Work Those Quads! (Net Rank Thread)

rambunctiousrowdyram said:
I don’t know why ones like Rothstein harp on Seton Hall. It was like what 4 games into the season? Can teams not have a dud? We’ve seen bubble teams crushed in the last month some in back to back games. Shouldn’t that be more concerning than an egg in like what mid Nov?
Click to expand...
I get that Seton Hall was early in the year , would you like it if people used that to diminish one of our early big wins (if we had any)--saying that it was early people weren't gelled yet etc. No we'd argue that we beat them and the games have to count.

I certainly hope we go dancing and no question we're one one of the best at large teams but it won't be Seton Hall alone that keeps us out. It's never one thing--it'll be that coupled with an overall weak non conference schedule (around 300) and limited opportunities in conference.
 
rambunctiousrowdyram said:
34 VCU
64 Mason
73 Dayton
85 St Joes
96 Bona
114 URI
115 SLU
117 GWU
127 David
129 Loy Chi
159 Duq
191 Umass
225 Las
228 Ford
258 Richmond “My gosh that net ranking blows” Spider




68 Liberty
108 UVA
109 UNCW
144 JMU
176 Radford
203 W&M
Not worth putting up as you are an embarrassment to Virginia basketball. You get nothing. Good day sir - odu
Click to expand...
And what about our Non Conf. Opponents NETs.... where are they?
 
It's going to be tough, and we should prepare for the worst if we don't win the A10 tournament. The team deserves to be in and is good enough to be in, but our resume unfortunately gives the committee too many reasons to leave us out. The same reasons we've heard people harp on - no quality wins (our only q1 win is as low as q1 gets, if it can even stay there), no wins against tournament teams, awful SOS, unimpressive WAB (by far the highest in the top 40 NET), a q4 loss. If we were competing on the bubble against a team with our resume we'd be harping on it too.

On the plus side, we've dominated almost all the games we were supposed to, our metrics are solid, we have a good q2 record, and we simply look like a tournament team that deserves a chance. I'm hoping for the best but not expecting it. Just win the conference tournament and we don't have to worry about it.
 
Yosi Ram said:
I get that Seton Hall was early in the year , would you like it if people used that to diminish one of our early big wins (if we had any)--saying that it was early people weren't gelled yet etc. No we'd argue that we beat them and the games have to count.

I certainly hope we go dancing and no question we're one one of the best at large teams but it won't be Seton Hall alone that keeps us out. It's never one thing--it'll be that coupled with an overall weak non conference schedule (around 300) and limited opportunities in conference.
Click to expand...
Form has always mattered. They want teams trending upward in Feb. A big win in Nov shouldn’t be discredited unless the team ends up awful that gets beat. But hanging off a loss from week 4 on a team that has proved itself many times over is stupid. A quality win is a quality win no matter the time of the year but you are trying to say this team is the same that played Seton Hall is incorrect. It’s a completely different team form wise. Taking a bad loss early shouldn’t doom someone. If it did Notre Dame shouldn’t have been in the national championship this year for football or the playoffs for one really really bad loss.
 
rambunctiousrowdyram said:
I don’t know why ones like Rothstein harp on Seton Hall. It was like what 4 games into the season? Can teams not have a dud? We’ve seen bubble teams crushed in the last month some in back to back games. Shouldn’t that be more concerning than an egg in like what mid Nov?
Click to expand...
yes 95% of teams have a banana peel game

the problem for VCU becomes it failed to challenge itself in thee OOC beyond the New Mexico game and neutral site game with colo st- a mid major in a conference without 5 conference games as Quad 1s needs to make their statement in OOC

That said, this team is darn good and has now earned their at large IMHO barring more than a loss vs GMU (expecting a 7 pt + victory vs Gmoo)

when teams on the bubble are having resumes compared there is lots of focus on bad losses (SHU) and good wins Quad 1 and 2 and road victories when comparing resumes (Quad 3 and 4 victories basically mean very very little when resumes are compared)

But IMO we are in tourney without another banana peel up to the tourney (and this is a team that can easily win two games in the Dance if they bring the defensive intensity and shoot at least avg)

go rams
 
I wish the p.t.b. would be more transparent about how NET is cooked. It *seems* that, like RPI before it, it has a disconnect between how it scores your own results, vs how it scores your strength of schedule... which is why they then have to resort to quads and a more manual and separate good wins/bad losses approach.

If you play 3 games.... 1 against a top high performing team, 1 against a more-or-less peer, and 1 against a cupcake... and go 2-1, your actual underlying NET scoring appears to ignore who were the 2 and who was the 1... you'd have to translate over to quads... except THEIR NET scores also didn't factor in the specific results of w&l vs sos. It seems like they should be able to give credit/assign blame for specific results within the calculations themselves, and not have to resort to just using quad buckets.

Also, there should be some degree weight given for intentional recency bias, to value trending upward over the course of a season.
 
RowdyPkunk said:
And what about our Non Conf. Opponents NETs.... where are they?
Click to expand...
Here's an updated list of where the quadrants currently stand (bold = close to moving up or down quadrants, within 10-ish spots, italic = non-con):

Quadrant 1 (H: ≤30, N: ≤50, A: ≤75) - 1 team can move down:
42. at New Mexico
75. at Dayton

Quadrant 2 (H: 31-75, N: 51-100, A: 76-135) - 2 teams can move up, 1 can move down:
62. George Mason
64. Colorado State (neutral) (needs 14 spots to become Q1 but are favored in 4 of their last 5 games per KenPom)
73. Nevada (neutral)
75. Dayton (becomes Q3 if they lose 1 spot)
82. at St. Joseph's (becomes Q1 if they gain 7 spots)
93. at St. Bonaventure
112. at Saint Louis
114. at Rhode Island
118. at Loyola Chicago
123. at GW

Quadrant 3 (H: 76-160, N: 101-200, A: 136-240) - no one is close to moving up or down:
93. St. Bonaventure
112. Saint Louis
138. Davidson
157. at Duquesne

Quadrant 4 (H: ≥161, N: ≥201, A: ≥241) - 4 teams can move up:
185. Merrimack
199. UMass
203. William & Mary
207. Miami (FL) (becomes Q3 if they gain 7 spots)
208. Boston College (becomes Q3 if they gain 8 spots)
212. Seton Hall (becomes Q3 if they gain 12 spots)
228. Fordham
229. La Salle
250. Richmond
250. at Richmond (becomes Q3 if they gain 10 spots)
262. Georgia Southern
311. Penn
317. Loyola (MD)
353. Bellarmine
 
rambunctiousrowdyram said:
41 NM
68 Colo St
73 Nevada
185 Merri
203 W&M
210 Mia
212 Boston C
216 Seton
264 Geo Sou
312 Penn
315 Loy MD
356 Bell
Click to expand...
yikes
WillWeaverRVA said:
Here's an updated list of where the quadrants currently stand (bold = close to moving up or down quadrants, within 10-ish spots, italic = non-con):

Quadrant 1 (H: ≤30, N: ≤50, A: ≤75) - 1 team can move down:
42. at New Mexico
75. at Dayton

Quadrant 2 (H: 31-75, N: 51-100, A: 76-135) - 2 teams can move up, 1 can move down:
62. George Mason
64. Colorado State (neutral) (needs 14 spots to become Q1 but are favored in 4 of their last 5 games per KenPom)
73. Nevada (neutral)
75. Dayton (becomes Q3 if they lose 1 spot)
82. at St. Joseph's (becomes Q1 if they gain 7 spots)
93. at St. Bonaventure
112. at Saint Louis
114. at Rhode Island
118. at Loyola Chicago
123. at GW

Quadrant 3 (H: 76-160, N: 101-200, A: 136-240) - no one is close to moving up or down:
93. St. Bonaventure
112. Saint Louis
138. Davidson
157. at Duquesne

