Louisville moves up giving us 6 Quad 1 wins, but we only move up 1 spot after A&M win.

[Rideordiewildcat]

Yet we only move up 1 spot in the NET to 12th still behind Zags with 2, Michigan with 3 and a Quad 2 loss, Illinois with 4 losses and a Quad 2 loss.

Only 1 team ahead of us has.more Quad 1 wins and that's Aub.

NET experts explain this, 12-3 HOU is 3rd and has zero Quad 1 wins, 0-3. Their biggest win is 47th BYU. Next cloest is 74th. Meanwhile we are 12th and 6-3🤡

 

[WildcatSir]

We have the best resume in college basketball end of story. The need to fix the NET asap. We should be number 1 in the net.

 

[fatguy87]

Look at the scores of Houston’s recent games. That’s why.

Quad 1 wins aren’t actually a factor for NET ratings.

 

[Ron Mehico]

Look at the scores of Houston’s recent games. That’s why.

Quad 1 wins aren’t actually a factor for NET ratings.

I appreciate the explanation for why the NET is dumb and silly.

 

[SemperFiCat]

So many formulas, rankings, and 'ologies. Yet none of them seem really dialed in. Just glad we are back near the top in the quagmire of it all.

 

[Cats192]

It seems silly to have a quad system and then say the quads don't really matter.

 

[CatEye2010]

It seems silly to have a quad system and then say the quads don't really matter.

They matter at seeding time to justify why they do what they do. But obviously there are metrics operating that we don't see/know. A cloak of secrecy so they can ultimately do what they want.

But, I like our chances going forward to get a seed very few of us thought possible in Pope's first season.

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

It seems silly to have a quad system and then say the quads don't really matter.

The biggest change to the quad system needs to be that if at the moment of the game the win ends being a quad 1 it stays that way for the rest of the season, it doesn’t change as the year goes on

 

[Rideordiewildcat]

We have the best resume in college basketball end of story. The need to fix the NET asap. We should be number 1 in the net.

I'd say close but I'd have us at #2, not Dook who's beating up on nobodies. Aub has 9 Quad 1 wins so it's fair they are 1 but we have 6 and most ahead of us have 3 and of course HOU has zero.

 

[bbncal02]

The biggest change to the quad system needs to be that if at the moment of the game the win ends being a quad 1 it stays that way for the rest of the season, it doesn’t change as the year goes on

This. I HATE the NET as it currently stands. Because say you beat a team at full strength and then aliens show up and steal their talent...now they suck. Is that your fault? No, but you'll basically have a Q1 game go to a Q4 game and your win looks less impressive even though you beat them at their best.

 

[TucsonCat]

Kentucky has lost against numbers 26, 31, and 36. By up to 20 points.
Houston has only lost against 1, 9, and 39. By no more than 5 points.

 

[The_Answer1313]

People really need to understand the differences between resume and what the intention of these computer rankings are trying to do.

The fact that Houston is 0-3 vs Q1 teams sucks from a resume standpoint, but it doesn't mean that they can't have a great NET if they took care of business in their other games.

Thing is no one should really care about this because seeding is still very much based on resume.

Houston on the bracket matrix project is currently a 5 seed. Despite them being 3rd in both KP and NET.

The fact is the computer metrics are better at predicting tournament success than the resume method.

I would be 100% confident that a 5 seed Houston overperforms their seeding come March. I sure as heck would not want to see them in my region at that seed.

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

People really need to understand the differences between resume and what the intention of these computer rankings are trying to do.

The fact that Houston is 0-3 vs Q1 teams sucks from a resume standpoint, but it doesn't mean that they can't have a great NET if they took care of business in their other games.

Thing is no one should really care about this because seeding is still very much based on resume.

Houston on the bracket matrix project is currently a 5 seed. Despite them being 3rd in both KP and NET.

The fact is the computer metrics are better at predicting tournament success than the resume method.

I would be 100% confident that a 5 seed Houston overperforms their seeding come March. I sure as heck would not want to see them in my region at that seed.

This Houston team doesn’t have anybody like the shead last year. They are still great defensively but they don’t have a dynamic playmaker like him

 

[The_Answer1313]

This Houston team doesn’t have anybody like the shead last year. They are still great defensively but they don’t have a dynamic playmaker like him

Possibly but their offensive numbers are actually better this year than last and they still have that elite defense that Sampson has had there for the past 7 years now.

Definitely not a 5 seed lol.

 

[chroix]

This squad is going to be beyond tested. 10+ top 15 matchups before the tournament. We could end up playing 15 top 15 teams in one season depending on tournament draws. Epic season. Thank God we got a real coach.

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

Possibly but their offensive numbers are actually better this year than last and they still have that elite defense that Sampson has had there for the past 7 years now.

Definitely not a 5 seed lol.

Yeah if they are the 1 seed in that region and the 4 seed got screwed over

 

[jbne222]

The biggest change to the quad system needs to be that if at the moment of the game the win ends being a quad 1 it stays that way for the rest of the season, it doesn’t change as the year goes on

This would be awful.

