The updated NET and RPI rankings through 2/27 for C-USA's top teams are below and the variance is quite large in several cases. It appears to me that the NET rankings compared to RPI rankings for Tech, Marshall, WKU and ODU are way worse than they should be. Regardless of the rank #s, the order of the RPI rankings makes much more sense based on current standings. For example (no offense UNT fans) per the NET rankings does anyone honestly believe that UNT is clearly the best basketball team in C-USA and WKU is only a distant 4th best? Of course not. It looks like the (arguably) top four C-USA teams are getting severely handicapped in their NET ranking.

NET
UNT 64
Tech 74
Marshall 76
WKU 83
UAB 97
ODU 142

RPI
WKU 34
Tech 37
Marshall 54
ODU 70
UNT 72
UAB 106

Rank Variance NET vs RPI (Positive variance is undesirable)
UNT -8
Tech +37
Marshall +22
WKU +49
UAB -9
ODU +72

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2021/net

Yeah it really is a mystery why Tech was ranked so low in the first NET ranking.

Tech at 141 was 8-3 at the time, and ranked 7th in CUSA according to NET

FIU at 147 was 4-3
ODU at 129 was 4-3
NT at 122 was 3-4
UTEP at 102 was 2-3
WKU at 87 was 8-3
Marshall at 72 was 7-2
UAB at 59 was 6-1

Tier 1
WKU
Tech
UNT

Tier 2
ODU
UAB
Marshall

Tier 3
UTSA
FAU
UTEP
Rice

Tier 4
USM
FIU
MTSU
Charlotte

(02-28-2021 10:22 AM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  The updated NET and RPI rankings through 2/27 for C-USA's top teams are below and the variance is quite large in several cases. It appears to me that the NET rankings compared to RPI rankings for Tech, Marshall, WKU and ODU are way worse than they should be. Regardless of the rank #s, the order of the RPI rankings makes much more sense based on current standings. For example (no offense UNT fans) per the NET rankings does anyone honestly believe that UNT is clearly the best basketball team in C-USA and WKU is only a distant 4th best? Of course not. It looks like the (arguably) top four C-USA teams are getting severely handicapped in their NET ranking.

NET
UNT 64
Tech 74
Marshall 76
WKU 83
UAB 97
ODU 142

RPI
WKU 34
Tech 37
Marshall 54
ODU 70
UNT 72
UAB 106

Rank Variance NET vs RPI (Positive variance is undesirable)
UNT -8
Tech +37
Marshall +22
WKU +49
UAB -9
ODU +72

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2021/net

There really isn't that much of a difference between 64 and 83, so I think your characterization of WKU being a "distant" 4th is misleading. After all, in a nationwide ranking of 347 teams, that constitutes a range of only 19. If you look at the RPI, the range between the top four is actually greater (from 34-70). So maybe the question should be whether you really believe you're that much better and UNT warrants being placed in 5th at 72.

We've had this sort of discussion about which ranking is better with football as well, and it's natural to gravitate to the one that makes us look better and find things wrong with the other though. But I'm sure that fans of different teams (and I'm talking about more than just our conference) can find just as many things inconsistent with the RPI rankings as you guys do with the NET.

And btw, no disrespect intended towards WKU and Tech either, but just as you may not believe UNT is the best in C-USA, I also don't believe WKU and Tech should be 34 and 37 respectively either, especially after the drubbing WKU took here in Houston.

I really think NET is a ploy against Mid-Majors, to limit at-large bids.

(02-28-2021 01:16 PM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  I really think NET is a ploy against Mid-Majors, to limit at-large bids.

What conferences do you consider to be major and mid-major in basketball?

(02-28-2021 01:25 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(02-28-2021 01:16 PM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  I really think NET is a ploy against Mid-Majors, to limit at-large bids.

What conferences do you consider to be major and mid-major in basketball?

Major = Big 6. Which is P5's, plus Big East.

A10 & AAC are to me High-Mids.

What you got?

(02-28-2021 01:30 PM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  

(02-28-2021 01:25 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(02-28-2021 01:16 PM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  I really think NET is a ploy against Mid-Majors, to limit at-large bids.

What conferences do you consider to be major and mid-major in basketball?

Major = Big 6. Which is P5's, plus Big East.

A10 & AAC are to me High-Mids.

What you got?

Pretty much the same. I was just curious because it sometimes varies depending upon whom you talk to. It can even vary with regard to individual schools, as some now consider Gonzaga to be a major due to their sustained success, in spite of the conference they're in which clearly isn't a major.

My thinking is that if some people are going to consider Gonzaga to now be a "major" in spite of their conference affiliation, they may as well consider Boise State to be a P5 in football as well in spite of their conference affiliation. I think that with some of these "major", "high-major", and "mid-major" labels we throw around, it can be a very gray area.

So if teams weren't in a "conference" and scheduled regionally would the Major teams still represent the vast majority of teams deemed 'deserving' of an at-large bid? Very doubtful.

That is the problem. There is way too much (growing) subjectivity and segregation in NCAA sports every year. From selection committees, FBS 'P5' and 'G5' segregation, "conferences" not the NCAA paying for game officials, disproportionate revenue distributions and national championship qualification, subjective rules enforcement in areas like "targeting",... And it all comes down to channeling millions of dollars to specific conferences, not to the actual teams who are the best on the field/court in a given year (regardless of conference membership).

