I don’t care, the net rankings are terrible and a joke.
Joe Lunardi
- Thread starter rockycard
- Start date
The SEC has definitely manipulated the NET rankings, Alabama was 8-5 OOC and they’re considered a quad 1 team?
They played one of the toughest schedules. They’re clearly quad 1. And Virginia clearly sucks. They’ve been blown out by average teams numerous times with a really weak set of wins.
I believe aTm has a much tougher SOS and.more quad 1 wins, more quad 1a eins too.
A better comparison woupd be Michigan State and UVA. How MSU is safely in, is mind boggling. They just kept every game close, but they have 13 losses.
Tougher by what metric? They beat them by 12 head to head. Whatever metric they are using is not good, the SEC isn’t that tough as the metric system makes them out to be.
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
Well-Known Member
The Big 12 has done the same thing. In fact, they may be worse than the SEC.
Oklahoma has no business in the tournament, and yet they're gonna be safely in.
I get the h2h thing, but one team got better and has better wins, the other team didn't get better and lost to a bunch of bad teams.
The SEC metrics are very high, ranked 1st, or 2nd in every metric I've seen. The ACC is nowhere close to the top 2 leagues and that hurts UVA.
Alabama is high in the metrics because they have a top 3 offense. UVA doesn't have good metrics period.
Vanderbilt beat A&M…..VANDERBILT
A ton of truth here in regards to ESPN’s constant promotion of all things SEC and the impact it has on the college game. It’s been going on for damn near 2 decades now.
Bama being high in the metrics is a great example of why the metrics are flawed. That is one soft ass team.
Yup, they beat Florida too. Vandy is an SEC bottom feeder, but still good enough to heat good teams.
UVA lost to ND, it happens.
I've been saying the metrics are flawed for several years now. There is too much weight put on certain things and a lot of coaches have figured out a way to game the metrics.
I don't think Alabama belongs that high and I don't think Michigan State should be in, but both are where they are due to flaws in the metrics.
Also, there's very little chatter with regards to quad 1a, just quad 1. That needs to change. A win at home over VT, is not the same as winning at Tennessee, or at duke.
Last edited:
T A&M is one of those “who did you beat” v “who did you lose to” arguments. They did both and did both a lot. They’ll probably get in because most years they seem to care more about who you beat.
What makes you think they’re safely in? Lunardi has them in the last 4. Which teams that are projected to be left out are clearly better?
I think Cincinnati has an argument to be in over them though. That’s an underrated team.
Similar threads
