ADVERTISEMENT

NET Rankings

I’m not sure how often they update this thing but we are sitting at 28 right now and Arizona stayed at 3. Make it make sense. If we are SO GOOD that Arizona loses to us at home and doesn’t drop at all, how they hell are we 25 spots below them after sweeping them, better overall record, and better conference record. Absolutely ridiculous. What’s the point of the quad records if the algorithm ignores them? Way too much put into SOS and margin of victory.

Looks to me like Wazzu/Zona should both be right about 10/11, and 3 seeds.

CBS for a change isn't underranking, under projecting WSU for a change.

CBS has WSU at #11 in their top 25, and Arizona at #12 in their top 25.

I'd say that's more accurate then the AP top 25 that has Arizona at #5, and WSU still at #21.

The AP VOTERS ARE ON CRACK.
 
CBS for a change isn't underranking, under projecting WSU for a change.

CBS has WSU at #11 in their top 25, and Arizona at #12 in their top 25.

I'd say that's more accurate then the AP top 25 that has Arizona at #5, and WSU still at #21.

The AP VOTERS ARE ON CRACK.
The AP comes out Monday. I think three teams ahead of us lost Wed + if we beat ASU, I expect that gap to narrow quite a bit. UA 6-9, WSU 14-18? That said Rankings to seeding is way F’ing off. I’m not saying we should be ahead of Arizona for all the sense that makes, but we sure as hell shouldn’t be a 7 seed to their 1 or 2. That’s just stupid. If they are a 2, we shouldn’t be worse than a 3.
 
The AP comes out Monday. I think three teams ahead of us lost Wed + if we beat ASU, I expect that gap to narrow quite a bit. UA 6-9, WSU 14-18? That said Rankings to seeding is way F’ing off. I’m not saying we should be ahead of Arizona for all the sense that makes, but we sure as hell shouldn’t be a 7 seed to their 1 or 2. That’s just stupid. If they are a 2, we shouldn’t be worse than a 3.

If WSU goes at least 2-2, WSU gets a #6 seed, #7 seed at worst.

3-1 gets WSU a 3,4,5 seed.

4-0 gets WSU a 2,3,4 seed.

1-3, 0-4 gets NIT, unless win PAC 12 tourny.
 
If WSU goes at least 2-2, WSU gets a #6 seed, #7 seed at worst.

3-1 gets WSU a 3,4,5 seed.

4-0 gets WSU a 2,3,4 seed.

1-3, 0-4 gets NIT, unless win PAC 12 tourny.
Lunardi just upgraded us to a 5 seed with bracket math. Kinda where I thought we could get to with that win. Agree, if we win out and are 25-6 going into the tourney we will be in 3 seed territory.
 
If WSU goes at least 2-2, WSU gets a #6 seed, #7 seed at worst.

3-1 gets WSU a 3,4,5 seed.

4-0 gets WSU a 2,3,4 seed.

1-3, 0-4 gets NIT, unless win PAC 12 tourny.
No way NIT. WSU is the national college basketball story. Losing so many players and overcoming it all to be ranked for the first time since 2008.
 
No way NIT. WSU is the national college basketball story. Losing so many players and overcoming it all to be ranked for the first time since 2008.
I mean if they collapsed and finished 21-10…they’d be in the NIT. Just facts. Probably won’t happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas
No way NIT. WSU is the national college basketball story. Losing so many players and overcoming it all to be ranked for the first time since 2008.

I'm not saying that WSU will go 0-4, 1-3, and goto NIT.

But IF WSU were to go 0-4, 1-3, WSU would go to NIT.

I was just listing what would probably happen at each possibility.

2-2 equals #6, #7 seed

3-1 equals 3,4,5 seed

4-0 equals 2,3,4 seed

and 0-4, 1-3 equals NIT, unless win PAC tourny.

I do not think WSU will only win 0-4, 1-3, and goto NIT

WSU will NOT go 0-4, 1-3, and goto NIT
 
I’m not sure how often they update this thing but we are sitting at 28 right now and Arizona stayed at 3. Make it make sense. If we are SO GOOD that Arizona loses to us at home and doesn’t drop at all, how they hell are we 25 spots below them after sweeping them, better overall record, and better conference record. Absolutely ridiculous. What’s the point of the quad records if the algorithm ignores them? Way too much put into SOS and margin of victory.

