Year 1 of the NET

#27
#27
VolGee4 said:
I didn’t just focus on SOS. They lost to GTech and WF, which were bad losses. I believe they were 3-9 in quadrant one games. I believe Syracuse was the only other team with such a record, but they won at Duke and not sure the difference in quadrant two wins.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know but all of that is beside the point. Clearly anyone can make an argument for basically any team by cherry picking what they deem significant. And that’s what the committee does every year. Seems ridiculous for the committee not to have some core guidelines. Instead, like you said, one side of their mouth they’ll talk about ‘entire body of work’ and out of the other they’ll single out only parts of their body of work.
 
#28
#28
You guys have completely forgotten the TET rating it appears. Y'all know "The Eye Test". Aka, how I was impressed by ESPN analysis and highlights.

And of course the most basic selection model of all ...
dartboard-300x300.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: golfballs and Tennesseefan2019
#29
#29
VolGee4 said:
NC State is 33 at KenPom. Because net efficiciency is included in the NET (and not RPI), that seems to be one reason why they were higher in the NET. NC State played a lot of close games in conference but also had a lot of 10+ point wins OOC because their schedule was awful. That could contribute into why their NET was higher.

I agree that it’s a strange difference between the two, but I have no issue looking at the entire body of work. If NC State doesn’t lose 2 games to WF and GTech, they are probably in. Those are two bad teams, so I don’t feel that sorry for them.
Click to expand...
And what you mention is why I don’t like the NET. You reward teams for playing easier schedules. Before we lost to Auburn and after beating KY a second time we were still a few spots behind Gonzaga despite the fact they played only 10 games against top 100 NET teams while we played 21. We played 10 games against top 25 NET teams to GU’s 3 and at that point had only 1 more loss. Of course your margin of victory and efficiency will be better if you play bad teams and it seems those are weighted more heavily than schedule strength. So far the NET looks like a poor tool. They’re trying to take the human element out and I don’t like that for the current format.
 
#30
#30
BruinVol said:
Interesting what data I just realized. Looks to me the committee just used RPI as always


NC state 97 RPI
Clemson 60 RPI
Temple 34 RPI
Belmont 43 RPI
Minnesota 41 RPI
St. John's 66 RPI
Arizona State 44 RPI


Crazy diffence for NC state and Clemson in RPI
Click to expand...

OOC strength of schedule for NCSU was an embarrassment. I believe it was in the 300s.
 
#31
#31
BruinVol said:
Yep

From my view I think the NET is very very flawed. I followed floridas net all
Year and it was around 30 even when they had zero good wins. You should have to win a game or two to get that high
Click to expand...

I think they are all flawed. RPI is flawed. KenPom takes efficiency more into consideration than record (although I know the two can go hand in hand).

But these metrics are used as an index, meaning they are strictly used to rank and order. Then, you have to use that order to evaluate wins. That’s where the quadrant records come in, just like we used RPI top 50, top 100, etc.
 
#32
#32
hUTch2002 said:
And what you mention is why I don’t like the NET. You reward teams for playing easier schedules. Before we lost to Auburn and after beating KY a second time we were still a few spots behind Gonzaga despite the fact they played only 10 games against top 100 NET teams while we played 21. We played 10 games against top 25 NET teams to GU’s 3 and at that point had only 1 more loss. Of course your margin of victory and efficiency will be better if you play bad teams and it seems those are weighted more heavily than schedule strength. So far the NET looks like a poor tool. They’re trying to take the human element out and I don’t like that for the current format.
Click to expand...

At least with KenPom, supposedly, the net efficiency is adjusted based on the teams you play, i.e. if they are a bad team. I would assume the NET is the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#34
#34
Bilas is in favor of this when it suits him, but I think they should use SOR. It’s entirely results based.
 
#37
#37
It looks like NC State had 2 wins against NCAAT teams- Auburn and Syracuse. St. John’s had 5- VCU, Nova, Seton Hall, and Marquette twice.
 
#40
#40
The committee said that they would use the NET as a tool and not the be all end all. It seems that is probably what they did. Consistency is obviously an issue, but that is not directly tied to the NET. As for it being flawed as it relates to FL - they must all be flawed then as NET, Kenpom, Sagarin and pretty much all the sophisticated computer rankings have FL at about the same spot.

As for NC State, yes they played some bad teams (of course, they beat them all), but they also played some good teams (Wisconsin, Auburn, Penn State, Vandy . . .). And their only loss was a close game at Wisconsin. I am not saying they should been in, but their OOC schedule was tougher than the RPI makes it seem. Of course, going 9-9 in the ACC, with an OT loss to UVA is no small feat.
 
#41
#41
golfballs said:
You all are really missing the point.
Click to expand...

I am really not. The original question was strictly about the NET, and all I said is that the NET (like the RPI) is an index. It's not solely used to determine who is in or out. After reviewing NC State's resume, I have no issue with them being left out. They played a bad schedule, lost to two bad conference teams, only beat two tournament teams, and those two were a 5 seed and a 8 seed.

I understand the need for some consistency, but when the committee is made up of different people every year, there will always be some slightly different ways to evaluate teams.

If NC State had beaten Georgia Tech and Wake Forest (who both brought our SOS down), they would most likely be in.
 
#42
#42
VolGee4 said:
I am really not. The original question was strictly about the NET, and all I said is that the NET (like the RPI) is an index. It's not solely used to determine who is in or out. After reviewing NC State's resume, I have no issue with them being left out. They played a bad schedule, lost to two bad conference teams, only beat two tournament teams, and those two were a 5 seed and a 8 seed.

I understand the need for some consistency, but when the committee is made up of different people every year, there will always be some slightly different ways to evaluate teams.

If NC State had beaten Georgia Tech and Wake Forest (who both brought our SOS down), they would most likely be in.
Click to expand...


There has never been consistency but at least with the RPI we could say "the Best ranked RPI power 5 team to ever be left out was....:"


It was a nice starting point and as I recall that was around a 40 RPI


With net it's clear there are no boundaries at all set as we have seen in this thread
 
Last edited:
#43
#43
VolGee4 said:
I am really not. The original question was strictly about the NET, and all I said is that the NET (like the RPI) is an index. It's not solely used to determine who is in or out. After reviewing NC State's resume, I have no issue with them being left out. They played a bad schedule, lost to two bad conference teams, only beat two tournament teams, and those two were a 5 seed and a 8 seed.

I understand the need for some consistency, but when the committee is made up of different people every year, there will always be some slightly different ways to evaluate teams.

If NC State had beaten Georgia Tech and Wake Forest (who both brought our SOS down), they would most likely be in.
Click to expand...
It isn’t about NC State. The point is they made a big hoopla about replacing the RPI with the NET and proclaiming that it will be an important tool in their process. Yet here they go just cherry picking whatever justification they need select and seed teams. It’s absurd that they can’t exhibit logical consistency within the same year let alone from year to year.
 
#44
#44
admiralkerr said:
The committee said that they would use the NET as a tool and not the be all end all. It seems that is probably what they did. Consistency is obviously an issue, but that is not directly tied to the NET. As for it being flawed as it relates to FL - they must all be flawed then as NET, Kenpom, Sagarin and pretty much all the sophisticated computer rankings have FL at about the same spot.

As for NC State, yes they played some bad teams (of course, they beat them all), but they also played some good teams (Wisconsin, Auburn, Penn State, Vandy . . .). And their only loss was a close game at Wisconsin. I am not saying they should been in, but their OOC schedule was tougher than the RPI makes it seem. Of course, going 9-9 in the ACC, with an OT loss to UVA is no small feat.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with this. I wouldn't consider Penn State good, and they got unlucky that Vandy was as bad as they were. But the problem is they played Maryland- Eastern Shore (NET 352); UNC-Asheville (350); USC Upstate (344); Maine (335); Mount St. Mary's (319); Saint Peter's (317); Western Carolina (295); Loyola Maryland (281); Mercer (216).

That is atrocious. They played 6 teams that were ranked 300+. We have discussed this for years. Those 200+ teams ruin your SOS. You have to play some 100-200 mid majors to not bring it down, and a good P5 team should beat them. Pearl was good about projecting better mid major teams, and Barnes has discussed scheduling teams they think will win or compete for their conference championship.

They also played WF, GTech, BC, and Pitt all twice in their unbalanced schedule. Those are 184, 126, 136, and 123 in NET respectively. They knew going into the season that they were going to play the 4 worst teams in the conference.

That's just bad scheduling.
 
#45
#45
BruinVol said:
There has never been consistency but at least with the RPI we could say "the Best ranked RPI power 5 team to ever be left out was....:"


It was a nice starting point and as I recall that was around a 40 RPI


With net it's clear there are no boundaries at all set as we have seen in this thread
Click to expand...

Give it a few years, and there will be boundaries. Can't do it in year one.
 
#46
#46
VolGee4 said:
Give it a few years, and there will be boundaries. Can't do it in year one.
Click to expand...


Well the boundaries they just set at 73 on the high end getting in and 33 on the low end getting left out. That tells us nothing going forward and that's the point
 
#47
#47
golfballs said:
It isn’t about NC State. The point is they made a big hoopla about replacing the RPI with the NET and proclaiming that it will be an important tool in their process. Yet here they go just cherry picking whatever justification they need select and seed teams. It’s absurd that they can’t exhibit logical consistency within the same year let alone from year to year.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to how important. I just know that they wanted to replace it with the RPI, which was also flawed. They are never going to just go right down the rankings to include teams. There is always more to it than that.

I just read that, unlike KenPom, the NET does not adjust its efficiency ratings for the caliber of the team. Therefore, as I stated above, that's a reason why NC State got a boost. That's a problem, but this committee went deeper to evaluate NC State and realized that they didn't beat anybody even with their 30+ NET ranking.

This year was as about as fair as it is going to get. I have criticized past committees, but there this year had a light bubble. There aren't teams that were left out that truly deserved to be in.
 
#48
#48
BruinVol said:
Well the boundaries they just set at 73 on the high end getting in and 33 on the low end getting left out. That tells us nothing going forward and that's the point
Click to expand...

Well, if you add 3-9 in quadrant one games and a terrible SOS, then you can compare it. If there is a school next year that is ranked 35 with 5+ quadrant one wins and played a decent schedule, then good bet is that they will get in. It does tell us something. Schedule better and win more games.
 
#49
#49
VolGee4 said:
Well, if you add 3-9 in quadrant one games and a terrible SOS, then you can compare it. If there is a school next year that is ranked 35 with 5+ quadrant one wins and played a decent schedule, then good bet is that they will get in. It does tell us something. Schedule better and win more games.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is the NET is meaningless and you just need to look at quadrant wins/losses and SOS

And I agree with that and I think that's what the committee did
 
#50
#50
BruinVol said:
So what you are saying is the NET is meaningless and you just need to look at quadrant wins/losses and SOS

And I agree with that and I think that's what the committee did
Click to expand...

Bruin, you have to have the index to determine quadrant wins. Therefore, the NET is not meaningless. You have to somehow rank the teams in order to determine what quadrant the wins are in.

You can't use polls to determine quadrant wins because they are biased by humans, and teams fall out of the top 25 during the year. You have to have a metric first to establish quadrants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tumbleweedvol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top