Football Home Game
Sat, August 31, 2024
Sat, August 31, 2024
Basketball Home Game
Fri, November 1, 2024
Fri, November 1, 2024
We are 15th in the NET
-
- Posts: 466
- Joined: November 29th, 2019, 11:29 pm
- Has thanked: 53 times
- Been thanked: 287 times
#15 in the NET
The NET ratings released this morning we are #15 and there are four other MW teams in the top 50 with one at 57.
Schedule is looking stronger than expected.
Schedule is looking stronger than expected.
- These users thanked the author BasketballAgg for the post (total 3):
- Bluestar • CodingAggieBlue • AggiesForever
-
- Posts: 12810
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1283 times
- Been thanked: 2346 times
We are 15th in the NET
Later I will give you all full breakdown of our schedule with the NET rankings.
For starters
1-0 in Q2 games (Oral Roberts)
5-0 in Q3 games (Santa Clara, San Diego, San Francisco, Bradley, and Utah Tech)
1-0 in Q4 games (Utah Valley)
For starters
1-0 in Q2 games (Oral Roberts)
5-0 in Q3 games (Santa Clara, San Diego, San Francisco, Bradley, and Utah Tech)
1-0 in Q4 games (Utah Valley)
- These users thanked the author SLB for the post (total 4):
- Dkdavis • Jjoey52 • AggiesForever • FloridaAggie13
-
- Posts: 2739
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:59 pm
- Location: Pullman, WA
- Has thanked: 318 times
- Been thanked: 655 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
bracketologists.com has both Oral Roberts and USF as Q2 games.
Are NET rankings out yet, or is this still based on KenPom?
Are NET rankings out yet, or is this still based on KenPom?
My side projects:
Internet-connected Aggie A's: www.sports-iot.com
Physics and the Pinewood Derby: www.pinewoodphysics.com
Internet-connected Aggie A's: www.sports-iot.com
Physics and the Pinewood Derby: www.pinewoodphysics.com
- ProvoAggie
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: June 14th, 2010, 1:00 am
- Location: Provo, Utah
- Has thanked: 1483 times
- Been thanked: 2938 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
It was released today and both Oral Roberts and USF are Q2 games.
https://bracketologists.com/team/utah-state-aggies
- These users thanked the author ProvoAggie for the post (total 2):
- aggies22 • FloridaAggie13
- MarioWest
- Posts: 919
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:48 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 59 times
- Been thanked: 184 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Is USF a neutral game or a road game? Looks like the official NET rankings classify it as neutral, which would make it Q3.ProvoAggie wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 10:13 amIt was released today and both Oral Roberts and USF are Q2 games.
https://bracketologists.com/team/utah-state-aggies
-
- Posts: 442
- Joined: August 17th, 2019, 9:46 am
- Has thanked: 102 times
- Been thanked: 203 times
- ProvoAggie
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: June 14th, 2010, 1:00 am
- Location: Provo, Utah
- Has thanked: 1483 times
- Been thanked: 2938 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Looks like you are correct. This is one thing that I wish the NCAA would change. They let the teams decide what constitues home/neutral. The game was in San Francisco and part of the USF season ticket package. ESPN considers it a road game but it looks like it was reported to the NCAA as neutral. KenPom considers is a semi-away game.MarioWest wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 10:16 amIs USF a neutral game or a road game? Looks like the official NET rankings classify it as neutral, which would make it Q3.ProvoAggie wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 10:13 amIt was released today and both Oral Roberts and USF are Q2 games.
https://bracketologists.com/team/utah-state-aggies
- These users thanked the author ProvoAggie for the post:
- aggies22
-
- Posts: 430
- Joined: April 25th, 2012, 11:35 pm
- Has thanked: 415 times
- Been thanked: 138 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
I guess USF has an incentive for it to be neutral and USU would want to classify it as away.ProvoAggie wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 10:26 amLooks like you are correct. This is one thing that I wish the NCAA would change. They let the teams decide what constitues home/neutral. The game was in San Francisco and part of the USF season ticket package. ESPN considers it a road game but it looks like it was reported to the NCAA as neutral. KenPom considers is a semi-away game.MarioWest wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 10:16 amIs USF a neutral game or a road game? Looks like the official NET rankings classify it as neutral, which would make it Q3.ProvoAggie wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 10:13 amIt was released today and both Oral Roberts and USF are Q2 games.
https://bracketologists.com/team/utah-state-aggies
-
- Posts: 2739
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:59 pm
- Location: Pullman, WA
- Has thanked: 318 times
- Been thanked: 655 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
It's a good thing we aren't playing BYU this year. They are at NET 190, so a home game would be Q4 and an away/neutral would be Q3.
