Started By
Message
re: NET Rankings Are Broken:
Posted on 2/3/23 at 10:14 am to Al Bundy Bulldog
Posted on 2/3/23 at 10:14 am to Al Bundy Bulldog
quote:
Won’t matter much after Missouri loses to Mississippi State in Starkville tomorrow
A road game against a team playing good ball. Entirely possible, especially if we shoot 3s the way we did against the Tide. If we hit 3s like the way we did the last three games, I like our chances.
0
Posted on 2/3/23 at 10:33 am to Tiger_Claw
When your defense is ranked around 200, you better not lose...
Posted on 2/3/23 at 11:45 am to Al Bundy Bulldog
quote:
Won’t matter much after Missouri loses to Mississippi State in Starkville tomorrow
I just hope it's a competitive game. Should be a fun one.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 11:53 am to Tiger_Claw
Must be awful to be a Misery fan. Even unbiased algorithms think less of your team.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 11:58 am to ReversePiggie
quote:
Must be awful to be a Misery fan. Even unbiased algorithms think less of your team.
Nah. It's pretty great actually. Get to celebrate having a winning record against our conference rival in football and we're starting to bounce back in b-ball. I imagine we'll be on the winning side of those contests for the next few years.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 12:21 pm to diddlydawg7
quote:
That win over Tennessee is probably doing a lot of work for them
The loss at home to SC should do equal work in the other direction...
Posted on 2/3/23 at 12:23 pm to Tiger_Claw
I say this in every NET thread. It vastly overrates the efficiency metrics since they changed the formula a few years ago.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 12:33 pm to ReversePiggie
quote:
Must be awful to be a Misery fan. Even unbiased algorithms think less of your team.
What's even worse is to be a fan of the team that Missouri counts as an automatic W every November
Posted on 2/3/23 at 12:36 pm to Tiger_Claw
Looks good to me. Thanks for posting 
Posted on 2/3/23 at 12:42 pm to Tiger_Claw
I agree we shouldn’t be ahead of Missouri. But is your argument that Kentucky is too high or that Missouri is too low?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 12:46 pm to Tiger_Claw
quote:
Nah. It's pretty great actually. Get to celebrate having a winning record against our conference rival in football and we're starting to bounce back in b-ball.
Bounce back to what exactly?
The best Mizzou basketball team EVER lost to Arkansas by 52 points.
You only have a winning record over 2/13 teams in the SEC.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 1:15 pm to colbycovington
Mizzou basketball and arkansas football pretty much use the same argument that the last decade or so doesn't really count because of the atrocious hires each have made. Sure, there have been some decent moments, but for the most part each have been salad shits that skew the perspective of historically top 30ish programs.
From 1976-1995, Mizzou was a top 25, if not higher, program that fell short in the NCAAT. There have been good to great teams that made conference champs, elite 8s, multiple tourney runs since then (2002, 2009, 2011) and decent teams (2020, 2018), but have also hit rock bottom, or better put dragged across the bottom of the floor for multiple years.
Mizzou games and community has a different energy surrounding basketball this year that hasn't really been in Columbia since the "good ole days". Will stay? I don't know. But so far Gates has done an A+ job year 1.
From 1976-1995, Mizzou was a top 25, if not higher, program that fell short in the NCAAT. There have been good to great teams that made conference champs, elite 8s, multiple tourney runs since then (2002, 2009, 2011) and decent teams (2020, 2018), but have also hit rock bottom, or better put dragged across the bottom of the floor for multiple years.
Mizzou games and community has a different energy surrounding basketball this year that hasn't really been in Columbia since the "good ole days". Will stay? I don't know. But so far Gates has done an A+ job year 1.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 1:51 pm to colbycovington
quote:
Bounce back to what exactly?
To where we should be in basketball. The way you view your football team over the past decade, is how we view our basketball program.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 2:20 pm to Tiger_Claw
quote:
I imagine we'll be on the winning side of those contests for the next few years.
Hell of an imagination you have there
Posted on 2/3/23 at 2:23 pm to Tiger_Claw
OP is broken
Posted on 2/3/23 at 2:58 pm to WDE24
quote:
I say this in every NET thread. It vastly overrates the efficiency metrics since they changed the formula a few years ago.
I think you’re right. And while Missouri is 9th in offensive efficiency, they’re 213th in defensive efficiency.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:45 pm to WDE24
quote:
I say this in every NET thread. It vastly overrates the efficiency metrics since they changed the formula a few years ago.
Yeah, NET just basically is the efficiency metrics.
Th main problem with that is the efficiency metrics have an issue with overrating teams that absolutely obliterate sub-200 non conference opponents. Would love to see a NET that's capable of weighing the strength of opponents a bit better.
That said, NET isn't the only or main thing the committee is considering.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 4:08 pm to Tiger_Claw
quote:
LSU 138
What an embarrassment.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:28 pm to Tiger_Claw
Suck it long and suck it hard Tigers
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:16 pm to diddlydawg7
quote:
That win over Tennessee is probably doing a lot of work for them
Yup
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News