NET rankings

ADORAZ

ADORAZ

Well-known member
2023 $upporter
As you may know, the NCAA released their first NET ratings a few days ago. They have received a lot of criticism, however the system could work in our favor.

There is something pretty interesting with the (partially) secret formula- it appears to only marginally take into account level of opponent. Instead, it focuses a lot more on whether you win/lose and by what margin- regardless of what team you played.

Obviously, given our weak OOC.... this could actually be beneficial.

Take, for example, last night:
[URL][URL]https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings[/URL][/URL]

SJU is now #18, up from #32 yesterday. I was surprised to see that, because we beat a horrible opponent (#340 UMES) at home. With RPI the opposite happened and we dropped from #4 to #15 because our opponent was so bad. I noticed yesterday too that other undefeated teams with weak schedules (such as NC State/Pitt) were extremely overvalued in NET compared to other rankings. To me and a lot of others, the system seems flawed in this regard.

The best part about this is we already played the tougher half of our OOC schedule. If we can eat up cupcakes during December without dropping in the rankings (like what will happen with RPI), that'd be pretty amazing.

Now, to be honest it wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA adjusted the numbers to more heavily weigh in level of opponent. They are keeping some parts of the formula a secret, so they could change it gradually and we wouldn't notice. At least for now though, things may be looking up.
 
Last edited:
I don't pretend to know the details of how these rankings are derived (and it's my understanding some of it is kept private) but any system that has Belmont & San Francisco ranked ahead of Kansas clearly needs a lot of work.
 
Last edited:
[quote="NCJohnnie" post=305500]I don't pretend to know the details of how these rankings are derived (and it's my understanding some of it is kept private) but any system that has Belmont & San Francisco ranked ahead of Kansas clearly needs a lot work.[/quote]

Unless we're ranking race tracks or seafood cities...
 
[quote="Adam" post=305277]As you may know, the NCAA released their first NET ratings a few days ago. They have received a lot of criticism, however the system could work in our favor.

There is something pretty interesting with the (partially) secret formula- it appears to only marginally take into account level of opponent. Instead, it focuses a lot more on whether you win/lose and by what margin- regardless of what team you played.

Obviously, given our weak OOC.... this could actually be beneficial.

Take, for example, last night:
[URL][URL]https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings[/URL][/URL]

SJU is now #18, up from #32 yesterday. I was surprised to see that, because we beat a horrible opponent (#340 UMES) at home. With RPI the opposite happened and we dropped from #4 to #15 because our opponent was so bad. I noticed yesterday too that other undefeated teams with weak schedules (such as NC State/Pitt) were extremely overvalued in NET compared to other rankings. To me and a lot of others, the system seems flawed in this regard.

The best part about this is we already played the tougher half of our OOC schedule. If we can eat up cupcakes during December without dropping in the rankings (like what will happen with RPI), that'd be pretty amazing.

Now, to be honest it wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA adjusted the numbers to more heavily weigh in level of opponent. They are keeping some parts of the formula a secret, so they could change it gradually and we wouldn't notice. At least for now though, things may be looking up.[/quote]

The NET does seem very flawed for the reasons you mentioned. Without even delving into the #s it's obvious that beating weaker teams is handsomely rewarded. This metric will be extremely kind to us for the OOC. For the conference portion, it may work against us and the entire conference. A solid tournament team could easily only go 10-8 or 9-9 in this Big East.

This metric might open the door to teams in lower top-heavy conference and hurt multi-bid conferences.

In any event, whoever puts our schedule together needs props. Back to back extremely impressive jobs. It's starting to feel like it isn't just luck or coincidence.
 
wonder if this will create a swing in strategy for teams for OOC scheduling next year.

probably not since it seems NCAA can tweak algorithms since it's not revealed and it may change for next year.

Still makes sense to play some cupcakes but also test yourself against equal or better vs. heavy on the easy games
 
[quote="Marillac" post=305502][quote="Adam" post=305277]As you may know, the NCAA released their first NET ratings a few days ago. They have received a lot of criticism, however the system could work in our favor.

There is something pretty interesting with the (partially) secret formula- it appears to only marginally take into account level of opponent. Instead, it focuses a lot more on whether you win/lose and by what margin- regardless of what team you played.

Obviously, given our weak OOC.... this could actually be beneficial.

Take, for example, last night:
[URL][URL]https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings[/URL][/URL]

SJU is now #18, up from #32 yesterday. I was surprised to see that, because we beat a horrible opponent (#340 UMES) at home. With RPI the opposite happened and we dropped from #4 to #15 because our opponent was so bad. I noticed yesterday too that other undefeated teams with weak schedules (such as NC State/Pitt) were extremely overvalued in NET compared to other rankings. To me and a lot of others, the system seems flawed in this regard.

The best part about this is we already played the tougher half of our OOC schedule. If we can eat up cupcakes during December without dropping in the rankings (like what will happen with RPI), that'd be pretty amazing.

Now, to be honest it wouldn't surprise me if the NCAA adjusted the numbers to more heavily weigh in level of opponent. They are keeping some parts of the formula a secret, so they could change it gradually and we wouldn't notice. At least for now though, things may be looking up.[/quote]

The NET does seem very flawed for the reasons you mentioned. Without even delving into the #s it's obvious that beating weaker teams is handsomely rewarded. This metric will be extremely kind to us for the OOC. For the conference portion, it may work against us and the entire conference. A solid tournament team could easily only go 10-8 or 9-9 in this Big East.

This metric might open the door to teams in lower top-heavy conference and hurt multi-bid conferences.

In any event, whoever puts our schedule together needs props. Back to back extremely impressive jobs. It's starting to feel like it isn't just luck or coincidence.[/quote]

Let's see how it ends up at the end of the year. These preliminary numbers are interesting to look at, but we've already been told the NCAA will use other metrics along with the NET ranking.
 
Early season RPI rankings were always questionable as well. Both teams in question are undefeated. Once they lose it'll change.
 
Rutgers up 8 early vs MSU. If Rutgers is decent would be huge for our OOC. They just need to be top 75 for the win to qualify as T1.
 
[quote="Adam" post=305519]Rutgers up 8 early vs MSU. If Rutgers is decent would be huge for our OOC. They just need to be top 75 for the win to qualify as T1.[/quote]

I think they might. They have a pretty balanced team, with good size, athleticism and shooting. They just weren’t ready for us that day but they are going to be solid imo.
 
Georgia Tech, being neutral, is currently a T2 win (they are #97).

When the new rankings release today, I expect us to move up about 4-5 spots (we're currently #23).
 
NET was just updated a few minutes ago (seems to only update on weekdays)...

[URL][URL]https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings[/URL][/URL]

We dropped from #23 to #33, after a very good win vs a neutral site Georgia Tech. Georgia Tech, meanwhile, moved UP from #97 to #94.

In RPI SJU is #15.

I get that it's early, but these NET numbers look broken. It's possible they are due to how our previous opponents played over the past few days, though I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.

Anyways, still very small samples and tomorrow we'll probably be #21 or something. As I said in the OP, looking at other teams I still think running up the margins on weaker teams helps a lot, so fortunately we'll have plenty of opportunities to do that in December. I suspect during December our RPI will drop and our NET will rise.
 
Last edited:
We also have a Pomeroy of 49 and a Sagarin of 52 and 40 in ESPN’s BPI which is to be expected given our soft schedule and close games. As long as we don’t slip up before Seton Hall our season will come down to how we play in conference.
 
[quote="Adam" post=306128]NET was just updated a few minutes ago (seems to only update on weekdays)...

[URL][URL]https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings[/URL][/URL]

We dropped from #23 to #33, after a very good win vs a neutral site Georgia Tech. Georgia Tech, meanwhile, moved UP from #97 to #94.

In RPI SJU is #15.

I get that it's early, but these NET numbers look broken. It's possible they are due to how our previous opponents played over the past few days, though I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.

Anyways, still very small samples and tomorrow we'll probably be #21 or something. As I said in the OP, looking at other teams I still think running up the margins on weaker teams helps a lot, so fortunately we'll have plenty of opportunities to do that in December. I suspect during December our RPI will drop and our NET will rise.[/quote]

Weird to fall ten spots but I think it had a lot to do with Rutgers falling 40 spots with Miami losing to Yale and Rutgers losing to Michigan State. Seems like all the negative energy is built in at this point. Rutgers remaining top 50 was not sustainable.

A VCU win over a Texas would really help. Now we need to trounce this weaklings coming up. These close games aren't helping.
 
Last edited:
Andrew/Marillac-

Yep, I noticed Rutgers and was thinking about mentioning them, but since they're only 1/7th of our opponents I didn't think them moving down from (I think) 51 to 78 would have that much of an impact. Some impact for certain, though.

And yes, margins definitely play a part in all this. Despite being 7-0, we've performed worse than the line in I believe every game (aside from Rutgers). That explains why RPI (which doesn't factor margins) is higher than NET. And then something like KenPom which primarily factors in margins (rather than winning/losing) undervalues us.

Something to keep in mind too, there are still plenty of teams ahead of us that won't be there by the end of the year. #13 Buffalo (actually wouldn't shock me), #17 Utah St, #29 San Fran and #30 Radford, Also suspect major conference teams who mostly have been eating up cupcakes, like #15 NC State and #33 Pitt.
 
Last edited:
Even with a solid if unspectacular conference season they should make NCAA's as long as they don't lose any non-con's that don't have the name Duke next to the game. Then the next issue will be seeding. They will get a weak seed though unless they can have a blowout conference season, 13/14 wins.

That is where those Sagarin, BPI and RPI numbers will hurt them.
 
[quote="fordham96" post=306134]Even with a solid if unspectacular conference season they should make NCAA's as long as they don't lose any non-con's that don't have the name Duke next to the game. Then the next issue will be seeding. They will get a weak seed though unless they can have a blowout conference season, 13/14 wins.

That is where those Sagarin, BPI and RPI numbers will hurt them.[/quote]

I am not sure seed is that important unless the goal is to win one game which would be great. If you are an 8 seed you play a 9 seed and have a decent chance to win but then you are almost definitely done. If you are an 11 seed(not one of the ones that go to Dayton because that is not the real tournament imo)you play a six seed which is a much harder game but if you win you play a 3 seed which gives you a slim shot at the sweet sixteen. Syracuse did the Dayton thing and made the Final Four actually.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Andrew" post=306178][quote="fordham96" post=306134]Even with a solid if unspectacular conference season they should make NCAA's as long as they don't lose any non-con's that don't have the name Duke next to the game. Then the next issue will be seeding. They will get a weak seed though unless they can have a blowout conference season, 13/14 wins.

That is where those Sagarin, BPI and RPI numbers will hurt them.[/quote]

I am not sure seed is that important unless the goal is to win one game which would be great. If you are an 8 seed you play a 9 seed and have a decent chance to win but then you are almost definitely done. If you are an 11 seed(not one of the ones that go to Dayton because that is not the real tournament imo)you play a six seed which is a much harder game but if you win you play a 3 seed which gives you a slim shot at the sweet sixteen. Syracuse did the Dayton thing and made the Final Four actually.[/quote]

Yes, but I was talking about the silly comparisons to the 98-99 and 99-2000 teams. There is a difference between simply "making" the NCAA Tournament and actually being one of the better teams to be IN the Tournament.

That is the goal of this program. Obviously making it is step 1. But I would hate to have the "BEST" years be the one's where SJU makes the Tourney as a 8/9 seed.
 
I don’t care if we wind up in an 8/9 game. I just do not want to get stuck in one of those play in games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top