Ags coming in at #79.

Full list here: https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/47272

I don't understand why they release these so early in the season considering the lack of datapoints. Feels like it shouldn't come out until like early February.

I like it because you can at least see the movement as you go. You run into this thing late in the season where teams win a midly big game and they're pissed because their NET doesn't change much but when you watch it all season you can see how one more game is usually not going to make that much of a difference.

That is fair. I think it leads to far more "quad" talk than necessary though. It makes fanbases think in January they have 4 Q1 wins and then they may end the year with 2, which when you aren't following this stuff closely can be confusing. Not a big deal, but I think the whole sport is too hung up on quads the last few years.

I do agree there, the quad talk is extremely annoying. It's still an improvement over where we were ten or twenty years ago but it's so ridiculous.

Can I have an autograph? So I can give it to my niece in Taylor Swift. I did not know you were an Aggie and post on texags

Making music and Aggie sports are my favorite hobbies

Complete Idiot said:

---

Ags up to #53 in the NET rankings


LSU was a Quad 2 victory

---

Awesome! BTHO auburn!
It would be great to be 2-0!

Great win, was hoping for a bigger jump but we keep trending upwards.

I am afraid the Auburn win may not be a Quad 1 win for long.

phatty26 said:

---

AggieCrew44 said:

---

We'd be sitting fine if we hadn't blown that UCF game

---

No if we hadn't blown the SMU game, but we are trending the right way and turning into a team.

---

No if we hadn't blown both games

Complete Idiot said:

---

Great win, was hoping for a bigger jump but we keep trending upwards.

I am afraid the Auburn win may not be a Quad 1 win for long.

---

Yeah, they'll be the first team in quad 2, right behind six 19-12 Mountain West teams.

If Auburn falls out of the way out of the top 75 then Pearl might not make his second season

bobinator said:

---

If Auburn falls out of the way out of the top 75 then Pearl might not make his second season

---

Pat Knight paying close attention.

This was a bellwether game, not so much in the result, but in the comparison of the two teams. Both teams lost nearly everybody. New coaches. The A&M transition was more difficult - weren't coming off a final 4, didn't have a HoF coach, late transition made portal additions difficult. And the one guy Auburn had returning was a star.
So it's too early to tell, but next year's rosters are going to say a lot more about each program. If you don't bring in studs, it doesn't matter how good of a coach you are.

Ags now #48

Ranked 31st in ESPN's Basketball Power Index. They have our remaining game strength of schedule ranked as 17th hardest, so that's daunting.

We are ranked 43rd in the Pomeroy. Pomeroy, and others, have our non conference strength of schedule, and therefore strength of schedule to date after just 2 conference games, ranked very low - certainly hurts us.

We need to rack up more Quality wins, Quad 1 and 2 victories, to have a shot.

I was predicting 5-7 conference wins before we started conference, I don't know if is just knowing we have a first year coach and 100% new depth chart or what but I've been pretty down on this year's potential results and very high on the future of the program should we keep Bucky. Starting 2-0 has been a nice surprise to me and shows again I don't know what I am talking about. I think confidence of a squad goes a long way and starting 2-0 in SEC play must be a huge shot in the arm to continuing to get full buy in to Bucky's system and approaches from the players and just how they interact and play together on the court.

Our non-con SOS was never going to be good but it ended up being way worse than projected too. I was definitely wrong on that, I thought it might hold up in the low 200's but it's in the 350's.

Good news is we at least blew out all of the truly bad teams. Montana's not good, but they're sort of mid-bad compared to the horrifically bad seven team we played that were all ranked in the 270's or worse.

AggieCrew44 said:

---

We'd be sitting fine if we hadn't blown that UCF game

---

And/or the SMU game...?

I think having the no 17 remaining sos is great news for us since the committee usually places a huge emphasis on it and our noncon sos was terrible. The sec doesn't have any really great teams but it's very deep and doesn't really have any bad teams either, so there's gonna be a lot of winnable games in quads 1 and 2 that we'll have to get the majority of to make the tournament

nelsonagholor said:

---

I think having the no 17 remaining sos is great news for us since the committee usually places a huge emphasis on it and our noncon sos was terrible. The sec doesn't have any really great teams but it's very deep and doesn't really have any bad teams either, so there's gonna be a lot of winnable games in quads 1 and 2 that we'll have to get the majority of to make the tournament

---

Well, I don't know about great news but it's a great opportunity I guess - you have to win games. With our non-con, probably OVER .500 in conference is needed. 9-9 or below in conference has gotten teams in before, but not this team - IMO.

bobinator said:

---

Our non-con SOS was never going to be good but it ended up being way worse than projected too. I was definitely wrong on that, I thought it might hold up in the low 200's but it's in the 350's.

Good news is we at least blew out all of the truly bad teams. Montana's not good, but they're sort of mid-bad compared to the horrifically bad seven team we played that were all ranked in the 270's or worse.

---

The committee loves to reward you for margin of victory and blowing out bad opponents. Not sure why they look at stuff like that but they do. It's just a little part in the criteria. The noncon SOS is certainly a big factor and that's what worries me, but I think 10 SEC wins is enough to sneak in the field

Complete Idiot said:

---

nelsonagholor said:

---

I think having the no 17 remaining sos is great news for us since the committee usually places a huge emphasis on it and our noncon sos was terrible. The sec doesn't have any really great teams but it's very deep and doesn't really have any bad teams either, so there's gonna be a lot of winnable games in quads 1 and 2 that we'll have to get the majority of to make the tournament

---

Well, I don't know about great news but it's a great opportunity I guess - you have to win games. With our non-con, probably OVER .500 in conference is needed. 9-9 or below in conference has gotten teams in before, but not this team - IMO.

---

Agreed I'm guessing we'll need 10 wins to be right on the bubble and 11 or more likely 12 to actually feel confident. I think our difficult conference sos is needed tho bc of how bad the noncon sos was, if remaining sos wasn't as high as 17 we would probably be able to go 12-6 in the sec and still miss the tournament

AggieNattie said:

---

bobinator said:

---

Our non-con SOS was never going to be good but it ended up being way worse than projected too. I was definitely wrong on that, I thought it might hold up in the low 200's but it's in the 350's.

Good news is we at least blew out all of the truly bad teams. Montana's not good, but they're sort of mid-bad compared to the horrifically bad seven team we played that were all ranked in the 270's or worse.

---

The committee loves to reward you for margin of victory and blowing out bad opponents. Not sure why they look at stuff like that but they do. It's just a little part in the criteria. The noncon SOS is certainly a big factor and that's what worries me, but I think 10 SEC wins is enough to sneak in the field

---

Its not the committee, its NET itself. Its an adjusted efficiency metric, and efficiency is points per possession vs points allowed per possession which is not even margin of victory but just pure scoring margin.

What the committee is supposed to do is use NET to judge the quality of the wins and losses.