10 or 14. The pendulum of ranking. Haven't seen a battle like this since...It doesn't matter who wins and loses. We will be #10 on Monday, it's practically science now I think or something.
10 or 14. The pendulum of ranking. Haven't seen a battle like this since...It doesn't matter who wins and loses. We will be #10 on Monday, it's practically science now I think or something.
I think we're only 11th
Add #2 Purdue loss too ! But Yes #11 or #12 seems fair.Losses by teams ahead of us this week:
4 Marquette
6 Kansas
7 North Carolina
11 South Carolina x2
13 Auburn
No chance we jump Marquette.
A typical one loss week drops a team ~4 spots (as we’ve seen over the past few weeks).
That would put 6 Kansas at 10 and 7 North Carolina at 11.
We 100% jump 11 South Carolina and likely jump 13 Auburn.
So I’ll say 12 too.
FAU is not our problem. We need to keep winning and focus on our team. There is nothing we can do about FAU. We aren't going to be judged by FAU. We beat them and that is all that matters.With FAU losing and likely falling out of the top 25, we likely will not have a win yet over a team that is currently ranked in the top AP 25. We really need to beat Purdue to get a really good win over a highly ranked team. We may also see Michigan State be ranked soon. Not sure if Wisconsin will be ranked this week which could be another opportunity for us.
I don’t know why they’re ahead of us, but I do know it doesn’t matter. Your direct NET ranking is not used in determining your seed - only the NET rankings of the teams you've played.I think this is the right spot to place this: can someone explain to me how BYU is ahead of The Beloved in the Net Rankings? Looks to me, Illinois is better in both Quad 1 and 2 categories. Other than Quads, I don't understand the system.
Thanks for your response. You are right--there are other factories that will determine where the Illini are placed. So, BYU may have played "stronger" opponents according to the NET rankings? That's how I interpret your post.I don’t know why they’re ahead of us, but I do know it doesn’t matter. Your direct NET ranking is not used in determining your seed - only the NET rankings of the teams you've played.
No, not necessarily. Here‘s the equation for NET.Thanks for your response. You are right--there are other factories that will determine where the Illini are placed. So, BYU may have played "stronger" opponents according to the NET rankings? That's how I interpret your post.
Got it--thanks!No, not necessarily. Here‘s the equation for NET.
The formula below is how each team‘s net ranking is derived.
The NCAA selection committee then looks at the NET rankings for the teams you’ve played and looks at how you performed in those games based on the Quadrant each team is in. So your own team’s net ranking isn’t necessarily used in seeding you - more so the net rankings of the teams you’ve played and whether or not you won those games.
View attachment 31247
A good example is Kansas. They’re 16 in NET. We‘re 12 in NET.Got it--thanks!
No, not necessarily. Here‘s the equation for NET.
The formula below is how each team‘s net ranking is derived.
The NCAA selection committee then looks at the NET rankings for the teams you’ve played and looks at how you performed in those games based on the Quadrant each team is in. So your own team’s net ranking isn’t necessarily used in seeding you - more so the net rankings of the teams you’ve played and whether or not you won those games.
View attachment 31247
Don’t understand the .475FT attempts in the eff. Calculation. Anyone explain the logic?No, not necessarily. Here‘s the equation for NET.
The formula below is how each team‘s net ranking is derived.
The NCAA selection committee then looks at the NET rankings for the teams you’ve played and looks at how you performed in those games based on the Quadrant each team is in. So your own team’s net ranking isn’t necessarily used in seeding you - more so the net rankings of the teams you’ve played and whether or not you won those games.
View attachment 31247
They are trying to derive trips down the court from basic stats. They are surely trying to do that because not every game is going to have a ready log of each play.Don’t understand the .475FT attempts in the eff. Calculation. Anyone explain the logic?
They are trying to derive trips down the court from basic stats. They are surely trying to do that because not every game is going to have a ready log of each play.
The 0.475 must be a rough estimate for change-of-possession fouls, affected by and-ones, made/missed front ends, etc.