NET Quad 1 | Page 3 | The Boneyard

NET Quad 1

HuskyNan said:
NET is very important in ranking. The committee has to follow the criteria

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/basketball/d1/women/D1WBB_NETFAQ.pdf
Expand ...

I'd quibble about the indicative "has to follow". NET and the other listed data sources are made available to the SelComm but, realistically, members have the independence to base their decisions on anything they want, including lobbying by coaches and conferences. This is made clear in the next paragraph in the link, which says:

"During selection weekend, the committee members independently evaluate a vast pool of
information. It is these subjective opinions, developed after watching hundreds of games,
investing many hours of personal team (or game) observations, review and comparison of
objective data, plus discussions with coaches and campus/conference representatives, that
dictate how each committee member ultimately votes on the selection of the 37 at-large
teams, followed by the seeding and bracketing of the 68-team championship bracket each
year."

Back to the data sources, note that the official 2026 Principles and Procedures document says the following resources (including rankings and polls) are made available to committee members to use as they wish in their independent subjective decisions:

"Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last twelve games, rankings, polls, injured and available/unavailable reports and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings."

Finally, note that for the 2025-26 tournament a new evaluation metric has been added to complement NET, called Wins Above Bubble (WAB). It is explained HERE.
 
Gael said:
I'd quibble about the indicative "has to follow". NET and the other listed data sources are made available to the SelComm but, realistically, members have the independence to base their decisions on anything they want, including lobbying by coaches and conferences. This is made clear in the next paragraph in the link, which says:

"During selection weekend, the committee members independently evaluate a vast pool of
information. It is these subjective opinions, developed after watching hundreds of games,
investing many hours of personal team (or game) observations, review and comparison of
objective data, plus discussions with coaches and campus/conference representatives, that
dictate how each committee member ultimately votes on the selection of the 37 at-large
teams, followed by the seeding and bracketing of the 68-team championship bracket each
year."

Back to the data sources, note that the official 2026 Principles and Procedures document says the following resources (including rankings and polls) are made available to committee members to use as they wish in their independent subjective decisions:

"Among the resources available to the committee are complete box scores, game summaries and notes, various computer rankings, head-to-head results, chronological results, Division I results, non-conference results, home and away results, results in the last twelve games, rankings, polls, injured and available/unavailable reports and the coaches’ regional advisory committee rankings."

Finally, note that for the 2025-26 tournament a new evaluation metric has been added to complement NET, called Wins Above Bubble (WAB). It is explained HERE.
Expand ...
“Independent subjective decisions.”
 
Dogdude said:
So in the end, they just make stuff up...
Expand ...

They could within limits, but I wouldn't be that cynical. I assume they give it the old college try from their salmagundi of sources.

No matter how many sources one has and how diligently studied, however, it seems to me that it must get rather murky and very subjective when trying to select and seed the bottom half of 68 teams. I struggle after the first four.
 
.-.
Woof said:
In 2023 the UConn men were #4 in the Net. That would equate to a 1 seed. They were given a FOUR seed. At best, that equates to #13.
Expand ...
The NET is one important criterion, not the only one.

The 2022-23 men’s team had 8 losses, including ugly ones to Seton Hall and St John’s (at home), they had a 6-5 road record, and didn’t win either the regular season or conference tournament championship, finishing 4th in the Big East. Their Kenpom rating was high but that’s not used for seeding.
 
Woof said:
In 2023 the UConn men were #4 in the Net. That would equate to a 1 seed. They were given a FOUR seed. At best, that equates to #13.
Expand ...

The NET is NOT the sole criteria. It is one of about a dozen items.
 
The thing about the NET is that it’s the most publicly visible of the criteria. It doesn’t have the most weight — far from it. But the committee has some small motivation to avoid departing too much from it and thereby create an impression that their seeding decisions are arbitrary. This means that they’ll have a reason for each departure from it and it doesn’t take much to figure out what it is.
 
I find this whole "quad" discussion to be rather silly. If you are a top 5 team, is there any functional difference between playing 25 or 100? The only difference might be how long you leave your top rotation players in vs lower bench to achieve whatever score you wanted.
 
trisailin said:
I find this whole "quad" discussion to be rather silly. If you are a top 5 team, is there any functional difference between playing 25 or 100? The only difference might be how long you leave your top rotation players in vs lower bench to achieve whatever score you wanted.
Expand ...
It’s in regards to NCAA tournament seeding
 
trisailin said:
I find this whole "quad" discussion to be rather silly. If you are a top 5 team, is there any functional difference between playing 25 or 100? The only difference might be how long you leave your top rotation players in vs lower bench to achieve whatever score you wanted.
Expand ...

Folks get way worked up over this for reasons that elude me.

Think about it this way: you are in a room with 100 people and are asked to pick out the 20 tallest. Some of them are obviously in or out. Donovan Clingan IN. Lorin Dixon OUT. The trick is differentiating the ones in the middle. That's what these stats are for.

Everyone knows that UConn - UCLA - SC - TX are the top 4 teams (so far), and it's easy to (a) watch their individual games and (b) look over their entire resume. But it becomes a much greater computational challenge to evaluate the middle 20 teams against each other.
 
.-.
trisailin said:
I find this whole "quad" discussion to be rather silly. If you are a top 5 team, is there any functional difference between playing 25 or 100? The only difference might be how long you leave your top rotation players in vs lower bench to achieve whatever score you wanted.
Expand ...
Yes, it is silly for the Top 5 teams to worry about it. Especially, the UConn fans on this particular UConn forum.

HOWEVER , (my gf curses me for being a lawyer every time I utter that word) HOWEVER, think how much it matters to fans of the teams fighting for spots as four seeds with home court advantage for the first two rounds. Look at the teams presently ranked 13-16 in the NET. They would be at home under a pure NET ranking system. However, when you add a quad analysis and WAB, a team or teams ranked 17-20 could jump them and “steal” their home court advantage.

Remember, not everyone here is a UConn fan who expects to win a championship every year. An elite 8 may be the best their team has done in a long time- or, like TCU, the best their team has ever done. Heck, Sweet 16 might fit the bill and that top 16 seed is important. Each new height takes a team closer to the ultimate goal.

Forgive me Nan for my non/zUConn deviation
 
Most Quad1 wins; games thru 1/29/26.
1st number is AP rank
  • 02 UCLA 11-1
  • 04 Texas 6-2
  • 03 SoCar 6-2
  • 08 Io wa 6-3
  • 07 Louis 6-3
  • 01 UConn 5-0

  • 13 MchSt 5-1 + quad 2 loss
  • 06 L S U 4-2
  • 11 Oh St 4-3
  • 15 Tenne 4-3
  • 09 Michi 4-3
  • 05 Vandy 3-1

  • 14 Baylr 3-2 + quad 2 loss
  • 24 Alabm 3-2 + quad 2 loss
  • 25 Washi 3-3 + quad 2 loss
  • 16 Maryl 3-4 + quad 2 loss
  • 18 Kntky 3-4 + quad 2 loss
  • 20 Du ke 3-5 + quad 3 loss

  • xx SoCal 3-9 +
  • xx Wisky 3-5 + 2 quad 2 & 2 quad 3 losses

Other top 25
2 wins: 12 TCU, 10 Okla, 21 TxTech, 22 WV, 23 Ga
1 win: 17 OleMiss, 19 Prin
0 wins:
 
Additionally, I used a points system
wins: 10 for Q1 / 3 for Q2 / 0 Q3 / 0 Q4
losses: -1 / -3 / -5 / -10

  1. UC LA 109
  2. SoCar 70
  3. UConn 68
  4. Texas 67
  5. Louis 66
  6. Io wa 63
  7. MchSt 58
  8. Michi 46
  9. L S U 44
  10. Baylr 40
  11. Oh St 40
  12. Tenne 40
  13. Vandy 38
  14. Alabm 37
  15. Du ke 35
  16. T C U 31
 
Most Quad1 wins; games thru 2/1/26.
1st number is AP rank (as of 2/2)
  • 02 UCLA 12-1
  • 01 UConn 6-0
  • 04 Texas 6-2
  • 06 Louis 6-3
  • 10 Io wa 6-4

  • 03 SoCar 5-2
  • 08 Michi 5-3
  • 09 Oh St 5-3
  • 12 MchSt 5-2 + quad 2 loss
  • 05 L S U 4-2

  • 19 Tenne 4-4 + quad 2 loss
  • 07 Vandy 3-2
  • 14 T C U 3-2 + quad 2 loss
  • 21 Alabm 3-3 + quad 2 loss
  • 15 Baylr 3-3 + quad 2 loss

  • 16 Kntky 3-4 + quad 2 loss
  • 22 Maryl 3-5 + quad 2 loss
  • 17 Du ke 3-5 + quad 3 loss
  • 18 TxTch 3-0 + 3 quad 2/3 losses
  • xx SoCal 3-9

  • 24 Washi 3-3 + 2 quad 2 losses
  • xx NDame 3-5 + 3 quad 2/3 losses
  • xx Wisky 3-5 + 4 quad 2/3 losses

Other top 25
2 wins: 11 Okla, 20 WV, 13 OleMiss,
1 win: 23 Prin
0 wins: 25 UNC
 
Bone Dog said:
Huh? What on earth do you think “interesting” means? Whatever.

Chinese Whatever GIF
Expand ...
Well 2 weeks ago, when Baylor as 4-3, you said "Baylor" was an interesting case? Now they are 7-4 and I still do not think they are an interesting case. According to the NCAA, Baylor is 26 now, leading to my point that back they were not "interesting" So let me flip it around, why did or do you think they were interesting to be lumped in with Louisville and Kentucky? Kentucky has really struggled since the injury to Teoni Key that they may not be interesting but I still think they have a much better resume than Baylor.

For full disclosure, I really am not a Nicki Collen fan and think she's drastically underperformed after taking over an elite program. The Baylor AD will fight to promote her 'til the hilt" given his very public feud with Mulkey and then having Mulkey win a title at LSU, but she is not the answer there. She was a failed WNBA coach and is failing at the pre-eminent Big 12 school, making them in the same class as TCU, ISU and WVU now.
 
.-.
Vowelguy said:
Most Quad1 wins; games thru 2/1/26.
1st number is AP rank (as of 2/2)
  • 02 UCLA 12-1
  • 01 UConn 6-0
  • 04 Texas 6-2
  • 06 Louis 6-3
  • 10 Io wa 6-4

  • 03 SoCar 5-2
  • 08 Michi 5-3
  • 09 Oh St 5-3
  • 12 MchSt 5-2 + quad 2 loss
  • 05 L S U 4-2

  • 19 Tenne 4-4 + quad 2 loss
  • 07 Vandy 3-2
  • 14 T C U 3-2 + quad 2 loss
  • 21 Alabm 3-3 + quad 2 loss
  • 15 Baylr 3-3 + quad 2 loss

  • 16 Kntky 3-4 + quad 2 loss
  • 22 Maryl 3-5 + quad 2 loss
  • 17 Du ke 3-5 + quad 3 loss
  • 18 TxTch 3-0 + 3 quad 2/3 losses
  • xx SoCal 3-9

  • 24 Washi 3-3 + 2 quad 2 losses
  • xx NDame 3-5 + 3 quad 2/3 losses
  • xx Wisky 3-5 + 4 quad 2/3 losses

Other top 25
2 wins: 11 Okla, 20 WV, 13 OleMiss,
1 win: 23 Prin
0 wins: 25 UNC
Expand ...
UCLA does have a high number of quad 1s but a lot of them are like just barely quad 1 when you look at their schedule. So they have the Iowa, Oklahoma, and Ohio State wins along with MD who I think has been over hyped since day 1. The rest are mostly non ranked or trending in the wrong direction teams. So yes it is 12 but ....several of them could be quad 2s with a few points here and there in the equation. Therefore, no separation in the rankings.
 
I'm not a student of the systems but it is apparant metrics can be used to change the S-curve.

On the men's side, UConn men were just "downgraded" from #2 to 3 despite blowing out Creighton, and last year the women ended up as a 2 seed, and the reason given is our competition level is lower in the Big East.

We're stuck in a so-so conference, not of our own doing and for the men the difference in ranking this year will likely push us out of the East and potentially a home advantage, to the South or West, giving Duke the East and the home advantage.

If the women weren't blowing out teams by such a high MOV I wouldn't be surprised if the committee decided to move us down based on the conference competitiveness - so these metrics do make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,873
Messages
4,497,230
Members
10,369
Latest member
Crosking


Top Bottom