+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: NCAA NET Ratings (/thread-864639.html)
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - stever20 - 01-08-2019 09:15 AM
I think the quality wins though was largely defined in years prior to last year by things like top 50 wins, top 25 wins, etc....
then last year with the tiers that changed things a lot....
I suspect it'll remain this year....
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - IWokeUpLikeThis - 01-09-2019 07:08 PM
Jacksonville State wins by double digits at Belmont.
Jax St drops 19 spots, Belmont moves up 2.
What a wonderful metric!
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - stever20 - 01-09-2019 07:26 PM
what are you talking about?
Belmont/Jacksonville St was last week Jan 3
Belmont moved from 12/31 to 1/7 from 59 to 88
Jacksonville St moved same time from 160 to 148
JSU beat one of the worst teams in the country by only 7 points, or they probably would have moved up more.
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - stever20 - 01-11-2019 02:22 PM
1 thing I'm seeing from the NET that is kind of weird is how things can be delayed reactions....
I mean case in point VCU. They were #44 on Wednesday and beat a bad La Salle team at home by 6 points. Think there might be a big drop. Only dropped 1 spot. Think ok, makes some sense given Temple(VCU beat them) beats Houston. Well look today, and VCU is down to 51. looked and VCU's opponents were 2-2 yesterday. Not great, but you wouldn't expect a huge drop....
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - BruceMcF - 01-14-2019 08:12 PM
(01-07-2019 07:09 PM)EvanJ Wrote:Precisely.(01-04-2019 12:09 AM)stever20 Wrote: the NET is used just like RPI in that it will determine the tier wins. So instead of it being for tier 1 top 30 home RPI wins, it's now top 30 NET wins. etc.
We know. I think what BruceMcF was saying is that the Selection Committee used the RPI and quality wins, with the quality wins being arbitrary and not referring to any formula or the RPI tiers. IOW, the RPI and RPI record against each tier was not sufficient to rank the teams exactly how the Selection Committee did. BruceMcF wanted to know if the Selection Committee will use NET only, or NET and quality wins with the quality wins being arbitrary.
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - stever20 - 01-14-2019 09:13 PM
a lot of times the committee will use things like top 50 wins. They changed that last year to tier 1 wins- which incorporated things based on venue.
The one thing that they do use is wins vs teams in the tourney.
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - Kittonhead - 01-15-2019 01:33 AM
Where is the at-large cut off line, based on the numbers?
Conferences with a Top 68 team (using todays NET)
1) Virginia (1)
2) Michigan (3)
3) Texas Tech (4)
4) Tennessee (5)
5) Gonzaga (6)
6) Houston (8)
7) Buffalo (14)
8) Marquette (19)
9) Nevada (27)
10) Wofford (32)
11) Washington (38)
12) Murray St (42)
13) Liberty (45)
14) VCU (52)
15) Hofstra (56)
16) North Texas (57)
Then out of 68 bids, 16 would presumably go to conference champions in the Top 68. The other 16 would go to mid major champs outside of the Top 68. This leaves 36 at large bids.
This puts the natural cut line for an at-large bid right around #49. If you figure the last 4 in on either side of that line then #45 is about the line.
From outside the P5 this is who is in range for an at-large:
29) Villanova
33) UCF
25) Cincinnati
37) St. John's
39) Seton Hall
41) Utah St.
43) San Francisco
44) Temple
That isn't a whole lot of at-large bids outside of the P5. However one on the advantages of NET is its more possible to offset a weaker overall conference if you can dominate it.
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - Billy Bob Bearcat - 01-15-2019 08:09 AM
(01-15-2019 01:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: Where is the at-large cut off line, based on the numbers?
Conferences with a Top 68 team (using todays NET)
1) Virginia (1)
2) Michigan (3)
3) Texas Tech (4)
4) Tennessee (5)
5) Gonzaga (6)
6) Houston (8)
7) Buffalo (14)
8) Marquette (19)
9) Nevada (27)
10) Wofford (32)
11) Washington (38)
12) Murray St (42)
13) Liberty (45)
14) VCU (52)
15) Hofstra (56)
16) North Texas (57)
Then out of 68 bids, 16 would presumably go to conference champions in the Top 68. The other 16 would go to mid major champs outside of the Top 68. This leaves 36 at large bids.
This puts the natural cut line for an at-large bid right around #49. If you figure the last 4 in on either side of that line then #45 is about the line.
From outside the P5 this is who is in range for an at-large:
29) Villanova
33) UCF
25) Cincinnati
37) St. John's
39) Seton Hall
41) Utah St.
43) San Francisco
44) Temple
That isn't a whole lot of at-large bids outside of the P5. However one on the advantages of NET is its more possible to offset a weaker overall conference if you can dominate it.
By your estimate regarding the at-large non-P5 bids, it is 3 Big East and 3 AAC.
So essentially only 2 at-large bids that come outside of the High Major conferences. Not sure if that really helps the argument that Net is better at offsetting a weaker conference.
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - Kittonhead - 01-15-2019 10:16 AM
(01-15-2019 08:09 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:(01-15-2019 01:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: Where is the at-large cut off line, based on the numbers?
Conferences with a Top 68 team (using todays NET)
1) Virginia (1)
2) Michigan (3)
3) Texas Tech (4)
4) Tennessee (5)
5) Gonzaga (6)
6) Houston (8)
7) Buffalo (14)
8) Marquette (19)
9) Nevada (27)
10) Wofford (32)
11) Washington (38)
12) Murray St (42)
13) Liberty (45)
14) VCU (52)
15) Hofstra (56)
16) North Texas (57)
Then out of 68 bids, 16 would presumably go to conference champions in the Top 68. The other 16 would go to mid major champs outside of the Top 68. This leaves 36 at large bids.
This puts the natural cut line for an at-large bid right around #49. If you figure the last 4 in on either side of that line then #45 is about the line.
From outside the P5 this is who is in range for an at-large:
29) Villanova
33) UCF
25) Cincinnati
37) St. John's
39) Seton Hall
41) Utah St.
43) San Francisco
44) Temple
That isn't a whole lot of at-large bids outside of the P5. However one on the advantages of NET is its more possible to offset a weaker overall conference if you can dominate it.
By your estimate regarding the at-large non-P5 bids, it is 3 Big East and 3 AAC.
So essentially only 2 at-large bids that come outside of the High Major conferences. Not sure if that really helps the argument that Net is better at offsetting a weaker conference.
What to me helps the argument is the number of mid majors in that Top 68, including some from traditional sub 100 conferences.
1)Gonzaga (6)
2)Buffalo (14)
3)Nevada (27)
4)Wofford (32)
5)Utah St. (41)
6)Murray St (42)
7)San Francisco (43)
8)Liberty (45)
9)Libscomb (47)
10)VCU (52)
11)St. Mary's (53)
12)Hofstra (56)
13)North Texas (57)
14)Saint Louis (61)
15)ETSU (62)
16)Furman (64)
17)UNC Greensboro (66)
18)Davidson (67)
19)Fresno (68)
They have 19 out of the Top 68 NET rankings.
Now the cutline I said is #45 for at-large and I the total non-P5 bids will stay about the same with 8 but its much more possible to sustain an at-large type rating from a mid major regardless of the overall conference strength as you see with Liberty so high up there out of the ASun.
RPI of the same group of 19
1)Nevada (8)-better
2)Buffalo (10)-better
3)Gonzaga (12)
4)VCU (30)-better
5)Davidson (37)-better
6)Wofford (49)
7)UNC Greensboro (51)-better
8)Utah St. (54)
9)North Texas (55)-better
10)Saint Louis (61)
11)Libscomb (63)
12)ETSU (66)
13)Furman (67)
14)Hofstra (71)
15)Fresno (80)
16)San Francisco (81)
17)Murray St (93)
18)St. Mary's (110)
19)Liberty (120)
Of that same group, only 6 look better in the RPI ratings vs. NET and only 13 would be Top 68.
The A10 takes a significant hit in the NET because they knew how to game the RPI ratings to their advantage.
The AAC doesn't have the same type of drop off NET vs. RPI
NET
8 Houston
33 UCF
35 Cincinnati
44 Temple
RPI
11 Houston
15 Temple
34 UCF
36 Cincinnati
Except for Temple which leads me to conclude there's been massive overrating going on for the Philly 5 by virtue of their scheduling all these years.
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - Captain Bearcat - 01-15-2019 10:21 AM
(01-15-2019 08:09 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:(01-15-2019 01:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: Where is the at-large cut off line, based on the numbers?
Conferences with a Top 68 team (using todays NET)
1) Virginia (1)
2) Michigan (3)
3) Texas Tech (4)
4) Tennessee (5)
5) Gonzaga (6)
6) Houston (8)
7) Buffalo (14)
8) Marquette (19)
9) Nevada (27)
10) Wofford (32)
11) Washington (38)
12) Murray St (42)
13) Liberty (45)
14) VCU (52)
15) Hofstra (56)
16) North Texas (57)
Then out of 68 bids, 16 would presumably go to conference champions in the Top 68. The other 16 would go to mid major champs outside of the Top 68. This leaves 36 at large bids.
This puts the natural cut line for an at-large bid right around #49. If you figure the last 4 in on either side of that line then #45 is about the line.
From outside the P5 this is who is in range for an at-large:
29) Villanova
33) UCF
25) Cincinnati
37) St. John's
39) Seton Hall
41) Utah St.
43) San Francisco
44) Temple
That isn't a whole lot of at-large bids outside of the P5. However one on the advantages of NET is its more possible to offset a weaker overall conference if you can dominate it.
By your estimate regarding the at-large non-P5 bids, it is 3 Big East and 3 AAC.
So essentially only 2 at-large bids that come outside of the High Major conferences. Not sure if that really helps the argument that Net is better at offsetting a weaker conference.
I agree.
And those 2 at-large bids are from the West Coast Conference (San Francisco) and the Mountain West (Utah State).
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - stever20 - 01-15-2019 10:33 AM
I think I read from Jerry Palm yesterday that the 60 biggest NET negative deltas compared to RPI came from non major conferences. I'm assuming he meant outside the P5 plus Big East plus AAC- although Temple's -29 could qualify I'd think).
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - Kittonhead - 01-15-2019 10:47 AM
(01-15-2019 10:33 AM)stever20 Wrote: I think I read from Jerry Palm yesterday that the 60 biggest NET negative deltas compared to RPI came from non major conferences. I'm assuming he meant outside the P5 plus Big East plus AAC- although Temple's -29 could qualify I'd think).
You can call it P5+2 if you want with the AAC/BE. I think that is fair. They are doing fine in the NET with both looking to do 4 in the dance.
The big haircuts are the A10 and the MVC with their top teams significantly lower in the NET rankings. They have been the mid-majors with the most at-larges over the past 15 years, somehow squeezing 3 or 4 teams in. They gamed the system as some of those teams weren't necessarily that good.
The MVC, OVC and ASun are up, all three sub Top 10 leagues. Gonzaga is also looking better in the NET rankings. For this reason I think it would be a lot easier to go the Grand Canyon route and install a highly paid coach, get a few big recruits and quickly put the program into the NET Top 40 regardless of how mediocre the WAC is. That is because the NET includes margin of victory and efficiency, both categories a team could excel in if they dominate their conference.
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - dbackjon - 01-15-2019 11:01 AM
(01-15-2019 10:21 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:At this point, Wofford could be a bid stealer if the dominate the SoCon, keeping the NET up, but lose in the Tourney. Not sure if Murray can get up enough to be in the same situation.(01-15-2019 08:09 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:(01-15-2019 01:33 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: Where is the at-large cut off line, based on the numbers?
Conferences with a Top 68 team (using todays NET)
1) Virginia (1)
2) Michigan (3)
3) Texas Tech (4)
4) Tennessee (5)
5) Gonzaga (6)
6) Houston (8)
7) Buffalo (14)
8) Marquette (19)
9) Nevada (27)
10) Wofford (32)
11) Washington (38)
12) Murray St (42)
13) Liberty (45)
14) VCU (52)
15) Hofstra (56)
16) North Texas (57)
Then out of 68 bids, 16 would presumably go to conference champions in the Top 68. The other 16 would go to mid major champs outside of the Top 68. This leaves 36 at large bids.
This puts the natural cut line for an at-large bid right around #49. If you figure the last 4 in on either side of that line then #45 is about the line.
From outside the P5 this is who is in range for an at-large:
29) Villanova
33) UCF
25) Cincinnati
37) St. John's
39) Seton Hall
41) Utah St.
43) San Francisco
44) Temple
That isn't a whole lot of at-large bids outside of the P5. However one on the advantages of NET is its more possible to offset a weaker overall conference if you can dominate it.
By your estimate regarding the at-large non-P5 bids, it is 3 Big East and 3 AAC.
So essentially only 2 at-large bids that come outside of the High Major conferences. Not sure if that really helps the argument that Net is better at offsetting a weaker conference.
I agree.
And those 2 at-large bids are from the West Coast Conference (San Francisco) and the Mountain West (Utah State).
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - stever20 - 01-15-2019 11:03 AM
one thing- in both the Big East and AAC- those 2 conferences could easily get bid thieves this year....
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - stever20 - 01-28-2019 05:29 PM
saw they have released a report with the teams broken down in conferences and with their actual NET ratings.....
https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats%20Library/Conference%20Rankings%20-%20Jan.%2027.pdf
1 Virginia 8.6216
2 Gonzaga 8.2497
3 Duke 8.1106
4 Michigan 8.0406
5 Tennesee 7.9955
6 Michigan St 7.9020
7 Houston 7.7074
8 Kentucky 7.6580
9 UNC 7.3519
10 Virginia Tech 7.3228
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - CougarRed - 01-28-2019 06:20 PM
NET appears closer to ESPN SOR than KPI.
See Gonzaga. #2 in NET and SOR. #17 in KPI.
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - stever20 - 02-05-2019 01:22 PM
so they released the actual NET ratings again today
https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats%20Library/Conference%20Rankings%20-%20Feb.%204.pdf
1 Virginia 8.5044
2 Gonzaga 8.3042
3 Duke 8.2203
4 Tennessee 8.0283
5 Kentucky 7.7648
6 Michigan 7.7488
7 Michigan St 7.6470
8 Houston 7.6427
9 UNC 7.4893
10 Va Tech 7.2951
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - The Cutter of Bish - 02-05-2019 02:10 PM
I'm a little wary about any metric where a team that's 8-14 is in that NIT area. Penn State, until yesterday, couldn't buy a Big Ten win. This team is 74 NET, 63 KP.
So, beat VaTech and get beaten like a drum in the best conference, and...well, look at your metrics fly.
This was always my fear and suspicion of NET...like there's some added weight to conference rank or SOS. Great for the major conferences and those with strong performers. Terrible for dandelions from the pot of dirt types.
RE: NCAA NET Ratings - ken d - 02-05-2019 02:42 PM
After Sunday's games, the 36 at-large bids if you go strictly by NET rating only differ from Joe Lunardi's brackets by three teams, all of which would be bubble teams by NET.