Vrede too wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:11 pm
billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:41 am
... Could be that there is something to the article I posted about the NET penalizing the sec and favoring the big10(?) this year....
Could be that the SEC is being abused by NET
- I'm not going to do the deep dive into comparisons - but it ain't on behalf of the Big Ten. The Big 12, ACC and Big East are all better situated than the Big Ten, and the Pac-12 is roughly equivalent. Not that I'm suggesting that the Big Ten's being abused. To the extent that I've paid attention, it's earned its slide.
I didn't say "abused", just that any new system needs work. The RPI was bad but not that bad.
From the article I posted last week.
"Auburn Tigers (RPI: 5, NET: 27)
Auburn has a 24-4 record, five Quadrant 1 wins and a combined 12 victories against the top two quadrants, so it might be hard to fathom why the Tigers are all the way down at No. 27 in the NET—a full 18 spots behind Florida State, which has marks of 24-4, five and 13, respectively. (It's even worse on KenPom.com, where Auburn is ranked No. 39.)"
Even worse for this conference
"the A-10's top six teams having a combined NET rank 121 spots lower than their RPI"
This has to be off. Again, the RPI wasn't that bad.
"For the 14-team Big Ten, its combined NET rank is 323 spots higher.
"The Big Ten has seven teams in the NET top 30, but it only has one team (Maryland) in the RPI top 30. That change would greatly hurt the conference as a whole because it would diminish the quantity of Quadrant 1 games."
"In the NET, the top 12 teams in the Big Ten have a combined Q1 record of 68-92. Switch to RPI, and that plummets to 34-74. On a per-team basis, that's 4.3 fewer Quadrant 1 games and 2.8 fewer Quadrant 1 victories."
The article pointed out that we don't know how the criteria are weighted.
My bet, those weights will change.