The NET is a Problem

[Tampa_cat54]

I don't get it.

Iowa State has zero wins over NCAA Tournament teams (we might have 3 at this point depending on St. Joes and Penn)

Same goes with Houston, who is somehow number 1.

Houston has played NOBODY all year long (have played zero ranked teams, and only scheduled 1 team in the preseason top-25, a mediocre Texas A&M team and they almost lost).

Yet somehow they have FOUR Q1 wins (again, played a bunch of nobodies).

They really have the NET figured out like a cheat code.

Utah, Dayton, Texas A&M (7-4) and Xavier (6-5), all unranked.

Iowa State has beaten VCU, Depaul and Iowa (All 3 of them STINK), lost to Virginia Tech and that same mediocre Texas A&M team, and they are 6th in the NET.

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.

Maybe Cal had it right. Pack in a bunch of games against stinky Power-5 opponents and beat them, and then blow out sub 300 teams and be top-5 in the NET.

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

View embedded media

I don't get it.

Iowa State has zero wins over NCAA Tournament teams (we might have 3 at this point depending on St. Joes and Penn)

Same goes with Houston, who is somehow number 1.

Houston has played NOBODY all year long (have played zero ranked teams, and only scheduled 1 team in the preseason top-25, a mediocre Texas A&M team and they almost lost).

Yet somehow they have FOUR Q1 wins (again, played a bunch of nobodies).

They really have the NET figured out like a cheat code.

Utah, Dayton, Texas A&M (7-4) and Xavier (6-5), all unranked.

Iowa State has beaten VCU, Depaul and Iowa (All 3 of them STINK), lost to Virginia Tech and that same mediocre Texas A&M team, and they are 6th in the NET.

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.

Maybe Cal had it right. Pack in a bunch of games against stinky Power-5 opponents and beat them, and then blow out sub 300 teams and be top-5 in the NET.

UNCW, that’s what is going to hurt Kentucky all year.

 

[St.PatterSoN-54-]

Just so long as you don’t accidentally LOSE to one of those stinky sub 200 teams…..

 

[TheDude73]

UNCW, that’s what is going to hurt Kentucky all year.

No, no it won't. Enough with it.

 

[$Z71$]

Just so long as you don’t accidentally LOSE to one of those stinky sub 200 teams…..

This is true. As bad as people blast UK on the UNCW loss they are 130th. A terrible loss but not some anchor to hold us back like the Evansville loss was. Not even close to that actually.

 

[YardCat]

UNCW, that’s what is going to hurt Kentucky all year.

B-I-N-G-O. - this will be a sticking point

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

No, no it won't. Enough with it.

How is that loss not going to hurt Kentucky?

 

[caneintally]

This is true. As bad as people blast UK on the UNCW loss they are 130th. A terrible loss but not some anchor to hold us back like the Evansville loss was. Not even close to that actually.

Night and day. UNCW isn't a bad team. Evansville was.

 

[fatguy87]

Jeff Goodman blessed with his big brains cracked the code to rating systems. Thanks to him, we know that playing very well against opponents improves ratings! Wow! What insight! He’s Prometheus providing a boon to us low mortals

 

[caneintally]

How is that loss not going to hurt Kentucky?

z71 explained . It isn't a sub200 loss . Its not a help but if we take care of business from here on out it won't matter either way.

 

[fatguy87]

Losing to UNCW at Rupp is like losing to a 15 seed in the tournament.

 

[Emarc]

Just win and will take csre of itself.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

UNCW, that’s what is going to hurt Kentucky all year.

I'm not asking why we are where we are.

I am pointing out that teams like Houston and Iowa State are being rewarded for playing nobodies all year

 

[rabbitTown]

The NET has no bearing until the end of the season... with more data the NET performs better. I ignore it (and KenPom for the same reason) for now. But later on, they are better than the polls (especially AP).

 

[rabbitTown]

I'm not asking why we are where we are.

I am pointing out that teams like Houston and Iowa State are being rewarded for playing nobodies all year

Being near the top of the NET rankings less than a month into the season isn't a reward.

 

[Ukgold]

Simple fix we keep winning

 

[Wildcats1st]

I'm not asking why we are where we are.

I am pointing out that teams like Houston and Iowa State are being rewarded for playing nobodies all year

If Iowa st is a pretender they will be exposed. The net shouldn’t even be looked at until about February. It’s meaningless until about 5-7 conference games in. There’s always a team that goes like 12-0 bc they play garbage teams early then are on the bubble by selection Sunday. We are only a month into the season why are we wailing over the net at this point? It’s been the same since it’s inception it doesn’t matter until the stretch build up in the second half of the year.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

If Iowa st is a pretender they will be exposed. The net shouldn’t even be looked at until about February. It’s meaningless until about 5-7 conference games in. There’s always a team that goes like 12-0 bc they play garbage teams early then are on the bubble by selection Sunday. We are only a month into the season why are we wailing over the net at this point? It’s been the same since it’s inception it doesn’t matter until the stretch build up in the second half of the year.

Okay we'll see.

When Iowa State and OU go .500 in the Big 12 this year and are still top 20 in the NET, this will be the reason.

When teams are inflated early, then get into league play with other inflated teams, they just bounce around off one another when they beat each other and luck into a higher seed than they deserve.

If and when we ultimately get bumped down a seed line for a pretender like Virginia/Iowa State/Clemson/Oklahoma, etc. who had an inflated NET ranking all year, we'll see.

It doesn't always come out in the wash when they enter into league play with other bloated teams, and suddenly 4 mediocre teams are all super-rewarded for beating one another.

 

[Wildcats1st]

Okay we'll see.

When Iowa State and OU go .500 in the Big 12 this year and are still top 20 in the NET, this will be the reason.

When teams are inflated early, then get into league play with other inflated teams, they just bounce around off one another when they beat each other and luck into a higher seed than they deserve.

If and when we ultimately get bumped down a seed line for a pretender like Virginia/Iowa State/Clemson/Oklahoma, etc. who had an inflated NET ranking all year, we'll see.

It doesn't always come out in the wash when they enter into league play with other bloated teams, and suddenly 4 mediocre teams are all super-rewarded for beating one another.

OU is undefeated with 5 good wins. The big 12 is a strong conference and the reason those teams will be rated high is because they are doing well in their conference. The big 12 has always been great at playing the computer rankings. The last 20 years it seems KU has been in the rpi top 5 every year. This year though there is a major gap vs the b12 top 5 and the rest. We lost to uncw so when we are bumped a couple seed lines we have no one to blame but our coach.

 

[TheDude73]

How is that loss not going to hurt Kentucky?

Because we have more than enough tough Q1 games ahead of us to dilute that one outlier. We just need to win more than we lose, but if we lose more than we'd like to see, that UNCW still won't matter.

And, if UNCW keeps winning (they've won both games since ours), they will rise in the NET, thereby possibly moving into Q2 territory.

So it's not yet a "bad loss" given there's a lot of time left.

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

z71 explained . It isn't a sub200 loss . Its not a help but if we take care of business from here on out it won't matter either way.

Isn’t that contengent on uncw staying good and winning their conference

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

I'm not asking why we are where we are.

I am pointing out that teams like Houston and Iowa State are being rewarded for playing nobodies all year

Gotcha. Houston I somewhat get why there where they are, I don’t get Iowa state at all like you said

 

[runt#69]

Lunardi means less than nothing as well as the net, right now.

I think basing seeding on the NET and quad system is a HUGE mistake and hurts teams rather than gives us a true result based on something simple, like the eye test.

but then again, some people's EYES are worse than others, so there will never be a truly fair and balanced system to determine seedings, imo.

it is what it is.

screw it, just win and it'll take care of itself, as it SHOULD ( but even nowadays even THAT doesnt necessarily make the difference)

we shall see.......

