Noted, Mississippi State's NET fell from 30 to 31, taking a QUAD 1 win away from UK, for the time being. Otherwise, the SEC has seven bids secured.
SEC Net Ratings
SEC Net Ratings
It does matter because large samples matter. You want to be a 2 or 3 seed, not a 4 or 5 seed.
Mississippi State is still a quad 1 win. 1-75 on the road is considered a quad 1 win.Noted, Mississippi State's NET fell from 30 to 31, taking a QUAD 1 win away from UK, for the time being. Otherwise, the SEC has seven bids secured.
SEC Net Ratings
According to KSR, Scott Van Pelt did a story on how the Big 12 has figured out a way to manipulate the NET. Apparently the NET weighs heavily on blowout wins which the Big 12 did in their preseason cupcake games. Now the conference is rated so high that they can beat themselves up without being dinged heavily for it. That is why despite having 4 teams ranked they may get 9 of their 13 teams in. On the other hand the SEC has 6 teams ranked and only project 7 teams in.
Mississippi State is still a quad 1 win. 1-75 on the road is considered a quad 1 win.
Will probably lose 2 of the next 3 to finish the season as well.Yes, but the home win was taken away. UK now has five, not six.
Ah, yes…good pointYes, but the home win was taken away. UK now has five, not six.
Nate Oats knows this too. He understands that padding a lead late helps his team’s ranking. Of course, none of this matters in the tournament. Alabama has eight losses, one OOC win outside of guarantee games, has beaten ONE team away from home that is projected to make the tournament. But they are #6 in NETAccording to KSR, Scott Van Pelt did a story on how the Big 12 has figured out a way to manipulate the NET. Apparently the NET weighs heavily on blowout wins which the Big 12 did in their preseason cupcake games. Now the conference is rated so high that they can beat themselves up without being dinged heavily for it. That is why despite having 4 teams ranked they may get 9 of their 13 teams in. On the other hand the SEC has 6 teams ranked and only project 7 teams in.
I guess they're figuring this stuff out while Cal watches "Little House"Nate Oats knows this too. He understands that padding a lead late helps his team’s ranking. Of course, none of this matters in the tournament. Alabama has eight losses, one OOC win outside of guarantee games, has beaten ONE team away from home that is projected to make the tournament. But they are #6 in NET
It doesn't help they Big 12 either since they typically get the most teams in and most fail to make it out of the 1st weekend.Nate Oats knows this too. He understands that padding a lead late helps his team’s ranking. Of course, none of this matters in the tournament. Alabama has eight losses, one OOC win outside of guarantee games, has beaten ONE team away from home that is projected to make the tournament. But they are #6 in NET
This assumes that the number of teams in a conference ranked by the AP is a meaningful metric though. The poll has been around forever, so most of us have conditioned ourselves to care about it as fans, but it’s really just the aggregated opinions of a group of a group of journalists. I wouldn’t necessarily say they’re horrible at their jobs because most of the time, the clear best teams will be somewhere in the top portion of their rankings.According to KSR, Scott Van Pelt did a story on how the Big 12 has figured out a way to manipulate the NET. Apparently the NET weighs heavily on blowout wins which the Big 12 did in their preseason cupcake games. Now the conference is rated so high that they can beat themselves up without being dinged heavily for it. That is why despite having 4 teams ranked they may get 9 of their 13 teams in. On the other hand the SEC has 6 teams ranked and only project 7 teams in.
Auburn's a really good bet to get knocked out early in March because they are overseeded.The NET is useless. Auburn is 1-7 in quad 1 wins, yet they are somehow 7th in the net. They are 3 spots behind Uconn who is 9-3 in quad 1 games.
The NET is useless. Auburn is 1-7 in quad 1 wins, yet they are somehow 7th in the net. They are 3 spots behind Uconn who is 9-3 in quad 1 games.
Totally agree. Something is wrong with the metrics when a team is 1-7 against quad 1 and is ranked 7th.The NET is useless. Auburn is 1-7 in quad 1 wins, yet they are somehow 7th in the net. They are 3 spots behind Uconn who is 9-3 in quad 1 games.
I do not know about all that. I would consider UCF 15-12 and Cinn. 16-12 as bad. Look at these teams record v/s Top 25 teams :The SEC also has two AWFUL teams in Vanderbilt and Missouri, and three more very average teams.
Everyone in the Big 12 besides West Virginia and Oklahoma State racked up non-conference wins.
Maybe the rest of the SEC should play Cal’s cupcake schedule instead of all these good teams in Holiday Tournaments.According to KSR, Scott Van Pelt did a story on how the Big 12 has figured out a way to manipulate the NET. Apparently the NET weighs heavily on blowout wins which the Big 12 did in their preseason cupcake games. Now the conference is rated so high that they can beat themselves up without being dinged heavily for it. That is why despite having 4 teams ranked they may get 9 of their 13 teams in. On the other hand the SEC has 6 teams ranked and only project 7 teams in.
It evened out on quad 1 wins. Lost the quad 1 against them earlier in the year but picked up one for beating them again.Mississippi State is still a quad 1 win. 1-75 on the road is considered a quad 1 win.
Yep...the person I replied to shared that info...makes sense.It evened out on quad 1 wins. Lost the quad 1 against them earlier in the year but picked up one for beating them again.
That’s insane.The NET is useless. Auburn is 1-7 in quad 1 wins, yet they are somehow 7th in the net. They are 3 spots behind Uconn who is 9-3 in quad 1 games.
Assuming the committee is full of competent individuals, my guess is Auburn ends up getting a substantially worse seed than their net rankings indicate because of that stat. Like a 4 or 5.Yep...the person I replied to shared that info...makes sense.
It's a good idea, but my guess is that the biggest issue is that there are games that impact the standings 7 days a week and there is probably a lot of movement. College basketball might have 15-20 top 25 teams lose in a week period where college football might have 5. There are just a lot more moving parts.Assuming the committee is full of competent individuals, my guess is Auburn ends up getting a substantially worse seed than their net rankings indicate because of that stat. Like a 4 or 5.
Is there any reason we can’t have CFP esque weekly releases so we don’t have random last second criteria being used by the committee and there aren’t any massive surprises in the top 4 or so seed lines?
Then you do not understand how a OAD tournament works. There are no guarantees, as UVA showed us even a 1-seed can lose to a 16. BUT…your chances increase of you winning the larger the gap between the seeds.I learned not to care about NET, quad one, or any other metric after St. Peter's stole UK's lunch money a few years ago as a 15 seed.
Tell me again why any of it matters as much as we keep thinking it does when there's no elite team this year? We should have learned after the 2018 Kansas State meltdown, followed by that 2019 Auburn meltdown. In both cases, there was a wide-open road to the Final Four and UK crapped the bed against rosters without any real NBA players.
No one knows exactly what the NET formula is. It is a bit of a black box.According to KSR, Scott Van Pelt did a story on how the Big 12 has figured out a way to manipulate the NET. Apparently the NET weighs heavily on blowout wins which the Big 12 did in their preseason cupcake games. Now the conference is rated so high that they can beat themselves up without being dinged heavily for it. That is why despite having 4 teams ranked they may get 9 of their 13 teams in. On the other hand the SEC has 6 teams ranked and only project 7 teams in.
You could be correct. I am just passing along what they said about the SVP segment from his show.No one knows exactly what the NET formula is. It is a bit of a black box.
Margin of victory matters to some extent. If the NET is off regarding the B12, it should be an outlier compared to other metrics. Here is how it compares to the average of a many ratings, the Massey composite ranking:
NET ranking of Big 12 teams, Massey composite ranking of Big 12 teams:
1, 1
8, 9
10, 10
14, 15
17, 20
34, 26
38, 31
42, 36
43, 41
45, 52
66, 62
74, 78
114, 108
144, 137
It seems like the NET isn't too far off what all the other metrics suggest.
Regarding destroying inferior teams, I don't think it's a matter of intent to destroy or whatever that is unique to Big 12 teams. I think every team is trying their best to defeat their opponent. It's not like we play a low tier opponent and decide to take it easy and choose not to enter destructo mode. It would be nice to be able to flip on a destroy switch. We could have used that against UNCW this year.