.

A lot of the current NET ratings don't make any sense. In most team by team comparisons, there is a tendency - - once again - - to rank the teams from the "A5" higher than their Q1-4 records would tend to warrant:

For example, compare the NET ranks of Kentucky and WKU:

#67 Kentucky (8-15 (.348); Q1/Q2: 6-14 (.300) Q3/4: 2-1 (.667)

#76 WKU (17-5 (.773); Q1/Q2: 4-4 (.500) Q3/4: 13-1 (.929)

Why 8-15 is ranked higher than 17-5 WKU is very hard to explain.

.

Penn State and Dayton:

#49 Penn St. (9-13 (.409); Q1/Q2: 6-12 (.333) Q3/4: 3-1 (.750)

#86 Dayton (14-8 (.636); Q1/Q2: 6-4 (.600) Q3/4: 8-4 (.667)

With their far-superior Q1/Q2 record, Dayton shouldn't be ranked 37 ranks lower than Penn St, should they?

.

Rutgers and Wichita St:

#37 Rutgers (13-10 (.565); Q1/Q2: 8-10 (.444) Q3/4: 5-0))

#62 Wichita St. (12-4 (.750); Q1/Q2: 4-4 (.500) Q3/4: 8-0))

Rutgers shouldn't be ranked as high as they are with such a mediocre Q1/Q2 record, and shouldn't be ranked 25 ranks ahead of Wichita St., should they?

.

Seton Hall and SMU:

#46 Seton Hall (13-11; Q1/Q2: 6-10 (.375) Q3/4: 7-1)

#54 SMU (11-4; Q1/Q2: 4-3 (.571) Q3/4: 7-1)

What is it about Seton Hall that has them ranked 8 points ahead of SMU?

.

Maryland and VCU:

#32 Maryland (14-11 (.560); Q1/Q2: 6-11 (.375) Q3/4: 8-0)

#35 VCU (17-6 (.739); Q1/Q2: 8-4 (.667) Q3/4: 9-2)

Maryland should probably be ranked ahead of, not behind VCU, no?

.

It certainly appears that the NET formula continues to be biased toward the A5 and BE conferences.

It's pretty clear that this is being done by weighting each team's strength of schedule - - as they define it - - so heavily that it tends to overwhelm the effects of teams' Q1/Q2 records on their NET rankings.

The NET formula's weighting of team SOS tends to cause the Q1/Q2 record of a non "A5" team to count substantially less than the Q1/Q2 record of an "A5" team.

The NET was created because the mid-majors learned how to game the rpi. People started asking questions. Why was 16-16 Syracuse in but 28-4 UNCG (with a significantly better rpi) out. Along comes the net and it’s quadrant system to once again stack the deck in favor of the haves.

The NCAA leaves itself open to conspiracy theories and bias accusations because key parts of the NET formula are keep secret. Clearly, the results favor the wealthy and powerful basketball conferences.

One glaring limitation of the formula is SOS. There is a self reinforcing and incestuous SOS loop for in-conference games which rewards lesser teams playing (and losing to) strong conference teams. It is the reason a team like Indiana has a high NET and on the bubble despite a losing record. To counter the effect, the NCAA should ban teams with losing conference records and especially overall records from participation in the NCAA Tourney.

(03-06-2021 08:20 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The NCAA leaves itself open to conspiracy theories and bias accusations because key parts of the NET formula are keep secret. Clearly, the results favor the wealthy and powerful basketball conferences.

One glaring limitation of the formula is SOS. There is a self reinforcing and incestuous SOS loop for in-conference games which rewards lesser teams playing (and losing to) strong conference teams. It is the reason a team like Indiana has a high NET and on the bubble despite a losing record. To counter the effect, the NCAA should ban teams with losing conference records and especially overall records from participation in the NCAA Tourney.

I have long advocated for a .500 or better conference record (including conference tournaments) as a minimum requirement for at large berths. Similar to the six win rule for football teams to go bowling. It would clean up a lot of this.

Also "gaming the rpi" is a fallacy created to explain the switch. What happened was the mid majors began to play each other in home and homes, especially the top two or three teams in those 8-12 conferences instead of taking body bag games on the road. Syracuse continues to try and play every game at home meaning they got lower teams coming in. This allowed Syracuse to drop in ranking and the top mid majors to climb. That's not gaming the system, that's the system working and putting out the correct answer. Which is why they won't release the NET and altered it when the computer geeks had worked out most of the formula.

