Keeping track of the NET

[CDu]

FWIW, here is the chance KenPom gives several top teams of winning the rest of their regular season games.

Gonzaga 32%
Arizona 16%
Houston 14%
Villanova 7%
Auburn 6%
Duke 4%
Purdue 3%
Baylor 2%
LSU 2%
Kentucky 1%
UCLA 1%
Xavier 1%
Kansas 0.5%

I think this is a good indication of why Arizona should be considered a strong contender for a 1 seed. KenPom gives them about an 80% chance of ending the regular season with 3 or fewer losses. Also, T-Rank predicts that Arizona will play 8 Q1 games (for reference, Duke is predicted to have 7 Q1 games).

I think Arizona, Houston, Gonzaga, and Auburn are very well positioned at the moment to be a problem for Duke as far as a 1 seed. Especially if we assume that the Big-12 winner will get a 1 seed. Auburn has just 4 games left on their schedule in which they aren't a 9+ point favorite, and just 2 where they aren't a 4+ point favorite. Houston is a 9+ point favorite every game the rest of the way. Arizona has just 1 game left where they aren't 6+ point favorites. It is quite feasible for all of those teams to win out the regular season or lose just a game in there. Which would make life difficult for us to get on the 1 line.

Not saying it can't happen. But there is a reasonably good chance that we'd need to win out to feel good about getting a 1 seed. The weakness of the ACC is such that we don't have any benefit over Gonzaga or Houston, and both Auburn and Arizona will have a conference advantage.

[scottdude8]

Love ya, Scott but I would argue that there isn't a team in the top 20 or even top 30 in the NET that does not control its own destiny. Anyone who wins out from mid-January to the end of the regular season (including conference tournaments) is getting a #1 seed. I have not looked so I guess there might be a small conference team in there (Davidson) who doesn't play anyone of significance, but if you are in the top third or so of a power 6 conference right now and you win your final dozen games and your conference tournament, you are getting a #1 seed.

The question is, how likely are any of these teams to win those games. For almost all of them, the odds of it happening are vanishingly remote. But, I think a decent argument can be made that Duke is among the most likely teams in the P6 nation (thanks to a weakened ACC) to accomplish that feat.

That is a VERY valid point. I guess I was using the term “control your own destiny” more loosely that the commonly interpreted “you get what you want if you win out”. I meant it more as, “If Duke is the team we think they are and play like it, we shouldn’t have to be too concerned scoreboard watching during conference tournament week to get the seed we want”. How I expected you all to glean that, I don’t know 🤷I'm a real wanker for saying this.♂️

[scottdude8]

I think Arizona, Houston, Gonzaga, and Auburn are very well positioned at the moment to be a problem for Duke as far as a 1 seed. Especially if we assume that the Big-12 winner will get a 1 seed. Auburn has just 4 games left on their schedule in which they aren't a 9+ point favorite, and just 2 where they aren't a 4+ point favorite. Houston is a 9+ point favorite every game the rest of the way. Arizona has just 1 game left where they aren't 6+ point favorites. It is quite feasible for all of those teams to win out the regular season or lose just a game in there. Which would make life difficult for us to get on the 1 line.

Not saying it can't happen. But there is a reasonably good chance that we'd need to win out to feel good about getting a 1 seed. The weakness of the ACC is such that we don't have any benefit over Gonzaga or Houston, and both Auburn and Arizona will have a conference advantage.

I don’t think this is true. If you look only at Q1 games, maybe… but the ACC gives us a ton more Q2 games than either of those teams. As I mentioned in my article, a majority of Gonzaga’s remaining games are actually Q4. So if the Zags drop one or two games (not completely out of the question this year), would they get seeded above us if we had one or two more losses, but a much more balanced resume including a neutral court head to head win?

I’m not overly worried about Houston considering they’ve suffered some really debilitating injuries (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...0WNdeG41NBDGIY ) and aren’t the team they were in the non-conference schedule… the relatively weak AAC has just been a buffer. I think they lose a couple at some point.

[CDu]

I don’t think this is true. If you look only at Q1 games, maybe… but the ACC gives us a ton more Q2 games than either of those teams. As I mentioned in my article, a majority of Gonzaga’s remaining games are actually Q4. So if the Zags drop one or two games (not completely out of the question this year), would they get seeded above us if we had one or two more losses, but a much more balanced resume including a neutral court head to head win?

I just don't think Q2 games move the needle when talking about a 1 seed. It's very relevant when talking about tourney bids, but at the top of the food chain I think it comes down to Q1. Mainly because everyone who is a potential 1 seed is likely to have a stellar win% against Q2 (and below) opponents.

Also, it doesn't look like it's even true that the ACC gives a big edge over either. Houston is projected to have 7 Q2 games to our 8. That's not nearly enough of a margin to offset any potential W/L disparity.

We'd have a lot more Q2 games than Gonzaga, but if Gonzaga goes undefeated against Q2 opponents and below (as expected) and has the expected 3 more Q1 games, I strongly doubt the committee's gonna say "well, Gonzaga had a much better Q1 profile than Duke, and they didn't lose to anyone bad, but Duke played a ton of Q2 teams so let's give Duke the 1 seed.

For the Q2 argument to hold, you have to (a) have a nearly identical Q1 profile and (b) have a significant edge in Q2 games. We most likely won't have an equivalent Q1 profile vs Gonzaga, and we won't have any significant Q2 edge over Houston.

I’m not overly worried about Houston considering they’ve suffered some really debilitating injuries (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...0WNdeG41NBDGIY ) and aren’t the team they were in the non-conference schedule… the relatively weak AAC has just been a buffer. I think they lose a couple at some point.

That would be helpful. Unfortunately, we're still very likely facing an uphill battle to get a 1 seed with Auburn, Arizona, Gonzaga, and the Big-12 winner in much better position than us.

[tommy]

I just don't think Q2 games move the needle when talking about a 1 seed. It's very relevant when talking about tourney bids, but at the top of the food chain I think it comes down to Q1. Mainly because everyone who is a potential 1 seed is likely to have a stellar win% against Q2 (and below) opponents.

Also, it doesn't look like it's even true that the ACC gives a big edge over either. Houston is projected to have 7 Q2 games to our 8. That's not nearly enough of a margin to offset any potential W/L disparity.

We'd have a lot more Q2 games than Gonzaga, but if Gonzaga goes undefeated against Q2 opponents and below (as expected) and has the expected 3 more Q1 games, I strongly doubt the committee's gonna say "well, Gonzaga had a much better Q1 profile than Duke, and they didn't lose to anyone bad, but Duke played a ton of Q2 teams so let's give Duke the 1 seed.

For the Q2 argument to hold, you have to (a) have a nearly identical Q1 profile and (b) have a significant edge in Q2 games. We most likely won't have an equivalent Q1 profile vs Gonzaga, and we won't have any significant Q2 edge over Houston.



That would be helpful. Unfortunately, we're still very likely facing an uphill battle to get a 1 seed with Auburn, Arizona, Gonzaga, and the Big-12 winner in much better position than us.

I don't know that Arizona is in such a great position. Or I should say, they don't have a whole lot of margin for error. Right now they're just 2-1 in Quad 1 to our 3-2. They don't have very many opportunities playing in that league. They have home and homes with UCLA (16) and USC (24 and falling fast) and a home game with Oregon (49 currently so not likely to be a Q1) and that's it. If USC remains in the top 30, and Arizona splits the games with the LA schools they'll be sitting there at 4-3 in Quad 1.

Right now they're 4-0 in Q2 and we're 1-1 but we will have a lot more Q2 wins on our resume if we are to be in the discussion at all. Meanwhile, they'll have Oregon, and after them Washington State (62) and then just at Colorado (87) and Utah(121) . . . no other teams in the Pac 12 would currently qualify. That's not so compelling.

They can lose a game, maybe two, depending on who it's to. Pretty much same as Duke in that regard.

[CDu]

I don't know that Arizona is in such a great position. Or I should say, they don't have a whole lot of margin for error. Right now they're just 2-1 in Quad 1 to our 3-2. They don't have very many opportunities playing in that league. They have home and homes with UCLA (16) and USC (24 and falling fast) and a home game with Oregon (49 currently so not likely to be a Q1) and that's it. If USC remains in the top 30, and Arizona splits the games with the LA schools they'll be sitting there at 4-3 in Quad 1.

Right now they're 4-0 in Q2 and we're 1-1 but we will have a lot more Q2 wins on our resume if we are to be in the discussion at all. Meanwhile, they'll have Oregon, and after them Washington State (62) and then just at Colorado (87) and Utah(121) . . . no other teams in the Pac 12 would currently qualify. That's not so compelling.

They can lose a game, maybe two, depending on who it's to. Pretty much same as Duke in that regard.

Per Torvik, we are projected to have 2 more Q2 games and one more Q1 game than Arizona. That's just not enough. Their resume has more Q1 games left than us. And they're ahead of us as is, meaning we'll have to outperform them the rest of the way to overtake them. If both teams lose just a game or two, Arizona gets the 1 seed over us, and they have arguably the easier remaining schedule in aggregate. Hence my point: they are in a nice position relative to us.

[scottdude8]

Per Torvik, we are projected to have 2 more Q2 games and one more Q1 game than Arizona. That's just not enough. Their resume has more Q1 games left than us. And they're ahead of us as is, meaning we'll have to outperform them the rest of the way to overtake them. If both teams lose just a game or two, Arizona gets the 1 seed over us, and they have arguably the easier remaining schedule in aggregate. Hence my point: they are in a nice position relative to us.

I think we have a similar view of things CDu. This is why “control your own destiny” was bad phrasing on my part. As things stand we need either Zona or Zaga to falter for our path to be clear (ie, we could get a No. 1 seed with another loss or two on our resume). Obviously if we “win out” we’d of course get a No. 1 seed.

So the question becomes, how good is Arizona? (We know how good Gonzaga is first hand.) Is there one loss record a mirage of only 3 Q1 games and a below average Pac 12, meaning they’re prone to falter a few times? Or are they a legit NC contender? Considering they have a first year coach and a roster that didn’t merit much consideration in the preseason, it’s possible it’s the former and not the latter. Probably somewhere in between, in reality, but even that gives us more leeway than having to win out.

[tommy]

So the question becomes, how good is Arizona? (We know how good Gonzaga is first hand.) Is there one loss record a mirage of only 3 Q1 games and a below average Pac 12, meaning they’re prone to falter a few times? Or are they a legit NC contender? Considering they have a first year coach and a roster that didn’t merit much consideration in the preseason, it’s possible it’s the former and not the latter. Probably somewhere in between, in reality, but even that gives us more leeway than having to win out.

We should know a lot more after tomorrow night.

[scottdude8]

Don't look now, but Wake is up to #33 in today's NET after another win last night. That means our road win against them is looking better and better, and if they keep this up our upcoming home game against them could also slide into Q1. A chance at a home Q1 win would be huge, so we should probably be rooting for Wake more often than not moving forward!

Meanwhile, VaTech's loss means the chances of them sneaking into the Top 30 are fading fast (they're down at 58).

[CDu]

Don't look now, but Wake is up to #33 in today's NET after another win last night. That means our road win against them is looking better and better, and if they keep this up our upcoming home game against them could also slide into Q1. A chance at a home Q1 win would be huge, so we should probably be rooting for Wake more often than not moving forward!

Meanwhile, VaTech's loss means the chances of them sneaking into the Top 30 are fading fast (they're down at 58).

Yeah, I think we can rule out VT being a Q1 win. If anything, it is more likely to become a Q3 win than it is to become a Q1 win.

But our home game against Wake has a very good chance of becoming a Q1 game. Hopefully we win it as convincingly as we won in Winston-Salem (which right now is a Q1A win).

[scottdude8]

Despite a lot of positive results for Duke, Saturday's action didn't translate into much movement in the NET rankings. In fact, Duke actually fell from No. 13 to No. 14 on Sunday. Perhaps more interestingly, two SEC teams that lost to AP unranked opponents stayed ahead of Duke in the rankings: Tennessee remained static at No. 12, while LSU dropped from No. 10 to No. 13. Duke was jumped by Texas Tech, whose home victory over an average Mississippi State team somehow merited a jump from No. 15 to No. 11.

