Big East Poll , NET Rankings and Team Sheets

[MarquetteMike1977]

Marquette's NET is 16 Wednesday

[Herman Cain]

Big East Net Rankings as of games of January 24, 2023
New Old
6   7   UConn   
16   15   Marquette   
21   20   Creighton   
25   25   Xavier   
39   40   Providence   
68   68   Seton Hall   
79   79   St. John's
88   87   Villanova
97   97   Butler   
155   152   DePaul   
240   246   Georgetown

January 25 Team Sheets . MU is 25
https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2023/net-teamsheets-plus

[brewcity77]

Well it isn't Feb yet.    Hopefully they continue to lose and miss the tournament.

Their goal has to be .500 or better in the Big 10. 10-10 gives them a good shot, 11-9 and I think they're a lock. They have a ton of winnable games, but that's mostly because the Big 10 is the bubble conference this year. Wisconsin, Penn State, Ohio State, and Northwestern are all in the bubble mix (and UW's first three February opponents) while Michigan (twice in February) is close to that conversation. They also get Rutgers and Purdue at home.

Gard always seems to find a way, so I'm not betting against them just yet.

Annoying Bucky note...according to Shot Quality, Chucky Hepburn should have scored 0.74 points per shot against us. It was his worst game of the season in terms of shot selection. But instead, he averaged 1.9 points per shot, a career high. You can't guard luck, and that was the most rabbit out of his ass performance Hepburn has ever had.

[wisblue]

Marquette's NET is 16 Wednesday

Because of the remaining schedule, MU might be close to its NET ceiling. Unless they win at least 2 of the 3 remaining Quad 1 games, and avoid losing any of the others, I expect that NETto drift down slightly.

It's also going to be hard for MU to rise above the 4 seed line unless some of the teams currently above them fall on hard times. Those 6 Big 12 teams currently in the top 17 are going to have a lot to say about MU's landing spot as they battle with each other.

[DoctorV]

Because of the remaining schedule, MU might be close to its NET ceiling. Unless they win at least 2 of the 3 remaining Quad 1 games, and avoid losing any of the others, I expect that NETto drift down slightly.

It's also going to be hard for MU to rise above the 4 seed line unless some of the teams currently above them fall on hard times. Those 6 Big 12 teams currently in the top 17 are going to have a lot to say about MU's landing spot as they battle with each other.

Depends on the margin of victory on those expected wins.

Of all those B12 teams, I'd assume the committee would try to not match up too many potential 2v3 B12 matchups, which could play in Marquette's favor if they are neck and neck for the 3 line with one of the B12 squads.

Those teams will cannibalize each other quite a bit as well, so a few should fall some.

It'll take a monumental effort to move up to the 3 line, but I don't think Marquette can only lose 1 game to get there.
They can afford 2 more Ls imo, especially if they still win the BE and if the metrics stay around the top 15 or better

[wisblue]

Depends on the margin of victory on those expected wins.

Of all those B12 teams, I'd assume the committee would try to not match up too many potential 2v3 B12 matchups, which could play in Marquette's favor if they are neck and neck for the 3 line with one of the B12 squads.

Those teams will cannibalize each other quite a bit as well, so a few should fall some.

It'll take a monumental effort to move up to the 3 line, but I don't think Marquette can only lose 1 game to get there.
They can afford 2 more Ls imo, especially if they still win the BE and if the metrics stay around the top 15 or better

I don't think we really disagree much, if at all.

It should be easy enough to separate the Big 12 teams to avoid 2-3 matchups in the third round. They likely aren't all going to end up in the top 16, and if 4 of them are in the 2-3 seed range they can all be put into separate regions.

I'm also not sure how much impact margin of victory has in the overall scheme of things. I don't think it helps as much as another Quad 1 win.

Selfishly, I'm less interested in MUs seed (as long as they stay in the 3-6 range) than where they are located. I'm going to be in Orlando visiting one of our alumni daughters that week and we would love to see MU play there.

Because the current highest seeds would likely be placed in other locations, it is looking like Orlando will have no 1 or 2 seeds, and maybe no 3 seeds. As of today, Albany and Orlando look like the most likely destinations for an MU team with a 4 seed.

[DoctorV]

Yea when I typed that I wasn't sure if it made a ton of sense but I hit post anyway.

We can agree on one thing though- Orlando placement would be great!

I'd definitely travel to spend the first weekend there.

Last season Brew did some nice work with potential/likely destinations for Marquette.
As it gets closer I will be looking out for that and probably book hotels ahead in the 3/4 most likely locations and then cancel the ones that don't hit.

I've never traveled for a Marquette tourney game, this is the year

[PointWarrior]

Because of the remaining schedule, MU might be close to its NET ceiling. Unless they win at least 2 of the 3 remaining Quad 1 games, and avoid losing any of the others, I expect that NETto drift down slightly.

It's also going to be hard for MU to rise above the 4 seed line unless some of the teams currently above them fall on hard times. Those 6 Big 12 teams currently in the top 17 are going to have a lot to say about MU's landing spot as they battle with each other.

I am sure someone on this board can model the end NET result for each of the possible 1024 W/L combinations of our remaining 10 games and report back the high, low, and median NET result for the boards viewing pleasure.

[UWW2MU]

I am sure someone on this board can model the end NET result for each of the possible 1024 W/L losses combinations of our remaining 10 games and report back the high, low, and median NET result for the boards viewing pleasure.

It's impossible to say because NET takes factors other unpredictable data points such as offensive and defensive efficiencies, other teams' performances, etc. to come up with the NET ranking.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It's impossible to say because NET takes factors other unpredictable data points such as offensive and defensive efficiencies, other teams' performances, etc. to come up with the NET ranking.

He's not being serious

[rocky_warrior]

He's not being serious

Sure, but Torvik actually provides tools to do such a thing...High (win out) 7, Low (lose out) 94, Median (do about what's expected) 14. 

[UWW2MU]

He's not being serious

I assumed he was kidding about running over 1000 iterations, but I see so many people who don't really understand what the NET is that I thought he might have really thought it was calculable.   Had to be sure!  Who knows what might have happened if I was wrong!   

[rocky_warrior]

I assumed he was kidding about running over 1000 iterations, but I see so many people who don't really understand what the NET is that I thought he might have really thought it was calculable.   Had to be sure!  Who knows what might have happened if I was wrong!   

Great, now I don't know ball, or NET.  Not sure how I'll survive.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Sure, but Torvik actually provides tools to do such a thing...High (win out) 7, Low (lose out) 94, Median (do about what's expected) 14.

They do...but it's not an actual calculation. It's a rough guess. There are too many factors that go into NET (not to mention that we don't know everything that goes into NET) to calculate out like that.

[UWW2MU]

Great, now I don't know ball, or NET.  Not sure how I'll survive.

You could always follow pro golfing?

[rocky_warrior]

They do...but it's not an actual calculation. It's a rough guess. There are too many factors that go into NET (not to mention that we don't know everything that goes into NET) to calculate out like that.

Right.  But at this point in the season, It'd be hard to deviate from the 7-94 range, even with the millions of variables from other teams performance.  And even doing what's expected should still land us at 14 or 15.  Not sure why y'all want to act like it's inconceivable to estimate right now.

[wadesworld]

Great, now I don't know ball, or NET.  Not sure how I'll survive.

I've never known ball.  I'm still standing.  You'll be alright.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Right.  But at this point in the season, It'd be hard to deviate from the 7-94 range, even with the millions of variables from other teams performance.  And even doing what's expected should still land us at 14 or 15.  Not sure why y'all want to act like it's inconceivable to estimate right now.

It's not about it being inconcievable to estimate. It's that PointWarrior didn't make the post to actually ask for an estimate. He made it as part of his "computer rankings are dumb" schtick. Unless I misinterpreted in which case, mea culpa

[UWW2MU]

Just to be clear, we're only having this conversation because they decided to not schedule a game until Saturday and we don't know how to discuss anything else in the meantime, right??

[rocky_warrior]

Hah, ok.  Regardless of seriousness of the question/proposal, I was curious about the answer, and found the results interesting.

Additionally, I was curious what the minimum MU could win and still make the tourney (theoretically), as long as they win Butler & DePaul @ home, and @ GTown...they could still make the tourney.  I don't expect that, or want to test the theory, but it's interesting.  NET would be ~37 by going 3-7 in the last 10 with those Ws.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Hah, ok.  Regardless of seriousness of the question/proposal, I was curious about the answer, and found the results interesting.

Additionally, I was curious what the minimum MU could win and still make the tourney (theoretically), as long as they win Butler & DePaul @ home, and @ GTown...they could still make the tourney.  I don't expect that, or want to test the theory, but it's interesting.  NET would be ~37 by going 3-7 in the last 10 with those Ws.

If we have an NET of 37 on selection Sunday, we won't even be close to the bubble so likely means we could even lose one or two more. We're pretty much a lock but agreed, let's not test that theory.

[PointWarrior]

Right.  But at this point in the season, It'd be hard to deviate from the 7-94 range, even with the millions of variables from other teams performance.  And even doing what's expected should still land us at 14 or 15.  Not sure why y'all want to act like it's inconceivable to estimate right now.

I was kidding about someone on scoop running a 1024 outcome simulation. But it is cool that Torvik does predictors...

[rocky_warrior]

If we have an NET of 37 on selection Sunday, we won't even be close to the bubble so likely means we could even lose one or two more. We're pretty much a lock but agreed, let's not test that theory.

Maybe his predictor is bunk, but if you flip any of those 3 to a loss, NET drops from ~37 -> ~63.  So...lets win those 3, and a lot more

[MU82]

Maybe his predictor is bunk

[brewcity77]

Because of the remaining schedule, MU might be close to its NET ceiling. Unless they win at least 2 of the 3 remaining Quad 1 games, and avoid losing any of the others, I expect that NETto drift down slightly.

It's also going to be hard for MU to rise above the 4 seed line unless some of the teams currently above them fall on hard times. Those 6 Big 12 teams currently in the top 17 are going to have a lot to say about MU's landing spot as they battle with each other.

Barring some big results, I agree. Especially as our predictive metrics are likely peaking. I think we can get to a 3, and if some of those ahead of us slip that will be just as helpful, if not more, than us doing our part. Win out and there's an argument we can play our way up to a 1, but digging into our resume I think a 1/2 is highly unlikely, even if we win all the way to MSG.