3/11 NET update

[SteelBowl70]

Pitt went up only 2 spots to 52. Miami dropped 6 to 34 so that home win is now Q2. UVA dropped 7 to 28 so that home win barely remains a Q1. Clemson went up 16 to 58 by blowing out State who “only” dropped 6 to 42. UNC stayed at 47 after beating UVA. USC up another 4 to 45. VT fell 9 to 73 so that loss barely remains a Q2. Wake won but fell 4 to 84 keeping that win a Q3. Duke up 5 to 25 and is highest rated ACC team. WVU at 27 is higher than every other ACC team.

Pitt splits are now 4-3, 3-4, 4-0, 10-1

Here’s my favorite. MSU blow a big lead at Iowa and loses in OT and goes up 2 to 33 while Iowa goes up 3 to 46. So both teams were rewarded. ASU went up 8 by wining at Arizona while Arizona lost no ground staying at 11.

And FSU only goes 4 to 219 after giving Miami its first home loss and is their second Q1 road win.

Overall it was a great day on the court and standings for Pitt but a bad day for the NET profile of the ACC. Pitt should be ranked but no clue about seeding projections. Pitt’s strongest metrics play remains the road splits of 3-2, 2-1, 1-0, 1-0 and overall 7 P6 road wins.

 

[PittGlory]

Pitt went up only 2 spots to 52. Miami dropped 6 to 34 so that home win is now Q2. UVA dropped 7 to 28 so that home win barely remains a Q1. Clemson went up 16 to 58 by blowing out State who “only” dropped 6 to 42. UNC stayed at 47 after beating UVA. USC up another 4 to 45. VT fell 9 to 73 so that loss barely remains a Q2. Wake won but fell 4 to 84 keeping that win a Q3. Duke up 5 to 25 and is highest rated ACC team. WVU at 27 is higher than every other ACC team.

Pitt splits are now 4-3, 3-4, 4-0, 10-1

Here’s my favorite. MSU blow a big lead at Iowa and loses in OT and goes up 2 to 33 while Iowa goes up 3 to 46. So both teams were rewarded. ASU went up 8 by wining at Arizona while Arizona lost no ground staying at 11.

And FSU only goes 4 to 219 after giving Miami its first home loss and is their second Q1 road win.

Overall it was a great day on the court and standings for Pitt but a bad day for the NET profile of the ACC. Pitt should be ranked but no clue about seeding projections. Pitt’s strongest metrics play remains the road splits of 3-2, 2-1, 1-0, 1-0 and overall 7 P6 road wins.

Does anyone know the names of the individuals who created the NET algorithm?
Or the organization who sanctioned the creation of the NET committee and gave them the power AND APPROVED the final NET algorithmic? And please don’t tell me it was the NCAA….
If so, please post!

 

[SteelBowl70]

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

 

[MTkeeper23]

Here’s my favorite. MSU blow a big lead at Iowa and loses in OT and goes up 2 to 33 while Iowa goes up 3 to 46. So both teams were rewarded. ASU went up 8 by wining at Arizona while Arizona lost no ground staying at 11.

That’s a problem.

You also have 11-17 Ohio St sitting at 71 net. Just 8-6 at home… so there are 6 teams out there getting a Q1 win for beating an 11-17 team with a 3-14 conference record.

 

[SteelBowl70]

Charleston went up 2 from 53 to 51 even though they didn’t play and knocked Pitt down one. Maybe Pitt lost ground because of the NU loss which dropped them 4 to 41? Iona goes up 9 to 58 and head of Clemson (60) by beating Sienna by 33 at home. PSU drops 3 to 59. WVU up 1 more to 26.

Pitt started the week at 51 and ends the week at 53 after 2 more wins.

 

[SteelBowl70]

WVU up 3 to 23 - they are higher than any ACC team. Duke is 24.

Pitt up one to 52. If UVA loses at home to Clemson, there’s a good chance they fall out of the top 30 and eliminate another Pitt Q1 win. If so, the Pitt home ACC schedule will have not provided a single Q1 win opportunity.

 

[Fredact]

Oral Roberts and Liberty still ahead of Pitt.

 

[NCanton Panther]

I quit worrying much about NET. Look at Bracket Matrix off and on to see how our seed projection is doing. It’s been pretty steady at 10 but with a downward trend if anything. What surprised me though, I’m pretty sure we were at least projected to be in the tourney by all these ‘well-informed’ bracketologists for a while. But right now, 2 of the 97 don’t even have us in the tourney at all. I know the ACC conference isn’t getting any luv but not even having the 1st place team in the tourney is a little ridiculous. Those darn efficiency metrics.

 

[UPitt '89]

I quit worrying much about NET. Look at Bracket Matrix off and on to see how our seed projection is doing. It’s been pretty steady at 10 but with a downward trend if anything. What surprised me though, I’m pretty sure we were at least projected to be in the tourney by all these ‘well-informed’ bracketologists for a while. But right now, 2 of the 97 don’t even have us in the tourney at all. I know the ACC conference isn’t getting any luv but not even having the 1st place team in the tourney is a little ridiculous. Those darn efficiency metrics.

Considering that Pitt should be in EVERY bracket for the mere fact that Pitt is the AQ from the ACC at the moment... it means two bracketologists are extremely dumb.

 

[BreakingPitt]

a rematch w/ the Hoopies ?

UCLA moves into No. 1 seed as Purdue falls in latest NCAA tournament Bracketology

There was a major change at the top of this week's Bracketology as UCLA takes over as one of the four No. 1 seeds with Purdue dropping down.

www.usatoday.com

 

[NCanton Panther]

Considering that Pitt should be in EVERY bracket for the mere fact that Pitt is the AQ from the ACC at the moment... it means two bracketologists are extremely dumb.

That’s not true. There is no AQ from the ACC until someone wins the ACC tourney and these 2 obviously don’t have Pitt winning the ACC tourney. I think the current consensus projection is that UVA is the AQ from the ACC.

 

[UPitt '89]

That’s not true. There is no AQ from the ACC until someone wins the ACC tourney and these 2 obviously don’t have Pitt winning the ACC tourney. I think the current consensus projection is that UVA is the AQ from the ACC.

Most bracketologists.... including even Lunardi.... put the current 1st place team of each conference as the "AQ". With no other data to go on, it makes logical sense to put the AQ label on the team in 1st place - especially this late in the season. And that's what most do.

 

[NCanton Panther]

Most bracketologists.... including even Lunardi.... put the current 1st place team of each conference as the "AQ". With no other data to go on, it makes logical sense to put the AQ label on the team in 1st place - especially this late in the season. And that's what most do.

That sure doesn’t agree with the cumulative results of all the bracketologists where they bold the team projected to be the AQ and it has steadily been UVA.

 

[Dointhatrag]

As long as we make the tournament and don't play an extra game in Dayton I don't care what seed we get. You're going to have to play the harder teams at sometime and most think there are many overrated team ahead of us so our 10-7 matchup might be against a 7 that we feel should be a 10, so we would be playing the same team anyway.

Who cares if we play a 1 or 2 seed in the second round. We get a shot to make an upset people remember. In reality most national audiences only remember big upsets and the teams in the final.

 

[Chairman Moe]

WVU up 3 to 23 - they are higher than any ACC team. Duke is 24.

Pitt up one to 52. If UVA loses at home to Clemson, there’s a good chance they fall out of the top 30 and eliminate another Pitt Q1 win. If so, the Pitt home ACC schedule will have not provided a single Q1 win opportunity.

Well, it stands to reason that if WVU beats the current top team in the ACC (Pitt), they deserve to be ranked (NET) higher than any other team in the league ... [spoiler alert: sarcasm]

 

[Dewey Eye]

I was thinking about net rankings, and it occurred to me what it is.

It is something that fans of a heavily-favored, best-record-having team would say after their team lost in a championship.

They would use something like net rankings to say, "yeah but the best team didn't really win"

Winning is ALL that matters

 

[JS School]

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.

www.ncaa.com

I just read Katz' 2019 article that was linked in this article. Is the margin of victory still capped at 10? I guess it's no big deal we beat top ACC opponents by single digits, we needed to beat them by 11.

The NCAA came up with this in consultation with Google Cloud? Probably the same people creating algorithms to get teenagers hooked on social media and porn.

 

[SteelBowl70]

Pitt 53. UVA hangs in at 29 to keep that our only Q1 home win. BC up 7 to 158 making that a Q3 home win. Quad splits are 4-3, 3-4, 5-0, 9-1. Road splits 3-2, 1-1, 2-0, 1-0. Tonight’s game is a Q3. ND is 188 & GT up 17 to 189.

