bid.

Is there language somewhere that says this?

 

[Bball44]

Is there language somewhere that says this?

It is not a formal rule. Has never happened of coure. Would have to be a really crazy year...

 

[Briancuse]

Is there language somewhere that says this?

You guys are talking about overall record right?