While those results may seem unusual, it's worth remembering that the NET has been an imprecise tool during the season the last two years as well, and only truly settled down towards the end of the year. As it stands, four teams with 5 or more losses are ahead of Duke in the rankings, while four loss Kentucky (a team Duke beat on a neutral site) is also ahead of the Blue Devils. If Duke continues to take care of business, one would imagine that they'll jump those teams in the NET rankings eventually.

Some other tidbits of interest for Duke's and other competitors' resumes:
-Despite Louisville's struggles, the victory currently stands in Q2 with the Cardinals ranked at NET No. 121 (away games against NET 76-135 are Q2 games), nothing to be scoffed at.
-Florida State's two-game losing streak has dropped them to No. 78, meaning our loss to the Seminoles is now just in Q2 territory. (FWIW, I could've sworn that previously away games against NET 1-80 were Q1, but it is in fact 1-75... oops!).
-Wake Forest is at No. 42, and UNC at No. 37, meaning our upcoming home contests against these squads have a chance at falling in Q1. As it stands, three remaining games are Q1: at UNC, Notre Dame, and Clemson. All three of those contests are in the next two weeks, making this a critical stretch for our No. 1 seed chances.
-Arizona remains near the top of the NET despite falling to UCLA earlier this week and looking lethargic against a bad Arizona State team Saturday. But this week has shown that the Wildcats are certainly vulnerable, and with only a 2-2 Q1 record a couple losses could drop them precipitously down the bracket.
-Auburn may be separating itself from the pack in the chase for a No. 1 seed: they're now 6-1 in Q1 and 5-0 in Q2 games, and as I mentioned in my last NET-focused article their schedule is quite favorable down the stretch.
-Baylor and Kansas' losses on Saturday didn't affect them significantly in the NET: Baylor fell one spot to No. 4, and Kansas two spots to No. 9. Both teams have gaudy Q1 records thanks to the gauntlet that is the Big 12. So while these non-conference losses surely help Duke, it still remains more than likely that at least one of these teams will merit a No. 1 seed, and thus the best case scenario for the Blue Devils is for one to sweep the other in their upcoming head-to-head matchups.

[scottdude8]

Lunardi has updated his Bracketology this morning, with us as the No. 2 seed in the East region. If we were to get a No. 2 seed, obviously being in the east would be ideal. Having Purdue as our No. 1, maybe not so much... the more I watch the Boilermakers the more impressed I am, although they also have a tendency to blow big leads (as evidenced on Sunday). Their combination of TWO dominant, yet different, bigs is just going to be very hard to gameplan for in a 2 day stretch. But it's a long time before we have to worry about that.

FWIW, Lunardi appears to be bullish on us relative to the field, at least according to BracketMatrix where we are a consensus No. 3 seed.

In the NET rankings, last night's win gave us some upward momentum, moving up to No. 11 from No. 13. Notre Dame is No. 71 in the NET as of today, meaning the game is a Q1 victory; we'll likely be pulling for the Irish in most of their games the rest of the way so that game retains its quality.

Also of note: with Kentucky's recent ascension, we've beaten the Net No. 1 (Gonzaga) and No. 7 teams. None of the current NET Top 10 (i.e., the teams we're likely to be competing with for top seeds) can claim two victories against fellow NET Top 10 teams. The top line of our resume remains a major differentiator between us and our competition... and it may put us in an odd situation of wanting Kentucky to lose like we always do, but not too much so that that victory retains it's marquee status.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Lunardi has updated his Bracketology this morning, with us as the No. 2 seed in the East region. If we were to get a No. 2 seed, obviously being in the east would be ideal. Having Purdue as our No. 1, maybe not so much... the more I watch the Boilermakers the more impressed I am, although they also have a tendency to blow big leads (as evidenced on Sunday). Their combination of TWO dominant, yet different, bigs is just going to be very hard to gameplan for in a 2 day stretch. But it's a long time before we have to worry about that.

FWIW, Lunardi appears to be bullish on us relative to the field, at least according to BracketMatrix where we are a consensus No. 3 seed.

