NET rankings as of 12/31/22

[Bigboote]

Why are you guys stopping with NET and Massey?

Remember discredited RPI? It was sooo bad.

I was expecting NET to be a considerable improvement, but it doesn't appear to be.

 

[triaddukefan]

Why are you guys stopping with NET and Massey?

Remember discredited RPI? It was sooo bad.

The RPI looks real good to me right about now.

 

[sun]

Actually, the exact opposite is true. If a team is over-ranked -- that is, has a seed that allows them to play weaker teams in the early rounds -- they will end up losing later rather than sooner.

But if a #1 seed is over-ranked then they won't make it to the Final Four round.
They'll get defeated in an upset by a lower seed.

If one team is over-ranked then another team must be under-ranked.
The over-ranked team only gets to play until they meet their match.

 

[Bone Dog]

But if a #1 seed is over-ranked then they won't make it to the Final Four round.
They'll get defeated in an upset by a lower seed.

If one team is over-ranked then another team must be under-ranked.
The over-ranked team only gets to play until they meet their match.

No kidding. But giving a team that hasn't earned it an easy path to the final four distorts the entire scheme. Yes, they'll be eliminated eventually. The real problem is teams that have to face the under-ranked teams are likely to be eliminated too soon.

For example, if SCar gets the wrong seeding -- say a #9 seed -- their first round game will be against a #8 seed, and that #8 seed will be eliminated way too early. As a result, we never get to see the #8-#9 game we might have seen, that is, a competitive game will not happen. Instead, a worthy #8 like, say, Creighton or South Dakota St. will be wiped out in the first round and we won't get to see what they're really capable of. Wouldn't it have been a loss if two rounds later the Creighton-Iowa game of the last tournament never happened because Creighton was eliminated by an underseeded SCar?

This is the real problem with poorly conceived ranking schemes. People often make the mistake of thinking that rankings are intended to protect the high ranking teams. The point of an accurate ranking is to protect the middle-ranked competitors.

 

[sun]

No kidding. But giving a team that hasn't earned it an easy path to the final four distorts the entire scheme. Yes, they'll be eliminated eventually. The real problem is teams that have to face the under-ranked teams are likely to be eliminated too soon.

For example, if SCar gets the wrong seeding -- say a #9 seed -- their first round game will be against a #8 seed, and that #8 seed will be eliminated way too early. As a result, we never get to see the #8-#9 game we might have seen, that is, a competitive game will not happen. Instead, a worthy #8 like, say, Creighton or South Dakota St. will be wiped out in the first round and we won't get to see what they're really capable of. Wouldn't it have been a loss if two rounds later the Creighton-Iowa game of the last tournament never happened because Creighton was eliminated by an underseeded SCar?

This is the real problem with poorly conceived ranking schemes. People often make the mistake of thinking that rankings are intended to protect the high ranking teams. The point of an accurate ranking is to protect the middle-ranked competitors.

The NET was an improvement over the RPI.
It's intended to promote teams that can score.
Both the NFL & MLB have also instituted rules over the decades to improve scoring and to usher in the era of live TV.
The NCAA is a group of schools agreeing to a set of standards to promote fairness including the smaller schools.

There's really not much difference between an #8 seed & a #10 seed.
The purpose is to keep the top seeds from being upset unless they deserve to be upset.
That's why there has never been a seed lower than a #3 or #4 to win a national championship ever.
The NET has been officially adopted as the current standard.
But UConn fans seem to want to vote on which teams belong at the top of the NET before the conference schedules have even been played.
You made a statement that I refuted and now you're going off on a tangent about Scar hypothetically being a #9 seed that doesn't even exist as being a threat to the integrity of the NCAAT seeding process with the NET.

If people want to attack LSU's NET RANK then okay, accept the reasons for their current NET rank.
But just understand the conference play has barely begun.
Can't folks have patience?

 

[Samoo]

The NET was an improvement over the RPI.
It's intended to promote teams that can score.
Both the NFL & MLB have also instituted rules over the decades to improve scoring and to usher in the era of live TV.
The NCAA is a group of schools agreeing to a set of standards to promote fairness including the smaller schools.

There's really not much difference between an #8 seed & a #10 seed.
The purpose is to keep the top seeds from being upset unless they deserve to be upset.
That's why there has never been a seed lower than a #3 or #4 to win a national championship ever.

What????? Did you sleep through 2014 or just never followed the men's team?

 

[fomalhaut]

Women's NET rankings only use two components: Adjusted Net Efficiency and Team Value:

Women's NCAA Evaluation Tool

 

[Bone Dog]

The NET was an improvement over the RPI.
It's intended to promote teams that can score.
Both the NFL & MLB have also instituted rules over the decades to improve scoring and to usher in the era of live TV.
The NCAA is a group of schools agreeing to a set of standards to promote fairness including the smaller schools.

There's really not much difference between an #8 seed & a #10 seed.
The purpose is to keep the top seeds from being upset unless they deserve to be upset.
That's why there has never been a seed lower than a #3 or #4 to win a national championship ever.
The NET has been officially adopted as the current standard.
But UConn fans seem to want to vote on which teams belong at the top of the NET before the conference schedules have even been played.
You made a statement that I refuted and now you're going off on a tangent about Scar hypothetically being a #9 seed that doesn't even exist as being a threat to the integrity of the NCAAT seeding process with the NET.

If people want to attack LSU's NET RANK then okay, accept the reasons for their current NET rank.
But just understand the conference play has barely begun.
Can't folks have patience?

I find your comment mystifying… unless, of course, you’re not really replying to me at all.

My point throughout this thread has been that NET rankings are unreliable early in the season (as in the case of LSU) but are likely to become more reliable later in the season. This is because NET does not take SoS into account as an independent factor.

Your original point seemed to be that it doesn’t even matter if NET rankings distort tournament seedings. I showed you why this might be a mistaken view. Telling me there’s no difference between #10 seed and a #8 seed is unresponsive. And denying there are any #9 seeds is bizarre and irrelevant.

Perhaps you should reread the whole thread and get clear on what you really mean to say, and who you think you’re arguing with. It doesn’t appear to be me.