Duke up to 22 and NC State stays 42 but downgraded by ESPN to bubble status. SU fell 17 to 129 which keeps that road win a Q2. UNC 45. Clemson fell to 62 & Wake to 86.

 

[FireballZ]

Pitt 53. UVA hangs in at 29 to keep that our only Q1 home win. BC up 7 to 158 making that a Q3 home win. Quad splits are 4-3, 3-4, 5-0, 9-1. Road splits 3-2, 1-1, 2-0, 1-0. Tonight’s game is a Q3. ND is 188 & GT up 17 to 189.

Duke up to 22 and NC State stays 42 but downgraded by ESPN to bubble status. SU fell 17 to 129 which keeps that road win a Q2. UNC 45. Clemson fell to 62 & Wake to 86.

My favorite from yesterday was Texas Tech jumping up 5 spots and in front of us because of a "close" loss at Kansas. That's 16-14 Texas Tech.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

If they continue with this NET nonsense, I predict a crap NCAAT. The best teams won't be seeded properly to reward them for their body of work and late season games. I hope Pitt gets that 8 or 9 seed and blows up a bracket with a couple of wins over the high seeds, like a crap 1 seed. They are capable of doing that. And I'd love to play wvu again and blow them out, except they aren't fit to be in the NCAAT and shouldn't be.

 

[Pitt2006]

If they continue with this NET nonsense, I predict a crap NCAAT. The best teams won't be seeded properly to reward them for their body of work and late season games. I hope Pitt gets that 8 or 9 seed and blows up a bracket with a couple of wins over the high seeds, like a crap 1 seed. They are capable of doing that. And I'd love to play wvu again and blow them out, except they aren't fit to be in the NCAAT and shouldn't be.

Team 1
10-13 Quad 1/2 7-0 quad 3/4

Team 2
5-14 quad 1/2 11-0 quad 3/4

Team 3
7-7 quad 1/2 14-1 quad 3/4

Team 4
8-13 quad 1/2 8-1 quad 3/4

Team 5
7-7 quad 1/2 15-1 quad 3/4

Had teams 3 and 5 played 7-8 more quad 1/2 games, they would not have won them all. Should teams be penalized for playing a more difficulty schedule?

Team 3 (Pitt) is a 10 on bracket matrix while team 5 is an 8 (providence). Even Pitt has a better road record but lower net. Curious how seeds play out.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

Team 1
10-13 Quad 1/2 7-0 quad 3/4

Team 2
5-14 quad 1/2 11-0 quad 3/4

Team 3
7-7 quad 1/2 14-1 quad 3/4

Team 4
8-13 quad 1/2 8-1 quad 3/4

Team 5
7-7 quad 1/2 15-1 quad 3/4

Had teams 3 and 5 played 7-8 more quad 1/2 games, they would not have won them all. Should teams be penalized for playing a more difficulty schedule?

Team 3 (Pitt) is a 10 on bracket matrix while team 5 is an 8 (providence). Even Pitt has a better road record but lower net. Curious how seeds play out.

You play the schedule that's given to you each year. It will all sort itself out in the tournament. Unfortunately, with this NET garbage, that isn't going to happen this year. Too much emphasis on computers and matrics, not enough on win-loss records and how well a team is playing later in the year. I understand the objective of NET....to get the most accurate indicator of the best teams and rank them according to some algorithm. It isn't working.

 

[mike10003]

Pitt drops from 53 to 55 in the NET

UVA drops to 30
Utah State, which beat UNLV on the road 91-66, climbs from 30 to 22

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Team 1
10-13 Quad 1/2 7-0 quad 3/4

Team 2
5-14 quad 1/2 11-0 quad 3/4

Team 3
7-7 quad 1/2 14-1 quad 3/4

Team 4
8-13 quad 1/2 8-1 quad 3/4

Team 5
7-7 quad 1/2 15-1 quad 3/4

Had teams 3 and 5 played 7-8 more quad 1/2 games, they would not have won them all. Should teams be penalized for playing a more difficulty schedule?

Team 3 (Pitt) is a 10 on bracket matrix while team 5 is an 8 (providence). Even Pitt has a better road record but lower net. Curious how seeds play out.

5-14 is horrendous. Who is that? They shouldn't be anywhere near the bubble

 

[SteelBowl70]

Pitt drops from 53 to 55 in the NET

Thanks Mike. Michigan 54, PSU 56. The comeback helped limit the damage.

