Jump to content

NET Tracker 2021-22


Littlebill
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Bay Area Billiken said:

The Missouri D-1 teams:

SLU 67, KC (UMKC) 172, Mizzou 278, SEMO 299.

Also, future A10 member Loyola Chicago (7-2) is 25.  Illinois is 48.

Out here, the still undefeated USF Dons (9-0) are 32, with longtime WCC roadblock Gonzaga still there at 8.

What does Missouri State have to do to get some respect? They already changed their name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

The Boise State win is currently Q2.  SFA win is Q3, all other wins Q4. 

Memphis is a Q1 loss, UAB a (barely) Q2 loss.

A win over Belmont will be Q2.  Wtih their OVC schedule, they won't stay as high as they are now, so the win could slip.

The A10 teams have work to do.  Those NET's = a very unwanted appearance from Juan Bid on Selection Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said this in the past, but the Quad system is totally stupid.  Let's take these rankings we made up that are admittedly flawed and then water them down even further by not differentiating between a home loss to the 76th best team and the 150th best team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RUBillsFan said:

I've said this in the past, but the Quad system is totally stupid.  Let's take these rankings we made up that are admittedly flawed and then water them down even further by not differentiating between a home loss to the 76th best team and the 150th best team.  

It's amazing... How could a home win over the number 26th team matter that much less than against the 25th? I understand that they have to weight results but it should be based off of 1-350 not their "quadrants."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-I'm trying to not be cynical but the "moving" quadrant system makes no sense, to me the quadrant ranking should be locked as of the day of the game (or for the first part of the schedule I will defer to The Wiz and say the first 8 games get locked after all teams have played 8 D1 games) but it seems to help the P5/6  on Selection Sunday to make it move as the dregs of their conferences will have their best ranking at the end of the season by playing tough conference schedules even if they get whacked

-we beat Boise St which seems like a good road win but if they get 4 guys hurt and go in the crapper the quaility of that win is decreased by events that had no impact on the game when it was played

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RUBillsFan said:

I've said this in the past, but the Quad system is totally stupid.  Let's take these rankings we made up that are admittedly flawed and then water them down even further by not differentiating between a home loss to the 76th best team and the 150th best team.  

That's the argument I was making last year. Any ranking system that completely disregards margin of victory is also stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

That's the argument I was making last year. Any ranking system that completely disregards margin of victory is also stupid

The thing is that it doesn't really disregard margin of victory though because adjusted efficiency margin IS included in the formula.  NCAA just wants people to think that margin of victory isn't a factor so that teams aren't running up the score on terrible opponents and/or media/fans don't blame teams running up the score on the NET.  In reality a bigger margin of victory = better efficiency margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RUBillsFan said:

The thing is that it doesn't really disregard margin of victory though because adjusted efficiency margin IS included in the formula.  NCAA just wants people to think that margin of victory isn't a factor so that teams aren't running up the score on terrible opponents and/or media/fans don't blame teams running up the score on the NET.  In reality a bigger margin of victory = better efficiency margin.

Good point

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conference NET per warrennolan.com:

The A10 is 11th in Conference NET!  Man alive, that's bad.  That's behind the #7 Mountain West, #8 AAC, #9 WCC, and even the #10 Southern Conference.  The MVC is right behind the A10 at #12.  UAB's C-USA is #13.

One of the principal reasons SLU is even in the A10 is because it is traditionally a multi-bid league.  With the highest A10 NET team being #54 Davidson, with SLU 2nd at #67, absent dramatic improvement this month, the A10 may be warding off an uninvited visit from Juan Bid on Selection Sunday. 

The A10 has way too many bad losses.  For every Dayton (NET 95, 6-3) win over #14 Kansas, Dayton lost at home to the likes of UMass-Lowell, Lipscomb and Austin Peay.  Every game counts this month, or the top 9 A10 teams are going to be in a mad scramble, dog eat dog, in March '22 in D.C. for the A10's automatic bid.  Preseason favorite St. Bona is #88, with that bad home loss to Northern Iowa of the MVC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lando Griffin said:

Can we just fast forward to Late February, early March when we’re pissing and moaning about SLU’s 40ish NET?

 

I hate this system.

Out of reactions, but good post...

 

Also, unrelated to Lando's post, will the NET be updated daily?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised St. Bonaventure is so low. I've thought they were a little overrated but they still have neutral site wins against Boise State, Clemson and Marquette, plus a solid win against Buffalo. 

These rankings will change tremendously over the next month. There aren't enough games thus far to have an accurate picture of the NET rankings yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, NH said:

These rankings will change tremendously over the next month. There aren't enough games thus far to have an accurate picture of the NET rankings yet.

Agreed. They should wait until Jan. 1 to calculate/release the first official NET rankings. It's clearly too small a sample size to let anyone know where they really stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Compton said:

Agreed. They should wait until Jan. 1 to calculate/release the first official NET rankings. It's clearly too small a sample size to let anyone know where they really stand.

There's nothing stopping MBMs from agreeing to ignore the NET rankings until Jan 1.  But we can't help ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...