I need to stop checking the NET and just wait until Selection Sunday

[CJsE]

This week, 10-loss Oregon lost by 15 points to NET #9 Arizona and beat NET #66 ASU by 5 @ ASU.

This week Pitt beat NET #44 UNC by 1 @ UNC.

Oregon leapfrogged Pitt to go from #59 to #54, while Pitt went from #58 to #56.

Then you have teams like 10-loss Florida that has 3 win vs top 100 NET teams, but Pitt with 8 top 100 wins is 23 spots below them. I understand efficiency rankings and their value, but they are really annoying me in this resurgent season.

 

[PittPoker]

This week, 10-loss Oregon lost by 15 points to NET #9 Arizona and beat NET #66 ASU by 5 @ ASU.

This week Pitt beat NET #44 UNC by 1 @ UNC.

Oregon leapfrogged Pitt to go from #59 to #54, while Pitt went from #58 to #56.

Then you have teams like 10-loss Florida that has 3 win vs top 100 NET teams, but Pitt with 8 top 100 wins is 23 spots below them. I understand efficiency rankings and their value, but they are really annoying me in this resurgent season.

I haven't paid much attention to how the committee selects teams over the past 6 years because Pitt has been so bad, but I'm just hoping they don't use NET as the main criteria. There should be a big emphasis on quad 1 and 2 wins, conference records, etc... It's obvious due to Pitt's early season blowout losses plus losing to VCU and Vanderbilt the NET isn't a tool that will help them very much if at all.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It

This week, 10-loss Oregon lost by 15 points to NET #9 Arizona and beat NET #66 ASU by 5 @ ASU.

This week Pitt beat NET #44 UNC by 1 @ UNC.

Oregon leapfrogged Pitt to go from #59 to #54, while Pitt went from #58 to #56.

Then you have teams like 10-loss Florida that has 3 win vs top 100 NET teams, but Pitt with 8 top 100 wins is 23 spots below them. I understand efficiency rankings and their value, but they are really annoying me in this resurgent season.

Its all V

This week, 10-loss Oregon lost by 15 points to NET #9 Arizona and beat NET #66 ASU by 5 @ ASU.

This week Pitt beat NET #44 UNC by 1 @ UNC.

Oregon leapfrogged Pitt to go from #59 to #54, while Pitt went from #58 to #56.

Then you have teams like 10-loss Florida that has 3 win vs top 100 NET teams, but Pitt with 8 top 100 wins is 23 spots below them. I understand efficiency rankings and their value, but they are really annoying me in this resurgent season.

Its all Vegas analytics. Would Pitt be favored on a neutral court vs Florida or Oregon? My guess is no although they obviously could beat them. Vegas sees Pitt as "lucky," winning too many close games that they probably shouldn't. NET goes by "which TEAM is best" rather than "which resume is best" and that's pretty dangerous if you ask me because its going to reward a team like WVU who may only win 33% of their conference games. I get that they are a good team and could finish high in a league like the ACC. But if you go 6-12 or 7-11, you shouldn't make the NCAAT unless you really kill it in the non-con but they really didn't. Wins over Florida, Pitt, and Auburn (at home) are nice but cant make up for a terrible conference record

 

[SteelBowl70]

This week, 10-loss Oregon lost by 15 points to NET #9 Arizona and beat NET #66 ASU by 5 @ ASU.

This week Pitt beat NET #44 UNC by 1 @ UNC.

Oregon leapfrogged Pitt to go from #59 to #54, while Pitt went from #58 to #56.

Then you have teams like 10-loss Florida that has 3 win vs top 100 NET teams, but Pitt with 8 top 100 wins is 23 spots below them. I understand efficiency rankings and their value, but they are really annoying me in this resurgent season.

Most important​

• Records by quadrant
• Records by quadrant, away and neutral
• Non-Conference Strength of Schedule (SOS)
• Overall SOS
• Overall road and neutral records
• Non-Division I losses

This comes from https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...-uses-to-compare-ncaa-tournament-resumes/amp/

Based on this, Pitt looks pretty good, especially the overlooked 6-2 road record with 3 road wins at NC State and UNC (their only home losses) and the blowout of Northwestern.

Rutgers got an at large bid last year with a NET of 80. It does seem like some so-called “bracketologists” rely too much on the NET ranking.

 

[Dointhatrag]

More fun blind NET comparisons:

Team A
18-6
4-4 road
3-0 neutral
Quad 1 4-5
Quad 2 3-0
Quad 3 5-1
Quad 4 6-0

Team B
16-7
6-2 road
0-2 neutral
Quad 1 4-2
Quad 2 4-4
Quad 3 1-0
Quad 4 7-1

Team A Road/neutral: 7-4
Team B road neutral: 6-4

Team A Q1/Q2: 7-5
Q3/Q4: 11-1

Team B Q1/Q2: 8-6
Q3/Q4: 8-1

Team A NET 7
Team B NET 55

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

More fun blind NET comparisons:

Team A
18-6
4-4 road
3-0 neutral
Quad 1 4-5
Quad 2 3-0
Quad 3 5-1
Quad 4 6-0

Team B
16-7
6-2 road
0-2 neutral
Quad 1 4-2
Quad 2 4-4
Quad 3 1-0
Quad 4 7-1

Team A Road/neutral: 7-4
Team B road neutral: 6-4

Team A Q1/Q2: 7-5
Q3/Q4: 11-1

Team B Q1/Q2: 8-6
Q3/Q4: 8-1

Team A NET 7
Team B NET 55

Wow. This one is crazy. Itz UConn and I'd have Pitt over UConn. But UConn's NET is so high, they cant drop that much so they are a 5 on Bracket Matrix while we are still in Dayton. Another thing that blows my mind is our SOS (a Tier 1 criteria) is tougher than UConn. 51 vs 66. No way UConn should be higher than us. I'd have us as a 5 or 6

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It's as if you guys just can't get it through your heads that what the NET is measuring has nothing at all to do with Q1 wins or Q4 losses or any of that sort of stuff.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It's as if you guys just can't get it through your heads that what the NET is measuring has nothing at all to do with Q1 wins or Q4 losses or any of that sort of stuff.

But if they are using it how they say they are, you would think that would be baked into the cake. It sucks that its a straight-up Vegas metric. UConn's RPI is 31 and Pitt is 42. But their NET is so high that if they use it as a primary criteria (even though they arent supposed to), they'll be 5-6 lines higher than us

 

[NCanton Panther]

It

Its all V

It’s all Vegas analytics. Would Pitt be favored on a neutral court vs Florida or Oregon? My guess is no although they obviously could beat them. Vegas sees Pitt as "lucky," winning too many close games that they probably shouldn't. NET goes by "which TEAM is best" rather than "which resume is best" and that's pretty dangerous if you ask me because its going to reward a team like WVU who may only win 33% of their conference games. I get that they are a good team and could finish high in a league like the ACC. But if you go 6-12 or 7-11, you shouldn't make the NCAAT unless you really kill it in the non-con but they really didn't. Wins over Florida, Pitt, and Auburn (at home) are nice but cant make up for a terrible conference record

I agree with your constant drum roll against the NET for tourney in/out considerations because of its use of score margin and efficiency metrics but don’t agree with your above take on conference records. Based on everything I’ve read, conference record is given zero consideration in tourney selection and rightfully so unless you’re comparing 2 teams in the same conference.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I agree with your constant drum roll against the NET for tourney in/out considerations because of its use of score margin and efficiency metrics but don’t agree with your above take on conference records. Based on everything I’ve read, conference record is given zero consideration in tourney selection and rightfully so unless you’re comparing 2 teams in the same conference.

