NET Rankings

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d1/ncaa-mens-basketball-net-rankings


So this is the metric the NCAA will use to replace the old RPI on selection Sunday. Props to Paultz and Quanman for posting the link first.

The obvious takeaway is that it is extremely kind to us. We are #29 now and were #30 before that.

The next thing that stands out is that winning is much more rewarded than losing to good teams like in KenPom. Marquette, for example, is #36 in KenPom but #99 in the NET. I have to admit that seems very low for a 4-2 team that has faced three tough opponents.

KenPomis littered with 2 and 3 loss teams in the top 50 while the NET only has a pair of two-loss teams in the entire top 50 (both 4-2).

The next observation is that the NET doesn't appear to penalize us for the quasi-home games at Barclays like KenPom and other metrics. That is huge.

Other things of note:

-VCU is close to a quad 1 opponent being ranked at #56.

-The win @Rutgers is currently a quad 1 game as they are ranked #74. I'd expect this to change as they pickup some L's...but it should remain a quad 2 win all year.

-Ga Tech is #81 and can make a healthy jump if they beat #83 Northwestern on the road Wednesday

Not that I'm complaining but as you alluded to, our R/N/H split looks great despite having gone no farther than NJ to start the season.

Loyola Marymount and Belmont are in the top 12 of the NET.  Which means that to this point a win or loss against Loyola Marymount is more valuable than a win or loss vs Kansas and every other top 25 team not named OSU, Virginia, TTU, Michigan, Gonzaga, Duke, MSU, Wisconsin, and VT.  This skews the rankings, making it far too early to be accurate.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the reason for the drastic differences b/w KP and NET is that KP is a predictive stat (that uses things like the efficiency of returning minutes from last year's teams), whereas the NET is strictly results driven.  It's the same reason the RPI rankings have us at 6th right now.  It needs more information (more games played) to be accurate. 

This is big positive. To me all this says is that we just need to keep winning and the rest will figure itself out.

Not that I'm complaining but as you alluded to, our R/N/H split looks great despite having gone no farther than NJ to start the season.

Loyola Marymount and Belmont are in the top 12 of the NET.  Which means that to this point a win or loss against Loyola Marymount is more valuable than a win or loss vs Kansas and every other top 25 team not named OSU, Virginia, TTU, Michigan, Gonzaga, Duke, MSU, Wisconsin, and VT.  This skews the rankings, making it far too early to be accurate.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the reason for the drastic differences b/w KP and NET is that KP is a predictive stat (that uses things like the efficiency of returning minutes from last year's teams), whereas the NET is strictly results driven.  It's the same reason the RPI rankings have us at 6th right now.  It needs more information (more games played) to be accurate. 

The predictive element of KenPom seems to keep things extremely steady whereas a win or loss at this point of the season can mean a 20 position jump in the NET--just like the old RPI.

The NET seems more fair IMO even if it leads to a wild field the first 10-12 games. Things will settle down with more data as they always did under the RPI.

I don't fully grasp why the offensive efficiency metric seems to reward maximizing total points scored but then the final metric caps scoring margin to 10.

Also, why is the formula for team value index not shared and just criteria only ?

I've always been a huge NET guy. Facts all caps.

I stopped reading after I saw Loyola Marymount above Kansas. Although Tariq Owens is liking this.

the schedule looks prescient given how NET is determined.  2 of the 5 criteria relate solely to margin of victory (irrespective of the opponent's strength) and another 2 out of 5 relate solely to winning percentage (irrespective of the opponent's strength).  the ranking system itself seems like a mess, but it should benefit the johnnies if they can run up the score on cupcakes.

the schedule looks prescient given how NET is determined.  2 of the 5 criteria relate solely to margin of victory (irrespective of the opponent's strength) and another 2 out of 5 relate solely to winning percentage (irrespective of the opponent's strength).  the ranking system itself seems like a mess, but it should benefit the johnnies if they can run up the score on cupcakes.

I agree on all counts. We've had back to back impressive scheduling displays. Is it possible this group, which comes from a metric-heavy NBA, is just better at #s than other colleges staffs and our non-it-all fans?

I agree on all counts. We've had back to back impressive scheduling displays. Is it possible this group, which comes from a metric-heavy NBA, is just better at #s than other colleges staffs and our non-it-all fans?

Another absolutely awful schedule take by Marillac.

1) How would coming from the NBA give you an advantage in scheduling college basketball games over college basketball teams/programs that have been doing it for years? If an NBA lifer like Gregg Popovich took a college job next year, you think he'd schedule better than a guy like Chris Holtmann?

