Year 1 of the NET

[BruinVol]

A little controversy and intrigue for selection Sunday is a good thing but this NET thing seems to make things much more random and from my view that isn't good.

 

[BruinVol]

Yea, and St. John’s won more big games. I don’t care if they picked St. John’s or NC State, but neither had a gripe if they were left out.

All metrics are flawed. By KenPom, Texas would have been in at 16-16. You just can’t go down the list. Anyway, we’ve beat it to death.

Texas was 69 RPI. Another example of a more appropriate ranking imo

 

[golfballs]

Yea, and St. John’s won more big games. I don’t care if they picked St. John’s or NC State, but neither had a gripe if they were left out.

All metrics are flawed. By KenPom, Texas would have been in at 16-16. You just can’t go down the list. Anyway, we’ve beat it to death.

Again I have to bring you back to the fact you’re missing the point. This isn’t about nc state, Belmont, St. John’s, etc. you can make arguments for or against any of them. St. John’s is awful an everyone knows it. The point is the committee has no consistency. They contradict themselves every year. This thread is about the NET. They can’t really be serious about it when they clearly didn’t follow it. It’s not hard to set up some consistent guidelines. But the committee does whatever the hell they want. And that goes beyond choosing the field, but seeding as well. It’s ridiculous

 

[golfballs]

A little controversy and intrigue for selection Sunday is a good thing but this NET thing seems to make things much more random and from my view that isn't good.

Right. Every year people have quarrels about this team or that. And you can always make arguments for or against. When it comes to the last teams in, it doesn’t make much of a difference. Seeding can be a little more significant. Even still, it seems ridiculous that your post season fate can rely on metrics which are unevenly applied or hardly at all. The NET was hailed as some great advancement to the process and they clearly throw it out the window. Why the do they even pretend? I still think they need to have more specific guidelines for selecting and seeding. Especially given how corruption has snuck its head into the game. Standards have to be a good thing.

 

[VolGee4]

Again I have to bring you back to the fact you’re missing the point. This isn’t about nc state, Belmont, St. John’s, etc. you can make arguments for or against any of them. St. John’s is awful an everyone knows it. The point is the committee has no consistency. They contradict themselves every year. This thread is about the NET. They can’t really be serious about it when they clearly didn’t follow it. It’s not hard to set up some consistent guidelines. But the committee does whatever the hell they want. And that goes beyond choosing the field, but seeding as well. It’s ridiculous

That’s your opinion. You can’t strictly follow a metric because they all have flaws. There aren’t going to be consistent guidelines because all the metrics spit out different results. This is just not the year to criticize the committee anyway because no deserving team was left out.

I get that the committee emphasizes different things here and there, but it’s really not that difficult to understand why the metrics aren’t strictly used.

 

[BruinVol]

That’s your opinion. You can’t strictly follow a metric because they all have flaws. There aren’t going to be consistent guidelines because all the metrics spit out different results. This is just not the year to criticize the committee anyway because no deserving team was left out.

I get that the committee emphasizes different things here and there, but it’s really not that difficult to understand why the metrics aren’t strictly used.

My biggest ? After this discussion is did the committee discuss RPI rankings?

 

[golfballs]

That’s your opinion. You can’t strictly follow a metric because they all have flaws. There aren’t going to be consistent guidelines because all the metrics spit out different results. This is just not the year to criticize the committee anyway because no deserving team was left out.

I get that the committee emphasizes different things here and there, but it’s really not that difficult to understand why the metrics aren’t strictly used.

It doesn’t have to be one metric. It can be several. You could say that at large teams can’t have an OOC SOS less than X and a Q1 winning percentage less than Y. Yet they won’t even constrain themselves to the most broad guidelines. Surely it can’t be that hard

 

[VolGee4]

It doesn’t have to be one metric. It can be several. You could say that at large teams can’t have an OOC SOS less than X and a Q1 winning percentage less than Y. Yet they won’t even constrain themselves to the most broad guidelines. Surely it can’t be that hard

If you constrain yourselves to certain guidelines, you might not get enough teams to hit them in a certain year. Then, they are stuck picking teams that didn’t fit them. Every year is different with teams’ performances.

 

[VolGee4]

My biggest ? After this discussion is did the committee discuss RPI rankings?

Before the NET, I read that the committee started getting a spreadsheet of all the pertinent metrics, along with all quadrant wins and losses, and strength of schedule. That way, they could compare each team in each metric.