2024-2025 Polls/NET/RPI

[OldHare]

What happens if the home games with lower division teams is swapped for a Western Illinois type of team? Is it a wash for points?

[jakejc795]

That great win + good win would give us a one loss season just to be sniffing a #4 seed. And I don’t think you can plan it ahead in nonconference because you're still at the whim of your opponents playing well in conference. And they are disincentivized from scheduling you OOC because they can skate against the bottom of the barrel teams, play middling ball in league, and still make the tournament.

I agree about getting rid of the non d1 teams, but you’re sacrificing two home game gates to probably go on the road. I wonder if what it takes would be the willingness to go play one off road games with no return game in a later year.

Maybe play at the Pentagon or Summit Arena in Rapid?

[Bozemaniac]

One last note, the committee's stance on Kansas State (having them hosting in 2x reveals) when they only have 2 Q1 wins (one great win vs TCU and getting a Q1 w/ Utah since it was on the road). It makes me believe that the team just needs a great win (ie Duke) and another good Q1 win or two (Georgia Tech) to host.

That great win + good win would give us a one loss season just to be sniffing a #4 seed. And I don’t think you can plan it ahead in nonconference because you're still at the whim of your opponents playing well in conference. And they are disincentivized from scheduling you OOC because they can skate against the bottom of the barrel teams, play middling ball in league, and still make the tournament.

I agree about getting rid of the non d1 teams, but you’re sacrificing two home game gates to probably go on the road. I wonder if what it takes would be the willingness to go play one off road games with no return game in a later year.

[peavy]

One last note, the committee's stance on Kansas State (having them hosting in 2x reveals) when they only have 2 Q1 wins (one great win vs TCU and getting a Q1 w/ Utah since it was on the road). It makes me believe that the team just needs a great win (ie Duke) and another good Q1 win or two (Georgia Tech) to host.



If you're only scheduling 5-6 good games, your margin for error is obviously a lot smaller, and you can't really expect to go 5-1 each year, so again I'd hope the team continues to ramp up scheduling difficulty. Next year, I assume Texas and Ball State (it'll probably be q3) are coming to Brookings. SDSU is going to Duke and Creighton (q1 opportunity b/c of the 1-45 away benefit). The KState MTE should be a Q1 assuming Mittie doesn't leave KState. That's 4 Q1 games, one Q2 (if lucky with Big Sky game), and 1 Q3 game.

[peavy]

You asked some good questions. In theory the NET w/ quadrants that differentiate home/road games sounds really good, but I'm looking at that ranking and it's a giant P4 circlejerk. You get Minnesota going undefeated in OOC against the absolute weakest schedule, allowing them to somehow end up as a Q1 counter for a mediocre Washington team that is sitting above us. And both Minnesota and UW are right on the cut line of the bubble.

The big problem with this is that it looks like it makes the #8/#9 seed the highest ceiling for good mid major programs. I think they switched to NET from RPI in like 2021, and we've been what, 9/9/12 since the switch? Before we've been a 7 and even a 6 in strong years (with 5 losses!). I'd be really bummed if this year's team gets an 8 seed looking at this field and with us ranked in the top 25.

Addressing some of Bozemaniac's stuff about NET, MM ceiling, etc. Along with some other AP stuff Side note: Team's RPI is 19 had that been used.

New net quadrants will work out well if you can schedule accordingly with away games having the most potential (1-25 home vs 1-45 away, similar for Q2) . People are going to be complaining about NET on Sunday when the team receives X seed (see: Zimmer article responses) It's a problem, but I don't think it's the reason for the placement. At the end of the day, SDSU needed Oregon, Creighton, and Ball State to perform better.

IMO, the focus should be on noncon scheduling. The team doesn't have a Q1 win (same with Creighton). Losses are going to happen (Duke, GT, Texas all Q1 games). The argument hurting the teams who won regular season title but lost in the conference tourney (JMU, Fairfield if they lose, UNLV, etc) is that these teams don't have Q1 or Q2 wins.

