2024-2025 NET Rankings

[WuShock Reaper]

We all know why one of the main reasons to shift from the RPI Index to the NET Index was to increase selection justification of the Mafia 5 (ACC, Big10, Big12, Big East, and SEC) into the Tournament.

The Mafia 5 make up 79 teams of 364 total teams or 22%.
There are 55 of their teams or 70% of all their teams in the top 100 of RPI Index.
However, there are 66 of their teams or 84% of all their teams in the top 100 of NET Index.

	RPI Index
Rank	Mafia 5	Non
0-25	16	9
26-50	17	8
51-75	12	13
75-100	10	15
Totals	55	45

---

	NET Index
Rank	Mafia 5	Non
0-25	23	2
26-50	17	8
51-75	14	11
75-100	12	13
Totals	66	34

[RoyalShock]

We all know why one of the main reasons to shift from the RPI Index to the NET Index was to increase selection justification of the Mafia 5 (ACC, Big10, Big12, Big East, and SEC) into the Tournament.

I reject this notion out of hand.

The RPI does not distinguish between a 1-point win and a 25-point win. Or a 5-pt loss and a 37-point loss. I'm pretty sure we'd feel much, much better about the Shocks right now had we lost by 5 to Florida instead of 37, and rightly so. Margin of victory and other statistical factors are important. Shooting 35% against, say the 30th-ranked defense, is quite different than shooting 50%.

In 2013-14, should WSU (KernPom 6) have received no more recognition for beating Tulsa (KenPom 82) on the road by 23, than Oral Roberts (KenPom 188) for doing the same by 6? The RPI would say WSU and ORU were equally good teams in their games against Tulsa. Ummmm, no.

If that means more power conferences teams are seen to be better by a statistically-based metric than a schedule-based metric, then we need to accept that those teams may actually be better.


What I'd like to see, is a rule that says if you can't manage a winning record within your conference, then you don't deserve a chance at a national championship. Since football drives the realignment bus, I don't know if it would make the power conferences re-think trying to get to 20 teams, but if that rule were in place, there would be a more non-power conference teams in the tournament. Last year there were six teams who got into the tournament with conference records at or below .500.

[ShockTalk]

What I'd like to see, is a rule that says if you can't manage a winning record within your conference, then you don't deserve a chance at a national championship. Since football drives the realignment bus, I don't know if it would make the power conferences re-think trying to get to 20 teams, but if that rule were in place, there would be a more non-power conference teams in the tournament. Last year there were six teams who got into the tournament with conference records at or below .500.

THIS!!

[ShockerFever]

I reject this notion out of hand.

The RPI does not distinguish between a 1-point win and a 25-point win. Or a 5-pt loss and a 37-point loss. I'm pretty sure we'd feel much, much better about the Shocks right now had we lost by 5 to Florida instead of 37, and rightly so. Margin of victory and other statistical factors are important. Shooting 35% against, say the 30th-ranked defense, is quite different than shooting 50%.

In 2013-14, should WSU (KernPom 6) have received no more recognition for beating Tulsa (KenPom 82) on the road by 23, than Oral Roberts (KenPom 188) for doing the same by 6? The RPI would say WSU and ORU were equally good teams in their games against Tulsa. Ummmm, no.

If that means more power conferences teams are seen to be better by a statistically-based metric than a schedule-based metric, then we need to accept that those teams may actually be better.


What I'd like to see, is a rule that says if you can't manage a winning record within your conference, then you don't deserve a chance at a national championship. Since football drives the realignment bus, I don't know if it would make the power conferences re-think trying to get to 20 teams, but if that rule were in place, there would be a more non-power conference teams in the tournament. Last year there were six teams who got into the tournament with conference records at or below .500.

Everything you've stated is completely correct and how it should be.

In regards to your last point, again 100% correct. If you wanna be in a big bad power conference, well you better actually win in it. If that means you can't do it, tough nuggets. Join a midmajor conference and pile up your wins and see how far it gets ya. These schools just want all of their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, your rule suggestion has exactly ZERO chance of ever happening. They would never allow it even though it would solve a whole host of problems.

[WuShock Reaper]

I reject this notion out of hand.

The RPI does not distinguish between a 1-point win and a 25-point win. Or a 5-pt loss and a 37-point loss. I'm pretty sure we'd feel much, much better about the Shocks right now had we lost by 5 to Florida instead of 37, and rightly so. Margin of victory and other statistical factors are important. Shooting 35% against, say the 30th-ranked defense, is quite different than shooting 50%.

In 2013-14, should WSU (KernPom 6) have received no more recognition for beating Tulsa (KenPom 82) on the road by 23, than Oral Roberts (KenPom 188) for doing the same by 6? The RPI would say WSU and ORU were equally good teams in their games against Tulsa. Ummmm, no.

If that means more power conferences teams are seen to be better by a statistically-based metric than a schedule-based metric, then we need to accept that those teams may actually be better.


What I'd like to see, is a rule that says if you can't manage a winning record within your conference, then you don't deserve a chance at a national championship. Since football drives the realignment bus, I don't know if it would make the power conferences re-think trying to get to 20 teams, but if that rule were in place, there would be a more non-power conference teams in the tournament. Last year there were six teams who got into the tournament with conference records at or below .500.

For example, last year’s At-large teams’ performance in the Tournament was:

I did this for last season's teams and their NCAA Performance:

At-Large Teams Performance, if they had:	Average Tournament Wins
Non-Winning Conference Records	0.6
Non-Winning Road Record	0.9
Both	0.9

Versus

At-Large Teams Performance, if they had:	Average Tournament Wins
Winning Conference Records	1.3
Winning Road Records	1.5
Both	1.6

Prior wins on the road and prior wins in-conference are significant, material, and meaningful.

[RoyalShock]

For example, last year’s At-large teams’ performance in the Tournament was:

I did this for last season's teams and their NCAA Performance:

At-Large Teams Performance, if they had:	Average Tournament Wins
Non-Winning Conference Records	0.6
Non-Winning Road Record	0.9
Both	0.9

Versus

At-Large Teams Performance, if they had:	Average Tournament Wins
Winning Conference Records	1.3
Winning Road Records	1.5
Both	1.6

Prior wins on the road and prior wins in-conference are significant, material, and meaningful.

Which is what you'd expect from teams that are top-tier in their conference, versus mid-tier.

What I'd really like to see is a sort of statistical "NET" of the performance of the last 8 at-large teams (those 10-12 seeds) vs. the top 8 auto-bid teams directly below them on the seed line to see how they perform in the tournament over several years. And maybe someone has done that. I think that would give us a sense of whether those mediocre power teams who get the last at-large spots perform better, the same, or worse than their seeds would suggest.

[jcdshocker]

So his argument is that concessions cost a couple dollars cheaper for the evening and they've lowered prices for those that can most afford higher prices. Therefore, those who can't afford to buy season tickets and such should be happy to pay at least twice as much as we were for a Final Four caliber team and enjoy a hotdog for a dollar less? That math isn't mathing.

Is there anyone in the athletic department that has a background or degree in business? It doesn't seem like it.

Your comment about tickets being twice as much as when we had a final four team is completely not factual. I know you want cheaper tickets but to exaggerate that much, you lose credibility for the point you are trying to make.

[ABC]

If you asked me to name professors that I had at WSU back in the early 70's, Perline would one of the few I could name, and he'd also be the first one I would name.

Yep!

[ShockTalk]

Which is what you'd expect from teams that are top-tier in their conference, versus mid-tier.

What I'd really like to see is a sort of statistical "NET" of the performance of the last 8 at-large teams (those 10-12 seeds) vs. the top 8 auto-bid teams directly below them on the seed line to see how they perform in the tournament over several years. And maybe someone has done that. I think that would give us a sense of whether those mediocre power teams who get the last at-large spots perform better, the same, or worse than their seeds would suggest.

I could very well be wrong here, but I believe there would be too many moving parts to be able to make a sound conclusion from year to year. First, the top 8 auto bids directly below the 8 at-large teams should be playing against higher seeds, thus generally not do as well, maybe even if they were more deserving. Now if they usually do better, that should be sound information. However, one still has the variable of "incorrect seeding".

To me, you make different rules. No teams with losing league records. So sorry Charlie. Those teams have already had a couple bites of the tournament inclusion apple. Have a .500 or better league record or win the league's post-season tournament.

[Aargh]

I could very well be wrong here, but I believe there would be too many moving parts to be able to make a sound conclusion from year to year. First, the top 8 auto bids directly below the 8 at-large teams should be playing against higher seeds, thus generally not do as well, maybe even if they were more deserving. Now if they usually do better, that should be sound information. However, one still has the variable of "incorrect seeding".

To me, you make different rules. No teams with losing league records. So sorry Charlie. Those teams have already had a couple bites of the tournament inclusion apple. Have a .500 or better league record or win the league's post-season tournament.

That will never work. That would take money away from the power conferences and give it to the non-power conferences.

That isn't the way the power conferences are flexing their muscle and bending the NCAA over.

[Ta Town Shocker]

Your comment about tickets being twice as much as when we had a final four team is completely not factual. I know you want cheaper tickets but to exaggerate that much, you lose credibility for the point you are trying to make.

I'd really like to see the prices in 2012 compared to today. I'd venture to guess he's not too far off the mark.

That was my first year buying season tickets and if my memory serves me correctly row 33 tickets were about 360 a ticket all in.

[Kung Wu]

Didn't UConn have a losing conference record in 2011, one of the years they won it all? That was the year we got Kemba Walkered by the dirtiest ref in the business.

[WuShock16]

Didn't UConn have a losing conference record in 2011, one of the years they won it all? That was the year we got Kemba Walkered by the dirtiest ref in the business.

9-9. Lost 4 of 5 to finish regular season. But then they won 5 games at MSG to win Big East Tournament. Got a 3 seed in NCAA Tournament, winning it all.

[Kung Wu]

9-9. Lost 4 of 5 to finish regular season. But then they won 5 games at MSG to win Big East Tournament. Got a 3 seed in NCAA Tournament, winning it all.

There was an epic argument on here with JH4P about whether they should be allowed in. Hahaha

[SubGod22]

Your comment about tickets being twice as much as when we had a final four team is completely not factual. I know you want cheaper tickets but to exaggerate that much, you lose credibility for the point you are trying to make.

I was paying 20-25 for a ticket then. The cheapest I find now is 40. Seems pretty factual to me.