(02-28-2021 01:54 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  So if teams weren't in a "conference" and scheduled regionally would the Major teams still represent the vast majority of teams deemed 'deserving' of an at-large bid? Very doubtful.

That is the problem. There is way too much (growing) subjectivity and segregation in NCAA sports every year. From selection committees, FBS 'P5' and 'G5' segregation, "conferences" not the NCAA paying for game officials, disproportionate revenue distributions and national championship qualification, subjective rules enforcement in areas like "targeting",... And it all comes down to channeling millions of dollars to specific conferences, not to the actual teams who are the best on the field/court in a given year (regardless of conference membership).

I pretty much agree with you there. It's also interesting to me though how closely the discussions of the haves and have-nots in collegiate athletics mirrors political discussions of haves and have-nots within the greater scope of our economy, and how many take opposite positions with regard to collegiate athletics than they do when talking about whether or not we should have a free market economy.

(02-28-2021 01:16 PM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  I really think NET is a ploy against Mid-Majors, to limit at-large bids.

Yes. This is exactly it. RPI is meaningless now anyway, not sure why people are obsessed with it here

(02-28-2021 02:08 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  

(02-28-2021 01:54 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  So if teams weren't in a "conference" and scheduled regionally would the Major teams still represent the vast majority of teams deemed 'deserving' of an at-large bid? Very doubtful.

That is the problem. There is way too much (growing) subjectivity and segregation in NCAA sports every year. From selection committees, FBS 'P5' and 'G5' segregation, "conferences" not the NCAA paying for game officials, disproportionate revenue distributions and national championship qualification, subjective rules enforcement in areas like "targeting",... And it all comes down to channeling millions of dollars to specific conferences, not to the actual teams who are the best on the field/court in a given year (regardless of conference membership).

I pretty much agree with you there. It's also interesting to me though how closely the discussions of the haves and have-nots in collegiate athletics mirrors political discussions of haves and have-nots within the greater scope of our economy, and how many take opposite positions with regard to collegiate athletics than they do when talking about whether or not we should have a free market economy.

I have always thought that too and how ironic it is.

(02-28-2021 02:29 PM)goherd24herdfans Wrote:  

(02-28-2021 01:16 PM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  I really think NET is a ploy against Mid-Majors, to limit at-large bids.

Yes. This is exactly it. RPI is meaningless now anyway, not sure why people are obsessed with it here

While I can kind of understand where you guys are coming from, do you really and truly think that Colgate, St. Bonaventure, and Navy are 11, 12, and 13 in basketball nationally? That's where RPI has them, which is a complete and utter joke to me. Like I said previously, there are definitely issues with both. But as you said though also, it's about the NET now so it doesn't matter anyway.

One thing we can use to understand NET rankings is by looking at ESPN's BPI. From what we are told, they are similar formulas that take into account offensive and defensive efficiency in addition to wins, losses, SoS, etc.

Through BPI, we can see that UNT has pretty high scores on both efficiency categories. Marshall has a very high offensive score to go with an average defensive score. Tech is next with an outstanding defensive score but an absolutely dreadful offensive efficiency.

UNT is our highest (since all our records are so close) mainly because of high balance.

I think the truth is closer to the averages between both metrics...something like...

La Tech 56
WKU 59
Marshall 65
North Texas 68
UAB 102
ODU 106

Also, according not history, and how these numbers are landing as we hit the home stretch, we will unfortunately be a one bid league once again.

All we can hope for at this point is for the one team that does get hot in the CUSA tournament, that they are able to cary that into the dance...

This also tells me that we will not pick up an NIT bid. It's quite likely our seasons will be done once the CUSA tournament ends.

(02-28-2021 03:11 PM)rileylives Wrote:  I think the truth is closer to the averages between both metrics...something like...
La Tech 56
WKU 59
Marshall 65
North Texas 68
UAB 102
ODU 106

Looks about right.

(02-28-2021 03:14 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  

(02-28-2021 03:11 PM)rileylives Wrote:  I think the truth is closer to the averages between both metrics...something like...
La Tech 56
WKU 59
Marshall 65
North Texas 68
UAB 102
ODU 106

Looks about right.

I'm onboard also.

Net and RPI are both deeply flawed.

RPI over-emphasizes strength of schedule, net over-emphasizes margin of victory.

Marshall at 76? WKU at 83?

WKU is 15-5. Marshall is 13-6.

According to Warren Nolan (the first strength of schedule ranking that I came across in a search) WKU has played the #87 most difficult schedule, Marshall has played the #82 most difficult schedule (out of 340 D1 teams that is pretty close).

WKU swept Marshall head to head (including a win in Huntington). There is something really wrong with that picture.

Agree that an average of the two is probably pretty close to where they should be. I wonder if coaches and AD's are still scheduling as though RPI was the lay of the land.

(02-28-2021 01:16 PM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  I really think NET is a ploy against Mid-Majors, to limit at-large bids.

The more I see of it, the more I agree with this. RPI is 100% objective, and the NET has at least some level of subjectivity built in despite what NET proponents claim. And we know what teams that subjectivity will and will not favor.