NET rankings as of 12/31/22

[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.