NET Ranking: On March 17, Iowa is #43. How NET is Determined & What's a QUAD 1, 2, 3 & 4 Win/Loss
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
what I find interesting (saw this on another site) is that within the last week they are now splitting Quad 1 and Quad 2 up into further divisions.
For example, Quad 1 wins/losses are now listed in 2 different groupings:
Home 1-15/Neutral 1-25/Road 1-40
and
Home 16-30/Neutral 26-50/Road 41-75
They list the overall record for Quad 1 games as a whole but the individual games are shown in the 2 distinct groupings which I can't help but think is essentially creating 6 different tiers instead of just the 4 Quadrants.
For example, Quad 1 wins/losses are now listed in 2 different groupings:
Home 1-15/Neutral 1-25/Road 1-40
and
Home 16-30/Neutral 26-50/Road 41-75
They list the overall record for Quad 1 games as a whole but the individual games are shown in the 2 distinct groupings which I can't help but think is essentially creating 6 different tiers instead of just the 4 Quadrants.
Iowa was #25 today in the NET RANKINGS before the Minnesota game.
Tomorrow's rankings will reflect this:
To date, WHAT FOLLOWS are the Iowa (16-5) quadrant wins & losses. NOTE that:
* The date of the opponent's NET Ranking is listed.
* Similar to the NET ranking, a quad 1 win today might not be one in March.
SORTING OF #25 (NET Rank) IOWA'S RESULTS (16-5) INTO THE 4 QUADS:
Quadrant 1 (3-5): Home vs a 1-30 team, Neutral site vs 1-50, Away vs 1-75.
WINS
# 24 on Jan 16 (H) Iowa State
# 10 on Jan 16 (H) Nebraska
# 58 on Jan 16 (A) Northwestern
LOSSES
# 20 on Jan 16 (H) Wisconsin
#7 on Jan 16 (A) Michigan State
#17 on Jan 16 (A) Purdue
#6 on Jan 17 Michigan State (H)
#63 on Jan 17 Minnesota (A)
Quadrant 2 (5-0): Home vs a 31-75, Neutral site vs 51-100, Away vs 76-135.
WINS
#77 on Jan 16 (N) Oregon
#88 on Jan 16 (N) UConn
#53 on Jan 16 (H) Pittsburgh
# 36 on Jan 16 (H) Ohio State
#84 on Jan 17 (A) Penn State
Quadrant 3 (1-0): Home vs a 76-160, Neutral site vs 101-200, Away vs 135-240.
WINS
#99 on Jan 17 Illinois (H)
Quadrant 4 (7-0): Home vs a 161-353, Neutral vs 201-353, Away vs 241-353
WINS
#234 on Jan 16 (H) UMKC
#192 on Jan 16 (H) Green Bay
#324 on Jan 16 (H) Alabama State
#217 on Jan 16 (N) UNI
#269 on Jan 16 (H) Western Carolina
#343 on Jan 16 (H) Savannah State
#316 on Jan 16 (H) Bryant
10 games left on the schedule:
Quadrant 1 (7 games): Home vs a 1-30 team, Neutral site vs 1-50, Away vs 1-75
#2 on Jan 17 Michigan (H)
#30 on Jan 17 Indiana (A)
#21 on Jan 17 Maryland (H)
#30 on Jan 17 Indiana (H)
#36 on Jan 17 Ohio State (A)
#22 on Jan 17 Wisconsin (A)
#11 on Jan 17 Nebraska (A)
.
Quadrant 2 (1 game): Home vs a 31-75, Neutral site vs 51-100, Away vs 76-135.
#59 on Jan 17 Northwestern (H)
Quadrant 3 (2 games): Home vs a 76-160, Neutral site vs 101-200, Away vs 135-240.
#136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (A)
#136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (H)
Quadrant 4 (0 games): Home vs a 161-353, Neutral vs 201-353, Away vs 241-353
NONE LEFT ON THE SCHEDULE
_______________________________
Previous NET Rankings for Iowa:
#22 on Jan 23
#25 on Jan 22
#25 on Jan 19
#24 on Jan 18
#29 on Jan 13
#35 on Jan 12
_______________________________
To see all teams' NET Rankings & quadrant results, open the link that follows, scroll down on the page that comes up & on the far right you will see NET Team Sheets - Games through [date]. Click on the most recent link or a previous date.
LINK: https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx
Tomorrow's rankings will reflect this:
To date, WHAT FOLLOWS are the Iowa (16-5) quadrant wins & losses. NOTE that:
* The date of the opponent's NET Ranking is listed.
* Similar to the NET ranking, a quad 1 win today might not be one in March.
SORTING OF #25 (NET Rank) IOWA'S RESULTS (16-5) INTO THE 4 QUADS:
Quadrant 1 (3-5): Home vs a 1-30 team, Neutral site vs 1-50, Away vs 1-75.
WINS
# 24 on Jan 16 (H) Iowa State
# 10 on Jan 16 (H) Nebraska
# 58 on Jan 16 (A) Northwestern
LOSSES
# 20 on Jan 16 (H) Wisconsin
#7 on Jan 16 (A) Michigan State
#17 on Jan 16 (A) Purdue
#6 on Jan 17 Michigan State (H)
#63 on Jan 17 Minnesota (A)
Quadrant 2 (5-0): Home vs a 31-75, Neutral site vs 51-100, Away vs 76-135.
WINS
#77 on Jan 16 (N) Oregon
#88 on Jan 16 (N) UConn
#53 on Jan 16 (H) Pittsburgh
# 36 on Jan 16 (H) Ohio State
#84 on Jan 17 (A) Penn State
Quadrant 3 (1-0): Home vs a 76-160, Neutral site vs 101-200, Away vs 135-240.
WINS
#99 on Jan 17 Illinois (H)
Quadrant 4 (7-0): Home vs a 161-353, Neutral vs 201-353, Away vs 241-353
WINS
#234 on Jan 16 (H) UMKC
#192 on Jan 16 (H) Green Bay
#324 on Jan 16 (H) Alabama State
#217 on Jan 16 (N) UNI
#269 on Jan 16 (H) Western Carolina
#343 on Jan 16 (H) Savannah State
#316 on Jan 16 (H) Bryant
10 games left on the schedule:
Quadrant 1 (7 games): Home vs a 1-30 team, Neutral site vs 1-50, Away vs 1-75
#2 on Jan 17 Michigan (H)
#30 on Jan 17 Indiana (A)
#21 on Jan 17 Maryland (H)
#30 on Jan 17 Indiana (H)
#36 on Jan 17 Ohio State (A)
#22 on Jan 17 Wisconsin (A)
#11 on Jan 17 Nebraska (A)
.
Quadrant 2 (1 game): Home vs a 31-75, Neutral site vs 51-100, Away vs 76-135.
#59 on Jan 17 Northwestern (H)
Quadrant 3 (2 games): Home vs a 76-160, Neutral site vs 101-200, Away vs 135-240.
#136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (A)
#136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (H)
Quadrant 4 (0 games): Home vs a 161-353, Neutral vs 201-353, Away vs 241-353
NONE LEFT ON THE SCHEDULE
_______________________________
Previous NET Rankings for Iowa:
#22 on Jan 23
#25 on Jan 22
#25 on Jan 19
#24 on Jan 18
#29 on Jan 13
#35 on Jan 12
_______________________________
To see all teams' NET Rankings & quadrant results, open the link that follows, scroll down on the page that comes up & on the far right you will see NET Team Sheets - Games through [date]. Click on the most recent link or a previous date.
LINK: https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx
Correct, the AP has been relegated to meaningless water cooler talk by those who don’t know any better. A bounce back win against Michigan would propel us onward and upward.
i think we need to go at least 5-5 in our last 10 games.
it would be nice to knock off a Michigan team at home (our last chance is this Friday).
i also think staying around 30 in the NET Rankings is a good idea
So are you saying that when ALL the numbers are in that the computer will compare those numbers nationally, by conference, or some other method. As you can see I'm mathematically challenged.i think we need to go at least 5-5 in our last 10 games.
it would be nice to knock off a Michigan team at home (our last chance is this Friday).
i also think staying around 30 in the NET Rankings is a good idea
One problem will always be the automatic bids for the non power 5 conferences. Their NET ranking may suck but they still get in.
Iowa's NET ranking and our Quad 1 and 2 results will be compared to other teams' NET Ranking & results to determine if we make the Big Dance and if so, what seed we end up with.
Unfortunately, right now we are trending back to the dreaded 8/9 seed.
We have 10 reg season games left in which to improve our resume; we have to start winning some games again and it starts now. Otherwise, our NET ranking will continue to plummet and our Quad 1 record will get worse.
i don't know why people are getting all worked up about the AP and Coaches poll
sure, its nice to be ranked
But bottom line, the only ranking that matters is the NET Ranking
BTW (unrelated). Do you remember me bitching about the cable company awhile back? Well, I've had enough. I pay 140/mo for 2 tv's and internet (basic cable plus a few sports channels like BTN). Instead of rewarding faithful customers (like me of course
), they keep raising rates without any rewards. Screw them I say! I'm cutting the cable and I've begun to check out threads here on HR regarding this. The only discounts they offer are to new customers and not the ones who have had them for years. Had to vent.
i think we need to go at least 5-5 in our last 10 games.
it would be nice to knock off a Michigan team at home (our last chance is this Friday).
i also think staying around 30 in the NET Rankings is a good idea
If they go 5-5 they will be in no doubt.
who was your cable TV & internet provider?BTW (unrelated). Do you remember me bitching about the cable company awhile back? Well, I've had enough. I pay 140/mo for 2 tv's and internet (basic cable plus a few sports channels like BTN). Instead of rewarding faithful customers (like me of course
any idea who you will go with for internet & TV now?
my parents use one company for cable TV, internet & land line (they like having it); they are getting screwed too; i believe they pay $170/month; it pisses my dad off that they would have to pay MORE for ESPNU, where Iowa plays sometimes
if you were to guess where those 5 wins came from, which would you go with? Crazy that we only have 10 reg season games left!
I would like to think that we could beat these 5, which gets us to a record of at least 21-10:
Michigan (H)
Maryland (H)
IU (H)
N'w (H)
Rutgers (H)
The 10 Remaining games:
Quadrant 1 (7 games): Home vs a 1-30 team, Neutral site vs 1-50, Away vs 1-75
#2 on Jan 17 Michigan (H)
#30 on Jan 17 Indiana (A)
#21 on Jan 17 Maryland (H)
#30 on Jan 17 Indiana (H)
#36 on Jan 17 Ohio State (A)
#22 on Jan 17 Wisconsin (A)
#11 on Jan 17 Nebraska (A)
.
Quadrant 2 (1 game): Home vs a 31-75, Neutral site vs 51-100, Away vs 76-135.
#59 on Jan 17 Northwestern (H)
Quadrant 3 (2 games): Home vs a 76-160, Neutral site vs 101-200, Away vs 135-240.
#136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (A)
#136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (H)
Its gonna be interesting to see what happens with Syracuse again this year. It seems like every year there is a debate whether they belong in the Big Dance. Hopefully the NET Rankings make things more fair & more clear this year.
Also, what in the world happened to Notre Dame & Miami this year?
Rank..Previous..Road..Neutral..Home..Non Div 1
1 1 Virginia ACC 18-1 5-1 3-0 10-0 0-0
3 4 Duke ACC 17-2 3-0 4-1 10-1 0-0
9 9 North Carolina ACC 15-4 5-1 1-2 9-1 0-0
10 10 Virginia Tech ACC 16-3 1-3 4-0 11-0 0-0
12 11 Louisville ACC 15-5 3-2 0-2 12-1 0-0
29 30 NC State ACC 16-4 2-3 2-0 12-1 0-0
33 35 Florida St. ACC 15-5 2-3 4-1 9-1 0-0
48 49 Syracuse ACC 14-6 3-1 0-2 11-3 0-0
59 59 Clemson ACC 11-8 1-4 2-2 8-2 0-0
63 61 Pittsburgh ACC 12-8 0-5 2-0 10-3 0-0
91 90 Georgia Tech ACC 11-9 2-4 0-1 9-4 0-0
92 91 Notre Dame ACC 11-9 0-4 1-1 10-4 0-0
116 103 Miami (FL) ACC 9-10 0-4 2-2 7-4 0-0
118 120 Boston College ACC 11-7 2-3 2-0 7-4 0-0
186 185 Wake Forest ACC 8-11 0-6 2-1 6-4 0-0
Also, what in the world happened to Notre Dame & Miami this year?
Rank..Previous..Road..Neutral..Home..Non Div 1
1 1 Virginia ACC 18-1 5-1 3-0 10-0 0-0
3 4 Duke ACC 17-2 3-0 4-1 10-1 0-0
9 9 North Carolina ACC 15-4 5-1 1-2 9-1 0-0
10 10 Virginia Tech ACC 16-3 1-3 4-0 11-0 0-0
12 11 Louisville ACC 15-5 3-2 0-2 12-1 0-0
29 30 NC State ACC 16-4 2-3 2-0 12-1 0-0
33 35 Florida St. ACC 15-5 2-3 4-1 9-1 0-0
48 49 Syracuse ACC 14-6 3-1 0-2 11-3 0-0
59 59 Clemson ACC 11-8 1-4 2-2 8-2 0-0
63 61 Pittsburgh ACC 12-8 0-5 2-0 10-3 0-0
91 90 Georgia Tech ACC 11-9 2-4 0-1 9-4 0-0
92 91 Notre Dame ACC 11-9 0-4 1-1 10-4 0-0
116 103 Miami (FL) ACC 9-10 0-4 2-2 7-4 0-0
118 120 Boston College ACC 11-7 2-3 2-0 7-4 0-0
186 185 Wake Forest ACC 8-11 0-6 2-1 6-4 0-0
I think they will get 4 of the 5 Hime games and pull out at least 1 of the 5 Away games. I don’t think any of the away games are out of reach.
@aristotleiowa I agree with you. I think with time to rest and reset Iowa can and will get that signature win vs. Michigan on Friday night in a sold-out Carver.
Charter Cable. I believe they used to be Time Warner. Could be wrong. I might keep the internet I have and go "old school" to convert my flat screen basic tv to "Smart tv".
@Hawkeyegrad2006 , you asked if we make it to the Big Dance if we "simply" only lose Quad 1 games.
If, as you suggested, we beat IU, NW, Rutgers, @Rutgers, that puts us at 20-11 overall and 9-11 conference before the B1G Tournament. Right now we #28 in the NET rankings (roughly a 7 or 8 seed); finishing 4-6 will probably put us in the mid-30's in NET & unfortunately I think we would be looking at an 8, 9 or 10 seed at that point.
And if we go 1 and done in the BTT (like we have done recently), that puts us at 20-12. Not good for seeding purposes. That 8, 9 or 10 seed pre-BTT might suddenly be an 11. If we go 1-1 in the BTT, that probably keeps us at an 8 or a 9.
Also, right now, having only three quad 1 wins is not overly impressive & I am sure the Selection Committee would probably feel the same.
Again, as I stated in the orig post, the Selection Committee will look at our overall NET ranking & our quadrant results when determining if we get in & what seed we get.
What will suck if some of these horrible teams below us in the NET rankings pull off upsets & win their conference tournaments where they make the Big Dance automatically. That will shake things up a bit, too.
If, as you suggested, we beat IU, NW, Rutgers, @Rutgers, that puts us at 20-11 overall and 9-11 conference before the B1G Tournament. Right now we #28 in the NET rankings (roughly a 7 or 8 seed); finishing 4-6 will probably put us in the mid-30's in NET & unfortunately I think we would be looking at an 8, 9 or 10 seed at that point.
And if we go 1 and done in the BTT (like we have done recently), that puts us at 20-12. Not good for seeding purposes. That 8, 9 or 10 seed pre-BTT might suddenly be an 11. If we go 1-1 in the BTT, that probably keeps us at an 8 or a 9.
Also, right now, having only three quad 1 wins is not overly impressive & I am sure the Selection Committee would probably feel the same.
Again, as I stated in the orig post, the Selection Committee will look at our overall NET ranking & our quadrant results when determining if we get in & what seed we get.
What will suck if some of these horrible teams below us in the NET rankings pull off upsets & win their conference tournaments where they make the Big Dance automatically. That will shake things up a bit, too.
@HaydenHawk8 I agree that we need a signature win vs Michigan. What worries me about Rutgers is that they are tough at home.
Regarding your 20-21 win comment: it will depend on who those wins come against, which then determines our NET ranking.
As I stated above, if we are at 20-11 overall and 9-11 conference before the B1G Tournament, (finishing 4-6) it will probably put us in the mid-30's in NET & unfortunately I think we would be looking at an 8, 9 or 10 seed at that point.
And if we go 1 and done in the BTT (like we have done recently), that puts us at 20-12. Not good for seeding purposes. That 8, 9 or 10 seed pre-BTT might suddenly be an 11. If we go 1-1 in the BTT, that probably keeps us at an 8 or a 9.
Also, right now, having only three quad 1 wins is not overly impressive & I am sure the Selection Committee would probably feel the same.
Again, as I stated in the orig post, the Selection Committee will look at our overall NET ranking & our quadrant results (just 3 quad wins??) when determining if we get in & what seed we get.
Regarding your 20-21 win comment: it will depend on who those wins come against, which then determines our NET ranking.
As I stated above, if we are at 20-11 overall and 9-11 conference before the B1G Tournament, (finishing 4-6) it will probably put us in the mid-30's in NET & unfortunately I think we would be looking at an 8, 9 or 10 seed at that point.
And if we go 1 and done in the BTT (like we have done recently), that puts us at 20-12. Not good for seeding purposes. That 8, 9 or 10 seed pre-BTT might suddenly be an 11. If we go 1-1 in the BTT, that probably keeps us at an 8 or a 9.
Also, right now, having only three quad 1 wins is not overly impressive & I am sure the Selection Committee would probably feel the same.
Again, as I stated in the orig post, the Selection Committee will look at our overall NET ranking & our quadrant results (just 3 quad wins??) when determining if we get in & what seed we get.
Actually the NET rankings are only going to be a small part of what goes into seeding. Are they more important than AP and Coaches polls? Probably, but they are not an absolute final say on NCAA bids and seeds. They carry no more weight than the RPI did, although they are a better ranking than the RPI was.
NET rankings are a small part of the selection and seeding process?
NET Rankings are probably more important that the AP and Coaches Polls?
NET rankings carry no more weight than the RPI?
Did you read the orig post and did you read the article linked? Educate yourself and then get back to me after you do.
AP and Coaches poll mean ZERO to NCAA tournament selection. Literally.
The “team sheets” the committee will have in hand also have KenPom, BPI, BPI’s strength of record, Sagarin, and KPI. These additional metrics may be used by the committee as “tie-breakers” for all we know.
they mean zero, except the criteria the pollsters are using to rank them are similar to criteria the committee members use. So I mean other than that....
(and note I didn't say they use the AP or Coaches poll to seed teams)
You mean the original article that describes how NET will be used exactly like they used the RPI except how it is better than the RPI????
I'm willing to bet that there will be a similar number of outliers in terms of seed with NET as there were with RPI on an annual basis. The fact they are now acknowledging the problems with RPI doesn't mean it wasn't part of the process previously.
they aren't tiebreakers, they are part of the consideration.
They don't literally go down the NET rankings and give 1-4 1 seeds, 5-8 2 seeds, 9-12 3 seeds, etc.
The NET rankings serve more as a background for the discussion. They use it to show the SOS (based on NET) and the W/L record in the various quadrants. But that's about as far as it goes.
Out of curiosity, do you put together a bracket that you publish anywhere/part of bracket matrix?
no but I've been religiously following the topic for more than 30 years. I can't make a bracket because I just don't care to analyze every team that in depth.
Thirty-two teams receive automatic bids to the NCAA tournament by winning their conference tournament.
The NCAA Selection committee only selects the 36 teams who receive at-large bids.
As stated in the orig post:
TWO things will be used by the NCAA Selection Committee when selecting the NCAA Tournament Teams & then seeding them:
(1) The NET ranking, an index that incorporates the most current evaluation measures; and
(2) A tighter definition of a quality win, classifying wins as Quad 1, Quad 2, Quad 3 and Quad 4.
The hope is that by using (1) and (2) we will have a more accurate selection and seeding procedure.
The NCAA Selection committee only selects the 36 teams who receive at-large bids.
As stated in the orig post:
TWO things will be used by the NCAA Selection Committee when selecting the NCAA Tournament Teams & then seeding them:
(1) The NET ranking, an index that incorporates the most current evaluation measures; and
(2) A tighter definition of a quality win, classifying wins as Quad 1, Quad 2, Quad 3 and Quad 4.
The hope is that by using (1) and (2) we will have a more accurate selection and seeding procedure.
It’s definitely a part time job without the benefit of being paid. Thanks for you input on the subject. It’s nice when opposing fans can engage in civil discourse.
and you'd be wrong (sorry to disappoint you)....
the NCAA selection process
"
Q: How important is the NET?
A: We have been told it will be used exactly the same way the RPI was, which is as an aggregator to define the quadrants. It is never a decisive factor on its own. If you are arguing the case for your team, and all you have is a NET ranking, you have nothing."
Nebraska is a great example of this. They would have been a 6 seed, prior to tonight, if we were going strictly by NET rankings. I had them as a 9, and that’s the current average on bracketmatrix as well.
well, you are wrong because it is clear that I never said NET was the only factor in selecting the 36 at large teams.
keep trying and keep failing and we will all watch and laugh.
Thanks for the entertainment; please keep it up.
entertainment? All I said was NET isn't everything and lots of factors go into selection and seed and YOU wanted to disagree with me and wanted me to read your "original post".
You asked me to educate myself. I'm telling you I am intimately aware of the process and your posts are confused. You said the NET rankings "are what matters" despite my insistence they weren't the be all and end all.
And as the NCAA says, if NET rankings are all you have to go on, you have nothing.
Please understand that any pretend analysis you have for seed/bubble should include far more than just a NET ranking.
The Nebraska Copeland injury is clearly affecting their results.
The Selection Committee will see that as a result of the injury:
* Nebraska's NET ranking is taking a hit. Now they are not as competitive against teams like Wisconsin, even when at home.
* Nebraska's quad results are taking a hit.
Tim Miles better figure it out or Nebbie will make the tournament but will get a lousy seed and probably be one and done.
and i never said NET was everything. yet you said i did.
Why blatantly lie on here?
Please do us all a favor and take your lies and take your confusion back to a Michigan board where you might be welcome. Or is that the problem? You are not welcome on Michigan boards, either?