The system is just an excuse so the committee can pick who they want. They will change systems till they find one that fits the current team they want.

(03-06-2021 11:16 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(03-06-2021 08:20 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  The NCAA leaves itself open to conspiracy theories and bias accusations because key parts of the NET formula are keep secret. Clearly, the results favor the wealthy and powerful basketball conferences.

One glaring limitation of the formula is SOS. There is a self reinforcing and incestuous SOS loop for in-conference games which rewards lesser teams playing (and losing to) strong conference teams. It is the reason a team like Indiana has a high NET and on the bubble despite a losing record. To counter the effect, the NCAA should ban teams with losing conference records and especially overall records from participation in the NCAA Tourney.

I have long advocated for a .500 or better conference record (including conference tournaments) as a minimum requirement for at large berths. Similar to the six win rule for football teams to go bowling. It would clean up a lot of this.

Also "gaming the rpi" is a fallacy created to explain the switch. What happened was the mid majors began to play each other in home and homes, especially the top two or three teams in those 8-12 conferences instead of taking body bag games on the road. Syracuse continues to try and play every game at home meaning they got lower teams coming in. This allowed Syracuse to drop in ranking and the top mid majors to climb. That's not gaming the system, that's the system working and putting out the correct answer. Which is why they won't release the NET and altered it when the computer geeks had worked out most of the formula.

The system is just an excuse so the committee can pick who they want. They will change systems till they find one that fits the current team they want.

Eliminating Cinderellas ruins the tournament, IMHO.

(03-06-2021 08:20 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  One glaring limitation of the formula is SOS. There is a self reinforcing and incestuous SOS loop for in-conference games which rewards lesser teams playing (and losing to) strong conference teams. It is the reason a team like Indiana has a high NET and on the bubble despite a losing record.

To counter the effect, the NCAA should ban teams with losing conference records and especially overall records from participation in the NCAA Tourney.

Agree that - - at minimum - -requiring a team to have no less than a .500+ conference record (and a .500+ overall record would be a step in the right direction.

The net effect would be to reduce the # of B10 NCAA teams from 9 to 7.

This would increase the number of A-10 NCAA teams to 3,
and would increase the number of BEC teams to 5.

A slightly more effective step would be to require a winning (.501+) conference record and a winning overall record (this would reduce the # of B10 NCAA teams from 9 to 6).

This would increase the number of MWC NCAA teams to 4.



Conference:
(NCAA(NIT) bids)*...# of .500+ teams:.....# of .501+ teams:

ACC (7(+2)*)....................10..........................9

B10 (9(+2)*)....................7...........................6

2 Big-10 teams with losing conference records are projected to receive NCAA at-large bids
2 Big-10 teams with (6-12) or (7-12) conference records are projected to receive NIT bids

B12 (7*)...........................7...........................7

PAC (4(+1)*)......................7...........................6

SEC (6(+2)*)......................7...........................6

BEC (4(+1)*)......................6...........................5

AAC (2(+2)*)......................5...........................5

A10 (2(+2)*).....................9...........................8

MVC (2(+0)*)......................4...........................4

MWC (3(+1)*).....................5...........................5

WCC (2(+1)*).....................4...........................4

The 21 other conferences receive only one NCAA bid per conference.

*Number of projected NCAA teams per conference according to bracket matrix.com (Number of projected NIT teams).

...................................................................................................

Distribution of the 37 projected NCAA at-large bids per conference:
...................................................................................................

A5 teams (5 conferences (28 at-large bids for 65 schools)):

B10 8 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=11)
ACC 6 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=9)
B12 6 (+0 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=7)
SEC 5 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=8)
PAC 3 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=5)

28 (43.1%) of the 65 A5 conference teams receive NCAA at-large bids

Requiring that a team must have a .500+ conference record would reduce the total number of A5 NCAA at-large teams from 28 to 26.

...................................................................................................

