NET Rankings 2025-26 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

NET Rankings 2025-26

thekollieman said:
I think it’d be weird not to consider the value of a close loss. Just intuitively, we as a UConn fan base would have been far more pessimistic if we lost to Arizona by 25 than we were losing a close game. The optimists among us saw that despite being down two top 5 players, we hung we with one of the best teams in the country. That’s evidence UConn is a very good team, despite it being a loss.
Expand ...
In the context of the other games we’ve played that is true. But if we lost to Illinois, BYU, Arizona, all close we would be less than excited by the season. These “close losses” thing was ginned up by the major conferences to get mediocre team into the tournament. The Johnnies have beaten 1 team, and the Auburn loss wasn’t that close. Haven’t even played a good team on the road yet. But they probably get extra points because nobody wants to have to listen to Pitino whine again if they don’t get in. Nice to see DePaul keeping up its place at the bottom of the league though. I heard they were really upset when Seton Hall took the basement away last year.
 
thekollieman said:
I think it’d be weird not to consider the value of a close loss. Just intuitively, we as a UConn fan base would have been far more pessimistic if we lost to Arizona by 25 than we were losing a close game. The optimists among us saw that despite being down two top 5 players, we hung we with one of the best teams in the country. That’s evidence UConn is a very good team, despite it being a loss.
Expand ...
I don't know the algorithm around it in terms of weight, but I'd need to see some good wins against close losses to see value. Hard for me to reward a team that makes a habit of losing close. I get it, to a degree.
 
RuffRuff said:
I don't know the algorithm around it in terms of weight, but I'd need to see some good wins against close losses to see value. Hard for me to reward a team that makes a habit of losing close. I get it, to a degree.
Expand ...
This is not a resume metric, it's a way to gauge if a team is good or not. A bunch of close losses to good teams is not indicative of a good resume, but it does make it likely you're a pretty good team
 
Average of the 5 power conference leagues as of today:

SEC. 54.18
Big 12 60.18
ACC 64.05
Big Ten 69.30
Big East 73.00
 
.-.
CCSU at #155, ahead of 9 P5 teams (and ahead of the 2 they beat, Rutgers and BC lol).
They play @ Seton Hall on Wed for a chance for a third P5 scalp.
 
freescooter said:
In the context of the other games we’ve played that is true. But if we lost to Illinois, BYU, Arizona, all close we would be less than excited by the season. These “close losses” thing was ginned up by the major conferences to get mediocre team into the tournament. The Johnnies have beaten 1 team, and the Auburn loss wasn’t that close. Haven’t even played a good team on the road yet. But they probably get extra points because nobody wants to have to listen to Pitino whine again if they don’t get in. Nice to see DePaul keeping up its place at the bottom of the league though. I heard they were really upset when Seton Hall took the basement away last year.
Expand ...
I totally agree that we wouldn’t be excited by a bunch of close losses. I’m just saying it makes sense to me that it would taken into consideration beyond just the binary of win/loss.
 
freescooter said:
It can also be a sign that you are not good. Plenty of bad teams can keep games close. If they used this in the NFL the Giants would have locked up a playoff spot by now!
Expand ...
What a helpful comment! No one is saying it should be the only determination of how good you are. It is, properly, one determination of how good you are.
 
The order is:
  1. Win
  2. Lose by a little
  3. Lose by a lot
Nobody would trade off a win for a close loss. They’d trade off a big loss for a close loss. I don’t know how the metrics work but this just feels like common sense

For every loss, wouldn’t you rather have had a chance to win than to just get outmatched and run out of the gym? Lol
 
.-.
REB1094 said:
The order is:
  1. Win
  2. Lose by a little
  3. Lose by a lot
Nobody would trade off a win for a close loss. They’d trade off a big loss for a close loss. I don’t know how the metrics work but this just feels like common sense

For every loss, wouldn’t you rather have had a chance to win than to just get outmatched and run out of the gym? Lol
Expand ...
Question then is, is a close loss better than a win against a mid team? W/L feels pretty binary to me.

