NCAAA NET Rankings

[Lord Elrond]

All correct.

[Cowboy II]

29 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

Per the NET, through games of 1/1/25, the Power 4 (SEC, Big 12, Big Ten and ACC) would have 34 of the 37 NCAA At Large Bids. The SEC would have 12 NCAA At Large Bids, the Big 12 8, the Big Ten 11 and the ACC 3. 

The other 3 NCAA At Large Bids would go to the Big East (2) and the Mountain West (1). 

We are witnessing a near complete Power 4 takeover of the NCAA Tourney.

The only non-Power 5 leagues that extricate themselves from Juan Bid if the league's best NET team doesn't win its conference tourney are the American (#42 Memphis) and our A10 (#44 Dayton).  The NCAA cuts off at #46 San Diego State, the 2nd Mountain West NCAA team.  So even Memphis and Dayton are in precarious positions. 

SLU's NET is 148.  Other A10 NET's:  44 Dayton, 53 St. Bona, 68 VCU, 83 George Mason, 87 Rhode Island, 98 St. Joseph's, 113 Davidson, 133 Loyola Chicago, 150 George Washington, 152 La Salle, 180 Duquesne, 237 Fordham, 243 UMass, 273 Richmond. 

-resulting in my interest in the sport in general and the Tourney in particular waning

[thetorch]

Each conference outside of the Big 5 should cede their conference tournament to anyone but the conference champion to grab more bids.

[slu72]

The NET rule should force the NCAA’s hand to expand the field 96! Teams or risk the tournament becoming like the FBC. If Bay is correct, the NET virtually eliminates a lot of good mid programs, The tourney will lose it’s David v Goliath factor and lose a bunch of non P4 fan bases. 

[Crewsorlose]

For us the NET is totally irrelevant. Only way, barring an 18-0 A-10 run, is to win the A-10 tourney. Then it's just a matter of seeding. All bubble talk gladly (or sadly) can be foregone this year. 

As always though, if the A-10 wants better NET ratings it can actually win more OOC games. Plenty of opportunities the last seven weeks. 

[Bay Area Billiken]

24 minutes ago, Crewsorlose said:

For us the NET is totally irrelevant. Only way, barring an 18-0 A-10 run, is to win the A-10 tourney. Then it's just a matter of seeding. All bubble talk gladly (or sadly) can be foregone this year. 

As always though, if the A-10 wants better NET ratings it can actually win more OOC games. Plenty of opportunities the last seven weeks. 

The A10 won a lot of games, going 113-65, .6348. The A10 is 7th in Conference NET, which should be better than Juan Bid. But the NET is Power 4 rigged. Period. 

[Bay Area Billiken]

15 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

The A10 won a lot of games, going 113-65, .6348. The A10 is 7th in Conference NET, which should be better than Juan Bid. But the NET is Power 4 rigged. Period. 

I have zero interest in seeing 38 Power 4 schools playing in the NCAA Tournament, 38 of 68 overall bids, 34 of 37 at large bids. This NET is used to justify a money grab of epic proportions. 

[TheA_Bomb]

Expanding the tournament will expand the # of power conference schools and minimize upsets of consequence. 

Smaller schools can make a deep run when that means getting 2 or maybe 3 upsets.  Getting 4 upsets or 5 is much harder and so it'll mean later rounds are more P5 teams. 

Tournament should go back to 64.  SLU and the A10 needs to figure out how to work the net like the MWC.  Also winning games helps.

[Bay Area Billiken]

15 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:

Expanding the tournament will expand the # of power conference schools and minimize upsets of consequence. 

Smaller schools can make a deep run when that means getting 2 or maybe 3 upsets.  Getting 4 upsets or 5 is much harder and so it'll mean later rounds are more P5 teams. 

Tournament should go back to 64.  SLU and the A10 needs to figure out how to work the net like the MWC.  Also winning games helps.

Mountain West would have 2 NCAA teams this year per the NET, with San Diego State at NET 46 as the last at large team IN, joining auto bid Utah State NET 24.  So while the Mountain West benefited last year, that loophole appears to be closed this year.

[slu72]

Wasn’t ISU’s net in the 30’s last year and still got snubbed. This NET rule is for the P4’s benefit. Therefore expand the field is the answer. We could go 18-0 in conf play and unless we take the A10 tourney likely still get snubbed. And we ain’t going 18-0 anyways. Why do u think the SEC expanded? Yes, more FB but also for a bigger share of the hoops $$’s. 

[Lord Elrond]

Just now, slu72 said:

Wasn’t ISU’s net in the 30’s last year and still got snubbed. This NET rule is for the P4’s benefit. Therefore expand the field is the answer. We could go 18-0 in conf play and unless we take the A10 tourney likely still get snubbed. And we ain’t going 18-0 anyways. Why do u think the SEC expanded? Yes, more FB but also for a bigger share of the hoops $$’s. 

ISU had a NET of 29 and got snubbed last year.  The SEC also figured out that there was money to be made in basketball, and all their schools up their game.

[GOSLU68]

Spend more NIL money; price of tickets go up and we still compete with state colleges funded with taxes- we still have a mid to small school- mid to small alumi base and a very small chance at making a run. We are not even able to have a local TV station carry all of our games in MBB and worse coverage of baseball, soccer and other sports- The only effect of spending more NIL money is raising ticket prices.

[Lord Elrond]

8 minutes ago, GOSLU68 said:

Spend more NIL money; price of tickets go up and we still compete with state colleges funded with taxes- we still have a mid to small school- mid to small alumi base and a very small chance at making a run. We are not even able to have a local TV station carry all of our games in MBB and worse coverage of baseball, soccer and other sports- The only effect of spending more NIL money is raising ticket prices.

The reason we aren’t on local TV is that the conference negotiated a deal with ESPN and other cable networks that give them the rights to the broadcast. Even if we wanted to get games on some over the air channel, we can’t.

[willie]

1 hour ago, GOSLU68 said:

Spend more NIL money; price of tickets go up and we still compete with state colleges funded with taxes- we still have a mid to small school- mid to small alumi base and a very small chance at making a run. We are not even able to have a local TV station carry all of our games in MBB and worse coverage of baseball, soccer and other sports- The only effect of spending more NIL money is raising ticket prices.

Schools can not directly fund NIL payments. That’s why you have collectives. Money from tickets can’t go to players. Yes I know money is fungible. Several Missouri games have been on ESPN+. 

[billikenbill]

18 hours ago, Bay Area Billiken said: 

… SLU's NET is 148.  Other A10 NET's:  44 Dayton, 53 St. Bona, 68 VCU, 83 George Mason, 87 Rhode Island, 98 St. Joseph's, 113 Davidson, 133 Loyola Chicago, 150 George Washington, 152 La Salle, 180 Duquesne, 237 Fordham, 243 UMass, 273 Richmond. 

On a slightly positive note, 4 of SLU’s noncon opponents played last night and all won. The most surprising result was LMU’s 21 point HOME win over an 11-3 Oregon State team. Surprising on both the result and that it was a home game for the Lions. 
 

USF, Santa Clara, and Illinois St. all won road games against weak teams. If we had a 5 spot drop in the NET mostly because Wofford lost, I’m curious to see what the effect is from last night’s results.

[CenHudDude]

10 hours ago, willie said:

Schools can not directly fund NIL payments. That’s why you have collectives. Money from tickets can’t go to players. Yes I know money is fungible. Several Missouri games have been on ESPN+. 

VCU will directly compensate players next year to the tune of 4 to 5 million dollars.  I’m not sure how that works.

[billikenbill]

Bills jump 9 spots to 139!! Take care of St. Joes and we’ll be Top 130!!

[HoosierPal]

1 hour ago, CenHudDude said:

VCU will directly compensate players next year to the tune of 4 to 5 million dollars.  I’m not sure how that works.