In the NET rankings, last night's win gave us some upward momentum, moving up to No. 11 from No. 13. Notre Dame is No. 71 in the NET as of today, meaning the game is a Q1 victory; we'll likely be pulling for the Irish in most of their games the rest of the way so that game retains its quality.

Also of note: with Kentucky's recent ascension, we've beaten the Net No. 1 (Gonzaga) and No. 7 teams. None of the current NET Top 10 (i.e., the teams we're likely to be competing with for top seeds) can claim two victories against fellow NET Top 10 teams. The top line of our resume remains a major differentiator between us and our competition... and it may put us in an odd situation of wanting Kentucky to lose like we always do, but not too much so that that victory retains it's marquee status.

Taking NET out of the equation (which I understand is the most important criteria for the committee), a #2 seeds feels appropriate. The UK and Zags wins were marquee, and they are looking better and better.

To me, Auburn, Gonzaga, and UCLA are clearly ahead of Duke. Purdue, UK, and Arizona have seen really good lately, especially against better competition than what Duke has faced (BIG10, SEC, and PAC12 are all better than the ACC). And this third tier of Baylor, Houston, Kansas, and Wisconsin has had recent ups and downs or play in a horrible conference (Houston).

#2 sounds right. If Duke continues to win, that #1 is well within reach, because between Auburn, UCLA, Purdue, UK, Arizona, Baylor, Kansas, and Wisconsin, there will be loses.

[DavidBenAkiva]

^ If Duke wants to solidify a top 2 seed or even move into a 1 seed, it is going to have to start blowing out teams to improve the NET rating. There are so few Q1 opportunities remaining on the schedule. As of today, Duke is scheduled to play one Q1-A game, this Saturday's matchup at North Carolina and one other Q1 opportunity, at Clemson. Clemson is 72 right now in the NET, so they could slip to a Q2 road game before the season is over.

FSU is currently at 79 and falling after two losses. Duke would benefit from them rising back up into the Top 75 so that the OT loss goes back to being a Q1 game. Miami is rising and currently at 60. If they can get into the top 50, that home loss also can move into a Q1 game.

Basically, Duke needs Clemson, Miami, and FSU to move up as much as they can in the NET to improve the resume. The only other way for Duke to improve is to increase the margin of victory, moving the needle on the dork polls.

As for Purdue, I would love for them to be in the same bracket as Duke. Their defense is suspect. They have an inherent flaw in that two of their three best players cannot be on the court at the same time. If you look at the T-Rank Similar Resume profile for Purdue, not a single team that shares their profile made it to the Final Four. Of the top teams, Purdue is the one I'd prefer to have in the same bracket.

[scottdude8]

Taking NET out of the equation (which I understand is the most important criteria for the committee), a #2 seeds feels appropriate. The UK and Zags wins were marquee, and they are looking better and better.

To me, Auburn, Gonzaga, and UCLA are clearly ahead of Duke. Purdue, UK, and Arizona have seen really good lately, especially against better competition than what Duke has faced (BIG10, SEC, and PAC12 are all better than the ACC). And this third tier of Baylor, Houston, Kansas, and Wisconsin has had recent ups and downs or play in a horrible conference (Houston).

#2 sounds right. If Duke continues to win, that #1 is well within reach, because between Auburn, UCLA, Purdue, UK, Arizona, Baylor, Kansas, and Wisconsin, there will be loses.

I mostly agree with this. Auburn and Gonzaga have separated themselves from the pack a bit at the top, although it'll be interesting to see how the committee treats Gonzaga if they drop a game or two in conference play, which given the strength of the second tier in the WCC this season isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.

But I'm not so sure UCLA is "clearly" ahead of Duke. They only have 3 Q1 wins themselves, two of which came at home. We also have a common opponent in Gonzaga, played a few days apart: we beat the Zags, UCLA got annihilated by them. This is one of those "mysteries" about how the committee operates where we don't know exactly how they view these type of data points, and UCLA has also rounded into form since then, but if it comes down to us and the Bruins having a similar resume I would have to think that could be a factor. However, UCLA does have more Q1 opportunities than us in view, although only one of those is at home (and it's tenuous at best, as USC has looked bad of late and is currently NET No. 28).

After last night, we have 4 Q1 wins in five opportunities. Notably, that's the same number as Gonzaga (who're 4-2 in Q1 games), Villanova (who's 4-5), and Kentucky (4-4). The only teams whose Q1 record is clearly superior to ours is Auburn (6-1), Baylor (7-2), Purdue (6-2), and Kansas (6-2). Wisconsin is also down there at 7-3 in Q1 games, but the NET continues to be bearish on them, which'll be an interesting storyline.

There's a very feasible scenario in which there are 3 or 4 teams competing for the last two top seeds that all within 1 Q1 victory of each other. Then the question becomes, how does the committee differentiate this? Do they look more favorably on a team that got these Q1 victories in less chances (like us)? Or more favorably at a team whose losses are also Q1? Do they then say our marquee victories differentiate us from teams whose Q1 wins are primarily road conference games? That's the huge unknown.

If the season ended today, I agree we'd likely be a No. 2 or No. 3 seed (probably a No. 2). But the perceived gap between our resume and the top group isn't as chasmous as one might think, and it would shrink considerably if we do our jobs on Saturday.

[scottdude8]

^ If Duke wants to solidify a top 2 seed or even move into a 1 seed, it is going to have to start blowing out teams to improve the NET rating. There are so few Q1 opportunities remaining on the schedule. As of today, Duke is scheduled to play one Q1-A game, this Saturday's matchup at North Carolina and one other Q1 opportunity, at Clemson. Clemson is 72 right now in the NET, so they could slip to a Q2 road game before the season is over.

FSU is currently at 79 and falling after two losses. Duke would benefit from them rising back up into the Top 75 so that the OT loss goes back to being a Q1 game. Miami is rising and currently at 60. If they can get into the top 50, that home loss also can move into a Q1 game.

Basically, Duke needs Clemson, Miami, and FSU to move up as much as they can in the NET to improve the resume. The only other way for Duke to improve is to increase the margin of victory, moving the needle on the dork polls.

As for Purdue, I would love for them to be in the same bracket as Duke. Their defense is suspect. They have an inherent flaw in that two of their three best players cannot be on the court at the same time. If you look at the T-Rank Similar Resume profile for Purdue, not a single team that shares their profile made it to the Final Four. Of the top teams, Purdue is the one I'd prefer to have in the same bracket.

That's an interesting analysis of Purdue DBA! I would say that for a "typical" Purdue team not being able to play their two bigs together would be a flaw, but I think having a lottery-pick talent in Ivey (something past good Purdue teams have lacked) goes a long way in masking that. That said, I'd much rather play Purdue than Auburn or Gonzaga right now, so maybe I'm being too picky.

I mostly agree with your analysis of our rooting interests in the ACC, with a couple addendums. I think we need Miami to lose so we win the ACC outright... that is something we know the committee takes into account, so if we can win both regular season and tournament ACC titles that is a differentiator that will be in our favor (against, say, the second best team in the Big 12). I'm not as worried about the Miami loss being Q1 as the FSU loss getting back into Q1. I also think Wake Forest ascending could really help us, as it makes our road victory against them look all the better, and it gives us an outside shot at another Q1 home chance when we play them again.

In my mind we're rooting for ND, Clemson, FSU, and Wake to win most of their remaining ACC games.

[DavidBenAkiva]

That's an interesting analysis of Purdue DBA! I would say that for a "typical" Purdue team not being able to play their two bigs together would be a flaw, but I think having a lottery-pick talent in Ivey (something past good Purdue teams have lacked) goes a long way in masking that. That said, I'd much rather play Purdue than Auburn or Gonzaga right now, so maybe I'm being too picky.

I mostly agree with your analysis of our rooting interests in the ACC, with a couple addendums. I think we need Miami to lose so we win the ACC outright... that is something we know the committee takes into account, so if we can win both regular season and tournament ACC titles that is a differentiator that will be in our favor (against, say, the second best team in the Big 12). I'm not as worried about the Miami loss being Q1 as the FSU loss getting back into Q1. I also think Wake Forest ascending could really help us, as it makes our road victory against them look all the better, and it gives us an outside shot at another Q1 home chance when we play them again.

In my mind we're rooting for ND, Clemson, FSU, and Wake to win most of their remaining ACC games.

Agreed that it would be best for Miami to finish 2nd to Duke in the ACC. There's a goldilocks situation there, where we want them to do well enough but not too well.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I mostly agree with this. Auburn and Gonzaga have separated themselves from the pack a bit at the top, although it'll be interesting to see how the committee treats Gonzaga if they drop a game or two in conference play, which given the strength of the second tier in the WCC this season isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.

But I'm not so sure UCLA is "clearly" ahead of Duke. They only have 3 Q1 wins themselves, two of which came at home. We also have a common opponent in Gonzaga, played a few days apart: we beat the Zags, UCLA got annihilated by them. This is one of those "mysteries" about how the committee operates where we don't know exactly how they view these type of data points, and UCLA has also rounded into form since then, but if it comes down to us and the Bruins having a similar resume I would have to think that could be a factor. However, UCLA does have more Q1 opportunities than us in view, although only one of those is at home (and it's tenuous at best, as USC has looked bad of late and is currently NET No. 28).

After last night, we have 4 Q1 wins in five opportunities. Notably, that's the same number as Gonzaga (who're 4-2 in Q1 games), Villanova (who's 4-5), and Kentucky (4-4). The only teams whose Q1 record is clearly superior to ours is Auburn (6-1), Baylor (7-2), Purdue (6-2), and Kansas (6-2). Wisconsin is also down there at 7-3 in Q1 games, but the NET continues to be bearish on them, which'll be an interesting storyline.

There's a very feasible scenario in which there are 3 or 4 teams competing for the last two top seeds that all within 1 Q1 victory of each other. Then the question becomes, how does the committee differentiate this? Do they look more favorably on a team that got these Q1 victories in less chances (like us)? Or more favorably at a team whose losses are also Q1? Do they then say our marquee victories differentiate us from teams whose Q1 wins are primarily road conference games? That's the huge unknown.

If the season ended today, I agree we'd likely be a No. 2 or No. 3 seed (probably a No. 2). But the perceived gap between our resume and the top group isn't as chasmous as one might think, and it would shrink considerably if we do our jobs on Saturday.

Our biggest issue - which is also a potential blessing - is the crappy state of the ACC. This means any loss moving forward will look so much worse than Purdue, UK, UCLA, Baylor, Arizona, Wisconsin, Villanova, Texas Tech, or Kansas. The upside is it is possible to go undefeated the rest of the way. Tough, but much more doable than the teams I just listed.

[dukefan5656]

^ If Duke wants to solidify a top 2 seed or even move into a 1 seed, it is going to have to start blowing out teams to improve the NET rating.

Isn't the margin of victory capped at 10 and overtime win or loss a... 1? Or something like that.

We have got to sort out the offense but at least we have the 9pt and 14pt wins on the road.

I sure would like that trend to continue Saturday!

[Bluedog]

Isn't the margin of victory capped at 10 and overtime win or loss a... 1? Or something like that.

We have got to sort out the offense but at least we have the 9pt and 14pt wins on the road.

I sure would like that trend to continue Saturday!

This Q&A from 2019 says it's complicated...

"Q: Wait…I thought the NCAA said margin of victory is capped at 10?

A: They did. That is both true and false. The margin of victory component is capped at 10, however net efficiency, the second most important factor, is as close as you can get to an uncapped margin of victory without explicitly using uncapped Margin of Victory."
https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...ion-committee/

Having said the above, I don't think blowing out teams helps that much. It may help us in "raw NET rank", but again, they don't care about raw NET rank much in making the seedings. They care about a team's W/L record against the quadrants. So, the raw net rank of your OPPONENTS matters and if you win or lose those games in absolute terms, but the rank of the team itself doesn't matter all the much. Of course, the two are heavily correlated. But beating up on mediocre teams will help efficiency ratings certainly, but won't do much to elevate Duke to a 1 seed. Winning by 20 or 5 against ND doesn't make all that much difference...for SEEDING purposes.