Guess who lost today

[Tonyc]

FSU 21 Beat VT 11
Colorado 5 beat Stanford 9
Auburn beat LSU 7
USC 9 beat UCLA 2

If all holds true UConn is movin on up

We saw how UConn fell when loosing to top teams and Auburn isnt ranked.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

UConn should move up, what they are being penalized for at this point is early losses. Virginia Tech may fall below UConn, Stanford won't drop much, LSU probably won't drop as far as they should. USC / UCLA split their rivalry series and only have losses to each other, so don't see much movement there, either.

 

[JellyBean]

Wow! I was watching that LSU/Auburn game. What a wild season!! UConn will move back into the top 10 without any doubt.

 

[rvwsleep]

LSU has 1 win versus a ranked team (VT) and they have 2 losses overall.
One loss was against a ranked team (Colorado) and the other loss is to an unranked, and previously 0-3 in the SEC, Auburn team. Overall, their wins against even mediocre teams are few.
With that resume`, why are they ranked so high ?

 

[Darwin]

LSU will (and should) be ranked outside the top 10, prob around 12.

SC
Iowa
Ucla
Colo
USC
Ncsu
Kstate
Uconn
Stanford
Texas
Baylor
LSU
VT
ND
OSU
Gonz
Ind
Lville
Fsu
NC
OregSt

 

[visitingcock]

UConn is still 4 NET. Forget the meaningless people polls.

 

[BRS24]

LSU has 1 win versus a ranked team (VT) and they have 2 losses overall.
One loss was against a ranked team (Colorado) and the other loss is to an unranked, and previously 0-3 in the SEC, Auburn team. Overall, their wins against even mediocre teams are few.
With that resume`, why are they ranked so high ?

It's my Alabama football theory. LSU was preseason #1 as national champs. Regardless of SOS in November & December, they only dropped to #7 after losing to Colorado. Even though subsequent wins were via lesser opponents, they were still winning, so voters weren't going to move them down, even if they won 1000-9.

 

[triaddukefan]

Georgia Tech and Hampton

 

[bbsamjj]

UConn is still 4 NET. Forget the meaningless people polls.

Correct but the NET is doing weird things now too. Utah at 6. UCLA at 7. NC St at 9. USC at 12. Colorado at 15.

It will work itself out but Colorado is a 1 seed right now, not a 4 (if you based purely on NET).

 

[Darwin]

Correct but the NET is doing weird things now too. Utah at 6. UCLA at 7. NC St at 9. USC at 12. Colorado at 15.

It will work itself out but Colorado is a 1 seed right now, not a 4 (if you based purely on NET).

This

 

[visitingcock]

Correct but the NET is doing weird things now too. Utah at 6. UCLA at 7. NC St at 9. USC at 12. Colorado at 15.

It will work itself out but Colorado is a 1 seed right now, not a 4 (if you based purely on NET).

No. Colorado would not be a 1 seed. The committee can move people out of the bracket indicate by their NET rank. But not three brackets up. An LSU might get bumped down two brackets due to schedule but nobody’s getting bumped UP three over other deserving teams.

I’m not saying they won’t be a one seed. If they win out? Sure. I am saying they are not Yet close enough to be a one seed. They are gonna have to lose no more than three over the remainder of their tough, tough remaining schedule.

 

[bbsamjj]

Is that an official policy on moving seeds based on NET? Either way I expect all PAC 12 schools to move up over next few weeks by virtue of all playing each other.

 

[wbbhoops278]

No. Colorado would not be a 1 seed. The committee can move people out of the bracket indicate by their NET rank. But not three brackets up. An LSU might get bumped down two brackets due to schedule but nobody’s getting bumped UP three over other deserving teams.

I’m not saying they won’t be a one seed. If they win out? Sure. I am saying they are not Yet close enough to be a one seed. They are gonna have to lose no more than three over the remainder of their tough, tough remaining schedule.

I think based on where teams are at today and the results thus far, it's not unreasonable that Colorado could be considered a #1 seed. My opinion would probably be a #2 seed. Regardless though, do you really think they are only a #4 seed based on that rating?

I think that's more of the point they were trying to make in that based on results, the NET often doesn't seem to really make much sense...and I would have to agree. How in the world is TX at #2? I know the factors that supposedly go into the net but I'm very curious what the actual algorithm is (weights, etc.) that yields these results because it doesn't pass a gut check for me.

 

[nwhoopfan]

RPI had issues, but to me NET is no better. Both yield some completely nonsensical results.

 

[visitingcock]

RPI had issues, but to me NET is no better. Both yield some completely nonsensical results.

So, would you prefer human polls?

 

[visitingcock]

I think based on where teams are at today and the results thus far, it's not unreasonable that Colorado could be considered a #1 seed. My opinion would probably be a #2 seed. Regardless though, do you really think they are only a #4 seed based on that rating?

I think that's more of the point they were trying to make in that based on results, the NET often doesn't seem to really make much sense...and I would have to agree. How in the world is TX at #2? I know the factors that supposedly go into the net but I'm very curious what the actual algorithm is (weights, etc.) that yields these results because it doesn't pass a gut check for me.

I agree Texas is not worthy of number two. So, the committee can drop them 7 or 8 spots. but they can’t completely abandon their guide.

No system is perfect but I don’t want things left completely up to humans looking at human polls.

 

[nwhoopfan]

So, would you prefer human polls?

Some combination of mathematical formula and humans applying reasoning/judgement is probably the best of all the imperfect options.

 

[Plebe]

Is that an official policy on moving seeds based on NET? Either way I expect all PAC 12 schools to move up over next few weeks by virtue of all playing each other.

The NET doesn't necessarily work like that. It assesses results and efficiency relative to strength of opponent, but it's not inherently a NET booster or detractor to play good or bad teams.

 

[LETTERL]

The NET doesn't necessarily work like that. It assesses results and efficiency relative to strength of opponent, but it's not inherently a NET booster or detractor to play good or bad teams.

One big problem with the NET is that a team with a big lead and puts in reserves and then sees the lead dwindle below blowout status gets penalized for that. When the objective is to give other players some playing time while being respectful of your opponent.

 

[Plebe]

One big problem with the NET is that a team with a big lead and puts in reserves and then sees the lead dwindle below blowout status gets penalized for that. When the objective is to give other players some playing time while being respectful of your opponent.

The impact that this has on the NET over the course of an entire season is negligible and often overstated.

 

[triaddukefan]

Some combination of mathematical formula and humans applying reasoning/judgement is probably the best of all the imperfect options.

Humans as in polls? Committees? or Netural Fans?

 

[visitingcock]

Some combination of mathematical formula and humans applying reasoning/judgement is probably the best of all the imperfect options.

That’s why there is a committee

 

[wbbhoops278]

I agree Texas is not worthy of number two. So, the committee can drop them 7 or 8 spots. but they can’t completely abandon their guide.

No system is perfect but I don’t want things left completely up to humans looking at human polls.

I agree entirely. That's why I said I was curious what was underneath the algorithm. Admittedly, I work with data fora job so the geeky side of me is like "how can this be better?"