First NET Rankings of the Season

14,009 Views | 61 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Complete Idiot
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Only at 42 in the NET, expected a bit more movement up with the Quad 1 win.

At 14-4 overall and 2-3 in quad 1 and 3-1 in quad 2, we are one NET spot below Texas who is 10-7, 3-4, and 0-2 in same categories.
Zachary Klement
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
texas is also 0-1 in Q3, interesting that they are still ahead of us.
JJxvi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NET does not rise and fall based on quad wins. Its only purpose is to define the quads.

NET is an efficiency ranking. If the 40th team beats the 41st team by one possession its not gonna change at all. It would only move if one of those teams beats the other by like 25 or if like 40th beat number 5.
Hardworking, Unselfish, Fearless
linkdude
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
we did move up six spots, 48 > 42 and tu dropped from 39 > 41
JJxvi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, while its efficiency based, it does weight extra points for winning on the road so that did help us more than it likely hurt Texas
Hardworking, Unselfish, Fearless
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Still at 42 in NET

20 point Quad 3 win at home not helping
HoustonAg2106
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Complete Idiot said:

Still at 42 in NET

20 point Quad 3 win at home not helping


Saturday won't help either
linkdude
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Complete Idiot said:

Still at 42 in NET

20 point Quad 3 win at home not helping
a loss would have hurt tremendously, so treading water is a fine tradeoff
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even though Miss St is at 98 in the NET, I still thought more than doubling the spread might help a bit - I've heard margin of victory helps, even if it's a Quad 3 or 4 opponent.
linkdude
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
even a close win we likely would've dropped a spot or two
Southlake
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieCrew44 said:

We'd be sitting fine if we hadn't blown that UCF game

Could have easily won SMU and Tennessee to!

But, basketball be like that…
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also gotta remember the NET is moving target and everyone's data affects everyone else. Texas loses a game last night, Pitt loses again, etc.
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tennessee, Auburn, and Texas - 2 opponents we beat on the road and another we took to OT on the road - had very solid wins yesterday.

We beat an SEC opponent by 23.


In the NET, we held steady at 41.
TonyD33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Complete Idiot said:

Tennessee, Auburn, and Texas - 3 opponents we beat - had very solid wins yesterday.

We beat an SEC opponent by 23.


In the NET, we held steady at 41.

We didn't beat Tennessee.
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TonyD33 said:

Complete Idiot said:

Tennessee, Auburn, and Texas - 3 opponents we beat - had very solid wins yesterday.

We beat an SEC opponent by 23.


In the NET, we held steady at 41.

We didn't beat Tennessee.

Oops, brain fart - I guess I was thinking taking them to OT on the road and then them beating UF on the road themselves would help and I turned that into "we beat" in my head. And to be honest, I'm not even sure our OT with them and them doing better after that game would even help in the NET. It just helps in my personal opinion, maybe.

I'll edit the original and keep this here for historical idiocy proof.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The NET does seem to be stickier than the other ratings system, probably because it weights all the games the same as opposed to the others which diminish games over time.
threeanout
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
At #40 after the mid week games.

I know it's computer generated but tu at #38 with an 11-8 record is a mystery to me. Their record is 4-8 combined in Quad 1, 2 and 3 games played. The next highest ranked team with 8 or more total losses is Baylor at #60. They have the same record in Quad 1, 2 and 3 games played....4-8. Don't get it.
Gil Renard
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TonyD33 said:

Complete Idiot said:

Tennessee, Auburn, and Texas - 3 opponents we beat - had very solid wins yesterday.

We beat an SEC opponent by 23.


In the NET, we held steady at 41.

We didn't beat Tennessee.


That was such a fix
Emilio Fantastico
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Username checks out
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Emilio Fantastico said:

Username checks out

Yes, I made numerous errors - including in the post trying to explain a prior error. I have no idea what was happening between all the synapses, no clue how brains work. I just let it all stand, **** it.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
threeanout said:

At #40 after the mid week games.

I know it's computer generated but tu at #38 with an 11-8 record is a mystery to me. Their record is 4-8 combined in Quad 1, 2 and 3 games played. The next highest ranked team with 8 or more total losses is Baylor at #60. They have the same record in Quad 1, 2 and 3 games played....4-8. Don't get it.

You just have to zoom in a little bit more. You're talking about "Quad, 1, 2 and 3" but the quads make no difference at all to the computers. They're looking at the pure rankings. So where looking at the quads makes no distinction between beating #1 and #75 on the road, the NET itself of course does.

Texas has two big wins in their pocket that are buoying their NET that I'd guess nobody around them has, and that's beating NET #13 Vanderbilt and and especially beating NET #20 Alabama on the road. And they also blasted #34 Georgia.

Also crucial, three of their losses were to teams ranked in the top 20, and the loss to UCONN was only by 8 points. Their worst losses aren't that bad, they got beat in overtime by three points by Miss State and by one point to Arizona State, those aren't great results but they're not awful, those are both top 100 teams and AzSt was at a nuetral site.

You add all that up and you get bubble-ish team and that's exactly where Texas is at right at #41 this morning.

Compare that to say, us, our schedule hasn't been as good. We got absolutely nuked by #72 Oklahoma State. Our best win is at #28 Auburn. We lost at home by 12 to #39 UCF. The best opponent we've even played so far is #23 Tennessee.

And another thing that's crucial that I've talked about is that most predictive metrics weigh your more recent games more heavily. After all, that's the point, how good is this team right now. But the NET doesn't do that. It's not exactly a level playing field for the NCAA Tournament if the system is weighted towards recent games because it's going to heavily favor major conference teams even more than it already does. So for the hamsters inside the NET's wheels, losing by 24 to Oklahoma State on November 9 is the same as if we lost to Oklahoma State by 24 yesterday.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
One thing though that's a borderline miracle, is I REALLY like the NET WAB. (You can sort teams by the WAB Rank on that page) For the non-nerds that's "Wins Above Bubble" based on the NET. How would a bubble team fare against the schedule you've played.

This metric actually kicks Texas down to #60. While some of their close losses are floating their NET, they still didn't win those games. This metric has Texas as -.38 wins below the bubble. We're actually five spots higher in the NET WAB than we are in the pure NET at #35, 1.14 wins above the bubble.

I really like the NET WAB, to the point that I'm not so sure they shouldn't just use it to seed the tournament.
dcaggie04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
threeanout said:

At #40 after the mid week games.

I know it's computer generated but tu at #38 with an 11-8 record is a mystery to me. Their record is 4-8 combined in Quad 1, 2 and 3 games played. The next highest ranked team with 8 or more total losses is Baylor at #60. They have the same record in Quad 1, 2 and 3 games played....4-8. Don't get it.


Texas is #41 as of right now. NCAA must have posted an update after you posted this morning.
ahou614
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bobinator said:

One thing though that's a borderline miracle, is I REALLY like the NET WAB. (You can sort teams by the WAB Rank on that page) For the non-nerds that's "Wins Above Bubble" based on the NET. How would a bubble team fare against the schedule you've played.

This metric actually kicks Texas down to #60. While some of their close losses are floating their NET, they still didn't win those games. This metric has Texas as -.38 wins below the bubble. We're actually five spots higher in the NET WAB than we are in the pure NET at #35, 1.14 wins above the bubble.

I really like the NET WAB, to the point that I'm not so sure they shouldn't just use it to seed the tournament.

That same stat knocks us down to 78.
bobinator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You're just looking at the Non-con WAB Rank, have to look at the basic WAB rank
t-rex
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Improved to 35 as if today. 3-3 in Q1s now. UCF doing well, works in our favor. Two big opportunities this week.
Complete Idiot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hanging out at 39 after the UF dud, thanks to UF's high ranking no real big impact on the Ag's NET.
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.