I compared the Top 100 of the NET with the Top 100 of the RPI.

Power 7 schools improving by more than 15 spots in the NET
Northwestern
NC St
USC
UConn
Missouri
Nebraska
Rutgers
USF
Florida
Texas A&M
Miami
Indiana
Penn St
Oklahoma St
Arkansas
Texas
Butler
Ohio St
Oregon St
Ole Miss
Providence
South Carolina

Power 7 schools worsening by more than 15 spots in the NET
Arizona St
Kansas
Temple

Midmajors improving by more than 15 spots in the NET
Grand Canyon
Lipscomb
Fresno St
Liberty
Furman

Midmajors worsening by more than 15 spots in the NET
Charleston Southern
Harvard
Georgia St
Kent St
Bucknell
Marshall
Drake
Georgia Southern
Utah Valley
Colgate
Yale
Radford
Bowling Green
San Diego
UNC Greensboro
Montana
Davidson
Toledo
Western Ky
BYU
Hofstra
Northeastern
Vermont
Old Dominion

Mission accomplished.

I'm sure it's a coincidence

NET through 3/9 has ten teams with .500 or lesser records in the top 100. The only one that isn’t in the P5/6 is UConn.

I’m more concerned by seeing almost entire power conferences in the NET 100. Like a 12-19 team at around 80. Yeah...no.

NET is all about SOS, making it FOS.

Here is an example why NET is kind of a BS.
UGA- 112th NET, 170 RPI (11-20, 13th SEC)
GSU- 126th NET, 59 RPI (22-9, 1st SBC)

but hey, let's look at the head-to-head matchup (neutral site)


Georgia State actually has beaten as many SEC schools during OOC play as UGA during its conference schedule (2-16). Yet, somehow UGA is ranked higher on NET. The system is rigged.

When you do the math, it is a net 19 P7 schools improving, and a net 19 Midmajor schools worsened.

What that will do to the NCAA tournament is clear. I mean, there were only 3 at-large Midmajors last year (2 A10, 1 MW). I was hoping that deserving Midmajors passed over by the NCAA-T would at least get an NIT invite. The NIT can be a great building block for an up and coming Midmajor team. But I'm sure using the NET means that more Midmajors are going to be shoved out of the NIT as well.

In last year's NIT field: 16 teams were P7 and 16 teams were Midmajors (& 12 of those were conference champs with autobids ). The 4 at-large Midmajor schools had rpi's between 39-67. Last year the NIT took P5 schools with rpi's as low as 95. I counted 10 Midmajor schools with rpi's better than 95 that the NIT leapfrogged to get the Power schools. All 10 wouldn't have made the NIT (there was only 20 at-large bids total). But "Power bias" cost Midmajors 4 NIT bids last year based on rpi. When asked about the NCAA-T screwing Midmajors, the Toledo (rpi 75) coach said, “The NIT is even more rigged”. Of the 10 schools leapfrogged with rpi's between 55 & 93, 2 went to CBI, 8 stayed home.

So last year among Midmajor at-large bids, I counted 3 in the NCAA and 4 in the NIT. Let's see what happens this year.

*note: I'm using the OP's P7 designation. AAC had 2 at-large bids to NCAA-T & 1 to the NIT.

(03-10-2019 09:40 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I compared the Top 100 of the NET with the Top 100 of the RPI.

Midmajors worsening by more than 15 spots in the NET
Charleston Southern
Harvard
Georgia St
Kent St
Bucknell
Marshall
Drake
Georgia Southern
Utah Valley
Colgate
Yale
Radford
Bowling Green
San Diego
UNC Greensboro
Montana
Davidson
Toledo
Western Ky
BYU
Hofstra
Northeastern
Vermont
Old Dominion

And who on this list would be an at-large candidate any other year? Who cares about their NET ranking, they weren’t getting a bid anyway.

(03-11-2019 06:05 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 09:40 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  I compared the Top 100 of the NET with the Top 100 of the RPI.

Midmajors worsening by more than 15 spots in the NET
*bunch of schools deleted*

And who on this list would be an at-large candidate any other year? Who cares about their NET ranking, they weren’t getting a bid anyway.

The point isn't about any of those schools. It's about a global picture--the NET (which at this point is still a secret formula, AFAIK) looks to be worse for midmajors than the old, transparent RPI. That means that NET vs RPI should hurt (checks ESPN bracketology for bubble examples) Belmont and Lipscomb.

Belmont has an RPI of 41, and a NET of 45. 4 slots lower.
Lipscomb has RPI of 71 (doomed) and a NET of 48. Much higher.
St Marys has an RPI of 48 and a NET of 37
Furman has an RPI of 51 and a NET of 41.

Ohio State (last 4 in) has RPI of 72, NET of 52. edit: sorry
Clemson RPI 50, NET of 35
TCU RPI 46, NET 47
NCSU RPI 101, NET 32

Result: Hypothesis not supported.

Currently, the following teams are projected as at-large (RPI, NET)

Ole Miss (55,34)
Texas (61,39) 16-15
Ohio St (72,52) 18-13
NC State (101,32)

At least a couple of these teams, if not all four, would have missed the tournament in prior years.

Also, think how the upgrading of P7 schools and the downgrading of midmajors affects the Quadrant records.

(03-10-2019 11:56 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  *note: I'm using the OP's P7 designation. AAC had 2 at-large bids to NCAA-T & 1 to the NIT.

AAC is typically a 3-4 bid league, with usually multiple NIT teams.

And it was actually helped by the NET compared to the RPI.

Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

(03-10-2019 11:52 PM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  Here is an example why NET is kind of a BS.
UGA- 112th NET, 170 RPI (11-20, 13th SEC)
GSU- 126th NET, 59 RPI (22-9, 1st SBC)

but hey, let's look at the head-to-head matchup (neutral site)


Georgia State actually has beaten as many SEC schools during OOC play as UGA during its conference schedule (2-16). Yet, somehow UGA is ranked higher on NET. The system is rigged.

I think it's clear Georgia State does not have enough quality losses.

(03-11-2019 09:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 11:56 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  *note: I'm using the OP's P7 designation. AAC had 2 at-large bids to NCAA-T & 1 to the NIT.

AAC is typically a 3-4 bid league, with usually multiple NIT teams.
And it was actually helped by the NET compared to the RPI.
Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

I got no problem with that. The AAC is outstanding in basketball.
It's just that in basketball many refer to the P6.

The RPI vastly overestimated midmajors.

Before 2004, the RPI underestimated midmajors. In 2004 they changed the RPI formula to multiply home wins by 0.6, home losses by 1.4, road wins by 1.4, and road losses by 0.6. This change was meant to help midmajors, but it was an overadjustment.

(03-11-2019 07:31 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Ohio State (last 4 in) has RPI of 58, NET of 52.

How is Ohio State on the bubble? Every time I turn on the TV they are losing. Shouldn't be anywhere near the tournament.

(03-11-2019 11:43 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 09:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 11:56 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  *note: I'm using the OP's P7 designation. AAC had 2 at-large bids to NCAA-T & 1 to the NIT.

AAC is typically a 3-4 bid league, with usually multiple NIT teams.
And it was actually helped by the NET compared to the RPI.
Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

I got no problem with that. The AAC is outstanding in basketball.
It's just that in basketball many refer to the P6.

As it should be. It’s the P5 + Big East.

(03-11-2019 07:31 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Ohio State (last 4 in) has RPI of 58, NET of 52.

Incorrect. RPI of 75. NET of 55.

(03-11-2019 01:18 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 11:43 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 09:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 11:56 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  *note: I'm using the OP's P7 designation. AAC had 2 at-large bids to NCAA-T & 1 to the NIT.

AAC is typically a 3-4 bid league, with usually multiple NIT teams.
And it was actually helped by the NET compared to the RPI.
Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

I got no problem with that. The AAC is outstanding in basketball.
It's just that in basketball many refer to the P6.

As it should be. It’s the P5 + Big East.

I think the OP was just referring to multiple bid conferences vs 1-2 bid conferences. You could call it P6 and pull out the PAC-12, but they are likely getting the same bump from the NET adjustment despite not taking advantage of it.

(03-11-2019 01:18 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 11:43 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 09:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 11:56 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  *note: I'm using the OP's P7 designation. AAC had 2 at-large bids to NCAA-T & 1 to the NIT.

AAC is typically a 3-4 bid league, with usually multiple NIT teams.
And it was actually helped by the NET compared to the RPI.
Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

I got no problem with that. The AAC is outstanding in basketball.
It's just that in basketball many refer to the P6.

As it should be. It’s the P5 + Big East.

Jesus. The pedantic things that get panties in a twist...

Perhaps he could/should have used the term "high-major," which that well established arbiter of all things accurate (Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-major) says includes the "ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, Big East, AAC, A-10, and MWC." Does that make you happier? It still screws over many of the "mid-major" schools, which I think we all agree was kind of the point. Thank God we might get to see teams that can't make the semifinals in the ACC tournament or maybe even 18-13 Ohio State get a chance instead of, say, Belmont.

USFFan

Edited because, dopey me, I forgot the Wikipedia link...

(03-11-2019 01:18 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 11:43 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 09:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 11:56 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  *note: I'm using the OP's P7 designation. AAC had 2 at-large bids to NCAA-T & 1 to the NIT.

AAC is typically a 3-4 bid league, with usually multiple NIT teams.
And it was actually helped by the NET compared to the RPI.
Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

I got no problem with that. The AAC is outstanding in basketball.
It's just that in basketball many refer to the P6.

As it should be. It’s the P5 + Big East.

AAC has 4 teams in the top 50, Houston (possible 1 seed), UC, UCF and Temple.
Big East has 2, Nova and Marquette
PAC has 1, Washington.

(03-11-2019 04:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 01:18 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 11:43 AM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  

(03-11-2019 09:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-10-2019 11:56 PM)MidWestMidMajor Wrote:  *note: I'm using the OP's P7 designation. AAC had 2 at-large bids to NCAA-T & 1 to the NIT.

AAC is typically a 3-4 bid league, with usually multiple NIT teams.
And it was actually helped by the NET compared to the RPI.
Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

I got no problem with that. The AAC is outstanding in basketball.
It's just that in basketball many refer to the P6.

As it should be. It’s the P5 + Big East.

AAC has 4 teams in the top 50, Houston (possible 1 seed), UC, UCF and Temple.
Big East has 2, Nova and Marquette
PAC has 1, Washington.

High hopes...just don't see it even with the best of scenarios...