I think I have found some reasoning for Rankings/Net

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I really think they put way too much emphasis on "Quad 4" teams. Doesn't matter if you win or lose them, just play them.

Trying to find rhyme or reason. I picked these three things, because always when the committee would be asked on seedings and who made/did not, they always mentioned these in some combination. But I think I found the issues:

1) Obviously it is where you started in the polls. Very similar to football.
2) Way overemphasis on playing "Quad 4" teams. And consequently, way too much emphasis on playing Quad 1 teams.

Anyone care to match these up with teams? Anyone care to guess what Pitt is??? Look at these, aside from those at the very top, there doesn't seem to be to be much difference. So why would one team be say NET 15 and another NET 45??

Blind resumes:

Last 10 record. Away Record. Record against AP top 25.
A. 9-1, 8-1, 5-2
B. 9-1 , 4-3 , 4-3
C. 9-1 , 8-0 , 1-1
D, 9-1 , 5-3 , 3-2
E. 5-5, 2-7, 3-6
F. 6-4, 6-3 , 5-5
G. 8-2 , 7-2, 3-2
H. 8-2, 6-4 , 3-2
I. 8-2 , 6-2 , 3-1
J. 6-4 , 6-2 , 3-1
K. 8-2 , 5-2, 2-4

 

[WeaverIsComing]

Because Pitt blown out by Michigan...they scored 91. That was worse for metrics than the q4 loss. The metrics don't appear to be weighted by quadrants at all. WVU scoring 81 didn't help either. You can't just get blown out by teams who you want to be beneath you in rankings. Dixon schedule and this team is a 2 seed with 4 losses right now. Pitt teams have gotten 1 seeds without being arguably better than this team.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Because Pitt blown out by Michigan...they scored 91. That was worse for metrics than the q4 loss. The metrics don't appear to be weighted by quadrants at all. WVU scoring 81 didn't help either. You can't just get blown out by teams who you want to be beneath you in rankings. Dixon schedule and this team is a 2 seed with 4 losses right now. Pitt teams have gotten 1 seeds without being arguably better than this team.

How is WVU unaffected by a 34 point loss to Texas. Is Northwestern affected because we beat them by 29 on their court??

 

[WeaverIsComing]

How is WVU unaffected by a 34 point loss to Texas. Is Northwestern affected because we beat them by 29 on their court??

Yes both were impacted and a 34 point loss to Texas isnt nearly as bad as a 31 point loss to WVU. NW was our biggest analytical win of the year. Beating good teams by a basket doesnt do much unless youre blindly looking at wins and losses

 

[SteelBowl70]

I really think they put way too much emphasis on "Quad 4" teams. Doesn't matter if you win or lose them, just play them.

Trying to find rhyme or reason. I picked these three things, because always when the committee would be asked on seedings and who made/did not, they always mentioned these in some combination. But I think I found the issues:

1) Obviously it is where you started in the polls. Very similar to football.
2) Way overemphasis on playing "Quad 4" teams. And consequently, way too much emphasis on playing Quad 1 teams.

Anyone care to match these up with teams? Anyone care to guess what Pitt is??? Look at these, aside from those at the very top, there doesn't seem to be to be much difference. So why would one team be say NET 15 and another NET 45??

Blind resumes:

Last 10 record. Away Record. Record against AP top 25.
A. 9-1, 8-1, 5-2
B. 9-1 , 4-3 , 4-3
C. 9-1 , 8-0 , 1-1
D, 9-1 , 5-3 , 3-2
E. 5-5, 2-7, 3-6
F. 6-4, 6-3 , 5-5
G. 8-2 , 7-2, 3-2
H. 8-2, 6-4 , 3-2
I. 8-2 , 6-2 , 3-1
J. 6-4 , 6-2 , 3-1
K. 8-2 , 5-2, 2-4

Look at Oral Roberts schedule - they have a Net of 37 and are 15-0 Q4 and 0-4 Q1 - they gamed the system

Then look at Utah State who shows another way to game the system by going 16-1 in Q2 and Q3 and also are 0-4 Q1 which aids their SOS and worse are 3-2 Q4

