Big East NET Rankings

[How Sway?!]

Hurley said recently he'd like to only play 3 buy games next season. Not sure that's going to happen but we'll see.

"It's gone so well, next year we may go to eight of these big games, and three buys, because I hate the buy games," Hurley told CBS Sports after UConn's 77-73 win over Florida earlier this week. "When I wake up the day of a buy game, I just want to go die. The anxiety, the fear that your team is — the wrecking of a loss, or just how mad you get at your team when they underestimate a scrappy, loaded mid-major team. I hate those games."

Dan Hurley wants to make UConn's nonconference schedule even tougher next season

Hurley told CBS Sports he also hopes the Big East goes from a 20- to an 18-game schedule to free up more scheduling flexibility

www.cbssports.com

I know people would prefer more quality buy games but I feel this is a fair trade off. 8 top 50 teams and 3 sub 300 teams feels better than 3 top 50 teams and 8 top 150 teams.

 

[RuffRuff]

I know people would prefer more quality buy games but I feel this is a fair trade off. 8 top 50 teams and 3 sub 300 teams feels better than 3 top 50 teams and 8 top 150 teams.

100% - schedule was amazing, but they could amp up the buy games a bit. We are playing 300+ teams - even so much as playing 175-250ish types would help and wouldn't feel that hard.

 

[Icehawk]

True, but Hurley is committed to playing HBCUs as part of the schedule and I support that. This year’s schedule is good, best ever even, so why are you guys still bitching? Oh, right we’re from Connecticut

 

[BuffaloHusky]

100% - schedule was amazing, but they could amp up the buy games a bit. We are playing 300+ teams - even so much as playing 175-250ish types would help and wouldn't feel that hard.

Re: buy games... I just feel that unless Hurley or the coaches have a relationship with the coach like they did with Russo and Northern Arizona a few seasons ago... we should only play regional teams in buy games. I saw the Mississippi Valley State game a few years ago and that was the worst Division 1 team I ever saw and just didn't understand how they got on our schedule. Stick to the Tri-State and New England for your cupcakes. There are plenty to go around.

 

[aceboon]

True, but Hurley is committed to playing HBCUs as part of the schedule and I support that. This year’s schedule is good, best ever even, so why are you guys still bitching? Oh, right we’re from Connecticut

none of the buy games this year were HBCUs

 

[NJHusky]

100% would be relevant. Scoring differential matters. A 30 point win vs a 50 point win is meaningful - it means a team is that much more dominant, focused and can play through a game without letting down. Kill shots.

Is it really? A 30 pt win v a 3 pt win yes. At some point if you're up by 30 human nature is to just slow down play, end the game injury free and move on. I doubt any player cares if they beat a 250 Net team by 30 or 50...

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Re: buy games... I just feel that unless Hurley or the coaches have a relationship with the coach like they did with Russo and Northern Arizona a few seasons ago... we should only play regional teams in buy games. I saw the Mississippi Valley State game a few years ago and that was the worst Division 1 team I ever saw and just didn't understand how they got on our schedule. Stick to the Tri-State and New England for your cupcakes. There are plenty to go around.

Your question was answered before you asked it.

True, but Hurley is committed to playing HBCUs as part of the schedule and I support that. This year’s schedule is good, best ever even, so why are you guys still bitching? Oh, right we’re from Connecticut

 

[uconn_jack]

I hate to do it, but I agree with Nelson on this one. I think straight win margin is a poor statistic to use without serious situational adjustments.

 

[RuffRuff]

Is it really? A 30 pt win v a 3 pt win yes. At some point if you're up by 30 human nature is to just slow down play, end the game injury free and move on. I doubt any player cares if they beat a 250 Net team by 30 or 50...

How about if you're deep? Or you're just that good you overpower the competition quick & early? And that playing 80% still overpowers the comp. I do agree that 3 vs 30 is a much bigger diff, but I don't think 30 to 50 is nothing.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There was no question mark in your statement: "I simply disagree with the principle that different levels of blowouts are meaningfully predictive or that they should be significant drivers of the models' results." That was entirely where my first paragraph was directed, which I used punctuation symbols known as "quotation marks" to reference your "disagree" statement so that you would have the context clues to understand that. I'm not upset, I said it was comical. You "disagreeing" with a "principle" with absolutely nothing to back it up but your good old gut feeling and contrarian can-do attitude makes me chuckle.