Non-A5 teams (27 conferences (9* at-large bids for 292 schools*)):

BEC 3 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=5)
MWC 2 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=4)
AAC 1 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=4)
A10 1 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=4)
WCC 1 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=3)
MVC 1 (+0 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=2)
CUSA 0 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=2)

9 (3.1%) of the 292 non-A5 conf. teams receive NCAA at-large bids


Nearly half (48.5%) of the 68 NCAA bids go to the A5 conferences.


...................................................................................................

Requiring that a team must have a .500+ conference record would increase the total number of Non-A5 NCAA at-large teams from 9 to 11.

Requiring that a team must have a .501+ conference record would increase the total number of Non-A5 NCAA at-large teams from 9 to 12.


Unfortunately, relatively miniscule modifications such as these would still grant a disproportionate number of NCAA bids to the A5 conferences, while making the NIT a much less interesting tournament than it used to be, by depriving the NIT of the kinds of teams that made it exciting to watch.

A more effective remedy to both problems would be to return to the kind of framework used in NCAA tournaments before 1980, which limited the maximum number of teams per conference in the NCAA field.

...................................................................................................

.

.
.................................................................................................

The problem of having too many teams from a few dominant conferences (which (a) isn't fair to the other conferences, and (b) has caused a drastic reduction in NIT viewership) didn't exist between 1939 and 1979, when no more than two teams per conference were permitted to participate in the NCAA tournaments.

The NIT tournament (which was originally the top national collegiate tournament, and was considered until the early 1970's) as being as - or almost as - interesting as the NCAA) didn't begin its tumble into obscurity until the dominant conferences were permitted to receive more than two bids per conference.

.................................................................................................

This was the 1979 NCAA tournament field (40 teams/23 conferences):

Note: The current A5 conferences had only 9 (22.5%) of the 40 teams:

ACC 2 teams (#2 UNC, #6 Duke)
B10 2 teams (#4 MSU, #14 Iowa)
SEC 2 teams (#9 LSU, #20 Tennessee)
PAC 2 teams (#2 UCLA, 20-9 USC)
BIG 8^ 1 team (21-10 Oklahoma)

^(now the "Big 12")

.................................................................................................
In 2021, rather than having 9 teams in the NCAA (22.5% of the NCAA field), they will have 33 teams in the NCAA (48.5% of the NCAA field).
.................................................................................................

The 23 other conferences had 31 (77.5%) of the tournament teams:

SWC 2 teams (#7 Arkansas, #15 Texas)
MVC 2 teams (#1 Indiana St., 22-10 NM St.)
WCC 2 teams (#19 San Francisco, Pepperdine (WCC tourney champ)
SBC 2 teams (20-7 S. Ala, Jacksonville (SBC tourney champ))
WAC 2 teams (20-8 BYU, Utah (WAC tourney champ))
METRO 2 teams (#18 Louisville, V.Tech (METRO tourney champ))
PCAC 2 teams (19-11 Utah St., Pacific (PCAC tourney champ))
MAC 1 team (22-9 Toledo)
OVC 1 team (21-8 EKU)
IVY 1 team (25-7 Penn)
Southern 1 team (23-6 App. St.)
Southland 1 team (23-9 Lamar)
Big Sky 1 team (25-9 Weber St.)
EAC 2 teams (22-9 Rutgers, Villanova (Reg. Season Champ))
ECC 1 team (#13 Temple)
NJNY7 1 team (21-11 St. John's)
IND 8 teams: (#10; 26-4) Syracuse, (#11; 24-5) Georgetown, (#8 26-6) DePaul, (#5; 24-6) Notre Dame, (23-6) Iona, (#17; 22-6) Detroit, (#12; 22-7) Marquette, & (21-8) UConn

.................................................................................................

This was the NIT field:

Alabama (22-11; #3, SEC)
Alcorn State (28-1; #1 (SWAC Champion))
Central Michigan (19-9; #2, MAC)
Clemson (19-10; #5, ACC)
Dayton (19-10; Independent)
Holy Cross (17-11; Independent)
Indiana (22-12; #5, Big Ten)
Kentucky (16-12; #6, SEC)
Maryland (19-11; #4, ACC)
Mississippi State (19-9; #5 in SEC)
Nevada (21-7; #3, WCAC)
New Mexico (19-10; #3, WAC)
Louisiana-Monroe (23-6; #1 (TAAC Champion)
Ohio State (19-12; #4, Big Ten)
Old Dominion (23-7; Independent))
Oregon State (18-10; #3, PAC)
Purdue (#15 (AP); 27-8; (B10 reg. season co-champ)
Rhode Island (20-9; Independent)
Saint Joseph's (19-11; #2, ECC East)
St. Bonaventure (19-9; Independent)
Texas A&M (24-9; #3, SWC)
Texas Tech (19-11; #4, SWC)
Virginia (19-10; #3, ACC)
Wagner (21-7; Independent)

1979 NIT Final Four:

Indiana (#4, Big Ten) vs. Ohio State (#5, Big Ten)

Purdue (Big Ten co-champion) vs. Alabama (#3, SEC)

.

The 1979 NCAA field was terrific, and the 1979 NIT field was outstanding, compared with the NIT tournaments since then, because the number of NCAA teams per conference was limited.

That's why the NIT used to matter, and could matter again if the maximum # of NCAA teams were reduced to 4 teams per conference.

.

(03-06-2021 01:43 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  .

A lot of the current NET ratings don't make any sense. In most team by team comparisons, there is a tendency - - once again - - to rank the teams from the "A5" higher than their Q1-4 records would tend to warrant:

For example, compare the NET ranks of Kentucky and WKU:

#67 Kentucky (8-15 (.348); Q1/Q2: 6-14 (.300) Q3/4: 2-1 (.667)

#76 WKU (17-5 (.773); Q1/Q2: 4-4 (.500) Q3/4: 13-1 (.929)

Why 8-15 is ranked higher than 17-5 WKU is very hard to explain.

.

Penn State and Dayton:

#49 Penn St. (9-13 (.409); Q1/Q2: 6-12 (.333) Q3/4: 3-1 (.750)

#86 Dayton (14-8 (.636); Q1/Q2: 6-4 (.600) Q3/4: 8-4 (.667)

With their far-superior Q1/Q2 record, Dayton shouldn't be ranked 37 ranks lower than Penn St, should they?

.

Rutgers and Wichita St:

#37 Rutgers (13-10 (.565); Q1/Q2: 8-10 (.444) Q3/4: 5-0))

#62 Wichita St. (12-4 (.750); Q1/Q2: 4-4 (.500) Q3/4: 8-0))

Rutgers shouldn't be ranked as high as they are with such a mediocre Q1/Q2 record, and shouldn't be ranked 25 ranks ahead of Wichita St., should they?

.

Seton Hall and SMU:

#46 Seton Hall (13-11; Q1/Q2: 6-10 (.375) Q3/4: 7-1)

#54 SMU (11-4; Q1/Q2: 4-3 (.571) Q3/4: 7-1)

What is it about Seton Hall that has them ranked 8 points ahead of SMU?

.

Maryland and VCU:

#32 Maryland (14-11 (.560); Q1/Q2: 6-11 (.375) Q3/4: 8-0)

#35 VCU (17-6 (.739); Q1/Q2: 8-4 (.667) Q3/4: 9-2)

Maryland should probably be ranked ahead of, not behind VCU, no?

.

It certainly appears that the NET formula continues to be biased toward the A5 and BE conferences.

It's pretty clear that this is being done by weighting each team's strength of schedule - - as they define it - - so heavily that it tends to overwhelm the effects of teams' Q1/Q2 records on their NET rankings.

The NET formula's weighting of team SOS tends to cause the Q1/Q2 record of a non "A5" team to count substantially less than the Q1/Q2 record of an "A5" team.

All these computations are engineered to work for the blueboods. It's all bullsht. Been saying it for years. Follow the money!

They work in favor for the people they want and work against the people they don't want. This isn't rocket science.

......................................................................................................

In 2021, rather than comprising more than 3/4 (77.5%) of the NCAA field) as was the case in NCAA tournaments before 1980, the non-A5 conferences will only comprise slightly over half (51.5%) of the tournament field.
......................................................................................................

The fairest way to create a fairer and more equal NCAA tournament playing field would be to limit the NCAA tournament field to a maximum of 4 teams per conference, and to limit the NIT to a maximum of 5, possibly 6 teams per conference.

This may seem like a drastic solution, but it wouldn't be, since it was the very same type of framework that existed in the pre-1980 NCAA tournaments, when there was a smaller tournament field and a maximum of only two teams per conference.

......................................................................................................

This would have the effect of making the NIT a much more exciting post-season tournament than it currently is, because the 2021 NIT would have teams such as (#22) Purdue, (#24) Texas, (#25) Wisconsin, (#27) Florida, (#29) LSU, (#30) Maryland, (#31) Oklahoma State, (#33) Oklahoma, (#38) Rutgers, (#42) Drake, (#43) UNC, (#49) Louisville, (51) Syracuse, Stanford, Michigan State, Seton Hall, Duke, & Dayton.

Most of these teams would be expected to advance to the NIT's version of the Sweet Sixteen (which would be played in east and west regional sites, mirroring the NCAA), and the drama would escalate from there, much as it did when the NIT meant almost as much to college basketball fans as the NCAA tournament did.

Winning a NIT championship would again be considered a very significant achievement.

.................................................................................................

The following teams would be projected to represent the A5 conferences in the adjusted NCAA tournament field with max 4 teams per conference (based on bracketmatrix.com, supplemented by NET rankings):

ACC: Florida St., Virginia, Clemson, & Virginia Tech (or tournament champ)

Big Ten: Michigan, Illinois, Ohio St., & Iowa (or tournament champ)

Big 12: Baylor, WVU, Kansas, & Texas (or tournament champ)

PAC 12: USC, Colorado, Oregon, & UCLA (or tournament champ)

SEC: Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, & Missouri (or tournament champ)

BEC: Villanova, Creighton, UConn, & Xavier (or tournament champ)

A-10: St. Bonaventure, #35 VCU, #36 St. Louis, & Richmond (or tournament champ)

MWC: San Diego St., CSU, #44 Boise St., & #47 Utah St. (or tournament champ)

AAC: Houston, Wichita St., SMU, & Memphis (or tournament champ)

WCC: #1 Gonzaga, #19 BYU, & St. Mary's (& tourney champ if not 1 of these)^

MVC: #17 Loyola-Chicago, #42 Drake (& tourney champ if not 1 of these teams)^

Patriot: Colgate (& tourney champ if Colgate isn't the tourney champ)^

BWC: UCSB (& tourney champ if UCSB isn't the tourney champ)^

CUSA: WKU & the #2 conf. team (N.TX/La.Tech)^ (or tourney champ)^

Big South: Winthrop (or tourney champ)^

^Additional team, contingent on conference tournament results.

The other conferences would receive 1 bid per conference. Any slots left unfilled by contingent teams (^) would be filled with the most highly ranked teams from conferences that didn't receive three at-large bids (could include teams such as (22-1) Winthrop, (25-3) Belmont, (20-7) Toledo, & (19-6) LaTech.

.

The total number of NCAA and NIT teams would remain the same, at 100, and very few teams that would ordinarily make the NCAA or NIT field would be excluded from either tournament under the modified framework.

Some of the teams that would be excluded would include teams with sub-.501 conference and overall records such as Penn State, Kentucky, Notre Dame, and Indiana. However, this could be remedied by either expanding the NIT field to 40 or 48, permitting a maximum of 6 NIT teams per conference, or adding play-in games similar to the NCAA "first four" to determine which of the most marginal teams from the top 6-ranked conferences would make their way into the NIT (i.e., PSU vs. Indiana, etc.).

.

With both a highly competitive NIT alongside the NCAA tournament, there would be a great tournament game worth watching, and some that would keep you glued to your screen every day for 10 days in a row, for the first few rounds.

These would be the kinds of dates we'd be looking at (based on 2019):

March 18 (NCAA first four)
March 19 (NIT/NCAA round 1)
March 20 (NIT/NCAA round 1)
March 21 (NCAA round 1)
March 22 (NCAA round 1; NIT sweet 16 (e.g., #22 Purdue vs. #4 seed Duke)
March 23 (NCAA round 2; NIT sweet 16)(e.g., #33 Oklahoma vs #38 Rutgers)
March 24 (NCAA round 2; NIT sweet 16)(e.g., #29 LSU vs. #43 UNC)
March 25 (NIT sweet 16) (e.g., #31 Oklahoma St. vs. #49 Louisville)
March 26 (NIT quarterfinals (NIT elite 8) (e.g., #27 Florida vs. #29 LSU)
March 27 (NIT quarterfinals (NIT elite 8)) (e.g., #24 Texas vs. 30 Maryland)
March 28 (NCAA sweet sixteen)
March 29 (NCAA sweet sixteen)
March 30 (NCAA quarterfinals (elite 8))
March 31 (NCAA quarterfinals (elite 8))
April 2 (NIT semifinals (NIT final four))
April 4 (NIT championship game)
April 6 (NCAA semifinals (NCAA final four))
April 8 (NCAA championship game)

.

WSUs NET Dropped to 65 after winning yesterday by 17

Sent from my SM-F916U1 using Tapatalk

(03-06-2021 09:57 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-06-2021 08:20 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  One glaring limitation of the formula is SOS. There is a self reinforcing and incestuous SOS loop for in-conference games which rewards lesser teams playing (and losing to) strong conference teams. It is the reason a team like Indiana has a high NET and on the bubble despite a losing record.

To counter the effect, the NCAA should ban teams with losing conference records and especially overall records from participation in the NCAA Tourney.

Agree that - - at minimum - -requiring a team to have no less than a .500+ conference record (and a .500+ overall record would be a step in the right direction.

The net effect would be to reduce the # of B10 NCAA teams from 9 to 7.

This would increase the number of A-10 NCAA teams to 3,
and would increase the number of BEC teams to 5.

A slightly more effective step would be to require a winning (.501+) conference record and a winning overall record (this would reduce the # of B10 NCAA teams from 9 to 6).

This would increase the number of MWC NCAA teams to 4.

2021 CONFERENCE RECORDS:

Conference:
(NCAA(NIT) bids)*...# of .500+ teams:.....# of .501+ teams:

ACC (7(+2)*)....................10..........................9

B10 (9(+2)*)....................7...........................6

2 Big-10 teams with losing conference records are projected to receive NCAA at-large bids
2 Big-10 teams with (6-12) or (7-12) conference records are projected to receive NIT bids

B12 (7*)...........................7...........................7

PAC (4(+1)*)......................7...........................6

SEC (6(+2)*)......................7...........................6

BEC (4(+1)*)......................6...........................5

AAC (2(+2)*)......................5...........................5

A10 (2(+2)*).....................9...........................8

MVC (2(+0)*)......................4...........................4

MWC (3(+1)*).....................5...........................5

WCC (2(+1)*).....................4...........................4

The 21 other conferences receive only one NCAA bid per conference.

*Number of projected NCAA teams per conference according to bracket matrix.com (Number of projected NIT teams).

...................................................................................................

Distribution of the 37 projected NCAA at-large bids per conference:
...................................................................................................

A5 teams (5 conferences (28 at-large bids for 65 schools)):

B10 8 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=11)
ACC 6 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=9)
B12 6 (+0 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=7)
SEC 5 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=8)
PAC 3 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=5)

28 (43.1%) of the 65 A5 conference teams receive NCAA at-large bids

Requiring that a team must have a .500+ conference record would reduce the total number of A5 NCAA at-large teams from 28 to 26.

...................................................................................................

Non-A5 teams (27 conferences (9* at-large bids for 292 schools*)):

BEC 3 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=5)
MWC 2 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=4)
AAC 1 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=4)
A10 1 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=4)
WCC 1 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=3)
MVC 1 (+0 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=2)
CUSA 0 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=2)

9 (3.1%) of the 292 non-A5 conf. teams receive NCAA at-large bids


Nearly half (48.5%) of the 68 NCAA bids go to the A5 conferences.


...................................................................................................

Requiring that a team must have a .500+ conference record would increase the total number of Non-A5 NCAA teams from 9 to 11.

Requiring that a team must have a .501+ conference record would increase the total number of Non-A5 NCAA teams from 9 to 12.

Unfortunately, relatively miniscule modifications such as these would still grant a disproportionate number of NCAA bids to the A5 conferences, while making the NIT a much less interesting tournament than it used to be, by depriving the NIT of the kinds of teams that made it exciting to watch.

A more effective remedy to both problems would be to return to the kind of framework used in NCAA tournaments before 1980, which limited the maximum number of teams per conference in the NCAA field.

...................................................................................................

.

