USUFans.com

It's been hard to gauge just how good exactly we are this season. Let's look at what the different relevant and more prominent ranking systems say:

NCAA Net Rating: #35
Ken Pomeroy: #47
RPI: #48
ESPN BPI: #51
Sagarin: #57

Average: #48

The NCAA Net Rating is the new rating system used by the NCAA selection committee in place of RPI.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketbal ... t-rankings
https://kenpom.com/
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-baske ... ng-by-team
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... iew/page/3
http://sagarin.com/sports/cbsend.htm

In our case, it looks like the NET rating system is backfiring. Wasn't the NET system created to keep schools like us OUT of the conversation for at-large bids?

aggies22 wrote: ↑

January 7th, 2019, 6:25 am

In our case, it looks like the NET rating system is backfiring. Wasn't the NET system created to keep schools like us OUT of the conversation for at-large bids?

Oh I think it's definitely backfiring. If you count how many teams are non-p5 or Big East in the rankings,

There are 3 teams in the top 10.
There are 16 teams. in the top 55.

If you count Big East part of the group that isn't in the Power 5, then there are 21 teams in the top 55 that aren't in the P5.

Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑

January 7th, 2019, 6:43 am

aggies22 wrote: ↑

January 7th, 2019, 6:25 am

In our case, it looks like the NET rating system is backfiring. Wasn't the NET system created to keep schools like us OUT of the conversation for at-large bids?

Oh I think it's definitely backfiring. If you count how many teams are non-p5 or Big East in the rankings,

There are 3 teams in the top 10.
There are 16 teams. in the top 55.

If you count Big East part of the group that isn't in the Power 5, then there are 21 teams in the top 55 that aren't in the P5.

Agreed! With college hoops though I think there is a P-6. I think the Big East probably belongs in that conversation, instead of slumming it with us high mid-major conferences.

Better than I thought we'd be.

My expectations were low entering the season. I thought we would struggle to get to .500. I'm very happy to be wrong on this. We have a lot of rough patches, but it doesn't bother me because we are much better than I expected.

I have been pleasantly surprised that the NET rating system has been the most favorable ranking system for USU compared to Sagarin, Pomeroy, etc.

I also noticed that losing big against Nevada (and looking bad whole doing it) dropped the NET rating only one point (34 to 35), while soundly beating Air Force resulted in a drop from 35 to 40.

This is where the system will catch up to the Aggies. The rest of the schedule is against teams that, in the aggregate, have a decidedly losing record. Even winning almost all of them will apparently not give the team much of a boost.

Nevada dropped from 8 to 29 with one loss over the weekend.

Didn’t they said they could tweak the NET at any time and that the algorithm is unknowable (by us common folk)?

Get ready for it to weight conference play by the big boys much more heavily, and all the little guys will start to slip down, regardless of conference record.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically we are #53 in Sagarin as the 'predictor' number is a more accurate measurement. Semantics and not much difference though

It's great to see the Aggies winning. Need to protect the home court while getting some quality road wins during conference play in order to get some post-season looks.

48 seems about right to me but I’m a fan so 80-90 is probably right. I love the rankings so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I honestly think that our team is good
there are some things that i didn't think we could accomplish
- hitting 100 points did that twice
- good ball movement

usubullzone wrote: ↑

January 8th, 2019, 8:15 am

I honestly think that our team is good
there are some things that i didn't think we could accomplish
- hitting 100 points did that twice
- good ball movement

And playing defense.

usubullzone wrote:I honestly think that our team is good
there are some things that i didn't think we could accomplish
- hitting 100 points did that twice
- good ball movement

I think we are a good point guard away from being good and a great point guard away from being great.

With Merrill, Queta, and a great point guard, we can fill the other two with role players. As it stands, Merrill, Queta, and role players risk losing almost every single night.