At present, there are 9 top 48 NET teams currently have 18 wins. While those 7 teams are all likely to end up with 19+ wins, some may not be able to win 20 or 21 games.

4 top NET teams have 13, 15, 16, or 17 wins, respectively.

Given that only only 4 teams with 19 or fewer 2018-19 wins got an at-large bid last season, it appears possible that at least three, and as many as 5 or 6 of the current top 48 NET teams may not end up with enough wins to make the field - presuming that the selection committee will again distribute the at-large bids to teams with at least 19 wins.

This could be helpful to AAC teams such as Wichita State, Cincy, and possibly, Memphis.


Examples:

Texas Tech (#40 NET; 18-11) will end their regular season vs. #1 Kansas and @ #2 Baylor.

Indiana (#33 NET; 18-11) will play their final regular season game vs. Wisconsin (#19 NET; 19-10), in a game that may prevent either team from winning more than 20 or 21 games.

Marquette (#26 NET; 18-10) will finish their regular season with away games vs. two top 100 NET teams.

Oklahoma (#29 NET; 18-11) will finish their regular season vs. Texas (#41 NET; 18-11) and @ TCU (#67 NET).

Providence (#36 NET; 17-12) will finish their regular season vs. Xavier (#30 NET; 19-10) and #93 DePaul, and will enter the Big East tournament with no more than 19 wins).

Xavier (30 NET; 19-10) will finish their regular season @ Providence (#36 NET) and vs. Butler (#23 NET).

I think Wichita clinched their spot with that comeback road win yesterday. Congrats.

Posted this on the UC board last Friday, so things may have changed slightly over the weekend:

NET Rankings Roundup:

ACC: 14/15 schools in the Top 100
Big 12: 10/10 schools in the Top 100
Big East: 10/10 schools in the Top 75 (!?!?!)
Big Ten: 12/14 in the Top 50 (?!?!?!?!)
Pac 12: 10/12 in the Top 80
SEC: 12/14 in the Top 100

For those keeping track, that is 68/75 schools in the Perception 6 conference ranked in the Top 100 (91%), including 14 teams who are at or below .500 on the season.

There's definitely no way this metric was ever built to favor certain conferences over others.

(03-02-2020 09:04 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Posted this on the UC board last Friday, so things may have changed slightly over the weekend:

NET Rankings Roundup:

ACC: 14/15 schools in the Top 100
Big 12: 10/10 schools in the Top 100
Big East: 10/10 schools in the Top 75 (!?!?!)
Big Ten: 12/14 in the Top 50 (?!?!?!?!)
Pac 12: 10/12 in the Top 80
SEC: 12/14 in the Top 100

For those keeping track, that is 68/75 schools in the Perception 6 conference ranked in the Top 100 (91%), including 14 teams who are at or below .500 on the season.

There's definitely no way this metric was ever built to favor certain conferences over others.

This is consistent with most predictive rankings. The bottom line is those conference mostly have top 100 caliber teams. This isn't surprising given the resource disparity. Hell the AAC has 7 of 12 but it's not really that far off. If you expand it to top 130 it's 10 of 12 (which seems about right).

Sometimes life isn't a grand conspiracy. I'm not a fan of NET generally (Though it's so much better than RPI) because there are better measures...much easier to just use consensus of the best predictive metrics (kenpom, Sagarin, BPI) then include a couple of the best resume metrics to better understand how a team did against its schedule (like SOR or WAB).

(03-02-2020 09:20 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 09:04 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Posted this on the UC board last Friday, so things may have changed slightly over the weekend:

NET Rankings Roundup:

ACC: 14/15 schools in the Top 100
Big 12: 10/10 schools in the Top 100
Big East: 10/10 schools in the Top 75 (!?!?!)
Big Ten: 12/14 in the Top 50 (?!?!?!?!)
Pac 12: 10/12 in the Top 80
SEC: 12/14 in the Top 100

For those keeping track, that is 68/75 schools in the Perception 6 conference ranked in the Top 100 (91%), including 14 teams who are at or below .500 on the season.

There's definitely no way this metric was ever built to favor certain conferences over others.

This is consistent with most predictive rankings. The bottom line is those conference mostly have top 100 caliber teams. This isn't surprising given the resource disparity. Hell the AAC has 7 of 12 but it's not really that far off. If you expand it to top 130 it's 10 of 12 (which seems about right).

Sometimes life isn't a grand conspiracy. I'm not a fan of NET generally (Though it's so much better than RPI) because there are better measures...much easier to just use consensus of the best predictive metrics (kenpom, Sagarin, BPI) then include a couple of the best resume metrics to better understand how a team did against its schedule (like SOR or WAB).

The big thing to me is that 10 of the Top 50 schools in the country according to this ranking are in the Big Ten and Big East each. Anyone who has watched these teams play know that that's not correct.

(03-02-2020 11:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 09:20 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 09:04 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Posted this on the UC board last Friday, so things may have changed slightly over the weekend:

NET Rankings Roundup:

ACC: 14/15 schools in the Top 100
Big 12: 10/10 schools in the Top 100
Big East: 10/10 schools in the Top 75 (!?!?!)
Big Ten: 12/14 in the Top 50 (?!?!?!?!)
Pac 12: 10/12 in the Top 80
SEC: 12/14 in the Top 100

For those keeping track, that is 68/75 schools in the Perception 6 conference ranked in the Top 100 (91%), including 14 teams who are at or below .500 on the season.

There's definitely no way this metric was ever built to favor certain conferences over others.

This is consistent with most predictive rankings. The bottom line is those conference mostly have top 100 caliber teams. This isn't surprising given the resource disparity. Hell the AAC has 7 of 12 but it's not really that far off. If you expand it to top 130 it's 10 of 12 (which seems about right).

Sometimes life isn't a grand conspiracy. I'm not a fan of NET generally (Though it's so much better than RPI) because there are better measures...much easier to just use consensus of the best predictive metrics (kenpom, Sagarin, BPI) then include a couple of the best resume metrics to better understand how a team did against its schedule (like SOR or WAB).

The big thing to me is that 10 of the Top 50 schools in the country according to this ranking are in the Big Ten and Big East each. Anyone who has watched these teams play know that that's not correct.

kenpom has 10 Big 10 schools in the top 38. I think there are very likely 10 top 50 caliber teams in the Big 10.

The Big East only has 7 NET top 50 teams right now. The three others are between 60 and 11. That tracks fairly well with kenpom as well.

I've watched plenty of both conferences. I don't think the rankings are unreasonable.

Ohio State is only 10-8 in the Big Ten. In the nonconference they beat UC, beat Kentucky on a neutral court, beat Villanova by 25, beat UNC at UNC by 25.

Depaul is freaking 2-14 in the Big East. In the nonconference they won at Iowa, at Boston College, at Minnesota and beat Texas Tech on a neutral floor. That's probably a bit flukie, but they are literally the worst team in the Big East and I don't think there is much of a question they are a top 100 caliber team (who put together a great resume in the nonconference).

(03-02-2020 12:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Ohio State is only 10-8 in the Big Ten. In the nonconference they beat UC, beat Kentucky on a neutral court, beat Villanova by 25, beat UNC at UNC by 25.

Depaul is freaking 2-14 in the Big East. In the nonconference they won at Iowa, at Boston College, at Minnesota and beat Texas Tech on a neutral floor. That's probably a bit flukie, but they are literally the worst team in the Big East and I don't think there is much of a question they are a top 100 caliber team (who put together a great resume in the nonconference).

So frustrating. DePaul just needed to avoid a complete disaster in the Big East schedule to waltz to its first NCAA Tournament bid in 15 years... yet that was still too much to ask. The Big Ten and Big East really performed well in their respective non-conference schedules, so that's translating into great metrics for all of their teams across multiple computer rankings. As you've noted, it's not just the NET ranking that loves those leagues this year. The other leagues simply didn't do anywhere near as well in the non-conference portion of the schedule and that continues to impact the rankings as we head into March.

I don't know how this NET thing works, but it is the stupidest thing since the phrase "power five".

It apparently does not matter to Mr. NET that Indiana can't win a game against a team with a heartbeat away from home.

Providence? Come on.

(03-02-2020 01:31 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I don't know how this NET thing works, but it is the stupidest thing since the phrase "power five".

It apparently does not matter to Mr. NET that Indiana can't win a game against a team with a heartbeat away from home.

Providence? Come on.

Here is the NET (unless they changed it):

A couple of notes:

The NET is a sorting tool resulting in team sheets which are presented to the Selection Committee.

NET is shown on the team sheets by Quadrant per game result depending on location.
Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

In keeping with the NCAA's general lack of transparency; the weight given to each component, the Team Value Index formula (the component with the greatest weight), and method used to calculate actual NET are unknown.

The NET team sheets also include the Kevin Pauga Index and ESPN’s results-oriented metric, the Strength of Record and three predictive metrics: KenPom, Sagrin, and ESPN's BPI.

Subjectivity still exists in the tournament selection process.

Despite the 10 point scoring margin limit, it still pays to run up the score due to the effect on "Net Efficiency" (the second most weighted component).

The NET - as we see in practice - tends to prop up the lesser teams in the strongest conferences. The NET and other metics inadequately adjust for in-conference self-reinforcement and its use accounts for much of the higher than expected rate of upsets seen in the NCAA Tourney 1st round (e.g. 5 seed vs 12 seed ).

(03-02-2020 02:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The NET - as we see in practice - tends to prop up the lesser teams in the strongest conferences. The NET and other metics inadequately adjust for in-conference self-reinforcement and its use accounts for much of the higher the expected rate of upsets seen in the NCAA Tourney 1st round (e.g. 5 seed vs 12 seed ).

I don't think this is accurate. Many of the 11/12 seeds that "upset" 5/6 seeds are major conference teams (Oregon was a 12 seed last year for example). Fans lack of understanding of odds provides the perception of big upsets but honestly until you get to the 13 line, upsets are fairly expected. There just isn't a ton of different between a lot of 5 seeds and 12 seeds. Hell because of the focus on results instead of predictive you can get better teams as the lower seed.

Xavier a couple years ago was an 11 seed playing Maryland as a 6 seed. Xavier was the better team by predictive metrics such as kenpom. It was an "upset" by seed line, but not really an upset. .

Seeds 5 through 12 playing each other probably range from 50/50 to 75/25 in outcome expectation. You're going to see "upsets" because it's a one game and lesser teams win one games often. Sometimes you'll even get a lower seed that may be better but maybe had bad luck in Q1/Q2 games. This would be true no matter what system you used.

Where it starts to drop is when you get to the automatic bids that are significantly below the at large teams in quality. Then upsets become more rare.

(03-02-2020 02:48 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The NET - as we see in practice - tends to prop up the lesser teams in the strongest conferences. The NET and other metics inadequately adjust for in-conference self-reinforcement and its use accounts for much of the higher the expected rate of upsets seen in the NCAA Tourney 1st round (e.g. 5 seed vs 12 seed ).

I don't think this is accurate. Many of the 11/12 seeds that "upset" 5/6 seeds are major conference teams (Oregon was a 12 seed last year for example). Fans lack of understanding of odds provides the perception of big upsets but honestly until you get to the 13 line, upsets are fairly expected. There just isn't a ton of different between a lot of 5 seeds and 12 seeds. Hell because of the focus on results instead of predictive you can get better teams as the lower seed.

Xavier a couple years ago was an 11 seed playing Maryland as a 6 seed. Xavier was the better team by predictive metrics such as kenpom. It was an "upset" by seed line, but not really an upset. .

Seeds 5 through 12 playing each other probably range from 50/50 to 75/25 in outcome expectation. You're going to see "upsets" because it's a one game and lesser teams win one games often. Sometimes you'll even get a lower seed that may be better but maybe had bad luck in Q1/Q2 games. This would be true no matter what system you used.