Neither are beating any teams of high quality yet have higher NET scores than Pitt

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Look at Oral Roberts schedule - they have a Net of 37 and are 15-0 Q4 and 0-4 Q1 - they gamed the system

Then look at Utah State who shows another way to game the system by going 15-1 in Q2 and Q3 and also are 0-4 Q1 which aids their SOS

Neither are beating any teams of high quality yet have higher NET scores than Pitt

Blowouts

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Look at Oral Roberts schedule - they have a Net of 37 and are 15-0 Q4 and 0-4 Q1 - they gamed the system

Then look at Utah State who shows another way to game the system by going 16-1 in Q2 and Q3 and also are 0-4 Q1 which aids their SOS and worse are 3-2 Q4

Neither are beating any teams of high quality yet have higher NET scores than Pitt

Because NET isn't measuring the quality of teams that you are beating (or not). It's measuring how efficient you are. They "gamed" the system by being really efficient (or in other words, really good) when they played.

Isn't that kind of the goal? You can't change who is on your schedule. You can only play well or not play well against whomever you play.

The NCAA has and uses other metrics that take into account the quality of the teams on your schedule. Pitt is better in those metrics than they are in the efficiency based metrics. For example, Pitt's KPI is 36, Oral Roberts is 80. Pitt's strength of record is 40, Oral Roberts is 47. Of the five ratings that the NCAA uses besides the NET, Pitt is ranked higher than Oral Roberts in four of them.

That's why if they were picking a field today and neither team was an automatic qualifier, Pitt would easily be in and Oral Roberts almost certainly would not.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

But again, shouldn't what teams are doing now matter more than in November???? Especially now in the portal era where teams may need a month or so to come together?

 

[SteelBowl70]

Because NET isn't measuring the quality of teams that you are beating (or not). It's measuring how efficient you are. They "gamed" the system by being really efficient (or in other words, really good) when they played.

Isn't that kind of the goal? You can't change who is on your schedule. You can only play well or not play well against whomever you play.

The NCAA has and uses other metrics that take into account the quality of the teams on your schedule. Pitt is better in those metrics than they are in the efficiency based metrics. For example, Pitt's KPI is 36, Oral Roberts is 80. Pitt's strength of record is 40, Oral Roberts is 47. Of the five ratings that the NCAA uses besides the NET, Pitt is ranked higher than Oral Roberts in four of them.

That's why if they were picking a field today and neither team was an automatic qualifier, Pitt would easily be in and Oral Roberts almost certainly would not.

Agree but playing well is also a function of who you play. Being efficient offensively against UVA is much more challenging than being efficient against Alabama State. It’s great to blowout bad teams but it’s better to win ugly against quality teams. A good tournament team can beat quality teams not just blowout lousy ones. It’s a flawed system to base seeding on.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

But again, shouldn't what teams are doing now matter more than in November???? Especially now in the portal era where teams may need a month or so to come together?

Do NHL games in March count more than the games in November? Do NFL games in December count more than the ones in September? Do baseball games in September count more than the ones in April?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Agree but playing well is also a function of who you play. Being efficient offensively against UVA is much more challenging than being efficient against Alabama State. It’s great to blowout bad teams but it’s better to win ugly against quality teams. A good tournament team can beat quality teams not just blowout lousy ones. It’s a flawed system to base seeding on.

Your efficiency is supposedly adjusted for the quality of your opponent. I mean no one gets a look "under the hood" of the NET, so no one really knows what adjustments they are and are not making. But the way it theoretically works is that if you play the same way on offense against a team with a really good defense that's better for you metrics than if your offense plays exactly the same way against a bad defense.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Agree but playing well is also a function of who you play. Being efficient offensively against UVA is much more challenging than being efficient against Alabama State. It’s great to blowout bad teams but it’s better to win ugly against quality teams. A good tournament team can beat quality teams not just blowout lousy ones. It’s a flawed system to base seeding on.

Beating an Alabama State type team by 20 hurts you. Beating them by 5 really hurts you.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

But again, shouldn't what teams are doing now matter more than in November???? Especially now in the portal era where teams may need a month or so to come together?

