This team in the rankings

[glazedandconfused]

18 minutes ago, johnbj14 said:

This can obviously change, but looking at the rest of the season, T-Rank (a great free site) shows SLU favored in all but 3 remaining games. http://www.barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Saint+Louis

Cool thanks! So that has us winning on average about 8.1 games going forward.  I'll hammer the over on that. I would guess 9 or 10 wins in conference remaining

[wgstl]

Just looking at what some teams had to do to make the tourney last year,  St Johns really stood out to me. They were an at large team coming in at 21-13 and a NET rank of 73rd.  ASU also 21-11 with a NET of 63rd

[SShoe]

16 minutes ago, wgstl said:

Just looking at what some teams had to do to make the tourney last year,  St Johns really stood out to me. They were an at large team coming in at 21-13 and a NET rank of 73rd.  ASU also 21-11 with a NET of 63rd

Given their relatively low rankings, I assume both teams had good records vs. Q1 teams?   

[glazedandconfused]

A small problem I have with the selection criteria:   We have this seemingly complex NET rating that the committee says they take seriously. I would assume Q1 record would be factored into that NET rating. So it bothers me when the committee will take a team with a NET rating of 73 over a NET rating of 30 something with less Q1 wins. Seemingly that would have already been accounted for and the NET 37 is still a more impressive resume. 

Also, using arbitrary cut offs (1-75 is Q1 road win for example) doesn't make any sense. A road win vs 75th ranked team by 2 is not better than a road win over the 76th ranked team by 10.  NET rating would seemingly account for this....just looking at Q1 records wouldn't. 

 

My point is, committee, if you are going to have a NET rating, trust it. Or adjust the rating to value quality wins more. The quadrant system just doesn't make sense given the amount of data they have access to.

[almaman]

1 hour ago, johnbj14 said:

This can obviously change, but looking at the rest of the season, T-Rank (a great free site) shows SLU favored in all but 3 remaining games. http://www.barttorvik.com/team.php?team=Saint+Louis

 

thanks

[SShoe]

13 minutes ago, glazedandconfused said:

A small problem I have with the selection criteria:   We have this seemingly complex NET rating that the committee says they take seriously. I would assume Q1 record would be factored into that NET rating. So it bothers me when the committee will take a team with a NET rating of 73 over a NET rating of 30 something with less Q1 wins. Seemingly that would have already been accounted for and the NET 37 is still a more impressive resume. 

Also, using arbitrary cut offs (1-75 is Q1 road win for example) doesn't make any sense. A road win vs 75th ranked team by 2 is not better than a road win over the 76th ranked team by 10.  NET rating would seemingly account for this....just looking at Q1 records wouldn't. 

 

My point is, committee, if you are going to have a NET rating, trust it. Or adjust the rating to value quality wins more. The quadrant system just doesn't make sense given the amount of data they have access to.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe the rankings place greater emphasis on quality wins over non-quality wins so there needs to be some way to account for a team that actually beats other good teams.  Just take a scenario where one team plays and beats the 150th and 151st ranked teams while the other beats the #1 and #300 teams.  Both teams are 2-0 and, on average, have the same strength of schedule. I'm old enough to remember Missouri State not getting in the tourney back in the mid 2000s despite an RPI in the 20s. Part of the reason it was so high was that they had avoided playing many, if any, games against teams ranked worse than 200 and just racked up wins on teams ranked from about 100-200 (good strategy, btw).

I think the biggest issue is how you treat the power conference team with like a 3-10 record vs. Q1 opponents vs. a non-power conference team with a 2-3 record vs. Q1 opponents.  The Jay Bilases of the world would probably say the power conference team won 3(!) Q1 games and should be in since the other school only had 2.  I look at those opposing records and see a school that just had a ton of opportunities for quality wins and was lucky enough to win a few. 

[slu72]

My take, beat SVU once and VCU, don't lose any trap games. Get to the A10 final, no way they can leave us out. OOOOS, forgot it's the P5 committee. They could. 

[moytoy12]

7 minutes ago, slu72 said:

My take, beat SVU once and VCU, don't lose any trap games. Get to the A10 final, no way they can leave us out. OOOOS, forgot it's the P5 committee. They could. 

We do this and we’re in.

[Bay Area Billiken]

13 minutes ago, slu72 said:

My take, beat SVU once and VCU, don't lose any trap games. Get to the A10 final, no way they can leave us out. OOOOS, forgot it's the P5 committee. They could. 

I agree with your scenario, but never trust the NCAA Power 5 + 1 or 2.  I really think beating Dayton once would go a long way toward solidifying SLU's NCAA At Large hopes.  

SLU's NET following the completion of games of 1/14/20 is 48.  That would have SLU as the 3rd to last team in the NCAA per a pure following of the NET,  meaning playing in the "First Four" in Dayton, if SLU doesn't win the A10 Tournament.  Beating Dayton, NET 8, should really help SLU's NET.

The only sure bet is to repeat as A10 Tournament Champions.  

Re the upcoming Dayton game, will Coach Ford spring the 1-3-1 Zone on Dayton, which was effective last season in the A10 Tournament?  Otherwise, Hasahn French presumably has to guard Obi Toppin, which risks foul trouble.  It should be a heck of a game this Friday, and it's on ESPN2.

[3star_recruit]

5 minutes ago, slu72 said:

My take, beat SVU once and VCU, don't lose any trap games. Get to the A10 final, no way they can leave us out. OOOOS, forgot it's the P5 committee. They could. 

What you're describing is:

11-2  Nonconference

13-5 Conference

2-1 A-10 Tournament

26-8 

Not only would we be in the tournament, that would be our fourth-best record in the last 70 years.

[dlarry]

3 hours ago, wgstl said:

Just looking at what some teams had to do to make the tourney last year,  St Johns really stood out to me. They were an at large team coming in at 21-13 and a NET rank of 73rd.  ASU also 21-11 with a NET of 63rd

What the NET doesn’t account for that the committee puts a very high priority on is location and name recognition.

Its complete BS but St. John’s got in because they are located in New York. ASU got in because they are ASU.

[MichaelC]

1 hour ago, SShoe said:

I could be wrong, but I don't believe the rankings place greater emphasis on quality wins over non-quality wins so there needs to be some way to account for a team that actually beats other good teams.  Just take a scenario where one team plays and beats the 150th and 151st ranked teams while the other beats the #1 and #300 teams.  Both teams are 2-0 and, on average, have the same strength of schedule. I'm old enough to remember Missouri State not getting in the tourney back in the mid 2000s despite an RPI in the 20s. Part of the reason it was so high was that they had avoided playing many, if any, games against teams ranked worse than 200 and just racked up wins on teams ranked from about 100-200 (good strategy, btw).

I think the biggest issue is how you treat the power conference team with like a 3-10 record vs. Q1 opponents vs. a non-power conference team with a 2-3 record vs. Q1 opponents.  The Jay Bilases of the world would probably say the power conference team won 3(!) Q1 games and should be in since the other school only had 2.  I look at those opposing records and see a school that just had a ton of opportunities for quality wins and was lucky enough to win a few. 

I don't think you're wrong, the net rating, just like all the rating systems for college basketball favors the Power 5 conferences. 

Case in point, Maryland has lost 3 conference games including two in a row to unranked opponents. How many spots did they fall in the NET after their last loss to unranked Wisconsin? 2 from 19 to 17. There is no team in the A10 (including Dayton) that could lose 2 conference games in a row and only drop 2 spots after the second loss. Why did Maryland only fall 2 spots? The conference they play in. Of the Big 12s 14 teams, 12 have a net of 41 or better which means teams are guaranteed to only fall so far after a loss unless they lose to one of the two bottom teams. 

By contrast, Richmond loses to us and drops 17 spots, that drop is less about the teams and more about the way the conference is perceived. Right? Because if we just swap spots with them the NET is saying in essence: "There is only room for one of your kind in the top 50 after a conference loss"

So that illustrates how difficult it is for a non Power 5 school to get an at large bid. Right now 12 Big 12 teams have a higher NET than we do. Not impossible for SLU to get an at large bid but the margin for error is very small.  

 

[glazedandconfused]

1 hour ago, SShoe said:

I could be wrong, but I don't believe the rankings place greater emphasis on quality wins over non-quality wins so there needs to be some way to account for a team that actually beats other good teams.  Just take a scenario where one team plays and beats the 150th and 151st ranked teams while the other beats the #1 and #300 teams.  Both teams are 2-0 and, on average, have the same strength of schedule. I'm old enough to remember Missouri State not getting in the tourney back in the mid 2000s despite an RPI in the 20s. Part of the reason it was so high was that they had avoided playing many, if any, games against teams ranked worse than 200 and just racked up wins on teams ranked from about 100-200 (good strategy, btw).

I think the biggest issue is how you treat the power conference team with like a 3-10 record vs. Q1 opponents vs. a non-power conference team with a 2-3 record vs. Q1 opponents.  The Jay Bilases of the world would probably say the power conference team won 3(!) Q1 games and should be in since the other school only had 2.  I look at those opposing records and see a school that just had a ton of opportunities for quality wins and was lucky enough to win a few. 

What are you talking about, the NET 100% takes into account quality wins. Our NET will increase significantly more if we beat Dayton on Friday than if we beat La Salle on Friday. And it does not just take an average of your opponent ranks. Us beating Dayton and SEMO would boost us way more than us beating Valparaiso and Missouri State. So if we beat good teams, our NET will improve. Why do another on top look at it? To give a boost to power conferences?

 

[bauman]

This whole NET and Q 1/Q2/and so on has enough wholes to drive an 18 wheeler through.  Has the NCAA ever explained if there is any difference between Q1 wins or do they all fall in the same Q1 wins bucket?  For example does beating the NET # 1 team mean more than beating the NET 34 team?  Who knows?  It's just the NCAA's little game to keep the big boys in and the non-P5/6 out.  Let's assume that S Hall lost tonight and fell to #34 in the next days NET ranking.  Or on the other hand let's take the fact that they won against Butler (NET top 5 coming into the game).  Does either result have any effect on the Billikens'  NET?  In any reasonable system it would have to but not if you are just counting Q1 wins.  Screw the NCAA and it stacked Selection Committee.  Let's just win the A 10 tournament and not give them a chance to screw us!

[Littlebill]

1 hour ago, dlarry said:

What the NET doesn’t account for that the committee puts a very high priority on is location and name recognition.

Its complete BS but St. John’s got in because they are located in New York. ASU got in because they are ASU.

Bad take

they got in because they had 5 q1 wins

[GBL_Bills]

8 minutes ago, bauman said:

This whole NET and Q 1/Q2/and so on has enough wholes to drive an 18 wheeler through.  Has the NCAA ever explained if there is any difference between Q1 wins or do they all fall in the same Q1 wins bucket?  For example does beating the NET # 1 team mean more than beating the NET 34 team?  Who knows?  It's just the NCAA's little game to keep the big boys in and the non-P5/6 out.  Let's assume that S Hall lost tonight and fell to #34 in the next days NET ranking.  Or on the other hand let's take the fact that they won against Butler (NET top 5 coming into the game).  Does either result have any effect on the Billikens'  NET?  In any reasonable system it would have to but not if you are just counting Q1 wins.  Screw the NCAA and it stacked Selection Committee.  Let's just win the A 10 tournament and not give them a chance to screw us!

I don’t know if different Q wins within the same tier mean the same thing or not, but the NET team sheets breakdown does break up Quads farther. I believe Q1 home wins are broken up into #1-10 and #10-35, for example. 
 

I do not know if this is considered by the committee or otherwise worked into the NET formula. 
 

regardless, NET is miles better than RPI 

[dlarry]

1 hour ago, Littlebill said:

Bad take

they got in because they had 5 q1 wins

Then why have the rankings at all just go with quality wins. 

The committee obviously doesn’t trust the NET rankings if they are putting more emphasis on who teams beat.

The problem is there is no consistency to how they select teams. The committee moves the goal posts depending on the team.

Maybe it wasn’t the case this time but the committee obviously puts a lot of stock into name recognition and location and that’s crap.

[Box and Won]

13 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

What you're describing is:

11-2  Nonconference

13-5 Conference

2-1 A-10 Tournament

26-8 

Not only would we be in the tournament, that would be our fourth-best record in the last 70 years.

Let's f--king go.

[Pistol]

SLU is down to 51 today, from 48 yesterday.

VCU is 50, Duquesne is 53.

Dayton is 6th. Huge opportunity tomorrow.

[gobillsgo]

Win tomorrow and you have to think we have a good shot at an at large. Obviously any bad losses could knock us off that perch really quickly. Still can’t help but be thrilled that we are in this position.  ROLL F****** BILLS

[wgstl]

16 minutes ago, gobillsgo said:

Win tomorrow and you have to think we have a good shot at an at large. 

easily

[3star_recruit]

33 minutes ago, gobillsgo said:

Win tomorrow and you have to think we have a good shot at an at large. Obviously any bad losses could knock us off that perch really quickly. Still can’t help but be thrilled that we are in this position.  ROLL F****** BILLS

We'd jump about 15 spots in the NET rankings and get some Top 25 votes.

[gobillsgo]

3 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

We'd jump about 15 spots in the NET rankings and get some Top 25 votes.

I guess I should’ve said win and we are more likely than not to get an at large.  We still have a “chance” at one even without a win, but it’s difficult. 
 

either way, props to Ford and the players for being in this position at this point in the season, without Thatch and Jimerson for much of the year. Truly incredible. 

[SShoe]

15 hours ago, glazedandconfused said:

What are you talking about, the NET 100% takes into account quality wins. Our NET will increase significantly more if we beat Dayton on Friday than if we beat La Salle on Friday. And it does not just take an average of your opponent ranks. Us beating Dayton and SEMO would boost us way more than us beating Valparaiso and Missouri State. So if we beat good teams, our NET will improve. Why do another on top look at it? To give a boost to power conferences?

 

I stand corrected.

[glazedandconfused]

10 minutes ago, SShoe said:

I think you missed my point.

Your main point about strength of schedule? You said:

"Just take a scenario where one team plays and beats the 150th and 151st ranked teams while the other beats the #1 and #300 teams.  Both teams are 2-0 and, on average, have the same strength of schedule" 

That's just not correct. SOS calculations also take into account other factors...margin of victory for example