Jump to content

NET Tracker 2021-22


Littlebill

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, slu72 said:

We shouldn't be worrying about NET. It's an exercise in futility. I don't think even if we went undefeated in the A10, but don't win the tourney, the committee lets us play. ESPN had an article yesterday that 8 big 10 and 8 Beast teams will make the field. That's crazy, but it's likely to be close to that. Bottom line, we've got to win in DC come March. And I think with the further development of Okoro and Nesbitt, we've got a better than good chance of taking the tourney. 

I guarantee you if we went undefeated in the A10 we would make the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, NH said:

The betting line itself does not factor into the NET but the margin of victory does factor into the NET via the efficiency piece. We beat a team ranked 20spots ahead of us by 1 point at home. It doesn’t surprise me that this win wouldn’t help our NET much.

In general, it’s fair to expect that any of our remaining home wins will help our NET much, unless we blow the teams out. We’ll have to do our damage on the road.

Thanks NH.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The adjusted net efficiency(offensive efficiency-defensive efficiency= Net efficiency) is the most heavily weighted part of the of the NET formula, so running up the score can have a significant effect on NET rankings. This why you see strange stuff on the NET tracker.  For instance, last year Colgate was a top 10 NET team....Give me a break.  But Colgate usually plays a weak OOC schedule running up the scores . Then they play in the weak Patriot league again running up the scores. Playing weak teams doesn't help much but running up the score makes up for it. Our win over Iona by 1 was a wash ....a win by 7 would have helped a little...a win by 20 would have been a big help. You may not like it but that is the way the Net works.

The Mid Majors have an advantage in the OOC as they are able to run up scores on weak opponents or beat or come close on good opponents. Once the season starts  the advantage shifts to the P5.  Where good teams are only playing good teams....6-8 bids in a conference.  Meanwhile mid majors can't make up ground because they are generally playing weaker teams. Their leagues will just get the 1 bid. Some of the higher mid majors may get an extra 1 or 2 bids to fill out the Dance card.

If you ask the Committee, they say the NET is only a part of the process. They take the AQ first. Then take the Top 25 that didn't AQ.  Then they look at the NET for the final openings....And then they start a mysterious process where they "fix" the "mistakes" of the NET. After the deliberation, they select the final few teams ...which may or may not fit into the NET in the right places.

BTW...I do have the Net Efficiency formula if anyone is interested.  In reality, it is something only a computer would be interested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

The adjusted net efficiency(offensive efficiency-defensive efficiency= Net efficiency) is the most heavily weighted part of the of the NET formula, so running up the score can have a significant effect on NET rankings. This why you see strange stuff on the NET tracker.  For instance, last year Colgate was a top 10 NET team....Give me a break.  But Colgate usually plays a weak OOC schedule running up the scores . Then they play in the weak Patriot league again running up the scores. Playing weak teams doesn't help much but running up the score makes up for it. Our win over Iona by 1 was a wash ....a win by 7 would have helped a little...a win by 20 would have been a big help. You may not like it but that is the way the Net works.

The Mid Majors have an advantage in the OOC as they are able to run up scores on weak opponents or beat or come close on good opponents. Once the season starts  the advantage shifts to the P5.  Where good teams are only playing good teams....6-8 bids in a conference.  Meanwhile mid majors can't make up ground because they are generally playing weaker teams. Their leagues will just get the 1 bid. Some of the higher mid majors may get an extra 1 or 2 bids to fill out the Dance card.

If you ask the Committee, they say the NET is only a part of the process. They take the AQ first. Then take the Top 25 that didn't AQ.  Then they look at the NET for the final openings....And then they start a mysterious process where they "fix" the "mistakes" of the NET. After the deliberation, they select the final few teams ...which may or may not fit into the NET in the right places.

BTW...I do have the Net Efficiency formula if anyone is interested.  In reality, it is something only a computer would be interested in.

There is no mystery Wiz, they are doing what they always do, they have just surrounded the process with this complex set of rules (the NET system) that no one understands and they use to do what they always did.

Check my post 3 hrs ago in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, slu72 said:

We shouldn't be worrying about NET. It's an exercise in futility. I don't think even if we went undefeated in the A10, but don't win the tourney, the committee lets us play. ESPN had an article yesterday that 8 big 10 and 8 Beast teams will make the field. That's crazy, but it's likely to be close to that. Bottom line, we've got to win in DC come March. And I think with the further development of Okoro and Nesbitt, we've got a better than good chance of taking the tourney. 

72, you are absolutely correct.  We need to win the A 10 tourney to get in the NCAA.  I have been saying that since our losses to Belmont, UAB and Auburn.  Others seem to feel we can get in with a 15-3 or 16-2 Conference record.

Listening to all the Selection Comt. members talk after the NCAA is set each year and all they seem to talk about is good wins or bad losses.  My point is that we have and will not have, any notable or "good wins."  That ship has sailed.  If our best win is at Boise State, that is not one that anyone will be talking about.  Neither will a 1 point win at home over a MAAC team, even if it is the best MAAC team.  We had a chance to build a resume early in the season and didn't do it,  so beating up on weak A 10 teams and beating the mid-level (SBU, Richmond, VCU, Davidson, Dayton) teams isn't going to help our image as for as the Sel. Comt. is concerned.  Too many NCAA slots are already taken by the image of too many P-6 schools

Obviously, some posters disagree, but I don't want to be in the bubble team grouping on Selection Sunday and hoping to hear our name called.  The only way to not being in the bubble category is to win the Conference tourney, otherwise we are leaving our fate in the hands of a P 6  group of administrators.

HoosierPal and BilliesBy40 like this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bauman said:

72, you are absolutely correct.  We need to win the A 10 tourney to get in the NCAA.  I have been saying that since our losses to Belmont, UAB and Auburn.  Others seem to feel we can get in with a 15-3 or 16-2 Conference record.

Listening to all the Selection Comt. members talk after the NCAA is set each year and all they seem to talk about is good wins or bad losses.  My point is that we have and will not have, any notable or "good wins."  That ship has sailed.  If our best win is at Boise State, that is not one that anyone will be talking about.  Neither will a 1 point win at home over a MAAC team, even if it is the best MAAC team.  We had a chance to build a resume early in the season and didn't do it,  so beating up on weak A 10 teams and beating the mid-level (SBU, Richmond, VCU, Davidson, Dayton) teams isn't going to help our image as for as the Sel. Comt. is concerned.  Too many NCAA slots are already taken by the image of too many P-6 schools

Obviously, some posters disagree, but I don't want to be in the bubble team grouping on Selection Sunday and hoping to hear our name called.  The only way to not being in the bubble category is to win the Conference tourney, otherwise we are leaving our fate in the hands of a P 6  group of administrators.

I agree with your main point, but let’s not blame the committee for this hypothetical outcome. We failed to close-out against good teams. Period.

Last night was a nice win, but it won’t move the needle much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BilliesBy40 said:

I agree with your main point, but let’s not blame the committee for this hypothetical outcome. We failed to close-out against good teams. Period.

Last night was a nice win, but it won’t move the needle much.

BB40, I agree with you and am not blaming the Comt.  We are responsible for our record and failed when we needed to succeed (at least 2 of 3 in the Belm., UASB, Aub trio)  What all the 15-3 or better posters seem to ignore is the fact that if we don't get the A 10 automatic bid, that means we have lost our last game (the L in the Conf. tourn.}  As we saw from an earlier post, the 1 pt win, at home, against IONA did not move the NET needle, which means to me that it will also not be given much credit by the Sel Comt.

BilliesBy40 likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lando Griffin said:

If SLU just stacks up wins and maybe drops a conf game or two they will get in.

Look at Loyola Chicago last year who just stacked up wins and ended up at a NET I think 25ish?

I also think there’s some point differential or defense metric that can help too.

While it would be nice, winning all our A 10 games and then losing in the Conf Tour.  isn't going to get us to a 25ish NET or not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had our shots, ie UAB, Belmont, and Pearl's Pearls. Letting all 3 teams come from behind by double digits is going to bite us in the arse unless we win the tourney. Two W's out of those 3 might have done the trick, but I'm guessing Auburn needed to be one of the W's. The committee has a P6 bias that is difficult to overcome. When I read yesterday that ESPN thinks 8 teams from the B10 and 8 from the Beast make it, no guarantee there of course, we could win out and it's not going to change anyone's minds. Have to win the tourney. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bauman said:

72, you are absolutely correct.  We need to win the A 10 tourney to get in the NCAA.  I have been saying that since our losses to Belmont, UAB and Auburn.  Others seem to feel we can get in with a 15-3 or 16-2 Conference record.

Listening to all the Selection Comt. members talk after the NCAA is set each year and all they seem to talk about is good wins or bad losses.  My point is that we have and will not have, any notable or "good wins."  That ship has sailed.  If our best win is at Boise State, that is not one that anyone will be talking about.  Neither will a 1 point win at home over a MAAC team, even if it is the best MAAC team.  We had a chance to build a resume early in the season and didn't do it,  so beating up on weak A 10 teams and beating the mid-level (SBU, Richmond, VCU, Davidson, Dayton) teams isn't going to help our image as for as the Sel. Comt. is concerned.  Too many NCAA slots are already taken by the image of too many P-6 schools

Obviously, some posters disagree, but I don't want to be in the bubble team grouping on Selection Sunday and hoping to hear our name called.  The only way to not being in the bubble category is to win the Conference tourney, otherwise we are leaving our fate in the hands of a P 6  group of administrators.

Teams with minimal Q1 wins and strong records in their conference get in every year.  It just happened last year with VCU and Utah State.  I agree with you that the committee is not the mid major's friend.  It's also true that the top 2 A10 teams have been awarded bids year after year after year after year.

I'd argue that it's much harder to get to 15-3 than it is to get an at-large while going 15-3.  Finishing with a gaudy conference record would be a major step forward for this program.

gabriel likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lando Griffin said:

A couple of points here. There are some diversions that the NCAA is using...Look over here ...not there.  Nah, the NCAA would never do that.

Take for instance , we have done away with scoring margin....What does that mean?  Doesn't that mean that scoring  margin doesn't matter anymore. You would think so . But instead they have buried it in the Net Efficiency ...the most important factor in the formula.  Want to increase your Net Eff...the easiest way is to run up the score. Well nobody is for running up the score.  So why don't we hide it under that rock labeled Net Efficiency and tell everyone we have done away with scoring margins.

Well then how about that part about all games being equal. Well that sounds pretty good compared to that old stuff where you weight the last 10 games heavier. Well, yes the NET does weight every game equal until it doesn't. After the the NET spits out the final ranking...the Committee takes that ranking and starts to work their magic on the final 15-30 teams that are under review. One of the factors   the Committee looks at when it trying get things right (fix things---yes fix has a  double meaning here) is the final 10 games of the season....how is the team finishing...are they limping to the finish line or are they sprinting...The Committee likes sprinters.

The NET's primary purpose is to  seed  the teams that have been selected to Dance.  If it can contribute in some small way to the selection process than that is a bonus. 

Bottom line....The teams that understand what is going on work the NET to their advantage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we just acting like Drake didn’t get into the tournament last season? The only good  team they beat was Loyola, who beat them two other times. They had actual bad losses to Bradley and Valpo. If we only lose 3 games in conference, so long as they’re to teams like Davidson, VCU, or Dayton, we will be in the tourney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the games left on the schedule, let’s say we finish 14-3 in the A10 and go 2-1 in the A10 tournament. Only losses are Q1/Q2. That would put us at 24-8 with no bad losses and 6-8 in Q1/Q2 games assuming we go 1-1 against top 100 opponents in the A10 tourney. I think we make it. 
 

The ONLY team last season with no Q3/Q4 losses that DIDNT make the tournament was 18-8 Colorado State. They were 2-4 in Q1/Q2 games and 51 in NET. They were the second team out and would have made it had Georgetown and Oregon St not had their miracle runs. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

Two of the teams we played had bad losses yesterday: UAB and SFA.  And the losses we would normally see from the teams a few spots ahead of us didn't happen because those games were postponed. 

It's kind of hard to move up with a Q2 win when so few games are being played.  Bumps that normally would take place in one day are delayed by several days as games play out.

The first delayed bump happened today as Minnesota and Cincinnati played and lost today.  We moved up two spots to 65.  Depending on the results of tomorrow's games, we could creep up another spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we just need to relax about cries regarding bias. The A-10 starts the season the same as any other conference. Terrible OOC losses and few significant wins put the conference in the position where it is today: lots of landmines, few opportunities for Q1 wins. 

ACC is way down and may end up with only 4 bids in a 14 team conference. 

Davidson has a decent chance for an at-large bid. VCU and SLU would need very strong conference runs. This could still be a 3-bid league, but that would require threading a needle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope all the "we will get in with a 15-3 A 10 regular season record" are right.  First let's get that 15-3 or better Conference record and put some pressure on the Committee.  Here is definitely a case where I would like to be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ratings:

NET:  SLU 65, Dayton 98;  RPI:  SLU 64, Dayton 139;  Pomeroy:  SLU 78, Dayton 97;  ESPN BPI:  SLU 55, Dayton 79;  Sagarin:  SLU 54, Dayton 82;  Massey:  SLU 58, Dayton 88.

Average of the above 6 ratings:  SLU 62.3, Dayton 97.2.

Thus, by all ratings, SLU is the better team.  The equalizer tomorrow night is Dayton's home court.

Pomeroy continues to be the outlier from the SLU perspective.

Adman likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good step to the dance starts with beating Dayton tonight, get it done.

I hope the strength of the non conference schedule helps them even with the losses.

No matter what happens this team is fun to watch and keeps you at the edge of your seat.

I remember teams that were not fun to watch.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...