RPI/NET

[BCPanther]

Through Games Jan. 02 2020

53 UNI
87 Indiana St.
108 Bradley
130 Missouri St.
144 Loyola
151 Valparaiso
154 Drake
177 Illinois St.
212 Evansville
258 Southern Ill.

UNI jumped 9 spots thanks to Colorado beating Oregon last night.

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

Nice 28 spot jump for ISUr

[Drakey]

These just don't matter anymore for a mid major. Out of curiosity I went through and did a comparison of NET v RPI of the Power 5 conferences the other day. Without exception the average NET for teams in those conferences is 10-15 places higher compared to RPI. Still don't know the formula, but they figured out a way to raise the numbers for those conferences across the board.

[mvfcfan]

UNI is still 27th in RPI for a comparison.

I actually think the NET is rigged for the big schools. How do you drop from 22nd to 66th losing a road conference game, but only drop 10 or so spots in RPI? I actually think the key to having a great NET is to schedule at least 10 home games against low majors and win. That's what most of these big programs are doing.

As a conference we have to quit taking buy games. Home and homes are fine, but taking buy games, especially against A10 programs needs to stop.

[VUGrad1314]

I wholeheatedly disagree with your notion on buy games. We absolutely should take them. Go into their gym and show them how dangerous we are and would be in March. That's what the MVC is about: winning in March and I see no problem in trying to give teams a preview of that in the regular season while getting paid for it to help fund our athletic departments. I agree that it sucks that we have to take buy games against A10 teams but do you know what can help stop that? Beat them in their gyms consistently and beat them out for at larges. It is a testament to how tough this conference is that ISUr was able to beat UNI but that is very frustrating as well since we really need them to do well in conference to regain multibid status which is an important goal for this conference. I hope it's not a repeat of 2015 for UNI in conference season because there's no second team to fall back on to get multiple bids this year. Personally I think the A10 is ripe to be raided soon by other conferences. Of course the drawback there is that all it will do is put more distance between the top 7 conferences and the rest of us but maybe that's a climate we can excel in as the best of the rest.

[Adunk33]

NET was rolled out for the very reason to provide a "objective statistic" for why more Power 5 schools get in over everyone else. Mid Majors had figured out how to beat the RPI system so they changed the metric. There are examples all over the place but one of note is that 16-17 ISU team who was 27-6 with an RPI in the 30s or less and stayed at home for the tournament. I don't remember if NET was in play that year or not- I feel like it was.

In the eyes of the NET, say you play 4 games. It is better to go 0-4 against Q1 than 4-0 against Q3-Q4. It is a biased metric that provides better opportunity for the teams to consistently get to play against Q1 opponents. But the way to enhance your quadrant rating is to either win all of your games (UNI) or play enough P5 schools that you clearly have played a "tough schedule." For example, Seton Hall is 9-4 with losses Iowa State and Rutgers (bad losses), and Michigan State and Oregon (good losses) with a top 25 NET rating. Liberty is 15-1 with a loss to LSU (36 NET rating) and has a 38 rating themselves.

With this metric, it is less about your W/L record and more about who you play. So, if an MVC team wants to be respected in the NET, taking buy games against power conference teams is critical, even if you lose. Unless, you play a bunch of respectable MM and win every game.

[E-Villan]

I wholeheatedly disagree with your notion on buy games. We absolutely should take them. Go into their gym and show them how dangerous we are and would be in March. That's what the MVC is about: winning in March and I see no problem in trying to give teams a preview of that in the regular season while getting paid for it to help fund our athletic departments. I agree that it sucks that we have to take buy games against A10 teams but do you know what can help stop that? Beat them in their gyms consistently and beat them out for at larges. It is a testament to how tough this conference is that ISUr was able to beat UNI but that is very frustrating as well since we really need them to do well in conference to regain multibid status which is an important goal for this conference. I hope it's not a repeat of 2015 for UNI in conference season because there's no second team to fall back on to get multiple bids this year. Personally I think the A10 is ripe to be raided soon by other conferences. Of course the drawback there is that all it will do is put more distance between the top 7 conferences and the rest of us but maybe that's a climate we can excel in as the best of the rest.

Wholeheartedly disagree. If the A-10 is putting any distance between them and us, it is entirely on perception and east-coast bias. Taking buy games from them does nothing but perpetuate that impression. There are a few decent programs in that league, as well as some pretty weak sisters.

Taking buy games, even from the top programs in that league, does not help the NET enough to offset the hit to our perception..the old eyeball test that clowns like Billy Packer love. The reality right now is everyone outside of the P5 and possibly BE is a mid-major in some aspect. Taking buy games from a MM is something for cash-strapped schools in conferences like the SWAC. Do we give buy games to programs in the MAC? If you need a buy game, call a P5.

[mvfcfan]

I did a little research and the MVC went 2-8 against A10 programs. Breaking that down we went 0-5 on the road, 1-1 at home (both Loyola), and 1-2 on neutral site.

Yeah it's nice to say that we should win those buy games and take a paycheck, but 0-5 is the reality. It does nothing to help our conference's perception. In fact it actually hurts it. If our programs really need money that bad that they are scheduling A10 programs for paychecks, then I seriously doubt the MVC will ever be more than a perennial one bid league.

I also agree with E-Villain. If we need buy games then take them against P5 programs, not against conferences that we want to be perceived as equals with.

[ahunte1]

I did a little research and the MVC went 2-8 against A10 programs. Breaking that down we went 0-5 on the road, 1-1 at home (both Loyola), and 1-2 on neutral site.

Yeah it's nice to say that we should win those buy games and take a paycheck, but 0-5 is the reality. It does nothing to help our conference's perception. In fact it actually hurts it. If our programs really need money that bad that they are scheduling A10 programs for paychecks, then I seriously doubt the MVC will ever be more than a perennial one bid league.

I also agree with E-Villain. If we need buy games then take them against P5 programs, not against conferences that we want to be perceived as equals with.

I'm with you guys. If you need to get bought for your budget, so be it, but the goal should be to play H&H with peer conferences and neutral site/tourneys with the high majors.

Both of Loyola's A10 games were part of home and homes.

[Drakey]

Does anybody know for sure how NET works? While I can see the results, I can;t figure out how they get there. If a team from the Big Ten and played the exact same schedule as Illinois State, and had the same results, would they really have the same NET rating? I think they would not, but have no way of proving it. Do they even clim that it is neutral?