2023-24 Rankings

Just to put into perspective: last year we were 1-12 in Quad 1 games and 1-3 in Quad 2 (and 16-0 in Q3/Q4).

This team already has more Q1 and Q2 wins than all of last year COMBINED. Less than a month into the season. Our resume is VERY good at this point, especially if we continue improving (which is something Pitino teams are some of the best at).
 
Last edited:
ADORAZ said:
Just to put into perspective: last year we were 1-12 in Quad 1 games and 1-3 in Quad 2 (and 16-0 in Q3/Q4).

This team already has more Q1 and Q2 wins than all of last year COMBINED. Less than a month into the season. Our resume is VERY good at this point, especially if we continue improving (which is something Pitino teams are some of the best at).
Click to expand...

ADORAZ said:
Great win tonight. Taking a look at our resume:

Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

Using KenPom numbers for now as NET isn't available yet.

Stony Brook #268 (H): W - Quad 4
Michigan #53 (H): L - Quad 2
North Texas #73 (N): W - Quad 2
Dayton #61 (N): L - Quad 2
Utah #33 (N): W - Quad 1
Holy Cross #348 (H): W - Quad 4
West Virginia #106 (A): W - Quad 2

Quad 1: 1-0
Quad 2: 2-2
Quad 3: 0-0
Quad 4: 2-0

Overall: 5-2

Very good resume at this point in the season. Been a long time since we had 3 Q1/Q2 wins OOC.
Click to expand...
It's dopey it works this way, but since it does. With Krissa coming back soon for West Virginia, I don't see them dropping out of Quad 2 territory. And even though we played them when he was out the calculation will be based on West Virginia's final NET.

This was a very nice win last night.
 
IDRAFT said:
It's dopey it works this way, but since it does. With Krissa coming back soon for West Virginia, I don't see them dropping out of Quad 2 territory. And even though we played them when he was out the calculation will be based on West Virginia's final NET.

This was a very nice win last night.
Click to expand...
Which is why IMO opinion all the ratings and metrics are a joke. I don’t even bother following it. It’s like NFL passer ratings an INT that is a perfectly thrown pass that goes off a receivers hand is the same as a horribly thrown pass right at a defender. A TD pass that goes through a defenders hands is same as a great throw.
 
IDRAFT said:
It's dopey it works this way, but since it does. With Krissa coming back soon for West Virginia, I don't see them dropping out of Quad 2 territory. And even though we played them when he was out the calculation will be based on West Virginia's final NET.

This was a very nice win last night.
Click to expand...

I agree I expect WVU will finish Quad 2, but KenPom at this point is still primarily using preseason projections while NET won't have any projections baked in. WVU's resume is pretty poor so when the initial NET rankings come out in a few days their NET may put that game in Quad 3 territory. Since they're expected to improve I wouldn't read too much into their initial NET, they just would need to finish top 135 for that game to be Q2. It was a very good win.

On a side note the NCAA's website has an error where #135 Away is listed as both Q2 and Q3. Obviously not a big deal but nobody has corrected it in years lol. For anyone wanting to read more about NET (article from 11/28/23):

www.ncaa.com

College basketball's NET rankings, explained

Here's everything you need to know about college basketball's NET ranking system.
www.ncaa.com www.ncaa.com
 
Hardy said:
I think losing the Michigan game in a blowout really makes it hard for some to appreciate that the resume looks very solid, the team is continuing to improve, and the coach is Rick Pitino. The season is looking good so far. But the big east looks like a gauntlet, will be interesting to see which if the middle of the pack teams (X, Butler, Providence, SJU, and Nova) breaks out in league play.
Click to expand...
The metrics are on our side, but does anyone actually believe we win that game last night if Kriisa was playing? Let alone Akok as well.

We couldn’t even stop their backup PG and Kriisa is a freaking star. He played 30 mpg for a 33-4 Arizona team that was ranked #2 in the final AP Poll as a soph.

You need luck in a long season and the WV team we beat last night won’t be the same WV that the Big 12 sees in 3 games with Akok and Kriisa back and the FSU transfer healthy. That should help us in the NET when that group wins games.
 
Marillac2 said:
The metrics are on our side, but does anyone actually believe we win that game last night if Kriisa was playing? Let alone Akok as well.

We couldn’t even stop their backup PG and Kriisa is a freaking star. He played 30 mpg for a 33-4 Arizona team that was ranked #2 in the final AP Poll as a soph.

You need luck in a long season and the WV team we beat last night won’t be the same WV that the Big 12 sees in 3 games with Akok and Kriisa back and the FSU transfer healthy. That should help us in the NET when that group wins games.
Click to expand...
That’s why the WVU was infuriating to me for the first 30 minutes of it. They have no depth, had Edwards in foul trouble on top of that, and yet, we struggled with self inflicted turnovers and boneheaded plays.

I’m not sure our resume is “great”. Utah is a fellow bubble team. North Texas is fine. If you want to compare it to our previous years, then sure it is great. But our previous years schedules were embarrassing and not an acceptable bar. If we win out of the OOC, we still have a lot of work to do to pad the resume.

And our two losses are only “fine”. Michigan is a bubble team. We made them look like world beaters. Dayton is likely not making the tournament as an at large bid. None are resume breaking, but they aren’t good losses like a Houston loss would be.
 
Last edited:
dk423 said:
That’s why the WVU was infuriating to me for the first 30 minutes of it. They have no depth, had Edwards in foul trouble on top of that, and yet, we struggled with self inflicted turnovers and boneheaded plays.

I’m not sure our resume is “great”. Utah is a fellow bubble team. North Texas is fine. If you want to compare it to our previous years, then sure it is great. But our previous years schedules were embarrassing and not an acceptable bar. If we win out of the OOC, we still have a lot of work to do to pad the resume.

And our two losses are only “fine”. Michigan is a bubble team. We made them look like world beaters. Dayton is likely not making the tournament as an at large bid. None are resume breaking, but they aren’t good losses like a Houston loss would be.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion based on current KenPom rankings, but if the NCAA Tournament were held today I think St. John's would make it. A lot of bubble teams, including those that ultimately make the Tournament, have losing records vs. Q1/2 while we're 3-2 there without any bad losses (both Ls are Q2).

The three Q1/Q2 teams we beat were all neutral and away games, so those teams don't even need to be Tournament teams for them to look good (Q2) on our resume in March. This is something that was extremely frustrating these past few years - not playing enough neutral / away games. We had to beat #2 Kansas or some nonsense to get a Q1 OOC win.

If you look at other teams it'd be tough to find stronger resumes outside of the Top 25. Given the expectation is for this team to get better as the season continues, I'm pretty happy with our current position. Just take everything one game at a time. Keep getting these under the radar Q2 wins and handle Q3/Q4 teams and we'll make the Tournament.
 
ADORAZ said:
Just my opinion based on current KenPom rankings, but if the NCAA Tournament were held today I think St. John's would make it. A lot of bubble teams, including those that ultimately make the Tournament, have losing records vs. Q1/2 while we're 3-2 there without any bad losses (both Ls are Q2).

The three Q1/Q2 teams we beat were all neutral and away games, so those teams don't even need to be Tournament teams for them to look good (Q2) on our resume in March. This is something that was extremely frustrating these past few years - not playing enough neutral / away games. We had to beat #2 Kansas or some nonsense to get a Q1 OOC win.

If you look at other teams it'd be tough to find stronger resumes outside of the Top 25. Given the expectation is for this team to get better as the season continues, I'm pretty happy with our current position. Just take everything one game at a time. Keep getting these under the radar Q2 wins and handle Q3/Q4 teams and we'll make the Tournament.
Click to expand...
Hey. Let me be super clear. Compared to the Anderson era especially, our resume is amazing and our OOC is really difficult. I just think Anderson is probably the worst scheduler in D1 basketball.