I proceeded to then help you start getting answers to some of your questions. But the key phrases I used were "start here" and "do a google". My link definitely does not answer everything. The answers to the thoughts you posed with your "question mark punctuation symbols" and the subsequent ones in your follow-up are probably all out there if you're interested enough. Good luck. Start your research. The only thing I'll answer is that of course all modern models that are empirically-derived and back-tested do better than the RPI. The RPI is unsound and arbitrary. That and yes the NET is on that site, but you have to uncheck the hide box since it doesn't release at the start of the season.

Why would I do an extensive research project for a debate on a message board when I know there are people that have already found what I am looking for?

Thanks for the heads up on how to use the site. When the RPI is included, it emphasizes the problem of how tightly bunched all of the assessments are. The RPI is only included for a couple of years, which is strange, but even the two years that are included provide enough evidence that these predictive models are somewhat better than the RPI for predicting the outcome, but not by a big margin. And why is predicting the outcome of the next game the decisive factor about which source to use for selecting and seeding the tournament field anyway? Isn't tournament seeding about who actually won more games against better competition?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

No, you’re just pointing out that you still don’t understand how these metrics work.

To help you, try flipping your argument around. If, say, Duke, beat CCSU by 2 in Cameron, you wouldn’t find that result compelling? You don’t think it reflects on either teams resume?

Your precious RPI would treat that as any home win.

I don't object, or care, whether gamblers want to use these tools, and they do appear to have some value for that, but final scores in blowouts captures a lot of things beyond just relative quality of teams.

Your example is a stupid strawman. How about this example: Butler beats South Carolina State 70-55 because Matta gives a starter the night off and pulls the rest of the starters up by 30 with 12 minutes left to protect them against injury and give his bench some game time. A week later, South Carolina beats South Carolina State by 60 because the SC coach leaves his starters on the court until a minute left. By your logic, South Carolina should gain ground on Butler in the NET because South Carolina beat the same team by 4 times as much even though neither game was ever in doubt. If it was up to me, just playing more than 2 non-conference teams outside the top 300 would count as a home loss to a mid-major for the purposes of tournament selection and seeding. I would probably add a separate limit for teams outside the Top 200. There is no competitive reason for >5 games against teams that bad to have any positive factor at all in tournament selection or seeding.

Throwing these absurd games into an efficiency stew and thinking there is any way to make a game against South Carolina State remotely comparable to even an A10 or MWC opponent is ridiculous.

Also, there was nothing stopping the committee from evaluating a 2 point win over CCSU negatively for seeding in the RPI era. They just had enough intellectual honesty back then not to pretend there was a way to elevate unholy blowouts against terrible, D1-in-name-only, programs to approach wins against majors or mid-majors. RPI hammered teams for playing terrible schedules, and those teams deserved it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Missouri Men's Basketball Schedule Scores & Stats | WarrenNolan.com

The 2026 Men's Basketball Schedule for the Missouri Tigers with today’s scores plus records, conference records, post season records, strength of schedule, streaks and statistics.

www.warrennolan.com

Let's not talk in the abstract. Missouri has a NET of 96 and a KenPom of 64. Missouri is 1-3 against team ranked in the top 216 of NET. 7 of its 10 wins are against teams ranked 280 or worse. Its RPI is 133, which is a lot more appropriate for a team with a schedule like this.

 

[HooperScooper]

I saw the Mississippi Valley State game a few years ago and that was the worst Division 1 team I ever saw and just didn't understand how they got on our schedule.

The Southwestern Athletic Conference is a collegiate athletic conference headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, which is made up of historically black colleges and universities in the Southern United States.

2026 SWAC Bowling Tournament - Southwestern Athletic Conference

swac.org

 

[businesslawyer]

100% would be relevant. Scoring differential matters. A 30 point win vs a 50 point win is meaningful - it means a team is that much more dominant, focused and can play through a game without letting down. Kill shots.

Right. I already agreed with that. You’re not going to address what I said in the second paragraph of my earlier post?

 

[RuffRuff]

Right. I already agreed with that. You’re not going to address what I said in the second paragraph of my earlier post?

On the other hand, no one would seriously propose that, in the standings, the Sox should get more wins for their sweep than the Yankees get from theirs. So when folks object to putting much weight on the KenPom/Net type numbers that's all they're saying. Because schedules in college sports are far less balanced than in a professional league, it's fine to reward and punish teams for their strengths of schedule when you compare their records, but just because margins are useful in making predictions doesn't mean they should be used in ranking teams for anything meaningful.

Do we know how much a big blowout win is even weighted?

 

[RuffRuff]

I don't object, or care, whether gamblers want to use these tools, and they do appear to have some value for that, but final scores in blowouts captures a lot of things beyond just relative quality of teams.

Your example is a stupid strawman. How about this example: Butler beats South Carolina State 70-55 because Matta gives a starter the night off and pulls the rest of the starters up by 30 with 12 minutes left to protect them against injury and give his bench some game time. A week later, South Carolina beats South Carolina State by 60 because the SC coach leaves his starters on the court until a minute left. By your logic, South Carolina should gain ground on Butler in the NET because South Carolina beat the same team by 4 times as much even though neither game was ever in doubt. If it was up to me, just playing more than 2 non-conference teams outside the top 300 would count as a home loss to a mid-major for the purposes of tournament selection and seeding. I would probably add a separate limit for teams outside the Top 200. There is no competitive reason for >5 games against teams that bad to have any positive factor at all in tournament selection or seeding.

Throwing these absurd games into an efficiency stew and thinking there is any way to make a game against South Carolina State remotely comparable to even an A10 or MWC opponent is ridiculous.

Also, there was nothing stopping the committee from evaluating a 2 point win over CCSU negatively for seeding in the RPI era. They just had enough intellectual honesty back then not to pretend there was a way to elevate unholy blowouts against terrible, D1-in-name-only, programs to approach wins against majors or mid-majors. RPI hammered teams for playing terrible schedules, and those teams deserved it.

Bro, what is your bottom line point? That the Big East is good this year?

 

[businesslawyer]

On the other hand, no one would seriously propose that, in the standings, the Sox should get more wins for their sweep than the Yankees get from theirs. So when folks object to putting much weight on the KenPom/Net type numbers that's all they're saying. Because schedules in college sports are far less balanced than in a professional league, it's fine to reward and punish teams for their strengths of schedule when you compare their records, but just because margins are useful in making predictions doesn't mean they should be used in ranking teams for anything meaningful.

Do we know how much a big blowout win is even weighted?

As I understand it, for the most part the last possessions in a 50 point blowout against a plus 300 team have close to the same importance as the last possessions in a game against a top ten importance. The expectations aren’t the same, but the importance to the computer rankings is pretty close.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

So take that one step further. If the Yankees sweep a 3 game set against the Nationals at home, winning each game by 1 run, and the Red Sox sweep the Nationals at home winning each game by 10, would the margin be relevant in trying to predict who would win a Yankees--Red Sox series the following week? Of course it would be relevant. Not determinative, but certainly relevant.

The way I see it, how each team's starting pitching lines up would be most relevant.

 

[RuffRuff]

The way I see it, how each team's starting pitching lines up would be most relevant.

In this day and age of the 5 inning starts, not so much.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Bro, what is your bottom line point? That the Big East is good this year?

Actually, you and I agree about 95% on the issue of the value of efficiency rankings, so you are just trolling with posts like this.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

LSU is 35 NET, 36 KenPom, and 42 RPI. Depaul, with a NET of 128, is LSU's second best win.

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/schedule/LSU

 

[HooperScooper]

UConn just moved up to #5 on Kenpom. Traded places with Gonzaga after they struggled with Seattle. They were favored by 24.5.

2026 Pomeroy College Basketball Ratings

 

[auror]

So take that one step further. If the Yankees sweep a 3 game set against the Nationals at home, winning each game by 1 run, and the Red Sox sweep the Nationals at home winning each game by 10, would the margin be relevant in trying to predict who would win a Yankees--Red Sox series the following week? Of course it would be relevant. Not determinative, but certainly relevant.

On the other hand, no one would seriously propose that, in the standings, the Sox should get more wins for their sweep than the Yankees get from theirs. So when folks object to putting much weight on the KenPom/Net type numbers that's all they're saying. Because schedules in college sports are far less balanced than in a professional league, it's fine to reward and punish teams for their strengths of schedule when you compare their records, but just because margins are useful in making predictions doesn't mean they should be used in ranking teams for anything meaningful.

And why is predicting the outcome of the next game the decisive factor about which source to use for selecting and seeding the tournament field anyway? Isn't tournament seeding about who actually won more games against better competition?

This is why the committee puts more weight into resume metrics when selecting teams for the field than predictive metrics. It's why your own NET matters very little for selection. The wins and resume matter more than the margin models on the bubble because they want to reward wins and losses and achievement (and it's also why they made the NET a hybrid instead of making it straight efficiency and more predictive). At the top for the first few seedlines it's also pretty heavily resume-shaded.

However, when seeding the field in other parts, they rely on predictive metrics so that the difficulty integrity and value of the seeds of the bracket are better upheld. You don't want to punish better seeds with tougher matchups just because a lower seed lost a couple coinflip games and ended up with a worse resume. But they don't tend to do straight predictive metrics for the middle seeds. More of a "your resume place you here... but your predictives are a LOT better so we'll bump you up a couple seedlines." See Gonzaga last season.

Makers of predictive metrics, like Ken Pomeroy, made this exact case to the NCAA when they were gathering feedback from analytics people.

https://kansaspublicnotices.com/KSLegals/2025/31342-2025-03-16_1002.pdf

These representatives of the seven metrics used by the NCAA tournament selection committee all agreed the NCAA improved the selection process by eliminating the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI), developing the NCAA Evaluation Tool (or NET) and embracing a variety of ratings systems, beginning with the 2018-19 season.

But they also agreed on this point :Only some of the seven metrics should actually be used to pick the 68 teams that make the NCAA tournament. Pomeroy said his rankings shouldn’t be used. Torvik said his rankings shouldn’t be used. Nobody said the NET should be used. Not even Pattani, who helped create the NET through the NCAA’s corporate partnership with Google. “It’s a little weird I’m on the teamsheet,” Pomeroy admitted in an interview with USA TODAY Sports. “But I think everyone (on the selection committee) understands they’re not going through my rating system and picking the best teams. They understand my rating system is more predictive and you’re not picking teams based on how good they are in a predictive sense. You’re picking them based on their accomplishments.”

But fans nonetheless read and hear about most NCAA Tournament hopefuls in terms of their NET ranking around Selection Sunday, with the nuance of each ratings system often lost in the emotions of March Madness and whether a team is perceived to b eranked too high or too low. The seven metrics on NCAA teamsheets are technically divided into two categories. The NET, KenPom ratings, ESPN’s Basketball Power Index (BPI) and Torvik ratings are considered predictive rankings, or how good a team is based on its offensive and defensive efficiency, adjusted for opponent strength and location. ESPN’s strength of record, the Kevin Pauga Index (KPI) and wins above bubble (or WAB) are results based rankings that judge how hard it was for a team to attain its resume.

Torvik and WAB are making their debut on NCAA Tournament team sheets, with particular interest being paid to the WAB because creator Seth Burn believes if selection committee members “just use that, they can simplify it quite a lot,” he told USA Today Sports, “and it will guide them in who they should select. ”Though the general principles used to formulate these metrics are made public, the exact formulas used for them are not. It’s viewed as proprietary information, even though “most of them are pretty similar,” Morris told USA TODAY Sports. “They’re using a lot of the same input data. ... We’ve converged to some degree.”

Everybody in the NCAA-produced round table said results-based metrics are what should be used to choose teams for the NCAA tournament.

 

[businesslawyer]

This is why the committee puts more weight into resume metrics when selecting teams for the field than predictive metrics. It's why your own NET matters very little for selection. The wins and resume matter more than the margin models on the bubble because they want to reward wins and losses and achievement (and it's also why they made the NET a hybrid instead of making it straight efficiency and more predictive). At the top for the first few seedlines it's also pretty heavily resume-shaded.

However, when seeding the field in other parts, they rely on predictive metrics so that the difficulty integrity and value of the seeds of the bracket are better upheld. You don't want to punish better seeds with tougher matchups just because a lower seed lost a couple coinflip games and ended up with a worse resume. But they don't tend to do straight predictive metrics for the middle seeds. More of a "your resume place you here... but your predictives are a LOT better so we'll bump you up a couple seedlines." See Gonzaga last season.

Makers of predictive metrics, like Ken Pomeroy, made this exact case to the NCAA when they were gathering feedback from analytics people.

https://kansaspublicnotices.com/KSLegals/2025/31342-2025-03-16_1002.pdf

Outstanding post.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This is why the committee puts more weight into resume metrics when selecting teams for the field than predictive metrics. It's why your own NET matters very little for selection. The wins and resume matter more than the margin models on the bubble because they want to reward wins and losses and achievement (and it's also why they made the NET a hybrid instead of making it straight efficiency and more predictive). At the top for the first few seedlines it's also pretty heavily resume-shaded.

However, when seeding the field in other parts, they rely on predictive metrics so that the difficulty integrity and value of the seeds of the bracket are better upheld. You don't want to punish better seeds with tougher matchups just because a lower seed lost a couple coinflip games and ended up with a worse resume. But they don't tend to do straight predictive metrics for the middle seeds. More of a "your resume place you here... but your predictives are a LOT better so we'll bump you up a couple seedlines." See Gonzaga last season.

Makers of predictive metrics, like Ken Pomeroy, made this exact case to the NCAA when they were gathering feedback from analytics people.

https://kansaspublicnotices.com/KSLegals/2025/31342-2025-03-16_1002.pdf

Good article. Several of the owners of these metrics are saying that these metrics should not be used for tournament selection and seeding, which is exactly what I am saying.

Mr. Pomeroy's comments notwithstanding, there is no evidence that the rest of your post reflects the reality of how the tournament is selected. The NCAA periodically publishes the NET ratings, and it is used to determine Quad 1 through 4 wins, which makes it critically important.

If we are being honest, the NCAA replaced a simple if imperfect metric, the RPI, that measured teams' performance against the quality of their records, with a black box that clearly favored the power conferences over the mid-majors, and within the power conferences, clearly favors some conferences over others.

 

[auror]

Good article. Several of the owners of these metrics are saying that these metrics should not be used for tournament selection and seeding, which is exactly what I am saying.

Mr. Pomeroy's comments notwithstanding, there is no evidence that the rest of your post reflects the reality of how the tournament is selected. The NCAA periodically publishes the NET ratings, and it is used to determine Quad 1 through 4 wins, which makes it critically important.

You are misreading it in order to apply your agenda. They are universally saying they would not use predictive metrics to select the field. Only predictive and only not for selection. None of them say don't use predictive metrics for seeding and all of them say use resume metrics for selection.

There is plenty of evidence that the committee relies more heavily on resume metrics in general and especially for selection:

WAB (and resume metrics in general) was the most aligned metric with the field last year:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giovannimalloy/2025/03/20/the-metrics-that-most-aligned-with-march-madness-tournament-seeds/

From a few years ago, (and from before WAB was on the teamsheet) but already resume metrics were favored for selecting teams on the bubble

Bracketology: Analyzing impact of metrics in NCAA Tournament selection, seeding — Heat Check CBB

Bracketology season is on the horizon. Which metrics warrant major attention and how does the committee evaluate the different types?

heatcheckcbb.com

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You are misreading it in order to apply your agenda. They are universally saying they would not use predictive metrics to select the field. Only predictive and only not for selection. None of them say don't use predictive metrics for seeding and all of them say use resume metrics for selection.

There is plenty of evidence that the committee relies more heavily on resume metrics in general and especially for selection:

WAB (and resume metrics in general) was the most aligned metric with the field last year:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giovannimalloy/2025/03/20/the-metrics-that-most-aligned-with-march-madness-tournament-seeds/

From a few years ago, (and from before WAB was on the teamsheet) but already resume metrics were favored for selecting teams on the bubble

Bracketology: Analyzing impact of metrics in NCAA Tournament selection, seeding — Heat Check CBB

Bracketology season is on the horizon. Which metrics warrant major attention and how does the committee evaluate the different types?

heatcheckcbb.com

View attachment 115480

You are digging deep to look for things to disagree with me about.

In summary, you are defending metrics systems as perfect when they are deeply flawed and their owners are even saying have serious limitations. I work with a lot of models, and I always apply a common sense test to see if the model makes sense. In this case, the models are identifying this year's SEC as one of the best conferences in history, yet that SEC has a losing record against the other majors, and no one can explain why that obvious contradiction exists.

 

[pepband99]

You are digging deep to look for things to disagree with me about.

Hahahahahahahaha - pot/kettle. You're actually serious?

 

[auror]

You are digging deep to look for things to disagree with me about.

In summary, you are defending metrics systems as perfect when they are deeply flawed and their owners are even saying have serious limitations.

In summary, you misrepresent my argument, because that's how you argue. Show me where I say they are perfect. I would consider my stance that certain metrics are the best tool we have for the job, as long as you are using the right tool for the specific job you have in mind.

I think the distinctions I raised from your previous post are important and it was worth pointing out so you don't continue spreading misconceptions. Predictive metrics are good at what they do and better than the alternatives, but the things they measure (what team is likely better) should not be what the committee values when selecting the teams for the tournament. Bids should be earned with achievement. Wins and losses are what matter for achievement, and resume metrics do a much better job of measuring achievement.

 

[RuffRuff]

In summary, you misrepresent my argument, because that's how you argue. Show me where I say they are perfect. I would consider my stance that certain metrics are the best tool we have for the job, as long as you are using the right tool for the specific job you have in mind.

I think the distinctions I raised from your previous post are important and it was worth pointing out so you don't continue spreading misconceptions. Predictive metrics are good at what they do and better than the alternatives, but the things they measure (what team is likely better) should not be what the committee values when selecting the teams for the tournament. Bids should be earned with achievement. Wins and losses are what matter for achievement, and resume metrics do a much better job of measuring achievement.

Look no further than quality wins (usually against other tourney teams) as the main criteria. This is a criteria the BE is sorely lacking in. Measuring league strength based on bad teams beating each other up isn’t much if you ask me.

Give me our top 3 league wins outside of UConn?