(02-18-2023 02:11 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Of course, the NET is just the NET. Supposedly it's the committee's top criteria. Anyone have a comparison of last year's NET rankings versus seeding? I seem to recall Houston having a very high NET, but was a 5-seed.

Quote:Utah, Iowa and Duke -- the sixth, seventh and eighth overall teams Thursday, and all No. 2 seeds -- were each placed within one spot of their NET ranking. Texas, 10th in the NET, was a No. 3 seed despite tying for the most losses of any team in the top 16.

It also might be why UConn, the NET's No. 2 team, was the final No. 1 seed (joining South Carolina, Indiana and Stanford on the top line). The Huskies are coming off their first two-game losing streak in 30 years and have lost four games this season.

(02-18-2023 02:47 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 02:11 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Of course, the NET is just the NET. Supposedly it's the committee's top criteria. Anyone have a comparison of last year's NET rankings versus seeding? I seem to recall Houston having a very high NET, but was a 5-seed.

I don't have a list, but this article on ESPN lends a bit of insight:

Quote:Utah, Iowa and Duke -- the sixth, seventh and eighth overall teams Thursday, and all No. 2 seeds -- were each placed within one spot of their NET ranking. Texas, 10th in the NET, was a No. 3 seed despite tying for the most losses of any team in the top 16.

It also might be why UConn, the NET's No. 2 team, was the final No. 1 seed (joining South Carolina, Indiana and Stanford on the top line). The Huskies are coming off their first two-game losing streak in 30 years and have lost four games this season.

NET ranking a key metric as NCAA committee reveals top 16 seeds

(02-18-2023 10:41 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 02:47 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 02:11 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Of course, the NET is just the NET. Supposedly it's the committee's top criteria. Anyone have a comparison of last year's NET rankings versus seeding? I seem to recall Houston having a very high NET, but was a 5-seed.

I don't have a list, but this article on ESPN lends a bit of insight:

Quote:Utah, Iowa and Duke -- the sixth, seventh and eighth overall teams Thursday, and all No. 2 seeds -- were each placed within one spot of their NET ranking. Texas, 10th in the NET, was a No. 3 seed despite tying for the most losses of any team in the top 16.

It also might be why UConn, the NET's No. 2 team, was the final No. 1 seed (joining South Carolina, Indiana and Stanford on the top line). The Huskies are coming off their first two-game losing streak in 30 years and have lost four games this season.

NET ranking a key metric as NCAA committee reveals top 16 seeds

That's a piece on women's basketball, and it's all about P5/blueblood-ish teams. I'd like to see a correlation based on teams outside the power structure. I just don't have time these days.

(02-19-2023 08:32 AM)Tigerspartan Wrote:  Vandy beat auburn last night

Yikes

(02-18-2023 11:00 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 10:41 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 02:47 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 02:11 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Of course, the NET is just the NET. Supposedly it's the committee's top criteria. Anyone have a comparison of last year's NET rankings versus seeding? I seem to recall Houston having a very high NET, but was a 5-seed.

I don't have a list, but this article on ESPN lends a bit of insight:

Quote:Utah, Iowa and Duke -- the sixth, seventh and eighth overall teams Thursday, and all No. 2 seeds -- were each placed within one spot of their NET ranking. Texas, 10th in the NET, was a No. 3 seed despite tying for the most losses of any team in the top 16.

It also might be why UConn, the NET's No. 2 team, was the final No. 1 seed (joining South Carolina, Indiana and Stanford on the top line). The Huskies are coming off their first two-game losing streak in 30 years and have lost four games this season.

NET ranking a key metric as NCAA committee reveals top 16 seeds

That's a piece on women's basketball, and it's all about P5/blueblood-ish teams. I'd like to see a correlation based on teams outside the power structure. I just don't have time these days.

I suppose you'll find something to complain about. At least I took the trouble to find something. Frankly, it really doesn't matter if it's women's basketball or men's. It illustrates how the NET ranking correlates to tournament seeding, and I'm willing to bet that the approach taken by the NCAA would be similar for both genders.

Is it complete, of course not, but I never represented it as such and it certainly shows there are some parallels between ranking and seeding. I suppose if you want to dig up the data and sort through it all, that would be an interesting project. I can tell you now, though, that it's a safe bet that at a minimum, any team in the top 25 is certain to make the tournament with no issues.

(02-19-2023 09:34 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Lmao burr still up ass I see. You argue with everyone on here yet when someone calls you on the carpet you act like a little *****. You’ve only been here since December yet have over 3000 posts. Stop all the trolling. You aren’t the expert of everything

(02-19-2023 09:32 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-19-2023 08:32 AM)Tigerspartan Wrote:  Vandy beat auburn last night

Yikes

That’s not a bad thing for us. With a few more wins Vandy becomes a Quad 1 win

A&M moved to 29 so it’s not a quad 1
St Louis moved to 99 so we have no losses outside the top 100

Stop listening to the local radio hacks

(02-19-2023 09:49 AM)Tigerspartan Wrote:  

(02-19-2023 09:32 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-19-2023 08:32 AM)Tigerspartan Wrote:  Vandy beat auburn last night

Yikes

That’s not a bad thing for us. With a few more wins Vandy becomes a Quad 1 win

A&M moved to 29 so it’s not a quad 1
St Louis moved to 99 so we have no losses outside the top 100

Stop listening to the local radio hacks

Radio hacks the game was on Saturday. It’s not terrible for us but our best win needs to look as good as possible. Right now we have 2 wins over the field and they are both bubble teams at this point.

And A and M is a quad one victory.

(02-17-2023 12:06 AM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 11:48 PM)scorpius Wrote:  If the "lesser" team is playing consistently good, they definitely deserve to be ranked higher than an inconsistent more "deserving" team. And this is why I like the NET. It gets to what actually matters. Performance on the court. Not whether you're "lesser" or more "deserving", which is highly subjective.

You're wrong. Explain Creighton, currently ranked 13th. They're 17-9 and have lost to Q2 and Q3 opponents. Nobody would ever describe them as consistent. What the NET rewards is running the score up and avoiding blow out losses.

(02-19-2023 02:56 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 12:06 AM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 11:48 PM)scorpius Wrote:  If the "lesser" team is playing consistently good, they definitely deserve to be ranked higher than an inconsistent more "deserving" team. And this is why I like the NET. It gets to what actually matters. Performance on the court. Not whether you're "lesser" or more "deserving", which is highly subjective.

You're wrong. Explain Creighton, currently ranked 13th. They're 17-9 and have lost to Q2 and Q3 opponents. Nobody would ever describe them as consistent. What the NET rewards is running the score up and avoiding blow out losses.

Creighton is ranked 18th in the AP and 19th in the coach's poll. Being 13th in the NET seems reasonable. In fact it looks like the NET smelled them out as being a more "deserving" team before anyone else.

(02-19-2023 03:00 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-19-2023 02:56 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 12:06 AM)msu35 Wrote:  

(02-16-2023 11:48 PM)scorpius Wrote:  If the "lesser" team is playing consistently good, they definitely deserve to be ranked higher than an inconsistent more "deserving" team. And this is why I like the NET. It gets to what actually matters. Performance on the court. Not whether you're "lesser" or more "deserving", which is highly subjective.

You're wrong. Explain Creighton, currently ranked 13th. They're 17-9 and have lost to Q2 and Q3 opponents. Nobody would ever describe them as consistent. What the NET rewards is running the score up and avoiding blow out losses.

Creighton is ranked 18th in the AP and 19th in the coach's poll. Being 13th in the NET seems reasonable. In fact it looks like the NET smelled them out as being a more "deserving" team before anyone else.

They're inconsistent, which is in direct opposition to what you were claiming. It's up there in bold. Reading comprehension is useful, as is remembering what you write. You can't make this stuff up. Ha ha ha.

(02-19-2023 10:30 PM)GoDownSwinging Wrote:  I agree with everything you've said so far, but I'll disagree with this. Creighton has been pretty consistent so far this year. Yes, they did go on a 6 game losing streak earlier this season, but 3 of those losses were without their best player in Ryan Kalkbrenner (my opinion).

They do have 9 losses this far:
The teams they lost to when Kalkbrenner didn't play were: BYU, Arizona State, and @ Marquette.
The teams they lost to where Kalkbrenner did play were: Arizona, @ Texas, Nebraska, @ UCONN, @ Xavier, @ Providence (2OT).
Just like Memphis, Crieghton have 5 losses within 5 points. 4 of Memphis' 7 losses are within 5 points.

(02-20-2023 09:58 AM)Stammers Wrote:  The only way we don't get a bid is if someone besides us or Houston wins the AACCT, as long as we beat Cincinnati. Even if Tulane beats us 3 times, they are too far out at 89 in the NET to catch us, unless they win the tournament. Even at that, if we can sneak into the 30's we will be in. If we are somewhere in the mid 40's and someone else besides Houston wins it, it might be a bit dicey.

(02-19-2023 09:32 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-19-2023 08:32 AM)Tigerspartan Wrote:  Vandy beat auburn last night

Yikes

That’s not a bad thing for us. With a few more wins Vandy becomes a Quad 1 win

A&M moved to 29 so it’s not a quad 1
St Louis moved to 99 so we have no losses outside the top 100

Stop listening to the local radio hacks

(02-20-2023 12:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-19-2023 09:32 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-19-2023 08:32 AM)Tigerspartan Wrote:  Vandy beat auburn last night

Yikes

That’s not a bad thing for us. With a few more wins Vandy becomes a Quad 1 win

A&M moved to 29 so it’s not a quad 1
St Louis moved to 99 so we have no losses outside the top 100

Stop listening to the local radio hacks

A&M is a Q1 win for us now. They made a change (this year?) where 1-30 home games are Q1's. We show as 2 Q1 wins now, with Cinci and Vandy being close to two additional Q1 wins.

(02-20-2023 12:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-19-2023 09:32 AM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(02-19-2023 08:32 AM)Tigerspartan Wrote:  Vandy beat auburn last night

Yikes

That’s not a bad thing for us. With a few more wins Vandy becomes a Quad 1 win

A&M moved to 29 so it’s not a quad 1
St Louis moved to 99 so we have no losses outside the top 100

Stop listening to the local radio hacks

A&M is a Q1 win for us now. They made a change (this year?) where 1-30 home games are Q1's. We show as 2 Q1 wins now, with Cinci and Vandy being close to two additional Q1 wins.