Pac-12 MBB power ratings: Arizona on top despite ugly loss while Utah and Colorado complete home sweeps

We’ll start the new year with an old topic — one that plays an essential role in determining the NCAA Tournament field and seeds.

Yes, it’s time for our annual NET rankings refresher.

By the NCAA’s own admission, the NET rankings serve as “the primary sorting tool for Division I men’s basketball” and “play an important role in establishing a team’s resume.”

It is the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) in every sense.

The rankings not only consider winning percentage — the foundational metric in the obsolete RPI (Rating Percentage Index) — but a slew of other factors, including “game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses.”

The “quality” piece is based on the NCAA’s quadrant system, which places each game on one of four tiers based on location and the opponent’s NET ranking.

Because it’s easier to win at home, the quadrant system is weighted: Beat the No. 75 team in the NET rankings at home, and it counts as a Quad 2 victory; but beat the No. 75 team on the road, and it’s a Quad 1 win.

— Quadrant 1: Home (vs.) 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75
— Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135
— Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240
— Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353

In building a resume worthy of March Madness, the goal isn’t merely to collect as many quality wins as possible. It’s also to avoid bad losses.

Or as the NCAA frames the situation: “The number of Quadrant 1 wins and Quadrant 3/4 losses will be incredibly important when it comes time for NCAA Tournament selection and seeding.”

And in the Pac-12, there are more opportunities for bad losses than quality wins.

To the power ratings …

(NET rankings through Sunday)

1. Arizona (10-3/1-1)

Results: won at Cal 100-81, lost at Stanford 100-82
NET ranking: No. 4
Next up: vs. Colorado (Thursday)
Comment: The Wildcats have lost three of their past five and were beaten soundly by a .500 team (Stanford) — yet we never considered removing them from the top spot. That speaks to both Arizona’s impressive body of work and to the lack of a viable alternative.

2. Utah (11-2/2-0)

Results: beat Washington State 80-58 and Washington 95-90
NET ranking: No. 16
Next up: at Arizona State (Thursday)
Comment: Splits at home against the Washington schools don’t get you into the NCAAs. The Utes needed a sweep and found a way to secure it, thanks to Branden Carlson.

3. Colorado (11-2/2-0)

Results: beat Washington 73-69 and WSU 74-67
NET ranking: No. 30
Next up: at Arizona (Thursday)
Comment: Everything from the way they’re built to coach Tad Boyle’s preferred style of play suggests a load of 70-something to 60-something victories in CU’s immediate future.

4. Oregon (10-3/2-0)

Results: beat USC 82-74 and UCLA 64-59
NET ranking: No. 71
Next up: at Washington (Thursday)
Comment: The heavy reliance on two talented freshmen, guard Jackson Shelstad and forward Kwame Evans Jr., creates a high ceiling for the Ducks and, perhaps, a low floor.

5. UCLA (6-7/1-1)

Results: won at Oregon State 69-62, lost at Oregon 64-59
NET ranking: No. 144
Next up: vs. Stanford (Wednesday)
Comment: The last time the Bruins were under .500 when the calendar turned? That would be the winter of 2009-10, when the Ben Howland era turned for the worse.

6. Arizona State (8-5/2-0)

Results: won at Stanford 76-73 and Cal 71-69
NET ranking: No. 124
Next up: vs. Utah (Thursday)
Comment: News from the near future, possibly: Arizona State completes its final season in the Pac-12 with all 20 of its conference games decided by three points or less.

7. Washington (8-5/0-2)

Results: lost at Colorado 73-69 and Utah 95-90
NET ranking: No. 57
Next up: vs. Oregon (Thursday)
Comment: The Hotline attempts to treat potential coaching changes with the appropriate level of gravity, so we have not officially begun the Mike Hopkins Watch. And honestly, that step could be many, many weeks away (if it comes at all).

8. Stanford (6-6/1-1)

Results: lost to ASU 76-73, beat Arizona 100-82
NET ranking: No. 117
Next up: at UCLA (Wednesday)
Comment: The Cardinal jumped 39 spots in the NET with the upset of Arizona. That said, it has a long way to go for NCAA Tournament consideration and plenty of opportunities to slide back given all the low NET rankings across the conference.

9. Oregon State (9-4/1-1)

Results: lost to UCLA 69-62, beat USC 86-70
NET ranking: No. 190
Next up: at WSU (Thursday)
Comment: Not on our Beavers bingo card for the 2023-24 season: Tyler Bilodeau as one of the most improved players in the conference. But if the sophomore forward keeps this up, OSU just might reach an acceptable level of performance.

10. Washington State (9-4/0-2)

Results: lost at Utah 80-58 and Colorado 74-67
NET ranking: No. 55
Next up: vs. Oregon State (Thursday)
Comment: Sometimes, the NET is a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an algorithm. WSU’s current (solid) position is one of those instances given a non-conference schedule that was littered with cream puffs.

11. USC (6-7/0-2)

Results: lost at Oregon 82-74 and Oregon State 86-70
NET ranking: No. 91
Next up: vs. Cal (Wednesday)
Comment: The struggling Trojans were beaten soundly in Corvallis to finish a wasted weekend and here’s the headline that appeared on ESPN’s main college basketball site: “Bronny shines with highlight jam, season-best 15.” Welcome to your life, USC.

12. Cal (4-9/0-2)

Results: lost to Arizona 100-81 and ASU 71-69
NET ranking: No. 229
Next up: at USC (Wednesday)
Comment: Among the many items on coach Mark Madsen’s to-do list: Generate bench production from someone other than Grant Newell. One dependable reserve simply won’t cut it.

---

*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to pac12hotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716

*** Follow me on Twitter: @WilnerHotline

*** Pac-12 Hotline is not endorsed or sponsored by the Pac-12 Conference, and the views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conference.