Also, I am a little surprised that SDSU is as low as they are. They have two Q1 losses to top 25 teams. I guess it is because they have so many Q4 games so far?
Also, I am a little surprised that SDSU is as low as they are. They have two Q1 losses to top 25 teams. I guess it is because they have so many Q4 games so far?
- These users thanked the author jpswensen for the post:
- AggiesForever
My side projects:
Internet-connected Aggie A's: www.sports-iot.com
Physics and the Pinewood Derby: www.pinewoodphysics.com
Internet-connected Aggie A's: www.sports-iot.com
Physics and the Pinewood Derby: www.pinewoodphysics.com
-
- Posts: 921
- Joined: January 19th, 2020, 4:57 pm
- Has thanked: 198 times
- Been thanked: 559 times
-
- Posts: 2050
- Joined: November 6th, 2010, 9:04 pm
- Has thanked: 84 times
- Been thanked: 919 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
As fans wring their hands about our lack of a strong schedule, they need to pay attention to two views of the Net ratings. Lack of Q1 games is not the only part of a schedule's strength. Lack of Q4 games is also an impacting factor. Only two of the top 14 teams have as few as two Q4 games. Two of them have 5 Q4 games.
Clearly, the reward for Q1 games and the reward for limited Q4 games have similar impact.
Clearly, the reward for Q1 games and the reward for limited Q4 games have similar impact.
- These users thanked the author SectionBAggie for the post:
- Roy McAvoy
- Roy McAvoy
- Posts: 7547
- Joined: November 2nd, 2011, 1:30 pm
- Has thanked: 1191 times
- Been thanked: 2962 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Even though we're #15 now, I have to think we're about us unfavorable #15 as possible. We haven't been dragged down by Q4 games, like a lot of the "top" teams. Once they start conference play and start racking up Q1 wins, we will drop. Even if we're doing really well.
We also will likely come out of non-conference with 0 Q1 wins. The committee has shown total Q1 wins is its #1 criteria. I really hope we can come out of non-conference undefeated.
We also will likely come out of non-conference with 0 Q1 wins. The committee has shown total Q1 wins is its #1 criteria. I really hope we can come out of non-conference undefeated.
- tysteve20
- Posts: 956
- Joined: August 28th, 2014, 3:21 pm
- Has thanked: 273 times
- Been thanked: 863 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
We have the potential for One Q1 game in OOC, as it stands If we play Iona in R2 of the diamondhead classic that would be a Q1 game. Seattle sits at 61 and if they move up 11 spots that would be Q1 as well.Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 11:32 amWe also will likely come out of non-conference with 0 Q1 wins. The committee has shown total Q1 wins is its #1 criteria. I really hope we can come out of non-conference undefeated.
- MarioWest
- Posts: 919
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 9:48 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 59 times
- Been thanked: 184 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Seattle and Iona's rankings will likely drop in conference play. The Aggies best shot at a Q1 win in nonconference is probably Washington St if both teams can make the finals.tysteve20 wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 11:39 amWe have the potential for One Q1 game in OOC, as it stands If we play Iona in R2 of the diamondhead classic that would be a Q1 game. Seattle sits at 61 and if they move up 11 spots that would be Q1 as well.Roy McAvoy wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 11:32 amWe also will likely come out of non-conference with 0 Q1 wins. The committee has shown total Q1 wins is its #1 criteria. I really hope we can come out of non-conference undefeated.
- These users thanked the author MarioWest for the post:
- AggiesForever
-
- Posts: 7793
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 406 times
- Been thanked: 4810 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Looks like we will have plenty of opportunities for a lot of Q2 wins in conference play. I agree with Roy -- it's pretty important we get out of non-conference undefeated or as close to it as possible. Need to nab the LMU win and at least 2 out of 3 in Hawaii.
We are being buoyed up by the fact that we haven't played anyone truly bad yet. Everyone on our schedule is at least average to above average. But we have no marquee Q1 wins to anchor us where we are (like we did last year) if we suffer a bad loss. Just get to conference as unscathed as possible and hope to pick up a lot of Q1/Q2 wins in conference.
If the MTE only counts as one game (isn't that the appeal of the MTE), it strikes me we should be able to schedule another Q1 or Q2 OOC game if we can find a taker.
