Doesn’t NET already figure in NC SOS?

[SteelBowl70]

"Here's the thing about Pitt - and if there's one thing the committee has been incredibly consistent about over the years," Lunardi said on ESPN. "Let's say this - non-conference schedule for Pitt: 344th at the start of the week. There's never been a bubble team, ever, even close to that, that's gotten in. So I'm not optimistic."

But NET already penalizes a team for a poor SOS. Pitt had to overcome this with game outcomes to “earn” a NET of 44. So why penalize a team specifically for this stat and why is this even that relevant when won/lost record is not the factor it once was in the age of NET.

Plus Pitt has a fairly strong conference SOS and overall SOS is not that poor. It’s better than some bubble teams including UVA. Why is NC SOS a stronger metric than power conference road record ?

In any case, this fixation with NC SOS seems to be kryptonite keeping Pitt out right now based on previous committee history. It kept Clemson out last year also but their NET was in the 60s.

So if we replace 2 Q4 home wins with 2 Q1 road or neutral court losses (similar to Florida), Pitt is 19-12 and safely in the field simply by taking the court and getting whipped by a few higher rated teams.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

But NET already penalizes a team for a poor SOS. Pitt had to overcome this with game outcomes to “earn” a NET of 44. So why penalize a team specifically for this stat and why is this even that relevant when won/lost record is not a factor in the age of NET.

NET doesn't penalize a team for a poor SOS. NET penalizes a team that underperforms what it is "supposed to". One of our best games this season in terms of NET would be our 48 point destruction of NC A&T. But that game is awful for out SOS. Beating Jacksonville by 51 was also great for our NET, but awful for our SOS. Same with the 36 point win over South Carolina State.

It is possible for a game to help your NET and your SOS. It is possible for a game to hurt your NET and your SOS. And it's possible for a game to help one and hurt the other.

 

[SteelBowl70]

It seems more and more like the Pitt obit has already been written by the committee and the only way to change the ending is on the court this week. Wake in 22 and Clemson last year underperformed at the tourney and Pitt needs to overperform. Blake predicted a tournament championship so i won’t argue with him.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It seems more and more like the Pitt obit has already been written by the committee and the only way to change the ending is on the court this week. Wake in 22 and Clemson last year underperformed at the tourney and Pitt needs to overperform. Blake predicted a tournament championship so i won’t argue with him.

Don't confuse the committee with random people who do bracket projections on the internet.

The committee has not said one word, literally, not one word, about Pitt or Pitt's chances. Their only comment on the bracket at all was their top four seed thing they did a couple weeks ago, which also included the three teams that they also considered but that just missed. They made no comments at all about any teams that are or were on the bubble.

 

[PittMan 72]

Don't confuse the committee with random people who do bracket projections on the internet.

The committee has not said one word, literally, not one word, about Pitt or Pitt's chances. Their only comment on the bracket at all was their top four seed thing they did a couple weeks ago, which also included the three teams that they also considered but that just missed. They made no comments at all about any teams that are or were on the bubble.

Yep. 100% correct. Yet there seems to be a lot of people who are completely oblivious to this. Who think the bracketologists have some sort of say about who the selection committee is going to decide to select as at-large teams.

Kinda hard to understand how this narrative continues to persist. 🙄

 

[Saboteur II]

Yep. 100% correct. Yet there seems to be a lot of people who are completely oblivious to this. Who think the bracketologists have some sort of say about who the selection committee is going to decide to select as at-large teams.

Kinda hard to understand how this narrative continues to persist. 🙄

Joe Lunardi is a modern day PT Barnum. He’s laughing all the way to the bank by proclaiming the blatantly obvious mixed in with mental click bait without an ounce of accountability.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

NET doesn't penalize a team for a poor SOS. NET penalizes a team that underperforms what it is "supposed to". One of our best games this season in terms of NET would be our 48 point destruction of NC A&T. But that game is awful for out SOS. Beating Jacksonville by 51 was also great for our NET, but awful for our SOS. Same with the 36 point win over South Carolina State.