Where it starts to drop is when you get to the automatic bids that are significantly below the at large teams in quality. Then upsets become more rare.

I think I am accurate. For example, for the past five years; 18 of the 20 matchups opposed a 5 seed P-5 or BE school against a 12 seed school outside the P-5 or BE.

As one can see from below, since 1985 the failure rate for a 5/12 matchup in particular is high when considering the gap.(Source)


FIRST ROUND UPSET FREQUENCY PCT
No. 10 seed over No. 7 seed 55 39.3%
No. 11 seed over No. 6 seed 52 37.1%
No. 12 seed over No. 5 seed 50 35.7%
No. 13 seed over No. 4 seed 29 20.7%
No. 14 seed over No. 3 seed 21 15.0%
No. 15 seed over No. 2 seed 8 5.7%

The failure rate cause is likely inadequate seeding placement due to over representing the influence of in-conference games of the lesser teams in strong conferences.

(03-02-2020 04:36 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:48 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The NET - as we see in practice - tends to prop up the lesser teams in the strongest conferences. The NET and other metics inadequately adjust for in-conference self-reinforcement and its use accounts for much of the higher the expected rate of upsets seen in the NCAA Tourney 1st round (e.g. 5 seed vs 12 seed ).

I don't think this is accurate. Many of the 11/12 seeds that "upset" 5/6 seeds are major conference teams (Oregon was a 12 seed last year for example). Fans lack of understanding of odds provides the perception of big upsets but honestly until you get to the 13 line, upsets are fairly expected. There just isn't a ton of different between a lot of 5 seeds and 12 seeds. Hell because of the focus on results instead of predictive you can get better teams as the lower seed.

Xavier a couple years ago was an 11 seed playing Maryland as a 6 seed. Xavier was the better team by predictive metrics such as kenpom. It was an "upset" by seed line, but not really an upset. .

Seeds 5 through 12 playing each other probably range from 50/50 to 75/25 in outcome expectation. You're going to see "upsets" because it's a one game and lesser teams win one games often. Sometimes you'll even get a lower seed that may be better but maybe had bad luck in Q1/Q2 games. This would be true no matter what system you used.

Where it starts to drop is when you get to the automatic bids that are significantly below the at large teams in quality. Then upsets become more rare.

I think I am accurate. For example, for the past five years; 18 of the 20 matchups opposed a 5 seed P-5 or BE school against a 12 seed school outside the P-5 or BE.

As one can see from below, since 1985 the failure rate for a 5/12 matchup in particular is high when considering the gap.(Source)


FIRST ROUND UPSET FREQUENCY PCT
No. 10 seed over No. 7 seed 55 39.3%
No. 11 seed over No. 6 seed 52 37.1%
No. 12 seed over No. 5 seed 50 35.7%
No. 13 seed over No. 4 seed 29 20.7%
No. 14 seed over No. 3 seed 21 15.0%
No. 15 seed over No. 2 seed 8 5.7%

The failure rate cause is likely inadequate seeding placement due to over representing the influence of in-conference games of the lesser teams in strong conferences.

Which is why the NCAA selected the NET instead of the most obvious solution and neccessary rule change. The NET was chosen to "fix" the rpi (which is only result based) because teams were gaming the RPI (i.e. too many p5 teams didn't win enough to get a high rpi). So they created a new system that already gamed it for the big conference schools. Buy games at home and run up the score, don't lose by too much in conference and viola you have an NCAA team, which makes sense because have you seen these BIG conference games, the teams are good. Of course this is a second reinforcement of the NET because the teams we see play are the ones the networks want us to see, not necessarily the best games or teams.

Teams under .500 (including conference tournaments) in their conference should be ineligible for post season play, that should have been the change to the selection not a new opaque ranking system that reinforces bias. Syracuse knows who they are playing in the ACC, if they can't finish 11-11 with the conference tourney then they should stay home. I like to think we reward teams who earn it not give a pass because tobacco road is tough.

(03-02-2020 02:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 01:31 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I don't know how this NET thing works, but it is the stupidest thing since the phrase "power five".

It apparently does not matter to Mr. NET that Indiana can't win a game against a team with a heartbeat away from home.

Providence? Come on.

Here is the NET (unless they changed it):

A couple of notes:

The NET is a sorting tool resulting in team sheets which are presented to the Selection Committee.

NET is shown on the team sheets by Quadrant per game result depending on location.
Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

In keeping with the NCAA's general lack of transparency; the weight given to each component, the Team Value Index formula (the component with the greatest weight), and method used to calculate actual NET are unknown.

The NET team sheets also include the Kevin Pauga Index and ESPN’s results-oriented metric, the Strength of Record and three predictive metrics: KenPom, Sagrin, and ESPN's BPI.

Subjectivity still exists in the tournament selection process.

Despite the 10 point scoring margin limit, it still pays to run up the score due to the effect on "Net Efficiency" (the second most weighted component).

The NET - as we see in practice - tends to prop up the lesser teams in the strongest conferences. The NET and other metics inadequately adjust for in-conference self-reinforcement and its use accounts for much of the higher than expected rate of upsets seen in the NCAA Tourney 1st round (e.g. 5 seed vs 12 seed ).

All the bracket guru's have UCLA in the field, and they have played very well this last month. Even with UCLA winning 7 straight and 8 out of 9, their N.E.T is still 75-76...It will be interesting to see how the committee spins a situation like UCLA's since they have stated time and again that conferences, TV markets, and legacies don't matter. Rhode Island is gonna' take it right between the horns, they will probably get left out with a N.E.T of 43. We'll see how it plays out, but this N.E.T thing will probably go the way of RPI and Sagarin as the be all end all. It will be left up to the subjectivity of the selection committee, same as it's always been.

(03-02-2020 04:36 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:48 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The NET - as we see in practice - tends to prop up the lesser teams in the strongest conferences. The NET and other metics inadequately adjust for in-conference self-reinforcement and its use accounts for much of the higher the expected rate of upsets seen in the NCAA Tourney 1st round (e.g. 5 seed vs 12 seed ).

I don't think this is accurate. Many of the 11/12 seeds that "upset" 5/6 seeds are major conference teams (Oregon was a 12 seed last year for example). Fans lack of understanding of odds provides the perception of big upsets but honestly until you get to the 13 line, upsets are fairly expected. There just isn't a ton of different between a lot of 5 seeds and 12 seeds. Hell because of the focus on results instead of predictive you can get better teams as the lower seed.

Xavier a couple years ago was an 11 seed playing Maryland as a 6 seed. Xavier was the better team by predictive metrics such as kenpom. It was an "upset" by seed line, but not really an upset. .

Seeds 5 through 12 playing each other probably range from 50/50 to 75/25 in outcome expectation. You're going to see "upsets" because it's a one game and lesser teams win one games often. Sometimes you'll even get a lower seed that may be better but maybe had bad luck in Q1/Q2 games. This would be true no matter what system you used.

Where it starts to drop is when you get to the automatic bids that are significantly below the at large teams in quality. Then upsets become more rare.

I think I am accurate. For example, for the past five years; 18 of the 20 matchups opposed a 5 seed P-5 or BE school against a 12 seed school outside the P-5 or BE.

As one can see from below, since 1985 the failure rate for a 5/12 matchup in particular is high when considering the gap.(Source)


FIRST ROUND UPSET FREQUENCY PCT
No. 10 seed over No. 7 seed 55 39.3%
No. 11 seed over No. 6 seed 52 37.1%
No. 12 seed over No. 5 seed 50 35.7%
No. 13 seed over No. 4 seed 29 20.7%
No. 14 seed over No. 3 seed 21 15.0%
No. 15 seed over No. 2 seed 8 5.7%

The failure rate cause is likely inadequate seeding placement due to over representing the influence of in-conference games of the lesser teams in strong conferences.

