Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2024-2025 Polls/NET/RPI

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    new coaches poll SDSU gains 36 points (35->71) putting them at 24

    20. Alabama 174
    21. FSU 98
    22. MSU 85
    23. OSU 72
    24. SDSU 71
    25. Creighton 51
    26. Baylor 41
    37. Cal 36
    28. Vandy 20

    Comment


    • #62
      Jeff Linder has SDSU 23 in his latest poll, and Eden Laase has SDSU as 25 in her poll

      A Fairfield assistant coach, Blake Dudonis actually went to bat for SDSU on Monday regarding votes. An AP voter tweeted it out saying he's been voting for the team.



      and some mid-major coaches engaged in a NET conversation on Tuesday.

      DuDonis tweeted something out about the NET being biased toward p4's and suggested things need to be tweaked to get the best possible 68 teams in. He retweeted a video from a JMU presser. They played against Ball State in a game between the top 2 teams in 2 diff conferences (SunBelt/X challenge), and Ball State lost and moved up 2 spots (51), and JMU stayed the same (53)

      The Belmont Associate HC (Jamey Givens) then put this out along with the video (same video from DuDonis tweet above)

      Givens added this, "We have a double digit head-to-head win over a team, more quad 2/3 wins than them, and no losses outside q1 and q2 and are somehow ranked 5 spots below them?"
      Last edited by peavy; 02-16-2025, 11:10 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by peavy View Post
        New AP poll SDSU gains one point to put them at 7 total

        22. MSU 86
        23. FSU 78
        24. Creighton 61
        25. Baylor 48
        26. Cal 38
        27. Illinois 22
        28. Vandy 20
        29. Utah 14
        30. SDSU 7
        31. Michigan 6
        32 Richmond 5
        SDSU gains 10 points (from 7) to put them at 17 total. 3 voters moved the team up (20, 20, 23) and 2 new people put the team at 25

        22. MSU 131
        23. Creighton 96
        24. Oklahoma State 90
        25. Illinois 53
        26. California 48
        27. Utah 43
        28. Louisville 28
        29. SDSU 17

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by peavy View Post

          SDSU gains 10 points (from 7) to put them at 17 total. 3 voters moved the team up (20, 20, 23) and 2 new people put the team at 25

          22. MSU 131
          23. Creighton 96
          24. Oklahoma State 90
          25. Illinois 53
          26. California 48
          27. Utah 43
          28. Louisville 28
          29. SDSU 17
          SDSU gains 5 points (from 17) to put them at 22 points total, good for 27th on this poll

          22. Creighton 121
          23. Michigan State 104
          24. Florida State 64
          25. Louisville 46
          26. Georgia Tech 32
          27. South Dakota State 22
          28. Utah 19
          29. Illinois 14

          Comment


          • #65
            gained 20 points putting them at 42 points total. Good for #25
            https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-wom...asketball-poll

            20. KSTATE 220
            21. Oklahoma State 189
            23. Creighton 83
            24. Michigan State 67
            25. South Dakota State 42
            26. Louisville 40
            27. Richmond 21

            Comment


            • #66
              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.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by GoJacks2011 View Post
                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.
                Any seed but the dreaded 8-9 seed is great.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by GoJacks2011 View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Carolina010 View Post

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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)
                      Last edited by peavy; Yesterday, 09:53 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by peavy View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Bozemaniac View Post

                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by GoJacks2011 View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by 98Jackfarmer View Post

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X