OTOH, it is a one game season for most of them. Win CCG or go to NIT/stay home. My wife is a Toledo grad and I'm a Toledo native. So I follow them. They've averaged ~22 wins for the past 12 years but they cannot win the CCG.
One game season
2022-23 NET ratings updates
- Thread starter Styre
- Start date
One game season
The only real solution to the entire issue of this rating/ranking bs is to add an extra weekend to the tournament and, as they do in so many states' high school tournaments, let everyone in. There are currently 353 Division I basketball teams. The format would be similar to the current 64+4. At the beginning of the 1st tournament week there would be enough play-in games (from the absolute bottom feeders, measured by record w/o analytics) to winnow the field to 256. Then 256 to 128 and Thursday-Friday, followed by 128 to 64 on Saturday-Sunday. Every team gets a shot to play in the event. Perhaps more importantly, every team gets a piece of the $$ pie to cover the expenses of traveling to a tournament site-- potentially reducing the financial incentives for teams to cheat on the rules? Either way, spreading the wealth.
Would it be a much harder path for the teams at the bottom of the bracket? Absolutely, but that's what they get for sucking in the regular season. But at least they have a chance, and we don't have to listen to the 69th and 70th teams bitching about not getting a fair shot because of analytics, prejudice against a particular conference, or whatever. Wouldn't it be cool to see a team that had a star player get hurt early in the season, but who was able to come back by March, get hot and beat a bunch of blue bloods because they got a shot?
Would it be a much harder path for the teams at the bottom of the bracket? Absolutely, but that's what they get for sucking in the regular season. But at least they have a chance, and we don't have to listen to the 69th and 70th teams bitching about not getting a fair shot because of analytics, prejudice against a particular conference, or whatever. Wouldn't it be cool to see a team that had a star player get hurt early in the season, but who was able to come back by March, get hot and beat a bunch of blue bloods because they got a shot?
I personally find it a bit weird to think the little guy has it easier. It's kind of the logic that made (a few) people dismiss the brilliance of Loyola over the past few years just because they were not in a power conference.
I'll leave it at that. Just wanted to add one more thing that I think should happen, which is making the conference tournament performances irrelevant.
It does not matter to the Toledos, win the tournament or go home. But there are a few teams on the bubble from mid majors. Mountain West over the last years has had a few. And those don't get to impress with some win against a ranked team. Because they don't get a shot at it. While the power conference bubble teams can always make a run and add quad whatever wins.
That’s the point of being in a power conference, duh. You have to play a far tougher schedule but have a chance to actually get good wins too. I’ve never seen the problem of this, power conference teams are generally far superior to all but the elite mid major teams
I appreciate that you took the time to look up all those teams (some of which are definitely not mid-majors, by the way) but I think we see it fairly differently.
There is zero doubt in my mind that the NCAA, being governed by television ratings and money, does whatever it can to cater to the markets and dollars that it prefers. The NET thing is all about justifying their decisions.
Hell, Duke used to get assigned to a regional in North Carolina or Virginia every year for 20 years, just so Coach K was guaranteed to be in the Sweet 16. (or so they thought) But I don't want to digress...
I'm thinking mid-majors are American, A10, Mountain West, West Coast, Conf USA ,Missouri Valley... maybe the MAC.
The NCAA hammers teams that might lose on the road against a couple of non-conference opponents (and biased referees), but then go on to dominate their leagues. They can't get the NET numbers and if they lose in the conference tournament, they're OUT.
For me the tournament is for the national championship and I know damned well that a 10-10 team from the Big Ten is not the best team in the country, so why would I give them an undeserved opportunity?
Oh right, for the TV money.
Another thing you might want to rationalize is the rule change that allows transfers to play right away. Who benefits? Oh right, the Power 6. The A10 was gutted this past year with most of its best players transferring to Power 6 schools.
And then there's the NIL money. Who benefits? Oh right, the Power 6 teams that used to have to cheat to attract recruits.
@PurpleWhiteBoy thankfully, the NCAA tournament is *not* about finding “the best team”, in the way that the college football playoff has tried to push.
The only thing the NCAA tournament does is identify the only team capable of winning six games in a row in a seeded bracket in March and April.
The only thing the NCAA tournament does is identify the only team capable of winning six games in a row in a seeded bracket in March and April.