That will be from the new revenue sharing plan that is attached to the NCAA v House lawsuit and settlement.  It is supposed to be approved in April and effective next season.  Schools can spend up to $20 million on players via the revenue sharing plan.  Most of the $20m will be on football, with $3 to $5m on basketball and other sports. Lots of questions, such as is Title IX going to direct equal $ to women?, and what about non-revenue sports? Baseball and softball?  Do they get any revenue sharing money?

SLU will need to find an equal amount.  One question I have, will the BVF be a part of the equation moving forward?  I assume so, but can the BVF and Revenue Sharing programs exist together?  

[billiken_roy]

the can of worms opens even more.  what a mess.  college sports will die a slow death.  at least for the less affluent programs.

 

[slu72]

I don’t get all this interest in the NET at this point. We could go 18-0 in the A10 and that gets us where in the NET, somewhere in the 40s? That ain’t gonna get us dancing. Our only hope is to win 4 games in March in DC. Is this team capable of doing that is the question. And at this point who knows? 

[3star_recruit]

32 minutes ago, slu72 said:

I don’t get all this interest in the NET at this point. We could go 18-0 in the A10 and that gets us where in the NET, somewhere in the 40s? That ain’t gonna get us dancing. Our only hope is to win 4 games in March in DC. Is this team capable of doing that is the question. And at this point who knows? 

It's muscle memory at this point.  We talk about things all the time that we know don't make any difference.  Back in the day discussions at the bar were actually lower quality.

If you've got more relevant discussion topics, please feel free to post them.

[Bay Area Billiken]

The interest in the NET here is macro, observing trends, the NET’s effect on NCAA At Large bids. While SLU at NET 139 this season is so far not a factor, we hope SLU will be in the NCAA At Large mix in future seasons. 

[billikenbill]

2 hours ago, slu72 said:

I don’t get all this interest in the NET at this point. We could go 18-0 in the A10 and that gets us where in the NET, somewhere in the 40s? That ain’t gonna get us dancing. Our only hope is to win 4 games in March in DC. Is this team capable of doing that is the question. And at this point who knows? 

Noticed that we dropped five spots yesterday and the only game that could have influenced that was Wofford losing to UNCG. After checking scores this morning I noticed that 4 of our noncon opponents all won last night with LMU having a surprisingly good win over Ore. St.  

Those 4 wins accounted for moving up 9 spots so thought it was interesting to look at how volatile the net can be. I know we have to win the A-10 Tourney to make the dance but let’s say we go 14-4 in the league and lose in the A-10 finals. Our net would surely influence the chance of an NIT bid.

[TheA_Bomb]

3 hours ago, slu72 said:

I don’t get all this interest in the NET at this point. We could go 18-0 in the A10 and that gets us where in the NET, somewhere in the 40s? That ain’t gonna get us dancing. Our only hope is to win 4 games in March in DC. Is this team capable of doing that is the question. And at this point who knows? 

 

1 hour ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

The interest in the NET here is macro, observing trends, the NET’s effect on NCAA At Large bids. While SLU at NET 139 this season is so far not a factor, we hope SLU will be in the NCAA At Large mix in future seasons. 

It's relevant in that it shows where SLU ranks. That matters to me.  I paid for the KenPom subscription and his data analysis is great that really breaks it down to where SLU ranks on all kinds of aspects.

[CenHudDude]

4 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

That will be from the new revenue sharing plan that is attached to the NCAA v House lawsuit and settlement.  It is supposed to be approved in April and effective next season.  Schools can spend up to $20 million on players via the revenue sharing plan.  Most of the $20m will be on football, with $3 to $5m on basketball and other sports. Lots of questions, such as is Title IX going to direct equal $ to women?, and what about non-revenue sports? Baseball and softball?  Do they get any revenue sharing money?

SLU will need to find an equal amount.  One question I have, will the BVF be a part of the equation moving forward?  I assume so, but can the BVF and Revenue Sharing programs exist together?  

Thanks.  Still some unanswered questions, but what a mess!