 

[LineSkiCat14]

UNCW, that’s what is going to hurt Kentucky all year.

That's kind of besides the point, though. Whether we beat UNCW or not, the NET still have a ton of flaws

I really think they should just use like 5 different models and give the rankings based on the aggregate scores. So if kenpom has you at 5, and NET has you at 9, you'd be 7th.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Iowa St is currently 13th in Kenpom.

We have to move away from the whole "resume" thing and "well this team played nobody".

We can accurately assess how teams are based on WHO they did play and HOW they looked playing them.

Is Iowa St the 13th best team in America? Is Houston the best team? I haven't the faintest clue. No one does. But it's not outrageous to think that, despite playing no one, they could possibly be ranked accurately.

 

[Blueheart32]

Lunardi means less than nothing as well as the net, right now.

I think basing seeding on the NET and quad system is a HUGE mistake and hurts teams rather than gives us a true result based on something simple, like the eye test.

but then again, some people's EYES are worse than others, so there will never be a truly fair and balanced system to determine seedings, imo.

it is what it is.

screw it, just win and it'll take care of itself, as it SHOULD ( but even nowadays even THAT doesnt necessarily make the difference)

we shall see.......

I think there is a fair way to do it. Let Vegas do it. Who is better at handicapping games? Won't ever happen, but I think it would be the most accurate. I would say all conference champions get their automatic bids and let Vegas determine who else gets in and the seeding.

 

[Tampa_cat54]

Iowa St is currently 13th in Kenpom.

We have to move away from the whole "resume" thing and "well this team played nobody".

We can accurately assess how teams are based on WHO they did play and HOW they looked playing them.

Is Iowa St the 13th best team in America? Is Houston the best team? I haven't the faintest clue. No one does. But it's not outrageous to think that, despite playing no one, they could possibly be ranked accurately.

Iowa State lost to 2 pretty mediocre, some might say BAD teams, and has zero good wins.

And I have watched them twice (both wins) and they barely even looked like a top-25 team IMO.

They are not the 13th best team in America.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Iowa St is currently 13th in Kenpom.

We have to move away from the whole "resume" thing and "well this team played nobody".

We can accurately assess how teams are based on WHO they did play and HOW they looked playing them.

Is Iowa St the 13th best team in America? Is Houston the best team? I haven't the faintest clue. No one does. But it's not outrageous to think that, despite playing no one, they could possibly be ranked accurately.

You're not wrong. Maybe Houston IS worthy of its ranking. But I do think there should be a bit of a "prove it" hesitation when ranking teams that haven't played anyone. It seems Houston really hasn't played many teams that could feasibly pull out a win against them

 

[Nix112]

Eh, were a 1/3 of the way through the season and everyone has 16-18 conference games left, half of which will be on the road. The teams that don't belong will be exposed, and the one's who have stayed home the past 7 weeks beating up on high school teams will be less prepared than the ones challenging themselves. Iowa St has Kansas, Baylor, Texas, BYU, etc on deck, if they make it through the big 12 with a good record they'll belong there regardless, but odds are they will drop like a rock.

 

[UKWildcats1987]

On a separate note, is ole miss the worst 10 and 0 team ever?

Weak schedule and several unimpressive close one score wins.

 

[Jmeeks54thebest]

UNCW is a bad loss and it will hurt us all season long. We can mitigate the damage but anyone who suggests that losing to an unranked, sub 100 team, at home doesn’t hurt is in pure straight denial.

These are likely the same posters that said Evansville wasn’t so bad after we lost that game. And yes, there were posters saying that at the time.

 

[KY Long Rifle]

There is no way to accurately seed the NCAA tournament unless every team plays every team, which isn’t going to happen. It’s just a guess regardless of how much math is involved. There’s just too much missing information. That’s why they’ve been at it for years and there’s still multiple upsets each time. Honestly, though, that’s what makes it fun.

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

Because we have more than enough tough Q1 games ahead of us to dilute that one outlier. We just need to win more than we lose, but if we lose more than we'd like to see, that UNCW still won't matter.

And, if UNCW keeps winning (they've won both games since ours), they will rise in the NET, thereby possibly moving into Q2 territory.

So it's not yet a "bad loss" given there's a lot of time left.

It’s contingent on other sec teams staying quad one and Kentucky winning those games, and UNCW winning, a lot has to happen for that loss to not look bad for Kentucky

 

[LineSkiCat14]

UNCW is a bad loss and it will hurt us all season long. We can mitigate the damage but anyone who suggests that losing to an unranked, sub 100 team, at home doesn’t hurt is in pure straight denial.

These are likely the same posters that said Evansville wasn’t so bad after we lost that game. And yes, there were posters saying that at the time.

We were a 3 seed knocking on the door of 2 seed, and we were like 9-1 over our last 10 games.

I think it's more that any loss hurts, and you only need a handful of them before you take yourself out of the running for a 1seed. It also sucked to lose to a far inferior opponent. But I don't think the committee was going to ding us because we lost to Evansville in November. They were instead going to ding us simply for having 6 losses on the season. Had we won the SECT, were probably a 2 seed and possibly even one of the higher ones at that.

 

[fatguy87]

We were a 3 seed knocking on the door of 2 seed, and we were like 9-1 over our last 10 games.

I think it's more that any loss hurts, and you only need a handful of them before you take yourself out of the running for a 1seed. It also sucked to lose to a far inferior opponent. But I don't think the committee was going to ding us because we lost to Evansville in November. They were instead going to ding us simply for having 6 losses on the season. Had we won the SECT, were probably a 2 seed and possibly even one of the higher ones at that.

The Evansville loss works as a convenient "tiebreaker" when comparing UK to other high major programs with a similar record.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

The Evansville loss works as a convenient "tiebreaker" when comparing UK to other high major programs with a similar record.

It "could" but it also "shouldn't".. and we also have no way of knowing if it would. Kentucky was 8th in the AP poll, and so long as we win one game in the SECT (where I believe we were a 1 or 2 seed with a double bye).. we'd have been a 2 seed.

The 9th team in the AP poll was MSU I think, and we not only beat them straight up, but they had like 9 losses.

At the end of the day, the losses to a specific team don't matter as much as the loss itself. Limit the losses and we should be fine. And I'm not thinking this team loses too many.

 

[ManitouDan]

View embedded media

I don't get it.

Iowa State has zero wins over NCAA Tournament teams (we might have 3 at this point depending on St. Joes and Penn)

Same goes with Houston, who is somehow number 1.

Houston has played NOBODY all year long (have played zero ranked teams, and only scheduled 1 team in the preseason top-25, a mediocre Texas A&M team and they almost lost).

Yet somehow they have FOUR Q1 wins (again, played a bunch of nobodies).

They really have the NET figured out like a cheat code.

Utah, Dayton, Texas A&M (7-4) and Xavier (6-5), all unranked.

Iowa State has beaten VCU, Depaul and Iowa (All 3 of them STINK), lost to Virginia Tech and that same mediocre Texas A&M team, and they are 6th in the NET.

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.

Maybe Cal had it right. Pack in a bunch of games against stinky Power-5 opponents and beat them, and then blow out sub 300 teams and be top-5 in the NET.

There is nothing to " get". Its a bunch of pinheads in a board room making shit up . Morons .

 

[gharding07]

I'm starting to think they should have kept the RPI lol.

 

[fatguy87]

I am pro any system that makes UK look good and anti the one that doesn't. Therefore, I am pro AP poll. Everything else is trash and doesn't make any sense.

 

[UK90]

UNCW, that’s what is going to hurt Kentucky all year.

Yep, one bad loss like that can serve like an anchor weighing down your NET score all season long.

But, fortunately, UNCW is ranked in the 100s instead of the 300s like Evansville a few years ago. We’ve got plenty time and opportunity to fix that glitch.