Moved up 3 after crushing Louisville. Yet, it didn't move after winning at UNC
Yep. UVA up one to 14 while NC State dropped 3 to 44 and UNC dropped only one to 45. Wake up 4 to 66. Pitt jumped NW who is 53. Miami, Vt and Clemson hold at 30, 50 and 65. No change to quad record.Moved up 3 after crushing Louisville. Yet, it didn't move after winning at UNC
As a group we really need to ignore that farce.Moved up 3 after crushing Louisville. Yet, it didn't move after winning at UNC
“Just win, baby!”As a group we really need to ignore that farce.
It obviously doesn't care about Quad1 , Pitt 5-2 and beat UNC twice, who is 1-8 in Quad1 .
Pitt #52, UNC #45
?????
It would be nice if Miami stayed in the top 30, UNC climbed back into the top 30, and Syracuse gets into the top 75. Wake and Clemson are also in danger of dropping from Q2 to Q3. GT will likely fall to Q4 but I don't think that win matters much. Otherwise every other team is like 30-40 spots away from moving quadrants.
Wake is at 66. But Clemson is at 65. How bad would it be if Clemson drops 3 spots and becomes a Q3 loss? I wanted to root against them so we can win the league but now I might have to root for them so they dont drop to Q3.
I mean I understand rewarding strength of schedule. But you got to win those games. So judging by how they have UNC ahead of us, and WVU, I think they weight the strength of schedule too much over actual W's and L's. I mean the object is to win. Every Big 12 team will have a good NET because the conference is so strong. At least according to these. But you still have to win games, not merely play them.Im ok with using NET to make the Quads or Eights or however you want to categorize wins. However, if they are using NET at all to make in/out or seed decisions, they have to develop and in/out/seed ranking system where the only thing that matters is the W or L, where the game was played, and injuries. I can totally understand using NET to evaluate the wins you got. But after that's done, you have to have a system that ranks Pitt over UNC.
UNC is 15-9
Pitt is 17-7
UNC is 1-8 in Quad 1
Pitt is 5-2 with 2 with 2 of those wins being over UNC.
UNC's SOS is better (17 vs 79) but that and Pitt's loss to FSU shouldn't push UNC higher than us.
Saying that the NET loves blowouts is just like saying everything being wet outside caused the rain.
The NET loves efficiency. Teams that are really efficient win blowouts. Blowouts aren't the cause, they are the effect.
It obviously doesn't care about Quad1 , Pitt 5-2 and beat UNC twice, who is 1-8 in Quad1 .
Pitt #52, UNC #45
?????
And its a ridiculous in/out/seed too if they do use it for that
NET appears to take ranking of college teams back 30 years where writers merely rewarded teams that win as big as they can, leading coaches to run up scores…which apparently is ok again.I have no interest in researching NET myself, but I appreciate reading the comments you guys make about it on here. NET seems just as goofy as NIL.
NET appears to take ranking of college teams back 30 years where writers merely rewarded teams that win as big as they can, leading coaches to run up scores…which apparently is ok again.
But being notoriously lazy, now the writers don’t even have to look up the score, the NET automates the BS ranking for them.
Capel did the right thing to reward bench players for hard work and NET punishes that. Bad system. Glad we didn't drop though considering who BC is.
Sort of an oxymoron though. If a team is that good to be blowing out teams, likely not on the bubble…Nice gesture but doing that could cost a team a tourney bid. Not this team but some team out there could lose a bid by playing walk-on too much in blowouts
NET encourages running up the score. That in itself is enough to commit it to the trash bin of history.Saying that the NET loves blowouts is just like saying everything being wet outside caused the rain.
The NET loves efficiency. Teams that are really efficient win blowouts. Blowouts aren't the cause, they are the effect.
This is my hope. But I believe the committee doesn't really look at just NET ranking. I think they reward teams who play tough games home and especially away.
But NET is the starting point. So Pitt cant be like a 5 or 6 seed (right now) which they should because their NET doesn't warrant it. Net gives you a seed range. There's is like 9 to 12. A team like Indiana, whose resume is maybe worse than Pitt gets to have a seed range of like 3 to 7 because their NET is really good.
It’s clear the Bracketmatrix brackets rely primarily on NET. They are becoming next to worthless. Pitt is included in all 94 current brackets but is a 10 seed. Only a few brackets have Pitt as high as 7 and over 10% have Pitt as an 11. AbsurdLast year NET 32 Providence got a four seed, while NET 34 Michigan got an 11 seed. It's almost as if Providence's 14-5 Q1+Q2 as opposed to Michigan's 8-13 made a difference. NET 27 Virginia Tech got an 11 seed while NET 28 Colorado State got a 6 seed. It's almost as if Colorado State's 13-4 Q1-Q2 record as opposed to Virginia Tech's 9-10 made a difference. NET 24 Wisconsin got a 3 seed while NET 23 Loyola and NET 22 San Francisco both got 10 seeds. It's almost as if Wisconsin's 16-5 Q1-Q2 record as opposed to Loyola's 8-6 and San Francisco's 9-8 made a difference. NET 39 Indiana was one of the worst at large teams, they played in the first four. NET 41 Davidson, NET 43 Marquette, NET 44 TCU, NET 49 Iowa State, NET 55 Creighton and NET 62 Miami all made the tournament and didn't have to play in the first four. It's almost as if the fact that Indiana had the worst record in Q1-Q2 games of all those seven teams made a difference.