2022-23 NET rankings and metrics

[Ramlove81]

Actually, if you go back and read my posts again, then you'll find I was pointing out that there is NO PERFECT method for determining who is the better team. I wasn't complaining about efficiency stats. I was and have complained about those who only look at efficiency stats. I was pointing out the flaws that all stats have in trying to determine who is a better team.

I'll cite three current examples: West Virginia is 14th in adjusted efficiency on Ken Pom, while Ohio State is 35th, and Washington State is 62nd. I don't think anyone in or around college basketball believes those teams are the 14th, 35th and 62nd best teams in the nation, respectively at this moment. Does this mean that the efficiency rankings are useless? No! My best guess is that these rankings are much more accurate than not, but that's NOT my complaint. My complaint has been and continues to be that efficiency stats are IMPERFECT. As such, they cannot and should not be the sole determining factor in who the best teams are for an at-large bid. They should be A TOOL, not THE tool.

Yes, analytics can be really helpful but at times can be misleading. Sometimes nothing beats actually sitting down with some video and watching some games. Not highlights or small portions but full games. Look at some wins, some losses. Look at who is there and not there. Who was out injured for that bad loss at Memphis? Who was out for the opponent for that big win at Dayton? Just as some examples. The eye test still matters. It also matters how a team is playing now. What is the NET rating of a team for their last 10 games, last 15 games... their KenPom... their RPI or other analytics.
Yes, the OOC matters, but some teams peak early and fizzle out others improve latter and keep building. That should matter too.
It's not just a matter of analytics.

 

[Dr. Len Reid]

Perhaps, but you never know. There are numerous ACC schools (Syracuse, BC, Georgia Tech, etc.) that have had that recruiting edge plus the TV money for many years ... and they're still treading water and nearly going under. VCU is a sure thing in the A10 ... a "maybe" in a higher conference.

But as a 'maybe' Rams would have a higher NET due to being in a PC .... see cHokies. That's my point.

 

[Violet Ram]

But as a 'maybe' Rams would have a higher NET due to being in a PC .... see cHokies. That's my point.

Again, in theory, no they shouldn't. What they would have is more opportunities to build a strong resume.

 

[bighornn]

Again, in theory, no they shouldn't. What they would have is more opportunities to build a strong resume.

Would you rather be a solid bet to win the A10 .... or battle for sixth place in the ACC? I concede, if the only thing that matters is making the NCAA tournament, then it's better to be in the ACC .... that said, I don't think VCU's spoiled fan base could handle 10-12, 9-13 type conference records for any period of time. The coach would be fired each month.

 

[RamLover]

Would you rather be a solid bet to win the A10 .... or battle for sixth place in the ACC? I concede, if the only thing that matters is making the NCAA tournament, then it's better to be in the ACC .... that said, I don't think VCU's spoiled fan base could handle 10-12, 9-13 type conference records for any period of time. The coach would be fired each month.

I think some would settle for it if it meant we still got an at-large bid because people on here said a bid is the marker of a successful season for them and that’s why they aren’t satisfied with MR.

 

[bighornn]

I think some would settle for it if it meant we still got an at-large bid because people on here said a bid is the marker of a successful season for them and that’s why they aren’t satisfied with MR.

VCU could have best of both worlds if it wanted - dominant conference squad plus a high strength of schedule. It chooses not to, opting for a non-conference slate top-heavy with "buy games."

 

[Violet Ram]

Would you rather be a solid bet to win the A10 .... or battle for sixth place in the ACC? I concede, if the only thing that matters is making the NCAA tournament, then it's better to be in the ACC .... that said, I don't think VCU's spoiled fan base could handle 10-12, 9-13 type conference records for any period of time. The coach would be fired each month.

I'd rather be in the ACC period. More exposure, more high profile games, more Q1 opportunities, and more money. But when when we're talking about how NET should operate, the same team should achieve the same NET regardless of conference.

 

[Bluey]

VCU could have best of both worlds if it wanted - dominant conference squad plus a high strength of schedule. It chooses not to, opting for a non-conference slate top-heavy with "buy games."

Go on……tell us how this could be done.

There is an economic component to this given about 70% of the operating budget for VCU athletics is covered by institutional resources. Taking home games off the docket, takes much needed revenue out of the pocket.

 

[rammad90]

Go on……tell us how this could be done.

There is an economic component to this given about 70% of the operating budget for VCU athletics is covered by institutional resources. Taking home games off the docket, takes much needed revenue out of the pocket.

But if you are paying for those home games then that actually defeats your premise.

 

[Bluey]

But if you are paying for those home games then that actually defeats your premise.

We still make quite a bit of money on those games between tickets sold and donations, plus we don’t have travel costs.

Average contract for buy games is ~$90k and we’ve actually paid more than that in the past. Even if one puts a par value of $25 per ticket sold with 7k avg tickets sold that gets us to $175k of revenue per game without accounting for concessions and donations.

I’m sure one of the accountants or AD insiders could track down the real value of a home game. That said, I’d guess somewhere in the range of $200k per game, not including donations. My swag estimate is there are probably $140k in buy and operating costs. Still a cool $60k per home contest.

i suppose the alternative is we can scrap all those gross profit producing games and pay $25K+ to travel. So basically flip the algorithm and incurr $85k net loss per away game replacing a buy game. Now, if we can get the big boys to pay us to travel, let’s do it. Kentucky once paid GaTech $150k to play at Rupp—i’d sign up for that, but not Bighornn’s ideal.

 

[BaNgMyPrOgRaM]

Would you rather be a solid bet to win the A10 .... or battle for sixth place in the ACC? I concede, if the only thing that matters is making the NCAA tournament, then it's better to be in the ACC .... that said, I don't think VCU's spoiled fan base could handle 10-12, 9-13 type conference records for any period of time. The coach would be fired each month.

It is not better to be in the ACC. We make the dance years in a row until lately. I expect a regression on the means and we will soon get that corrected but who wants to a be aTech fan, Ga or Va?. Wake fan excites you? Boston College I could go on, We have to get better and more righted and become the flagship and embrace conference championships.

 

[Violet Ram]

We still make quite a bit of money on those games between tickets sold and donations, plus we don’t have travel costs.

Average contract for buy games is ~$90k and we’ve actually paid more than that in the past. Even if one puts a par value of $25 per ticket sold with 7k avg tickets sold that gets us to $175k of revenue per game without accounting for concessions and donations.

I’m sure one of the accountants or AD insiders could track down the real value of a home game. That said, I’d guess somewhere in the range of $200k per game, not including donations. My swag estimate is there are probably $140k in buy and operating costs. Still a cool $60k per home contest.

i suppose the alternative is we can scrap all those gross profit producing games and pay $25K+ to travel. So basically flip the algorithm and incurr $85k net loss per away game replacing a buy game. Now, if we can get the big boys to pay us to travel, let’s do it. Kentucky once paid GaTech $150k to play at Rupp—i’d sign up for that, but not Bighornn’s ideal.

I think your math is a bit conservative but close. Concessions, beer, and merch are high profit margins.Besides just the numbers, it's pretty hilarious to think all these big programs are taking unnecessary financial hits.

 

[Ramaholic]

Go on……tell us how this could be done.

There is an economic component to this given about 70% of the operating budget for VCU athletics is covered by institutional resources. Taking home games off the docket, takes much needed revenue out of the pocket.

Several years ago (it was under either Shaka or WW) one of the asst AD's approached me to increase my donation bc they (VCU) were trying to raise more money so they can have the ability to have more buy games. I know VCU approached several upper donors with this ask. They way it was presented to me made it appear adding buy games cost VCU more money than doing H/H games.

 

[RamLover]

VCU could have best of both worlds if it wanted - dominant conference squad plus a high strength of schedule. It chooses not to, opting for a non-conference slate top-heavy with "buy games."

That’s not by choice. Big schools won’t play us. The staff knows what they need our OOC to look like to get a bid. It’s not like the people on this board figured out a OOC schedule that’s at-large worthy while the staff doesn’t know what to do. They aren’t clueless about the formula. They just can’t create a strong OOC schedule if the other schools don’t say yes. Like every other school though, they want to play some teams that they feel will ensure wins and give the team a way to gel before conference play. It’s clear that we just can’t rely on the top teams in our conference to be good anymore.

It would have been nice to get better teams to agree to play us OOC to have some big wins since SLU and Dayton have been equally disappointing.

If strong programs did schedule us and we filled the entire OOC with hard games, people on here would also be complaining that the staff set it up too difficult for us to succeed. It’s all a balance, and they know what they’re doing, but games are a two-sided agreement. We’ll never know the complexities and details about what happens when they create the schedule every year. It’s not like they just make a list and get what they want.

 

[Bluey]

Several years ago (it was under either Shaka or WW) one of the asst AD's approached me to increase my donation bc they (VCU) were trying to raise more money so they can have the ability to have more buy games. I know VCU approached several upper donors with this ask. They way it was presented to me made it appear adding buy games cost VCU more money than doing H/H games.

Home Games can make money AND the AD can still want/need our money to support “buy” games. It’s a matter of budget. If the AD has an expected yield, but we have a couple of games where the buy costs are greater than normal or we have to add a ”buy” game due to a hole in the schedule….they‘ll get a lower yield and need to make up the difference. Of course they’ll reach out to donors to close the gap to budget. Hitting those targets are important for a department that still relies on 70% of it’s funding from institutional resources.