Probably have to add Kansas to that list. Wins over Us, UConn, Tennessee, and Baylor show they’re more than capable of beating anyone. Though the opposite is probably even more true for them than Purdue.
2 Likes
How in the world is Auburn 6th in the net with a 1-7 record in Quad 1? I thought that was one of the main criteria for a higher ranking?
Q1 record is irrelevant when it comes to NET rating
When the official bracket comes out they will probably be a 4 or 5 rather than a 2 seed
Correct, Q1 are simply derived from the NET.
The NET algorithm is composed of two parts: team value index (TVI) and an adjusted net efficiency rating. TVI is a result-based feature that rewards teams who beat quality opponents, especially on the road. Meanwhile, adjusted net efficiency accounts for strength of opponent, as well as game location (home, away, neutral).
It is also worth noting all games carry the same weight. So, a game played in November means the same as a game played in early March.
Auburn is like 1-8 in q1. It’s wild
3 Likes
They’re just the type of team to go on a run in the tourney
1 Like
Tonights BracketMatrix update has them placed at tad more reasonable spots
But its still hilarious how much the committee overrates OOC ratings specially when a team struggles mightily in it like Sparty and Bama imo
3 Likes
And 3 worse losses than our worst. The average KP rating of their losses is #50. Ours is #19.
As a neutral observer they aren’t. Purdue has beaten better teams in neutral or road environments (non-con was impressive), yet they also have worse losses and have also been less impressive during conference play. Part of that isn’t probably reflective of them as teams have off days and if you play in a lesser league there is a great chance one of those “off” games happens against a lesser team.
Personally I think recent results, as long as the comp is good enough, should matter a little big more (closer to tournament play and more likely the team we will see at that time). Where I think NET absolutely fails in how it “adjusts” for quality of comp. It’s impossible to accurately adjust for competito and the NET does some bat **** things, like overestimate the quality of a “good loss” when that’s all a team has done (SEC teams for example) or over-emphasize the different between playing a Q2-Q3 opponent vs a Q4 opponent at home. For all of the talk of the BIg 12 “gaming the system” nobody has gamed it more than the Big 10, who have done a better job with scheduling “tougher” non-con home games. If a team is top 40-50 quality lets me real: the odds of losing at home (even more so if your environement is good) are small against either team. The bigger different is the margin of victory, something the NET poorly ranks.
In a nutshell I think the NET and SOS are decent tools in “bracketing teams” and putting them in a “group” where they likely belong. But it takes human eyes to see Tennessee’s claim to fame was beating two Big 10 pretenders (Illinois and Wisconsin), having a bunch of quality losses, while really lacking signature victories or great road victories. Alabama was a “start” but they are basically the same team with a lesser resume: one that’s solid, one that has a bunch of quality losses, and a team that lacks solid neutral/road victories.
Right now it’s between Houston and Uconn for the #1 overall seed. Purdue will need some help down the stretch
Purdue has built such a gap OOC wise that its hard to see them not getting first overall, 2nd overall and 4th 1 seed are actually a discussion on the other hand tho
Resume ranking goes Purdue, Houston, UConn currently. That said I’d probably have UConn as the top team of the trio.