So many teams play into big leads then allow the other team to backdoor into a closer game than it looks. I feel like in either direction, there should be a threshold on value. Again, not sure how the algorithm works.
 
RuffRuff said:
Weird that close losses are viewed as a value.
Expand ...
exasperated-michael-scott.gif
 
The biggest issue for UConn here isn't that the league is bad. NET is designed to be a schedule-independent metric, or at least to the extent it's possible. This is why Gonzaga is always a high seed despite playing a poor conference schedule. Same with Houston when it was in the AAC, Duke last year in the ACC, etc.

The problem is that the league has greatly underachieved, meaning the teams UConn will be playing in conference are likely significantly better than they've shown so far. Teams like Providence and Creighton are probably closer to top 75 than they are sub-100. Same with Georgetown, Marquette, and DePaul. KenPom, for instance, which I assume is still banking a lot of its preseason data, seems to be much higher on these teams than NET. Vegas likely is as well.

In other words, the Big East is a mediocre/below average P5 conference that has been made to look like a dreadful conference over the small sample that is OOC play (this is probably due in part to several teams turning over their rosters and/or breaking in new coaches). Not ideal.
 
RuffRuff said:
Weird that close losses are viewed as a value.
Expand ...
All metrics-based sites based quality off of margin because they provide predictive value. A loss by 1 to a top 10 team indicates the other team is capable, just was unable to convert that opportunity. In theory, the losing team should eventually win a big game or play in a way where the metrics reflect how good they are.

Similarly, winning by 1 means that you played about equal to your opponent, it’s just that someone has to win and they pulled it off.
 
ctbro1999 said:
I really wonder if we end up being the "Golden ticket" for the BE fringe bubble teams, where a W against us is the centerpiece of an otherwise unflattering tourney resume. I will honestly be disappointed if we don't go at least 18-2 in the BE this year (for a team that has title aspirations).
Expand ...
My concern is that the BE slate is just as tough as we expected in the beginning of the year (St. John's in particular), but that because of their OOC performance, wins aren't worth as much and losses are more damaging.

In other words, I expect the same 15-5 type of record in conference, but for it to produce a #3 seed instead of potentially a #1 seed.
 
thekollieman said:
I totally agree that we wouldn’t be excited by a bunch of close losses. I’m just saying it makes sense to me that it would taken into consideration beyond just the binary of win/loss.
Expand ...
You have to win at least a few. And Auburn wast that close. The Alabama loss wasn’t all that close either to be honest. Alabama had a big lead, the Johnnies to a short lived 1 point lead midway through the 2nd half but the Tide took it right back and pretty much pulled away. It was one of those games that never felt like St John’s would win.

My feeling is they are still benefitting from the pre-season hype. Hard to convince me that a 4-3 team is top 25. I don’t care how many “close” losses they have.
 
.-.
RuffRuff said:
Question then is, is a close loss better than a win against a mid team? W/L feels pretty binary to me.

So many teams play into big leads then allow the other team to backdoor into a closer game than it looks. I feel like in either direction, there should be a threshold on value. Again, not sure how the algorithm works.
Expand ...
Each game is its own independent game. Win every game possible. If you have to lose, it’s better to lose by a little than lose by a lot

So it’s not “win against a mid team OR lose by a little against a good team”, it’s “win against a mid team AND win against a good team. If you lose either of them, lose by a little instead of a lot”
 
Inyatkin said:
What a helpful comment! No one is saying it should be the only determination of how good you are. It is, properly, one determination of how good you are.
Expand ...
It is sarcasm. Obviously too complex if it undermines people’s undying affection for the New Big Easy, oops East.
 
freescooter said:
It is sarcasm. Obviously too complex if it undermines people’s undying affection for the New Big Easy, oops East.
Expand ...
The board: This conference is holding us back and has severely underperformed so far this year; we're in big trouble if we can't find a way out.

This dude: People just love this conference too much.
 
The relative conference NET rankings for the Big East are pretty much nearly sealed in as most members have few OOC games left. With a league schedule of 20 games (which starts in a few weeks), teams can only play a maximum of eleven OOC contests. Several teams such as PC have already played eight games. For the maximum number of bids, the league will need separation with the better teams breaking with the past and piling up wins over the lesser teams. Parity in conference play, unlike some 4-5 years ago, will not earn more bids this season.
 
TJT said:
The relative conference NET rankings for the Big East are pretty much nearly sealed in as most members have few OOC games left. With a league schedule of 20 games (which starts in a few weeks), teams can only play a maximum of eleven OOC contests. Several teams such as PC have already played eight games. For the maximum number of bids, the league will need separation with the better teams breaking with the past and piling up wins over the lesser teams. Parity in conference play, unlike some 4-5 years ago, will not earn more bids this season.
Expand ...
A team like Villanova still has some really good OOC opportunities. St. Johns has Ole Miss and Kentucky. GTown has UNC. It depends on the individual team.
 
BFieldHusky said:
Average of the 5 power conference leagues as of today:

SEC. 54.18
Big 12 60.18
ACC 64.05
Big Ten 69.30
Big East 73.00
Expand ...
Shocking we’re so close to the BIG given all the love they’ve been getting as “this year’s SEC.” Guess that’s just the BIG hype machine at work…fart sound
 
.-.
RuffRuff said:
Question then is, is a close loss better than a win against a mid team? W/L feels pretty binary to me.

So many teams play into big leads then allow the other team to backdoor into a closer game than it looks. I feel like in either direction, there should be a threshold on value. Again, not sure how the algorithm works.
Expand ...
That’s a good question. Would barely eking out a win over UMES, for example, be worse than barely losing to Arizona? It would feel worse to me as a UConn fan, but then again a win is still a win.
 
BFieldHusky said:
A team like Villanova still has some really good OOC opportunities. St. Johns has Ole Miss and Kentucky. GTown has UNC. It depends on the individual team.
Expand ...
If we go better than 2-5, I'd be shocked. I don't know why we do this to ourselves. Field of 68 with a special segment called "Big East Stinks". Lol. You can't hide from it or pretend it's any good.

 
thekollieman said:
That’s a good question. Would barely eking out a win over UMES, for example, be worse than barely losing to Arizona? It would feel worse to me as a UConn fan, but then again a win is still a win.
Expand ...
Barely beating a 300+ NET team would definitely screw our metrics a lot more than a close L to a top team. Especially since that "bad" win would almost certainly be a home game too.

I think that's 1 reason Oregon is near 200 in NET; they don't have any loses to bad teams (though they did get waxed in games against good teams) but they have several almost L's to really bad teams.
 
Last edited:
ctbro1999 said:
Barely beating a 300+ NET team would definitely screw our metrics a lot more than a close L to a top team. Especially since that "bad" win would almost certainly be a home game too.

I think that's 1 reason Oregon is near 200 in NET; they don't have any loses to bad teams (though they did get waxed in those games) but they have several almost L's to really bad teams.
Expand ...
That is insane. But it happens in all of these metrics and in other sports too. First rule should be that a win is the gold standard. If it isn’t then the system is nonsense. It is also why some leagues get overrated. If you are a bottom dweller in the Big 10, even if you stink you will always have a better NET or RPI or whatever than a bottom dweller in a solid mid major league. Not because you are better. Just because you play better teams.

In college baseball you see teams cancel games later in the year because a win against a bad team hurts RPI.

The last thing is that these systems were originally developed for gambling. No doubt there is some element in them designed to spread the handle evenly.
 
CCSU97 said:
NET (12/1/2025)
8 - Connecticut
25 - Yale
146 - Quinnipiac
151 - Central Connecticut
203 - Fairfield
295 - Sacred Heart
315 - New Haven
Expand ...
A non P5 16 team preseason NE tourney would be pretty fun. Get UVM, Maine, Dartmouth, Bryant, URI, Harvard, BU, NE, , UNH, Brown in there.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,178
Messages
4,555,932
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom