2024-25 NET/Bracketology Thread

scottdude8

Moderator, front page and podcast contributor
@DavidBenAkiva noted in the Nerd Polls thread that the first NET Rankings are out, so it's time to create the designated thread for NET and Bracketology discussion (worthy of it's own thread separate from the other Nerd Polls given it's importance).

First, my yearly disclaimer, copied from the similar thread the past two seasons:
In this thread, we will be discussing the NET rankings and projections of the NCAA Tournament field, and speculating about their potential impact on Duke's resume and seeding come March. Many find this a fun topic to debate and discuss. Others find it silly project things so far in advance. (Some fall in both of the previous camps.) Many on this board feel quite strongly that such discussions are unnecessary distractions. Some are quite loud about this latter opinion, but are completely justified in their feelings.

All that said, this is a thread to discuss the NET/Bracketology, not to discuss the value of such discussions. No one is making you read or participate in this thread. Perhaps we can make another thread where we hate on Joe Lunardi and the silliness of the quadrant system, but the (perhaps unfortunate) reality is that they are major parts of the college basketball landscape as it currently stands, so there should certainly be a place on this board to have fun discussing and speculating on these topics.

A reminder about the quadrant system:
The committee splits a team's resume into games falling into four quadrants to facilitate comparison. Games at home against NET 1-30, at a neutral site against NET 1-50, and away against NET 1-75 are "Quadrant 1 (Q1)" games. "Quadrant 2 (Q2)" games are home 31-75, neutral 51-100, and away 76-135. Q3 and Q4 go farther down the rankings.

Generally speaking, a team's Q1 record has been very relevant when it comes to selecting the top seeds in the tournament. Avoiding "bad" losses in Q3 and 4 has been another seemingly important factor. That said, we know the whims of the committee change year to year, so take that all with a grain of salt.

With that out of the way, there's some good, bad, and ugly for Duke in the first NET Rankings this year:

Good:
  • Duke is ranked No. 4, which illustrates both our strength in the underlying analytical metrics and the fact that neither of our losses this year are "bad" by any means. While there of course isn't a one-to-one mapping between NET ranking and NCAA seeding, in the past few years being in the Top 10 has been a rough prerequisite for a Top 2 seed (I'll do some more detailed analysis for the front page at some point soon).
  • Pitt being No. 5 is HUGE for the ACC. Not only does that potentially give us a shot at a marquee victory when we play them (once, at home... what a break!), but it should help pull up the rest of the conference.
  • If we can pull out a victory on Wednesday against Auburn, it should give us a clear marquee victory against a squad likely to be in the Top 5/10 of the NET all year. Illinois is also at NET No. 10, giving us another such opportunity in February.
  • George Mason is NET No. 78, meaning that game could end up looking much better than your typical buy/cupcake game. Similarly, Seattle is at NET No. 105, and even Maine is at No. 147.
Bad:
  • Arizona is all the way down at NET No. 65, which is just inside Q1 territory. Now, the early NET rankings are always a bit fluky, and the major conferences tend to move up once conference play starts, so I'm not worried about that win falling out of Q1 territory... but Arizona's struggles place more pressure on the Auburn game.
  • Teams that we were hoping to be in the Top 75 and provide road Q1 opportunities in the ACC currently aren't, most notably Wake and Virginia.
Ugly:
  • The bottom of the league is, once again, BAD. This should look better in February than it does now, as the NET has a tendency to eventually favor teams from stronger conferences, but as it stands we could have nearly as many Q4 games in conference (currently 2) as we did out of conference (currently 3).
Right now, Duke is slated to have 8 more Q1 opportunities, which isn't great. However, the Q1 opportunities we do have will be "top-tier" ones given the top-heavy nature of the ACC currently (home against current No. 5 Pitt, at current No. 18 Clemson and No. 30 Louisville, two matchups against current No. 26 UNC). While we certainly have less margin for error than a Big 12 or SEC team, I think it's very fair to say that we still "control our own destiny" for a No. 1 seed if we play up to our ceiling.
 
Reinforcing the reminder: Quadrant records are an *output* of NET, not an input. So statements such as "how can X's NET ranking be so bad/good when their quadrant record is so good/bad? It must mean NET is broken" are misguided.
 
@DavidBenAkiva noted in the Nerd Polls thread that the first NET Rankings are out, so it's time to create the designated thread for NET and Bracketology discussion (worthy of it's own thread separate from the other Nerd Polls given it's importance).

First, my yearly disclaimer, copied from the similar thread the past two seasons:


With that out of the way, there's some good, bad, and ugly for Duke in the first NET Rankings this year:

Good:
  • Duke is ranked No. 4, which illustrates both our strength in the underlying analytical metrics and the fact that neither of our losses this year are "bad" by any means. While there of course isn't a one-to-one mapping between NET ranking and NCAA seeding, in the past few years being in the Top 10 has been a rough prerequisite for a Top 2 seed (I'll do some more detailed analysis for the front page at some point soon).
  • Pitt being No. 5 is HUGE for the ACC. Not only does that potentially give us a shot at a marquee victory when we play them (once, at home... what a break!), but it should help pull up the rest of the conference.
  • If we can pull out a victory on Wednesday against Auburn, it should give us a clear marquee victory against a squad likely to be in the Top 5/10 of the NET all year. Illinois is also at NET No. 10, giving us another such opportunity in February.
  • George Mason is NET No. 78, meaning that game could end up looking much better than your typical buy/cupcake game. Similarly, Seattle is at NET No. 105, and even Maine is at No. 147.
Bad:
  • Arizona is all the way down at NET No. 65, which is just inside Q1 territory. Now, the early NET rankings are always a bit fluky, and the major conferences tend to move up once conference play starts, so I'm not worried about that win falling out of Q1 territory... but Arizona's struggles place more pressure on the Auburn game.
  • Teams that we were hoping to be in the Top 75 and provide road Q1 opportunities in the ACC currently aren't, most notably Wake and Virginia.
Ugly:
  • The bottom of the league is, once again, BAD. This should look better in February than it does now, as the NET has a tendency to eventually favor teams from stronger conferences, but as it stands we could have nearly as many Q4 games in conference (currently 2) as we did out of conference (currently 3).
Right now, Duke is slated to have 8 more Q1 opportunities, which isn't great. However, the Q1 opportunities we do have will be "top-tier" ones given the top-heavy nature of the ACC currently (home against current No. 5 Pitt, at current No. 18 Clemson and No. 30 Louisville, two matchups against current No. 26 UNC). While we certainly have less margin for error than a Big 12 or SEC team, I think it's very fair to say that we still "control our own destiny" for a No. 1 seed if we play up to our ceiling.
I largely agree with your early analysis, except that I don't expect Pitt or Clemson to remain that high, especially Pitt, so I don't expect those games will be viewed as "top tier" opportunities. At all. Those teams are simply not at the level of Kansas, Kentucky, Auburn, and maybe UNC and Illinois. Arizona is an interesting case -- they have shown some real warts early, but I bet they get their act together.
 
I largely agree with your early analysis, except that I don't expect Pitt or Clemson to remain that high, especially Pitt, so I don't expect those games will be viewed as "top tier" opportunities. At all. Those teams are simply not at the level of Kansas, Kentucky, Auburn, and maybe UNC and Illinois. Arizona is an interesting case -- they have shown some real warts early, but I bet they get their act together.
I'm going to have to look back and see how teams that stick out in the early NET rankings, like Pitt and (to a lesser extend) Clemson do right now, end up in the final rankings. My bet is that, while they'll certainly fall back a bit, the surprisingly high rankings of Pitt and Clemson indicate that the mysterious mix of analytics at play in the NET likes those squads, which should keep going throughout the year. Off the top of my head, Michigan State last year comes to mind: they had a horrible start to the season and were at times at real risk of missing the tournament, but they for some reason stuck in the 20s of the NET most of the season (which was a big boost to our resume). Weirder things have happened.
 
I'm reminded again of one of the truly bizarre features of the current system. While margin-of-victory is a big driver in a team's NET ranking, it has no impact on a team's Quad records which are the primary (exclusive?) driver of a team's tourney seeding.
 
And, I think any of the traditional whinging here that the NET rankings (and/or other computer rankings) are somehow biased against the ACC, rigged by other leagues' scheduling practices, or poor measures because they purportedly don't capture "improvement" during the course of the season, will all fall on deaf ears because once again the ACC has absolutely shot itself in the foot in the non-con season.

Per John Rothstein ( ), the ACC has by far the worst record in P5 vs. P5 games:

"Records of power conferences against other power conferences:

ACC: 12-28
Big 12: 14-18
Big East: 10-12
Big Ten: 21-14
SEC: 29-13"

And, as Jeff Goodman notes ( ), the ACC has 4 of the 5 worst teams among the power conferences:

"The 5 worst NET rankings among power conference teams:

175. Georgia Tech
177. Syracuse
191. Miami
200. Seton Hall
233. Virginia Tech"
 
Yes, fair or not fair, it's basically locked in now that the ACC will get maybe half the tourney bids of the SEC and B1G. It's now a battle to see who will get the 5 bids.
 
Locked in? It's December 2. 3 1/2 MONTHS of basketball to be played still. Nothing is even close to locked.
Unfortunately not true. A conference's collective NET ranking that they enter conference play with largely determines how many Q1 and Q2 games are available during conference season which in turn determines how many teams have a chance to build a tourney resume.

We've watched this happen every year. We can trace our bubble teams not having as many Q1/Q2 wins because the conference did so poorly in non-conference play. It looks especially bad this year but a strong ACC/SEC challenge would help.
 
Ok, raise your hand if you predicted that adding SMU, Cal, and Stanford would be pulling UP the conference’s NET rankings.

And in case one of you [“rewrites history” sounds better than saying “lies”] and says “Me! I did!”, just know that our follow up question is, “Why didn’t you pie bet?”. If you spaced all your winnings out, you could have had pie for a year, at least.
 
Last edited:
Yes, fair or not fair, it's basically locked in now that the ACC will get maybe half the tourney bids of the SEC and B1G. It's now a battle to see who will get the 5 bids.
Not necessarily. What is a huge problem is if the early season losers end up with good conference records -- that pulls our top teams down. And, I am looking at you, Larranaga.

If the top six teams, who actually won significant games the past month, do well in conference, they should make the NCAAT and the best teams should get decent seeds.

Also, the ACC-SEC challenge offers a chance to do better.
 
Not necessarily. What is a huge problem is if the early season losers end up with good conference records -- that pulls our top teams down. And, I am looking at you, Larranaga.

If the top six teams, who actually won significant games the past month, do well in conference, they should make the NCAAT and the best teams should get decent seeds.

Also, the ACC-SEC challenge offers a chance to do better.

Maybe "locked in" was the wrong word choice. How about "makes it highly likely"?

Every March we play this same game of looking at the resume of a 6th place ACC team with 1 Q1 win vs a 10th place SEC team with 3 Q1 wins and realize the only way to change that math is to raise the ACC's NET ranking in the non-conference season. It's not looking good this year.

Yes, a 50/50 showing in the Challenge would give the ACC a needed boost.
 
Yes, fair or not fair, it's basically locked in now that the ACC will get maybe half the tourney bids of the SEC and B1G. It's now a battle to see who will get the 5 bids.
One saving grace for Duke is that we play Illinois in February so there is a chance to show how we stack up against a non ACC opponent close to tournament time.
 
One saving grace for Duke is that we play Illinois in February so there is a chance to show how we stack up against a non ACC opponent close to tournament time.
Duke will be fine. If we deserve a 1 or 2 seed, we should get it. And I feel really confident we will.

But the whole ACC has been playing for whether the conference will get 4, 5, 6, 7 bids. Duke and Pitt have done their part. Maybe Louisville, too. The other schools? Not so much.
 
Duke will be fine. If we deserve a 1 or 2 seed, we should get it. And I feel really confident we will.

But the whole ACC has been playing for whether the conference will get 4, 5, 6, 7 bids. Duke and Pitt have done their part. Maybe Louisville, too. The other schools? Not so much.
With non-con play across the country now largely done (other than Duke-Illinois), it does really seem locked in what a dumpster fire the ACC is and how much of an anvil it is going to be on Duke's NCAA tournament resume. We really have no margin for error, and need to go probably 18-2 (maybe 17-3) in the ACC to be in position for a 1 or 2 seed. But, even then, if those losses come from any combination of games other than @ Clemson, @ Carolina or home to Pitt, Duke's resume will take a massive hit from a Q3 or perhaps even Q4 loss.

Just a couple of data points from the current NET rankings to highlight how preposterously bad the ACC is vs. the other P5 conferences this year:

NET Rankings – teams outside Top 100:
SEC: 0

Big East: 1 (#176 Seton Hall)

Big 12: 2 (#108 Oklahoma St., #122 Kansas St.)

Big 10: 2 (#118 Washington, #155 Minnesota)

ACC: 9 - half the league! (#102 Virginia, #103 NC St., #105 Wake, #127 Cal, #138 Syracuse, #159 Miami, #173 Georgia Tech, #203 Boston College, #210 Virginia Tech)

Q3 or Q4 Conference games:
SEC: 1 Q3 (home vs. #84 S. Carolina), 0 Q4

Big East: 3 Q3 (#78 Georgetown, #91 DePaul, @ Seton Hall), 1 Q4 (Seton Hall)

Big 12: 4 Q3 (#77 Colorado, #81 UCF, Oklahoma St., Kansas St.), 0 Q4

Big 10: 5 Q3 (#91 Rutgers, #95 USC, Washington, Minnesota, @ Minnesota), 0 Q4

ACC: 15 Q3 (#82 Fla. St., #83 Stanford, #92 Notre Dame, Virginia, NC St., Wake, Cal, Syracuse, Miami, @ Cal, @ Syracuse, @ Miami, @ Ga. Tech, @ BC, @ Va Tech), 3 Q4 (Ga. Tech, BC, Va Tech)
 
With non-con play across the country now largely done (other than Duke-Illinois), it does really seem locked in what a dumpster fire the ACC is and how much of an anvil it is going to be on Duke's NCAA tournament resume. We really have no margin for error, and need to go probably 18-2 (maybe 17-3) in the ACC to be in position for a 1 or 2 seed. But, even then, if those losses come from any combination of games other than @ Clemson, @ Carolina or home to Pitt, Duke's resume will take a massive hit from a Q3 or perhaps even Q4 loss.

Just a couple of data points from the current NET rankings to highlight how preposterously bad the ACC is vs. the other P5 conferences this year:

NET Rankings – teams outside Top 100:
SEC: 0

Big East: 1 (#176 Seton Hall)

Big 12: 2 (#108 Oklahoma St., #122 Kansas St.)

Big 10: 2 (#118 Washington, #155 Minnesota)

ACC: 9 - half the league! (#102 Virginia, #103 NC St., #105 Wake, #127 Cal, #138 Syracuse, #159 Miami, #173 Georgia Tech, #203 Boston College, #210 Virginia Tech)

Q3 or Q4 Conference games:
SEC: 1 Q3 (home vs. #84 S. Carolina), 0 Q4

Big East: 3 Q3 (#78 Georgetown, #91 DePaul, @ Seton Hall), 1 Q4 (Seton Hall)

