NET is nuts

[BUSongwriter]

While Bradley's NET ranking (now 83) isn't as big of a discussion topic as it was a few weeks ago and what we'd hoped it would be going forward, the formula is still really confusing for me. I'm no whiz at math, but perhaps someone could explain to me why Villanova -- 14-10 overall, 0-5 in Quad 1 games and with two losses in Quad 3 and even a loss in Quad 4 -- is rated ahead of Drake, 22-2 overall, 2-0 in Quad 1, and no Quad 4 losses. Drake's NET is 57, while Villanova's is 53. Same with Cincinnati -- 14-9 overall, 1-7 in Quad 1, but with a NET of 51.

I suppose it has to do with strength of schedule and teams being rewarded for playing Quad 1 games, even if they lose them all. I know it's been lamented here before, but it's so weighted in favor of the power conferences it seems nuts, if not criminal.

[Tommy]

I think it's this part of the formula:

IF ((teamA=PC),-100,+25)

[Da Coach]

It hurts my brain to try to explain what goes into the NET's complex formula, so if you have time, here is the NCAA's own explanation -
College basketball's NET rankings, explained - https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ings-explained

This article might be a little easier to understand - https://sonsofsaturday.com/vt/articl...ings-explained

[Tommy]

It hurts my brain to try to explain what goes into the NET's complex formula, so if you have time, here is the NCAA's own explanation -
College basketball's NET rankings, explained - https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ings-explained

This article might be a little easier to understand - https://sonsofsaturday.com/vt/articl...ings-explained

Here's my favorite snippet from the explanation:
We don't know how "Team Value Index" is calculated.

[Da Coach]

Here's my favorite snippet from the explanation:
We don't know how "Team Value Index" is calculated.

Probably something similar when mid-majors like the MVC started to "crack the code" of the RPI, and got 4 teams in the tournament in 2005 (should have been 5). The NCAA invented a couple new terms like "the eye test". And when that didn't work well enough to keep good mid-majors out, they pitched the RPI and invented the NET , which put more weight on strength of opponents, margin of victory, and Quadrant 1 record, all of which obviously favored the Power Conference teams.

Examples- Here are the Big Ten teams' current NET rank - https://www.warrennolan.com/basketba...erence/Big-Ten
All 18 teams, even the weakest ones, have NET rank inside the top 100, and 9 are inside the top 50. By comparison, only 3 of the MVC teams are in the top 100 and none inside the top 50, (Drake 57, Bradley 83, UNI 95).
The SEC has 14 teams inside the top 45 NET, which means they could get as many as 14 teams in the 68-team field.
At $2 million reward per game in the tournament, that is a massive windfall of cash to the Power conferences, and very little to everyone else. That money can be used for recruiting, facilities, and now even direct compensation to players, which guarantees they remain stronger, and there will never be another Gonzaga, which dared to invade their little party.

[Dubl R 1]

I'm wondering...........

With all these law suits flying around vs NCAA, How long until.......

An athlete files a suit against the NCAA for possible lost NIL income/ability to make income from them not "selecting" his/her team to play in the NCAA tournament or the College Football Championships

I would suspect an athlete's ability to generate income would be significantly higher with the added exposure of playing in the tournament....and since there are not "hard" guidelines in place for making the tournament, one could sue on the grounds that the committee could have a conflict of interest on who they "allow" or "select" to play in this money making tournament.

This has as much clout, IMO, as the whole lawsuit about playing at Juco limiting their earning power.

Thoughts?....

[bradleyfan124]

I'm wondering...........

With all these law suits flying around vs NCAA, How long until.......

An athlete files a suit against the NCAA for possible lost NIL income/ability to make income from them not "selecting" his/her team to play in the NCAA tournament or the College Football Championships

I would suspect an athlete's ability to generate income would be significantly higher with the added exposure of playing in the tournament....and since there are not "hard" guidelines in place for making the tournament, one could sue on the grounds that the committee could have a conflict of interest on who they "allow" or "select" to play in this money making tournament.

This has as much clout, IMO, as the whole lawsuit about playing at Juco limiting their earning power.

Thoughts?....

I would not mind a lawsuit challenging the NCAA on their rating formula. Make them prove how fair ( or unfair ) it is

[Fan since 88]

Probably something similar when mid-majors like the MVC started to "crack the code" of the RPI, and got 4 teams in the tournament in 2005 (should have been 5). The NCAA invented a couple new terms like "the eye test". And when that didn't work well enough to keep good mid-majors out, they pitched the RPI and invented the NET , which put more weight on strength of opponents, margin of victory, and Quadrant 1 record, all of which obviously favored the Power Conference teams.

Examples- Here are the Big Ten teams' current NET rank - https://www.warrennolan.com/basketba...erence/Big-Ten
All 18 teams, even the weakest ones, have NET rank inside the top 100, and 9 are inside the top 50. By comparison, only 3 of the MVC teams are in the top 100 and none inside the top 50, (Drake 57, Bradley 83, UNI 95).
The SEC has 14 teams inside the top 45 NET, which means they could get as many as 14 teams in the 68-team field.
At $2 million reward per game in the tournament, that is a massive windfall of cash to the Power conferences, and very little to everyone else. That money can be used for recruiting, facilities, and now even direct compensation to players, which guarantees they remain stronger, and there will never be another Gonzaga, which dared to invade their little party.

Coach, in my mind from all those years ago, it should have been 6 MVC teams in

[Da Coach]

Coach, in my mind from all those years ago, it should have been 6 MVC teams in

Maybe should have been... Bradley and UNI tied for 5th place that season, and the main thing that favored BU over UNI was that they upset the conference regular season champion, Wichita State in the semifinal and advanced to the final before losing to SIU. UNI lost to SIU in the semifinal.

2005-06 Final standings- https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb...#all_standings
Tournament- https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb...nce-tournament

Missouri State was screwed the most, and still stands as the worst snub ever. Their final RPI of 21 on Selection Sunday and Strength of Schedule of 46, which were the main criteria at that time, but they did not get a bid. Meanwhile, Air Force, with an RPI of 50 and a Strength of Schedule of 158, did get a bid.
Here is a pretty good article about the "worst snub ever" - https://www.the-standard.org/sports/...72c90fb06.html

[MacabreMob]

... Meanwhile, Air Force, with an RPI of 50 and a Strength of Schedule of 158, did get a bid.

And that's who the Illini got rewarded with playing in the first round.

[BradleyBiz]

Following our win at Drake, we move to 1-0 against Q1. Our NET moves up...3 spots. Now at 79.

Meanwhile, Yale is at 67. They are 1-5 against Q1 and Q2 with no wins against Q1 opponents. And they have a Q4 loss. And their SOS is below Bradley. And the Ivy is objectively a worse conference than the MVC. I give up on trying to understand NET and the 'logic' behind it.

On an interesting note, Andy Katz has us in his Power 37. Though Duke got credit for the winning dunk against Drake.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2025-02-17/auburn-regains-top-spot-andy-katzs-mens-basketball-power-37-rankings

[BRAVE82]

So Bradley beats Drake (21-2) at Drake, a Quad 1 win and only moves up three spots (82 to 79)? Meanwhile, Drake loses at home to us and only drops from 56 to 59? Unreal.

[tomahawk chop]

The road wins should be measured the most in a point system period. Winning games on the road has always been a lot harder then winning home games. The coaches could attest to that as long as they are being honest.

[Tommy]

Yeah, but guys, remember, it's fair:
We don't know how "Team Value Index" is calculated.

[Da Coach]

The road wins should be measured the most in a point system period. Winning games on the road has always been a lot harder then winning home games. The coaches could attest to that as long as they are being honest.

Road wins are given more weight than home wins, but there are many other factors in the NET. The reason Bradley was down at 82 after spending most of the season in the 50's and 60's was that 3-game losing streak when Bradley lost at home to UIC (currently 123), on the road at UNI (currently 95), then at home to Belmont (currently 131). Those losses neutralize a good win like yesterday's win at Drake.
Also, as we get later into the season, the NET changes less and less with each game, and jumping over other teams gets harder.

The teams ahead of Bradley are mostly Power Conference teams who have mediocre overall records and poor records against Quad 1 opponents. That tells you all you need to know about how this NET formula heavily favors the Power Conference teams.
NET - https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basket...,79,10%2D0,-80