Drake hangs on to beat Bradley 74-66.
The Bulldogs are now 24-6, 16-4 in Valley play... and for those keeping score at home, their RPI now sits at #15.
FIFTEEN.
In the good ol' pre-NET days, a #15 RPI not only got you a lock into the Dance, but a likely single-digit seed if you're a midmajor, and a top-5 seed if you came from a power conference.
I wish I could give you Drake's updated NET ranking... but since the NCAA is the only entity that can produce that number (seriously, nobody else out there has been able to replicate whatever the NCAA's doing to create the NET rankings)... we won't know Drake's NET until tomorrow.
Right now, they've got a #48 NET, and that is so, SO laughably underseeded, it's pathetic how much the NCAA is intentionally doing this.
Belmont started slow but are beginning to take over
Drake hangs on to beat Bradley 74-66.
The Bulldogs are now 24-6, 16-4 in Valley play... and for those keeping score at home, their RPI now sits at #15.
FIFTEEN.
In the good ol' pre-NET days, a #15 RPI not only got you a lock into the Dance, but a likely single-digit seed if you're a midmajor, and a top-5 seed if you came from a power conference.
I wish I could give you Drake's updated NET ranking... but since the NCAA is the only entity that can produce that number (seriously, nobody else out there has been able to replicate whatever the NCAA's doing to create the NET rankings)... we won't know Drake's NET until tomorrow.
Right now, they've got a #48 NET, and that is so, SO laughably underseeded, it's pathetic how much the NCAA is intentionally doing this.
It’s allegedly Google Cloud related, but then no one releases an algorithm. If an algorithm was released then the results could be reproduced with some level of accuracy.
Mid-majors have to band together and say “either release an algorithm or go back to RPI.”
Right now the best guess on why Drake doesn’t have a higher NET is that they didn’t blow out enough teams. That’s how the Big 12 is gaming the formula.
Straight from ChatGPT!
Creating a fair ranking system for men’s NCAA basketball involves considering several factors to ensure that the system is balanced and equitable. Here’s a basic outline for such a system:
Factors to Consider:
1. Strength of Schedule (SOS):
• Teams should be rewarded for playing a tough schedule.
• Points can be awarded based on opponents’ rankings or records.
2. Wins and Losses:
• Winning games should obviously be a key factor.
• Different weights can be assigned to wins against stronger or weaker opponents.
3. Margin of Victory:
• Margin of victory can be used to differentiate dominant wins from close ones.
• This discourages running up the score against weaker teams.
4. Location of Games:
• Home wins can be weighted differently than wins on the road or at neutral sites.
• This reflects the difficulty of winning away from home.
5. Recent Performance:
• Teams’ recent performance can be given more weight than earlier games in the season.
• This accounts for teams that are peaking at the right time.
6. Head-to-Head Results:
• Direct results between teams should carry significant weight.
• Teams that have beaten each other could be sorted based on other criteria.Proposed System:
Here’s a simplified example of how these factors could be combined into a ranking system:
1. Base Ranking:
• Each team starts with a base ranking at the beginning of the season.
2. Game Results:
• Points are awarded for wins and deducted for losses.
• Additional points for wins against higher-ranked teams.
3. Strength of Schedule (SOS):
• Additional points based on the strength of opponents faced.
4. Margin of Victory:
• Extra points for larger margin wins, with a cap to discourage excessive point differential.
5. Home/Away/Neutral Factor:
• Different weights for wins based on where the game was played.
6. Recent Performance:
• Recent games weighted more heavily than earlier ones.
7. Head-to-Head:
• Directly compare teams that have played each other, using other criteria to break ties.
8. Weekly Updates:
• Rankings are updated weekly to reflect the latest results.
9. Transparency:
• Make the ranking algorithm public to ensure transparency and accountability.
10. Committee Review:
• Have a committee of experts review the rankings to catch any anomalies or inconsistencies.This system aims to balance various aspects of team performance while ensuring fairness and transparency. Adjustments can be made based on feedback and analysis of the rankings throughout the season.
There's just no reason to it other than blatant rigging.Drake hangs on to beat Bradley 74-66.
The Bulldogs are now 24-6, 16-4 in Valley play... and for those keeping score at home, their RPI now sits at #15.
FIFTEEN.
In the good ol' pre-NET days, a #15 RPI not only got you a lock into the Dance, but a likely single-digit seed if you're a midmajor, and a top-5 seed if you came from a power conference.
I wish I could give you Drake's updated NET ranking... but since the NCAA is the only entity that can produce that number (seriously, nobody else out there has been able to replicate whatever the NCAA's doing to create the NET rankings)... we won't know Drake's NET until tomorrow.
Right now, they've got a #48 NET, and that is so, SO laughably underseeded, it's pathetic how much the NCAA is intentionally doing this.
It’s allegedly Google Cloud related, but then no one releases an algorithm. If an algorithm was released then the results could be reproduced with some level of accuracy.
Mid-majors have to band together and say “either release an algorithm or go back to RPI.”
For example, right now the Mountain West has six teams - SIX - in the top 26 of the RPI, and two in the top ten... but in the NET, they only have two in the top 26, and their highest team's only #18.
Again, were they not the Mountain West, you just wouldn't see this much disconnect between their RPI and NET numbers, but when the NCAA purposely pushes the MWC behind(!) the Pac-12 in overall NET rankings because they need the top six conferences to be, well, the six Power conferences, you get plainly biased rankings like this.
There is simply NO reason that the Mountain West, as fabulous a season as they're having, should be ranked behind the Pac-12 at all in NET conference rankings, period. The Pac-12 right now has two teams, tops, that are solidly in the field, while the MWC has at least five, and likely six as of today.
The Mountain West has won 69.8 percent of their non-con games this season, good for 5th best in the country. The Pac-12 has won 65.1 percent, and that ranks 8th, so again, the MWC is clearly ahead here.
Oh, and in head-to-head matchups this season, the Mountain West is 6-1 vs. the Pac-12.
Does this make any sense to you?
It’s hilarious that ChatGPT can design a better algorithm than the NCAA Selection Committee and that’s probably why they don’t release it.
Here's one more comparison between the Mountain West and the Pac-12 this season, looking at the top seven teams in each conference's standings, with the average NET and RPI numbers for each league's top seven teams put together:
MWC - 38 average NET, 25 average RPI
Pac-12 - 57 average NET, 75 average RPI
Even using the actual NET number that the NCAA devised themselves, the Mountain West's top seven teams are well ahead of the top seven in the Pac-12 here (and their RPI comparison's an absolute rout!!)... so HOW IS THE PAC-12 STILL RANKED AHEAD OF THE MOUNTAIN WEST?
Comparisons like this are exactly why the NCAA won't officially release their algorithm on how they're doing this NET deal... because I don't think there's an "official" algorithm at all, since there's no logistical way that the Mountain West could ever rank behind the Pac-12 this season unless you're rigging the system.
OK, one more rant here (I guess you're getting a bonus "Goro's Rant" special tonight... 😉 )
Back when the NCAA tried to explain how the NET was created, this was the official blurb a few years back:
"“When we adopted the NET in 2018, we had reviewed several seasons worth of data and we insisted that we would continue to evaluate the metric,” said Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s senior vice president of basketball. “We’ve been very satisfied with its performance thus far, but it became evident after two seasons of use that this change would be an improvement. While we will continue to monitor the metric, I don’t anticipate any additional adjustments for several years. We believe this change will result in more precision throughout the season and will be easier for our membership and the public to understand."
The NCAA went back and reviewed several seasons of data, so they KNEW that their new NET deal would absolutely boost up the Power conference teams' chances of making the Dance to the detriment of the high mid-major teams on the bubble. And then when they tweaked the NET in 2020, it made it even worse.
According to the NCAA, "The NET includes more components than just winning percentage. It takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses. It's both a results-driven and predictive metric."
Everything's fine there... until you get to "the quality of wins and losses". THIS is how they're rigging the NET to the Power conferences' advantage. There's no absolute mathematical way to compute "quality of wins and losses" other than by someone bringing in an implicit bias to determine for themselves exactly how "quality of wins and losses" can be determined.
In other words... once you add ANY part of human decision over what should be a 100 percent objective system, you've just made it into a SUBJECTIVE system, and that's how the NET has resulted in the boosting of Power conference teams' rankings since its inception back in 2018.
And even attempting to bring in a "predictive metric" is so, SO loaded with human bias, I don't know where to start with it. Once you try to actually compute predictive behavior, you're simply just guessing now, and that has NO place in any kind of ranking system, ever.
Whatever you want to say about the RPI, it's a fully, 100 percent, OBJECTIVE ranking system. There's no way to gimmick or rig it when everyone knows it works the same for every single team, AND you could compute it yourself and get exactly the same RPI numbers that the NCAA's official RPI rankings spewed out (and in real time!)
Now? They just toss you a NET ranking once a day, tell you that's what they're going to use, and they don't tell you AT ALL what the official computation is, so nobody outside the NCAA can replicate it. Because THAT is how they can rig the system to favor the bigs. It's already bad enough that the bigs have controlled the non-conference schedules for decades, consistently locking out the good mids from getting quality games on the schedule.
Now with the NET in their pocket as well, the NCAA and the bigs control both the scheduling AND the ranking system that is the prime metric for who gets into the Dance. Does that sound fair to you?
Let's check those updated NET numbers... After Drake's two wins last week, their NET moved DOWN two spots from last Monday's ranking (they're now at #48)... because, well, I guess taking 3 overtimes to win a road game over UIC is punishment? You'd think that beating Bradley (the Braves should be in the NIT at least), would've been a positive, but nope, the biased powers-that-be are making sure that Drake's getting NO shot at an at-large by knocking them down the NET despite the two wins.
And their NET was right at #48 on Sunday morning, so one day later, the big win over Bradley gets them no bump at all. Zip. They're still at #48.
Meanwhile, take a peek at Michigan State. They're on a three-game slide, and after losing at home to Ohio State and losing a decent battle at Purdue... they move UP two spots to #22! This is what happens now... as long as you're in a Power conference, you don't even need to win the games, as long as it's a close loss.
Ohio State and Bradley have pretty much the same NET (OSU at #59, Bradley at #60), and Michigan State loses that home game while Drake wins that home game... yet it just doesn't matter. Two weeks ago, Sparty's NET was #20. Three losses later (they also lost at home to Iowa recently), it's at #22. Compare that with their RPI numbers (#40 two weeks ago to #61 this morning), and you see that there still is a rating system out there that legitimately works. This NET deal is completely biased, and has no shame in showing it.
Here's more NET madness for ya...
St. John's blows out 4-27 last-place DePaul, and their NET moves up from #39 to #34.
Texas Tech blows out last place Oklahoma State, and their NET moves up from #42 to #35.
Virginia Tech blows out last place Louisville, and their NET moves up from #58 to #54.
Just another friendly reminder that when Drake beat Bradley (the Braves are likely headed to the NIT, and certainly NOT a last-place team), Drake's NET didn't budge an inch and stayed at #48.
Apparently running up the score on horrible Power conference teams is more important to the NET than beating postseason-worthy teams.
Clown show refs trying hard early to make sure Missouri State doesn't have a shot
Go Belmont, I want to see a Thursday team win this bitch.
Saluki Insider? I barely know her!
Born, of course, played well against us, but he just is not the same player this year. He has missed a couple shots badly, not even hitting the rim. He is now 1-11, reminiscent of the early portion of the season.
