Purdue drops two spots, but stays in the top 25 once again.
College Basketball Rankings March 10
- Thread starter Travis Miller
- Start date
Duke is this years Gonzaga. Plays a few tough games and the rest......so they blow out really bad teams, that isn't something that should be rewarded.
Auburn should be #1 team in Net and rankings.
Duke 7-3 against Quad 1
Auburn 16-4
Duke has played (14) quad 3 and 4 games
Auburn has only played 6 such games
I can't stand Pearl, I mean I really can't stand him, but the schedule and record they have put up this year is very impressive.
www.ncaa.com
Auburn should be #1 team in Net and rankings.
Duke 7-3 against Quad 1
Auburn 16-4
Duke has played (14) quad 3 and 4 games
Auburn has only played 6 such games
I can't stand Pearl, I mean I really can't stand him, but the schedule and record they have put up this year is very impressive.
DI Men's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com
Get NCAA college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today Coaches poll and the NCAA NET Rankings.
www.ncaa.com
The ACC sucks. They can't help that. But Louisville wasn't ranked when they played them.
The quad records are what matters. The ranking itself is created through all sorts of metrics and not as important, especially splitting hairs between 1 and 2. Auburn's 16 Q1 wins are what will carry them, IMO, to keep that #1 overall seed.Duke is this years Gonzaga. Plays a few tough games and the rest......so they blow out really bad teams, that isn't something that should be rewarded.
Auburn should be #1 team in Net and rankings.
Duke 7-3 against Quad 1
Auburn 16-4
Duke has played (14) quad 3 and 4 games
Auburn has only played 6 such games
I can't stand Pearl, I mean I really can't stand him, but the schedule and record they have put up this year is very impressive.
DI Men's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com
Get NCAA college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today Coaches poll and the NCAA NET Rankings.
Oh, I think Auburn will get the overall number 1 seed over Duke. I just think the NET needs more tweaking. Blowing out bad teams shouldn't be rewarded as much as it is in the NET. You are correct, the committee looks at quad records more than anything. I just don't like seeing Duke have a #1 NET with the resume they have this year.
I like the resumes of Houston (my God did it hurt to say that), and the top 4 teams from the SEC over Duke. I'm not blaming Duke for their schedule this year, they can't help it the ACC sucks, but that's just the way it goes some years, and they should have to pay a price for that. It really is the same as what Gonzaga has done for 2 decades, it's just seems different because Duke is on the jersey.
No, it's not as bad as Gonzaga. 60% of the teams Gonzaga plays or has played in conference would win no more than 2 games in the ACC.
Hell, 60% of this year's ACC teams might only win 2 games in the ACC that most of us remember.
The point I was trying to make is that Gonzaga for 2 decades has blown out bad teams, played a handful of tough games and been rewarded for it. Duke is doing the same thing in a major conference this year. It's where I think the NET needs tweaking. It's the only explanation for Duke being number 1 in the NET.
Gonzaga at least backs it up and has gone to 9 straight sweet 16s, 5 E8s, 2 F4s and 2 NCRUs in the last 9 tourneys.
Yea... But Gonzaga has indeed been a very very good program.
Duke is this years Gonzaga. Plays a few tough games and the rest......so they blow out really bad teams, that isn't something that should be rewarded.
Auburn should be #1 team in Net and rankings.
Duke 7-3 against Quad 1
Auburn 16-4
Duke has played (14) quad 3 and 4 games
Auburn has only played 6 such games
I can't stand Pearl, I mean I really can't stand him, but the schedule and record they have put up this year is very impressive.
DI Men's Basketball Rankings - NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings | NCAA.com
Get NCAA college basketball rankings from the Associated Press, USA Today Coaches poll and the NCAA NET Rankings.
That's why I think Auburn stays as overall #1, although there will be some hypesters pushing it. As good as Duke has been, they would not have even won the ACC outright if not for Georgia Tech, who beat both Clemson and Louisville but lost to Duke. Even some of the teams that people thought could be decent (like NC State, etc.) turned out to be just bad basketball teams.
Whoa! That's getting into BYU 1984 football territory.
Nowhere do I say they aren't good. Same with Duke this year. Of course they are good, but their ranking is elevated by playing bad teams. Because of that, they get high seeds and easier path for success. So when Gonzaga gets all those high seeds over the years, of course they have success. Doesn't mean they aren't good, but they have had a measure of their tourney success through high seeds that weren't earned. Houston was another school that took advantage of easier schedules over the years.
No way Gonzaga should be #8 in the NET. 3-6 against quad 1 and they played 15 games against quad 3 and 4. Just for reference PU has 6 games against quad 3 and 4.
Sure but they'd be Top 5 probably even if they played some tougher teams. If you're playing weak opponents, you're expected to blow them out. That is what Duke did.
There is no way you can know that. More losses and fewer blow outs would lower the NET. The NET loves blowouts versus weak teams. That needs to be changed.
And that's precisely why they won't be a high seed come next Sunday. They're projected in the 7-9 range. That's why it's more about the record than the pure NET ranking.
The NET does love blowouts. It also loves wins over top teams. And there isn't a guarantee Duke would have lost more games in the ACC. And even if they did, if the ACC had more Top 25 NET teams, it wouldn't hurt Duke losing to them.
And that is why the NET needs changes, which is what I've been saying all along. No way a #8 ranked team in the NET should be a 7 seed in the dance. It's a complete misrepresented number. What other measurement would you have where you say "don't pay attention to the number we rank teams by"?
I get how it works, but not everyone does and the number by the team should better represent the actual ranking of the strength of the team. Just look at the current NET ranking:
Duke - Going to be a #1 seed
Auburn - 1 seed
Houston - 1 seed
Florida - 1 or 2 seed
Tennessee - 2 seed most likely
Alabama - 2 seed most likely
Texas Tech - 3 seed
Gonzaga - 7 to 9 seed
What doesn't look right here??
Hey wait a minute - they beat Michigan in a bowl game!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“Cougars are 1, Sooners are 2, Switzer stop cryin', you know it's true!”
I totally get what you're saying, but I also think that the trend among reporters and the like is to talk about the records against the Quads instead of the NET ranking. I was listening to some stuff this morning on XM84, and the talk was about how Michigan State has 12 Q1 wins. At no point did they mention that Michigan State is #10 in the NET. It's one of those IYKYK things.
Also, as we know, any one metric or resume detail isn't the whole story. People that matter know this.
I tend to agree that the Committee is going toward prioritizing Quad records. However, what determines Quad 1, 2, 3, and 4? The NET ranking of opponent! It does go full circle because I think it's the best way to have a quantifiable and somewhat objective criterion for the strength of competition beyond just the schedule.
If I were on the committee, I'd also like a second list of Quad records, one that reflected the actual NET ranking at the time each game was played due to fluidity. Usually, it doesn't change that much, but it's another metric to look at.
Bottom line - Duke will be on the #1 line in Raleigh in the East Region for second weekend games in Newark. Book it.
I agree you are hearing more of the Quad records. But you can bet there will be plenty of talk of Duke being #1 in the NET. You can bet ESPN and CBS won't be talking about their Quad record when comparing them to other top seeds. Let's get that ranking to better match the quad wins, that's all I'm saying.
On the bright side Dry, they did eventually kick "RPI" to the curb.....there's still hope.
Y
You know me Tex, I'm nothing if not consistent on my critiquing of metrics for the tournament!! Thanks for remembering !!!On the bright side Dry, they did eventually kick "RPI" to the curb.....there's still hope.
The bad thing is that there's no transparency with this system. No one knows how the NET is calculated. We have ideas of this or that being part of it, but no formula. At least with the RPI, there was a formula. The only problem was it weighted SOS more than your own record.
I'm criticizing NET, but I'll take it over RPI any day. Tex and I used to have some fun with RPI every year at Tournament time. It was so inaccurate it was ridiculous.
Similar threads