2) What are you basing metric-heavy NBA statement on in comparing it to college basketball? Do college basketball coaches not use metrics? There are at least 5 independent metric systems that track college basketball, I'm sure these college coaches aren't hurting in the analysis department. In fact, CBB might be more analytics heavy than the NBA.

3) Do you stand by that statement considering the staff has already shown signs of trying to beef up next year's schedule by competing in a far better two-day tournament and playing Arizona out west?

Another absolutely awful schedule take by Marillac.

1) How would coming from the NBA give you an advantage in scheduling college basketball games over college basketball teams/programs that have been doing it for years? If an NBA lifer like Gregg Popovich took a college job next year, you think he'd schedule better than a guy like Chris Holtmann?

2) What are you basing metric-heavy NBA statement on in comparing it to college basketball? Do college basketball coaches not use metrics? There are at least 5 independent metric systems that track college basketball, I'm sure these college coaches aren't hurting in the analysis department. In fact, CBB might be more analytics heavy than the NBA.

3) Do you stand by that statement considering the staff has already shown signs of trying to beef up next year's schedule by competing in a far better two-day tournament and playing Arizona out west?

Professional sports is driven by analytics in ways that college will never be. That is just fact. NBA is a league of finished or nearly finished products so it's easier to quantify with less variables like body transformations, skill growth, etc. the only real constant variable is aging, and that happens at a fairly  reliable rate. 

Every team has a bunch of nerds in a back room analyzing payroll, the salary cap, etc. Colleges have a staff of 5-7 and 1-2 of those are devoted to just recruiting.

Is it really that hard to believe that someone on the staff has access to one of these animals to run the #s? Mullin has been in front offices for years.

As for next year, I've posted repeatedly that I think we will hit the ground running faster due to more continuity. We are going to be returning more players than we have in years barring some unforeseen exodus. We also play Duke at home and they will be without the projected top 3 picks in the 2019 draft.

Professional sports is driven by analytics in ways that college will never be. That is just fact. NBA is a league of finished or nearly finished products so it's easier to quantify with less variables like body transformations, skill growth, etc. the only real constant variable is aging, and that happens at a fairly  reliable rate. 

Every team has a bunch of nerds in a back room analyzing payroll, the salary cap, etc. Colleges have a staff of 5-7 and 1-2 of those are devoted to just recruiting.

Is it really that hard to believe that someone on the staff has access to one of these animals to run the #s? Mullin has been in front offices for years.

As for next year, I've posted repeatedly that I think we will hit the ground running faster due to more continuity. We are going to be returning more players than we have in years barring some unforeseen exodus. We also play Duke at home and they will be without the projected top 3 picks in the 2019 draft.

To say college basketball is lacking in analytics in any way shape or form is just complete insanity. Analytics run ALL sports now, not just professional sports. So when a college coach's job and livelihood is on the line with each decision he makes, you damn well better believe they have all of the analytics necessary to make those decisions. In case you didn't know, Athletic departments also have analytics guys on their payrolls as well.

Yes, to suggest that this staff has access to an NBA analytics guy that would take time and effort to pull numbers that other college teams don't have access to might be one of the dumbest suggestions in this board's history. Even if he did, what would he be able to do that other college team's couldn't do? Why wouldn't those other programs use their millions of dollars to find a guy like that too? Really think about one. That is embarrassing.

You make another completely ludicrous claim that we will hit the ground running faster next year than we will this year. We are likely to lose 3 starters, maybe 4 after this season. How is a team that loses a conference player of the year, another 1st team all conference caliber player and a 5th year senior going to be better out of the gate the next year? Again, completely and utterly ludicrous.

As for Duke, I don't even know if the contract has been agreed to to continue the series after this season. Yes, they will be without the projected top 3 picks in 2019 but there's no reason to believe they won't reload and be a top 5 team again next year.

You called me crazy for making assumptions about how our opponents season's would go earlier this season. Here and everywhere else, you make nothing but completely absurd assumptions based on absolutely nothing that you think support your argument. Not only are those assumptions wrong, they are embarrassingly wrong.

To circle back on something, you literally suggested that the staff might have access to a #s animal that is doing analytics for us that puts us ahead of other programs. Sorry I had to bring this up again but wow is that one of the dumbest things ever posted.

To say college basketball is lacking in analytics in any way shape or form is just complete insanity. Analytics run ALL sports now, not just professional sports. So when a college coach's job and livelihood is on the line with each decision he makes, you damn well better believe they have all of the analytics necessary to make those decisions. In case you didn't know, Athletic departments also have analytics guys on their payrolls as well.

Yes, to suggest that this staff has access to an NBA analytics guy that would take time and effort to pull numbers that other college teams don't have access to might be one of the dumbest suggestions in this board's history. Even if he did, what would he be able to do that other college team's couldn't do? Why wouldn't those other programs use their millions of dollars to find a guy like that too? Really think about one. That is embarrassing.

You make another completely ludicrous claim that we will hit the ground running faster next year than we will this year. We are likely to lose 3 starters, maybe 4 after this season. How is a team that loses a conference player of the year, another 1st team all conference caliber player and a 5th year senior going to be better out of the gate the next year? Again, completely and utterly ludicrous.

As for Duke, I don't even know if the contract has been agreed to to continue the series after this season. Yes, they will be without the projected top 3 picks in 2019 but there's no reason to believe they won't reload and be a top 5 team again next year.

You called me crazy for making assumptions about how our opponents season's would go earlier this season. Here and everywhere else, you make nothing but completely absurd assumptions based on absolutely nothing that you think support your argument. Not only are those assumptions wrong, they are embarrassingly wrong.

To circle back on something, you literally suggested that the staff might have access to a #s animal that is doing analytics for us that puts us ahead of other programs. Sorry I had to bring this up again but wow is that one of the dumbest things ever posted.

You've been as wrong as someone can be on this topic from day one.

You've been as wrong as someone can be on this topic from day one.

Lol, this coming from the guy that described our first 5 games as "very strong" despite VCU being the best team we played. Another of quite possibly the dumbest statements ever written. Good job not addressing any of those points though.

Serious question. Of the 8 Big East teams with legitimate NCAA Tournament hopes this season (so excluding Gtown and DePaul) could you tell me which teams our OOC schedule is stronger than? Surely, if our schedule isn't weak we shouldn't have the easiest schedule of all 8 good BE teams right?

Lol, this coming from the guy that described our first 5 games as "very strong" despite VCU being the best team we played. Another of quite possibly the dumbest statements ever written. Good job not addressing any of those points though.

Serious question. Of the 8 Big East teams with legitimate NCAA Tournament hopes this season (so excluding Gtown and DePaul) could you tell me which teams our OOC schedule is stronger than? Surely, if our schedule isn't weak we shouldn't have the easiest schedule of all 8 good BE teams right?

We're #29 in the NET and #6 in the RPI after those five games. That's literally proof that I was right, but you are so unbelievably stubborn you can't admit it.

We're #29 in the NET and #6 in the RPI after those five games. That's literally proof that I was right, but you are so unbelievably stubborn you can't admit it.

It's not even December yet and you're obsessing over these metrics that mean exactly zero this time of year. That's why Loyola Marymount is 10th in the NET and 3rd in the RPI. Does that mean they are going to get 1, 2 or 3 seed in the tournament? Of course not.

But again, please tell me which of the other 7 good BE teams has a weaker schedule than us. Don't duck it

It's not even December yet and you're obsessing over these metrics that mean exactly zero this time of year. That's why Loyola Marymount is 10th in the NET and 3rd in the RPI. Does that mean they are going to get 1, 2 or 3 seed in the tournament? Of course not.

But again, please tell me which of the other 7 good BE teams has a weaker schedule than us. Don't duck it

You are being dense on purpose. My claim about where we'd be after five games was clear and exceptionally narrow in scope. I said we would have a top 25-50 SOS. That's it. We do.

I made no claim that the top 25 of any metric would remain the same all season long--that is impossible.

You are trying to change the argument now because the facts are clear and on my side. You're talking about Loyola now?  I don't know a single player on that team and I don't care if they win or lose the next 20 games. All I know is that they are 7-0 and that school-best start has them in the top 10. As their SOS and/or record changes relative to the rest of the country, their ranking in the NET will go up or (most likely) down accordingly.

After the Ga Tech game our SOS will take a beating. But we've got a huge OOC game @ Duke later in the year and we have at least 19 games in what looks like the most balanced. If East in several years.

You are trying to change the argument now because the facts are clear and on my side. You're talking about Loyola now?  I don't know a single player on that team and I don't care if they win or lose the next 20 games. All I know is that they are 7-0 and that school-best start has them in the top 10. As their SOS and/or record changes relative to the rest of the country, their ranking in the NET will go up or (most likely) down accordingly.

So when it comes to St. John's the NET rankings in late November flat out proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the schedule is perfect but when it comes to Loyola, the NET rankings don't mean much because everything is going to normalize as the season goes on. Ok, if you want to contradict yourself go ahead, you've been doing it constantly.

For the 3rd time, can you please tell me which of the 8 good teams in the Big East that SJU's schedule is stronger than. Please don't make me ask a 4th time.

Rutgers with a nice win on the road at Miami. Johnnies looking better by the day.