Committee top-16 reveal: NET is HUGE

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...tournament-selection-committees-top-16-reveal

"There were a couple of noteworthy differences between the committee's seedings and the NET rankings. Kansas and Marquette were many seed lines higher than they would have been if seeding had been based entirely on NET rankings. Virginia Tech was left out. Houston and Wisconsin are a bit worse than their NET rankings, in the eyes of the committee.

But unless there's something about a resume that jumps off the page—such as a bunch of Quadrant 1 wins or an unsightly strength of schedule—it seems like the committee is more or less going to default to the NET rankings."

A bad omen for a Gophers squad struggling to move up in the NET rankings?

And the NET is generally harder on the Gophers than other computer ratings (6 spots lower than Sagarin and 2 lower than KenPom). That's extra weight around our neck that we don't need.

It is possible to win enough games that the committee could not keep us out if we wanted to. Unfortunately, we have not done that thus far, but we certainly have enough ganes left that we could get to a spot where NET ranking won't matter a lick to us (at least not in terms of in vs out). We still control our destiny. Just need to win. When you put yourself on the bubble, you run the risk of not being good enough in whatever flavor of the month criteria the committee uses.

We’re now #48 in RPI. NET is barely worse for us at this point than “the old way.”

Once again, NET should figure itself out.

We have “overrated” NET teams like Indiana and Nebraska that will boost our NET if we can beat them. We also have clearly good teams like Michigan, Purdue, and @Maryland.

If we win some or all of those, the NET should figure itself out for the most part.

Yup. Our schedule and resulting RPI are catching up with our efficiency rankings. By the end of the season, they’ll be very close. NET just does a much better job of predicting future wins and losses.

There was an old site called RPI forecast that ran iterations of Sagarin models to forecast future RPI based on projected wins and losses. NET has the same effect of looking ahead even though it’s not forecasting future wins and losses directly.

Bottom line is, we are a 45-65th ranked team, not a 20-45th ranked team. If at the end of the season, the two systems are still that far apart, you have an issue with NET. NET just gives you a more realistic snapshot earlier.

RickDornsby said:

We’re now #48 in RPI. NET is barely worse for us at this point than “the old way.”

Once again, NET should figure itself out.

We have “overrated” NET teams like Indiana and Nebraska that will boost our NET if we can beat them. We also have clearly good teams like Michigan, Purdue, and @Maryland.

If we win some or all of those, the NET should figure itself out for the most part.

Click to expand...

Ours is closing. But Nebraska's gap is 69 (40 NET, 109 RPI). Indiana's is around 30 (40 something vs 70 something). It's still flawed and the RPI is better outside of the top 20 or so.

SSWWMAS said:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...tournament-selection-committees-top-16-reveal

But unless there's something about a resume that jumps off the page—such as a bunch of Quadrant 1 wins or an unsightly strength of schedule—it seems like the committee is more or less going to default to the NET rankings.[/I]"

Click to expand...

This seems to be a large logical leap (by the author, not the OP).

Really, what the author is saying is...the committee's seeds more or less match NET, unless a team has some great wins, a tough schedule, or another significant factor, in which case they are adjusted? No sh*t sherlock, that is no different than "the committee is using team sheets to evaluate each team's entire body of work. In many cases, that body of work aligns closely with NET rankings order. In cases where it did not, the committee seeded based on body of work, not NET."

In my view, there's more positive to draw from the top 16 reveal (the committee obviously isn't just blindly following NET) than there is negative.