New top 25 (1/29) | Page 3 | The Boneyard

New top 25 (1/29)

Vowelguy said:
The reason is that the NET is not the sole criteria.
Expand ...
I believe I said that. Repeating the listed criteria at the bottom. We can see NET, strength of schedule, non conference record reasonably clearly. For those I mentioned SOS is VT 27 Gon 51 Lou 31 from Massey. These aren't very good compared to teams he put below them.
Bad losses
Common opponents
Competitive in losses
Conference record
Early performance versus late performance
Head-to-head
NET ranking
Non-conference record
Observable component
Overall record
Regional rankings
Significant wins
Strength of schedule
 
Net is one of 14 criteria, and I assume it is the starting point for many folks on the committee. Gonzaga is ranked 13th in Net, has beaten the team ranked #2 in Net, and their two losses are to teams currently ranked #20 and #21 in the Net. Virginia Tech is currently Net ranked 16th, but I don't have time to dive deep into their resume. As a snapshot as of Jan 30th with ~6 weeks left in the regular season, seeding them both as 4-seeds seems reasonable.
 
dabears17 said:
Net is one of 14 criteria, and I assume it is the starting point for many folks on the committee. Gonzaga is ranked 13th in Net, has beaten the team ranked #2 in Net, and their two losses are to teams currently ranked #20 and #21 in the Net. Virginia Tech is currently Net ranked 16th, but I don't have time to dive deep into their resume. As a snapshot as of Jan 30th with ~6 weeks left in the regular season, seeding them both as 4-seeds seems reasonable.
Expand ...
True, NET is one of 14 criteria but it is the only one that is truly objective. The others are so subjective as to allow the individual to decide whatever s/he wants.

I guess it is a rough guide that they should not depart Too far from. Of course, “ too far” leaves a lot of wiggle room. Is ten rank spots too far? 15? 20? 30?
 
visitingcock said:
True, NET is one of 14 criteria but it is the only one that is truly objective.
Expand ...
So? It's a subjective process. Who said it wasn't?

NET is objective but by no means a perfectly accurate ranking of teams.

Again, I go back to the GPA example: do you automatically hire the candidate with the highest GPA or do you consider a range of factors, many subjective, about who is the right person for the job?
 
Vowelguy said:
Again, I go back to the GPA example: do you automatically hire the candidate with the highest GPA or do you consider a range of factors, many subjective, about who is the right person for the job?
Expand ...

Exactly. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college. I would rather hire someone with a 3.5GPA and a wide berth of extra-curriculars and life experiences than someone book smart. I graduated with a 3.0 by the skin of my teeth and have done pretty well.

Computer rankings are only as good as those who designed it. FAFSA results are being delayed over a month due to problems in the software. As the programming saying goes, "GIGO"- garbage in, garbage out.
 
Last edited:
.-.
KSt-Okla and Marq-Crei in tight ones late in Q3
MD taking a bite out of IU's big lead but still down double-digits
Illinois leading bipolar Michigan by 10
 
Marquette on the verge of falling to 5-5 in the BE and 4-5 in their last 9 after a 12-0 start.

Their two toughest remaining games (Vill & StJ) are at home, so they could go on a nice run to finish the season, but gotta be a morale crusher in Milwaukee.
 
2 KSt about to go down to Okla. I knew Iowa shouldve been ranked 2nd.
 
.-.
visitingcock said:
True, NET is one of 14 criteria but it is the only one that is truly objective. The others are so subjective as to allow the individual to decide whatever s/he wants.

I guess it is a rough guide that they should not depart Too far from. Of course, “ too far” leaves a lot of wiggle room. Is ten rank spots too far? 15? 20? 30?
Expand ...
NCAA just updated their SOS for NET and Warren Nolan published it. It didn't change Uconn but did shift several teams. For example ND moved from 10 to 8. I don't understand how NET SOS is determined, it's far from a Massey value? (And yes it's just one of 14 criteria.)

1. South Carolina
2. Stanford
3. Connecticut
4. Texas
5. Iowa
6. Utah
7. UCLA
8. Notre Dame
9. Kansas State
10. North Carolina State
 
DallasDomer said:
NCAA just updated their SOS for NET and Warren Nolan published it. It didn't change Uconn but did shift several teams. For example ND moved from 10 to 8. I don't understand how NET SOS is determined, it's far from a Massey value? (And yes it's just one of 14 criteria.)

1. South Carolina
2. Stanford
3. Connecticut
4. Texas
5. Iowa
6. Utah
7. UCLA
8. Notre Dame
9. Kansas State
10. North Carolina State
Expand ...
That can’t be the NET SOS. No way we have played the strongest schedule
 
DallasDomer said:
NCAA just updated their SOS for NET and Warren Nolan published it. It didn't change Uconn but did shift several teams. For example ND moved from 10 to 8. I don't understand how NET SOS is determined, it's far from a Massey value? (And yes it's just one of 14 criteria.)

1. South Carolina
2. Stanford
3. Connecticut
4. Texas
5. Iowa
6. Utah
7. UCLA
8. Notre Dame
9. Kansas State
10. North Carolina State
Expand ...
I think this is the NET rankings, not SOS.

I don’t fully understand the NET SOS but for reference :
1 UConn
2 Maryland
3 Kansas
4 UCLA
5 Purdue
6 southern cal
7 Utah
8 Arizona
9 South Carolina
10 Chapel Hill

That’s the NET SOS top 10 I see. One thing I don’t understand is what “AVG Opp NET” means compared to “AVG Opp NET Rank”.

For example NC State has a Avg opponent NET Rank of 6 but a Avg opponent NET of 83.
 
FanInNC said:
That’s the NET SOS top 10 I see. One thing I don’t understand is what “AVG Opp NET” means compared to “AVG Opp NET Rank”.

For example NC State has a Avg opponent NET Rank of 6 but a Avg opponent NET of 83.
Expand ...

Where are you seeing those?

This team sheet approximates what , I believe, the committee reviews:

North Carolina State Wolfpack NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet 2024 Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet for North Carolina State Wolfpack 2024 Women's College Basketball. This Is a Duplication of the report used by the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee to Determine At-Large Teams in the national championship tournament with quadrants
www.warrennolan.com www.warrennolan.com
(Other than the Metrics columns which have dummy data.)
 
Vowelguy said:
Where are you seeing those?

This team sheet approximates what , I believe, the committee reviews:

North Carolina State Wolfpack NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet 2024 Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com

NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet for North Carolina State Wolfpack 2024 Women's College Basketball. This Is a Duplication of the report used by the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee to Determine At-Large Teams in the national championship tournament with quadrants
www.warrennolan.com www.warrennolan.com
(Other than the Metrics columns which have dummy data.)
Expand ...

NCAA Statistics

stats.ncaa.org stats.ncaa.org

This page on the ncaa website has NET rankings, SOS, and breaks down quad records. It also has those categories I noted that I don’t understand.
 
.-.
FanInNC said:
I think this is the NET rankings, not SOS.

I don’t fully understand the NET SOS but for reference :
1 UConn
2 Maryland
3 Kansas
4 UCLA
5 Purdue
6 southern cal
7 Utah
8 Arizona
9 South Carolina
10 Chapel Hill

That’s the NET SOS top 10 I see. One thing I don’t understand is what “AVG Opp NET” means compared to “AVG Opp NET Rank”.

For example NC State has a Avg opponent NET Rank of 6 but a Avg opponent NET of 83.
Expand ...

The average opponent NET is literally the average of the NET rankings of all the teams you've played. Then after you calculate that for all the teams you can rank those.

So the average opponent NC St has played has a NET ranking of 83.
Of all teams, that 83 NET ranking is 6th best. Only 5 teams have played a schedule where the average NET ranking is better.
 
FanInNC said:

NCAA Statistics

stats.ncaa.org stats.ncaa.org

This page on the ncaa website has NET rankings, SOS, and breaks down quad records. It also has those categories I noted that I don’t understand.
Expand ...
@HuskyNan provided info/authority showing that the committee for wbb looks at Quads that are different from the men’s structure ( that Warren Nolan provides.)

I think for the women it’s ( home or away?)
Quad 1: 1-25
Q2. : 26-50
Q3: 51-75
Q4: the rest
 
Last edited:
Looking at the 2/5 rankings by next years conferences:

SEC - 1 7 13 24
BiG - 2 5 9 10 14
B12 - 4 8 18 20 22
ACC - 3 6 12 15 16 23
BgE - 11 21
WCC - 17 19
Ivy - 25
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,222
Messages
4,557,959
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom