NET Rankings

  • 127 replies
  • 17272 views

pmg911

  • *****
  • 4073
Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #100 on: January 03, 2019, 10:36:57 AM »
@Nova is a tough game by anyone's standards.

You don't think playing @ #1 Duke and the Big East schedule with no easy out is tough?

As compared to years past, the upcoming schedule is not tough. When was the last time St. John's didn't play a ranked opponent in the month of January or only be scheduled to play 2 ranked teams for the rest of a season after Big East play begins..?

@Villanova is always a tough game
@Georgetown is NOT this year or shouldn't be
vs. DePaul & Creighton shouldn't be tough games for this team

You can nitpick any statement made on this board but in general our schedule this year is NOT tough as opposed to the previous few years

Jan 2018 - schedule had 3 ranked opponents
Jan 2017-  schedule had 4 ranked opponents
Jan 2016 - schedule had 4 ranked opponents

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #101 on: January 03, 2019, 11:47:53 AM »
As compared to years past, the upcoming schedule is not tough. When was the last time St. John's didn't play a ranked opponent in the month of January or only be scheduled to play 2 ranked teams for the rest of a season after Big East play begins..?

@Villanova is always a tough game
@Georgetown is NOT this year or shouldn't be
vs. DePaul & Creighton shouldn't be tough games for this team

You can nitpick any statement made on this board but in general our schedule this year is NOT tough as opposed to the previous few years

Jan 2018 - schedule had 3 ranked opponents
Jan 2017-  schedule had 4 ranked opponents
Jan 2016 - schedule had 4 ranked opponents


I'm sure that you would agree that ranked teams are not the only tough games. The top of the conference isn't as strong as in years past but this is the strongest bottom 1/3 we've ever had IMO. There are no easy outs--especially in the road.

Creighton a legit top 25-30 team regardless of what voters think. They are also the worst matchup for us in the entire league. Alexander is the best NBA prospect in the conference and he is capable of containing Ponds. Creighton's ball movement is also second to none, and that is still our Achilles heel.

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #102 on: January 07, 2019, 03:37:35 PM »
Week of 12/31
Net: 36 (-9); AP: 38 (-10); Coaches: 38 (-11)

Really ridiculous to drop in the polls after beating a decent seton hall team in Newark. Should be top 15 with a win in Saturday, but most likely in the 20s
Week of 1/7
Net: 20 (+16); AP: 24 (+14); Coaches: 23 (+15)

Still underranked, NET is closest to accurate I’d say, given the only “loss” is by 2 on the road to a decent SH team. Several teams with worse resumes ahead, but there is inertia in both of the human polls.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #103 on: January 07, 2019, 03:54:36 PM »
there is inertia in both of the human polls.

What are the odds that a sports writer for the San Jose Mercury News who covers the PAC-12 football and basketball has seen even 20 minutes of SJ basketball? How many hours are there in the day? I think 24 and pretty slim. If you look at the pollsters who ranked SJU almost all of them are east of the Mississippi and almost all of the pollsters who don't have them ranked are out west.

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #104 on: January 14, 2019, 12:58:29 PM »
Week of 1/7
Net: 20 (+16); AP: 24 (+14); Coaches: 23 (+15)
Week of 1/14
NET: 37 (-17); AP: 34 (-10); Coaches: 32 (-9)

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #105 on: January 31, 2019, 10:14:41 AM »
Week of 1/14
NET: 37 (-17); AP: 34 (-10); Coaches: 32 (-9)
Week of 1/28:
NET: 48 (-11).  NR in the polls obviously.

I would expect to move up a couple of spots this week after the Creighton win, even with a loss at Duke (particularly if it isn't a blowout). This puts them currently in the tournament I think (the lowest RPI for a power six team left out in the 68-team era was Missouri at 49).

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #106 on: February 06, 2019, 12:43:54 PM »
Week of 1/28:
NET: 48 (-11).  NR in the polls obviously.

I would expect to move up a couple of spots this week after the Creighton win, even with a loss at Duke (particularly if it isn't a blowout). This puts them currently in the tournament I think (the lowest RPI for a power six team left out in the 68-team era was Missouri at 49).
Week of 2/4:
NET: 45 (+3).

I think a win over providence and they'll be ~38 in NET

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #107 on: February 06, 2019, 12:56:14 PM »
Week of 2/4:
NET: 45 (+3).

I think a win over providence and they'll be ~38 in NET

We are #40 in the updated NET rankings this morning.

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #108 on: February 06, 2019, 03:21:15 PM »
We are #40 in the updated NET rankings this morning.

Wonder if a convincing Providence win means AP top 25

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #109 on: February 06, 2019, 03:33:17 PM »
Wonder if a convincing Providence win means AP top 25
probably not, but may get a handful of votes.  I think they'll have to win the next 3 at home (providence, butler, nova) to be ranked in the top 25.  If they win the first two but lose the nova game, I think they'd be right on the cusp but unranked.

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #110 on: February 06, 2019, 03:44:23 PM »
Wonder if a convincing Providence win means AP top 25

Providence, much like DePaul, will try to slow down the game and beat up the paint. They have physical players all throughout the front court.  Don’t think it will be easy for us.
*wipes ketchup from his eyes* - I guess Heinz sight isn’t 20/20.

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #111 on: February 06, 2019, 03:44:41 PM »
probably not, but may get a handful of votes.  I think they'll have to win the next 3 at home (providence, butler, nova) to be ranked in the top 25.  If they win the first two but lose the nova game, I think they'd be right on the cusp but unranked.

I think you’re probably right. Truth be told for this group staying unranked as long as possible might be a good thing. Seems like they play best when they’re hungry.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #112 on: February 06, 2019, 03:55:40 PM »
I think you’re probably right. Truth be told for this group staying unranked as long as possible might be a good thing. Seems like they play best when they’re hungry.

11, 12, 13 seed > 8, 9 seed.

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #113 on: February 06, 2019, 03:57:55 PM »
11, 12, 13 seed > 8, 9 seed.

No I’m talking like 16 seed play in game. If you don’t go the toughest route you didn’t really earn it.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #114 on: February 06, 2019, 04:12:47 PM »
No I’m talking like 16 seed play in game. If you don’t go the toughest route you didn’t really earn it.

Good point. Probably the best thing would be to win a NC via a seven seed in the CBI. Which is why I just put a shit ton of $$ on Iona to win it all.

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #115 on: February 08, 2019, 09:03:45 AM »
Lunardi Updated Bracket 9 Seed vs Baylor
CBS Updated Bracket 7 Seed vs Wofford

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #116 on: February 08, 2019, 10:24:10 AM »
Lunardi Updated Bracket 9 Seed vs Baylor
CBS Updated Bracket 7 Seed vs Wofford

Wofford is legit legit but that would be a dream scenario.
*wipes ketchup from his eyes* - I guess Heinz sight isn’t 20/20.

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #117 on: February 11, 2019, 05:25:16 PM »
Week of 2/4:
NET: 45 (+3).

I think a win over providence and they'll be ~38 in NET

week of 2/11
NET: 49 (-4)

QuanMan

  • *****
  • 1744
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 09:11:34 PM by QuanMan »
Section 3
Section 116

Re: NET Rankings
« Reply #119 on: February 16, 2019, 08:25:43 PM »
OMG Rutgers had 21 ranked Iowa beat by hitting a 3 with 3 seconds left only to see Iowa throw a length of the court inbounds past that got tipped around went to an Iowa player deep in the corner who hit a game winning 3 with the ball nicking the side of the backboard and going in. Would have been great for us if Rutgers won and it felt like we lost a game when that ball went in.