#52 in NET (down 1 spot before yesterday's game)

[msstate7]

Remaining schedule:
South Carolina #64
At aTm #132
Bama #35
At mizzou #87
At South Carolina #64
OM #81

[msstate7]

TeamRankings projects us as a 10-seed at 20-11

[HoopsDawg]

We get a quad 1 win and our NET is 1 spot worse?

@South Carolina is our last chance for another Quad 1.

[msstate7]

We get a quad 1 win and our NET is 1 spot worse?

@South Carolina is our last chance for another Quad 1.

Alabama and mizzou could be... both are close

[maroonmania]

We get a quad 1 win and our NET is 1 spot worse?

@South Carolina is our last chance for another Quad 1.

Yea, I don't even understand how that is possible. Seems like whether its the RPI or the NET, whatever needs to happen to screw us over in the calculation happens.

To also add, the biggest thing screwing over the SEC and others is the fact that apparently 10 or more Big 10 teams are going to get in to the NCAA. Given their current team ratings, no matter what any Big 10 team does, win or lose, it will never hurt them in the NET because they are all ranked so high. Its a perpetual ranking because nobody in the conference is ever punished in the calculation for losing.

[MetEdDawg]

The top of the SEC did not fair well yesterday. Auburn and LSU both losing hurt the conference. The conference doesn't have any dominant teams. Got a lot of good to pretty good teams.

There are 7 SEC teams between 24 and 52 in the NET. And of our remaining schedule, 5 of those 6 games are against the teams outside the Top 60 in NET. We don't have many chances to improve our NET.

If we want to make the tournament, we have to finish 5-1 in conference and we can't lose to anyone but Bama or MAYBE SC. Lose to OM or TAMU and it's game over.

[confucius say]

And ark did not drop after losing at home to us. Weird

[msstate7]

We get a quad 1 win and our NET is 1 spot worse?

@South Carolina is our last chance for another Quad 1.

One thing to keep in mind is we have 4 Q2 games left at the moment with OM potentially making that 5. We're 2-1 in Q2 games right now, so raising that to 5-2/maybe 6-1 would be big too

[R2Dawg]

And ark did not drop after losing at home to us. Weird

That shows that formula is total BS.

[Ari Gold]

Get to 12-6 and it won’t matter.....

[KOdawg1]

Go 5-1 and we're in

[OLJWales]

These ranking systems couldn't be any more flawed.

[Quaoarsking]

A few things to remember about the NET:

1. The NET was made up by laymen, not mathematicians or statisticians, so we can't necessarily expect logical outcomes from it.

2. Yesterday's game represents only 4% of our season so far, so any results these days are going to have a small impact on the overall rating, especially when...

3. Winning by 1 point over a team that's only a few spots ahead of you is pretty close to the expectation the NET already had, so it's only not going to move the needle that much anyway, even before you consider the impact is only 4%.

4. We don't play in a vacuum. Every other team in our vicinity was moving up or down along with us yesterday, and all of our previous opponents' results yesterday also played into our new rating.


Still, I figured we would improve a little. Looks like we have our work cut out for us.

[confucius say]

It's fluid, so would not surprise me if we beat usce Wednesday and jump 4-5 spots. Just win games and we will be fine

[Coach34]

Just win baby! Everything else will take care of itself

[HoopsDawg]

These ranking systems couldn't be any more flawed.

They aren't perfect, but last year 14 of the 16 sweet 16 teams were top 16 in the NET.

[cheewgumm]

Good news is Frank Martin will not play zone. That could be two wins.

[OLJWales]

They aren't perfect, but last year 14 of the 16 sweet 16 teams were top 16 in the NET.

Damn, that's a compelling stat. I just wish I understood how you go on the road and get a quad 1 win and manage to still go down.

[confucius say]

They aren't perfect, but last year 14 of the 16 sweet 16 teams were top 16 in the NET.

Well yea, bc the committee used the NET to seed.

It's not like the committee seeded independent of the NET, then looked over at the NET and was like, what a coincidence, the evaluation tools we used yielded the same results as the evaluation tools that go into forming the NET.

[smootness]

Damn, that's a compelling stat. I just wish I understood how you go on the road and get a quad 1 win and manage to still go down.

It's because of two things.

1) The ranking is only in relation to other teams. It's possible our actual rating improved but our ranking moved down because teams around us improved even more.

2) The things that have happened already aren't set in stone. If a bunch of the teams on our schedule lost, our rating could go down even as we win yesterday because our previous opponents aren't as highly rated now.