Jump to content

NET Rankings


Bills By 40

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lord Elrond said:

So what was the flaw in RPI? Was the flaw that it didn’t favor major conferences over anyone else, and the NET DOES favor major conferences over everyone else?

The NET is not perfect but it's a much better tool and other NCAA sports will be adopting it soon or adopting a variation of it I believe. There are a lot of conspiracy theorists on this board who think the NCAA and A10 has it out for SLU. You are a good poster so I urge you not to fall into those beliefs. 

Bizziken likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It isn’t some grand conspiracy why less non power conference teams get bids than a decade ago.  Most of those bids came from the MVC and the A10.  Those conferences lost Xavier, Creighton, Wichita St., Temple and Butler to other conferences.  The A10 and the MVC not only lost the bids those team were generating, but they resulted in a big hit to the SOS of the programs left behind.  SLU alone lost four to six conference games a year against consistently top 100 or better programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

It isn’t some grand conspiracy why less non power conference teams get bids than a decade ago.  Most of those bids came from the MVC and the A10.  Those conferences lost Xavier, Creighton, Wichita St., Temple and Butler to other conferences.  The A10 and the MVC not only lost the bids those team were generating, but they resulted in a big hit to the SOS of the programs left behind.  SLU alone lost four to six conference games a year against consistently top 100 or better programs.

While conference member attrition is perhaps a factor in 2 of the 7 at large bids (Xavier and Creighton), given that conference play just started, only 1 or 2 games played, that cannot be the reason for SLU’s RPI being 47, while its NET is 100.  SLU’s efficiency components are probably that factor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it matters alot but SIU-C , NET is 94,  So they are under 100, play Drake on Wednesday 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

While conference member attrition is probably a factor overall in the 7 at large bids, given that conference play just started, only 1 or 2 games played, that cannot be the reason for SLU’s RPI being 47, while its NET is 100.  What could be the factor is SLU’s efficiency components. 

RPI is a seriously flawed system that ranks a team’s SOS as the most important factor and then gives a team’s opponent’s opponents winning percentage as much weight as a what games you actually win or lose.  SLU is ranked as high as they are in RPI not because they are that good, but because of who they played and the teams those opponents played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

7 additional NCAA bids, of the available 32, an additional 22% of the at large bids, that would be bestowed to the Power 5 + 1 by the NET, is a massive difference. The 7 additional bids, if today was Selection Sunday, are objective facts conveyed by comparing the currently used metric to the formerly used metric. 

When one of the subtracted is SLU, I will raise the issue. 

Whether the new NET is some advanced metric is a subject of debate considering the NET (per my understanding) has no cap on its key efficiency components.  That no cap on efficiency components, for those schools that are following in scheduling, encourages non-conference scheduling of cupcakes and blowouts, the latter of which serve no purpose other than enhancing the NET. 
 

SLU’s conference issue is a long time in the making. The acute effect is showing now. 

The RPI rewarded scheduling better opponents in non-conference play. The old adage was playing other highly regarded opponents raised your SOS and so improved your RPI, even if you lost.  The NET apparently rewards teams who schedule cupcakes and blows them out, is that what you’re saying? If so, that makes no sense. What does make sense is that the other factors in the NET (the performance factors) push teams higher and seem to have more influence over how your score moves up and down than simple strength of schedule. Playing the Quadrant 1 teams is put out as a factor in your score, but other factors seem more important than just that, which would explain some of what we’ve seen.

What then is the appropriate scheduling that would optimize your chances if you do not play in one of the power conferences? And have we figured that out, or do we need to look more at the entire NET formula and adjust who we play based on that? Yes, it can be said that its just “gaming the system”, but if it’s the formula the NCAA puts out to measure performance, why would anyone not work toward that?

And as for conspiracy theories about the NET, what makes those go away is transparency in explaining every aspect of the NET. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

SLU really needs to exit the A10, where it has zero margin for error. The NET is a diabolical tool used by the NCAA to aid the Power 5 + 1. SLU can’t get in there (Big East), is basically stuck. 

The ‘22-‘23 A10 is so bad, it would be Juan Bid under both the NET (Dayton) and RPI (SLU).

Creighton is 8-6, lost 6 straight games, but is still an NCAA lock due to its NET of 34. Look at Illinois, NET 39 and IN, RPI 82, and way OUT, barely in the NIT. 

And go to what conference that wouldn't be even worse?  There is no way we would have to opportunity to upgrade this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Elrond said:

So what was the flaw in RPI? Was the flaw that it didn’t favor major conferences over anyone else, and the NET DOES favor major conferences over everyone else?

The lesser conferences figured out the formula.   Can't have the Missouri valley or the A-10 get as many teams as the big boys.   

So the NCAA reconfigured to favor the power conferences (running up scores now encouraged) and relabelled the net.   Now on pace for all power conf teams with 500 records or better yo be in. Isn't it glorious?

Bizziken likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

And go to what conference that wouldn't be even worse?  There is no way we would have to opportunity to upgrade this year

SLU is basically stuck in the A10.  While that is a given, that doesn't mean there is not a conference issue, as there is one.  We've discussed before methods to improve the A10, none of which seem to happen.

The AAC (American) is less affected, would get 1 NCAA At Large per the NET, along with its Automatic Bid.  But the AAC is all football playing Group of 5 conference schools, sans non-football Wichita State.  I have concerns if SLU would effectively compete in the long run in the AAC, maybe, maybe not, but enough of a concern here to say pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

The lesser conferences figured out the formula.   Can't have the Missouri valley or the A-10 get as many teams as the big boys.   

So the NCAA reconfigured to favor the power conferences (running up scores now encouraged) and relabelled the net.   Now on pace for all power conf teams with 500 records or better yo be in. Isn't it glorious?

Per today's NET, all 10 Big XII teams would be in the NCAA Tourney, along with 7 Big Ten, 7 SEC, and 5 ACC teams.  The Pac-12 would have 3.  The Big East would have 5.

Among the intermediates, the Mountain West would have 3, the WCC 2, the AAC 2, and the Sun Belt 2.  All other conferences, 22 of them, including the A10, would be Juan Bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

Per today's NET, all 10 Big XII teams would be in the NCAA Tourney, along with 7 Big Ten, 7 SEC, and 5 ACC teams.  The Pac-12 would have 3.  The Big East would have 5.

Among the intermediates, the Mountain West would have 3, the WCC 2, the AAC 2, and the Sun Belt 2.  All other conferences, 22 of them, including the A10, would be Juan Bid.

What specific teams are getting screwed by the NET ratings right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

What specific teams are getting screwed by the NET ratings right now?

While I wouldn't put it that way, I will answer this way.  The teams that would be IN per the RPI, but OUT per the NET, as of this morning, are, with RPI's listed:  14 Nevada (MW), 25 Wake Forest (ACC), 29 Memphis (AAC), 34 UNC Wilmington (CAA), 36 UNLV (MW), 39 LSU (SEC), 41 North Texas (C-USA), 43 Michigan State (Big Ten), 46 Arizona State (Pac-12), 49 Santa Clara (WCC), 50 UAB (C-USA), and 51 Hofstra (CAA).  That's 12 NCAA At Large bids, 8 of the 12 non-Power 5 + 1's. 

In addition, per the RPI, SLU via its A10 best RPI of 47, would have the A10's automatic bid.  But if SLU doesn't win the A10 Tourney, SLU would have the 31st of 36 NCAA At Large bids, per the RPI.  SLU would be out of everything with its NET of 100.  The NET, not the RPI, is the metric now used by the NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

The lesser conferences figured out the formula.   Can't have the Missouri valley or the A-10 get as many teams as the big boys.   

So the NCAA reconfigured to favor the power conferences (running up scores now encouraged) and relabelled the net.   Now on pace for all power conf teams with 500 records or better yo be in. Isn't it glorious?

Coach K, lobbying for the ACC, objected when the A10 was given 6 bids, 5 of them at large, in 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-damn the A10, last season they made us piss away leads at home, this season it has made us forget how to make free throws at Auburn, forget how to play at Iona and lose to Edwardsville, none of this is our fault, it is the fault of Bernie and company in Newport News

-oh, and  the refs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cowboy II said:

-damn the A10, last season they made us piss away leads at home, this season it has made us forget how to make free throws at Auburn, forget how to play at Iona and lose to Edwardsville, none of this is our fault, it is the fault of Bernie and company in Newport News

-oh, and  the refs 

No, those are not the ultimate problems. 

But the A10 is a big part of the problem in terms of any recovery from underachievement.  Membership in the A10 provides no margin for error.

A system that is basically el fin, fate accompli, before conference play even starts, is a flawed one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like expansion of March Madness is going to happen, they certainly laid out the roadmap for that from the Transformation Committee report which dropped today. Recommendation is at least 25% of all participants in sports with over 200 participants. Div 1 Mens basketball has 363 members, so that works out to 90.75 teams. This also applies to other sports, though I’m curious to see if that happens due to money. Some of the other major sports at SLU that would be affected,  90 for Women’s BB, 53 for Men’s Soccer (only 212 schools offer it today), 87 for Women’s Soccer, 86 for Women’s VB, 75 for Baseball, 75 for Softball. Field Hockey only has 82 schools, so the 25% recommendation would not apply. Again, curious to see if the money for the extra games in the other sports championships actually happens.

BC1764 likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Elrond said:

Looks like expansion of March Madness is going to happen, they certainly laid out the roadmap for that from the Transformation Committee report which dropped today. Recommendation is at least 25% of all participants in sports with over 200 participants. Div 1 Mens basketball has 363 members, so that works out to 90.75 teams. This also applies to other sports, though I’m curious to see if that happens due to money. Some of the other major sports at SLU that would be affected,  90 for Women’s BB, 53 for Men’s Soccer (only 212 schools offer it today), 87 for Women’s Soccer, 86 for Women’s VB, 75 for Baseball, 75 for Softball. Field Hockey only has 82 schools, so the 25% recommendation would not apply. Again, curious to see if the money for the extra games in the other sports championships actually happens.

Here is a link from a couple of months ago describing the issues involved  in a Dance Expans...The Bills get a couple of mentions in the article ...see #80.

https://theathletic.com/3730751/2022/10/27/ncaa-tournament-expansion-basketball/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

Here is a link from a couple of months ago describing the issues involved  in a Dance Expans...The Bills get a couple of mentions in the article ...see #80.

https://theathletic.com/3730751/2022/10/27/ncaa-tournament-expansion-basketball/

The report gives cover to those who want to expand the tournament. Lots of obstacles remain, no doubt. In the end, I think they will follow the money, as soon as the money is there to expand it. What I found odd was the recommendation to expand all the sports with over 200 schools participating. Maybe Women’s basketball would bring in some extra tv money for the expanded tournament, maybe not. For Men’s soccer, they are at 48 now, the recommendation would only be to 53, so I think everyone will just say “close enough” there. I don’t think expanding any of the other sports does anything but add costs without generating more revenue, so they are non-starters. But I also think those who were on the committee and wrote the report would know that, so I’m not sure why they put that in the final report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing odd about the recommendation to expand all sports with 200 schools participating. To limit the expansion to only one or two sports would be inviting legal action against them. I am sure they will find reasons why certain sports cannot be expanded as recommended.

Money is indeed the necessary issue, and it is not the money for the expansion but the profit for the broadcasters. If NCAA can sell the broadcasters on expanding the number of sports covered and the  number of matches broadcasted, then it will  happen. Otherwise, I doubt it will. The expansion may or may not be what you (plural) expect it to be, but it is too early to go into this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably just the NCAA’s way for telling the TV networks to take a look, make an offer if you think you can figure out a way to make more money out of this, we can work out a deal if you’re serious. Not going to be a quick or easy thing to work out with the existing March Madness TV contracts having so much time left on them, but who knows until it gets a serious look. This report gives the NCAA something to use to support the expansion if it comes to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The operative word, particularly in regards to "other sports" is IF. NCAA is just opening a door and hoping someone shows some interest. If someone does, then they can go work the details. First they have to carry out feasibility studies. That is, figure out how much cost could be involved in any particular project vs how much profit they can expect it. If this kind of planning happens, it will not come to fruition tomorrow or the day after. It will take time.

On top of it all, there is the NILs and whatever effect (like increases in cost) they will bring  to the table. The NILs are real, the rest is just going need a lot of work, if and when it starts, before it becomes reality.

Neidermeyer and Gremio14 like this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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...