Let's see how the NET ranking compared to mid major seeds.
2 Gonzaga (1 seed)
13 Wofford (7 seed)
15 Buffalo (6 seed)
23 Nevada (7 seed)
29 Utah St. (8 seed)
32 St. Mary's (11 seed)
34 VCU (8 seed)
40 New Mexico St. (12 seed)
41 Furman-out
44 Murray St. (12 seed)
47 Belmont (11 seed)
49 Lipscomb-out
58 Liberty (12 seed)
60 UNC Greensboro (first team out)
62 Toledo-out
68 UC Irvine (13 seed)
-Wofford was dropped to a 7 seed from a projected 4 NET. Didn't have a lot of quadrant 1 wins.
-Buffalo dropped to a 6 seed from a projected 4 NET. Not as much of a reduction as Wofford but a lot of their non-conference wins didn't pan out as the season proceeded.
-Liberty and UC Irvine picked up better seed than what their NET would normally suggest.
Honestly, it seemed like they didn’t pay NET or any self-proclaimed metric much attention. This committee was much like Hathelway(sp?) in 2012. Very fair.
Belmont, Lipscomb, Furman, UNC Greensboro all had a great year. I would’ve liked to have seen at least 1 more of that group in, but I’m honestly (pleasantly) surprised Belmont got the nod.
(03-17-2019 11:30 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, it seemed like they didn’t pay NET or any self-proclaimed metric much attention.
"The NET is just a sorting tool, it's one tool of many that we have," according to the committee chair:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...sappointed
Quote:Selection committee chair Bernard Muir told ESPN that a team's specific NET ranking was not intended to be the determining factor in the committee's choices.
"So the NET is just a sorting tool, it's one tool of many that we have. Also, obviously we're watching a lot of games, and that enters into the discussion as well," Muir said. "We were pleased on how the NET performed, but we're not just going down the list one by one. ... We're truly trying to evaluate full body of work, which is committee-speak, and at the same token make decisions who's the best team that belongs among the 36 at-larges."
Would this observation be generally correct: That in general, the NET tends to move mid-majors downward?
(03-18-2019 07:26 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote: [ -> ]Would this observation be generally correct: That in general, the NET tends to move mid-majors downward?
How can you say that with Wofford finishing 13 in the NET?
They never could have done it in the RPI.
(03-18-2019 12:40 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2019 11:30 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, it seemed like they didn’t pay NET or any self-proclaimed metric much attention.
"The NET is just a sorting tool, it's one tool of many that we have," according to the committee chair:
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...sappointed
Quote:Selection committee chair Bernard Muir told ESPN that a team's specific NET ranking was not intended to be the determining factor in the committee's choices.
"So the NET is just a sorting tool, it's one tool of many that we have. Also, obviously we're watching a lot of games, and that enters into the discussion as well," Muir said. "We were pleased on how the NET performed, but we're not just going down the list one by one. ... We're truly trying to evaluate full body of work, which is committee-speak, and at the same token make decisions who's the best team that belongs among the 36 at-larges."
But if you look at the list the seeding is pretty much NET plus or minus whatever a teams best wins are.
In half the cases its moving the seed line up or down. In the other half its staying about the same.
(03-17-2019 11:30 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly, it seemed like they didn’t pay NET or any self-proclaimed metric much attention. This committee was much like Hathelway(sp?) in 2012. Very fair.
All of the mids in the Top 30 of the NET earned a single digit seed.
Southern and OVC doing well in the metric proved any conference can succeed in it. That is one advantage it has over the RPI which was not tied to anything meaningful.
Furman was ranked for a minute there. I didn’t follow them so I’m unsure what happened down the stretch.
(03-18-2019 09:49 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]Furman was ranked for a minute there. I didn’t follow them so I’m unsure what happened down the stretch.
Third in SoCon. NET wasn’t terrible; reachable for an at-large, but they got tripped up in the conference a little.
If one considers the first four out as the NIT 1-seeds, UNCG was closer to getting in than NCSU.
(03-18-2019 07:33 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2019 07:26 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote: [ -> ]Would this observation be generally correct: That in general, the NET tends to move mid-majors downward?
How can you say that with Wofford finishing 13 in the NET?
They never could have done it in the RPI.
Well, generally a 13 NET should equal about a 5 seed. Wofford's 21 RPI should equal a 6 seed. And yet Wofford gets a 7 seed.
That was my quick math at a glance as I looked at your list.
I am disappointed for Furman and Lipscomb being leftout, but I admit I haven't done a deep analysis of the brackets.
CougarRed did an analysis on another thread that showed the switch from RPI to NET overall boosted the power schools and lowered the midmajors.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-872233.html
I'm sure more analysis is needed. But that seems to be the direction.
(03-18-2019 11:41 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2019 07:33 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2019 07:26 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote: [ -> ]Would this observation be generally correct: That in general, the NET tends to move mid-majors downward?
How can you say that with Wofford finishing 13 in the NET?
They never could have done it in the RPI.
Well, generally a 13 NET should equal about a 5 seed. Wofford's 21 RPI should equal a 6 seed. And yet Wofford gets a 7 seed.
That was my quick math at a glance as I looked at your list.
I am disappointed for Furman and Lipscomb being leftout, but I admit I haven't done a deep analysis of the brackets.
CougarRed did an analysis on another thread that showed the switch from RPI to NET overall boosted the power schools and lowered the midmajors.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-872233.html
I'm sure more analysis is needed. But that seems to be the direction.
But what I'm saying is that mid majors from lower rated conferences are doing well with the NET. Wofford did better in the NET than the RPI in the ratings. Gonzaga finished #2 out of the WCC.
The system is more permissible than ever before to be a single digit seed out of a minor conference. Thus there is no reason for schools like Murray and Belmont to move "up" when they can build a national program right where they are at.
(03-19-2019 01:37 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]The system is more permissible than ever before to be a single digit seed out of a minor conference. Thus there is no reason for schools like Murray and Belmont to move "up" when they can build a national program right where they are at.
I just read a quote on another thread about the MVC. AuzGrams said:
MVC has basically turned into Summit League 2.0. I'd say the Ohio Valley Conference has turned it up lately with Belmont, Murray State consistently putting out good teams along with Jacksonville State & Austin Peay being decent 3rd/4th place teams.
MVC fans have debated offering invites to Murray and (possibly) Belmont. And yet the OVC was a 2 bid league (11 & 12 seeds) and the MVC only 1 bid (15 seed). Maybe Murray starts thinking, "Who needs the hassle of where to put our football team. I'll just stay put."
(03-18-2019 07:33 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2019 07:26 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote: [ -> ]Would this observation be generally correct: That in general, the NET tends to move mid-majors downward?
How can you say that with Wofford finishing 13 in the NET?
They never could have done it in the RPI.
Rhode Island got to 4 or 5 last year in RPI at one point, iirc? The A10 was pretty bad.
I just heard an interview from Pat Stevens, the bracketologist for the Washington Post. His thought was that the NET didn't make big changes in the bracket. He said it gave more information to the committee but that the bracket this year was probably similar to what would have been produced last year. He seemed to think that the NET tends to punish teams for bad losses, for lost opportunities.
(03-18-2019 07:26 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote: [ -> ]Would this observation be generally correct: That in general, the NET tends to move mid-majors downward?
That would not be correct. Those teams are being moved
lower than what the NET would suggest due to other factors the committee considers. What could be said is that the NET isn't helping to mitigate those other factors. That was also true of RPI.
(03-17-2019 11:41 PM)BePcr07 Wrote: [ -> ]Belmont, Lipscomb, Furman, UNC Greensboro all had a great year. I would’ve liked to have seen at least 1 more of that group in, but I’m honestly (pleasantly) surprised Belmont got the nod.
I would have liked to see that too. There were enough major conference teams near the bubble that weren't so much better than those three to justify including them instead of a potential Cinderella. I don't think as many TCU or NC State fans would have complained about being left out if it meant UNC-Greensoro got in instead of Temple or St John's.