How much better would our net be if we played in the big 10. You know we would beat the mid level teams in Logan and a lot of the top teams In Logan as well.

utaggies wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 5:25 am

USU’s NET dropped to 37 today (2/28) as both Illinois and Purdue jumped us. The NM game is pivotal.

Wait what??!! Isn’t Purdue like .500?

This might interest those that are questioning the Big10 ratings.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... onference/

ProvoAggie wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 9:13 am

ThunderAggie wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 9:02 am

utaggies wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 5:25 am

USU’s NET dropped to 37 today (2/28) as both Illinois and Purdue jumped us. The NM game is pivotal.

Wait what??!! Isn’t Purdue like .500?

They are 15-14 but they have 13 quality losses this year so that helps them out quite a bit. Looks like they still have 2 more opportunities for quality losses before their conference tournament starts.
https://bracketologists.com/teamsheet/p ... ilermakers

What a great web site! It’s interesting to see the bracket based only on NET. We would be on a collision course with SDS in a second round game. Lunardi may still have Indiana as a favored child but they are now well below the NET cut-line at 58.

utaggies wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 9:48 am

ProvoAggie wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 9:13 am

ThunderAggie wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 9:02 am

utaggies wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 5:25 am

USU’s NET dropped to 37 today (2/28) as both Illinois and Purdue jumped us. The NM game is pivotal.

Wait what??!! Isn’t Purdue like .500?

They are 15-14 but they have 13 quality losses this year so that helps them out quite a bit. Looks like they still have 2 more opportunities for quality losses before their conference tournament starts.
https://bracketologists.com/teamsheet/p ... ilermakers

What a great web site! It’s interesting to see the bracket based only on NET. We would be on a collision course with SDS in a second round game. Lunardi may still have Indiana as a favored child but they are now well below the NET cut-line at 58.

If they lose those 2 there should be no way they make the tourney unless they win their conference tourney or at least make the finals. If they are 15-16 regular season they have no business being in the tourney.

Bank Shot wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 9:24 am

This might interest those that are questioning the Big10 ratings.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... onference/

That was an interesting article. Does anyone remember a few years back when the Missouri Valley Conference effectively gamed the RPI system? Well, the Big 10 is not necessarily gaming the NET system but it understands that substituting out Quadrant 3 and Quadrant 4 teams in order to play home games against Quadrant 1 Big 10 teams, even if that makes a 20 game unbalanced conference schedule, is beneficial to the NCAA prospects of the middling to lower conference teams. Right now, based on NET, they are projected to get 11 teams into the tourney — including a 15-14 Purdue team that is 8-10 in conference games. Last year they only got 4 in. That is a huge revenue bump.

The MWC should consider something to bolster its chances of sending multiple teams to the NCAAs. For instance allowing the projected better teams to play each other twice. If that were the case we would have played Nevada twice this year and perhaps Wyoming or SJS only once. Granted nobody saw us doing as well as we did last year so outliers would be hard to project. Certainly USU needs to keep a few teams like Florida, LSU, and St. mary’s on its schedule and look for even more OOC opportunities against good teams, hopefully home-and-home or on a neutral site.

Pretty much along the lines of Gonzaga working the MWC to get the WCC to go to unbalanced schedule. It's not at all gaming the system...it's knowing what the system is and how to make it work for your school or conference.

# 31 in Sagarin today.

Bank Shot wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 10:23 am

Pretty much along the lines of Gonzaga working the MWC to get the WCC to go to unbalanced schedule. It's not at all gaming the system...it's knowing what the system is and how to make it work for your school or conference.

I thought that "making the system work for you" was the definition of gaming the system.

ProvoAggie wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 10:46 am

utaggies wrote: ↑

February 28th, 2020, 10:09 am

Does anyone remember a few years back when the Missouri Valley Conference effectively gamed the RPI system?

The Mountain West was the first to game the RPI system. There was that one year that the MWC was ranked #1 in RPI.

MWC is still paying the price for that year. They had around 5 or 6 teams make the tournament that year and I think all but one of them lost in the first round. Ever since then it seems like we always start the season as a one-bid league and it almost feels like it's punishment for pulling one over on the system.

With the loss last night, the Aggies dropped only one spot from 37 to 38. I’m a little surprised that a Quad 3 loss didn’t affect the NET ranking more. But I guess any team at this level loses a few games. And late in the season, any single game doesn’t move the needle too much, because it’s just one of 30+ games that have already been played.

Wow, we only dropped one spot in the NET after taking that Q3 loss in the shorts. It would appear we are very much still in the hunt.

This team has been given a long leash. I think two wins in the conference tourney may still get it done.

We may have only dropped one spot in the NET but I guarantee we dropped much further in the eyes of the selection committee.

Lunardi's updated seed list.... In, but once conference tournaments start there's always going to be some bid stealers.