2023-24 NET rankings and metrics thread

A team should never move up 16 spots for going 2-3. Under no circumstances should that happen. It’s a sign that there are significant flaws in the metrics.

And the difference between those 2 conferences isn’t very much this year. The Big Ten is down big time.
what a bad take and a clear misunderstanding of how performance metrics work. People who think beating bad teams by a point at home is equally impressive as losing a close game on the road boggles my mind. Do you think High Point or Gardner-Webb should be ranked ahead of UNC because their win streaks are significantly longer?
 
Most fans can't figure out the NET and therefore rely on the eye test. I know I do. Wins are better than metrics. In fact I would love for all 20+ win teams make the tournament. Make the dance more fluid. Fairness for fairness sake. Why can't we have more than just the first four playing in Dayton?
 
Most fans cans figure out the NET and therefore rely on the eye test. I know I do. Wins are better than metrics. In fact I would love for all 20+ win teams make the tournament. Make the dance more fluid. Fairness for fairness sake.
The tweet wasn't even about NET. The eye test isn't the same as looking at wins, and whoever says they make their opinions only by the eye test are liars. It would take 400 days to watch one season (non playoffs) of college basketball without breaking for sleeping or eating.
 
Last edited:
The tweet wasn't even about NET. The eye test isn't the same as looking at wins, and whoever says they make their opinions by the eye test are liars. It would take 400 days to watch one season (non playoffs) of college basketball without breaking for sleeping or eating.
i just don't get it. Don't hate but I just see maybe a different model. Football has a 6 win threshold for bowls so why can't basketball have a 20 win threshold for dance inclusion?
 
i just don't get it. Don't hate but I just see maybe a different model. Football has a 6 win threshold for bowls so why can't basketball have a 20 win threshold for dance inclusion?
The 6 win equivalent would be something like 16 wins in college basketball, and the 6 win requirement wasn't even hardfast. I'm pretty sure there are more bowl teams with losing records every year than NCAA tournament teams, but someone can correct me.

EDIT: so since 2000, there's been 9 teams to make the NCAA tournament with losing records. So less than one than every other year. They also are all autobids. If you want to ban those teams from their conference tournaments, then so be it. I don't think it'll improve college basketball and just take away from some fun conference shenanigans

 
Last edited:
The 6 win equivalent would be something like 16 wins in college basketball, and the 6 win requirement wasn't even hardfast. I'm pretty sure there are more bowl teams with losing records every year than NCAA tournament teams, but someone can correct me.

EDIT: so since 2000, there's been 9 teams to make the NCAA tournament with losing records. So less than one than every other year. They also are all autobids. If you want to ban those teams from their conference tournaments, then so be it. I don't think it'll improve college basketball and just take away from some fun conference shenanigans

Doesn't matter. Let teams dance and take the leatherhemits go bowling
 
Huh? Wow.....you realllllly are trying to reach, aren't you?
Not at all. DL is making a point about how well teams are playing this year and you are dismissing him by saying screw this year's games, look at the ACCs history. DL is tight that the ACC is trending to 3, maybe 4 bids this year.
 
Not at all. DL is making a point about how well teams are playing this year and you are dismissing him by saying screw this year's games, look at the ACCs history. DL is tight that the ACC is trending to 3, maybe 4 bids this year.
Not trying to dismiss it...I just don't agree. In fact, we can dead this. I just checked the NET and where UVA and MD are....not even close, UVA is WAY higher, as I thought they should be.
 
what a bad take and a clear misunderstanding of how performance metrics work. People who think beating bad teams by a point at home is equally impressive as losing a close game on the road boggles my mind. Do you think High Point or Gardner-Webb should be ranked ahead of UNC because their win streaks are significantly longer?
You can’t seriously think that comparing High Point/Gardner-Webb to UNC is equivalent to comparing UVA to Maryland.

UVA is clearly a better basketball team than Maryland this season. It’s not even close.

I understand how performance metrics work. You don’t seem to understand that they can be calibrated incorrectly and give bad results.
 
You can’t seriously think that comparing High Point/Gardner-Webb to UNC is equivalent to comparing UVA to Maryland.

UVA is clearly a better basketball team than Maryland this season. It’s not even close.

I understand how performance metrics work. You don’t seem to understand that they can be calibrated incorrectly and give bad results.
I'm glad my example of High Point/Gardner-Webb got through to you. I'm not the one saying those teams should be higher, that was your logic that you cant reward a team more for losing than another for winning. Those teams have jumped up in raw efficency stats less than UVA despite winning more over a similar time span.

You're using a posteriori knowledge to color what the data is telling you. You haven't identified any error in the metrics other than, you feel like the ACC is better than what the stats say.
 
Not trying to dismiss it...I just don't agree. In fact, we can dead this. I just checked the NET and where UVA and MD are....not even close, UVA is WAY higher, as I thought they should be.
Nah, you can't "dead this". Looking at previous seasons data to say the ACC is a premier conference this year is just wrong.
 
Back
Top