Utah State went up 8 from 30 to 22 beating 17-12 UNLV in Vegas by 25 and dropping UVA to 30. Miami is 35. UVA Q1 win hanging by a thread.

 

[mike10003]

5-14 is horrendous. Who is that? They shouldn't be anywhere near the bubble

Looks like Texas Tech

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Pitt drops from 53 to 55 in the NET

UVA drops to 30
Utah State, which beat UNLV on the road 91-66, climbs from 30 to 22

Cant believe we only dropped 2 but I'll take it.

 

[Blair_45]

Cant believe we only dropped 2 but I'll take it.

Yep we talked about it last night how getting the score down into single digits was huge. Had they lost by 15-20 points there NET would definitely have been in the 60’s this morning. Losing by 7 and making that late game push as silly as it sounds because of how goofy and ridiculous these NET Rankings are helped them tremendously avoid complete disaster last night. Having a NET of 55 10 days before selection Sunday while you have 21 wins and are playing for a regular season ACC Championship in 2 days is simply not enough to keep them out of the NCCA Tournament. I still feel they are in right now and have done enough to get be at worst a 10 or 11 seed and avoid Dayton.

 

[SteelBowl70]

Rutgers fell 6 to 38
Wisky fell 2 to 77
USC fell 6 to 50
UM still 54
Pitt still 55
ASU still 63
Memphis up to 37

 

[str61166]

Rutgers fell 6 to 38
Wisky fell 2 to 77
USC fell 6 to 50
UM still 54
Pitt still 55
ASU still 63
Memphis up to 37

Looking at their resume, Rutgers has to be one of the most mind boggling teams in the NET rankings to be that high.

 

[SteelBowl70]

Looking at their resume, Rutgers has to be one of the most mind boggling teams in the NET rankings to be that high.

They got to Dayton last year at 18-13 with a NET around 80 and 3 q3/q4 losses and an RPI of 92 with a 9-11 q1/q2 record

Over Wake who had a NET of 48 at 23-9 with only 1 q3 loss and 7-9 q1/q2 record and RPI of 69

Figure that one out. Seems like it’s all about q1/q2 wins which isn’t good for Pitt sitting at 7-7. Pitt has a worse resume than Wake did last year.

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/net-teamsheets-plus

 

[MTkeeper23]

Team 1
10-13 Quad 1/2 7-0 quad 3/4

Team 2
5-14 quad 1/2 11-0 quad 3/4

Team 3
7-7 quad 1/2 14-1 quad 3/4

Team 4
8-13 quad 1/2 8-1 quad 3/4

Team 5
7-7 quad 1/2 15-1 quad 3/4

Had teams 3 and 5 played 7-8 more quad 1/2 games, they would not have won them all. Should teams be penalized for playing a more difficulty schedule?

Team 3 (Pitt) is a 10 on bracket matrix while team 5 is an 8 (providence). Even Pitt has a better road record but lower net. Curious how seeds play out.

Based on the data, I'd say they would have won about half!

 

[str61166]

They got to Dayton last year at 18-13 with a NET around 80 and 3 q3/q4 losses and an RPI of 92 with a 9-11 q1/q2 record

Over Wake who had a NET of 48 at 23-9 with only 1 q3 loss and 7-9 q1/q2 record and RPI of 69

Figure that one out. Seems like it’s all about q1/q2 wins which isn’t good for Pitt sitting at 7-7. Pitt has a worse resume than Wake did last year.

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/net-teamsheets-plus

Another discouraging example from last season. We are going to be nervous wrecks if this team doesn’t find a way to win at least one more game, and probably still will be nervous wrecks if that one more game is just over say FSU or GT as a 5 seed.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

They got to Dayton last year at 18-13 with a NET around 80 and 3 q3/q4 losses and an RPI of 92 with a 9-11 q1/q2 record

Over Wake who had a NET of 48 at 23-9 with only 1 q3 loss and 7-9 q1/q2 record and RPI of 69

Figure that one out. Seems like it’s all about q1/q2 wins which isn’t good for Pitt sitting at 7-7. Pitt has a worse resume than Wake did last year.

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/net-teamsheets-plus

Pitt 2023 vs ND 2022 (last team in) vs Wake 2022 (not even close to making it)

Q1 4-3 2-8 1-4
Q2 3-4 2-1 4-3
Q3 5-1 11-1. 9-2
Q4 9-1 6-0 9-0
Road 7-4 7-5 5-5
SOS 103 90 (post-NCAAT) 132 (post-NIT)

For Wake, only 1 Q1 win, an OOC SOS in the 300s, and only 5 road wins did them in. I did think ND should have been higher but 4-9 in Q1/2 is bad. If we lose our next 2, we would be 7-9

 

[SteelBowl70]

Pitt 2023 vs ND 2022 (last team in) vs Wake 2022 (not even close to making it)

Q1 4-3 2-8 1-4
Q2 3-4 2-1 4-3
Q3 5-1 11-1. 9-2
Q4 9-1 6-0 9-0
Road 7-4 7-5 5-5
SOS 103 90 (post-NCAAT) 132 (post-NIT)

For Wake, only 1 Q1 win, an OOC SOS in the 300s, and only 5 road wins did them in. I did think ND should have been higher but 4-9 in Q1/2 is bad. If we lose our next 2, we would be 7-9

Ok I guess their team sheet here improved post-season https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/team-net-sheet?team=Wake-Forest

 

[Pitt2006]

The wildcard is Cuse. Currently at 131 and still a Q2 road win, but would fall to 3 if they lose to Wake badly. One time I will be rooting for Cuse. We want that 7th q1/2 win.

 

[SteelBowl70]

The wildcard is Cuse. Currently at 131 and still a Q2 road win, but would fall to 3 if they lose to Wake badly. One time I will be rooting for Cuse. We want that 7th q1/2 win.

Right - with Wake at 86, the chance of them getting to 75 is minimal unless they have a strong tourney run.

uVA (30) & Miami (35) are conundrums in that we benefit if these stay/became Q1 wins but we benefit in the standings if they lose. If we beat Miami, we obviously gain a road Q1 and top tourney seed. But if we lose, we benefit if UVA loses seeding wise to get the double bye. So we want UVA to either blow UL out or lose.

Ironically, Miami losing to FSU and falling 6 spots ends up hurting us given the loss at ND. It cost us a Q1 win and won’t help in the final standings.

 

[UPitt '89]

Right - with Wake at 86, the chance of them getting to 75 is minimal unless they have a strong tourney run.

uVA (30) & Miami (35) are conundrums in that we benefit if these stay/became Q1 wins but we benefit in the standings if they lose. If we beat Miami, we obviously gain a road Q1 and top tourney seed. But if we lose, we benefit if UVA loses seeding wise to get the double bye. So we want UVA to either blow UL out or lose.

Ironically, Miami losing to FSU and falling 6 spots ends up hurting us given the loss at ND. It cost us a Q1 win and won’t help in the final standings.

If Miami beats us, they could climb back into the Top 30. We would be a Q2 win for them. Which would make our win against them at home Q1 again.

 

[Pitt2006]

If Miami beats us, they could climb back into the Top 30. We would be a Q2 win for them. Which would make our win against them at home Q1 again.

Win at Miami and this is all moot as Pitt will lock it up. That is my biggest wish. End all the debate tomorrow. Can they? Yes! Will they? TBD.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Does anyone know the names of the individuals who created the NET algorithm?
Or the organization who sanctioned the creation of the NET committee and gave them the power AND APPROVED the final NET algorithmic? And please don’t tell me it was the NCAA….
If so, please post!

The NCAA approved it. The organization that does the modeling is Google Cloud (tm), the official cloud of the NCAA. I mean any 386 computer from 1992 could probably run a simple Excel formula, this isn't some advanced AI stuff, but Google gets to say it's theirs for advertising reasons.

I'm sure the NCAA (tournament selection committee, who are mostly conference commissioners ) told Google the factors they wanted. Originally it was five, now they cut it down to two: team value index (which is strength of schedule and wins/losses) and adjusted net efficiency, which is strength of schedule and offensive/defensive efficiency ratings.

I don't see the point of a model that combines measuring efficiency and one that measures wins/losses/SoS -- both are overlapping versions of measuring the same thing, but with the efficiency, for an added reward for running up the score and undervaluing the ability to win a tough, close game. Colley Matrix ignores efficiency and just looks at who beats who -- and in that Pitt is #41, which seems about right to me if you ignore recency.

There is a valid question about if recency bias should matter or not, but I'll put that aside for now.