We are being buoyed up by the fact that we haven't played anyone truly bad yet. Everyone on our schedule is at least average to above average. But we have no marquee Q1 wins to anchor us where we are (like we did last year) if we suffer a bad loss. Just get to conference as unscathed as possible and hope to pick up a lot of Q1/Q2 wins in conference.
If the MTE only counts as one game (isn't that the appeal of the MTE), it strikes me we should be able to schedule another Q1 or Q2 OOC game if we can find a taker.
- WAAggie
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:02 am
- Location: Kent WA
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 517 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Worst 15 net in the country, AMIRIGHT
- These users thanked the author WAAggie for the post:
- flying_scotsman2.0
- ProvoAggie
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: June 14th, 2010, 1:00 am
- Location: Provo, Utah
- Has thanked: 1483 times
- Been thanked: 2938 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
I believe an MTE allows you to play 3 games counted as 2 basically giving you 1 extra game.ineptimusprime wrote:Looks like we will have plenty of opportunities for a lot of Q2 wins in conference play. I agree with Roy -- it's pretty important we get out of non-conference undefeated or as close to it as possible. Need to nab the LMU win and at least 2 out of 3 in Hawaii.
We are being buoyed up by the fact that we haven't played anyone truly bad yet. Everyone on our schedule is at least average to above average. But we have no marquee Q1 wins to anchor us where we are (like we did last year) if we suffer a bad loss. Just get to conference as unscathed as possible and hope to pick up a lot of Q1/Q2 wins in conference.
If the MTE only counts as one game (isn't that the appeal of the MTE), it strikes me we should be able to schedule another Q1 or Q2 OOC game if we can find a taker.
Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
- scotlandog
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: February 16th, 2011, 7:18 pm
- Has thanked: 103 times
- Been thanked: 810 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
If you have 2 teams, Team A starts at Net 1 and Team B starts at 200 and they played 10 games, the exact same teams to the exact same score. They each beat 5 teams of net 100-200 by 10+ points and lost to 5 teams ranked 1-50. Would the 2 teams end up at the same ranking? How much does starting point effect the final ranking?
If the initial ranking biases the final outcome then the MWC is primed with this initial release. (Wyoming is really going to hurt everyone once Ike and Maldonado are back and full strength.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the initial ranking biases the final outcome then the MWC is primed with this initial release. (Wyoming is really going to hurt everyone once Ike and Maldonado are back and full strength.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- QuackAttackAggie
- Pick'em Champ - '12, '22 Bowl; '15, '17 Weekly; '18 BB Predict the Score; '22 Kickoff
- Posts: 18229
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:08 pm
- Location: Sonora, MX
- Has thanked: 310 times
- Been thanked: 2956 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
There is no relative starting point. Everybody starts at 0. If a team is 1 and another at 200 that means the team at 1 has already vastly out performed the other. The mwc is in good shape if teams win their OOC games and then those teams we all beat perform well in their league as well.scotlandog wrote:If you have 2 teams, Team A starts at Net 1 and Team B starts at 200 and they played 10 games, the exact same teams to the exact same score. They each beat 5 teams of net 100-200 by 10+ points and lost to 5 teams ranked 1-50. Would the 2 teams end up at the same ranking? How much does starting point effect the final ranking?
If the initial ranking biases the final outcome then the MWC is primed with this initial release. (Wyoming is really going to hurt everyone once Ike and Maldonado are back and full strength.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- scotlandog
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: February 16th, 2011, 7:18 pm
- Has thanked: 103 times
- Been thanked: 810 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
There is always a starting point. Whether that be a preseason starting point like Kenpom uses, carrying over data from the previous season until sufficient data has been accumulated for that season, or some multiple iteration of the current data to drive the rankings until a certain level of stabilization. I don’t believe everyone starts at 0 though.QuackAttackAggie wrote:There is no relative starting point. Everybody starts at 0. If a team is 1 and another at 200 that means the team at 1 has already vastly out performed the other. The mwc is in good shape if teams win their OOC games and then those teams we all beat perform well in their league as well.scotlandog wrote:If you have 2 teams, Team A starts at Net 1 and Team B starts at 200 and they played 10 games, the exact same teams to the exact same score. They each beat 5 teams of net 100-200 by 10+ points and lost to 5 teams ranked 1-50. Would the 2 teams end up at the same ranking? How much does starting point effect the final ranking?
If the initial ranking biases the final outcome then the MWC is primed with this initial release. (Wyoming is really going to hurt everyone once Ike and Maldonado are back and full strength.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do understand your point. This initial NET release is delayed like this so the teams performance can dictate the teams ranking. But I don’t believe each season starts in a void.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- treesap32
- Moderator
- Posts: 16796
- Joined: July 28th, 2005, 1:00 am
- Location: Washington D.C.
- Has thanked: 1141 times
- Been thanked: 2677 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
For NET it does. They can't start teams out with a ranking based on prior season data. NET is meant to determine how good this year's teams are, not how good last year's teams were. If they factored in anything other than this season's results into the formula that is supposed to determine tournament seeding it would be inherently flawed.scotlandog wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 11:14 pmThere is always a starting point. Whether that be a preseason starting point like Kenpom uses, carrying over data from the previous season until sufficient data has been accumulated for that season, or some multiple iteration of the current data to drive the rankings until a certain level of stabilization. I don’t believe everyone starts at 0 though.QuackAttackAggie wrote:There is no relative starting point. Everybody starts at 0. If a team is 1 and another at 200 that means the team at 1 has already vastly out performed the other. The mwc is in good shape if teams win their OOC games and then those teams we all beat perform well in their league as well.scotlandog wrote:If you have 2 teams, Team A starts at Net 1 and Team B starts at 200 and they played 10 games, the exact same teams to the exact same score. They each beat 5 teams of net 100-200 by 10+ points and lost to 5 teams ranked 1-50. Would the 2 teams end up at the same ranking? How much does starting point effect the final ranking?
If the initial ranking biases the final outcome then the MWC is primed with this initial release. (Wyoming is really going to hurt everyone once Ike and Maldonado are back and full strength.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do understand your point. This initial NET release is delayed like this so the teams performance can dictate the teams ranking. But I don’t believe each season starts in a void.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are right that KenPom uses last year's data as a crutch until a month or two into the season and then he fully phases it out. He only does this to avoid having ridiculous movement and inaccuracies the first few weeks in the season. And it's this exact reason the NET doesn't bother publishing it's data until December.
- These users thanked the author treesap32 for the post:
- flying_scotsman2.0
-
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: July 4th, 2013, 12:04 pm
- Has thanked: 1750 times
- Been thanked: 2398 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Yeah the fact that Louisville is one of the lowest ranking teams tells me that the Net does not give a rip about previous years performance.treesap32 wrote: ↑December 6th, 2022, 7:34 amFor NET it does. They can't start teams out with a ranking based on prior season data. NET is meant to determine how good this year's teams are, not how good last year's teams were. If they factored in anything other than this season's results into the formula that is supposed to determine tournament seeding it would be inherently flawed.scotlandog wrote: ↑December 5th, 2022, 11:14 pmThere is always a starting point. Whether that be a preseason starting point like Kenpom uses, carrying over data from the previous season until sufficient data has been accumulated for that season, or some multiple iteration of the current data to drive the rankings until a certain level of stabilization. I don’t believe everyone starts at 0 though.QuackAttackAggie wrote:There is no relative starting point. Everybody starts at 0. If a team is 1 and another at 200 that means the team at 1 has already vastly out performed the other. The mwc is in good shape if teams win their OOC games and then those teams we all beat perform well in their league as well.scotlandog wrote:If you have 2 teams, Team A starts at Net 1 and Team B starts at 200 and they played 10 games, the exact same teams to the exact same score. They each beat 5 teams of net 100-200 by 10+ points and lost to 5 teams ranked 1-50. Would the 2 teams end up at the same ranking? How much does starting point effect the final ranking?
If the initial ranking biases the final outcome then the MWC is primed with this initial release. (Wyoming is really going to hurt everyone once Ike and Maldonado are back and full strength.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do understand your point. This initial NET release is delayed like this so the teams performance can dictate the teams ranking. But I don’t believe each season starts in a void.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are right that KenPom uses last year's data as a crutch until a month or two into the season and then he fully phases it out. He only does this to avoid having ridiculous movement and inaccuracies the first few weeks in the season. And it's this exact reason the NET doesn't bother publishing it's data until December.
- These users thanked the author LarryTheAggie for the post:
- flying_scotsman2.0
-
- Posts: 1044
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:52 am
- Location: Logan, UT
- Has thanked: 73 times
- Been thanked: 961 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Does the NET Update daily (or in real time) then or is that just Bracketologists.com doing some magic to update?
Bracketologists.com is terrific too guys, great work.
Bracketologists.com is terrific too guys, great work.
Showing my True Colors since 2022
- ProvoAggie
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: June 14th, 2010, 1:00 am
- Location: Provo, Utah
- Has thanked: 1483 times
- Been thanked: 2938 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
NET updates everyday throughout the season and they typically drop really early in the morning. The other metrics on the team sheet update throughout the day as games complete. We sometimes have a mismatch on team records on the home page and on the team page and the cause is that the home page shows the records at the time the NET rankings were released where the team pages show all completed games including games that have completed since the last release.
And Thank You for the kind words.
-
- Posts: 12810
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1283 times
- Been thanked: 2346 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
SOS boo birds are missing why we are ranked so high in the rankings. We just have a lack of Q4 games, so every win counts for points in the system.
Q4 games on the schedule: Utah Valley, Weber State, Air Force, Fresno State, San Jose State, Wyoming (twice)
5 in-conference Q1 games
5 in-conference Q2 games
3 in-conference Q3 games
5 in-conference Q4 games
We have currently for non-conference games
2 Q2 games
7 Q3 games
2 Q4 games
2 more rounds of the Diamond Head
1 D2 game
Q4 games on the schedule: Utah Valley, Weber State, Air Force, Fresno State, San Jose State, Wyoming (twice)
5 in-conference Q1 games
5 in-conference Q2 games
3 in-conference Q3 games
5 in-conference Q4 games
We have currently for non-conference games
2 Q2 games
7 Q3 games
2 Q4 games
2 more rounds of the Diamond Head
1 D2 game
-
- Posts: 12810
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1283 times
- Been thanked: 2346 times
-
- Posts: 12810
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1283 times
- Been thanked: 2346 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
MWC NET rankings as of 12/5
Us at #16
New Mexico #20
Nevada #41
UNLV #44
San Diego State #47
Boise State #57
Colorado State #91
Fresno State #196
San Jose State #197
Air Force #209
Wyoming #274
Us at #16
New Mexico #20
Nevada #41
UNLV #44
San Diego State #47
Boise State #57
Colorado State #91
Fresno State #196
San Jose State #197
Air Force #209
Wyoming #274
- scotlandog
- Posts: 2432
- Joined: February 16th, 2011, 7:18 pm
- Has thanked: 103 times
- Been thanked: 810 times
We are 15th in the NET
That Seattle game all of the sudden became a good game for us with them sitting at #67. They will be the best team according NET on our OOC schedule. We likely pick up #50 Iona and #76 Washington St. Those could be either Q1 or Q2 games by end of the year.SLB wrote:SOS boo birds are missing why we are ranked so high in the rankings. We just have a lack of Q4 games, so every win counts for points in the system.
Q4 games on the schedule: Utah Valley, Weber State, Air Force, Fresno State, San Jose State, Wyoming (twice)
5 in-conference Q1 games
5 in-conference Q2 games
3 in-conference Q3 games
5 in-conference Q4 games
We have currently for non-conference games
2 Q2 games
7 Q3 games
2 Q4 games
2 more rounds of the Diamond Head
1 D2 game
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- treesap32
- Moderator
- Posts: 16796
- Joined: July 28th, 2005, 1:00 am
- Location: Washington D.C.
- Has thanked: 1141 times
- Been thanked: 2677 times
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 2739
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:59 pm
- Location: Pullman, WA
- Has thanked: 318 times
- Been thanked: 655 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
We are already dropping like a rock. Two spots in two days. By the time we play our game on Saturday, we will be at 20.
My side projects:
Internet-connected Aggie A's: www.sports-iot.com
Physics and the Pinewood Derby: www.pinewoodphysics.com
Internet-connected Aggie A's: www.sports-iot.com
Physics and the Pinewood Derby: www.pinewoodphysics.com
-
- Posts: 2971
- Joined: July 4th, 2013, 12:04 pm
- Has thanked: 1750 times
- Been thanked: 2398 times
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Its going to get worse before it gets better. We need some q1s to stabilize. We will keep dropping even when we win-- especially with Westminster and Weber on the near horizon. But that's OK. I would rather be where we are.
- ProvoAggie
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: June 14th, 2010, 1:00 am
- Location: Provo, Utah
- Has thanked: 1483 times
- Been thanked: 2938 times
- Contact:
Re: We are 15th in the NET
Today we got hopped by a Saint Mary's team that didn't play yesterday but lost their last 3 games.