This makes me wonder if teams who plan on using a high amount of transfers should opt to not play in those tournaments. Cupcakes until December until you find out who can play. We lost 3 games the 1st week, blown the eff out in 2, when our coaches didnt know all the players' names yet. If we wiped the 1st week out completely, our NET is probably like 15.

 

[MarshallGoldberg]

Do NHL games in March count more than the games in November? Do NFL games in December count more than the ones in September? Do baseball games in September count more than the ones in April?

No because they don't have an enormous tournament to seed teams into with wildly different schedules. Obviously the NCAA should not just seed the top 68 teams by wins ignoring every other factor.

Recency has always been a small but important part of tournament seeding and AP rankings for football and hoops

 

[SteelBowl70]

Your efficiency is supposedly adjusted for the quality of your opponent. I mean no one gets a look "under the hood" of the NET, so no one really knows what adjustments they are and are not making. But the way it theoretically works is that if you play the same way on offense against a team with a really good defense that's better for you metrics than if your offense plays exactly the same way against a bad defense.

Perhaps in theory but if you look at Oral Roberts, who has a single Q2 win and 3 Q3 wins and make their case on some blowouts among their 15 q4 wins. And they even have some close Q4 wins. Their best win was Liberty who has a NET of 46 at home by 14. Their second best win is against a team with a NET of 144. And that was a 3 point home win. 13 of their 19 wins were against teams with a NET of 248 or higher. I don’t see how efficiency ratings can be used to compare a schedule like this versus one where Pitt has played 13 q1 and q2 games and won 8 of them.

Apparently they tried to reverse engineer tournament success and create a system that would predict what characteristics would produce those teams. Obviously they haven’t done it.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Recency has always been a small but important part of tournament seeding and AP rankings for football and hoops

Last ten games (and for a while last 12 games) used to be a criteria for the tournament committee to consider. The NCAA, for whatever reason, removed that as one of the criteria. So the NCAA clearly doesn't think that games in February should be weighted more than games in November.

My guess is that is because some teams can only play good opponents in November and December, whereas others will play a lot of good teams in January and February so weighing late results more than earlier ones is a big advantage to those schools.

 

[UPitt '89]

Do NHL games in March count more than the games in November? Do NFL games in December count more than the ones in September? Do baseball games in September count more than the ones in April?

None of those leagues have a "committee" deciding which teams get to be in the post-season and which ones don't.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

None of those leagues have a "committee" deciding which teams get to be in the post-season and which ones don't.

No, they don't.

So what?

Do they count late season games more than early season games or don't they? I mean they certainly could, easily, if they thought it was important. So do they or don't they?

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Do NHL games in March count more than the games in November? Do NFL games in December count more than the ones in September? Do baseball games in September count more than the ones in April?

A little bit different isn't it? It is straight cumulative record. They are not "selected" for a championship. Secondly, they all play teams at the same level.

Does that provide a good enough answer?

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Last ten games (and for a while last 12 games) used to be a criteria for the tournament committee to consider. The NCAA, for whatever reason, removed that as one of the criteria. So the NCAA clearly doesn't think that games in February should be weighted more than games in November.

My guess is that is because some teams can only play good opponents in November and December, whereas others will play a lot of good teams in January and February so weighing late results more than earlier ones is a big advantage to those schools.

Joe, so you are defending the NCAA with "the NCAA clearly doesn't think?" Because you stop right there with that statement. ;-)

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

A little bit different isn't it? It is straight cumulative record. They are not "selected" for a championship. Secondly, they all play teams at the same level.

Does that provide a good enough answer?

No, it isn't a good enough answer. Because if the NHL thought that games in March were more important than games in November then it would be easy for them to account for that in the standings. Same with the NFL, or MLB, or the NBA.

But none of those leagues think that late season games should count for more than early season games.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

I don't know about NET, but the oddsmakers haven't caught up. Pitt is 19-6-1 against the spread and has covered 4 in a row, along with 17 of the last 20.

 

[UPitt '89]

No, they don't.

So what?

Do they count late season games more than early season games or don't they? I mean they certainly could, easily, if they thought it was important. So do they or don't they?

They have defined, objective, criteria that teams have to meet in order to participate in the post-season.

If a subjective criteria is being used.... and that is what is happening in college football and basketball .... and especially when that criteria is nebulous and changes from year to year and from team to team and from committee member to committee member .... then it is ok to call into question what is being prioritized.

Won-Loss record is apparently not a primary factor - like it is for pro sports. All you have to do is look at how a team that is 4-9 in their conference (WVU) is still considered "in" the post-season tournament.

So if wins and losses are not a primary factor, then what is? If we're going to have a subjective measure - those of us proposing that the subjective measure prioritizes how a team is playing at the end of the year vs how they were playing at the beginning are not wrong.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

They have defined, objective, criteria that teams have to meet in order to participate in the post-season.

If a subjective criteria is being used.... and that is what is happening in college football and basketball .... and especially when that criteria is nebulous and changes from year to year and from team to team and from committee member to committee member .... then it is ok to call into question what is being prioritized.

Won-Loss record is apparently not a primary factor - like it is for pro sports. All you have to do is look at how a team that is 4-9 in their conference (WVU) is still considered "in" the post-season tournament.

So if wins and losses are not a primary factor, then what is? If we're going to have a subjective measure - those of us proposing that the subjective measure prioritizes how a team is playing at the end of the year vs how they were playing at the beginning are not wrong.

Well the NCAA does, in fact, have defined criteria. But I think everyone would agree that they aren't entirely, or even mostly, objective. With a pool of participants as large and diverse as D1 basketball I don't think it's even remotely possible to remove subjectivity from the equation.

 

[Chairman Moe]

@recruitsreadtheseboards are we G in this example?

 

[UPitt '89]

Well the NCAA does, in fact, have defined criteria. But I think everyone would agree that they aren't entirely, or even mostly, objective. With a pool of participants as large and diverse as D1 basketball I don't think it's even remotely possible to remove subjectivity from the equation.

Is the criteria "defined" though?

Can you point to their "defined" criteria? What is it?

The committee uses the "eye test" as an excuse when they want to, or how a team played at the end of the year when they want to, or how they did against "Quad 1" when they want to, or how they did against "Quad 4" when they want to.

The committee fits their "criteria" to whatever explanation they need to justify a certain team being in or out. They flail when they try to explain Rutgers getting in last year and Wake Forest not. Their "criteria" changes from team to team, and sometimes the criteria they use to justify one team is the opposite of the criteria they used to justify another.

Their criteria is literally "whatever we need to say to make this sound reasonable".

 

[Pitt2006]

I don't know about NET, but the oddsmakers haven't caught up. Pitt is 19-6-1 against the spread and has covered 4 in a row, along with 17 of the last 20.

I thought last 5 because home dogs to Miami? UNC, UL, FSU, and BC. Clemson destroying FSU so hopefully back to quad 2.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Is the criteria "defined" though?

Can you point to their "defined" criteria? What is it?

Straight from the horse's, ah, mouth

And I agree that they try to fit the narrative to whatever conclusions they have come up with. We've seen it plenty of times in the past. Which is why I said that it was subjective, and at some level necessarily so.

 

[4Mark_Marty]

There are entirely too many teams in D1

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

There are entirely too many teams in D1

Absolutely agree.

 

[UPitt '89]

There are entirely too many teams in D1

In order to be D1 in basketball, a school should have to be D1 in football. That will get it down to 130 or so schools.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

No, it isn't a good enough answer. Because if the NHL thought that games in March were more important than games in November then it would be easy for them to account for that in the standings. Same with the NFL, or MLB, or the NBA.

But none of those leagues think that late season games should count for more than early season games.

No, it is the right answer cause it is meaningless. Epic fail Joe. I expect better from you.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

@recruitsreadtheseboards are we G in this example?

LOL. I cannot believe no one even tried to guess these teams are. People on here are just miserable and want to bitch or are in low end jobs and try to prove themselves.

Yes. We are G.

 

[Millerton24]

Agree but playing well is also a function of who you play. Being efficient offensively against UVA is much more challenging than being efficient against Alabama State. It’s great to blowout bad teams but it’s better to win ugly against quality teams. A good tournament team can beat quality teams not just blowout lousy ones. It’s a flawed system to base seeding on.

That was the OBVIOUS I was gonna state.

 

[PittPanther44]

Because Pitt blown out by Michigan...they scored 91. That was worse for metrics than the q4 loss. The metrics don't appear to be weighted by quadrants at all. WVU scoring 81 didn't help either. You can't just get blown out by teams who you want to be beneath you in rankings. Dixon schedule and this team is a 2 seed with 4 losses right now. Pitt teams have gotten 1 seeds without being arguably better than this team.

The following two things are true:

1) I absolutely love this team

2) This team is not a peer to our #1 seeds.

Those teams grinded through the best conference in the country and only lost a handful of games.

 

[Chairman Moe]

LOL. I cannot believe no one even tried to guess these teams are. People on here are just miserable and want to bitch or are in low end jobs and try to prove themselves.

Yes. We are G.

I just play along ... personally I am glad that we finally have something to discuss positively with regards to our basketball program

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

By the way matching up the teams from above.
Last 10 record. Away Record. Record against AP top 25. (NET Rankings)
A. 9-1, 8-1, 5-2 Alabama (2)
B. 9-1 , 4-3 , 4-3 Baylor (10)
C. 9-1 , 8-0 , 1-1 Houston (1)
D, 9-1 , 5-3 , 3-2 Virginia (16)
E. 5-5, 2-7, 3-6 WVU (22)
F. 6-4, 6-3 , 5-5 Kansas (7)
G. 8-2 , 7-2, 3-2 PITT (48)
H. 8-2, 6-4 , 3-2 Marquette (14)
I. 8-2 , 6-2 , 3-1 Purdue (4)
J. 6-4 , 6-2 , 3-1 Northwestern (43)
K. 8-2 , 5-2, 2-4 Gonzaga (12)

Here's what is ironic. Pitt, Houston and Marquette are all 12-1 against Quad 3 and Quad 4 teams. One is ranked 1, one is ranked 14th and one is ranked 48th.

Pitt is 5-2 against Quad 1. Houston is 4-1. Tennessee is ranked 3rd and are 6-2.

None of the Big 12 teams have less than 12 Quad 1 games. WVU has 16, but is 5-11. Gonzaga is 3-4.

The only bad number for Pitt is Quad 2. We are 2-4. That gives us a 7-6 record against Quad 1 and 2. That last second Vandy loss in particular stings. But Indiana is 8-8 aganst Quad 1 and 2, ranked 18th with an 18-8 record.

It's flawed because no way a team like Pitt should be penalized that harshly, when others don't seem to be.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Again, the basic math fails to add up. It is a flawed program.

 

[Chairman Moe]

Again, the basic math fails to add up. It is a flawed program.

It's kind of sad, actually. Wouldn't it be great if the so-called experts (AP voters) took some time to watch the games instead of looking at the NET standings? An "eye-test" works so much better IMO.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Here's an exercise to show how flawed NET Rankings are.

4 teams: Rank these teams 1-4. Bonus, guess who they are??

Team A:
Overall Record 19-7
Road 7-2
Quad 1 record: 5-2
Quad 2 record: 2-4
Quad 3 record: 3-0
Quad 4 record: 9-1

Team B:
Overall Record 16-10
Road 2-6
Quad 1 record: 0-8
Quad 2 record: 6-2
Quad 3 record: 4-0
Quad 4 record: 6-0

Team C:
Overall Record 17-9
Road 4-4
Quad 1 record: 2-7
Quad 2 record: 6-1
Quad 3 record: 3-0
Quad 4 record: 6-1

Team D:
Overall Record 17-8
Road 3-4
Quad 1 record: 3-7
Quad 2 record: 4-1
Quad 3 record: 4-0
Quad 4 record: 6-0