Easier said than done but get rid of the d2 games, push for getting the top 2 Big Sky games (they're talking about renewing this challenge, and I don't like being locked into these games for the next 3 years that won't help the resume unless you get lucky with an away game) and maybe schedule some of the teams who are also experiencing issues with (and in some cases are vocal about) the new quads (weak Big East - Seton Hall fringe bubble, weak Big12). Easier said than done, but Rice, Wisconsin, South Carolina State, etc aren't helping the schedule. Not sure what happened with UNI this year (they lost a starter early in the year to injury I believe)

Also AP placement and voting should not be related. Maybe we'll see something with the 'observable component'. I would look at WVU specifically as an example to see if it has any impact (high net, just 2 q2 wins). They were top 15 team for much of the year with 0 q1 wins. AP voting is subjective. Selection Sunday placement should objective.

As an example, this is what Belmont did. NONCON IN BLUE. They scheduled the 4th hardest non con to SDSU's 13th. They have 3 Q4 non-con games to SDSU's 4 (this doesn't include the 2 non d1 games).
Going full Belmont is probably not the answer, but on the flip side, they pull off just one of these games, and they're in the at-large conversation.

If you can't count on your conference opponents to help you out (oral roberts gave the team 2 Q3 wins, need them to improve), you have to place all your bets on the con-con.

As an example, instead of fans tweeting about the NET on Sunday, instead we ask, "What has to be done to remove the 2 non d1 games from the schedule"

[jackdaniel]

You would think that but I went through the AP Top 25 teams ranked 15 through everyone receiving votes and the rank kind of correlated with the seed for most of the power 4 schools but not any of the non power 4 schools. I used chremes bracketology.

of the 20 teams I looked at 6 schools were seeded 2 lines lower than what there seed should be if you went strictly off rank. 5 of this six were non power 4 schools

15 Maryland 5 seed should be 4 seed -1
16 West Virginia 6 seed (4 seed) -2

17 Baylor 5 seed (5 seed) -
18 Tennessee 5 seed (5 seed) they were a 4 seed -
19 Alabama 4 seed (5 seed) +1
20 Kansas State 4 seed (5 seed) +1

21 Oklahoma State 7 seed (6 seed) -1
22 Florida State 6 seed (6 seed) -
23 Creighton 8 seed (6 seed) -2
24 Michigan State 6 seed (6 seed) -

25 South Dakota State 9 seed (7 seed) -2
26 Louisville 7 seed (7 seed) -
27 Richmond 9 seed (7 seed) -2
28 Mississippi 4 seed (7 seed) moved up to a 4 seed +3

29 Utah 7 seed (8 seed) +1
30 James Madison 12 seed(8 seed) -4
31 Iowa 6 seed (8 seed) +2
32 Fairfield 12 seed (8 seed) -4

33 California 8 seed (9 seed) +1
34 Georgia Tech 9 seed (9 seed) -

Not sure what Charlie Chreme sees in Ole Miss for them to not be ranked in either poll but be a high enough seed to host the first two rounds.

I also understand rankings are just one of many metrics used to seed the field but not real surprising the only schools getting “worse seeds” than their ranks are small school.

If you ask me, I think they are doing James Madison and Fairfield, Iowa a big favor keeping them out of the 8 or nine seed spots, and thus leaving three more 8 or 9 open spots for teams like the Jacks and Creighton, Richmond to be placed in....the whole thing becomes terribly convoluted , seemingly, by helping some teams have a successful tourney while simultaneously making the tourney harder and less successful for other more deserving teams for sometimes purely arbitrary reasons. Shouldn't the teams be seeded on how good or bad the teams may perform based on analysis done by the ranking professionals to have the most entertaining tournament possible, instead of things like travel expenses, avoiding teams playing each other from the same conf ( some might have as many as 10 teams in the field), other arbitrary reasons, etc?

Seeding is becoming a sore spot for some teams unfairly downgraded , and rightly so. Since the selection committee has not done their work yet , this is no reflection on them, it's to the non- selection committee bracketology services who don't do their due diligence and just put out their best guesses basically, right or wrong haphazardly, mostly the latter thankfully.

[GrandpaLee]

I think we also recruited their starting guard Callin Hake really hard. Would be enjoyable to get a win against the Huskers and prove the grass isn't always greener at the larger schools.

Do Not forget $$$'s in Nebraska WBB's offers ....

[Jackrabbit2012]

If the Jacks would get Nebraska in their first game and win, it would kind of be poetic justice for the Jacks to end the career of their one time signee in Markowski.

I think we also recruited their starting guard Callin Hake really hard. Would be enjoyable to get a win against the Huskers and prove the grass isn't always greener at the larger schools.

[98Jackfarmer]

All of the bracketology I'm seeing this year is a joke. We are far better than a 9 seed. NET ranking for us has made zero sense this year. Charlie Creme has been off every year with where we've actually ended up.

I actually am not going to be surprised if we get a 7 and play Nebraska as a 10 in the first round. I'd be okay with that. They've been up and down all year and we know AJ > Amy. Unfortunately, all of the top 16 hosts are going to be out of the Midwest so no regional travel again for us this year.

If the Jacks would get Nebraska in their first game and win, it would kind of be poetic justice for the Jacks to end the career of their one time signee in Markowski.

[GoJacks2011]

All of the bracketology I'm seeing this year is a joke. We are far better than a 9 seed. NET ranking for us has made zero sense this year. Charlie Creme has been off every year with where we've actually ended up.

I actually am not going to be surprised if we get a 7 and play Nebraska as a 10 in the first round. I'd be okay with that. They've been up and down all year and we know AJ > Amy. Unfortunately, all of the top 16 hosts are going to be out of the Midwest so no regional travel again for us this year.

[MontanaRabbit]

You asked some good questions. In theory the NET w/ quadrants that differentiate home/road games sounds really good, but I'm looking at that ranking and it's a giant P4 circlejerk. You get Minnesota going undefeated in OOC against the absolute weakest schedule, allowing them to somehow end up as a Q1 counter for a mediocre Washington team that is sitting above us. And both Minnesota and UW are right on the cut line of the bubble.

The big problem with this is that it looks like it makes the #8/#9 seed the highest ceiling for good mid major programs. I think they switched to NET from RPI in like 2021, and we've been what, 9/9/12 since the switch? Before we've been a 7 and even a 6 in strong years (with 5 losses!). I'd be really bummed if this year's team gets an 8 seed looking at this field and with us ranked in the top 25.

Anything higher than a 6 seed for this Jackrabbit team would be a complete travesty. Our OOC strength of schedule is #10 in the entire country.

[Bozemaniac]

AP voter Eden Laase wrote an article, "NCAA women’s basketball mid-major stars explain why they chose to stay rather than transfer" that talks about and includes quotes from AJ and Brooklyn (and Harvard's Harmoni Turner & Drake's Katie Dinnebier)

She did an ask me anything on the ncaaw subreddit. I should have asked if anyone here had any questions. Others asked about AP voting among other things. I asked about
1) tournament expansion
2) if she's seen the coaches getting angry at the NET/process publicly (lots of teams trying to make their case for March. JMU, Seton Hall, UNLV)
3) her feelings on additional metrics for the women's game (men use a whole bunch. Women have Torvik and HerHoopsStats (but they aren't used). ESPN does BPI for Men not women, and NCAA does wins above bubble (a newer one) for men (actually listed on the NCAA net page) but not women
4) thoughts on conference tournaments since Mulkey had some about it (she doesn't want them - Morrow got injured ) and UNLV coach said things yday in a podcast (UNLV got knocked out and probably won't get an at-large)

You asked some good questions. In theory the NET w/ quadrants that differentiate home/road games sounds really good, but I'm looking at that ranking and it's a giant P4 circlejerk. You get Minnesota going undefeated in OOC against the absolute weakest schedule, allowing them to somehow end up as a Q1 counter for a mediocre Washington team that is sitting above us. And both Minnesota and UW are right on the cut line of the bubble.

The big problem with this is that it looks like it makes the #8/#9 seed the highest ceiling for good mid major programs. I think they switched to NET from RPI in like 2021, and we've been what, 9/9/12 since the switch? Before we've been a 7 and even a 6 in strong years (with 5 losses!). I'd be really bummed if this year's team gets an 8 seed looking at this field and with us ranked in the top 25.

[peavy]

AP voter Eden Laase wrote an article, "NCAA women’s basketball mid-major stars explain why they chose to stay rather than transfer" that talks about and includes quotes from AJ and Brooklyn (and Harvard's Harmoni Turner & Drake's Katie Dinnebier)

She did an ask me anything on the ncaaw subreddit. I should have asked if anyone here had any questions. Others asked about AP voting among other things. I asked about
1) tournament expansion
2) if she's seen the coaches getting angry at the NET/process publicly (lots of teams trying to make their case for March. JMU, Seton Hall, UNLV)
3) her feelings on additional metrics for the women's game (men use a whole bunch. Women have Torvik and HerHoopsStats (but they aren't used). ESPN does BPI for Men not women, and NCAA does wins above bubble (a newer one) for men (actually listed on the NCAA net page) but not women
4) thoughts on conference tournaments since Mulkey had some about it (she doesn't want them - Morrow got injured ) and UNLV coach said things yday in a podcast (UNLV got knocked out and probably won't get an at-large)

[MontanaRabbit]

You would think that but I went through the AP Top 25 teams ranked 15 through everyone receiving votes and the rank kind of correlated with the seed for most of the power 4 schools but not any of the non power 4 schools. I used chremes bracketology.

of the 20 teams I looked at 6 schools were seeded 2 lines lower than what there seed should be if you went strictly off rank. 5 of this six were non power 4 schools

15 Maryland 5 seed should be 4 seed -1
16 West Virginia 6 seed (4 seed) -2

17 Baylor 5 seed (5 seed) -
18 Tennessee 5 seed (5 seed) they were a 4 seed -
19 Alabama 4 seed (5 seed) +1
20 Kansas State 4 seed (5 seed) +1

21 Oklahoma State 7 seed (6 seed) -1
22 Florida State 6 seed (6 seed) -
23 Creighton 8 seed (6 seed) -2
24 Michigan State 6 seed (6 seed) -

25 South Dakota State 9 seed (7 seed) -2
26 Louisville 7 seed (7 seed) -
27 Richmond 9 seed (7 seed) -2
28 Mississippi 4 seed (7 seed) moved up to a 4 seed +3

29 Utah 7 seed (8 seed) +1
30 James Madison 12 seed(8 seed) -4
31 Iowa 6 seed (8 seed) +2
32 Fairfield 12 seed (8 seed) -4

33 California 8 seed (9 seed) +1
34 Georgia Tech 9 seed (9 seed) -

Not sure what Charlie Chreme sees in Ole Miss for them to not be ranked in either poll but be a high enough seed to host the first two rounds.

I also understand rankings are just one of many metrics used to seed the field but not real surprising the only schools getting “worse seeds” than their ranks are small school.

I think Charlie Creme does roughly zero research for the bracketology.

[Carolina010]

Good to see. I think a strong conference tournament should keep us in the top 25 here on out. Hoping this helps bump us up to a 7 seed at least in the NCAA tourney. God forbid, safety net for an at large is definitely there this year.

You would think that but I went through the AP Top 25 teams ranked 15 through everyone receiving votes and the rank kind of correlated with the seed for most of the power 4 schools but not any of the non power 4 schools. I used chremes bracketology.

of the 20 teams I looked at 6 schools were seeded 2 lines lower than what there seed should be if you went strictly off rank. 5 of this six were non power 4 schools

15 Maryland 5 seed should be 4 seed -1
16 West Virginia 6 seed (4 seed) -2

17 Baylor 5 seed (5 seed) -
18 Tennessee 5 seed (5 seed) they were a 4 seed -
19 Alabama 4 seed (5 seed) +1
20 Kansas State 4 seed (5 seed) +1

21 Oklahoma State 7 seed (6 seed) -1
22 Florida State 6 seed (6 seed) -
23 Creighton 8 seed (6 seed) -2
24 Michigan State 6 seed (6 seed) -

25 South Dakota State 9 seed (7 seed) -2
26 Louisville 7 seed (7 seed) -
27 Richmond 9 seed (7 seed) -2
28 Mississippi 4 seed (7 seed) moved up to a 4 seed +3

29 Utah 7 seed (8 seed) +1
30 James Madison 12 seed(8 seed) -4
31 Iowa 6 seed (8 seed) +2
32 Fairfield 12 seed (8 seed) -4

33 California 8 seed (9 seed) +1
34 Georgia Tech 9 seed (9 seed) -

Not sure what Charlie Chreme sees in Ole Miss for them to not be ranked in either poll but be a high enough seed to host the first two rounds.

I also understand rankings are just one of many metrics used to seed the field but not real surprising the only schools getting “worse seeds” than their ranks are small school.