At Large Talk

[Crewsorlose]

1 hour ago, Old guy said:

Does anyone in this board think that the NCAA selection process if fair and unbiased? If you do not think so, you are correct. This process has a long history of unfairness and biases in favor of certain teams. Was there anything that made you think it would be otherwise under the new NET system? I mean other than their pronouncements about fairness, etc. Talk is cheap.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

I think it's fair, as the new NET system takes more account of road and neutral court games. This gets the UNC's of the world out of their gyms in November and December. Still, it's unfair in that most P-5 schools won't take a home & home with SLU. SLU scheduled well, but got unlucky with BC and K-State being just Q-2 and Q-3 wins. Tulane also way down there. 

Power teams get more opportunities, but they also don't get a lot of nights off. ACC with only 4 or 5 teams getting a bid, including omission of teams with winning ACC records? A-10 may yet end up with 3 teams. Dayton did the league a huge favor with what they did OOC, but the league has mainly squandered it by not getting wins against a top 10 team. 

The Big 10 has 8 locks, and I bet Rutgers and Indiana need to go 2-0 this week to feel safe. Purdue hanging by a thread. 

[RUBillsFan]

11 minutes ago, Crewsorlose said:

I think it's fair, as the new NET system takes more account of road and neutral court games. This gets the UNC's of the world out of their gyms in November and December. Still, it's unfair in that most P-5 schools won't take a home & home with SLU. SLU scheduled well, but got unlucky with BC and K-State being just Q-2 and Q-3 wins. Tulane also way down there. 

Power teams get more opportunities, but they also don't get a lot of nights off. ACC with only 4 or 5 teams getting a bid, including omission of teams with winning ACC records? A-10 may yet end up with 3 teams. Dayton did the league a huge favor with what they did OOC, but the league has mainly squandered it by not getting wins against a top 10 team. 

The Big 10 has 8 locks, and I bet Rutgers and Indiana need to go 2-0 this week to feel safe. Purdue hanging by a thread. 

The last very last few non-conference games for A10 teams were a really killer to multiple A10 NCAA bid hopes. If Rhody doesn't have a bad loss ata Brown on 1/2, they're definitely still on the good side of the bubble right now.  If Richmond doesn't drop a neutral site game to Radford on 12/22, they're also in the NCAA field.  If Duquesne doesn't drop consecutive neutral site games to UAB & Marshall on 12/22 & 12/29, they're a lot closer to the bubble and maybe SLU is more on the bubble since our 2 losses to Duq don't look as bad.  Davidson's whole non-conference slate was pretty underwhelming, but they also dropped a bad loss at Vandy on 12/30.  Likewise, Bona lost at Buffalo on 12/30.  Even Fordham's worst loss of the season, at home vs James Madison, came on 12/20.  

[glazedandconfused]

47 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

They're still 76 in the NET.  Shouldn't even be sniffing the NCAA bubble unless they win out & have a strong conference tournament showing.

Included in those Q2 losses is the neutral court loss to UNC without Cole Anthony.  That's a bad loss I don't care what the Q system says. 

I realize the committee uses it, but I don't care at all for the quadrant system.  Why are we making win vs the Nth best team look so much better than a win vs the (N+1)th best team?

I agree NET and Quadrant systems are majorly flawed. Putting those aside, UCLA still has 10 top 100 wins and 4 top 25 NET wins. That's about twice as much as most bubble teams. I'm not saying they have to be in or anything. I was just responding because you said it was "egregious" UCLA could get a bid. You gotta get 68 teams in there some how.

[HoosierPal]

UCLA is 6-6 in Quad 1 and 3-3 in Quad 2. They have a horrible Q4 loss though, to Cal State Fullerton.

[rgbilliken]

My main beef with all the NET Quadrant talk is that it always sounds like some weird cult/corporate speak and makes you sound like a dweeb. It reminds me of this Management By Strengths personality thing we have at work that characterizes personalities into colors. You hear people saying sh!t in the hallways like, "Oh yeah, Rachel is SUCH a GREEN!!" and it sounds so dorky. Has the same energy as rattling off how many Q1 wins a team has. I get that it's necessary to talk that way since that's what the selection committee uses. But it's lame.

[kshoe]

46 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

UCLA is 6-6 in Quad 1 and 3-3 in Quad 2. They have a horrible Q4 loss though, to Cal State Fullerton.

It's weird how with the Quad system, losses to bad teams don't seem to matter since nobody reports on Q3 and Q4 results. Still, nobody know how much the committee uses the quad system, it's just something that was created to help with their decisions but its not the end-all, be-all that some seems to suggest it is.

[almaman]

2 hours ago, Compton said:

Related to what some of you are saying, I think we’ll soon see the death of the DII game. At least for teams at the A10 level. Every little bit counts, even including racking up a bunch of wins against Quad 3 and Quad 4 teams (see UNI, ETSU, Richmond, VCU as examples). Each of those games doesn’t “move the needle” much, but why play a Maryville, UMSL, Fontbonne or Kentucky Wesleyan, which is ignored entirely by the NET, when you can play a Southland or SWAC team and get that incremental improvement. 

The only reason I can think of is that a DII buy game might be cheaper, but that’s not a legitimate reason to avoid marginally helping your metrics at the A10 level. 

Totally agree. Hate having to drop a V when looking at our chances.

[Bay Area Billiken]

A comparison of the current NCAA field per a pure following of the NET vs. the RPI shows the NET is an even bigger diabolical Power 5 tool than the RPI, which itself was bad enough.

The bottom line is the NET transfers 2 A10 NCAA At Large Bids, 1 AAC at large, and 1 mid-major/low con at large (from Furman of the Southern Conference- yes, I know the NCAA would not give the SoCon 2 NCAA teams) to the BIG TEN!  That's 4 NCAA Tournament bids, with their accompanying NCAA Tournament Unit values.

Per today's NET, the A10 would have 2 NCAA teams, #3 Dayton and #48 Richmond, with Richmond in a very precarious spot as the last team IN.  Rhode Island at NET 51 would be the third team OUT.  The RPI would give the A10 4 NCAA bids:  2 Dayton, 29 Rhode Island, 36 Richmond and 44 SLU. 

Per the NET, the Big Ten would have 11 NCAA Tournament teams, and a 12th, Indiana, as the 6th team OUT.  While the NCAA will not take 46 Minnesota with its 13-16 record, that spot could go to 54 Indiana at 18-11.  Would the NCAA give a precious at large bid to 35 Purdue, with its 15-14 record?  If the RPI was still followed, Illinois at RPI 50 (as opposed to NET 36) would be the first team OUT of the NCAA per the RPI.  Illinois appears to be easily IN with its NET of 36.

Per the NET, the ACC would have only 3 NCAA teams, with 50 Virginia as the 2nd team OUT.  I think the NCAA will take Virginia irrespective, and the ACC will get 4.

Under both the NET and RPI, the Big East would have 7 NCAA teams, Big XII 5, Pac-12 5, SEC 6, WCC 3 and Mountain West 2. 

It will also be fascinating to see what the NCAA does with UCLA, currently in sole possession of First Place in the Pac-12 at 12-5, 19-11 overall, but with home non-con losses to Hofstra and lowly Cal State Fullerton. UCLA's NET is 76.  I will have to see it to believe the NCAA leaving out the regular season Pac-12 Champion, especially if it is 11 Time National Champion UCLA.   

We SLU fans should be rooting for Northern Iowa (NET 37) and East Tennessee State (NET 41) to win the Valley and SoCon, respectively, although I'm confident both are Juan Bid leagues irrespective.  Ordinarily I'd rather see Loyola Chicago win Arch Madness, but not with Northern Iowa lurking out there with that NET.  We can't have the A10 getting only 1 and the Valley getting 2.  Again, I don't think the Valley will get 2, as it is now considered a Juan Bid league since Creighton and Wichita State moved to greener pastures.

As a fallback, SLU with NET 57 is in better shape now for an NIT bid, in fact as an NIT 3 Seed would be hosting the first game at Chaifetz Arena.  SLU would be the 9th team into the NIT per the NET. 

[Old guy]

Believe me here, when a corporate place (and the NCAA fits the corporate designation) makes some kind of a policy that no one really understands or can calculate, then they are free to do whatever they wish. For example my yearly corporate bonus report, as well as everyone else's at various levels, was issued several weeks before the yearly bonus. This document was handed to you personally with big marks saying confidential. The report was multiple pages long, analyzed departmental and personal performance  using many main parameters and multiple sub parameters, calculated percentages of the expected yearly target levels, weighted each value using weird formulas, etc. It might as well have been written in Japanese for all I cared. I got the bonuses all right but I could never make sense of the gobbledygook, or really figure out how much I was getting any year until I got it.

Now, enter the NET system. Please consider the differences between the way they say it will work and the way they work it. It may not appear as confusing as our bonus reports were, but the result is the same. They will do what they want to do.

[almaman]

I remember talk every once in awhile that powers that be used bias for teams that had all american quality player on the bubble. I wish they would take our profile, 2 players in top 35 RBs one of them 6'3", Yuri and his assists too into account.

[Bay Area Billiken]

This is dictated by the bottom line, with each NCAA Unit amounting to $282,100 in 2020, applied to units earned by conferences over the previous six tournaments.

Loyola Chicago's NCAA Final 4 run in 2018 will be worth at least $8.45 M to the MVC over the next 6 years.  Source:  apnews.com.

Conferences handle the units differently.  Some years ago it was said that in the A10, the team earning the unit keeps 75% of that unit.  MVC Commissioner Doug Elgin said Friday on Frank Cusumano's Pressbox on 590 The Fan that the MVC splits its NCAA units evenly among Valley schools.

