[Cracked Sidewalks] Building a Resume

[brewcity77]

Do you ever get sick of that one person who spends year droning on about the importance of non-conference scheduling? If so, you may want to avoid this article. But if you want to understand why Marquette's non-conference schedule was worth a full line of NCAA seeding in a single day, this might be of interest:

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2019/12/building-resume.html

[UWW2MU]

One point I'd make regarding running up the score to improve NET is this: running up the score itself only helps up to the 10 point margin.  After that, the only benefit you see is from the increased offensive efficiency.  So if you're going to run up the score, make sur eyou're doing it with high percentage shots while still playing a strong D.   Don't let them go on a tear with points even if you're running up the score at a faster pace.

[brewcity77]

Anonymous Eagle wrote a piece on efficiency margins that posted almost the same time as this article and is a nice companion to that point:

https://www.anonymouseagle.com/platform/amp/2019/12/13/21005090/marquette-golden-eagles-basketball-tempo-pace-efficiency-turnovers?__twitter_impression=true

I would stress that running up scores really means increasing the per possession margin. You can allow points, as long as you're scoring at a more efficient rate (such as exchanging threes for twos). But what would really help is limiting turnovers so we are getting shots rather than giving away possessions.

You can play slow and still have great efficiency disparities. See not only Virginia, but Jay Wright's Villanova teams since their 2015-16 national title winner.

[The Equalizer]

How close is the NCAA to using the NET to seed all teams 1-68? 

If we're at the point where the committee no longer looks at the actual victor as opposed to the victory margin versus expectations when selecting or seeding teams, what actual purpose do they serve?

Is there a comparison of NET to the actual field and seeding last year? 

If we're arguing that teams need to worry about beating a team by 18 instead of 19, I would expect that NET would almost exactly define the way teams were actually seeded (NET rank 1-4 are your four #1 seeds, NET Rank 5-8 are #2, etc. all the way down to the last four in and first four out).

I get it's not a straight 1-68--you have to factor in the automatic bids. But say there are 20 automatic qualifiers with a NET rank above 68.  After that, if NET is the determining factor, then no at-large team with a rank worse than 48 should be in the tournament. An no team better than 48 should miss.   

Is that what is actually happening?

[The Sultan]

nm

[brewcity77]

How close is the NCAA to using the NET to seed all teams 1-68?

We aren't there. St John's and Arizona State got bids last year. But we're closer at the top than I think many realize. The exceptions are smaller leagues. Of the perceived top-6 leagues (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Pac-12) there were only two teams seeded more than 1 line away from their NET position would indicate on the top-6 seed lines. Kansas State & Marquette were both 2 lines higher than their rank would imply.

The biggest outliers at the top were Houston, Buffalo (both 2 lines lower), & Wofford (3 lines lower). But if you're in one of the top-6 conferences, you can pretty safely expect to be within one seed line of your NET position.

[Cheeks]