Looks to me like Wazzu/Zona should both be right about 10/11, and 3 seeds.
It's the same as it's always been: east coast darlings (and Zona) are being buoyed by early garbage rankings so they can circle jerk about how tough their schedule is while inevitably losing a game or two to each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COUGinNCW
I’m not sure how often they update this thing but we are sitting at 28 right now and Arizona stayed at 3. Make it make sense. If we are SO GOOD that Arizona loses to us at home and doesn’t drop at all, how they hell are we 25 spots below them after sweeping them, better overall record, and better conference record. Absolutely ridiculous. What’s the point of the quad records if the algorithm ignores them? Way too much put into SOS and margin of victory.

Looks to me like Wazzu/Zona should both be right about 10/11, and 3 seeds.
This time of year with who still on our schedule that seems like a good move for 1 game even with it being a HUGE win. We had actually dropped down a spot after last week. ASU can only hurt us.
 
This time of year with who still on our schedule that seems like a good move for 1 game even with it being a HUGE win. We had actually dropped down a spot after last week. ASU can only hurt us.
I suppose but to bleeds point there’s too much emphasis on preseason rankings. Looking at these teams side by side it’s ludicrous that they would be a 1/2 and we would be a 7/8 seed. We literally play the same teams as them for what, 18 games have a better record AND swept them?
 
I suppose but to bleeds point there’s too much emphasis on preseason rankings. Looking at these teams side by side it’s ludicrous that they would be a 1/2 and we would be a 7/8 seed. We literally play the same teams as them for what, 18 games have a better record AND swept them?
No disagreement, but in general I think computers are better for us than “people” rankings.

If we beat ASU & 2 of 3 at home, I think “people” will reward us. Right now we are off the 8/9 line. That’s good. It’s tough needing to basically be perfect to maintain our current projection.
 
I suppose but to bleeds point there’s too much emphasis on preseason rankings. Looking at these teams side by side it’s ludicrous that they would be a 1/2 and we would be a 7/8 seed. We literally play the same teams as them for what, 18 games have a better record AND swept them?
Not just Zona. Look at the rest of the top 15.
 
They just can't falter and it'll be fine. Losses to ASU, USC or Washington can only hurt us while wins against them won't help us. UCLA on the other hand can help if we win or hurt if we lose. If we take care of business and win at least 3 of those and do well in the tournament we'll get a high seed. To me worrying about NETs and Palms and whatever else is out there is an exercise in futility. I'm old school. I don't need a computer to tell me what I see. Just keep winning.
 
Not just Zona. Look at the rest of the top 15.
True. Zona is easy because 75% of our schedule is in common with them. Which makes that comparison especially stupid.

I look at it this way. If an alien came to earth and asked about college basketball, there’s no logical way you’d explain to them why Arizona is a higher ranked team than WSU right now. Yet all the “experts” and their bullshit formulas can justify it. F them.

The bright side is its continuing motivation. If I was a player looking at that shit it would sure put a huge chip on my shoulder. I’m sure KS is using it to his advantage to keep the guys focused and pissed off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedCrimsonandGray
Well Jerry Palm's brackets (CBS) has us at a 6. For what its worth the Bubble Watch column on ESPN moved us from "Should be IN" to "Lock." So that's good.
I agree with you that I have no idea what the Net Rankings are based on. I've been told that although the NCAA selection committee looks at them they aren't the major factor. I also read that the best Net Ranking to not get in the tournament was a 38 and the worst Net Ranking to get in was a 76. So if you're under 40 you will most likely get in but exactly what seed a team gets clearly isn't determined by Net Ranking.
 
Lumardi’s update to 5-seed was mentioned above. Here’s a link. It’s also a sting 5-seed at #18 playing Richmond. SDSU is the current 4-seed pairing.

 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedCrimsonandGray
Lumardi’s update to 5-seed was mentioned above. Here’s a link. It’s also a sting 5-seed at #18 playing Richmond. SDSU is the current 4-seed pairing.

Just took a Quick Look and most projections seem to still have us at 6-7. One puts us against UVA in the first round, which might be interesting. Another has us as an 8 against 9 Gonzaga. While I’d love to beat them in round 1 and shove it up Mark Few’s ass, I don’t think that’s realistic - they don’t deserve a 9.

I don’t want to be a 5 or 7, they’re the most common first round upsets. Also don’t want to be matched up with Richmond, they’ve got a history of early upsets.

But, if we close out the season on a 12 game streak, we’re 25-6 and a lock for top 15. An early conference tournament loss would mean a 5 seed would be worst case. A tournament championship would extend the streak to 15 games at 28-6, and would give us a 3, maybe higher if the right teams lose.

I think at this point, barring a disaster that has us lose 5 straight…we’re in. We don’t want a bad loss, but we’ve got a little breathing room.
 
Pretty good stuff from an ACC coach here. Agree 100%. Margin of victory is stupid, take it out. Big12 has a bunch of teams in because they all scheduled crap non conference teams and waxed them? Ridiculous. Mandate every power 5 plays a certain # of P5 OOC games to be tourney eligible. Weight conferences by W/L record vs other conferences. Simples. This isn’t rocket science.

 
For those that are griping about our NET (and AP) ranking compared to Arizona, it's important to note that Arizona had the following teams in their OOC schedule (current AP shown):

#10 Duke
Michigan State
#32 Wisconsin
#2 Purdue
#36 FAU

All of the above were ranked at the time that Arizona played them. When you look at our OOC schedule, we lost to two of the three decent teams on our schedule and #39 Mississippi State is our best loss. We did the right thing and scheduled a non-conference schedule that allowed our team to come together, but it's also the thing that's keeping us buried deep in the NET rankings.

Now, I will say that it's absolutely ludicrous that Arizona lost to both Stanford and Oregon State. Of course, our gack against ASU the other night kind of kills our moral high ground on that. Struggling to beat a bad USC team in front of our biggest crowd in four years also speaks to glass houses. The great thing about college basketball is that we are going to get our shot in the tourney this year. All whining about rankings aside, we can't lose to some scrub ass team in the tourney and then whine about our seeding. You either win or go home. If we can't beat a #10 seed as a #7 seed (or whatever other matchup we get), what does it really matter?

We are obviously not a team that can win the whole damned thing, but a Sweet 16 run would be a pretty nice season for these guys.
 
Repeating myself again, but these rankings and metrics place way too much emphasis on non-conference games that are played in November and December. The Cougar team that lost to Mississippi State & Santa Clara is not the same team that beat Arizona twice. More emphasis should be placed on today's snapshot, not on games played in 2023.

Glad Cougar
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikalalas
Down to 39 in the NET. We have won 9 of the last 10 games and 12 of the last 14. That's really tough to do, but the NET doesn't (and shouldn't) factor that into their model. It sees 3 point home win over NET 101 $C and calls it a "bad win".

Repeating myself to, but I think the selection committee will see more value in who we are today versus November/December.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coug90
For those that are griping about our NET (and AP) ranking compared to Arizona, it's important to note that Arizona had the following teams in their OOC schedule (current AP shown):

#10 Duke
Michigan State
#32 Wisconsin
#2 Purdue
#36 FAU

All of the above were ranked at the time that Arizona played them. When you look at our OOC schedule, we lost to two of the three decent teams on our schedule and #39 Mississippi State is our best loss. We did the right thing and scheduled a non-conference schedule that allowed our team to come together, but it's also the thing that's keeping us buried deep in the NET rankings.

Now, I will say that it's absolutely ludicrous that Arizona lost to both Stanford and Oregon State. Of course, our gack against ASU the other night kind of kills our moral high ground on that. Struggling to beat a bad USC team in front of our biggest crowd in four years also speaks to glass houses. The great thing about college basketball is that we are going to get our shot in the tourney this year. All whining about rankings aside, we can't lose to some scrub ass team in the tourney and then whine about our seeding. You either win or go home. If we can't beat a #10 seed as a #7 seed (or whatever other matchup we get), what does it really matter?

We are obviously not a team that can win the whole damned thing, but a Sweet 16 run would be a pretty nice season for these guys.

Isaac Jones was SICK, and playing while SICK, during the USC game. Not only that, but Isaac Jones did NOT even practice all week long because of his sickness.

Meanwhile about USC. USC was projected to finish #2 in PAC 12, and goto NCAA tournament. The reason why they haven't IS BECAUSE OF CONSTANT INJURIES TO MAIN PLAYERS.

USC IS FULLY HEALTHY NOW. And they were, are on a semi roll. They beat UCLA because of what I said about USC above, and because of that USC was EXTRA AMPED UP, PLAYED VERY WELL VS WSU.

USC is NOW ALMOST the equivalent of a ARIZONA, NOW, and WSU had to play that with Jones, and Kymany SICK.

You can't go by just WIN LOSS RECORDS, as that DOES NOT ALWAYS TELL THE WHOLE STORY.

USC while technically 11-17 is NOT A 11-17 team IN A WAY, IS NOT PLAYING LIKE A 11-17 team, and is the EQUIVALENT of a NIT 20-11 team NOW, or at least thats what USC is playing like NOW.

And WSU had to play that SICK, etc.

And WSU had to play ASU on the road, WHILE WSU was SICK, after 1 DAY of REST, after the ROAD GAME EXTREMELY CLOSE WIN VS ARIZONA TOOK EVERYTHING OUT OF WSU.

So because of that, IT's UNDERSTANDABLE , SEMI ACCEPTABLE that WSU lost on the ROAD to ASU.

You have to consider MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, CONTEXT, and not just only look at the technical records.

So WSU struggling against 11-17 USC at home, given the MITIGATING above circumstances, is UNDERSTANDABLE, semi acceptable.

And WSU despite that still GUTTED OUT the win, found a way to win.

GREAT, AWESOME TEAMS DO THAT.
 
Last edited:
Down to 39 in the NET. We have won 9 of the last 10 games and 12 of the last 14. That's really tough to do, but the NET doesn't (and shouldn't) factor that into their model. It sees 3 point home win over NET 101 $C and calls it a "bad win".

Repeating myself to, but I think the selection committee will see more value in who we are today versus November/December.

Also the Selection Committee can do some research and find out that WSU WAS SICK IN THE ASU GAME AND HAD TO PLAY SICK ON 1 DAY OF REST, AFTER A ROAD WIN VS ARIZONA TOOK EVERYTHING OUT OF WSU.

And the selection committee can find out that WSU WAS PLAYING WHILE SICK AGAINST A FULLY HEALTHY USC TEAM, THAT ONLY DID NOT FINISH #2 IN CONFERENCE BECAUSE OF INJURIES, AND THAT BEAT UCLA AND THAT DESPITE THAT WSU STILL GUTTED OUT THE WIN AS GREAT AWESOME TEAMS DO.

The selection committee are NOT SLAVES to NET. Yes they use NET and rankings to help GUIDE their selections, but the selection committee does or can find, use info in context and have their own judgement override the NET.
 
Also the Selection Committee can do some research and find out that WSU WAS SICK IN THE ASU GAME AND HAD TO PLAY SICK ON 1 DAY OF REST, AFTER A ROAD WIN VS ARIZONA TOOK EVERYTHING OUT OF WSU.

And the selection committee can find out that WSU WAS PLAYING WHILE SICK AGAINST A FULLY HEALTHY USC TEAM, THAT ONLY DID NOT FINISH #2 IN CONFERENCE BECAUSE OF INJURIES, AND THAT BEAT UCLA AND THAT DESPITE THAT WSU STILL GUTTED OUT THE WIN AS GREAT AWESOME TEAMS DO.

The selection committee are NOT SLAVES to NET. Yes they use NET and rankings to help GUIDE their selections, but the selection committee does or can find, use info in context and have their own judgement override the NET.
NCAA selection committee has 200+ teams to evaluate. They aren’t going to spend a lick of time worrying about who has the flu when we played ASU and USC.

That said, to the person watching the games a few players looked out of sorts and not surprised to hear a big has been going around.
 
NCAA selection committee has 200+ teams to evaluate. They aren’t going to spend a lick of time worrying about who has the flu when we played ASU and USC.

That said, to the person watching the games a few players looked out of sorts and not surprised to hear a big has been going around.
But the Cougs were SICK. SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT