Keep winning and get that 1-2 seed!
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings
Cats now #8 in the new NET.
- Thread starter CatEye2010
- Start date
At #8, we are the 2 seed. But you’re right, they tend to ignore advanced metrics (even their own) if it means screwing us.
Also 8 SEC teams in easy by that metric. But Florida could fall out with their injury, anybody take their place? Maybe 7 then.
We have a lot of tough and very big SEC games left on our schedule but we seem to be putting it together right now. Hard to say if we can get to that #1 seed with our schedule but, keep winning and it will happen. Go Cats!
What a difference between the NET and RPI. Seems like some things need fixing in this new NET system they made.
Kansas is 19 in NET but 1 in RPI
Kentucky is 8 in NET but 21 in RPI
Oklahoma is 30 in NET but 6 in RPI
Wofford is 29 in NET but 45 in RPI
I don't think the committee really used the RPI actual ranking of a team that heavily in seeding but more how many top 50/100 wins (now quad 1/2 wins) more than the ranking itself.
Kansas is 19 in NET but 1 in RPI
Kentucky is 8 in NET but 21 in RPI
Oklahoma is 30 in NET but 6 in RPI
Wofford is 29 in NET but 45 in RPI
I don't think the committee really used the RPI actual ranking of a team that heavily in seeding but more how many top 50/100 wins (now quad 1/2 wins) more than the ranking itself.
I have no idea if NET is a good system or not because the NCAA hasn't revealed much about their methodology.
That being said we knew RPI was a poor metric.
So the fact the two don't agree isn't a knock on NET IMO
Did you know when the NET first came out Ohio State was #1 and Kentucky was #61 ?
Here is a link to how NET rankings work.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...ingly-no-1-with-duke-no-6-and-kentucky-no-61/
Yeah it was awful lol.
Honestly they should have waited until later on in the season to release .NET instead of putting those out that everyone knew was crap.
My feeling is that .NET doesn't take into account previous seasons like Kenpom or other systems do.
As a result u get these off the wall results.
It seems like right now RPI seems to be more in line with respectable systems compared to NET.
But as long as it's reasonable by March I'm ok with the system.
If they used a S-Curve based on the NET rankings right now:
East
1. UVA
2. UK
3. VT
4. Wisconsin
South
1. Duke
2. Houston
3. Buffalo
4. Nebraska
West
1. Gonzaga
2. Michigan
3. Texas Tech
4. LSU
Midwest
1. UT
2. Michigan St.
3. UNC
4. Purdue
Wouldn't be a bad draw. None of the other top 4 in that bracket really scare me.
Duke gets their usual cakewalk.
Long way to go, though.
East
1. UVA
2. UK
3. VT
4. Wisconsin
South
1. Duke
2. Houston
3. Buffalo
4. Nebraska
West
1. Gonzaga
2. Michigan
3. Texas Tech
4. LSU
Midwest
1. UT
2. Michigan St.
3. UNC
4. Purdue
Wouldn't be a bad draw. None of the other top 4 in that bracket really scare me.
Duke gets their usual cakewalk.
Long way to go, though.
How in the hell is HOU 7th? They play no one. Shouldn't we get the South if we are up to a 2 seed? I thought that was the point.
As I posted in another thread, the committee won't "punish" a 1 seed by putting UK as the 2 seed in Louisville.
Possibly.
Tho what if UK was say a 3 seed instead of a 2 seed?
In other words they can only factor that stuff so much and stay within the bracketing procedures.
It's not like we haven't seen similar things before. Maybe not with rewarding us, but we have seen 1's get screwed playing in a 2's backyard. Especially when UNC or dook has been a 2.
FWIW they have moved in the past few years to making it where the best 1s play the worst 2s.
Again it will come down to 1) where we are on whatever line we are on, 2) who else is on that line and 3) where the other SEC teams (if any was ahead of us) went
Again it will come down to 1) where we are on whatever line we are on, 2) who else is on that line and 3) where the other SEC teams (if any was ahead of us) went
Hopefully the NCAA does another Mid Feb top 16 teams bracket like they have the last 2 years. Really would like to see it this year.
There in lies the problem, UK isn't Duke or UNC.
Never been given preferential treatment like that.
Don't think it starts this year.
Hope I'm wrong.
Ok I'm with you now. So we should get it or at least have a shot at it, but they will screw us like they always do. I guess we have no choice, but to get the 1 seed. Surely they couldn't deny then. Well they could, but I would hope not. We need to take that 1 seed from TN.
We've never seen a 1 get screwed by playing a 2-seed Duke or UNC in their back yard.
Duke hasn't played a S16 game in North Carolina since the 1966 tournament period. Checking back to at least 1980, UNC has not played a S16 game in its back yard as a 2-seed or lower.
RPI was complete garbage. Utterly useless. If this system is far off from it, that is a positive sign to me. I'd be more interested in how it diverges from more proven metrics like Ken Pom.
It doesn't take into account previous seasons so a small data set results in some messed up rankings. Why they elected to release it as early as they did is laughable. Anyone could look at that and see those rankings were garbage, all it did was compromise the integrity of the rankings to release them too early.
Yes. The same buckets they started last year, just with the new NET rating replacing the NIT. NET is a hybrid of all kinds of stuff (efficiency, wins/losses, quality of opponents) with some seeming to overlap. I'm not sure it was optimized for anything vs throwing a bunch of crap together, but it will probably take a few years to get a good sense of its predictive power.
Tier 1 is home against top 30, neutral against top 50, road against top 75. Tier 2 goes down to 75 at home, 100 neutral, 135 road.
Absolutely. It was ridiculous to release it before it had sufficient data to compare teams.
Probably right - they just get to play first two rounds in Charlotte or Greensboro EVERY year
I’d love to see Buffalo take out Duke. They are a good team.
Funny thing is, I looked back at a few tourneys and found that at least twice Duke was sent to a state and a lower seed was from that state.
One year they were in Houston and their 3 seed was Baylor. One year they were in Anaheim and their 2 seed was San Diego St.
So, even though Duke often gets a cakewalk to the Final Four, this aspect hasn't favored them.
One year they were in Houston and their 3 seed was Baylor. One year they were in Anaheim and their 2 seed was San Diego St.
So, even though Duke often gets a cakewalk to the Final Four, this aspect hasn't favored them.
They havent in years.
You can take any seed list and go 1 through 16 and figure out how teams got sent where they got sent.
From the official bracketing procedures:
Teams will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible. A team moved out of its natural area will be placed in the next closest region to the extent possible. If two teams from the same natural region are in contention for the same bracket position, the team ranked higher in the seed list shall remain in its natural region.
You mean like when we were the overall # 1 seed and played both Wisconsin and Marquette almost in their backyard?
Seven is pretty incredible. Did I hear last time we had 6 was in 2003?
Weves had a few years recently with only 3 or 4 teams in. Which says a lot about this Kentucky team being 4-1 right now. Bama and Georgia may not be great SEC teams this year.. But they would be SEC contenders in many recent seasons. Can't just go.by the record.. The SEC is finally legit.
Similar threads
