2019-2020 NET rankings & team sheets

[justinhub2003]

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

And it sucks that it’s this way.

But it’s apparent that beating a team ranked 200 by 30 is better than either barely beating a team ranked 120 or worse losing.

It costs more money to schedule those games too and it’s not like fans come out in droves to watch UC play toothpaste

 

[Cataclysmo]

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:

Yeah, we totally gamed the system by losing to Colgate in the non-conf.

 

[Cataclysmo]

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

Last time I'll mention UCLA; we played 4 more Q3/Q4 games than them. True. But they played 2 more Q4 games than us AND a D2 game. Also, two of our Q4 games are a combined 9 spots away from being Q3 games. Keep cherry picking stats to crap on UC. Our tournament resume is far better than the Bruins

 

[cincyguy13]

Yeah, we totally gamed the system by losing to Colgate in the non-conf.

Kinda of a special case this year. New coach, half the team is new players. Players just recently started finding their roles. Still should have won but in the future I think these games are fairly safe plays. Might lose one every 4-5 years.

 

[cincrulz11]

Kinda of a special case this year. New coach, half the team is new players. Players just recently started finding their roles. Still should have won but in the future I think these games are fairly safe plays. Might lose one every 4-5 years.

I feel the same way. I'm not sure I would base anything for the future off how our early season went this year.



However I see what sedziobs is saying and I remember when he made the post. I argued you just gotta win the games.


I guess it comes down to is the goal to squeak into the tournament, or is the goal to get the best seed possible and advance. Maybe this year, and next year, the goal should have been just get in.

 

[sedziobs]

Q1
16 @Ohio St
19 @Houston
19 Houston
29 Iowa
43 @Xavier
45 @Wichita St
61 @ UConn
62 @Memphis

Q2
45 Wichita St
61 UConn
62 Memphis
69 Tennessee
112 @Temple
124 @USF
130 @UCF

Q3
79 Vermont
82 Tulsa
89 SMU
104 UNLV
112 Temple
115 Colgate
130 UCF
135 Valpo
150 Bowling Green
171 @Tulane
200 Illinois St
205 @ECU

Q4
174 Drake
205 ECU
340 Alabama A&M

 

[Queens_NYC]

AAC Teams we need to win out to boost our NET profile:

UCF - in danger of losing their Q2 win

USF (aside from our game) - in danger of losing their Q2 status

UConn - could lose Q1/Q2 status with a loss @Tulane

Tulsa - could gain Q2 status

Remaining AAC teams

Houston - will likely stay Q1/Q1

Wichita - will likely stay Q1/Q2

Memphis - will likely stay Q1/Q2

SMU - will likely stay Q3

Temple - will likely stay Q2/Q3

Tulane - near guarantee to stay Q3

ECU - near guarantee to stay Q3/Q4

 

[sedziobs]

Vermont and Tennessee remain the teams to watch out of conference. I think Vermont could get back in the top 75 if they win the America East tourney.

 

[sedziobs]

Q1
15 @Ohio St
18 @Houston
18 Houston
35 Iowa
41 @Xavier
43 @Wichita St
63 @Memphis
64 @ UConn

Q2
43 Wichita St
57 Tennessee
63 Memphis
64 UConn
112 @Temple
128 @USF
131 @UCF

Q3
78 Vermont
82 Tulsa
88 SMU
106 UNLV
112 Temple
116 Colgate
131 UCF
134 Valpo
154 Bowling Green
172 @Tulane
199 Illinois St
206 @ECU

Q4
173 Drake
206 ECU
340 Alabama A&M

 

[cincrulz11]

gogogogogo vermont


I'm not sure if Illinois St staying a tier 3 team matters, but I like seeing only 3 quad 4 games.

 

[Cataclysmo]

 

[cincrulz11]

we are really gonna put that NCSOS theory to test

 

[sedziobs]

Tulsa is sitting right at #75 after their win at Temple. We have 8 Q2 wins at the moment.

 

[Queens_NYC]

UCF stayed at 131 after beating SMU. They may need to beatdown ECU on Sunday and/or win their first AAC tourney game to stay Q2 for us.

 

[sedziobs]

Q1
14 @Ohio St
21 @Houston
21 Houston
34 Iowa
43 @Xavier
46 @Wichita St
58 @Memphis
59 @ UConn

Q2
46 Wichita St
58 Memphis
59 UConn
63 Tennessee
115 @Temple
125 @USF
129 @UCF

Q3
76 Tulsa
79 Vermont
88 SMU
109 UNLV
115 Temple
116 Colgate
129 UCF
138 Valpo
156 Drake
159 Bowling Green
169 @Tulane
198 Illinois St
200 @ECU

Q4
200 ECU
340 Alabama A&M

 

[HongKongPhooey]

According to quad a win at Kansas is same level as a win a UConn they need to rethink these quads.

 

[sedziobs]

According to quad a win at Kansas is same level as a win a UConn they need to rethink these quads.

Reposting some stuff from a couple years ago when the groups first came out:

"RPI groups are simply designed to initially sort teams. Sorting hundreds of teams would be next to impossible for a human if you didn't have a small number of criteria to compare. But when splitting hairs between a few teams, then it's easier to compare more details. Still, the number of Group 1 wins is really important even if they're all at the bottom of Group 1, because it puts you on the right side of the first process used to sort teams."

"oh a win at duke is the same as a win at UCF now?...

That's obviously one of the drawbacks, but the system was more designed to answer questions like "is a home win against Maryland better than a win at SMU?" Previously, the answer required seeing that Maryland is top 50 and SMU is not, and then trying to mentally account for the fact that SMU was played on the road to come up with an idea of which is better. A human can't go through that process thousands of times and remember the conclusions when sorting. The new Group system tells you from the very beginning that winning at SMU is better than beating Maryland at home. It should leave less room for human value judgments."

 

[HongKongPhooey]

Im going to question any system that comes to the conclusion that beating smu on road is better than beating Maryland on road. It suggest that beating #75 on the road is closer to beating #36 on the road or # 1 anywhere , than it is beating #76 on the road. That's laughable.

 

[cincrulz11]

Im going to question any system that comes to the conclusion that beating smu on road is better than beating Maryland on road. It suggest that beating #75 on the road is closer to beating #36 on the road or # 1 anywhere , than it is beating #76 on the road. That's laughable.

right, but didn't the old system say beating the #1 at their place and beating the 49 at home were the same?

 

[sedziobs]

That post is referring to Maryland and SMU from 2018, not this year.

If a schedule has a whole bunch of top 10 NET teams, or a whole bunch of 76-85 NET teams, the quad system won't be fair to them. But realistically, most schedules are a mixture. An entire schedule is going to have teams on both sides of the cut lines. On average, the quad system is the best way to sort teams while limiting the number of groups to a manageable number. Don't call it laughable unless you can come up with something better.