NET Re-Rankings by Quad 1 and 2 win/loss

[visitingcock]

Methodology:

For Each Q-1 win ADD 2
For Each Q-1 loss SUBTRACT 1
For Each Q-2 win ADD 1
For Each Q-2 loss SUBTRACT 2

For Each Q-3 loss SUBTRACT 3
For each Q-4 loss SUBTRACT 4

---------------------------------------------------
SCar (4-0)(2-0) = 10
Gonzaga (5-2) (2-0) = 10

UCLA (4-0) (1-0) = 9

Iowa (3-1) (2-0) = 7
NC State (2-0) (3-0) = 7
SoCal (3-0) (1-0) = 7

UConn (4-3) (1-0) = 6
Marquette (1-0) (4-0) = 6
Stanford (3-1) (1-0) = 6

Baylor ((2-0) (1-0) = 5

Texas (2-0) (0-0) = 4
K-State (2-1) (1-0) = 4
Creighton (2-1) (3-1) = 4

tOSU (1-2) (3-0) = 3
UNLV (1-1) (2-0) = 3
Colorado (1-1) (2-0) = 3
Wazzu (2-3) (2-0) = 3
Louisville (3-2) (1-0)= 3
Oregon St (0-0) (3-0) = 3


Notre Dame ((0-1) (3-0) = 2
LSU (1-1) (1-0) = 2
A&M (1-0) (2-1) =2
TCU (1-0) (0-0) = 2

Nebraska (1-3) (2-0) _1
UDub (1-1) (0-0) = 1
Duke (1-2) (3-2) =
Miami (1-1) (0-0) = 1

Link for anybody who wants to double check me. yes, I have made a mistake or two in this life. The NET Nitty Gritty Report for NCAA Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

 

[Alydar]

My huge problem with the Q's is that a win at Virginia(75) is equal to a win at SCar(1).

Those Q ranges were designed for mens basketball where the depth of talent is many times larger than in the women's game. I'd prefer a system where only games against top 100 teams are considered and that the top 100 be divided into 4 Q's: i.e. 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 50-100.

 

[wbbhoops278]

My huge problem with the Q's is that a win at Virginia(75) is equal to a win at SCar(1).

Those Q ranges were designed for mens basketball where the depth of talent is many times larger than in the women's game. I'd prefer a system where only games against top 100 teams are considered and that the top 100 be divided into 4 Q's: i.e. 1-10, 11-25, 26-50, 50-100.

I like the structure that Qs provide as a point of analysis that's deeper than a generic SoS number. That said, I definitely do agree with you. It doesn't exactly feel like Qs is doing as good of a job of that as it could.

The top 100 feels a little too constraining to me given the increasing parity. I'm not saying that a bunch of teams in the 100-200 range are going to be pulling all these upsets...but, I do think that the quality of teams is better nowadays that a win against a team that might be ranked 110 still requires a team to perform to win the game. I also think that the quads should be equal...so 1-50, 51-100, etc.

I also remember that we're mostly talking about teams that aren't exceptional or likely that different at the end of the day. Would I expect South Carolina to lose to a team ranked 110 this year? No. Do I think a team like Marquette or Alabama could lose that game? Absolutely. With the approach you're advocating, I think it definitely becomes more valuable in determining who should be in the tournament. Just playing out an example of why I would advocate for a bigger number of teams.

 

[Darwin]

Methodology:

For Each Q-1 win ADD 2
For Each Q-1 loss SUBTRACT 1
For Each Q-2 win ADD 1
For Each Q-2 loss SUBTRACT 2

For Each Q-3 loss SUBTRACT 3
For each Q-4 loss SUBTRACT 4

---------------------------------------------------
SCar (4-0)(2-0) = 10
Gonzaga (5-2) (2-0) = 10

UCLA (4-0) (1-0) = 9

Iowa (3-1) (2-0) = 7
NC State (2-0) (3-0) = 7
SoCal (3-0) (1-0) = 7

UConn (4-3) (1-0) = 6
Marquette (1-0) (4-0) = 6
Stanford (3-1) (1-0) = 6

Baylor ((2-0) (1-0) = 5

Texas (2-0) (0-0) = 4
K-State (2-1) (1-0) = 4
Creighton (2-1) (3-1) = 4

tOSU (1-2) (3-0) = 3
UNLV (1-1) (2-0) = 3
Colorado (1-1) (2-0) = 3
Wazzu (2-3) (2-0) = 3
Louisville (3-2) (1-0)= 3
Oregon St (0-0) (3-0) = 3


Notre Dame ((0-1) (3-0) = 2
LSU (1-1) (1-0) = 2
A&M (1-0) (2-1) =2
TCU (1-0) (0-0) = 2

Nebraska (1-3) (2-0) _1
UDub (1-1) (0-0) = 1
Duke (1-2) (3-2) =
Miami (1-1) (0-0) = 1

Link for anybody who wants to double check me. yes, I have made a mistake or two in this life. The NET Nitty Gritty Report for NCAA Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

Looks like IU should have 2 points

 

[visitingcock]

Looks like IU should have 2 points

Thanks. Corrected!