[Brighton]

Take it for what it's worth

 

[Fraz42]

7 hours ago, wgstl said:

I was talking about damaging losses. So I agree. 

I’d argue there really hasn’t been a damaging loss on the schedule.  Of the 8 losses which one is the worst?  Umass in Amhurst is a tough road conference game against a team who will compete next year.  Duquesne at Chafietz isn’t awful the Dukes are competitive night in and night out.  It’s a unique season in that there haven’t been awful losses or great wins.  Unfortunate that a Crutcher 3 pointer could ultimtely be whether or not we get in.

[dlarry]

2 hours ago, rgbilliken said:

My main beef with all the NET Quadrant talk is that it always sounds like some weird cult/corporate speak and makes you sound like a dweeb. It reminds me of this Management By Strengths personality thing we have at work that characterizes personalities into colors. You hear people saying sh!t in the hallways like, "Oh yeah, Rachel is SUCH a GREEN!!" and it sounds so dorky. Has the same energy as rattling off how many Q1 wins a team has. I get that it's necessary to talk that way since that's what the selection committee uses. But it's lame.

[jimbofive]

3 hours ago, rgbilliken said:

My main beef with all the NET Quadrant talk is that it always sounds like some weird cult/corporate speak and makes you sound like a dweeb. It reminds me of this Management By Strengths personality thing we have at work that characterizes personalities into colors. You hear people saying sh!t in the hallways like, "Oh yeah, Rachel is SUCH a GREEN!!" and it sounds so dorky. Has the same energy as rattling off how many Q1 wins a team has. I get that it's necessary to talk that way since that's what the selection committee uses. But it's lame.

Out of reactions, good post.

[Bay Area Billiken]

To summarize, the change from the RPI to the NET, is this season giving 2 A10 at large bids to the Big Ten.

And one of those NCAA at large bids is SLU’s.

[JettFlight5]

I guess my issue with many of these metrics is they don't punish losing enough, especially lowly ranked opponent losses. 

[BilliesBy40]

18 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

To summarize, the change from the RPI to the NET, is this season giving 2 A10 at large bids to the Big Ten.

And one of those NCAA at large bids is SLU’s.

I hate to break this news, but NET hasn't given anything to the Big Ten. Let's wait a few weeks to see how the metrics impact the selection committee's choices instead of making such conclusory statements.

[Bay Area Billiken]

10 minutes ago, JettFlight5 said:

I guess my issue with many of these metrics is they don't punish losing enough, especially lowly ranked opponent losses. 

My issue is how can a 15-14 Purdue team have a NET of 35 and a 13-15 Minnesota team can have a NET of 46.  Those ratings are patently absurd.

[Bay Area Billiken]

6 minutes ago, BilliesBy40 said:

I hate to break this news, but NET hasn't given anything to the Big Ten. Let's wait a few weeks to see how the metrics impact the selection committee's choices instead of making such conclusory statements.

This is a snapshot of today.  The season is not yet over, but there won't be a lot of big changes in the NET.  Irrespective of all the NCAA's pronouncements, the NCAA field closely followed the RPI in the past, with about 3 variances per season, and last year closely followed the NET.  The new(er) NIT also closely follows the NET.

SLU needs to win these last 2, but won't get a lot of NET help, not with George Mason at 159 and St. Bona at 116.  But these last two games are critically important for A10 Tournament seeding purposes, and winning the A10 Tournament, again snaring the A10's automatic bid.

[SLU_Nick]

One interesting thing that may indicate that the committee doesn’t value the NET as much...

when the committee revealed the top 16 seeds...Arizona had a Net of 8 and wasn’t part of the top 16.

Just food for thought.  Carry on the griping!

[Fraz42]

The problem with Quadrants is that beating the #25 team at home and beating the #1 team at home count the exact same 

[Fraz42]

1 minute ago, SLU_Nick said:

One interesting thing that may indicate that the committee doesn’t value the NET as much...

when the committee revealed the top 16 seeds...Arizona had a Net of 8 and wasn’t part of the top 16.

Just food for thought.  Carry on the griping!

Michigan State is top 10 NET and Lunardi has them as a 4 seed 

[3star_recruit]

15 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

My issue is how can a 15-14 Purdue team have a NET of 35 and a 13-15 Minnesota team can have a NET of 46.  Those ratings are patently absurd.

Because there are ten teams in their conference with 18-11 records or better.  It's almost impossible to get a bad loss in that conference and very easy to get Q1 wins.

[Bay Area Billiken]

16 minutes ago, SLU_Nick said:

One interesting thing that may indicate that the committee doesn’t value the NET as much...

when the committee revealed the top 16 seeds...Arizona had a Net of 8 and wasn’t part of the top 16.

Just food for thought.  Carry on the griping!

Arizona is 9-7 in the Pac-12, tied with Stanford for 6th Place.  How Arizona can have a NET of 10, best NET in the Pac-12, is another mystery.