Offical Net ranking thread

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
6,171
Reaction score
383
Points
83
What were the "serious flaws" of the RPI again?

Something about valuing wins?
I like RPI if you shifted the focus to your wins as number 1 priority
Your SOS as number 2
Your opponents SOS as number 3


I don’t know what the order of those three priorities is right now
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
6,171
Reaction score
383
Points
83
All of this will make it really interesting to see how much weight NET gets come selection sunday, both in regards to who is in as well as seeding
I think they’ll use resume to pick who is in and then use net to seed.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
5,651
Reaction score
1,395
Points
113
What were the "serious flaws" of the RPI again?

Something about valuing wins?
Actually about how poorly it measured who you beat and where. It measured winning%, Opponents winning % and opponents, opponents winning %. That could be gamed so easily. All you needed was a few games against great teams because even if you lost they won alot and so it did not hurt. Then games against teams that were just ok to boost your own % and so on and so forth. No sophistication to show for example that you just slipped by a mid major while someone else crushed a ranked team on the road. Since not everybody plays each other and no one can see every game of every team the coaches wanted something that measured how well you played and ppp does that to perfection. The best coaches and programs were using it for decades to get their teams focused on turnovers, shot selection and defense. I did not vote for it, i do not have a vote but what they came up with is so much better than RPI. Complain to the coaches committee and the metrics people and by the way, they have no bias to where their teams are ranked. Plus, what they do is not a hobby for them like it is for fans. Fans usually watch their team through a heavy bias and then rarely even watch other games to break down who is playing whom and where.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
9,976
Reaction score
1,029
Points
113
In 2018 mid-majors (including the American) got 5 at-large bids. NET didn't exist.
In 2017 mid-majors (including the American) got 4 at-large bids. NET didn't exist.
In 2016 mid-majors (including the American) got 6 at-large bids. NET didn't exist.

In 2019 SelectionSunday has projected that mid-majors (including the American) will get 6 at-large bids. NET does exist.
7 mid-majors in 2019. NET actually helped them.
 

schlegs

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
237
Reaction score
2
Points
18
So what i picked up on from yesterday was that the committee does not care about net or rpi. They pretty much admitted that sos does not matter.... "we looked at how those teams did with the opportunities given"

They pretty much only looked at overall win% against quad 1 teams regardless if you had 2 of those games or 20....probably not the worst route to go, but its gonna make for a boring non conference
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
25,476
Reaction score
1,043
Points
113
7 mid-majors in 2019. NET actually helped them.
Maybe this happens every year but 2 of those at-larges were because Gonzaga and VCU didn't win their conference tournaments. They both win theirs and it may have been just 5.
 

golfing18now

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
1,842
Reaction score
330
Points
83
I know it is part of the intrigue of the tournament (bubble teams, seeding, etc.) but doesn't it seem like we all get too worked about whether or not the 9th place Big Ten team or the 6th place Big 12 team or the 8th place ACC team or whatever random (insert team here) gets in to the tournament? As we saw this year, when we get to the bubble teams, these are all really mediocre teams by any metric.
 

bizzle22

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
1,812
Reaction score
44
Points
48
I know it is part of the intrigue of the tournament (bubble teams, seeding, etc.) but doesn't it seem like we all get too worked about whether or not the 9th place Big Ten team or the 6th place Big 12 team or the 8th place ACC team or whatever random (insert team here) gets in to the tournament? As we saw this year, when we get to the bubble teams, these are all really mediocre teams by any metric.
Completely agree.

I missed two in my bracket picks (had TCU/Alabama instead of Belmont/Temple), but it was basically a crapshoot between those teams in my eyes and I have zero problem with the teams selected by the committee. I actually think the committee did a pretty awesome job this year. Sure, there's a team or two where I don't really agree with their seed. But I don't feel bad for teams with losses well into the double digits not getting in.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
155
Points
63
Maybe this happens every year but 2 of those at-larges were because Gonzaga and VCU didn't win their conference tournaments. They both win theirs and it may have been just 5.
Though it was partly cancelled out with Oregon winning the Pac12 instead of Ariz St or Washington, giving the power conferences an extra bid.
 
Top Bottom