Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 86

Thread: The 2019 - 20 NET Rankings Thread

  1. #51
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kong-Kool-Aid View Post
    Santa Clara Tumbles to 97 after loss to SF. No longer considered a Quad 1 away win. - Dang

    SMC - Rises to 37, only Quad 1 away, Quad 2 at home

    BYU - Remains 33, Quad 1 away and Quad 1 home.

    That Santa Clara loss is unfortunate.



    Quadrant 1: Home 1-30; Neutral 1-50; Away 1-75.
    Quadrant 2: Home 31-75; Neutral 51-100; Away 76-135.
    Quadrant 3: Home 76-160; Neutral 101-200; Away 136-240.
    Quadrant 4: Home 161-plus; Neutral 201-plus; Away 241-plus.
    I think the most important thing on this entire list is that rigth now, every away game falls into at least the Quad3 column. The league only has 4 teams that fall in that tier right now and zero outside of it.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Just north of I-80
    Posts
    46,439

    Default

    As of the games played through 1/12/20, WCC has four teams in the top 75, 5 in the Top 100:

    GU 7
    BYU 32
    SMC 44
    SCU 75
    USF 97

    PAC 130
    PEP 151
    POR 225
    USD 234
    LMU 241

    OOC FOES:

    ORE - 13
    ARIZ - 18
    MICH - 29
    WASH - 51
    UNC - 116
    TAMU - 118
    UTA - 143
    EWU - 163
    NO DAK - 205
    CSUB - 261
    TX SO - 266
    DETMCY - 304
    SO MISS - 315
    ALA ST - 343
    ARK PB - 345

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Hoping BYU goes undefeated against everyone but us from here on out, will give us a quad 1 win at home.

    Would also be nice to see Santa Clara solidify themselves as top 75.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kong-Kool-Aid View Post
    Hoping BYU goes undefeated against everyone but us from here on out, will give us a quad 1 win at home.

    Would also be nice to see Santa Clara solidify themselves as top 75.
    Who would win the conference, if both GU and BYU finish in a tie at the top of the league standings, then who would get the #1 seed in Vegas?

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colville, Wa.
    Posts
    14,122

    Default

    SCU bounced back big with the win at SMC.
    This post is for March Madness seeding purposes only.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RenoZag View Post
    As of the games played through 1/12/20, WCC has four teams in the top 75, 5 in the Top 100:

    GU 7
    BYU 32
    SMC 44
    SCU 75
    USF 97

    PAC 130
    PEP 151
    POR 225
    USD 234
    LMU 241

    OOC FOES:

    ORE - 13
    ARIZ - 18
    MICH - 29
    WASH - 51
    UNC - 116
    TAMU - 118
    UTA - 143
    EWU - 163
    NO DAK - 205
    CSUB - 261
    TX SO - 266
    DETMCY - 304
    SO MISS - 315
    ALA ST - 343
    ARK PB - 345
    Ugly stat. 13 games versus sub 200s.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bainbridge Island
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzdelmar View Post
    Ugly stat. 13 games versus sub 200s.
    What's really killing us is the four completely unnecessary and avoidable games against sub-300 teams. This is an unforced error. Yet we commit it every single year.

    There is no value in playing these games. They are invariably blowouts. They are not even entertaining to the fans or to the season ticket holders who have to pay for them every year. They hurt our resume by dragging down our sos.

    We could easily schedule games in the 100-200 and even 200-250 range as the type of stress-free "tuneup" games we want in our OOC without it costing us so much like these games do.

    A good rule of thumb would be to just never schedule SWAC teams. The conference is terrible top to bottom. It boggles the mind that we see one or two or three of these teams in our OOC every year when we could play a Boise State or a Montana or even a WSU or all three and have better interest from fans, a better resume for the committee and better competition and experience for our players.

    We need to change our scheduling philosophy to avoid these types of games.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    6,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 229SintoZag View Post
    What's really killing us is the four completely unnecessary and avoidable games against sub-300 teams. This is an unforced error. Yet we commit it every single year.

    There is no value in playing these games. They are invariably blowouts. They are not even entertaining to the fans or to the season ticket holders who have to pay for them every year. They hurt our resume by dragging down our sos.

    We could easily schedule games in the 100-200 and even 200-250 range as the type of stress-free "tuneup" games we want in our OOC without it costing us so much like these games do.

    A good rule of thumb would be to just never schedule SWAC teams. The conference is terrible top to bottom. It boggles the mind that we see one or two or three of these teams in our OOC every year when we could play a Boise State or a Montana or even a WSU or all three and have better interest from fans, a better resume for the committee and better competition and experience for our players.

    We need to change our scheduling philosophy to avoid these types of games.
    Scheduling like that, and the Zags will NEVER be ranked #1!


    Have you contacted the University to let them know? You ARE entitled to your opinion. That doesn't make it right. Obviously Few and staff have a different view. I trust theirs.

    Don't like paying for those games? Sell the tickets to someone that will never get to go otherwise.
    Hoping you have a sense of humor too!

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    seattle, spokane
    Posts
    3,211

    Default

    question.
    we are discussing the buy games
    it couldn't be the expensiveness to buy teams ranked 200 compared to the cheapness of a 300 team, could it?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZagsGoZags View Post
    question.
    we are discussing the buy games
    it couldn't be the expensiveness to buy teams ranked 200 compared to the cheapness of a 300 team, could it?
    That is certainly a part of it. Why pay double for a less than double advantage in playing a team in the low 200s vs 300s? It doesn't help your tournament resume at all, increases odds of a home upset, costs more money, and if fans are willing to reward this behavior equally (i.e. sell out to Chaminade vs same revenue against a Montana) then why not?

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,620

    Default

    It would be nice if the NCAA allowed more pre-season tournaments. I would like to see more games played in actual arenas, as opposed to converted banquet halls with horseradish stains on the floor from the prime rib dinner the night before, temporary floors with a giant decals covered in a layer of condensation, or (no offense to Maui) small gyms. For example, Spokane could host a very nice preseason tournament and you could get Gonzaga and another local team playing a few other teams from somewhere who want a chance to improve their resumes. From my myopic perspective here on the ground, it seems like such an artificial and arbitrary restriction. A Battle in Seattle tournament* every year would be a very cool thing, for example.

    I read that a team can only play one tournament every four years (eg would need to rotate between Atlantis, Maui, that thing in Portland, etc). That rule would need to change to allow the above to happen, too. I don't understand why Oregon shouldn't be allowed to play in that Phil Knight tournament in their backyard every year.


    *You could get it sponsored by Starbucks and market it as Baristas and Basketball, or Hoops and Half-Cafs

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    University Place, WA (aka Chambers Bay)
    Posts
    4,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPtheBeasta View Post
    It would be nice if the NCAA allowed more pre-season tournaments. I would like to see more games played in actual arenas, as opposed to converted banquet halls with horseradish stains on the floor from the prime rib dinner the night before, temporary floors with a giant decals covered in a layer of condensation, or (no offense to Maui) small gyms. For example, Spokane could host a very nice preseason tournament and you could get Gonzaga and another local team playing a few other teams from somewhere who want a chance to improve their resumes. From my myopic perspective here on the ground, it seems like such an artificial and arbitrary restriction. A Battle in Seattle tournament* every year would be a very cool thing, for example.

    I read that a team can only play one tournament every four years (eg would need to rotate between Atlantis, Maui, that thing in Portland, etc). That rule would need to change to allow the above to happen, too. I don't understand why Oregon shouldn't be allowed to play in that Phil Knight tournament in their backyard every year.


    *You could get it sponsored by Starbucks and market it as Baristas and Basketball, or Hoops and Half-Cafs
    One thing that will address this issue VERY soon (i.e. playing games in Arenas) is the soon to be completed ('21) Seattle Center Arena. This will bring back the "Battle in Seattle" and will ensure an extra game in a bigtime arena (i.e. in Seattle one year ... potentially Boston/Charlotte/Chicago/Washington DC the next). Can't wait. Oh ... and future "Battle in Seattle" game will feature top Power 5 (and/or Big East) opponents only.

    "To be continued ....."
    Father Tony Lehman, SJ

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoZags View Post
    One thing that will address this issue VERY soon (i.e. playing games in Arenas) is the soon to be completed ('21) Seattle Center Arena. This will bring back the "Battle in Seattle" and will ensure an extra game in a bigtime arena (i.e. in Seattle one year ... potentially Boston/Charlotte/Chicago/Washington DC the next). Can't wait. Oh ... and future "Battle in Seattle" game will feature top Power 5 (and/or Big East) opponents only.
    That’s great news. It startled to fizzle when the competition became increasingly mediocre. That said, there were some fun games in that house.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoZags View Post
    One thing that will address this issue VERY soon (i.e. playing games in Arenas) is the soon to be completed ('21) Seattle Center Arena. This will bring back the "Battle in Seattle" and will ensure an extra game in a bigtime arena (i.e. in Seattle one year ... potentially Boston/Charlotte/Chicago/Washington DC the next). Can't wait. Oh ... and future "Battle in Seattle" game will feature top Power 5 (and/or Big East) opponents only.
    That's very cool news