Yea, they dont look at conference record at all. That said, WVU shouldn't make the NCAAT at 6-12/18-13.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

UConn's RPI is 31 and Pitt is 42.

Who cares what anyone's RPI is? And I mean that literally, who cares?

RPI is, and always was, a moronic metric that someone made up using assumptions about college basketball that simply are not true. The guy who invented the RPI said, a lot more than once, that it was never meant to be used the way that they ended up using it. Even he thought it was a poor way to measure teams.

Any ratings system where you could lose a game by 100 points and have your rating go up, or win a game by 100 points and have your rating go down, is stupid beyond belief. The fact that the NCAA stuck with it for as long as they did, heck, that they actually ever used it in the first place, is just another in a long line of really dumb things the NCAA has done. The fact that you want to use a system that has no creditably at all to make some sort of point doesn't make your point, it shows that you can't make a coherent argument on your own.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

But if they are using it how they say they are, you would think that would be baked into the cake.

This deserves a comment too. Because it shows, like I said, that you can talk a good game but you still have no idea what the NET is actually doing. Beating a Q1 team or losing to a Q4 team absolutely is "baked into the cake". But we don't have only one game on our record. We didn't only beat North Carolina at North Carolina, any more than we only lost at home to Florida State.

We've played 23 games so far. Every one of the 23 counts. And they all count the same. It's why when we do beat North Carolina our rating doesn't change a whole lot, because it's just one of 23 equal results. It really isn't that hard a concept to understand, it's really pretty simple math, and yet it's seemingly beyond your grasp.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

This deserves a comment too. Because it shows, like I said, that you can talk a good game but you still have no idea what the NET is actually doing. Beating a Q1 team or losing to a Q4 team absolutely is "baked into the cake". But we don't have only one game on our record. We didn't only beat North Carolina at North Carolina, any more than we only lost at home to Florida State.

We've played 23 games so far. Every one of the 23 counts. And they all count the same. It's why when we do beat North Carolina our rating doesn't change a whole lot, because it's just one of 23 equal results. It really isn't that hard a concept to understand, it's really pretty simple math, and yet it's seemingly beyond your grasp.

You dont get it. I never liked RPI. However, its still used in every NCAA Team sport besides basketball. I also dont like NET because it doesn't "credit you" for winning games. It seems to credit you for being efficient, win or lose. I meant that actually getting a W over Q1/Q2 should be baked in, not just how efficient we were in doing so. The fact that Pitt and UConn are separated by 50 spots despite basically the same record and Pitt had a harder SOS is a fatal flaw. It isn't giving enough credit for winning.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You dont get it. I never liked RPI. However, its still used in every NCAA Team sport besides basketball. I also dont like NET because it doesn't "credit you" for winning games. It seems to credit you for being efficient, win or lose. I meant that actually getting a W over Q1/Q2 should be baked in, not just how efficient we were in doing so. The fact that Pitt and UConn are separated by 50 spots despite basically the same record and Pitt had a harder SOS is a fatal flaw. It isn't giving enough credit for winning.

This is just you saying, again and again, that you have no idea what the NET is measuring. You keep saying that you do, and then you keep saying things that show that you don't.

What was Pitt football's RPI last year? Pitt got a big win in wrestling last week, and then lost as close a match as you could have last Saturday. How did those results affect Pitt's RPI? The Pitt gymnastics team had one of their best team scores in history last weekend. How did that affect Pitt's RPI?

 

[CJsE]

It's as if you guys just can't get it through your heads that what the NET is measuring has nothing at all to do with Q1 wins or Q4 losses or any of that sort of stuff.

The NET isn't using quadrants in their ratings directly, but it is absolutely using quality of opponents, location, etc. So since the NET's resulting rankings reflect the various factors used to determine the ranking, you'd expect it to closely follow (which it does to an extent). That means it's easier to refer to wins and losses with their quadrant.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The NET isn't using quadrants in their ratings directly, but it is absolutely using quality of opponents, location, etc. So since the NET's resulting rankings reflect the various factors used to determine the ranking, you'd expect it to closely follow (which it does to an extent). That means it's easier to refer to wins and losses with their quadrant.

If you beat a good team, that's better than beating a crappy team. If you lose to a crappy team, that's worse than losing to a good team. It makes no difference in the rating if you call that team Q1 or Q2 or Q79. What matters in the rating is how good the team you played is, where you played them, and what the result was.

The quadrant thing is not only arbitrary, it's kind of dumb. But they could change that literally later on this evening and that wouldn't change the ratings at all.

 

[CJsE]

If you beat a good team, that's better than beating a crappy team. If you lose to a crappy team, that's worse than losing to a good team. It makes no difference in the rating if you call that team Q1 or Q2 or Q79. What matters in the rating is how good the team you played is, where you played them, and what the result was.

The quadrant thing is not only arbitrary, it's kind of dumb. But they could change that literally later on this evening and that wouldn't change the ratings at all.

I don't understand why you are being so argumentative about this, is there something lost in translation? Is it to feel superior by assuming everyone else is dumb?

Everyone knows there is no term in the equation to assign quadrant. But saying Pitt beat a Q1 team is shorthand for all of the factors that NET considers when rating a game. You say what matters is "how good the team you played is, where you played them, and what the result was" but all of that information is present when you say "Pitt beat a Q1 team." What in the world would be a better measure of "how good the team you played is" than by using the rating system itself?

It would be different if someone said "Pitt beat an AP #22 team" or "Pitt beat the RPI #37 " because those rankings have nothing to do with NET, but the NET rating itself determines it's NET quadrant.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

If you beat a good team, that's better than beating a crappy team. If you lose to a crappy team, that's worse than losing to a good team. It makes no difference in the rating if you call that team Q1 or Q2 or Q79. What matters in the rating is how good the team you played is, where you played them, and what the result was.

The quadrant thing is not only arbitrary, it's kind of dumb. But they could change that literally later on this evening and that wouldn't change the ratings at all.

It wouldn't change the ratings but having a loss considered Q4 looks really bad. If there were 100 Qs and FSU was a Q89 loss, if wouldn't look as bad as Q4. It makes it seem like we lost to Delaware State when the reality is FSU has bubble talent.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

the reality is FSU has bubble talent.

Clearly.

Which is why they have home losses to teams like Stetson, Troy and Siena.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. Their loss to Siena wasn't at home, it was on a neutral court. By 17 points. In a game that was only in the single digits for about 20 seconds the whole second half.

If that isn't enough for you, how about this. They have six ACC wins. Louisville, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame and Louisville. The three worst teams in the league. Oh, yeah, and us. Besides us the next highest ranked team in the Pomeroy rankings that they have beaten is Notre Dame. Who is 171. They've played 15 games against Pomeroy top 150 teams. They are 1-13 in those games. If we extend it to 161 they are 1-15 in those games.

In short, the notion that they have bubble talent is laughable. They are awful. Other than us they haven't beaten even a mediocre team all season.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Clearly.

Which is why they have home losses to teams like Stetson, Troy and Siena.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. Their loss to Siena wasn't at home, it was on a neutral court. By 17 points. In a game that was only in the single digits for about 20 seconds the whole second half.

If that isn't enough for you, how about this. They have six ACC wins. Louisville, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame and Louisville. The three worst teams in the league. Oh, yeah, and us. Besides us the next highest ranked team in the Pomeroy rankings that they have beaten is Notre Dame. Who is 171. They've played 15 games against Pomeroy top 150 teams. They are 1-13 in those games. If we extend it to 161 they are 1-15 in those games.

In short, the notion that they have bubble talent is laughable. They are awful. Other than us they haven't beaten even a mediocre team all season.

Hamilton is back to rolling the balls out. I always thought he was a terrible coach but he had such good talent the last 5-6 years that they won despite him. FSU has a lot of talent