Up to 12 in the NET

[The_Answer1313]

this is the thing with this too

You were correct. They use NET to rank teams and put them into quads.

So basically any team that bears Houston is getting credit for beating the number 3 team. Yet Houston itself isn’t getting that same credit because there resume stinks.

That’s where it falls apart for me. We are mixing and matching.

I tend to look at things like this.

They are projected 3-4 seed. Would they be favored vs other 3-4 seeds? Yeah. All of them. And by quite a bit. Would they be favored over projected 2 seeds ? Yes. And prob some 1 seeds.

We either need to base things completely on one or the other. This we are mixing. The committee for years understood that Gonzaga was good despite them playing absolutely no one for half a year. Their resume NEVER stacks up and yet they are fine seeding them wherever. Either use metrics and do that with everyone or just go completely on resume. But know that if it’s just resume it will be wrong. More easy to explain to the public but wrong.

That’s my whole issue with this.

 

[Digger-Cat]

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

Well, the problem is, they CAN control half their schedule and they set up a weak schedule, with the exception of 2 games. They lost those 2 games, one of which, was in their backyard.

Yes, they have smashed some teams, but take a look at the teams they are smashing. Utah, Oklahoma state and TCU are absolute garbage.

Yeah, they overwhelmed a 10 seed last night, but the have played a total of 3 ranked teams and lost to 2 of them. Yes, they're very good, but if we had that resume, we wouldn't be in line for a 1 or a 2 either.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Two years ago UConn losses 6 of 8 in the middle of the season. I think they had some injuries.

They were given a 4 seed in the tournament which seemed fair going by their lack of resume.

They were however going into the tournament that season ranked 4th overall in KP.

Despite the lack of resume, most knew that team was good and capable of winning a title.

Sometimes resumes just don’t give the complete story

 

[The_Answer1313]

Well, the problem is, they CAN control half their schedule and they set up a weak schedule, with the exception of 2 games. They lost those 2 games, one of which, was in their backyard.

Yes, they have smashed some teams, but take a look at the teams they are smashing. Utah, Oklahoma state and TCU are absolute garbage.

Yeah, they overwhelmed a 10 seed last night, but the have played a total of 3 ranked teams and lost to 2 of them. Yes, they're very good, but if we had that resume, we wouldn't be in line for a 1 or a 2 either.

I don’t debate that.

I’m debating whether or not we should be basing it on resume period.

Is the goal to reward teams for a resume or is the goal to accurately rate in terms of strength?

If it’s the first I’m good with doing it this way. If it’s the latter tho there’s better ways of doing this.

 

[Digger-Cat]

this is the thing with this too

You were correct. They use NET to rank teams and put them into quads.

So basically any team that bears Houston is getting credit for beating the number 3 team. Yet Houston itself isn’t getting that same credit because there resume stinks.

That’s where it falls apart for me. We are mixing and matching.

I tend to look at things like this.

They are projected 3-4 seed. Would they be favored vs other 3-4 seeds? Yeah. All of them. And by quite a bit. Would they be favored over projected 2 seeds ? Yes. And prob some 1 seeds.

We either need to base things completely on one or the other. This we are mixing. The committee for years understood that Gonzaga was good despite them playing absolutely no one for half a year. Their resume NEVER stacks up and yet they are fine seeding them wherever. Either use metrics and do that with everyone or just go completely on resume. But know that if it’s just resume it will be wrong. More easy to explain to the public but wrong.

That’s my whole issue with this.

Is this true? I don't believe it is. If you beat Houston, you get credit for beating a quad 1A team, I haven't heard anyone talk about rankings in the polls while talking about seeding and for good reason, rankings move aroynd weekly.

We brag about having four top 10 wins, but Gonzaga isn't top 10 now, they were when we played them, but not now. That's just a bragging thing, I doubt the committee uses it.

 

[Digger-Cat]

I don’t debate that.

I’m debating whether or not we should be basing it on resume period.

Is the goal to reward teams for a resume or is the goal to accurately rate in terms of strength?

If it’s the first I’m good with doing it this way. If it’s the latter tho there’s better ways of doing this.

I think the committee, for the most part, has done a decent job recognizing a team that is really good, even though their resume doesn’t show it.

If they put Houston on the 4 line, they aren't punishing Houston, they are punishing the 1 seed in that region.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Is this true? I don't believe it is. If you beat Houston, you get credit for beating a quad 1A team, I haven't heard anyone talk about rankings in the polls while talking about seeding and for good reason, rankings move aroynd weekly.

We brag about having four top 10 wins, but Gonzaga isn't top 10 now, they were when we played them, but not now. That's just a bragging thing, I doubt the committee uses it.

The team sheets the committee has breaks it down by NET. If Houston is ranked 3rd in Net that will be what it says.

They don’t just break it down into quads they have the actual numbers on the team sheets.

Which is another crazy thing to me is the talk about quads.

As if going 5-0 vs say the top 5 teams is somehow equal to going 5-0 vs say teams 11-15. Anytime you remove information it’s a bad thing IMO

 

[The_Answer1313]

I think the committee, for the most part, has done a decent job recognizing a team that is really good, even though their resume doesn’t show it.

If they put Houston on the 4 line, they aren't punishing Houston, they are punishing the 1 seed in that region.

But they are kind of punishing both. Because had Houston been better seeded they wouldn’t have had to face the 1 seed in that region to begin with cause they would have been the 1.

 

[The_Answer1313]

I do generally agree tho. It’s just a topic I like to talk about because these threads always pop up about why is x team ranked in NET this high then they start talking resumes and it’s like no that’s not what this is lol.

You could play in the SWAC, beat everyone by 70 and have a good NET. Even tho your resume is complete garbage

 

[Digger-Cat]

But they are kind of punishing both. Because had Houston been better seeded they wouldn’t have had to face the 1 seed in that region to begin with cause they would have been the 1.

Yeah, but Houston had some control over that. They did schedule Auburn and Alabama in the pre con, but that's all, the rest of their schedule is not good.
It looks like KP has their SOS rated at 49, but when you dig into it, they did what most big12 teams do, they game the system by playing a bunch of decent teams and avoid the teams that are sub 200.
Houston, UK, Florida and Tennessee are going to be really tough teams to seed. They are really good teams, but Florida and TN had weak OOC schedules, TN is going to get beat down in the SEC coming up, Florida looks better than they are and UK has a ton of great wins, but some head scratching losses by double digit points.

 

[Digger-Cat]

I do generally agree tho. It’s just a topic I like to talk about because these threads always pop up about why is x team ranked in NET this high then they start talking resumes and it’s like no that’s not what this is lol.

You could play in the SWAC, beat everyone by 70 and have a good NET. Even tho your resume is complete garbage

Gonzaga was that team until recently. They hadn't beaten anyone besides Baylor, but were in the top 10 in the net, because they blew some teams out earlier in the season, including Baylor. But water found its level with them now.