...way and that results of those games even matter far less. Your counter argument is that you can "game" the NET/predictive metrics by scheduling bad teams and demolishing them. It isn't quite that simple but I would argue that a system that you can benefit from regardless of results is a lot worse than a system you can benefit from by being so good you blow teams out. NET is based, in a lot of ways, on what we know to be the most accurate way to evaluate how good a team is at a given time. It isn't meant to evaluate your resume, it's meant to evaluate how good you are, those are different resutlts. Using NET rating as a way to seed teams or get them in to the tournament? That's a bad practice but it's also NOT the way that the process is done. Using NET to evaluate a team's opponents and body of work? Good practice and that IS what's happening. I feel like there is confusion because the people on TV always show teams metric ratings - some of which are resume based and some predictive - but that isn't the actual process used by the committee to make decisions. If people are "gaming" the NET and predictive metrics I have great news - identify those teams and short them betting and see how it goes, because Vegas lines are going to match up incredibly close to those metrics, including the NET.