1. Please confirm: do your Quad wins and losses change depending on teams' NET ranking?

In other words a Quad 1 win might later change to a Quad 2 win if that team starts faltering and falling down the NET rankings, right?



2. When do they start compiling NET rankings/Quad wins/losses? Do they let the season "season" a bit first?


thanks

Yeah, it's a dynamic system. They usually run the numbers for the first time in December and the put them out each day.

The wild thing, and this is why I've said the committee shouldn't even start discussing the bracket until Selection Sunday, even if it means pushing the selection back, is that it changes during the selection process.

Like last year, our resume changed SIGNIFICANTLY in the final couple days of the season with our wins over Auburn and Arkansas. But the committee was already discussing teams and where they should go.

If "every game counts the same" then the committee shouldn't even sit down and look at the team sheets until all the data is in. Because some of that late data can significantly shift things around but the people in the room are probably hesitant to make those kind of drastic changes. (the team sheets are the official data that's included in the selection, which includes the NET rankings, the games themselves which are listed in quads, the predictive and resume-based metrics which are KenPom, Sagarin, BPI, KPI, SOR, etc)

I ran a mock selection on here a while back and then used the bracketing principles to place all the teams and it took like two hours. There's no reason this group of people needs four days or whatever. I say this all the time but when you lock a bunch of people in a room together there's no telling what they'll be able to convince themselves of.

thanks.

" I say this all the time but when you lock a bunch of people in a room together there's no telling what they'll be able to convince themselves of."

The bunch of people I have locked in a room are convinced they'll escape lol. Jokes on them.

What was out NET before and after the SEC tournament last year?
I can't find any last year info.

Net/RPI rant...

The subjectivity in the considering NET, RPI, "quad 1/2/3/4 record", etc. needs to go. The NCAA needs to pick a metric like NET/RPI etc. and use it to base all at-large selections on. Beating the 30th best team at home isn't that much more impressive then beating the 31st best team at home. The idea that a mid-30s NET/RPI SEC team is on the same bubble as a high-60s/low-70s Big 10 team is ridiculous if you actually think NET and RPI are valuable metrics to consider. If they are not valuable metrics to consider, adjust the metric.

I follow a bit of NCAA hockey and they've gone to choosing all at-large teams based on a modified-RPI metric that is easily available for everyone to calculate. It gets rid of the conference favoritism and biases of the committee. I don't think the NCAA wants to do that though because the subjectivity brings viewers.

It's extremely annoying that the NCAA, either by mistake or their own incompetence, killed the team sheet archive.

From this site, it looks like it was 55 going into the SECT, 42 coming out of it.

themissinglink said:

---

I don't think the NCAA wants to do that though because the subjectivity brings viewers.

---

Yeah, that's like, the whole thing.

Here's a question I've been thinking about, let's say you make the argument that the drama is good for the sport overall. I'd disagree but just for the sake of conversation let's say that's true.

Would you be for killing the selection committee in favor of some metric, but as a tradeoff, to help build the drama the metric goes dark for two weeks before the selection? Like we'd know where we stand right now, but then no more updates until Selection Sunday?

aggiebones said:

---

What was out NET before and after the SEC tournament last year?
I can't find any last year info.

---

Week 18 we were 56 in 2022.

Week 16 we were 71 vs 28 beginning of this week.

Texam90 said:

---

aggiebones said:

---

What was out NET before and after the SEC tournament last year?
I can't find any last year info.

---

Week 18 we were 56 in 2022.

Week 16 we were 71 vs 28 beginning of this week.

---

56 is what this shows as well (NET rankings heading into conference tournament week for the field and bubble in 2022):

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-basketball/news/march-madness-bracket-predictions/yspg6wtsnul7bch3trjkeumv

Quote:

---

Would you be for killing the selection committee in favor of some metric, but as a tradeoff, to help build the drama the metric goes dark for two weeks before the selection? Like we'd know where we stand right now, but then no more updates until Selection Sunday?

---

Yes. Anything to get rid of the committee choosing at-large bids. Maybe also let the committee tweak seeding and location so it doesn't have to line up completely with the S-curve.

Just program that in. You'd have a program also make the bracket, and it would know to avoid rematches and having teams from the same conference play early on.

themissinglink said:

---

Net/RPI rant...

The subjectivity in the considering NET, RPI, "quad 1/2/3/4 record", etc. needs to go. The NCAA needs to pick a metric like NET/RPI etc. and use it to base all at-large selections on. Beating the 30th best team at home isn't that much more impressive then beating the 31st best team at home. The idea that a mid-30s NET/RPI SEC team is on the same bubble as a high-60s/low-70s Big 10 team is ridiculous if you actually think NET and RPI are valuable metrics to consider. If they are not valuable metrics to consider, adjust the metric.

I follow a bit of NCAA hockey and they've gone to choosing all at-large teams based on a modified-RPI metric that is easily available for everyone to calculate. It gets rid of the conference favoritism and biases of the committee. I don't think the NCAA wants to do that though because the subjectivity brings viewers.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this just wanting to point out that in college football we went from the BCS standard rating to a selection committee. Both systems have significant drawbacks and have received big criticism. Not sure there is a perfect system. The weightings in a formulaic approach can can always be argued.

I do tend to miss the BCS though.

The main problem with doing it in college football is the data isn't anywhere close to as good.

bobinator said:

---

Yeah, it's a dynamic system. They usually run the numbers for the first time in December and the put them out each day.

The wild thing, and this is why I've said the committee shouldn't even start discussing the bracket until Selection Sunday, even if it means pushing the selection back, is that it changes during the selection process.

Like last year, our resume changed SIGNIFICANTLY in the final couple days of the season with our wins over Auburn and Arkansas. But the committee was already discussing teams and where they should go.

If "every game counts the same" then the committee shouldn't even sit down and look at the team sheets until all the data is in. Because some of that late data can significantly shift things around but the people in the room are probably hesitant to make those kind of drastic changes. (the team sheets are the official data that's included in the selection, which includes the NET rankings, the games themselves which are listed in quads, the predictive and resume-based metrics which are KenPom, Sagarin, BPI, KPI, SOR, etc)

I ran a mock selection on here a while back and then used the bracketing principles to place all the teams and it took like two hours. There's no reason this group of people needs four days or whatever. I say this all the time but when you lock a bunch of people in a room together there's no telling what they'll be able to convince themselves of.

---

it took 2 hours because you did it by yourself, but imagine a group of people who all think they are the smartest one on the room trying to do the process together. woof.

all leagues should finish their tournaments on saturday, not sunday, so that the committee has time to run through its entire process (hours of arguing and trying to be push their teams and be right,most likely) after ALL of the games have been played.

It wasn't just me, there was a group of us on here that did it together, the only part I did by myself was slotting the teams into the field and on that you're just following a set of guidelines about who can player where and who can play who and whatnot.

The arguing bit is the flaw in the process though. There doesn't need to be any discussion at all. Everyone in the room should just vote and move on.

I understand that people might view the criteria slightly differently, but there's no reason they should be trying to convince each other that they're right. Just vote.

bobinator said:

---

It wasn't just me, there was a group of us on here that did it together, the only part I did by myself was slotting the teams into the field and on that you're just following a set of guidelines about who can player where and who can play who and whatnot.

The arguing bit is the flaw in the process though. There doesn't need to be any discussion at all. Everyone in the room should just vote and move on.

I understand that people might view the criteria slightly differently, but there's no reason they should be trying to convince each other that they're right. Just vote.

---

yep, I agree

Every year these idiots get in a room and do all kinds of dumb stuff that I don't think would happen if they just voted separately and afterwards the votes were made public.

There's going to be some absolutely bonkers stuff that happens this year.

Divining Rod said:

---

1. Please confirm: do your Quad wins and losses change depending on teams' NET ranking?

In other words a Quad 1 win might later change to a Quad 2 win if that team starts faltering and falling down the NET rankings, right?



2. When do they start compiling NET rankings/Quad wins/losses? Do they let the season "season" a bit first?


thanks

---

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2020-05-11/di-mens-basketball-committee-announces-change-net-2020-21

Pretty sure we were 37 either going into tourney or coming out of it. i'll lookfor that again.

Ah- nevermind- that was Nolans NET rankings from April 5th. we were 36th and Xavier was 37th