golfballs
Mostly Peaceful Poster
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 75,369
- Likes
- 57,607
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.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.
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.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.
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
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
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.
You all are really missing the point.
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.
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.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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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