It is possible for a game to help your NET and your SOS. It is possible for a game to hurt your NET and your SOS. And it's possible for a game to help one and hurt the other.

So if Pitt beat 4 teams ranked 180 by 20 instead of 4 teams ranked 280 by 40, that's much better? NET does take SOS into account because it rates how you played versus your schedule. Beating a 300 team by 40 should be about the same as beating a 180 team by 20.

The non-con SOS is so stupid. Our SOS is 83. Is that good enough? They can judge that. But to eliminate a team based on non-con SOS when there was clearly an intent to play a tougher non-con is ridiculous.

- WVU was supposed to be a NC contender
- Missouri was picked 9th in SEC and in Lunardi's preseason bracket
- Oregon State was 1 year removed from an Elite 8 when that tournament was scheduled

 

[wbrpanther]

It seems more and more like the Pitt obit has already been written by the committee and the only way to change the ending is on the court this week. Wake in 22 and Clemson last year underperformed at the tourney and Pitt needs to overperform. Blake predicted a tournament championship so i won’t argue with him.

Keep in mind. No one has heard a thing from the committee. It's all been from "experts".

 

[PittMan 72]

@wbrpanther
This excerpted blurb from a 3/7/24 article from the ncaa.com provides a lot of insight. Entire article linked below. (Scroll about half way down the linked article to see the excerpt):

How do they decide which teams get an at-large bid?​

There are a multitude of stats and rankings that the Selection Committee takes into account, but there is no set formula that determines whether a team receives an at-large bid or not.

What is March Madness: The NCAA tournament explained

Here is everything (really!) you might want to know about March Madness — one of the biggest, most exciting and fun events in sports.

www.ncaa.com

 

[ChiefJusticeMarshall]

NET doesn't penalize a team for a poor SOS. NET penalizes a team that underperforms what it is "supposed to". One of our best games this season in terms of NET would be our 48 point destruction of NC A&T. But that game is awful for out SOS. Beating Jacksonville by 51 was also great for our NET, but awful for our SOS. Same with the 36 point win over South Carolina State.

It is possible for a game to help your NET and your SOS. It is possible for a game to hurt your NET and your SOS. And it's possible for a game to help one and hurt the other.

That's a flaw though of Net. First off, I do agree, a beat down should count more than an escape. But say you are beating some team by 18 with 2 minutes to go. You put in some reserves, you don't press much on defense (try not to foul), the other team hits 3 late threes......and the 18 point win because say a 7 point win.

Again, it is a benchmark. But as someone who has a mathematical background, I also realize qualitative inputs sometimes drive the quantitative metrics. All 340 or so Division 1 basketball teams don't start in like some bingo bubble and they just draw names, there is some preordered rankings of teams that automatically gives them "quality" wins.

I guess what I am saying, you have to have some human "eye test" element to selecting this tourney. I know, I know, it doesn't matter if a guy hits a HR in the 2nd inning of a game in April, vs a guy who hits a walkoff HR in September in the heat of a pennant race, it doesn't matter mathematically. But it does matter. Going 11-3 in November/December should not matter than going 11-3 in February/March. Because the latter is more representative of that team right now.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

So if Pitt beat 4 teams ranked 180 by 20 instead of 4 teams ranked 280 by 40, that's much better?

I would think that beating 280 by 40 is better for your NET than beating 180 by 20. But it's worse for your SOS. Because those two metrics are measuring completely different things.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I guess what I am saying, you have to have some human "eye test" element to selecting this tourney.

I can't imagine how anyone could think that their isn't an "eye test" element to selecting the tournament.

Especially someone who is a Pitt fan just one year after we got into the tournament with a NET ranking that would have had us no where near the tournament if that was all they went by, like some people think.

 

[Gep Dawg]

If you look at who got in its apparent that Non Con Schedule Net is way more important than even quad 1/2 road wins. It might change but its been the big reason for past couple of years. It's the biggest difference with Clemson by far this year from last.