Imagine two teams:
Team 1: Starts off the season top 10 but ends up missing the tournament
Team 2: Starts off the season unranked but finishes in the top 10

By your proposed system, if a team were to play both of these teams early on the season, it’d be better to beat Team 1?? That would be terrible.

 

[jbne222]

People really need to understand the differences between resume and what the intention of these computer rankings are trying to do.

The fact that Houston is 0-3 vs Q1 teams sucks from a resume standpoint, but it doesn't mean that they can't have a great NET if they took care of business in their other games.

Thing is no one should really care about this because seeding is still very much based on resume.

Houston on the bracket matrix project is currently a 5 seed. Despite them being 3rd in both KP and NET.

The fact is the computer metrics are better at predicting tournament success than the resume method.

I would be 100% confident that a 5 seed Houston overperforms their seeding come March. I sure as heck would not want to see them in my region at that seed.

Well said. The NET is used as a sorting tool to help determine the quality of a teams wins and losses based on the NET rankings of their opponents. In terms of seeding, a teams OWN rating doesn’t mean as much (Houston is a great example of this)

 

[Dontworryboutit23]

This would be awful.

Imagine two teams:
Team 1: Starts off the season top 10 but ends up missing the tournament
Team 2: Starts off the season unranked but finishes in the top 10

By your proposed system, if a team were to play both of these teams early on the season, it’d be better to beat Team 1?? That would be terrible.

So having the win lose credibility because it was at a bad time during the season or early in the season is better? In the system im saying you get the credit you should get at the time, if its a top 10 win in late December it should stay a Q1 win.

 

[jbne222]

So having the win lose credibility because it was at a bad time during the season or early in the season is better? In the system im saying you get the credit you should get at the time, if its a top 10 win in late December it should stay a Q1 win.

Idk. I think you're asking for preseason rankings to matter way more than they should in regards to an NCAA tournament resume.

When Kentucky beat Miami at Rupp last year they were #8 in the country, but finished 15-17 and didn't even make the NIT.

As a UK fan would I like a win like that to hold the same weight on a tournament resume as winning @Auburn or @Tennesee? Sure. But does it make sense as an objective basketball fan? Absolutely not.

 

[ArtLaibsGhost]

Yet we only move up 1 spot in the NET to 12th still behind Zags with 2, Michigan with 3 and a Quad 2 loss, Illinois with 4 losses and a Quad 2 loss.

Only 1 team ahead of us has.more Quad 1 wins and that's Aub.

NET experts explain this, 12-3 HOU is 3rd and has zero Quad 1 wins, 0-3. Their biggest win is 47th BYU. Next cloest is 74th. Meanwhile we are 12th and 6-3🤡

The NET is bullshit always has been.

 

[Fox2monk]

This Houston team doesn’t have anybody like the shead last year. They are still great defensively but they don’t have a dynamic playmaker like him

I agree, but it all it takes is a crew who calls it like the SEC. Fouls only against one team. They can make a game slow and ugly and completely take a team like us out of a game. While we get hacked and miss everything with no calls and breath on them while they live at the line.

 

[Fox2monk]

So having the win lose credibility because it was at a bad time during the season or early in the season is better? In the system im saying you get the credit you should get at the time, if it’s a top 10 win in late December it should stay a Q1 win.

I agree with your premise somewhat, maybe a team who gets severely injured or a guy leaves the team mid way thru the year who was a huge piece. Then the win should count the same, but a team who implodes with an early high ranking should not count the same.

 

[jeffky]

I don't care what efficiency stats are reporting . I look at the results that take place on the court . Kentucky has 6 quad 4 wins and anything less than a projected 1 seed at this point in the season is nothing but garbage hypotheticals

 

[The_Answer1313]

I don't care what efficiency stats are reporting . I look at the results that take place on the court . Kentucky has 6 quad 4 wins and anything less than a projected 1 seed at this point in the season is nothing but garbage hypotheticals

Thing is if you just look at things in terms of wins and losses the bigger picture is being missed on how those wins and losses are coming.

The truth is in all sports margin of victory is important. Things that these metrics calculate are more predictive of future success than actual record.

Resume = what you’ve done in the past.
Computer metrics = more predictive of what will happen later on possibly in a one and done tournament in March.

 

[nickhorvathsuxazz]

This. I HATE the NET as it currently stands. Because say you beat a team at full strength and then aliens show up and steal their talent...now they suck. Is that your fault? No, but you'll basically have a Q1 game go to a Q4 game and your win looks less impressive even though you beat them at their best.

But it works both ways...if you beat a team that's struggling early, say at Q2 or 3, then they get healthy and go on a run during conference, you'd get the benefit of beating a Q1 even though they weren't at the time you played. If that makes sense

 

[bbncal02]

But it works both ways...if you beat a team that's struggling early, say at Q2 or 3, then they get healthy and go on a run during conference, you'd get the benefit of beating a Q1 even though they weren't at the time you played. If that makes sense

True, I think it sucks the most in the case of an injury to a player. Take us in 2013 when Noel went down. Say you beat us when we had Noel and it was a Q1 win. Should you suffer for that win just because Noel got hurt? It needs some adjustments.

 

[The_Answer1313]

The reason why everyone uses end of season ranking is because one would think the end of season ranking is more indicative of actual team skill level than earlier in the year.

Especially when human polls. There's usually several teams that people were just flat out wrong about. Team A is ranked 5th, you beat them but then they suck the rest of the season. Well were they really the 5th best team to begin with? Probably not. They just were the 5th ranked team because a bunch of people thought they'd be good.

The point about injuries is certainly a valid one tho. But I feel like those are isolated incidents. Injuries definitely do happen but how many are significant to the point they drastically change the team. I guess although injuries occur, not all of them have a major effect on things. This year we've lost Kerr for quite a bit of games. But I'm not entirely sure we are all that worse. In fact, many would say we are getting better. Lost Butler and still beat Gonzaga without him.

I tend to think with computer metrics, the more data the better it's able to determine skill level.

 

[JonathanW]

I think the NET puts a lot of weight on margin of victory, and on OFF & DEF efficiency stats. Too much weight.

 

[JonathanW]

Thing is if you just look at things in terms of wins and losses the bigger picture is being missed on how those wins and losses are coming.

The truth is in all sports margin of victory is important. Things that these metrics calculate are more predictive of future success than actual record.

Resume = what you’ve done in the past.
Computer metrics = more predictive of what will happen later on possibly in a one and done tournament in March.

Actually, I don't completely agree about the metrics statement. I wrote a program about 20 years ago that was very good at ranking the teams without using any OFF or DEF metrics. Was solely based on outcomes of games (who you played, where you played, when you played, who won/lost, was it in OT, and by how much). From that it would create predictive probabilities for each team vs every other team.

Metrics can add to that, the more information you put into any statistical model, the more informative it is. But if you weight too much certain variables, then you get skewed results, which I think is what many models currently do.

(& yes, I am a Statistician)

 

[The_Answer1313]

IMO offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency is all that matters.

All those numbers say is "you scored this many points per 100 possessions" or "you gave up this many points per 100 possessions"

Using those should be the basis for anything. It's what actually happened on the court. If you scored 1.20 points per possession, you've done that.

The bigger argument IMO against these things would be things like "are they factoring in SOS correctly", whatever adjustments they are making to go from raw efficiency stats to adjusted ones. That's where it needs to be looked at.

Unfortunately, NCAA doesn't publish how this is calculated completely. So we are left wondering.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Actually, I don't completely agree about the metrics statement. I wrote a program about 20 years ago that was very good at ranking the teams without using any OFF or DEF metrics. Was solely based on outcomes of games (who you played, where you played, when you played, who won/lost, was it in OT, and by how much). From that it would create predictive probabilities for each team vs every other team.

Metrics can add to that, the more information you put into any statistical model, the more informative it is. But if you weight too much certain variables, then you get skewed results, which I think is what many models currently do.

(& yes, I am a Statistician)

I don't doubt this. It stands to reason teams with good records are just good teams overall. You take that and factor in strength of schedule, margin of victory etc etc and you could get pretty close. But by factoring in those things, outcome and how much you were actually factoring in a form of efficiency. You just weren't doing it on a per possession basis so the offense and defense wasn't being separated out.

You saw a 30 point win and factored that in. These metrics see a 30 point win and attribute some of that to the offense and some of that to the defense. But ultimately you are arriving at similar conclusions.

The current top ten teams in NET are Auburn, Duke, Houston, UT, Iowa St, Florida, Illinois, Alabama, Kansas and Michgan.

We can all debate on ordering and what not but it passes the smell test to me in that all of those teams are very good.

This is why I feel for the most part NET gets it correctly in the end. We are currently 12th. In Kenpom we are 16th. In the human polls we are top 10. Whether we are closer to 16th or closer to top 10? Who knows. There's nothing that's going to perfectly tell you how these teams should be rated. As long as it gives a general estimation, I'm not so sure there's anything better.

 

[The_Answer1313]

When looking at total results, things just make sense.

Going back to Houston. They've lost three games. Two were in OT and the other was 5 points to Auburn who is probably the best team or close to the best team in all of basketball.

This team is 5-0 in the Big 12. They have won by margins of 13, 31, 19, 30 and 16. They have absolutely stomped teams in their conference. In fact even in the non conference, all of their wins have been by double digits and the majority absolute blowouts.

Are they the 3rd best team in the nation? I don't know but you could certainly make an argument they are up there.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

With the weak ACC, UL will probably be a 2 seed by the time we get to the tourney.

 

[tommy2010]

We have the best resume in college basketball end of story. The need to fix the NET asap. We should be number 1 in the net.

Auburn would beg to differ

 

[JumperJack]

We have the best resume in college basketball end of story. The need to fix the NET asap. We should be number 1 in the net.

Yeah but I think this shows that resume or not, we’re going to get screwed on Selection Sunday.