When the NET rankings were introduced, the idea was simple: stop the reliance on the sadly outdated and easy-to-game RPI, one of the worst ranking systems ever made. The NET would use more modern ranking techniques and team quality, not just schedule strength and Win-Loss record, would be incorporated.
In other words, margin of victory would be taken into account.
The NET rankings have had mixed reviews (especially since they don't use any info from the previous year, which makes it look silly early in the season since people don't know what it looks like any more to have no priors, but I've covered that last time around). But if you look at Providence this year, the NET rankings aren't fair at all.
Providence is 20-2 right now, and #26 in the NET rankings. Seriously.
There have been teams in the past that ranked really high in the RPI just for having a good record, and people complained. Usually the Committee downgraded them quite a bit, but they'd end up with a 3-seed instead of the 1- or 2- that the RPI would give them. For example: 2013 New Mexico was #2 in the RPI which is clear 1-seed level, but the Lobos got a 3-seed...and upset in round 1 by Harvard.
And there have been teams that rank really high in Pomeroy while ranking poorly in RPI. These teams usually get a boost, but not too much; 2014 Louisville was #1 in Pomeroy but still only got a 4-seed with their RPI around #20 on Selection Sunday.
What will the Committee do with Providence if they win out and still have a shitty NET ranking?
The Friars are only #42 in Pomeroy, so it could be worse. But if the RPI were still taken into account, Providence would be about #3 right now.
Approximate RPI through February 6, 2022
RPI Div I [.25 .50 .25 ] vs. 51- 101- Record
rnk Team NET record RPI= [AWP + OPW + OOWP] SOS [rnk] t50 100 200 Road Neut Home
1. Kansas 8 19-3 .6832 .8469 .6602 .5655 .6286[ 2] 5-2 7-1 7-0 5-1 3-1 11-1
2. Auburn 7 22-1 .6723 .9524 .5850 .5668 .5789[ 24] 7-1 5-0 5-0 7-0 3-1 12-0
3. Providence 26 20-2 .6570 .9149 .5861 .5408 .5710[ 32] 6-1 1-0 7-1 6-1 1-1 13-0
4. Wisconsin 19 18-4 .6524 .8000 .6269 .5557 .6032[ 8] 6-4 4-0 3-0 5-2 3-0 10-2
5. Arizona 3 19-2 .6499 .9277 .5635 .5450 .5573[ 56] 5-2 4-0 3-0 4-2 2-0 13-0
6. Villanova 6 17-6 .6410 .7670 .6182 .5608 .5991[ 10] 5-5 1-1 7-0 6-4 2-1 9-1
7. Kentucky 4 19-4 .6402 .8427 .5832 .5517 .5727[ 29] 4-4 5-0 3-0 4-3 1-1 14-0
8. Alabama 24 14-9 .6394 .5684 .7199 .5494 .6631[ 1] 6-5 4-2 4-1 2-5 2-1 10-3
9. Houston 2 20-2 .6385 .9149 .5466 .5461 .5464[ 72] 1-2 6-0 8-0 5-1 3-1 12-0
10. Ohio St. 17 14-5 .6381 .7671 .6114 .5626 .5951[ 14] 3-3 4-2 4-0 3-4 1-1 10-0
11. Purdue 5 20-3 .6365 .8660 .5621 .5559 .5600[ 50] 6-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-0 12-1
12. Wyoming 30 18-3 .6363 .8866 .5660 .5267 .5529[ 64] 2-3 4-0 6-0 7-2 2-1 9-0
13. Duke 10 19-3 .6363 .8556 .5832 .5233 .5633[ 43] 4-2 2-1 7-0 4-2 2-0 13-1
14. Tennessee 12 16-6 .6311 .7381 .6114 .5634 .5954[ 13] 3-6 6-0 3-0 3-4 1-2 12-0
15. Saint Mary's 20 18-4 .6296 .8298 .5781 .5325 .5629[ 44] 2-4 3-0 8-0 5-2 2-2 11-0
16. Baylor 9 19-4 .6283 .8058 .5689 .5696 .5691[ 35] 4-3 8-1 1-0 5-2 3-0 11-2
17. Michigan St. 23 17-5 .6253 .7700 .5829 .5656 .5771[ 26] 4-3 5-0 4-2 5-2 3-2 9-1
18. LSU 16 16-7 .6245 .6813 .6402 .5360 .6055[ 7] 2-4 7-2 4-1 2-5 3-0 11-2
19. Marquette 25 16-7 .6244 .6602 .6370 .5635 .6125[ 3] 7-5 2-2 2-0 4-3 2-1 10-3
20. UCLA 14 16-4 .6230 .7955 .5668 .5630 .5655[ 37] 4-2 2-1 4-1 5-2 1-1 10-1
21. Gonzaga 1 19-2 .6221 .8621 .5447 .5370 .5421[ 83] 6-2 1-0 4-0 3-0 3-1 13-1
22. Illinois 13 17-5 .6211 .7500 .5884 .5578 .5782[ 25] 4-3 4-1 5-1 5-2 2-1 10-2
23. Xavier 21 16-6 .6204 .6735 .6261 .5562 .6028[ 9] 2-4 5-1 7-1 4-2 1-1 11-3
24. Iona 65 19-4 .6181 .8447 .5571 .5137 .5426[ 82] 2-2 2-1 7-1 5-2 5-2 9-0
25. Texas Tech 11 18-5 .6167 .7952 .5642 .5432 .5572[ 58] 4-3 5-2 1-0 2-4 2-1 14-0
Remember how Kansas was always #1 in the RPI, no matter how many losses they had? Well, the Jayhawks would probably be #1 in the RPI today.
Auburn is next at #2, as expected. And Providence holds down the #3 position. Wisconsin is #4 while only #19 in NET, and Alabama is #8 in RPI but just #24 NET.
Another big loser under NET is Iona, who might be in the top 25 in the RPI—almost a certain at-large bid—but is just #65 in NET
A big winner under the NET is Texas, #15 in NET—a certain bid—and only an on-the-bubble #46 in RPI. Gonzaga also shines at #1 (only #21 in RPI)
The Bracket Matrix participants, on the whole, don't think Providence's dismal NET will hurt them much, putting them at a 4-seed right now, and if they really managed to win out they'd certainly be in line for a 1-seed or at least a 2-seed. And their NET would have to rise if they kept winning.
To this point they've somehow kept winning without gaining a lot of ground in the power ratings. Or in the NET (which is a power rating...somewhat)
The bottom line here is that the NET didn't solve the problem of the RPI not being a single representative number. Just like when using the RPI one had to look at the top 50 wins, etc, you still have to look at the Quad 1, Quad 2, etc. when referencing the NET. As with the RPI, it's still a tool to evaluate every team other than the one you actually want to analyze. (Insert eye roll emoji here)
Comments