Last edited:
I know these are supposed to be rhetorical questions, but the answer to "Who benefits?" in both cases is "The players." These are not rules that some shadowy power structure gleefully enacted to benefit the Power 6. These are rules that the NCAA was dragged kicking and screaming into implementing in the face of lawsuits and threats of congressional action. The NCAA kept rules in place for as long as they possible could, at the great expense of the student-athletes, for the benefit of the little guys.
All the teams in smaller leagues DO get their chances through their conference tourneys which are not as loaded with high end teams as the power6.. Florida Atlantic earned a net rating of 19 by going 27-2, and yet they didn't play a schedule anywhere as tough as any power6 team, so I'd say the formula has been more than fair to them.
I mean which schools benefit.
In all cases it is the Power 6.
The NIL stuff legitimizes the financial rewards that the cheater schools made a habit of using.
Sure some players will benefit. The vast majority will not.
I don't want to get into a whole NIL debate, but I'm sure you would agree that the people who are paying the athletes are a) acting in their own interests and b) benefiting more than the players they pay.
Follow the money. TV Money motivates the Power 6. The Power 6 dominates the NCAA. The rules change to the benefit of the Power 6.
Sure, but that is a completely different point from what you were saying before. The rich and powerful generally find ways to benefit from changes and from the status quo. Power begets power, and wealth begets wealth. You said that the NCAA made the changes in order to benefit the power 6 programs. That is just false. The NCAA made the changes against their will in the face of lawsuits and potential congressional action. You assigned a motivation to the NCAA that was never there. In fact, they fought it every step of the way.
I know the NCAA fought against NIL because they had set the recruiting rules and chased violators for years. I don't know how the money worked for jersey sales and video games and all that, where the players obviously were excluded, but I thought the conferences pushed back against the NCAA, or sort of left them to fight the NIL battle on their own.
With the win over Rutgers, NU has jumped up to #38 in the NET rankings. Bracket Matrix has us as a 7-seed in the NCAAs.
All Big Ten Tournament games are neutral site games. If we face Illinois (33) on Friday, that will be a Quad 1 game. If we face Penn State (56), that is presently a Quad 2, unless they jump into the top 50 after beating Illinois, in which case it would also be a Quad 1.
QUAD 1 (7-5)
H #5 Purdue - W
A #26 Maryland - L
H #29 Indiana - W
A #29 Indiana - W
A #31 Michigan State - W
N #32 Auburn - L
A #33 Illinois - L
A #37 Iowa - L
A #40 Rutgers - W
N #44 Liberty - W
A #54 Michigan - L
A #63 Ohio State - W
QUAD 2 (4-5)
H #40 Rutgers - L
H #33 Illinois - W
H #37 Iowa - W
H #54 Michigan - L
H #56 Penn State - L
H #58 Pittsburgh - L
H #63 Ohio State - L
A #78 Wisconsin - W
A #92 Nebraska - W
QUAD 3 (2-0)
H #78 Wisconsin - W
A #235 Georgetown - W
QUAD 4 (8-0)
H #172 DePaul - W
H #180 Brown - W
H #231 Minnesota - W
H #236 Purdue Fort Wayne - W
H #248 Northern Illinois - W
H #277 Prairie View A&M - W
H #285 UIC - W
H #301 Chicago State - W
All Big Ten Tournament games are neutral site games. If we face Illinois (33) on Friday, that will be a Quad 1 game. If we face Penn State (56), that is presently a Quad 2, unless they jump into the top 50 after beating Illinois, in which case it would also be a Quad 1.
QUAD 1 (7-5)
H #5 Purdue - W
A #26 Maryland - L
H #29 Indiana - W
A #29 Indiana - W
A #31 Michigan State - W
N #32 Auburn - L
A #33 Illinois - L
A #37 Iowa - L
A #40 Rutgers - W
N #44 Liberty - W
A #54 Michigan - L
A #63 Ohio State - W
QUAD 2 (4-5)
H #40 Rutgers - L
H #33 Illinois - W
H #37 Iowa - W
H #54 Michigan - L
H #56 Penn State - L
H #58 Pittsburgh - L
H #63 Ohio State - L
A #78 Wisconsin - W
A #92 Nebraska - W
QUAD 3 (2-0)
H #78 Wisconsin - W
A #235 Georgetown - W
QUAD 4 (8-0)
H #172 DePaul - W
H #180 Brown - W
H #231 Minnesota - W
H #236 Purdue Fort Wayne - W
H #248 Northern Illinois - W
H #277 Prairie View A&M - W
H #285 UIC - W
H #301 Chicago State - W
So absolute worst case scenario is we finish the year with a winning record in Quad 1, an even .500 in quad 1 and 2 combined, and perfect in quad 3 and 4. Not too shabby.
This team deserves a 6 seed, not a 7, come on committee!
How many readers on this Board thought last fall, before the season started, that there would be an argument at the close of the regular season about whether or not this team should be a 6 seed rather than a seven seed?
Let's sit back and enjoy wherever they want to send us. Our road warriors can play with anyone, anywhere. Congrats to CC, his staff, and this incredible group of players who made the pundits who picked them 13th in a 14 team conference look like idiots.
If I had to guess, one more win (ideally over IL, but possibly PSU too) gets us onto the 6 line, as long as we don't get totally blown out on Saturday. A loss on Friday and I think we probably end up at 7. But who knows. 6 is better than 7, it is easier to beat an 11 and a 3 than a 10 and a 2.
I’m holding out for wins over Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue to get the five!
Yes - and I realize we're getting ahead of ourselves. But a #3 in the second round is a helluva lot more palatable than a 2 seed. JMO.
That probably gets us to 4 and we avoid the dreaded 5-12 matchup
Do we want to acknowledge not wanting the dreaded #5 seed? Like the Bermuda Triangle, that seed is uncomfortable at best.
I think there's a way to end up at .500 in Quad 1, but basically, yeah. It's a very solid resume.
Also, I know people complain about the NET system, but it's a hell of a lot better than the old RPI system. We're currently RPI 62, which in the old system would have us very worried right now that we wouldn't make the tournament at all. And that's ridiculous.
Why stop now? Just what it took to get us into the double by was unreal. And had we not won yesterday we were a 9 seed. Never seen that much of a difference
Here's our final resume, for the record. We finished at NET #41, which wasn't an NCAA guarantee in itself - #40 Rutgers and #43 Oklahoma State both missed the tournament - but our strong Quad 1 record, second-place B1G finish, and 21 total wins left no doubt, earning us a 7-seed.
QUAD 1 (7-6)
H #5 Purdue - W
H #30 Indiana - W
A #30 Indiana - W
A #31 Maryland - L
N #32 Auburn - L
A #33 Michigan State - W
A #34 Illinois - L
A #39 Iowa - L
A #40 Rutgers - W
N #44 Liberty - W
N #48 Penn State - L
A #52 Ohio State - W
A #61 Michigan - L
QUAD 2 (4-5)
H #34 Illinois - W
H #39 Iowa - W
H #40 Rutgers - L
H #48 Penn State - L
H #52 Ohio State - L
H #61 Michigan - L
H #67 Pittsburgh - L
A #80 Wisconsin - W
A #92 Nebraska - W
QUAD 3 (1-0)
H #80 Wisconsin - W
QUAD 4 (9-0)
H #163 DePaul - W
H #183 Brown - W
H #220 Minnesota - W
H #237 Purdue Fort Wayne - W
A #243 Georgetown - W
H #252 Northern Illinois - W
H #278 Prairie View A&M - W
H #285 UIC - W
H #299 Chicago State - W
QUAD 1 (7-6)
H #5 Purdue - W
H #30 Indiana - W
A #30 Indiana - W
A #31 Maryland - L
N #32 Auburn - L
A #33 Michigan State - W
A #34 Illinois - L
A #39 Iowa - L
A #40 Rutgers - W
N #44 Liberty - W
N #48 Penn State - L
A #52 Ohio State - W
A #61 Michigan - L
QUAD 2 (4-5)
H #34 Illinois - W
H #39 Iowa - W
H #40 Rutgers - L
H #48 Penn State - L
H #52 Ohio State - L
H #61 Michigan - L
H #67 Pittsburgh - L
A #80 Wisconsin - W
A #92 Nebraska - W
QUAD 3 (1-0)
H #80 Wisconsin - W
QUAD 4 (9-0)
H #163 DePaul - W
H #183 Brown - W
H #220 Minnesota - W
H #237 Purdue Fort Wayne - W
A #243 Georgetown - W
H #252 Northern Illinois - W
H #278 Prairie View A&M - W
H #285 UIC - W
H #299 Chicago State - W
WIth our 7 seed and 28 overall, the committee basically ended up splitting the difference between our sketchy NET and predictive ratings and our top 15 resume.
Similar threads
