Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2024-2025 Polls/NET/RPI

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Jackrabbit2012 View Post

    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 ....

    Comment


    • #77
      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.
      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.
      Last edited by jackdaniel; 03-15-2025, 11:47 AM.

      Comment


      • #78
        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.
        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"

        Comment


        • #79
          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.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by peavy View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Bozemaniac View Post

              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?

              Comment


              • #82

                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?
                Best to remember these are kids and they are doing everything they can to entertain us, be scholars, and all in all be great humans. Jackedforlife

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Bozemaniac View Post

                  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.
                  This is why I think you just latch yourself to the good consistent programs, as SDSU has been doing with Creighton for however many years. I like the Big East for this reason as an alternative to Rice and Wisconsin. They are still small time enough to need to fight for their nonconference schedules, and they're strong enough for the whole conference to receive the benefit of the NET with the conf games.

                  You approach Seton Hall (or Marquette) coach Bozzella and tell him, "I'm going to give you an opportunity for a Q1 win on a great year (ie this one), and Q2 on a good year (last year SDSU is NET 55, missing the 1-45 away cutoff for Q1). I'll even let you come play us in Brookings first, so you get the benefit of that potential Q1 win opportunity first". Seton Hall for reference has 0 Q1 wins and 3 Q2 wins this year. NET 76 so on a 'down-year' for them, it's a Q2 away game for SDSU, Q3 home (again still better than Q4 home for Wisco/Rice)

                  We're seeing this year that Minnesota & their attempt at making the tourney with a non con ranked 359/365 or whatever isn't working out for them. Same thing with the Virginia Techs, Iowa States, etc. They're literally just skating by. With the new net quadrants, Q4 is so large, that if people are scheduling easy, it'll stick out. You can take a look at the list and see a team like OSU has 14 Q4 wins, KSU, 12, etc. True seed list (1-68 ranking for all the teams) should give a new indication of where the teams that scheduled easy in non con stand this year.

                  Are we still playing buy games? I assume the Texas game is not considered a buy game if they come to Brookings this year, just like I assume Duke isn't either if there's a H&H.

                  A good way of putting it is if you're not a yearly top 25 power team, away games is where you'll find the most benefit unless you're scheduling top 25 teams (Texas, Duke) at home. If you're a power team looking for Q1 opportunities in conference, it's the same thing. Some of these b12 teams are missing 1-2 Q1 wins because the team they've beat while playing at home are just spots away from being < 25 (Utah 26, Oklahoma State 27). It sounds very strange but it's like there's more incentive to play an away game, so I'm hoping this changes things from the "they won't play us" perspective

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by jakejc795 View Post

                    Maybe play at the Pentagon or Summit Arena in Rapid?
                    Neutral games are 1-35, Away are 1-45. It's going to sound crazy, but if a team is playing a MM and looking for a Q1 win (because let's face it Q2 doesn't move the needle as we're seeing this year && keep in mind this year is a very very weak bubble) they're going to want to play that as an away game because the chance of a MM being <36 at the end of the year is slim.

                    SDSU NET 44 this year, so we gave Duke a Q1 win (not that they needed it), if the game is sioux falls, it's Q2.

                    I guess could be a debate of battling against home-court advantage versus having a Q1 win. If anyone went to the South Carolina game at the Pentagon, how many SC fans were actually there? Was the atmosphere any different than at Frost? If it's a title contending team like Texas or SC, they should have 0 issue coming to Brookings since they're probably wining anyway.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by OldHare View Post
                      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?
                      Right now SDSU is receiving no penalty for scheduling non-D1 games from a NET perspective. Non d1 is not calculated into NET, strength of schedule, etc. I assume it'll just show up in the team's resume at the bottom (similar to image from a few posts above). A good question would be if this factors into the committee's "observable component."

                      If you were to look at some of the stronger MM resumes, most don't have those games, but maybe this is just that location/"nobody wants to come to Frost" issue we talk about since teams like Belmont, Richmond, Princeton, Harvard, Columbia, etc are in more favorable locations.

                      Now if you schedule WIU or a Utah Tech, etc, that game is now impacting your non conference SOS (and overall SOS but not as much since there's 30+ games), As seen above, our weakest NET opponent (outside 183 Montana and 215 EWU - again why I'm suspicious of this Big Sky Challenge - it's hurt our non con sos this year) was 110 Wisconsin. The team also played that Montana game close, which didn't help.

                      If you schedule them, you are encouraged to torch them, as Kansas State did in their non conference (see above: they had large margins in their q4 games ie #348 SC Upstate 110- 24), so that's high points per possession scored, and low points per possession allowed. KState's non con helped their NET, and it would help SDSU's if the game score is nice, but that's not what this team needs.

                      Fairfield has a 40 some net for a similar reason (nice efficiency), but again they would have been left out had they lost b/c they have 0 q1/q2 wins.

                      I was bummed that the team didn't blow out teams (technically viewed as efficiency with the NET) because it wasn't causing NET movement, but I don't think the story changes all that much when it comes to the committee. A 44 NET SDSU with 3 Q2 wins should be treated the same as a 37 NET SDSU with 3 Q2 wins.

                      To answer your question, if it came down to 2 300 teams, you might be better off going d2 so it doesn't affect anything. Belmont does have 4 Q4 games, but those 6 Q1 games are dominating that SOS non con conversation to overpower those weaker games. If you had to play them, with the way away wins > home wins, you may want to play them at their place. From my understanding, a 30 point away victory will be viewed better than a 30 point home victory
                      Last edited by peavy; 03-15-2025, 04:10 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        speaking of d2 games. found this one from the fairfield assistant coach. He is not afraid to go public with things (as an example, he talked about getting ghosted by power schools while in the middle of scheduling conversations). Good guy to follow to get a pulse on what MM coaches are thinking.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Bozemaniac View Post

                          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.
                          That's what I was wondering. If it comes down to $$. So that's where the don't blame the net was headed. Chip in to the program. That said, women's game will now have units, so SDSU will be earning $ for everyone in the conference.

                          "The pot will begin at $15 million for the 2025 tournament, grow to $20 million in 2026, and $25 million in 2027. That means each unit will be worth $113,636 this upcoming year." front office sports article
                          the original ncaa document says it's over 3 years ( i think men once had a 6 year payout period).

                          about 113 / 8 team = $14,200 / 3 roughly $4,700 per year for each game SDSU appears in

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Seton Hall coach is also an ally in this discussion, so it just makes sense. He's not holding back either




                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by peavy View Post
                              Seton Hall coach is also an ally in this discussion, so it just makes sense. He's not holding back either
                              But this seems to be the point I was getting at: the NET, purely by it's output, has some kind of P4 boost that isn't nearly as pronounced as the RPI (which also does quads now?). Every midmajor looks worse, every mediocre P5 looks better (I used Washington earlier because I watched them play early season when the Griz smoked them and once later in the year; the Jacks are hands down a better team). Is that simply from the margin of victory component? The '09 team was decidedly underseeded at #7 (should have been a 5 or better). The '16 team was a #12 with 6 losses; not sure if underseeded but we played exceptionally well even for a 12 seed. The '19 team was a #6 and played like it, and had 5 losses. I wonder what our NET would have looked like in those pre-2021 seasons.

                              Although, now I'm looking at the NET and it's totally fluffed the Ivy League too! Harvard gets early season Q1 win at Indiana and now rides that boost into league play and now they've got 3(!) teams possibly in the tournament. And Princeton and Columbia have great NET, too, because they each get to Q1 count for each other with Harvard lol.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Bozemaniac View Post

                                But this seems to be the point I was getting at: the NET, purely by it's output, has some kind of P4 boost that isn't nearly as pronounced as the RPI (which also does quads now?). Every midmajor looks worse, every mediocre P5 looks better (I used Washington earlier because I watched them play early season when the Griz smoked them and once later in the year; the Jacks are hands down a better team). Is that simply from the margin of victory component? The '09 team was decidedly underseeded at #7 (should have been a 5 or better). The '16 team was a #12 with 6 losses; not sure if underseeded but we played exceptionally well even for a 12 seed. The '19 team was a #6 and played like it, and had 5 losses. I wonder what our NET would have looked like in those pre-2021 seasons.

                                Although, now I'm looking at the NET and it's totally fluffed the Ivy League too! Harvard gets early season Q1 win at Indiana and now rides that boost into league play and now they've got 3(!) teams possibly in the tournament. And Princeton and Columbia have great NET, too, because they each get to Q1 count for each other with Harvard lol.
                                from NCAA net thing they released a few days ago. bold courtesy of NCAA formatting
                                Two key components of NET rankings
                                1. Team Value Index — A results-based measure that rewards teams for beating quality opponents, with extra weight given to road and neutral-site wins.
                                2. Adjusted Net Efficiency — The difference between a team's offensive efficiency (points per possession)and defensive efficiency (opponents' points per possession), adjusted for opponent strength and game location.
                                "rewards for beating quality opponents" and "adjusted for opponent strength" power teams are always going to have better SoS's and more quality opponents. SDSU's overall SOS is 81. The 3 bubble power teams are Washington (SOS 29), Iowa State (37), and Virginia Tech (47). I only have a vague understanding of RPI, but I think it ends up favoring the mid majors a little more because the good ones don't lose, or if they do lose they're losing to great teams. SDSU RPI 19 (GT, Texas, Duke), Richmond RPI 26 (all great teams in Texas, Tennessee, Alabama plus 2 bad q4 losses), etc.

                                Washington's NET movement can most easily be seen on the NCAA's NET site (can also check Rankings by Week on this site if you cross reference Monday Week X NET updates w/ schedule). As an example, they went from 52-> 49 following a 3point loss in Washington to USC on 2/16, and then a 5 point jump 49-> 44 after beating Nebraska by 21 @ Nebraska Feb 23

                                Ivy they've maintained where they are with pretty large blowouts (again this is technically referred to as points per offensive possession vs points allowed per defensive possession - since the "NET doesn't reward for encouraging large margins") and as you mentioned, they're getting in based on the ability to basically beat themselves and riding the nice NET
                                Harvard look at the early schedule, Maine they won by 42, Northeastern won by 52, Northwestern 25. Pretty high efficiency games, and they maintained it with conference blowouts 30, 29, 55, 35, 37.
                                Columbia saw NET movement while in conference with blowouts 25, 22, 38, 52, 26,
                                Princeton's rankings are a little more unclear for me. They opened at 44 in the NET (around Dec 3). I think they got rewarded for winning a bunch of games on the road +21 @ Depaul, +9 @ Villanova,+3 @ Seton Hall, +17 @ Rutgers, +5 @ Temple. Then they also had the larger margins later +32, + 33, +23, +26 +29

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X