So far, based upon its results relative to the Big10 standings, I think that NET is a joke. However, the more of your responses I read, the better I understand. Here is the fundamental problem I believe I will still have with NET in the end. NET is more about how you played (efficiency) instead of the result (win or lose). That is fine for coaches to help their teams get better, or for a book-maker to set betting lines, but it should not be a leading indicator of team selection for a tournament. Yes, it is probably true that more efficient teams generally win more. Makes sense. I don’t really care about generalizations, I care about results! There is no arguing right now that NET displays very flawed rankings in terms of order of tournament selection (again referencing the obvious example of MN vs NE and IN). I think the BIG mistake has been the elevated status it has been given. All the commentators, coaches, fans think of this like it is the end-all. If it is, there will be some real injustices in the selections. I only hope that sounder minds will prevail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk