First NET Rankings | The Boneyard

First NET Rankings

triaddukefan

Tobacco Road Gastronomer
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
19,888
Reaction Score
61,141
Here is a different version of the rankings. Not sure what to make of it or which to believe.



Duke at #20 ?

giphy.gif


I'm sure as heck ain't believing those rankings
 

Bigboote

That's big-boo-TAY
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
7,207
Reaction Score
36,923
Wow! Richmond is #19 and the A10 and Ivy each have three teams in the top 50. I hope that continues and that the committee is forced to take notice of the mid-majors.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
1,002
Reaction Score
4,617
Duke at #20 ?

giphy.gif


I'm sure as heck ain't believing those rankings
I agree. I think, for whatever reason, some of the sites have yet to get the newly released data. After checking the NCAA site posted above, I went to the Warren Nolan page, and they still had Vandy at 55 while the NCAA site had the Dores at 7. Now, Warren Nolan's site also has Vandy at 7. I think that must be what is happening at the CBS site, which has Duke at 20. If I remember correctly, that's where you finished last year.
 

undersized

Iowa/Indiana/Big Ten Fan
Joined
Apr 9, 2021
Messages
442
Reaction Score
1,642
This season is the first season that the women's tournament committee is evaluating resumes by quadrants.

Quad 1 (home 1-25, neutral 1-35, away 1-45)
Quad 2 (home 26-55, neutral 36-65, away 46-80)
Quad 3 (home 56-90, neutral 66-105, away 81-130)
Quad 4 (home 91+, neutral 106+, away 131+)

The ranges are narrower than on the men's side. The justification is that the drop off in talent is more drastic in the women's game.

For example, here's Iowa's currently uninspiring resume (all wins):

Quad 1: None.
Quad 2: Virginia Tech (#54 neutral)
Quad 3: Kansas (#68 neutral), BYU (#103 neutral), Drake (#113 away)
Quad 4: Washington State (#143 home), Rhode Island (#145 neutral), Toledo (#172 home), NIU (#227 home)

Using the more generous men's quadrant classifications, four of Iowa's Quad 3-4 wins would move up a quadrant.
 
Joined
Sep 2, 2024
Messages
457
Reaction Score
2,091
Margin of victory matters if I remember correctly.

So ucla’s unimpressive win over Hawaii. UConn taking their foot off the gas against Boston. Those type of things impact the NET. But I wouldn’t worry about it. The committee has shown they value NET, but only to a point. I think teams in the NET 20’s have missed out on the tournament before.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
22,496
Reaction Score
55,506
Remember that these formulas are designed to work with a lot of data, which we will have at the end of the season. We don't now.

It would be like surveying 100,000 people, and looking at the first 10 responses to draw conclusions.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
1,002
Reaction Score
4,617
So which one is the accurate one? By accurate I mean the most likely determiner for the NCAA Tournament predictions. Thanks
The one you included in your post is the accurate one. The other one apparently still reflects rankings from the end of last season for some reason.

ETA: Just saw that the second one I posted (CBS) has been updated and is the same as the first one.
 

Plebe

La verdad no peca pero incomoda
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
19,490
Reaction Score
70,377
Margin of victory matters if I remember correctly.
“With the changes announced in May 2020, the NET will no longer use winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage and scoring margin.”
Scoring margin per se isn't a factor, but the difference between dominant wins and narrow wins does get reflected somewhat in the “adjusted net efficiency” component of the NET (points per possession minus opponents' points per possession, adjusted for strength of opponent and game location).

Division I Women’s Basketball NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) FAQs
 

Plebe

La verdad no peca pero incomoda
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
19,490
Reaction Score
70,377
Quad 1 (home 1-25, neutral 1-35, away 1-45)
Quad 2 (home 26-55, neutral 36-65, away 46-80)
Quad 3 (home 56-90, neutral 66-105, away 81-130)
Quad 4 (home 91+, neutral 106+, away 131+)
False, as far as bestQuad One record

South Carolina has Also a 3-1 record vs. Quad 1. Tie.


Real Carolina
SEC (0-0)
Team Sheet 7-1137-1132-01-14-03-11-03-00-0893
The devil's in the details.

You seem to be relying on Warren Nolan's site, which, for all its virtues, is unfortunately using the men's quad ranges on its women's team sheets. (See @undersized 's post on how the ranges differ.)

The win at Clemson (#52) does not fall within the women's Quad 1 range (1-45 for away games).

Your assertion about Quad 4 games is also inaccurate per the women's ranges. The Purdue, Coppin State and East Carolina games are all Quad 4.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
22,496
Reaction Score
55,506
Pts (my arbitrary system):

1) Duke +17​
2) SCar +15​
3) UCLA, TCU, Maryland, Richmond, Harvard +11​
8) UConn, Mich St +10​


wins: +5 Q1 / +1 Q2 / 0 Q3 & Q4
loss: -1 Q1 / -2 Q2 / -5 Q3 & Q4

EDIT: I'm using the Warren Nolan site. If anyone knows of a site with the correct Quad records, LMK.
 
Last edited:

DefenseBB

Snark is always appreciated!
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
8,038
Reaction Score
29,439
On a related note, Duke plays SC this week so….
Pop Corn GIF by WWE
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
1,002
Reaction Score
4,617
The devil's in the details.

You seem to be relying on Warren Nolan's site, which, for all its virtues, is unfortunately using the men's quad ranges on its women's team sheets. (See @undersized 's post on how the ranges differ.)

The win at Clemson (#52) does not fall within the women's Quad 1 range (1-45 for away games).

Your assertion about Quad 4 games is also inaccurate per the women's ranges. The Purdue, Coppin State and East Carolina games are all Quad 4.
So, the NET calculation on the NCAA page does use the new quad cutoffs the selection committee will be using? It makes sense, of course, but when I saw the Warren Nolan quads stayed the same as last season, I wasn’t sure what was happening.

Vandy is ranked seventh in this first report. Using the old quad cutoffs, the Dores have played one Quad 1 game and three Quad 2 games, going 3-1 in those games. But, using the new cutoffs, those three Quad 2 games (Butler, USF and Arizona) are reduced to Quad 3 games.

That made me wonder how Vandy could be so highly ranked when they’ve played mostly Quad 3 and Quad 4 games. I sort of answered my own question when I realized the same thing is happening to most other teams. It’s a lot harder to find Q1 and Q2, even Q3, opponents with the new system. At any given time, only 130 teams have any possibility of being a Q3 opponent or higher under the new system. Under the old system, that number was 240.

I, and I suspect most of us, tend to focus on who played who and who won. But, there are so many statistical elements percolating in the background with the NET. Those are often hard to understand and even hard to see.


The Warren Nolan rankings have the same results as the NCAA website. That makes me wonder if he is actually using the new cutoffs but just hasn’t changed the graphic on the site that still has the old cutoffs listed.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
6,028
Reaction Score
21,188
The devil's in the details.

You seem to be relying on Warren Nolan's site, which, for all its virtues, is unfortunately using the men's quad ranges on its women's team sheets. (See @undersized 's post on how the ranges differ.)

The win at Clemson (#52) does not fall within the women's Quad 1 range (1-45 for away games).

Your assertion about Quad 4 games is also inaccurate per the women's ranges. The Purdue, Coppin State and East Carolina games are all Quad 4.
Blush. Yes, I was relying on Warren Nolan . :oops:
 

Online statistics

Members online
351
Guests online
2,738
Total visitors
3,089

Forum statistics

Threads
160,143
Messages
4,219,956
Members
10,080
Latest member
unlikejo


.
Top Bottom