Net update - #33

[msstate7]

North Texas beat SMU. Nice win for us

[StarkVegasSteve]

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.

[klong-dog]

Well, we're about to drop these next 3. Hope we can finish strong again but hard to see it.

[msstate7]

#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)

[R2Dawg]

#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.

[msstate7]

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.

A split this week would be huge, but tough to get. After bama next Saturday, this is our February schedule...
Georgia
At mizzou
Ark
OM
At lsu
Kentucky

We should rack up some wins in this stretch.

[R2Dawg]

A split this week would be huge, but tough to get. After bama next Saturday, this is our February schedule...
Georgia
At mizzou
Ark
OM
At lsu
Kentucky

We should rack up some wins in this stretch.

Agree we got a better schedule upcoming. OM and UK at home, Hump gonna be rockin.

[maroonmania]

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.

In some ways though it seems a little silly. For example, why should beating the #50 in the Net be worth significantly more than beating the #51 team in the Net. Bottom line is it shouldn't be.

[Quaoarsking]

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.

[msstate7]

In some ways though it seems a little silly. For example, why should beating the #50 in the Net be worth significantly more than beating the #51 team in the Net. Bottom line is it shouldn't be.

I don't think it makes a lot of difference to NET; but humans look at resumes, and a Q1 win looks better than Q2

[Rawdawg]

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.

[Commercecomet24]

Well, we're about to drop these next 3. Hope we can finish strong again but hard to see it.

Oops!

[smootness]

In some ways though it seems a little silly. For example, why should beating the #50 in the Net be worth significantly more than beating the #51 team in the Net. Bottom line is it shouldn't be.

There just has to be a cut off somewhere. It is unavoidable.

[RocketDawg]

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.

Turns out the South Carolina loss wasn't all that bad after they handled Kentucky. Beating Tennessee and Auburn should more than make up for that loss and the one to Southern.

[R2Dawg]

In some ways though it seems a little silly. For example, why should beating the #50 in the Net be worth significantly more than beating the #51 team in the Net. Bottom line is it shouldn't be.

Maybe but just like the NCAAT field, you have to cut it off somewhere. I do like the real in season evaluations of how teams do not just an eye test pass on teams that the selection group favor like we do in football.

[maroonmania]

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.

[msstate7]

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.

NET accounts for that.

[maroonmania]

Looks like our Net Ranking is back up to #38 after the Auburn win.

[R2Dawg]

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.

Agree the Q1 & Q2 is tricky. You can only play who you play but that is where conf record can make or break you.

[Johnson85]

NET accounts for that.

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.