2022-23 NET rankings and metrics

Violet Ram said:
Just bumping since most of you probably think FAU is pretty good at this point. Don't worry, Rammad had you covered on why that's wrong and how this team isn't even at large worthy.
Click to expand...
FAU has slowly built this team. Everyone who played last night is in either his 3rd or 4th year of playing college basketball. FAU is older and more experienced than most teams. Dusty May has done a good job of building through recruiting and getting 2-3 high major transfers who fit in well. Talent plus experience usually does well in March.
 
Well, by Monday morning the Final Four could be, at best, a 2, 4, 5, 9 or even two 5's, a 4 and a 9. My favorite combination would be the 4, 5, 6 and 9.

I'm reading twitter posts this morning on my MBB Twitter account (I have different account for different subjects), and seeing example after example of teams that were either left out of the tournament, or teams that were grossly seeded wrong. How in the world was FAU seeded a 9? Anyone who was paying attention all year could see that they were a very good team. How was UConn not a #1? We saw them play twice this year in person. Once @MU when Shaka beat them, and the other in Albany. Both times we walked away saying the same thing- That is a VERY good basketball team. Big, strong and fast. Both times I felt like they would make it to the Final Four and had a good shot of winning it all, loss to MU aside.

If the purpose of the NET was to help the committee identify and seed the teams correctly, the NET has failed.

It will be interesting to see how they adjust it, once again, so they get the results THEY want. But for now, I'm loving this.
 
fmrick said:
If the purpose of the NET was to help the committee identify and seed the teams correctly, the NET has failed.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but it's become pretty clear that this was not, in fact, the purpose. FAU's presence in the field at all represents NET's failure to achieve its purpose. If it had worked as intended, that spot would have gone to 20-16, 8-10 OK State.
 
N Mollen said:
Agreed, but it's become pretty clear that this was not, in fact, the purpose. FAU's presence in the field at all represents NET's failure to achieve its purpose. If it had worked as intended, that spot would have gone to 20-16, 8-10 OK State.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...you can't keep out Automatic Bid winners.

I have to disagree with the rest also. FAU had a 5 RPI and NET 13. By any measure, they would be in. They should have been seeded much higher. In the old days they would have been a 3-4 seed. Even with a NET of 13, they should have been higher.

But if things were going the way the NCAA wanted, there would be at least a couple 1s and 2s in the Final Four. As it stands, as of this morning before the last two games are played, there is a good chance that the best team left standing will be a 4 or 5 seed. I'm sure that is not what they planned.

Some may argue that it is balance. Don't buy that. They want no balance. No, this is not what they planned.

For fun, just look at RPI compared to NET and see which has prove to the best predictor of outcome. Winning means something.

If you are trying to rig anything, it will never work if the teams don't preform. Winning is preforming. They might think they are helping, but in reality they are just amplifying the flaws in the system. Remember, these are administrators for the most part. Not math whizzes. Great at smiling and glad-handing donors, but for most of them, not the best at figuring stuff like this out.
 
fmrick said:
Well, by Monday morning the Final Four could be, at best, a 2, 4, 5, 9 or even two 5's, a 4 and a 9. My favorite combination would be the 4, 5, 6 and 9.

I'm reading twitter posts this morning on my MBB Twitter account (I have different account for different subjects), and seeing example after example of teams that were either left out of the tournament, or teams that were grossly seeded wrong. How in the world was FAU seeded a 9? Anyone who was paying attention all year could see that they were a very good team. How was UConn not a #1? We saw them play twice this year in person. Once @MU when Shaka beat them, and the other in Albany. Both times we walked away saying the same thing- That is a VERY good basketball team. Big, strong and fast. Both times I felt like they would make it to the Final Four and had a good shot of winning it all, loss to MU aside.

If the purpose of the NET was to help the committee identify and seed the teams correctly, the NET has failed.

It will be interesting to see how they adjust it, once again, so they get the results THEY want. But for now, I'm loving this.
Click to expand...
Huh, I'm confused by two points here.

You're saying that you think a ranking system is 'broken' if it's top teams fail to win every year? If so, we should just throw up our hands and rely on the dartboard method of selection?

Second, the teams you're kvetching about had better NETs that their seeding implies, which means NET may have been a better metric that the NCAA's subjective requirements. Just based on NET, UConn would be the second last 2 seed and FAU the top 4 seed.
 
Violet Ram said:
Huh, I'm confused by two points here.

You're saying that you think a ranking system is 'broken' if it's top teams fail to win every year? If so, we should just throw up our hands and rely on the dartboard method of selection?

Second, the teams you're kvetching about had better NETs that their seeding implies, which means NET may have been a better metric that the NCAA's subjective requirements. Just based on NET, UConn would be the second last 2 seed and FAU the top 4 seed.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I'm saying. Being confused seems to be a trend.