Those numbers aren't a reflection of seeding issues. The 48th best team beating the 17th best team in the country 35% of the time on a neutral court sounds about right. There isn't some huge gap. When you get to the 13 seed automatic qualifiers you see a significant drop because you're dealing with a much bigger gap in quality.

(03-02-2020 09:04 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Posted this on the UC board last Friday, so things may have changed slightly over the weekend:

NET Rankings Roundup:

ACC: 14/15 schools in the Top 100
Big 12: 10/10 schools in the Top 100
Big East: 10/10 schools in the Top 75 (!?!?!)
Big Ten: 12/14 in the Top 50 (?!?!?!?!)
Pac 12: 10/12 in the Top 80
SEC: 12/14 in the Top 100

For those keeping track, that is 68/75 schools in the Perception 6 conference ranked in the Top 100 (91%), including 14 teams who are at or below .500 on the season.

There's definitely no way this metric was ever built to favor certain conferences over others.

Good point. Interestingly, a slew of 18 win Big East teams have managed to get NET ratings in the top 14, while no 18 win AAC team is currently ranked in the top 48.

BTW, the term "Perception 6," as opposed to the term "Major 7" (which includes the AAC) doesn't do the AAC any favors.

(03-02-2020 02:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 01:31 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I don't know how this NET thing works, but it is the stupidest thing since the phrase "power five".

It apparently does not matter to Mr. NET that Indiana can't win a game against a team with a heartbeat away from home.

Providence? Come on.

Here is the NET (unless they changed it):

A couple of notes:



In keeping with the NCAA's general lack of transparency; the weight given to each component, the Team Value Index formula (the component with the greatest weight), and method used to calculate actual NET are unknown.

The NET team sheets also include the Kevin Pauga Index and ESPN’s results-oriented metric, the Strength of Record and three predictive metrics: KenPom, Sagrin, and ESPN's BPI.

Subjectivity still exists in the tournament selection process.

Despite the 10 point scoring margin limit, it still pays to run up the score due to the effect on "Net Efficiency" (the second most weighted component).

The NET - as we see in practice - tends to prop up the lesser teams in the strongest conferences. The NET and other metics inadequately adjust for in-conference self-reinforcement and its use accounts for much of the higher than expected rate of upsets seen in the NCAA Tourney 1st round (e.g. 5 seed vs 12 seed ).

The glossy graphic presentation above is highly misleading, because it gives the false impression that everything in the NET is based on 3 or 4 simple mathematical formulae.

All of the fudge factors have been swept under the rug; i.e.:

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

(03-02-2020 09:04 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Posted this on the UC board last Friday, so things may have changed slightly over the weekend:

NET Rankings Roundup:

ACC: 14/15 schools in the Top 100
Big 12: 10/10 schools in the Top 100
Big East: 10/10 schools in the Top 75 (!?!?!)
Big Ten: 12/14 in the Top 50 (?!?!?!?!)
Pac 12: 10/12 in the Top 80
SEC: 12/14 in the Top 100

For those keeping track, that is 68/75 schools in the Perception 6 conference ranked in the Top 100 (91%), including 14 teams who are at or below .500 on the season.

It's plain as day - - this is . . .


A COLLEGE BASKETBALL CARTEL !

Our victim complex is getting out of hand

(03-03-2020 07:00 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Our victim complex is getting out of hand

Seriously. It's like no one realizes everyone but Wichita State tanked their OOC, which drops everyone's NET. Even some of the teams Wichita beat that would be tourney caliber in recent years (VCU, South Carolina, Oklahoma State) haven't had good seasons, which prevents their NET from being as high as it could've been had those teams performed up to expectations.

UConn would be top 50ish at 18-11 had we not sucked against Saint Blows. UC would be solidly in the field had they not lost to Colgate and BGSU, as it stands they're still almost top 50 even with those horrible losses. Houston's best OOC win is @South Carolina (65) and they're a top 20 NET team.

Where is there evidence that the fix is in?