Big 12: 4 Q3 (#77 Colorado, #81 UCF, Oklahoma St., Kansas St.), 0 Q4

Big 10: 5 Q3 (#91 Rutgers, #95 USC, Washington, Minnesota, @ Minnesota), 0 Q4

ACC: 15 Q3 (#82 Fla. St., #83 Stanford, #92 Notre Dame, Virginia, NC St., Wake, Cal, Syracuse, Miami, @ Cal, @ Syracuse, @ Miami, @ Ga. Tech, @ BC, @ Va Tech), 3 Q4 (Ga. Tech, BC, Va Tech)
Welp. If we can't go 17-3 or 18-2 against this weak of a league, we probably don't deserve a #1 or #2 seed. Seriously - we are a lot better than the rest of the teams in this conference and while anyone can slip up or get caught napping on the road once or even twice, we really won't/shouldn't have a case for a top seed if we lose more than twice.
 
I dunno, if we aspire to having a really good year, I'm just not that concerned with whether we get a one or two seed or whatever. Should be a high seed regardless, and at some point you'll inevitably have to beat some really good teams.. I'm much more concerned about continued improvement and good health than I am in worrying about how crappy the ACC seems to be.
 
I dunno, if we aspire to having a really good year, I'm just not that concerned with whether we get a one or two seed or whatever. Should be a high seed regardless, and at some point you'll inevitably have to beat some really good teams.. I'm much more concerned about continued improvement and good health than I am in worrying about how crappy the ACC seems to be.
Yeah but until last season, Duke had not beaten a better seed for almost 30 years- and that was greatly aided by the other team losing its best player in the first half. With our team’s reliance on youth and new players, I think an easier route in the early rounds will improve our chances of a deep run more than previous Duke teams…
 
With non-con play across the country now largely done (other than Duke-Illinois), it does really seem locked in what a dumpster fire the ACC is and how much of an anvil it is going to be on Duke's NCAA tournament resume. We really have no margin for error, and need to go probably 18-2 (maybe 17-3) in the ACC to be in position for a 1 or 2 seed. But, even then, if those losses come from any combination of games other than @ Clemson, @ Carolina or home to Pitt, Duke's resume will take a massive hit from a Q3 or perhaps even Q4 loss.

Just a couple of data points from the current NET rankings to highlight how preposterously bad the ACC is vs. the other P5 conferences this year:

NET Rankings – teams outside Top 100:
SEC: 0

Big East: 1 (#176 Seton Hall)

Big 12: 2 (#108 Oklahoma St., #122 Kansas St.)

Big 10: 2 (#118 Washington, #155 Minnesota)

ACC: 9 - half the league! (#102 Virginia, #103 NC St., #105 Wake, #127 Cal, #138 Syracuse, #159 Miami, #173 Georgia Tech, #203 Boston College, #210 Virginia Tech)

Q3 or Q4 Conference games:
SEC: 1 Q3 (home vs. #84 S. Carolina), 0 Q4

Big East: 3 Q3 (#78 Georgetown, #91 DePaul, @ Seton Hall), 1 Q4 (Seton Hall)

Big 12: 4 Q3 (#77 Colorado, #81 UCF, Oklahoma St., Kansas St.), 0 Q4

Big 10: 5 Q3 (#91 Rutgers, #95 USC, Washington, Minnesota, @ Minnesota), 0 Q4

ACC: 15 Q3 (#82 Fla. St., #83 Stanford, #92 Notre Dame, Virginia, NC St., Wake, Cal, Syracuse, Miami, @ Cal, @ Syracuse, @ Miami, @ Ga. Tech, @ BC, @ Va Tech), 3 Q4 (Ga. Tech, BC, Va Tech)
Kinda seems like Jon should give Mark Few a call. He's pretty good at not letting his team stumble against weak competition and still getting high seeds.
 
We aren't going to stumble against anyone not named Clemson, SMU, Pitt, UNC. The talent gap is too wide and our defense shows up to play every night.
 
Back
Top