NET Rankings

[tribecalledquest]

Some people just don't get it. I assume younger fans who weren't around much when these things were done more fairly. They just don't realize that every change that has been made in selection criteria has been for the sole purpose of including more P5 teams and excluding everybody else. Probably no reason to discuss further. You either understand or you don't.

I think people mis remember how the NCAA Tournament field looked in years past. There was never a time where a ton of non Power schools got at-large berths. Not on any consistent basis. I did a very quick look back.

Here's how many non P6, blue bloods, whatever you want to call them at large berths there were.

2023- 4
2022- 6
2021- 5 (Drake)
2017 - 4
2007 - 5
2001- 5
1997 - 7
1993 -7

I suppose you could argue in the 90's there was MAYBE one or two more - but the power leagues weren't quite as big then. I guess if you want to go further back than 30 years ago and look, that's fine, but that's not really relevant.

There are teams on the bubble every year. This doesn't change. But if/when the Valley is a legit Top 10 league it will get two teams in way more often than not.

Look at the Mountain West last year. The A-10 has done it as well. Win games. Be a better league.

[BEARZ77]

You can make numbers say alot of things; for example the difference between 1993 and 2023 is a 43% drop. Sounds different that way. But the numbers will vary, it's the process that is the issue. It's the age old argument of best 64[68] teams vs the 64 that earned their way . It was never about the top 64 or of course you wouldn't include a lot of conferences. The original idea of the NCAA tourney was to answer questions between teams that didn't get to play each other, ie , were the teams on the West coast as good as Eastern teams. That's why the brackets were assembled that way originally. I would argue that there is no question to be answered about an 8th place BIG or SEC team; they've played against like teams and were found to be mediocre among their constituents . That they could win games in the tourney is irrelevant; they've already had a chance to show who they were and did so. But we don't know where a Sunbelt champ who won their league but lost in their tourney stands among the SEC and BIG. They've earned their place by being superior to their constituents , now where do they stand among those in conferences above them. You can say they had their chance in their conference tourney and lost, but that's true for every at large team.

It's not going to change, we all know that; in fact it will only move more the other way as time goes on. I just think it's disingenuous to act as if the process is fair and equal when it's clearly not.

[tribecalledquest]

You can make numbers say alot of things; for example the difference between 1993 and 2023 is a 43% drop. Sounds different that way. But the numbers will vary, it's the process that is the issue. It's the age old argument of best 64[68] teams vs the 64 that earned their way . It was never about the top 64 or of course you wouldn't include a lot of conferences. The original idea of the NCAA tourney was to answer questions between teams that didn't get to play each other, ie , were the teams on the West coast as good as Eastern teams. That's why the brackets were assembled that way originally. I would argue that there is no question to be answered about an 8th place BIG or SEC team; they've played against like teams and were found to be mediocre among their constituents . That they could win games in the tourney is irrelevant; they've already had a chance to show who they were and did so. But we don't know where a Sunbelt champ who won their league but lost in their tourney stands among the SEC and BIG. They've earned their place by being superior to their constituents , now where do they stand among those in conferences above them. You can say they had their chance in their conference tourney and lost, but that's true for every at large team.

It's not going to change, we all know that; in fact it will only move more the other way as time goes on. I just think it's disingenuous to act as if the process is fair and equal when it's clearly not.

Of course it’s not fair and equal. There is too much money involved.

If people want fair and equal they need to find a different sport to watch. D1 college athletics isn’t it.

[BEARZ77]

I agree with you. I can live with it not being fair and equal; what I take issue with is people acting as if it is fair and equal and dissing mid majors for not making the NCAA tourney. It's amazing what people can and will tolerate if the inequities are just acknowledged , it's the denial and attempt to couch it as something else that is insulting.

[MissouriValleyUnite]

Dec 14

1 XII
2 B1G
3 SEC
4 Big East
5 ACC
6 PAC
7 MWC
8 A-10
9 MVC
10 AAC


13 Indiana St
49 Drake
96 Bradley
99 UIC
105 Missouri St
113 Evansville
115 SIU
140 Belmont
145 UNI
192 Murray St
199 Illinois St
287 Valparaiso

[AD1770]

Dec 14

1 XII
2 B1G
3 SEC
4 Big East
5 ACC
6 PAC
7 MWC
8 A-10
9 MVC
10 AAC


13 Indiana St
49 Drake
96 Bradley
99 UIC
105 Missouri St
113 Evansville
115 SIU
140 Belmont
145 UNI
192 Murray St
199 Illinois St
287 Valparaiso

Nice. 7 in the top 115, 9 in the top 145, and 11 in the top 200.

[BCPanther]

Dec 14

1 XII
2 B1G
3 SEC
4 Big East
5 ACC
6 PAC
7 MWC
8 A-10
9 MVC
10 AAC


13 Indiana St
49 Drake
96 Bradley
99 UIC
105 Missouri St
113 Evansville
115 SIU
140 Belmont
145 UNI
192 Murray St
199 Illinois St
287 Valparaiso

Nice. 7 in the top 115, 9 in the top 145, and 11 in the top 200.

And Valpo too!

[MissouriValleyUnite]

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/ ... conference

Dec 17

1 XII
2 B1G
3 SEC
4 BIG EAST
5 ACC
6 PAC
7 MWC
8 A-10
9 MVC
10 AAC


14 Indiana St (-1)
68 Drake (-19)
94 Evansville (+19)
96 UIC (+3)
104 SIU (+11)
115 Missouri St (-10)
130 Bradley (-34)
136 UNI (+9)
147 Belmont (-7)
206 Illinois St (-7)
247 Murray St (-55)
312 Valparaiso (-25)

[Kyle_Saluki_17]

Still in 9th after this dreadful week. That’s surprising. We need our teams in the 100-150 range to numb more towards that 70-100 number. It would be huge for the league if 2-3 teams could do that!

[Drakey]

I didn't realize until this year that a MAJOR factor in NET is how you perform against crappy teams. I think the P5 has figured this out and now play only each other or really bad teams and make sure they blow them out. Drake fell 19 slots by beating Grambling by 12. This should be a non-factor, but it is clearly very important in the NET right now, and from what I have seen more significant than beating teams with higher NET rankings. Probably makes it harder for mid-majors to schedule the worst teams as those games are all bought up by the P5. I can't believe they have made the victory margin over unimportant game as the primary factor. I know victory margin was NOT a factor at one point a few years ago. Coaches can no longer afford to clear their bench in these games or work on various weak aspects of their games.