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoZags View Post
    One thing that will address this issue VERY soon (i.e. playing games in Arenas) is the soon to be completed ('21) Seattle Center Arena. This will bring back the "Battle in Seattle" and will ensure an extra game in a bigtime arena (i.e. in Seattle one year ... potentially Boston/Charlotte/Chicago/Washington DC the next). Can't wait. Oh ... and future "Battle in Seattle" game will feature top Power 5 (and/or Big East) opponents only.
    Quote Originally Posted by ZagsObserver View Post
    That’s great news. It startled to fizzle when the competition became increasingly mediocre. That said, there were some fun games in that house.
    My understanding was it died because good teams didn't get the benefit of a true neutral site game. If it comes back, can we schedule marquee opponents? We still went MSG to get smacked around by Villanova so I guess we should convince some poor souls to come to Seattle.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogozags View Post
    Who would win the conference, if both GU and BYU finish in a tie at the top of the league standings, then who would get the #1 seed in Vegas?
    Bump

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Colville, Wa.
    Posts
    14,122

    Default

    1st tiebreak is head to head.



    IIRC it is then broken by how you did vs each team as you move down the standings; GU & BYU head to head vs #3, GU & BYU head to head vs #4, etc.

    If there are ties down the line then they need to be broken (for WCC Tournament seeding purposes) the same way, starting at the top of the standings.

    Someone please correct me if inaccurate.
    This post is for March Madness seeding purposes only.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sittingon50 View Post
    1st tiebreak is head to head.



    IIRC it is then broken by how you did vs each team as you move down the standings; GU & BYU head to head vs #3, GU & BYU head to head vs #4, etc.

    If there are ties down the line then they need to be broken (for WCC Tournament seeding purposes) the same way, starting at the top of the standings.

    Someone please correct me if inaccurate.
    THANKS 50, for responding...I thought it might be along those lines...

    So we split with BYU and have a loss to another team other than SMC...then seeding would be determined on the rank of that team to whom we lost...and if that team is ranked lower than SMC then BYU would be the #1 seed I get that BUT if we lose to both BYU and SMC on the road, then BYU and GU would have lost to the same teams...

    I feel really confident we win both games this week and that we don’t lose at home...think the BYU, SCU, SMC, USF and Pepperdine road games can be really tough games on the road...our road game vs SCU this month will be the telling tale...IMO

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    University Place, WA (aka Chambers Bay)
    Posts
    4,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagdontzig View Post
    My understanding was it died because good teams didn't get the benefit of a true neutral site game. If it comes back, can we schedule marquee opponents? We still went MSG to get smacked around by Villanova so I guess we should convince some poor souls to come to Seattle.
    Don’t think that is correct. ie opponent’s neutral sites were in their backyards ... ie Boston for UConn, Phoenix for Arizona, Wichita for Kansas State, Phoenix for Arizona, Nashville for Tennessee, Columbia for Mizzou (their campus). There are a couple “big names” pretty much already in (or near) the fold.

    "To be continued ....."
    Father Tony Lehman, SJ

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoZags View Post
    Don’t think that is correct. ie opponent’s neutral sites were in their backyards ... ie Boston for UConn, Phoenix for Arizona, Wichita for Kansas State, Phoenix for Arizona, Nashville for Tennessee, Columbia for Mizzou (their campus). There are a couple “big names” pretty much already in (or near) the fold.
    Any information regarding the PM?

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Spokane South Side
    Posts
    16,950

    Default

    Gonzaga moves up from #7 to #5 in the Net Rankings: https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basket...l-net-rankings

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    University Place, WA (aka Chambers Bay)
    Posts
    4,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bogozags View Post
    Any information regarding the PM?
    Asked but have yet to get an answer.

    "To be continued ....."
    Father Tony Lehman, SJ

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hilton Head (Bluffton), SC
    Posts
    4,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoZags View Post
    Asked but have yet to get an answer.
    Thanks!!!

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Spokane South Side
    Posts
    16,950

    Default

    Gonzaga up to #4 in the NET Rankings today: https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basket...l-net-rankings

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    8,655

    Default

    Big 12 with 3 teams in the top 10, not to mention the 1-2 ranking.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •