How is it that we fall 5 net rankings with an ACC win when UNM loses by 20 at home and only falls 2 ranks or how Gonzaga loses to a top 300 team and falls 4 spots. Seton hall also lost by double digits and fell less than us. Again let me reiterate we WON our game and all these other teams did not. I hope it evens out in the end because it just seems utterly ridiculous.

BeachedBear said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

How is it that we fall 5 net rankings with an ACC win when UNM loses by 20 at home and only falls 2 ranks or how Gonzaga loses to a top 300 team and falls 4 spots. Seton hall also lost by double digits and fell less than us. Again let me reiterate we WON our game and all these other teams did not. I hope it evens out in the end because it just seems utterly ridiculous.

---

NET ranking is not only about the last game. It involves all the teams we have played and all the teams THEY have played. (that is how I understand it)

So every time Kansas state loses - it hurts our NET ranking.

I think I saw somewhere (NOT BI), that based on our strength of schedule (and assuming those teams on our schedule maintain their mediocre ways), the highest our NET ranking could be is in the high 20s, Even if we win the rest of our games and make it to the ACC championship game.

So, we want every team we have (or will) played to win every game - except against Cal.

Net Rankings Explained

---

Looks like we dropped a few notches in the NET even after beating GT, we're at #55 right now, after getting as high as #50 last week. Some of the teams we've played have had bad results.

BeachedBear said:

---

Onebearofpower said:

---

How is it that we fall 5 net rankings with an ACC win when UNM loses by 20 at home and only falls 2 ranks or how Gonzaga loses to a top 300 team and falls 4 spots. Seton hall also lost by double digits and fell less than us. Again let me reiterate we WON our game and all these other teams did not. I hope it evens out in the end because it just seems utterly ridiculous.

---

NET ranking is not only about the last game. It involves all the teams we have played and all the teams THEY have played. (that is how I understand it)

So every time Kansas state loses - it hurts our NET ranking.

I think I saw somewhere (NOT BI), that based on our strength of schedule (and assuming those teams on our schedule maintain their mediocre ways), the highest our NET ranking could be is in the high 20s, Even if we win the rest of our games and make it to the ACC championship game.

So, we want every team we have (or will) played to win every game - except against Cal.

Net Rankings Explained

---

Yeah I get that it isn't just one game, but these mid major teams dropping less when they lose makes no sense to me. I'd be fine if our NET didn't change from yesterday's win I guess but to drop 5 ranks seems absurd when you have teams like Tulsa winning by 2 points at FAU and their NET doesn't budge even though they have zero Q1 wins or even games(they also lost to KSU). They have a NET SOS rank of 293 and NET has nothing to do with autobids and they are projected in the field on NET alone rn. Surely the committee would look more into their resume if the season ended right now. Anyways it doesn't so we just gotta keep winning. Go Bears!!

We beat GT and dropped 4 or 5 spots in the net rankings, from 50 or 51 to 55. Stanford beats GT last night and move up 10 spots in the net rankings, from 79 to 69. That one is a bit tough to understand. The good thing I guess is that our earlier win against them is now a Quad 1 win.

We're now #59, 4-5 in Q1, but 0-2 in Q2, 5-0/7-0 in Q3/Q4.

As of today, there are 8 ACC teams in, last one in is #38 SMU, that is our last potential quality win remaining on our schedule.

VT and us are the only bubble teams. WF, Furd and Cuse all in the high 60s and would need to win out and have a big run in the ACC tournament.

Win out and have a big run is not exactly what we need. You can lose 1 here and definitely make the tourney. Lose 2 makes us right on the bubble; need a win or two in the ACC tourney. Lose 3 and you need a big run.

Losing on the road to Wake or Syracuse is the only okay loss that the committee will be fine with. Lose to SMU at home and that becomes a bigger issue.

Johnfox said:

---

Win out and have a big run is not exactly what we need. You can lose 1 here and definitely make the tourney. Lose 2 makes us right on the bubble; need a win or two in the ACC tourney. Lose 3 and you need a big run.

Losing on the road to Wake or Syracuse is the only okay loss that the committee will be fine with. Lose to SMU at home and that becomes a bigger issue.

---

I wrote that the 3 teams well behind us with the 60s NET would need to win out: WF, Furd and Cuse.

Winning at Syracuse and WF would actually be better wins than winning at home over SMU. As of today, the first two would be Quad 1 wins and the third one would be a Quad 2 win.

BTownsend said:

---

Winning at Syracuse and WF would actually be better wins than winning at home over SMU. As of today, the first two would be Quad 1 wins and the third one outdoors be a Quad 2 win.

---

I would guess that right now we would be favored to win at Cuse or WF, but underdogs at home vs SMU, so that stratification doesn't make a lot of sense. I guess the committee and NET puts a lot of emphasis on road wins.

Cal88 said:

---

BTownsend said:

---

Winning at Syracuse and WF would actually be better wins than winning at home over SMU. As of today, the first two would be Quad 1 wins and the third one outdoors be a Quad 2 win.

---

I would guess that right now we would be favored to win at Cuse or WF, but underdogs at home vs SMU, so that stratification doesn't make a lot of sense. I guess the committee and NET puts a lot of emphasis on road wins.

---

They do to an extent. Beating 1-30 at home and beating 1-75 on the road all count the same: they are Quad 1 wins. So if your opponent is 1-30 it doesn't matter where you play them. It is only the 31-75 opponents that it matters if you play them at home or on the road. Just a flawed system.

Our upcoming road games against Syracuse (68) and Wake (67) are our remaining Quad 1 games, though SMU (34) could potentially move up to 30. We also need Syracuse, Wake, and Stanford to stay below 76 and Clemson to stay a 30 or better.

Syracuse is #71 in Ken Pom. Cal is #72 (you can see how the NET is actually helping us relative to better measures). It is a game we really need to win if we want to go to the NCAA Tournament.

Just want to make sure I'm clear, but when you say " We also need Syracuse, Wake, and Stanford to stay below 76", you're saying that we want them to stay in the top 75, correct?

BTownsend said:

---

Just want to make sure I'm clear, but when you say " We also need Syracuse, Wake, and Stanford to stay below 76", you're saying that we want them to stay in the top 75, correct?

---

Yes. 1-75.

HoopDreams said:

---

This is what AI says about this week's road trip:

---

thanks for the info HD but, sorrry, global warming villain AI don't float my boat
signed, old school attendee

Cal88 said:

---

We're up to #57 today, from #60, probably due to Miami beating UNC yesterday?

---

Probably something else since we beat both and both are ahead of us so I'd think it would wash. Maybe UCLA beating Washington? Who did we jump? Might be more WV, Belmont, Akron, LSU losing and dropping below us? Is there a site that tracks the NET daily with past rankings?

Could be that Miami or Clemson moved to Q1, we're now listed at 4-5 vs Q1 and 0-2 vs Q2.

Cal88 said:

---

Could be that Miami or Clemson moved to Q1, we're now listed at 4-5 vs Q1 and 0-2 vs Q2.

---

Miami has been safely in Q1 territory. A road win is Q1 as long as its a top 75 NET win. Miami is 36 on NET.

Stanford is a win that recently was bumped back up to Q1. They briefly dipped below 75, but with a big win over GA Tech and a close loss to Clemson they are now at 68.

Clemson also did recently move just into Q1 territory at #30. They had been at 31 recently.

Last night's loss was costly, as it would have resulted in a Quad 1 win if we had pulled it out. Our Net ranking dropped 6 spots from 57 to 63, so we're definitely on the outside looking in at this point. Clemson dropped from 30 to 33, so that is now considered a Quad 2 loss instead of Quad 1 (if I'm understanding this system correctly). Our only chance at a Quad 1 win, based on today's rankings, is at Wake Forest. SMU could qualify, but they are currently 4 spots (#34) away from being Quad 1.

BTownsend said:

---

Last night's loss was costly, as it would have resulted in a Quad 1 win if we had pulled it out. Our Net ranking dropped 6 spots from 57 to 63, so we're definitely on the outside looking in at this point. Clemson dropped from 30 to 33, so that is now considered a Quad 2 loss instead of Quad 1 (if I'm understanding this system correctly). Our only chance at a Quad 1 win, based on today's rankings, is at Wake Forest. SMU could qualify, but they are currently 4 spots (#34) away from being Quad 1.

---

At least we helped make Syracuse look better?

BTownsend said:

---

Last night's loss was costly, as it would have resulted in a Quad 1 win if we had pulled it out. Our Net ranking dropped 6 spots from 57 to 63, so we're definitely on the outside looking in at this point. Clemson dropped from 30 to 33, so that is now considered a Quad 2 loss instead of Quad 1 (if I'm understanding this system correctly). Our only chance at a Quad 1 win, based on today's rankings, is at Wake Forest. SMU could qualify, but they are currently 4 spots (#34) away from being Quad 1.

---

And note, Stanford dropped one point after its Win at BC, a Q3. With 3 of our upcoming games vs Q3 teams, little chance to improve. Gotta sweep, or go home.

NET is an efficiency metric it isn't determined by the quadrants, it determines them. We don't have to win out. If we win 5 and an ACC tourney game we will surely be in.