2019-2020 NET rankings & team sheets

[cincrulz11]

our NET appears to be the lowest of all the things out there. kenpom, barttorvik, rpi.

NET - 46
Kenpom - 37
Barttorvik - 33
RPI - 29


does that have to do with them capping wins at 10 points?

 

[justinhub2003]

Houston has the best path a really good tourney resume with 3 road games against smu, Memphis & UConn

But they also have a tough road to win the league.

UC has a pretty favorable path to win the league. Would be nuts if we win the league and didn’t get in still

 

[Chance2017]

Houston has the best path a really good tourney resume with 3 road games against smu, Memphis & UConn

But they also have a tough road to win the league.

UC has a pretty favorable path to win the league. Would be nuts if we win the league and didn’t get in still

Both teams would have to play pretty bad for that to happen

 

[sedziobs]

our NET appears to be the lowest of all the things out there. kenpom, barttorvik, rpi.

NET - 46
Kenpom - 37
Barttorvik - 33
RPI - 29


does that have to do with them capping wins at 10 points?

I think it's because Kenpom and Torvik put more weight on recent games. NET rankings have the same weight all season.

I don't think Kenpom lists exactly what his weights are, but in his 2016 update he says: "The weighting coefficients to handle recency and game importance have been changed."

Torvik: "There's a recency bias—all games in the last 40 days count 100%, then degrade 1% per day until they're 80 days old, after which all games count 60%"

 

[sedziobs]

Q1
22 @Ohio St
26 @Houston
26 Houston
30 Iowa
44 @Xavier
47 @Wichita St
59 @Memphis
74 @ UConn

Q2
47 Wichita St
59 Memphis
65 Tennessee
72 SMU
74 UConn
106 @Temple
118 @USF
124 @UCF

Q3
80 Vermont
84 Tulsa
106 Temple
113 Colgate
124 UCF
137 UNLV
152 Drake
154 Valpo
160 Bowling Green
186 @Tulane
211 @ECU

Q4
202 Illinois St
211 ECU
340 Alabama A&M

 

[Queens_NYC]

We dropped 3 spots to 51.

Vermont (79) and Tulsa (82) both continue to make positive progress towards Q2. If Vermont wins @Stony Brook (159) on Thursday, that could give them the bump up the rankings needed to stay Q2 for the remainder of the season.

After a tough road game @Houston, Tulsa has 3 winnable home games in a row (SMU, Tulane, UCF). If they can also win one of their final 2 road games (@Temple and @Wichita), then I like their chances of jumping up to Q2.

 

[kskenyon4]

8-5 against Q1/2, with 3 games left (for sure), and thats before potential Vermont/Tulsa movement to Q2.

The more I think of it, a 4-1 finish feels like we wouldn't even be on the bubble. 10-6 against Q1/2 with our SOS, 14-4 in the 7th best conference, I can't see that not being in the main field.

 

[sedziobs]

Q1
18 @Ohio St
27 @Houston
27 Houston
28 Iowa
39 @Xavier
46 @Wichita St
60 @Memphis
71 @ UConn

Q2
46 Wichita St
60 Memphis
62 Tennessee
67 SMU
71 UConn
106 @Temple
118 @USF
125 @UCF

Q3
79 Vermont
82 Tulsa
106 Temple
118 Colgate
125 UCF
129 UNLV
139 Valpo
149 Bowling Green
154 Drake
187 @Tulane
208 @ECU

Q4
203 Illinois St
208 ECU
340 Alabama A&M

 

[sedziobs]

Q1
17 @Ohio St
26 @Houston
26 Houston
27 Iowa
40 @Xavier
42 @Wichita St
63 @Memphis
68 @ UConn

Q2
42 Wichita St
63 Memphis
64 Tennessee
68 UConn
73 SMU
104 @Temple
115 @UCF
120 @USF

Q3
76 Vermont
89 Tulsa
104 Temple
115 UCF
124 UNLV
125 Colgate
138 Valpo
152 Bowling Green
158 Drake
178 @Tulane
197 @ECU

Q4
197 ECU
209 Illinois St
340 Alabama A&M

 

[sedziobs]

We started the weekend with 7 Q2 wins. Then we won a Q2 game on Sunday and will end the weekend with only 6 Q2 wins. You can thank Vermont and SMU for that.