Quadrant 4 (H: ≥161, N: ≥201, A: ≥241) - 4 teams can move up:
185. Merrimack
199. UMass
203. William & Mary
207. Miami (FL) (becomes Q3 if they gain 7 spots)
208. Boston College (becomes Q3 if they gain 8 spots)
212. Seton Hall (becomes Q3 if they gain 12 spots)
228. Fordham
229. La Salle
250. Richmond
250. at Richmond (becomes Q3 if they gain 10 spots)
262. Georgia Southern
311. Penn
317. Loyola (MD)
353. Bellarmine
Click to expand...
oof
 
artRAMinMN said:
I wish the p.t.b. would be more transparent about how NET is cooked. It *seems* that, like RPI before it, it has a disconnect between how it scores your own results, vs how it scores your strength of schedule... which is why they then have to resort to quads and a more manual and separate good wins/bad losses approach.

If you play 3 games.... 1 against a top high performing team, 1 against a more-or-less peer, and 1 against a cupcake... and go 2-1, your actual underlying NET scoring appears to ignore who were the 2 and who was the 1... you'd have to translate over to quads... except THEIR NET scores also didn't factor in the specific results of w&l vs sos. It seems like they should be able to give credit/assign blame for specific results within the calculations themselves, and not have to resort to just using quad buckets.

Also, there should be some degree weight given for intentional recency bias, to value trending upward over the course of a season.
Click to expand...

And here’s where my major beefs come in.

1) Yes teams us could have scheduled better. But how much better? If you aren’t forcing P4 to play mid majors it’s basically a closed system. If Gonzaga can’t get a major team to play them except neutral. You’ll never get a home game and many P4 are afraid of even plenty of quality mid major in their house. Like if Duke called VCU and said wanna come to Cameron you think we’d be like “Nah we good”? Losing a bad team no less early shouldn’t turn into send this team to the guillotine! Not while we excuse teams in Feb getting demolished in match ups especially multiple ones.

2) Scores- I don’t see any consistency. Blow out a 200s team at home big jump. Beat a top 75 team on the road barely move. So what’s the focus? Quads? Winning by alot? Etc?

3) I’m gonna go back to football here again. I know I know I know very subjective. SMU had a SOS of near 70. Was gonna be out of the playoffs for Bama with 9 SOS. Then SMU came back to barely lose. That put them in. So right now in college the debate seems to be do we value SOS or do we value winning? SMU had one loss but it was against a team not even in the playoff field. Bama had two not good losses but very good wins (Better than many of the playoff teams). There was no real right answer. Someone was gonna be sour. NET is the same way. Someone is getting screwed. But the question is does feel fair? SMU was the committee trying to make a point winning matters. No matter what conference. So is the March Madness committee gonna make a point that winning matters or simply that you have a tough schedule? Because alot of teams have very little control over having a top SOS.
 
Last edited:
rambunctiousrowdyram said:
Like if Duke called VCU and said wanna come to Cameron you think we’d be like “Nah we good”?
Click to expand...
I recall that during the pandemic season, Duke lost a game and was searching for an opponent to come to Cameron. VCU offered and they said "Nah, we're good". Clearly they were just looking for someone to pummel, not for a real game.
 
SteveMM said:
I recall that during the pandemic season, Duke lost a game and was searching for an opponent to come to Cameron. VCU offered and they said "Nah, we're good". Clearly they were just looking for someone to pummel, not for a real game.
Click to expand...
Yup. IIRC they played Loyola (MD) instead.
 
SteveMM said:
I recall that during the pandemic season, Duke lost a game and was searching for an opponent to come to Cameron. VCU offered and they said "Nah, we're good". Clearly they were just looking for someone to pummel, not for a real game.
Click to expand...
but how about after the dagger game where we beat Duke in the Dance - duke offered to play us at Cameron and we said either no or just home and home
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top