What I am saying is that IF the NCAA's intent was to developed a system that was supposed to pick the best teams, as defined as being able to win enough games to get to the Final Four, and to favor the top P5 conferences, they have failed. From looking at the numbers (RPI vs NET) it appears that the RPI was better at picking the teams that actually won.

Maybe we are wrong about the motives of the NCAA when they chose the switch to the NET, but I don't think so. There is a general feeling throughout college basketball that the NET was supposed to pick the best teams and was slanted toward the P5 conferences. I found this opinion everywhere I went this year for basketball, with some slight slants on the opinion, depending on who the speaker was a fan of, P5 or non-P5. But even the P5 fans agreed. This is not a local opinion, I traveled a lot this year for basketball- DC, NYC, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philly, St. Louis and to the VCU appearance in Albany. Go out and listen to conversations or even start the conversation, you will hear the same thing. People generally don't like the NET and think it is flawed.

Sit back and watch what they do in the off season. Or will they even tell us if they make changes? How would we know, we don't know how they do it anyway.

The teams I listed are but a couple of the failures of the NET. They are lots, on both sides of the issue. Some that should have been given more consideration, and some that were given too much.

My point is- They need to have a fair system the rewards winning. We've seen how important that is in the last couple weeks. Funny, you can have the best stats in all of college basketball, but if you can't convert that into winning, you are at home watching on TV. And they need to be open and transparent with the system so that everybody understands it and is able to adjust to help their team the most. A team is comprised of players and STAFF. Good staffs are crippled by the fact that nobody knows how NET works. Imagine playing a game where you were not able to review previous games of the opponent and had to go in blind. As for scheduling, that is what you are asking coaching staffs to do- Schedule blindly.
 
fmrick said:
No, that is not what I'm saying. Being confused seems to be a trend.

What I am saying is that IF the NCAA's intent was to developed a system that was supposed to pick the best teams, as defined as being able to win enough games to get to the Final Four, and to favor the top P5 conferences, they have failed. From looking at the numbers (RPI vs NET) it appears that the RPI was better at picking the teams that actually won.

Maybe we are wrong about the motives of the NCAA when they chose the switch to the NET, but I don't think so. There is a general feeling throughout college basketball that the NET was supposed to pick the best teams and was slanted toward the P5 conferences. I found this opinion everywhere I went this year for basketball, with some slight slants on the opinion, depending on who the speaker was a fan of, P5 or non-P5. But even the P5 fans agreed. This is not a local opinion, I traveled a lot this year for basketball- DC, NYC, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philly, St. Louis and to the VCU appearance in Albany. Go out and listen to conversations or even start the conversation, you will hear the same thing. People generally don't like the NET and think it is flawed.

Sit back and watch what they do in the off season. Or will they even tell us if they make changes? How would we know, we don't know how they do it anyway.

The teams I listed are but a couple of the failures of the NET. They are lots, on both sides of the issue. Some that should have been given more consideration, and some that were given too much.

My point is- They need to have a fair system the rewards winning. We've seen how important that is in the last couple weeks. Funny, you can have the best stats in all of college basketball, but if you can't convert that into winning, you are at home watching on TV. And they need to be open and transparent with the system so that everybody understands it and is able to adjust to help their team the most. A team is comprised of players and STAFF. Good staffs are crippled by the fact that nobody knows how NET works. Imagine playing a game where you were not able to review previous games of the opponent and had to go in blind. As for scheduling, that is what you are asking coaching staffs to do- Schedule blindly.
Click to expand...
FMRick anyone who knows you knows you both love and are knowledgable about college hoops. Also, anyone who know you know you actually attend a lot of college hoops all over the country. Heck, you, Hook, are the guys that inspired me to travel to watch VCU and Ive been doing so for about 20 plus years because of you two.

Given, this I know you have down the research and your points are well taken. I too think the NET is not the best system to pick the best teams and that this years NCAA proves that. I do think parity plays a strong factor in these outcomes but that the NCAA and NET disregarded this parity and was skewed towards the P5 even at the expense of the Big East (seeding not bids).

While, I do not think teams such as Liberty, North Texas State should have made it in. Also, think that teams such as FAU, SMC, VCU, even UConn were all under seeded and put in tougher matchups to achieve the results that the committee wanted.

We all know that pure NET isnt what goes into choosing the teams. However, we all know and should acknowledge that it is a huge factor and it does skew towards the P5. No way Big 12 and especially my Big10 deserved the number of bids they received.

If it was true parity then other Non P5 teams would have been included.
 
Last edited:
fmrick said:
No, that is not what I'm saying. Being confused seems to be a trend.

What I am saying is that IF the NCAA's intent was to developed a system that was supposed to pick the best teams, as defined as being able to win enough games to get to the Final Four, and to favor the top P5 conferences, they have failed. From looking at the numbers (RPI vs NET) it appears that the RPI was better at picking the teams that actually won.

Maybe we are wrong about the motives of the NCAA when they chose the switch to the NET, but I don't think so. There is a general feeling throughout college basketball that the NET was supposed to pick the best teams and was slanted toward the P5 conferences. I found this opinion everywhere I went this year for basketball, with some slight slants on the opinion, depending on who the speaker was a fan of, P5 or non-P5. But even the P5 fans agreed. This is not a local opinion, I traveled a lot this year for basketball- DC, NYC, Chicago, Milwaukee, Philly, St. Louis and to the VCU appearance in Albany. Go out and listen to conversations or even start the conversation, you will hear the same thing. People generally don't like the NET and think it is flawed.

Sit back and watch what they do in the off season. Or will they even tell us if they make changes? How would we know, we don't know how they do it anyway.

The teams I listed are but a couple of the failures of the NET. They are lots, on both sides of the issue. Some that should have been given more consideration, and some that were given too much.

My point is- They need to have a fair system the rewards winning. We've seen how important that is in the last couple weeks. Funny, you can have the best stats in all of college basketball, but if you can't convert that into winning, you are at home watching on TV. And they need to be open and transparent with the system so that everybody understands it and is able to adjust to help their team the most. A team is comprised of players and STAFF. Good staffs are crippled by the fact that nobody knows how NET works. Imagine playing a game where you were not able to review previous games of the opponent and had to go in blind. As for scheduling, that is what you are asking coaching staffs to do- Schedule blindly.
Click to expand...
I get confused by nonsense, my bad. First, you're using an RPI from after the tournament started. FAU was #10 in RPI on selection Sunday and UConn was ranked behind us at #26. So your point about RPI from two cherry picked teams isn't even valid. Even if it were an accurate reading, it's 2 teams in a single year, and your just using subjective reasoning.

Two, if you want to go by the eye test, you quite literally have to only go back 2 pages to find @rammad90 saying FAU didn't pass the eye test. And the eye test is a horrid way to pick teams

AND it seems like you didn't read the article I posted about the ACC complaining that they weren't given enough benefit of the doubt via eye test and name recognition because NET doesn't care.

I'm happy to be cordial, but your "analysis" isn't supported by facts.
 
I am all for moving Violet Ram and fmricks season tickets next to each other so they can continue this dialogue and Free Us (I am addicted unfortunately and read all the posts and I am having to get a refill on my Extra Strength Tylenol, even though I enjoy analytic analysis)

Suffice to say, NET is just a tool that the committee uses - No way committee members can EVER be familiar with the body of work of 100 + teams nor do they have the time to watch thousands of game films - The evolution of tools the committee is provided will continue to change as the use of metrics evolves - and both of you are right that coaches will react with scheduling if they perceive it will help them improve their chances

I have always believed that the P6 have the inherent advantage because of their conference schedules provide H&H opportunities for big wins that the mid majors rarely get in their conference schedules

I wish the tourney would expand to 96 teams and give first round byes to the conference AQs . I don't think any team can nancy about not being in the tourney if they are not top 96 ( okay maybe top 80 because 16 AQs are probably below top 96) (and yes I do think team 97 will nancy )
IMO that will probably increase mid major participants by maybe half of the expansion #

play the extra round on Tuesday/Wednesday at 8 neutral sites like we do first 4 (require conference tournaments to end by prior saturday at 5) so teams announced that night at 7
 
The final NET rankings of the 2022-23 season are out. Here's how the A10 did.

#12 (of 32) Atlantic 10 Conference

#54 VCU
#77 Dayton
#97 Saint Louis
#132 Fordham
#137 Duquesne
#139 George Mason
#145 Davidson
#160 Richmond
#200 St. Bonaventure
#201 St. Joseph's
#203 UMass
#211 George Washington
#223 La Salle
#263 Rhode Island
#269 Loyola Chicago
 
WillWeaverRVA said:
The final NET rankings of the 2022-23 season are out. Here's how the A10 did.

#12 (of 32) Atlantic 10 Conference

#54 VCU
#77 Dayton
#97 Saint Louis
#132 Fordham
#137 Duquesne
#139 George Mason
#145 Davidson
#160 Richmond
#200 St. Bonaventure
#201 St. Joseph's
#203 UMass
#211 George Washington
#223 La Salle
#263 Rhode Island
#269 Loyola Chicago
Click to expand...
Crappy year for the A-10. Hope next season is better.
 
3, 13, 15, 21
The final NET rankings of the final 4 teams.
Is there somewhere we could pull up the NET rankings at the beginning of the tourney. It would be interesting to see how well its predictive powers did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top