Who’s #1? (Merged)

[Cuango]

I’ve got no issues with UCLA being #1. They absolutely tortured South Carolina and I thought, exposed some serious issues on that team. I can’t remember a Dawn Staley team being manhandled like that! She’s got some serious work to do with that team. They have not looked good since the season started but this was a different level of poor play. Knowing Dawn, I’m pretty sure she will figure it out but I’m not sure they will be their usual dominant self this season.

 

[fomalhaut]

It's interesting that the NCAA is basing seeding for the tournament on NET rankings, when they haven't published any since April.

 

[JellyBean]

This early in the season, I have zero problem with UCLA being #1. Now if West Virginia would have been #1...heck I would not mind either! Just more pressure and being under the microscope for UCLA. Let them deal with that stuff right now. UConn and South Carolina have been there and done that. Time for these other programs to get a taste of the pressure.

 

[Plebe]

It's interesting that the NCAA is basing seeding for the tournament on NET rankings, when they haven't published any since April.

Why would they need to publish any NET rankings between April and November?

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

When discussing rankings remember 1997-1998 TN had 10 losses entering the NCAA Tournament and then ran off 6 straight wins to win the title!
So early rankings mean little, it's who is healthy and playing well entering the NCAA's that matters most!
LSU was hot and healthy when they won!

 

[The CDR-Ret]

It's interesting that the NCAA is basing seeding for the tournament on NET rankings, when they haven't published any since April.

Before the conference realignments, it took about 15 games to get any semblance of statistical accuracy to the NET rankings. Now it will be about 20 games to gain enough history to be reliable, which means about 2-3 weeks before conference tournaments, and that is why so many changes occur between NCAA committee "top sixteen reveals."

Historically, the first NET calculation occurs around the 10 - 12 games played point (about Christmas break time).

 

[Puppy Love]

Before the conference realignments, it took about 15 games to get any semblance of statistical accuracy to the NET rankings. Now it will be about 20 games to gain enough history to be reliable, which means about 2-3 weeks before conference tournaments, and that is why so many changes occur between NCAA committee "top sixteen reveals."

Historically, the first NET calculation occurs around the 10 - 12 games played point (about Christmas break time).

Massey is a hot mess this year. It’s probably a combination of realignment, transfers/graduations and the number of games played, but it doesn’t seem close.