The funny thing is that you don't even understand that if Miami goes up 10-0 by making two twos and two threes on their first four possessions their efficiency numbers would be through the roof. Way, way better than they would be in your run of the mill 30-40 point blowout.
Netscape - Daily discussion on scores and Net impact
- Thread starter Dointhatrag
- Start date
The funny thing is that you don't even understand that if Miami goes up 10-0 by making two twos and two threes on their first four possessions their efficiency numbers would be through the roof. Way, way better than they would be in your run of the mill 30-40 point blowout.
Most people are not obsessed with the NET like you are. For two reasons. First of all, because they care more about the actual games and you don't. And then, of course, there are the people who unlike you understand the numbers and know that you have no idea what you are talking about.
The problem is with the NCAA mentality of wanting the "best" teams in their tournaments, not the teams that have acheived the most. Leaving FSU out of the CFB playoff was this in the extreme. To the NCAA it's all about the "show" of the playoff tournament, not about promoting the regular season, since they make little money from that.
Using anything related to possession metrics to put teams in, or seed, the NCAA tournament is just wrong in my mind. It should only be wins and losses. Winning by 1 or by 100 should make absolutely no difference.
The NCAA is the only sports body in the world that believes a committee should decide who should be in the playoffs. In every other sport, winning on the field of play is the only thing that matters. They should abolish the selection committees entirely.
Of course the NCAA is also the only sports body that is attempting to determine which of 362 teams should make the playoffs, in a season that they do not control in any way the schedules that those 362 teams play.
I'm guessing that if you gave the NCAA complete control over everyone's schedule they'd probably have a much different system in place. Of course none of the schools, or at most a very, very few of them, would want anything to do with that.
I think a committee helps Pitt this year if close. Viewers want the best 3 point shooter in the game and potential first round nba pick playing. If it was a defensive team last year I don’t think they get in.
They only beat #351 SEMO St by 9 at home. That's a terrible result for a team ranked #56. NET doesn't just want you to win, you have to win that game by 30. SEMO actually was allowed to move up 8 spots thanks to keeping it close vs the PFW juggernaut.
How bout WVU moving up 32 spots to 193 after beating #122 Drexel by 6? Only 58 more spots to go and that becomes a Q2 win for us.
I forget the differences between the two but Purdue Fort Wayne is 151 in KenPom. Pretty big disparity. Not checking now but as of this morning Pitt was 41 NET/51 KenPom.
Very similar kenpom to Canisius. SC State is garbage - the other two teams in this late non con swing haven’t been bad.
It's almost as if with such small sample sizes there is a great variance from day to day based on one result.
Damn, it would have been nice if someone would have pointed that out to you.
Wait a second....
The season is 1/3 over. We moved down 11 spots after a Game 33 loss to a top team in Duke. Shouldn't happen
Once again, it happens because the teams in that range (and really, other than the top and the bottom, all the ranges) have ratings that are really close together. So your rating doesn't have to drop very much at all for your ranking to move a lot more. And when you get the crap kicked out of you your rating is going to drop. As it absolutely should.
If you understood math you'd be able to figure this stuff out.
You remind me of a politician arguing for an incredibly unpopular policy. Everyone hates NET. Everyone. Scoring margin shouldn't matter.
YOU hate the NET. And you assume that everyone thinks like you.
It would be far more accurate to say that everyone ignores the NET, until the last couple weeks of the season. You spend more time thinking about the NET than literally anyone in the whole country. And yet you still have no idea how it works.
I implore anyone who likes the NET as much as you do to speak now or forever hold their peace.
I neither like nor dislike the NET. It is what it is. It measures pretty much what the NCAA wants it to measure. Your real complaint is with the NCAA and what the NCAA has decided is important, you just don't seem to understand that.
Of course you also don't understand that the NCAA doesn't select or seed teams for the tournament by their NET rankings, so there's a lot about this that you don't understand.
+/- 2 seed lines as I have proven
Pitt's best shot may be at 13-7 but only having 1 Q3 loss. Missouri at 91, is 16 away from Q2 but lets say they stay Q3. If Pitt loses to Clemson again, 2 Duke, @ Miami, @ UVa, @ NC State, they'd probably have 0 Q1 wins, 2 Q2 wins (UNC, @ Wake, maybe VT), but only 1 Q3 loss and a good NET (assuming no blowout losses) in the 40s. It would be maybe the most unique resume of a Power 6 conferences team the committee had ever seen.
I once heard Jay Bilas say "the selection committee needs more basketball people". I almost fell of my chair laughing at that, as it represented such stupidity. All they need is one competent statisticion. It would take no more than an afternoon to devise a method that would fairly and accurately reward success and not "the eye test".
I think what Bilas probably wanted to say, but couldn't because of how it would have sounded, was that the NCAA needs more Jay Bilas on the committee, and less of everyone else. That way they'd never make a mistake.
It's laughable that you think you've proven that.
What you have "proven" is that if you ignore all the outliers THEN it's +/- two seed lines.
I ignore mid-majors because they have been proven to get seeded more than 2 seed lines lower. P6s are +/- 2 seed lines.
You ignore everyting that doesn't fit your narrative. Which is why you are "right" so often in your mind.
In the real world, however....
The +/- 2 seed lines for P6 teams is pretty valid, wouldn't you say? The mid-majors get seeded lower to their unusual resumes. Actually, Pitt may have one of those unusual mid-major resumes. We may have a good NET but no quality wins and not many bad losses.
Lol. You are basically giving them last year UNc and Clemson a few years ago when they were left out with Net in 30s.
Not particularly. I mean you could probably say the same thing about the AP Top 25 if you are willing to hand wave away all the exceptions.
UNC was 46 last year, which translates to a 12 seed. +/- 2 seed lines means up to 10 to NIT.
UNC's resume last year could look a lot like ours this year. Their NET was fine for an at-large and ours may be as well but they were 1-9 vs Q1. No Q3 or Q4 losses. And a good 6-4 record vs Q2. But 1-9 vs Q2 kept them out. So, we probably have win a bare minimum of 2 games vs Duke, @ Duke, @ Miami, @ UVa, @ Clem, @ NC St. Anything less than 2-4 there and we are done. Probably need 3-3
Missouri was a really really bad loss. That is the one game that could keep us out. Wished Jeffress played more that game because we made some dude named Shawn East look like Kobe.
I wouldn’t call it a “bad loss” but it really could come back to haunt us like you describe. It’s one I really wish we could have had.
Pitt up to 35 this morning. Favored by Torvik in next 4/5. Was favored over UNc as well until they beat Oklahoma last night.
My bad. So we are 35 in NET. We certainly maxed out the cupcakes. Very interesting 1st half of the season in that we completely blew our chances for good OOC wins but ran up the score enough on the cupcakes which makes our NET look very good. On 12/21/22 we were 70 and finished at 67. #blowoutsmatter
I have to agree with you given our NET at this point in the season last year vs this year.
No other way to explain it….blowouts matter.
And that’s just not right.
Great wins last night by Duke and UNC out of conference to help strengthen the overall NET ranking of the conference. It is a shame we gave up a 7 point run to end the game. Those garbage points going from a 21 point win to 14 point win will effect Pitt in the long run.
Yea, its insanely stupid that scoring margin matters so much. But to our credit, we did what we had to do against the cupcakes. Its dangerous to play a South Carolina State type team but when you win by 40, that helps you. Winning by 10 would have dropped us 10. The good news is our blowouts give us a chance to make the NCAAT with only 2 or 3 Q1 wins. I dont know exactly what it'll take but its at least possible that we could get in at like 13-7 with 2 Q1 wins. I wouldn’t bet on that but it gives us a chance.
No facts to base it on but my guess is our biggest improvement in the NET last year to this year is avoiding the 30-pt losses more so than our larger margins of victory against the cupcakes. At least that’s my hope.
edit/add: by the way, so far this year is demonstrating that your big focus on NET to make the tourney is misguided. We made the tourney last year with a much worse NET. Still premature this year but our much better NET this year has us forecasted with very low odds to make the tourney.
Your other posts projecting out Quad win-loss records is probably more appropriate to project out tourney odds more so than NET.
Last edited:
Similar threads
