Question on best NET site to use?

[BRS24]

Hey hoop fans and data nerds - which is the best site to use for NET when it comes to ranking conferences? Trying to figure it out before I start adding the conf/overall standings to the weekly game posts in a few weeks. TIA

 

[Majic Hands]

I like Warren Nolan

 

[Bone Dog]

I like Warren Nolan

Warren’s NET chart shows UConn listed above UCLA and ND. That really shows the limitations of early season NET rankings.

 

[Plebe]

This NCAA site is the official source:

NCAA Statistics

stats.ncaa.org

Warren Nolan's site is very good as well, and he includes a page of conference NET rankings (Conference NET Ranking - 2025 Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com). His NET ranking seems to always be accurate and up to date, and it also appears he may have finally corrected his quad cutoff numbers for the team sheets, which for a long time he had wrong.

 

[sun]

The NCAA website lists NET under rankings and then use the drop down menu to select NET.

DI Women's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Women's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com

Get NCAA women's college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today/WBCA and NCAA committee.

www.ncaa.com

 

[jake0414]

This NCAA site is the official source:

NCAA Statistics

stats.ncaa.org

Warren Nolan's site is very good as well, and he includes a page of conference NET rankings (Conference NET Ranking - 2025 Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com). His NET ranking seems to always be accurate and up to date, and it also appears he may have finally corrected his quad cutoff numbers for the team sheets, which for a long time he had wrong.

You can get more team net ranking detail by clicking on a team in the ranking list. This will display the team’s schedule and the team’s national ranking in various statistical categories. Then clicking on the net ranking for the school at the very top line will display the team’s results and future games by quadrant.

 

[Ralph]

am I correct, that these sites do not show the actual NET score, they seem to just list the teams is order, so you can't tell if number 1 is way ahead of number 2, or they are really close?

 

[visitingcock]

This NCAA site is the official source:

NCAA Statistics

stats.ncaa.org

Warren Nolan's site is very good as well, and he includes a page of conference NET rankings (Conference NET Ranking - 2025 Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com). His NET ranking seems to always be accurate and up to date, and it also appears he may have finally corrected his quad cutoff numbers for the team sheets, which for a long time he had wrong.

Yup. And with Clempsun beating both Cal and Stanford they have jumped up to 45th, so SCar now has six Quad One wins from the November road win in Cowtown.

Whoop Whoop.

I guess that justifies us being ranked above UCLA.

 

[Plebe]

Yup. And with Clempsun beating both Cal and Stanford they have jumped up to 45th, so SCar now has six Quad One wins from the November road win in Cowtown.

Whoop Whoop.

I guess that justifies us being ranked above UCLA.

The quad designations don't affect the ranking. They're just something the committee uses to assess quality of wins/losses.

 

[visitingcock]

The quad designations don't affect the ranking. They're just something the committee uses to assess quality of wins/losses.

I know but I had to give Clempsun a left handed compliment.

 

[Majic Hands]

I don’t need to be overwhelmed with information. The Warren site tells me where they would be place without the any additional rules and if they moved up or down based on what they do and the level of competition they play. That’s all I need.

Beside, It all becomes meaningless when all the additional rules allow the committee to place any team anywhere the wants after #1.

If the wanted they probably could put the #1 team in the second line and justify it by the rules.

 

[Plebe]

I don’t need to be overwhelmed with information. The Warren site tells me where they would be place without the any additional rules and if they moved up or down based on what they do and the level of competition they play. That’s all I need.

Beside, It all becomes meaningless when all the additional rules allow the committee to place any team anywhere the wants after #1.

If the wanted they probably could put the #1 team in the second line and justify it by the rules.

I'm not quite clear as to what you mean by "place any team anywhere the wants after #1"?

The NET doesn't purport to show where teams are supposed to fall in the committee's "true seed" ranking or where they're supposed to be placed in the bracket.