Win baby, win. Up to 12 from 16. Even with two loses in a row, our resume stacks up against 99 percent of the country at this point.
Up to 12 in the NET
- Thread starter JimboBBN
- Start date
We lose two of our last three and CLIMB in the NET. Gotta love it.
That’s the good thing about the SEC being so strong. Losses don’t hurt you much and wins can mean a huge boost.
That’s the good thing about the SEC being so strong. Losses don’t hurt you much and wins can mean a huge boost.
In a weird way, The way the metrics award/punish for outperforming or underperforming expected performance, being a -10.5 dog due to the Butler and Carr injuries boosted us.
I don't know 100% about NET but I don't think Kenpom when predicting factors in injuries even and I think we were an 9 point dog in that system.
But yeah it makes total sense tho. Based on where you are rated, where your opponent is rated, you are expected to win/lose by a certain amount. You do better than that, maybe you are better than your ranking, your opponent a bit worse or mixture of both. It's a constant adjustment in the system.
Every team ranked from 10th to 19th is rated within 1 NetRtg in kenpom. They are all practically tied for 10th lol.
Last edited:
That’s interesting. I was just assuming we were such a big dog due to injuries. Hard to imagine being 9-10 point dogs just by results on the season. Maybe it’s just a hard game for the data to predict due to the 2 teams being polar opposites. #3 offense vs #3 defense and both teams aren’t statistically great on the opposite side of the ball…. Basically giving their offense a little more credit than our defense.
This is why when people debate about whether a team should be say 10th vs say 15th I have to laugh lol.
Teams are a lot closer I think than most realize.
It did seem a bit high.
9 points suggests 6 points better on a neutral court.
FWIW based on the result, they lost 1 full point in EM. We gained 1.37.
So now maybe a neutral court they'd be favored by 4 points. Which seems a bit more reasonable to me.
The NET is flawed for one major reason- margin of victory.
I saw a tweet the other day about how St. Mary's (I think) beat some team at home ranked 340th, but they won by like 45 points, and that gave them a bigger bump compared to Michigan State who went on the road and beat Rutgers by 7 (or something like that).
It's how Houston has conned the entire system. They just beat really, really bad teams by 40 & 50 points, they leave their starters in and run up the score, and that's why they were top 5 in the NET all year despite zero Quad-1 wins until this past weekend.
Remove margin of victory altogether.
Someone suggested that attendance should play a factor, and I actually don't hate that idea.
If we go on the road and beat Miss State in front of 10,000 people, and LSU does the same thing in front of 2,100 people, we should get more credit for that win. Makes more sense to me than stupid margin of victory.
I saw a tweet the other day about how St. Mary's (I think) beat some team at home ranked 340th, but they won by like 45 points, and that gave them a bigger bump compared to Michigan State who went on the road and beat Rutgers by 7 (or something like that).
It's how Houston has conned the entire system. They just beat really, really bad teams by 40 & 50 points, they leave their starters in and run up the score, and that's why they were top 5 in the NET all year despite zero Quad-1 wins until this past weekend.
Remove margin of victory altogether.
Someone suggested that attendance should play a factor, and I actually don't hate that idea.
If we go on the road and beat Miss State in front of 10,000 people, and LSU does the same thing in front of 2,100 people, we should get more credit for that win. Makes more sense to me than stupid margin of victory.
The reason scoring margin is used is because it's a better predictor than actual W/L record going forward.
This is true in every single sport.
Houston .......define bad teams? They beat 87th ranked Utah by 34 points, 48th WVU by 16 points, 93rd K State by 30 points, 68th TCU by 19 points, 31st ranked BYU by 31 points.
These are top 100 teams and teams that other teams are certainly not beating them by the same margin.
Noway Zags should still be ahead of us with 2 Quad 1 wins, 6 losses and a Quad2 loss. A win at 4 on the road should be worth more than passing bums that were in front of us. Yet TN stayed pat at 4.
Noway KU, Purdue or Illinois belong in front of us. Some have Quad 2 losses and none have as many or close to the quality of Quad1 wins we have. Most have 6 losses too. NET makes zero sense.
Because you looking at it in terms of comparing resumes.
Kentucky has better RESUMES than those teams. It's why on the Bracket Matrix project we are expected to be seeded higher than those teams (or the same in KU case)
That's not what NET is measuring tho. NET is measuring how efficient teams are.
My point is that a team with zero Quad-1 wins (AKA no "good" wins) should NEVER be ranked in the top 5 of the NET.
K-State is a bad team. TCU is a bad team. Utah is a bad team. Those teams won't SNIFF the NCAA tournament.
They are now 2-3 in Quad 1 of the NET and ranked 2nd overall. All because they just blow bad teams out.
How many NCAA tournament teams have they beaten? 2? WVU who is a bubble team and Kansas.
That's my point.
You think that's the 2nd best profile in college basketball??
Last edited:
Not true. From the NCAA's website directly:
"How are the NET rankings used?
Since the NET rankings serve as the primary sorting tool for Division I men's basketball, they play an important role in establishing a team's resume."
Source: https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...05/college-basketballs-net-rankings-explained
Again, this isn't what NET is measuring tho.
Your talking about resumes. This isn't what the NET is doing tho.
K-State, TCU and Utah aren't making the tournament. But they are still top 100 teams and the games they played against other good teams, they didn't beat them by as much.
Lets say Utah played three top 10 teams. One of those top 10 teams wins by 30, the others win by 10. Maybe the team that won by 30 won by a larger margin because than the other two because they are better than those other two teams.
Yes. This is the whole problem with this.
The net itself is how teams are broken up into Quads. They should NOT be doing that.
But the NET itself isn't measuring resumes.
So basically they are using the NET figure to come up with rankings to determine what teams should be in what quad which is resume based.
But the actual NET number really has nothing to do with resume. You could play a million Q1 games or zero Q1 games and still be rated similarly with NET.
Not everyone plays a bunch of Q1 games. NET is putting people on a level playing field.
But the actual NET number really has nothing to do with resume. You could play a million Q1 games or zero Q1 games and still be rated similarly with NET.
Not everyone plays a bunch of Q1 games. NET is putting people on a level playing field.
#2 SOS, 3rd most quad 1 wins, no bad losses. We're building a really good resume. If we go 7-4 to finish the regular season, we'll be a 3.
No. And neither does anyone else. That's why despite that 2nd ranking, they are currently a projected 3rd seed.
But is Houston the 2nd most efficient team in America? .........Yes.
In the end none of this matters because you have a group of humans that are going to look at this and say....well Houston didn't really beat anyone so we aren't seeding them as high as their NET would suggest.
They will get a worse seed but also probably overperform in the tournament IMO
I don't agree because the committee has consistently rewarded teams like Houston (mostly from the America conference), Gonzaga, etc. who play and beat hardly anybody good, but have gamed the system and know how to keep their KenPom and NET rankings high by blowing out bad teams.
Call them top-100 (again, top 100 in a flawed net system), but NIT teams or teams that won't even make the NIT, IMO, are not good teams. Nobody can convince me that these are good teams because a flawed computer model puts them in the top-100 above a bunch of low majors.
Utah, TCU and K-State are 3 of the worst Power-5 teams in America, BYU will be an NIT team, West Virginia might drop off the bubble altogether, but the NET has Houston ranked 2nd.
And the committee has absolutely made it clear that the NET is the number 1 resume metric that they use.
Again, according to their own website, the NET is "the primary tool for evaluating teams"
Teams like duke and Houston are gaming the metrics, unintentionally.
Houston is so high, because they smother bad teams and beat them by 30. They played 2 SEC teams and lost. If they played in the SEC, there's no team they would beat by 30, not even South Carolina.
Same with duke, if they played in the SEC, they wouldn't have the metrics they currently have. They wouldn't be able to overwhelm teams the way they can in that garbage conference.
The metrics are great, but they can't compensate for this. By beating the snot out of Utah, or Miami, your numbers go up. Well, there are no Miami's or Utah's in the SEC.
Houston is so high, because they smother bad teams and beat them by 30. They played 2 SEC teams and lost. If they played in the SEC, there's no team they would beat by 30, not even South Carolina.
Same with duke, if they played in the SEC, they wouldn't have the metrics they currently have. They wouldn't be able to overwhelm teams the way they can in that garbage conference.
The metrics are great, but they can't compensate for this. By beating the snot out of Utah, or Miami, your numbers go up. Well, there are no Miami's or Utah's in the SEC.
Sure they say that but they clearly are not doing that.
Look at the at large teams from last season. See what their NET was. See what their actual seeding was.
There's massive differences.
Good point bringing up the mid majors tho because they do seem to play by different rules.
People love to use the resume to determine seeding with power conference teams. But the other teams? What about the other ones that don't play a bunch of Q1 teams? Should they be penalized for not even having them on the schedule? I don't think so. And so they tend to use the actual NET figure for those teams.
But overall, the majority of teams aren't being seeded purely on the NET figure. They are doing it on resume.
Our upcoming game with Arkansas will be a solid Q2 game (win, I mean); as of now we are 0-0 in Q2's.
So you feel like teams like Utah, TCU, K-State are bad teams? You think they should be lower than 100?
I just don't know how you are making that determination.
Your saying the NET is flawed because teams like Houston are beating bad teams by a lot and its inflating their numbers.
Then it's pointed out those teams are actually not bad teams.
I mean if you disagree, you disagree. I'm just not sure how you are making that determination.
Those are still teams where a very good team would struggle to beat them by 10-15 much less 30-35
So basically let's say you have Team A and Team B.
Lets say each of these teams play 30 teams and all 30 teams in similarly ranked.
Team A is beating these teams by 30.
Team B is only beating those same teams by 10.
It would be reasonable to say that Team A >> Team B.
It's not that Houston is beating these teams by 30 points. It's that Houston is beating these teams by 30 points and other very good teams are not doing the same.
Every game whether you play someone ranked 1st or 341st provides information. It's not a long season. Every data point counts. We can't just look at say what a team does in "Quad 1" games as some determining factor in true skill level. Especially when some teams will be playing 20 Q1 games and other teams playing 2.
Lets say each of these teams play 30 teams and all 30 teams in similarly ranked.
Team A is beating these teams by 30.
Team B is only beating those same teams by 10.
It would be reasonable to say that Team A >> Team B.
It's not that Houston is beating these teams by 30 points. It's that Houston is beating these teams by 30 points and other very good teams are not doing the same.
Every game whether you play someone ranked 1st or 341st provides information. It's not a long season. Every data point counts. We can't just look at say what a team does in "Quad 1" games as some determining factor in true skill level. Especially when some teams will be playing 20 Q1 games and other teams playing 2.
I've never heard someone call a team, who isn't even good enough to make the NIT, call them a good team. I don't consider teams that barely make the NIT as good teams. Never in my life have I heard that. The teams we are talking about won't even make the NIT.
If you think they are good teams, fair enough, but they aren't.
You could maybe argue that they are average teams, but I don't think that's even true. But GOOD? They are definitely not GOOD.
I guess what I'm saying is there's 364 D1 teams. There's varying degrees of good, mediocre bad etc.
Whatever we want to call these teams doesn't really matter.
It's just rare to consistently beat power conference teams by 20+.
The difference between say Houston who is 3rd and UK who is 12th is Houston beats those teams by 20-25. We maybe beat those same teams by 10-15.
When just talking about one game, it's no big deal. But if a team is consistently doing that and the other isn't, maybe that team deserves to be rated a bit higher than the one winning by just 10-15.
That's basically the point of NET.
This. It’s supposed to be a measure of what you’re supposed to do. You’re supposed to crush all your Q4 games or at least not lose them. You’re supposed to cover when you’re the much better team, etc. that Ohio State loss will hurt if we tank out. But since we’ve won a couple of tough games on the road? It’s balances out.
That Eweteee win on the road was HUGE.
Regardless of rankings. If you’re in the Top 30, you’re a really good team this year. If you are T50, you’re good. If you’re T50-100 you’re decent. Anything below T100 gets iffy or debatable depending on conference. The scary part about the SEC right now is our lowest team is 92 in the NET. Is South Carolina. And that’s a Q2 game on the road or Q3 at Rupp. We play them at Rupp so it should be our easiest game (hahahahaha)
The next lowest is LSU at 67. Arky at 56. Since both of those are at Rupp they’ll be Q2. But if they were on the road they’d be Q1.
Almost EVERY game in this conference is a Q1 or HIGH Q2 game. I’ve NEVER since this since like the late 90s. Our conference is HARD.
Another double digit win on the road to a team that right now is comfortably projected to be in the tournament and was a fringe top 25 team just a week ago.
I'm beginning to think that Houston despite not having the Q1 wins, is still a very good team.
I'm beginning to think that Houston despite not having the Q1 wins, is still a very good team.
This is one of those things that I learned doesn't matter nearly as much as you'd think.
Like.......you look at the tournament when you are picking teams and maybe picking upsets. And you see a bunch of these teams that maybe are in because they won in a non power conference or maybe they are a power conference team that just was on the right side of the bubble.
You look at their schedule and...........well who did they beat? They beat absolutely no one. Why on earth would I ever pick these teams to beat anyone of significance come March?
And yet......it happens. It happens all the time.
I realize we will never get away from resume based seeding. It just makes more sense to people. It's easier to explain. It's easier to say hey look at this team.....they beat a bunch of top 10 teams that's why they are seeded where they are. And maybe that's how it should be. Ultimately, results are what matters.
But in terms of predicting success in the tournament, it's usually those teams where you think "how in the world are they rated this high in X system they haven't beaten anyone".......those tend to be the ones that end up doing well in the tournament.
It's still kinda wild to me when we have 10/7 and 11/6 games where the 10 and 11 seeds are favored. If they are favored, to me it means the world views those teams as better. But maybe they didn't have the resume the 6 and 7 seeds had.
Like.......you look at the tournament when you are picking teams and maybe picking upsets. And you see a bunch of these teams that maybe are in because they won in a non power conference or maybe they are a power conference team that just was on the right side of the bubble.
You look at their schedule and...........well who did they beat? They beat absolutely no one. Why on earth would I ever pick these teams to beat anyone of significance come March?
And yet......it happens. It happens all the time.
I realize we will never get away from resume based seeding. It just makes more sense to people. It's easier to explain. It's easier to say hey look at this team.....they beat a bunch of top 10 teams that's why they are seeded where they are. And maybe that's how it should be. Ultimately, results are what matters.
But in terms of predicting success in the tournament, it's usually those teams where you think "how in the world are they rated this high in X system they haven't beaten anyone".......those tend to be the ones that end up doing well in the tournament.
It's still kinda wild to me when we have 10/7 and 11/6 games where the 10 and 11 seeds are favored. If they are favored, to me it means the world views those teams as better. But maybe they didn't have the resume the 6 and 7 seeds had.
The place where resumes really fall apart is with the non power conference teams. Because there is no "good resume" or "bad resume" for those teams. A lot of times it's "no resume" at all.
I look at this very single year on Bracket Matrix. Where the most agreement lies and where the most disagreement lies. The disagreement is always with the non power conference teams. The mid majors. No one has any idea whatsoever on how to seed these teams.
In 2017, Wichita St was 5th overall in Kenpom. They were given a 10 seed. That's criminal. It's not only unfair to them but was unfair to everyone else in that region. Not surprisingly, they knocked off Dayton easily. They lost to us but only by 3 points. It was a close game all the way to the end.
It's instances like that which make me feel like we should move away from the whole resume stuff and just seed on computer metrics. Can the committee.
I look at this very single year on Bracket Matrix. Where the most agreement lies and where the most disagreement lies. The disagreement is always with the non power conference teams. The mid majors. No one has any idea whatsoever on how to seed these teams.
In 2017, Wichita St was 5th overall in Kenpom. They were given a 10 seed. That's criminal. It's not only unfair to them but was unfair to everyone else in that region. Not surprisingly, they knocked off Dayton easily. They lost to us but only by 3 points. It was a close game all the way to the end.
It's instances like that which make me feel like we should move away from the whole resume stuff and just seed on computer metrics. Can the committee.
I believe that is their 3rd win over a team projected in the field (WVU twice, Kansas once).
WVU will be a projected 10 seed come the next update, just inside of the "last 4 in".
Houston is indeed good, no question, but their resume should be that of a 3/4 seed at this point.
Lunardi has them as a 3 right now which is about right but a bit high, I'd have them as a 4 seed personally.
Teams should not be rewarded with soft schedule- doesn't mean they aren't good (see Gonzaga recently), but the seed should reflect the resume, and Houston's resume (in my opinion) is not nearly as strong as many other teams, certainly I can find 12-16 teams that I feel have stronger resumes.
Lucky for them, they avoid playing @ Iowa State. They currently have a 1-2 record against AP ranked teams, and they play 3 more ranked teams the rest of the year (Kansas again at home, Texas Tech and Iowa State at home).
Let's see what they do, but I do agree they are a good team for sure, but their resume is lacking.
There's a good chance, thanks to the top end quality of our wins, that we will be overseeded. We can earn a 3 seed with the power of a 4/5 or a 4 with the power of a 6, etc.
And thanks to our top end wins, if we end up in that 10-12 range in NET, it might be hard to argue us off the 2 line. If we end up 11-7 in conference, that would entail 11 quad 1 wins or so. Iowa State last year had the most quad 1 wins on the 2 line, 10. We'd exceed the volume of Q1 wins of the top 2 seed from last season.
Just say this right here. Some teams have to be 50-100. Doesn’t mean they’re good at all. Just means they’re better than the ones 101 and above.
Is their resume lacking tho because they can’t beat good teams or is it lacking because they don’t have hardly any opportunities to get those wins.
I’m not big on punishing teams for schedule when half the schedule is completely out of their control and some of the out of conference games are as well.
Obviously the SEC is much better than the Big 12 this year. Heck the SEC is historic good this year. But it’s not as if the Big 12 is a bad conference. And they aren’t just undefeated but they are absolutely flooring teams in it.
I guess I just feel you do what you have to do given the opponent in front of you. For so many seasons the SEC was down and UK computer metrics were better than the seed they were given because they didn’t have the resume. In some of those years we vastly did better in the tournament than our seed would suggest.
I guess to me what exactly are we trying to do with the seeding. Are we ranking teams on who has the best resume or are we ranking teams on who truly are the best teams.
Im ok either way but I feel like we need the understand the two aren’t always the same thing