Winning conference record...Pfft...That is a silly and unfair metric. There are going to be situations where good teams will have losing conference records.

But they do need to publish the formula for the Net.

The second thing is they need to rethink this whole arbitrary quad system.

Finally they need to put more stress on road games...Big conferences use buy games in order to pad win totals because they have the $ to do so.

(03-07-2021 10:02 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(03-06-2021 09:57 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-06-2021 08:20 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  One glaring limitation of the formula is SOS. There is a self reinforcing and incestuous SOS loop for in-conference games which rewards lesser teams playing (and losing to) strong conference teams. It is the reason a team like Indiana has a high NET and on the bubble despite a losing record.

To counter the effect, the NCAA should ban teams with losing conference records and especially overall records from participation in the NCAA Tourney.

Agree that - - at minimum - -requiring a team to have no less than a .500+ conference record (and a .500+ overall record would be a step in the right direction.

The net effect would be to reduce the # of B10 NCAA teams from 9 to 7.

This would increase the number of A-10 NCAA teams to 3,
and would increase the number of BEC teams to 5.

A slightly more effective step would be to require a winning (.501+) conference record and a winning overall record (this would reduce the # of B10 NCAA teams from 9 to 6).

This would increase the number of MWC NCAA teams to 4.

2021 CONFERENCE RECORDS:

Conference:
(NCAA(NIT) bids)*...# of .500+ teams:.....# of .501+ teams:

ACC (7(+2)*)....................10..........................9

B10 (9(+2)*)....................7...........................6

2 Big-10 teams with losing conference records are projected to receive NCAA at-large bids
2 Big-10 teams with (6-12) or (7-12) conference records are projected to receive NIT bids

B12 (7*)...........................7...........................7

PAC (4(+1)*)......................7...........................6

SEC (6(+2)*)......................7...........................6

BEC (4(+1)*)......................6...........................5

AAC (2(+2)*)......................5...........................5

A10 (2(+2)*).....................9...........................8

MVC (2(+0)*)......................4...........................4

MWC (3(+1)*).....................5...........................5

WCC (2(+1)*).....................4...........................4

The 21 other conferences receive only one NCAA bid per conference.

*Number of projected NCAA teams per conference according to bracket matrix.com (Number of projected NIT teams).

...................................................................................................

Distribution of the 37 projected NCAA at-large bids per conference:
...................................................................................................

A5 teams (5 conferences (28 at-large bids for 65 schools)):

B10 8 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=11)
ACC 6 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=9)
B12 6 (+0 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=7)
SEC 5 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=8)
PAC 3 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=5)

28 (43.1%) of the 65 A5 conference teams receive NCAA at-large bids

Requiring that a team must have a .500+ conference record would reduce the total number of A5 NCAA at-large teams from 28 to 26.

...................................................................................................

Non-A5 teams (27 conferences (9* at-large bids for 292 schools*)):

BEC 3 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=5)
MWC 2 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=4)
AAC 1 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=4)
A10 1 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=4)
WCC 1 (+1 NIT team; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=3)
MVC 1 (+0 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=2)
CUSA 0 (+2 NIT teams; total # of projected NCAA+NIT teams=2)

9 (3.1%) of the 292 non-A5 conf. teams receive NCAA at-large bids


Nearly half (48.5%) of the 68 NCAA bids go to the A5 conferences.


...................................................................................................

Requiring that a team must have a .500+ conference record would increase the total number of Non-A5 NCAA teams from 9 to 11.

Requiring that a team must have a .501+ conference record would increase the total number of Non-A5 NCAA teams from 9 to 12.

Unfortunately, relatively miniscule modifications such as these would still grant a disproportionate number of NCAA bids to the A5 conferences, while making the NIT a much less interesting tournament than it used to be, by depriving the NIT of the kinds of teams that made it exciting to watch.

A more effective remedy to both problems would be to return to the kind of framework used in NCAA tournaments before 1980, which limited the maximum number of teams per conference in the NCAA field.

...................................................................................................

.

Winning conference record...Pfft...That is a silly and unfair metric. There are going to be situations where good teams will have losing conference records.

But they do need to publish the formula for the Net.

The second thing is they need to rethink this whole arbitrary quad system.

Finally they need to put more stress on road games...Big conferences use buy games in order to pad win totals because they have the $ to do so.

Good teams don't have losing records. The end.

You can still get in by winning your conference tournament but if you are Syracuse or Cal and you are 9-11 in the ACC/PAC and finished 8th in your conference, you don't deserve an at large spot over a 28-4 Drake who lost to Loyola in their tournament final because a computer decided your metrics are better. That is what is ruining the competitions, it's why the CFP isn't a real championship. Rigging the game so you win is not actually winning.

The feedback loop from other teams is wayyy too strong in the NET.

The most glaring example is the Mountain West Conference. The entire top half of their league is top 50 basically on the strength of a couple of them beating San Diego St and then losing to the rest of the league.

(03-07-2021 11:02 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  The feedback loop from other teams is wayyy too strong in the NET.

The most glaring example is the Mountain West Conference. The entire top half of their league is top 50 basically on the strength of a couple of them beating San Diego St and then losing to the rest of the league.

The Big East may be a more glaring example.

The upper echelon teams in the MWC (with NET rankings of 20, 44, 45, and 50) have maintained W-L records (20-4, 18-7, 18-7, and 17-5) of the kind that generally tend to be associated with top 50 teams.

The top Big East teams (with NET rankings of 10, 26, 32, 52, and 57) have much less impressive records (16-5, 18-7, 14-6, 13-7, 13-12), of the kind that raise questions about the accuracy of their NET rankings, and two of these teams (Seton Hall & Xavier) have been on a downward spiral in recent weeks, suggesting that they may have been ranked as better teams than they actually were.

(03-07-2021 12:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 11:02 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  The feedback loop from other teams is wayyy too strong in the NET.

The most glaring example is the Mountain West Conference. The entire top half of their league is top 50 basically on the strength of a couple of them beating San Diego St and then losing to the rest of the league.

The Big East may be a more glaring example.

The upper echelon teams in the MWC (with NET rankings of 20, 44, 45, and 50) have maintained W-L records (20-4, 18-7, 18-7, and 17-5) of the kind that generally tend to be associated with top 50 teams.

The top Big East teams (with NET rankings of 10, 26, 32, 52, and 57) have much less impressive records (16-5, 18-7, 14-6, 13-7, 13-12), of the kind that raise questions about the accuracy of their NET rankings, and two of these teams (Seton Hall & Xavier) have been on a downward spiral in recent weeks, suggesting that they may have been ranked as better teams than they actually were.

That's the problem the AAC schools face - few Q1 opportunities in-conference. With the NET bias in favor of the the big conferences, they play 8-10+ Q1 games in-conference - so what if they lose most of them, they'll still win 3+ and improve their NET win or loss while the AAC schools get docked even with conference wins.

(03-07-2021 01:15 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 12:58 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 11:02 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  The feedback loop from other teams is wayyy too strong in the NET.

The most glaring example is the Mountain West Conference. The entire top half of their league is top 50 basically on the strength of a couple of them beating San Diego St and then losing to the rest of the league.

The Big East may be a more glaring example.

The upper echelon teams in the MWC (with NET rankings of 20, 44, 45, and 50) have maintained W-L records (20-4, 18-7, 18-7, and 17-5) of the kind that generally tend to be associated with top 50 teams.

The top Big East teams (with NET rankings of 10, 26, 32, 52, and 57) have much less impressive records (16-5, 18-7, 14-6, 13-7, 13-12), of the kind that raise questions about the accuracy of their NET rankings, and two of these teams (Seton Hall & Xavier) have been on a downward spiral in recent weeks, suggesting that they may have been ranked as better teams than they actually were.

That's the problem the AAC schools face - few Q1 opportunities in-conference. With the NET bias in favor of the the big conferences, they play 8-10+ Q1 games in-conference - so what if they lose most of them, they'll still win 3+ and improve their NET win or loss while the AAC schools get docked even with conference wins.

Every road game vs a top 75 team is quad 1. We have quite a few of those. What we lack are two top 30 and one or two top 50 teams instead one top 30 and three or four top 75. Almost all away games in conference were quad 2. The bottom caught up and our top fell down a little. Next year we need the bottom to stay up or improve a little and some of the middle pull themselves back.up to that top 10-15% of basketball instead of so many top 30%.