North Texas beat SMU. Nice win for us
Printable View
North Texas beat SMU. Nice win for us
So we currently sit at 43 in the NET with 12 games remaining. 6 of those are Q1 opportunities. The issue is that only two of them are at home(Auburn and Kentucky). We somehow need to find a way to win 2-3 of those Q1 games and win the rest, which is not an easy task since 2 of the Q2 games are road games, and we play like hot garbage on the road.
7-5 or better coming home in SEC play and we are in safely. 6-6 and we are sweating but probably still in the play in. Anything worse, hello NIT.
Well, we're about to drop these next 3. Hope we can finish strong again but hard to see it.
#38 up 5 spots
NW #61. They have a shot at becoming a Q1 win.
Washington st now #41. This one is getting more solid as a Q1.
Be great if Arizona st (#118) and Tulane (#117) would start winning games to get in top 100 to make these wins Q2.
Games to watch today...
Purdue (-10.5) at Rutgers (#101)
North Texas (#71) at fau (-9.5)
The whole quad thing is interesting and in many ways I like it. Wonder why football don't pick that up?
I know one reason why - it would take out all the bias for blue bloods and the favorite eye test.
If we just win enough SEC games, we in. We are a NCACCT team, no doubt.
I would support reforming it so that the 20 or so ranks on the edges of the Quadrants are allocated.
So a home game over #25 could be 0.75 Q1 games and 0.25 Q2 games. A home game against #30 could be 0.5 Q1 and 0.5 Q2, etc.
A win this week erases the USC and UF losses and basically puts you in position to make a run at seeding. Going 2-0 and you?ve started the run. 0-2 and we?re back to holding serve at home and looking for a couple of road wins in February.
I'm fine to use a team's Net ranking as an evaluation for the tourney. That, to me, is just another form of an RPI. But to say a team does or doesn't get in the tourney because of their Quad 1 record or Quad 2 record etc. I'm not real crazy about. Not all Quadrant records are equal. If a team beats 3 top 10 teams that's a heck of a lot different that if a team has 3 wins over teams in the 40s and so forth and so on. Breaking everything into quadrants to evaluate teams seems artificial.
Looks like our Net Ranking is back up to #38 after the Auburn win.
The NET doesn't utilize quadrants at all, correct? That's just what talking heads and the committee do to have an easy way to identify "good" wins and how teams do against tournament quality teams, correct?
I do think it's absurd how wide the range is for teams that can give you a quad 1 win. I would assume the 30th best team is generally a lot closer to the 60th best team than the top 5. Certainly not as pronounced as in football but I think there are still a pretty good drop off from the truly top teams to the second tier.