Initial NET ranking | Bear Insider

annarborbear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 5,262

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

11:58a, 12/1/25

The always complicated and always controversial NET ranking system has issued its initial numbers for this year. After these initial games, the NET system places us at #72, behind 11 other ACC teams. We will have to move up to the mid 40's to make the NCAA tournament given the number of automatic qualifiers from smaller conferences. Missouri is at #76, so a win over them at this point won't help us much for now, but could be more helpful if Missouri also beats higher ranked opponents as the season moves on.

Lowest ACC initial NET ranking is SMU at #203, after starting off at 2-5. Highest ACC team is North Carolina at #13.

3

3 edits

wvitbear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 6,900

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

4:06p, 12/1/25

Where is
Vandy/.

BearBint

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 2,602

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to wvitbear • 5:58p, 12/1/25

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-women/d1/ncaa-womens-basketball-net-rankings

"Don't get distracted, myself. Don't get distracted." Self-talk from a young relative

1

annarborbear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 5,262

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

6:29p, 12/1/25

These numbers are updated pretty much daily since they are all done by computer. Time to look for more meaningful rankings will be in January when all of the non-conference games are over and the in-conference games begin.

2

CalFanatic

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 5,294

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

1:56p, 12/2/25

LSU being #1 after playing the School of the Blind for 7 straight games.

Sorry but NET is garbage.

annarborbear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 5,262

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to CalFanatic • 3:48p, 12/2/25

CalFanatic said:
LSU being #1 after playing the School of the Blind for 7 straight games.

Sorry but NET is garbage.

I won't defend the system. But adding in average scoring margins of 112-52 is what probably gets them there. AP and Coaches Polls have them at #5 until they beat some better teams. I did watch them dismantle Charlotte 117-59, and they did look pretty incredible.

One reason the NCAA went with an algorithm formula is to be able to rank all 353 teams. Only a computer system could do that.

Our three priorities to get in the NCAA tournament under this system will now have to be;
1. Beat some teams ranked above us, preferably on their home courts.
2. Beat teams ranked below us by a reasonable scoring margin.
3. Avoid blow-out losses to anybody.

1

5 edits

wvitbear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 6,900

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

4:19p, 12/2/25

I remember when we beat Wash State three times and they were ranked ahead of us. It is a garbage ranking.

3

annarborbear

Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Posts: 5,262

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to wvitbear • 4:49p, 12/2/25

wvitbear said:
I remember when we beat Wash State three times and they were ranked ahead of us. It is a garbage ranking.

One big weakness is that they give no credit at all to head-to-head meetings. Those are treated as just one more game in the season. Another problem is that you have to play less of your bench to keep scoring margins high when you are winning and as close as possible when you are losing.

The old selection committee system also had its problems. The top 30 selections were always obvious. But below that, conference reps scratched each other's backs to get their respective members in.

2

3 edits

Woodacre

Joined: Mar 12, 2024

Posts: 441

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

12:18p, 12/5/25

To prove the point...

By the time the game started last night, Cal's rating was 75, Missouri was 76.

We know what happened in the game...sigh...

Today...Cal is 75. Missouri is...77!

4

ClayK

Joined: Dec 17, 2013

Posts: 3,586

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

6:24a, 12/6/25

There is no perfect system, or even close. The lack of accounting for head-to-head is troubling, but overrating one game -- which could have been impacted by injuries or fluky shooting -- can be an issue as well.

Generally the computer systems work themselves out over time, and by February, are much more accurate.

But then a team that's ranked high loses its best player to injury and that isn't taken into account.

All in all, though, I'd rather have a computer than a committee. Too many ways for a group of people to go wrong ...

4

stu

Joined: Dec 7, 2009

Posts: 9,826

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

In reply to ClayK • 9:10a, 12/6/25

How about a committee of computers? AKA AI.

1

ClayK

Joined: Dec 17, 2013

Posts: 3,586

User Profile

Private Message

Ignore User Stop Ignoring

How long do you want to ignore this user?

24 hours One week Permanently Cancel

6:38a, 12/7/25

I actually think there have been formats that combine multiple computer rankings ...

But it doesn't matter, really. There is no way to be completely accurate and some teams will get a benefit and others the short end of the stick.

The basic problem is that we have evolved to the point that all counts is postseason, and because of that focus -- rather than on the year as a whole, or league play -- we wind up with constant controversy.

1