We have 4 quad 1 wins. There is nothing to worry about at this time. Just keep winning games 1 game at a time.
Our NET is a real problem
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
We have 4 quad 1 wins. There is nothing to worry about at this time. Just keep winning games 1 game at a time.
I’m seeing different numbers for Michigan St so take them off the table for a second.
Wichita St, Rutgers, and Drake all got in with sub 70 net from the list I saw. Wichita had 1 quad 1 win 4 Q2, Drake 2Q1, 4Q2. Rutgers had 6 Q1 and 6q2 wins. Wake was 1/4.
So, I mean, I don’t really get it. Obviously it’s not just NET. As teams in the 70s (3 of them) made it. And 2 of them had very similar profiles to Wake and were ranked in NET 25 spots below.
Wichita with a sub 70 NET and 1 Q1 and 4 Q2 doesnt make sense over Wake. Honestly, I've paid very little attention to this stuff since Dixon left. With RPI, it was SO easy to predict. They went almost solely based off RPI. I could get all the teams but 1 or 2 and always within a line or 2 of seed. I don't know how they do it anymore.
Hasn’t the committee also made clear they use a variety of factors ? NET is one data point of many they look at - it’s not the lone determinant.
This article seems pretty explanatory — computer (including NET)rankings are listed as not very important.
Yea, it’s clearly less weighted than RPI in the past. Wake I think closed the year poorly. That matters. They lost a first rd ACCT game. I’m pretty sure their OOC was worse than ours this year.
So, nothing is certain. We go 13-7 in the ACC with a couple more real good wins (Miami, @Duke etc) I like our chances
So you think that web site is the best, but you can't find anywhere on all of the web to find previous year's data?
Really?
OK, yea, now I remember. Like I said I've paid like no attention to this stuff since Dixon left. They really only use NET to make the quadrants so as they say in the article, your opponent's NET matters more than yours. So our overall NET, luckily wont matter nearly as much as I thought.
From the article this is what really matters:
Games by quadrant, listing results and upcoming games
Records by quadrant, away and neutral
Non-Conference Strength of Schedule (SOS)
Overall SOS
Overall road and neutral records
We are good with Quad 1 and 2. SOS will be a problem. Win the next 2 though and start 6-0 with 1 more good wins and we would be in really good shape.
Well what is the Net of the “12 team league within the league” after the “Real ACC”? Are they taking that into account?
Another way to say
“thank you for getting me information I couldn’t gather myself and for participating in this ridiculously pre-mature and imbecilic exercise”?
So we got moved up more (4 spots) via NC State throttling Duke than beating UVA. Victory margin clearly playing a role here. NCST moved up 27 spots…
VCU lost at Duquesne but Northwestern and Michigan both had league wins at home. So those three games impact things as well.
Alabama St had a league win too, but I don’t really think that matters. They are hot garbage in a bad league and will always be a quad 4 home win for us I would guess.
The reality is that Wake Forest fell victim last year to the perception that the ACC was bad more than anything that appeared on their team sheet. I don’t think that perception exists to anything close to the same degree this year.
But again, what is the perception of the league within a league. The top of the ACc doesn’t matter. Only the 12 team league within the league that SMF created
Thinking about these creations makes my head hurt. Lol. Does he do it on purpose?
Wake had just a single Q1 victory last year, in spite of being ranked in the top 50 of the NET (1-4). Committee values the crap out of Q1 games. Before the Quad system was created, UNC was awarded a 2 seed in the 2018 tournament. And that was with 10 losses (25-10 overall)! But, when you go 14-8 in top 50 matchups, there's a larger room for error.
Pitt's not killing it on the metrics right now, and that's because of several close wins, in addition to those big losses to WVU/Michigan. But, those 4 Q1 wins are going to be huge. Your margin for error is much bigger than what Wake had last year.
Best example I can think of is Rutgers from last season. They were 77th in the NET and 74th in KenPom heading into the tournament. Analytically, not great. But, they were also 6-6 in Q1 games. Committee highly values those wins.
Pitt's not killing it on the metrics right now, and that's because of several close wins, in addition to those big losses to WVU/Michigan. But, those 4 Q1 wins are going to be huge. Your margin for error is much bigger than what Wake had last year.
Best example I can think of is Rutgers from last season. They were 77th in the NET and 74th in KenPom heading into the tournament. Analytically, not great. But, they were also 6-6 in Q1 games. Committee highly values those wins.
Yea, as I said earlier, I misinterpreted how they use NET. My bad. They really dont use it other than for the quad records. Wake didn't get in because they had 1 Q1 win. We have 4 already (which is subject to move up or down) depending on how the teams do. At some point, if we get close to the NCAAT, I'm going to reverse engineer last year's field to see how they weighted things. It seems Quad 1, Quad 2, and SOS are the main factors even ahead of your actual record. It almost seems like they basically ignore Quad 4 altogether. So lets say Pitt would be:
5-3 Q1
1-4 Q2
SOS 120
Just making that might be really what they're looking at.
Those projections should be enough, IMO. And Pitt has the #99 SOS according to KenPom. Seeing how there's only 76 schools in the P6 leagues, I gotta imagine that SOS will improve a bit.
Here are the Q1/Q2 records of the 3 lowest ranked teams in the NET to receive an at-large.
Michigan State, 2021
Q1: 5-10
Q2: 4-2
Combined: 9-12
Wichita State, 2021
Q1: 2-3
Q2: 2-1
Combined: 4-4
Rutgers, 2022
Q1: 6-6
Q2: 3-4
Combined: 9-10
We do play significantly better at home, IMO. Still, wouldn't be all that surprising to me if Pitt won at Cameron next week.
Bart Torvik has the NET rankings before the tournament - as well as the records from each quadrant.
https://barttorvik.com/teamsheets.php?year=2021
Nice site. Shows Oklahoma didnt get in with a NET of 29. They were 18-15 but had an SOS of 8 and had 4 Q1 and 6 Q2 wins. Wake had only 1 Q1 win, 4 Q2 wins but a non-conference SOS of 289. Our non-con SOS is 151.
Ive mentioned Torvik on here at least 50 times already. His site is arguably the best efficiency site out there.
Similar threads