I am okay with our position. The thing that bothers me about it is that: 1) it necessitates winning out. The rest of our OOC is pretty weak, and any additional loss is bad, 2) We don't have any other additional opportunity for a "signature win". These qualms will be moot come next year.

Looking at Lunardi's bracketology heading into the week, some of the resumes who are on the bubble are better:
-- Northwestern (last four in): beat Purdue yesterday, no bad losses
-- Arkansas: bad loss to UNC Greensboro, but did beat Duke.
-- Colorado State: big win against Creighton, also wins against Colorado and Boston College (which matter for a mid-major even moreso than a team like us).

Some of the other teams in the 8-12 seed range also have big wins without bad losses. Ohio State (vs. Alabama), Oklahoma (vs. USC), Clemson (vs. Alabama), and Wisconsin (vs. Marquette and Virginia). None of them are in the Top 25 yet.

We're probably even with teams like Providence, who are right on the bubble.
 
dk423 said:
Hey. Let me be super clear. Compared to the Anderson era especially, our resume is amazing and our OOC is really difficult. I just think Anderson is probably the worst scheduler in D1 basketball.

I am okay with our position. The thing that bothers me about it is that: 1) it necessitates winning out. The rest of our OOC is pretty weak, and any additional loss is bad, 2) We don't have any other additional opportunity for a "signature win". These qualms will be moot come next year.

Looking at Lunardi's bracketology heading into the week, some of the resumes who are on the bubble are better:
-- Northwestern (last four in): beat Purdue yesterday, no bad losses
-- Arkansas: bad loss to UNC Greensboro, but did beat Duke.
-- Colorado State: big win against Creighton, also wins against Colorado and Boston College (which matter for a mid-major even moreso than a team like us).

Some of the other teams in the 8-12 seed range also have big wins without bad losses. Ohio State (vs. Alabama), Oklahoma (vs. USC), Clemson (vs. Alabama), and Wisconsin (vs. Marquette and Virginia). None of them are in the Top 25 yet.

We're probably even with teams like Providence, who are right on the bubble.
Click to expand...

All fair points but a couple things:

Lunardi's bracketology hasn't been updated since earlier this week, so Northwestern would no longer be a bubble team (after beating Purdue). They'd very easily be in the Tournament and likely in the AP Top 25 next week. Just saying, historically it's very common for teams with losing Q1/Q2 records to make the Tournament and we have a winning record there. 3 Q1/Q2 wins at this point in the season is huge.

The rest of our OOC schedule is actually not bad at all! Based on KenPom BC would actually be Q2 and Hofstra would only be a couple spots off from Q2. These are both neutral games, which just shows how smart our scheduling was for this year. If we win out OOC (picking up several more Q2/Q3 wins), it'll be a very, very solid OOC resume.
 
Tomorrow!



Although I think our resume is very solid at this point in the season (in regards to Quad wins), our NET may be outside the top 50 (around #65). Just a guess and it could certainly be better, but also wouldn't shock me if it's worse. Tough to tell with such limited data.

Some reasons I'm not expecting a great initial NET: a lot of our wins against solid teams were close games and the losses weren't that close. Unlike RPI, which just factored in whether you won or lost, NET also factors efficiency metrics. Michigan is only 4-4 (with some close losses), so that home blowout loss to them will hurt us a lot, but I do expect Michigan's NET will improve as the season advances. WVU's NET will be pretty poor at first (they're 3-4) but should improve throughout the season as players return.

On the positive side, the fact that the majority of our games were Neutral/Away will help us. Personally I'm still keeping expectations low and do expect that our NET for these first 7 games will improve significantly later in the season. The most important thing for now is we've picked up a few Q1/Q2 wins and don't have any bad losses.
 
ADORAZ said:
Tomorrow!



Although I think our resume is very solid at this point in the season (in regards to Quad wins), our NET may be outside the top 50 (around #65). Just a guess and it could certainly be better, but also wouldn't shock me if it's worse. Tough to tell with such limited data.

Some reasons I'm not expecting a great initial NET: a lot of our wins against solid teams were close games and the losses weren't that close. Unlike RPI, which just factored in whether you won or lost, NET also factors efficiency metrics. Michigan is only 4-4 (with some close losses), so that home blowout loss to them will hurt us a lot, but I do expect Michigan's NET will improve as the season advances. WVU's NET will be pretty poor at first (they're 3-4) but should improve throughout the season as players return.

On the positive side, the fact that the majority of our games were Neutral/Away will help us. Personally I'm still keeping expectations low and do expect that our NET for these first 7 games will improve significantly later in the season. The most important thing for now is we've picked up a few Q1/Q2 wins and don't have any bad losses.
Click to expand...

I actually completely agree with this. I was only nitpicking in the prior post because you said "it'd be tough to find stronger resumes outside of the Top 25", since I think if that were the case, we'd be in the top 30.
 
dk423 said:
I actually completely agree with this. I was only nitpicking in the prior post because you said "it'd be tough to find stronger resumes outside of the Top 25", since I think if that were the case, we'd be in the top 30.
Click to expand...

Yeah certainly understandable. Since the NET rankings aren't the same as the seeding I still think we have a solid resume even if we're outside the top 50 NET (due to our Quad records). Plus the NET for these games should improve later in the season.

A lot of times you'll have teams with a NET in the 30s miss the Tournament due to poor Quad records or teams with a NET in the 70s make the Tournament due to great Quad records (such as the Johnnies in 2019). Not concerned with our NET at this stage, not having any Quad 1/2 wins (like last year) or a Q3/4 loss would be much more damaging on Selection Sunday.
 
Last edited:
ADORAZ said:

NCAA Statistics

stats.ncaa.org stats.ncaa.org

NET is out! We're #75, 10 off from what I expected.

#4 Creighton
#9 UConn
#10 Marquette
#38 Butler
#50 Villanova
#61 Providence
#68 Xavier
#75. St. John’s
#81 Seton Hall
#221 Georgetown
#267 DePaul
Click to expand...
michigan is ranked a bit lower which makes that a quad 3 loss. hopefully they move up 15 spots so that's quad 2. One interesting thing is that more than half the teams ahead of sju in NET don't have a quad 1 win, but sju does.

Also, with the excetption of georgetown, depaul and seton hall (which is right on the cusp), the rest of the league games would be all Quad 1 and 2, which is big. hopefully seton hall moves up a few spots so the home game against htem will be quad 2 as well.

Dayton at 42 and utah at 39.
 
dk423 said:
NET gives us:
1-1 in Quad 1
0-0 in Quad 2
2-1 in Quad 3
2-0 in Quad 4

Things will fluctuate but I think this is the correct range we're currently in.
Click to expand...
I'd be very surprised if some of those teams don't move up to Quad 2. Think KenPom, which has preseason projections too and better Quad results for us, will more accurately represent where teams are on Selection Sunday. WVU for instance shouldn't finish #209. North Texas only 4 spots off from Quad 2.
 
dk423 said:
^ agree. I think the teams that will move up are:
WVU: 209 (but we may not get much subjective "credit" when accounting for their absences when we played them)
Michigan: 89

Remaining OOC schedule:
#67 - Hofstra
#186 - Fordham
#96 - Boston College
#263 - Sacred Heart
Click to expand...

Two Quad 2 games remaining OOC (both neutral). Boston College could fall out of the top 100 into Tier 3 territory, but North Texas could also move up 4 spots (from #104) into Quad 2 territory. Still have a couple great OOC chances remaining.
 
The way I see it, we just need to win out the rest of the OOC because none of these losses will be "good losses". But winning out will put us in pole position to move anywhere between 20-40 depending on how we play in the Big East.

In previous years, we were in the old school mindset of "get to 20 wins" no matter what but that's not really how it works if you're playing 8 teams who are horrendous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top