I'll give a full update tomorrow.

 

[sedziobs]

Q1
19 @Ohio St
24 @Houston
24 Houston
27 Iowa
43 @Wichita St
44 @Xavier
61 @Memphis
70 @ UConn

Q2
43 Wichita St
61 Memphis
64 Tennessee
70 UConn
111 @Temple
124 @USF
127 @UCF

Q3
82 Tulsa
84 Vermont
86 SMU
111 Temple
112 UNLV
116 Colgate
127 UCF
134 Valpo
149 Bowling Green
174 @Tulane
195 @ECU

Q4
165 Drake
195 ECU
206 Illinois St
340 Alabama A&M

 

[cincrulz11]

well, at least that houston win looks like it might hold.

 

[sedziobs]

Vermont's loss is very frustrating. Hopefully Tulsa can get back into the top 75 with a strong finish. UCF or USF could just as easily drop out of the top 135.

 

[Queens_NYC]

Vermont's loss is very frustrating. Hopefully Tulsa can get back into the top 75 with a strong finish. UCF or USF could just as easily drop out of the top 135.

UConn (#70) has UCF, @ECU, Houston, and @Tulane to close out.

Pretty manageable schedule on the surface but it's also one where a loss in 3 of those games is going to hurt their NET more than a win will help it.

I say they're just as vulnerable to dropping a quad as anyone else.

 

[kskenyon4]

Sure I left out SOS

But what I find interesting is that UC played a tough schedule and yet, of all those resumes listed there, UC has played more tier 3 & 4 games then anyone else.

We’ve played or will play in 15 tier 3 & 4 games.

That has to matter.

Because tier 3 is home against the 76th ranked team and 160th ranked team when at home. SOS helps clarify in greater detail truly how hard schedules were, which is why its also a criteria.

 

[justinhub2003]

Because tier 3 is home against the 76th ranked team and 160th ranked team when at home. SOS helps clarify in greater detail truly how hard schedules were, which is why its also a criteria.

It also shows how you can game the system.

Colgate and drake are great buy games that lift your SOS . And yet they provide zero real value:

 

[justinhub2003]

Because tier 3 is home against the 76th ranked team and 160th ranked team when at home. SOS helps clarify in greater detail truly how hard schedules were, which is why its also a criteria.

It also shows how you can game the system.

Colgate and drake are great buy games that lift your SOS . And yet they provide zero real value:

It’s gaming the system.

I just I remember when I watched last year; the committee chair specifically mentioned how many Games you’ve played against tier 3 & 4 teams as being something they look at on the bubble

 

[kskenyon4]

It also shows how you can game the system.

Colgate and drake are great buy games that lift your SOS . And yet they provide zero real value:

NET is not our friend this year, it is a pretty extreme outlier in computer rankings for us (we're 28 in RPI).

 

[kskenyon4]

Because tier 3 is home against the 76th ranked team and 160th ranked team when at home. SOS helps clarify in greater detail truly how hard schedules were, which is why its also a criteria.

Just to prove out that point, the NET rankings doesn't see a difference in tier 3 wins between beating UCLA at home and Old Dominion (11-17) at home.

 

[sedziobs]

I was very wary of those "good" buy games even before we lost to Colgate:

"I don't understand the point of playing good but not great teams at home. Teams in the 75-160 range are Q3 at home, which means they aren't a quality win and would be a bad loss. Drake, UNLV, Vermont, and Colgate are all in that category. I can see why Cronin didn't schedule good mid majors."

"I'm not convinced any of the teams we've beaten are going to end up Q2 (maybe Vermont). And I'm also not convinced that a bunch of Q3 wins is any better than a bunch of Q4 wins. I seriously doubt the committee ever gets that deep into a resume."

"...a team's NET is obviously affected by their strength of schedule. But our own NET isn't important - our opponents' NET is what determines our quadrant records. We can have a really good SOS by playing all Q3 games and no Q4 games, but that does nothing at all for what matters most - getting quality wins and avoiding bad losses.

If we end up beating Colgate it won't matter - we will have avoided the risk of getting a bad loss against a mid major at home. It's just not a strategy I would feel comfortable with going into each season. There's just not much to be gained and potentially a lot to lose."

https://www.bearcattalk.com/showthread.php?t=12407&page=2