So you're saying they sucked even more when iowa played them?
Got it.
And they still haven't proven to be tournament quality.
Last edited:
ISR March to Madness thread
- Thread starter dexterhawk
- Start date
So you're saying they sucked even more when iowa played them?
Got it.
And they still haven't proven to be tournament quality.
But I thought that NET rankings don't make any sense, but you still use them to determine Quad 1 and 2 wins?
To paraphrase a favorite saying of Iowa fans, "You use the metrics that are assigned to you, we don't get to choose the metrics". If you want to use a different criteria, compare teams they have beat. UVA has beaten one clear NCAA tourney team and two wins (same team) against a bubble team. OK St. has two wins against for sure teams and 3 wins against bubble teams, thus if they were eligible, OK St would be in a much better position for a tourney bid than UVA and a road win against them is a better W.
You're barking up the wrong tree here. I think NET rankings make perfect sense. I just don't think it's the best tool to be using to determine seeding and who gets in. However, I don't get to pick what tools the NCAA created so while I disagree with their formula it's what we have to refer to. If you'd like me to use another rating service I'd be happy to.
Just really odd to say NET makes no sense but then used said rankings for other things.
It’s no different than saying you don’t agree that team “x” is ranked high in the AP poll while agreeing about another team’s ranking.
Every single fan base or fan of college basketball probably singles out a team or two that they don’t agree with their ranking, while also agreeing where others are ranked in that same poll.
This is why I have a problem with Iowa’s ranking.
It's been explained on here pretty effectively multiple times, but you keep going back to this as if it is some good point.
An individual team ranking can be pretty janky. To keep bias out, let's look at Houston.
The individual team ranking at #4 is pretty nonsensical. So we could say we should rework the factors and weighting to get them to something more reasonable like #15. So we do that and some teams move up, some move down. So while Houston's individual team ranking might change pretty significantly, chances are their records vs. the quads are not going to change dramatically enough to significantly change how they are viewed in that regard. The odds that a team has a bunch of games vs. teams on the fringes of the different quads AND any change to the system would move them all in the same direction are extremely small. So maybe a major shift gets Houston from 0-3 vs. quad 1 to 1-3, 1-4, 0-4, but no way it changes it so much that they suddenly get to 1-2 seed material.
So the point is if you changed or improved the system, an individual team's ranking might change fairly significantly, but their overall records vs. quads probably will not.
Or put another way, an individual team's NET ranking has a much higher chance to be a wacky outlier than their record vs. the quads. And why? Well we can see that it is heavily driven by net ppp. The fact that over 80% of the way through the season ISU moves up 8 spots after a home win vs. an Oklahoma team that might now be on the wrong side of the bubble tells us that there is a TON of weight on style points, MoV, net ppp, however you want to say it, it's all the same.
Yes exactly I guess that's where I see it differently. I think Virginia is better than a team like Oklahoma State personally. You're right they're categorized differently
Kenpom another one that has Iowa in the teens. Is that one trustworthy or just for measuring the opponents?
One is a human poll/popularity contest. The other is a computer poll. They are both a lot different.
I would honestly suggest educating yourself on metrics.
The reason people discuss NET for measuring the quads is because it’s the only one that does.
BPI, KenPom, and Sagarin are all predictive measurements and disregard wins and losses for the most part. Iowa is ranked in the teens in those metrics.
KPI and SOR measure how well you performed against your schedule and for the most part disregard efficiency. Iowa ranks in the 30s in those metrics. I think predictive metrics have their place and are interesting, but when it comes to evaluating how good a season is at the end of the year I don’t think they should be more highly valued than results. Again, that’s my opinion and you don’t have to agree. He good thing for Iowa State is that the selection committee has more closely aligned with SOR over the last few years so that’s a good thing.
Warren Nolan has a pretty good team sheet that includes all of those metrics on one page.
Iowa Hawkeyes NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet 2022 Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com
NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet for Iowa Hawkeyes 2022 Men's College Basketball. This Is a Duplication of the report used by the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee to Determine At-Large Teams in the national championship tournament with quadrants
At best they are comparable. In most ratings it’s not close… so okay? Why would it matter if you think they are better?
We aren't really arguing because I've said on here before I think SOR is the best and fairest tool to use of everything out there. I find it hypocritical that people point to NET of Iowa's opponents or Kenpom like in this particular message but then disregard Iowa's rank In those tools. SOR is the best thoughI would honestly suggest educating yourself on metrics.
The reason people discuss NET for measuring the quads is because it’s the only one that does.
BPI, KenPom, and Sagarin are all predictive measurements and disregard wins and losses for the most part. Iowa is ranked in the teens in those metrics.
KPI and SOR measure how well you performed against your schedule and for the most part disregard efficiency. Iowa ranks in the 30s in those metrics. I think predictive metrics have their place and are interesting, but when it comes to evaluating how good a season is at the end of the year I don’t think they should be more highly valued than results. Again, that’s my opinion and you don’t have to agree. He good thing for Iowa State is that the selection committee has more closely aligned with SOR over the last few years so that’s a good thing.
Warren Nolan has a pretty good team sheet that includes all of those metrics on one page.
Iowa Hawkeyes NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet 2022 Men's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com
NET - Nitty Gritty Report & Team Sheet for Iowa Hawkeyes 2022 Men's College Basketball. This Is a Duplication of the report used by the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee to Determine At-Large Teams in the national championship tournament with quadrantswww.warrennolan.com
Are you still this dumb? It's been explained about 20 times by now.
Another metric based system that rewards duchey coaching to run up scores on crap opponents. So yes they're "trustworthy".
Yet not always reliable. Not all conferences are full of classless coaches that press down 15 with no chance of winning to make their metrics look better. Or run up the score against paid wins.
Yeah they weren’t pressing. They were making them pick the ball up. If you don’t know the difference you should probably just stop commenting.
Who are you talking about? Or just feeling like it fits a certain team.
Feeling indicted? I didn't even watch basketball tonight. I'm guessing Iowa did what you are getting defensive about. Lol
But hey if the shoe fits, by all means, deny deny deny. Funny though what comes to your mind first when I mention classless coaching.
It does seem to be the trend in the Big 10 these days.
Last edited:
I know this is late. But refer to my last comment on everything. Where ANY fanbase is going to pinpoint a singular team or maybe teams in which they won’t agree with their ranking.
Obviously Iowa is front and center here. I mean, we have very similar records and Iowa State beat the breaks off of Iowa earlier in the year, so of course there’s going to be ongoing commentary regarding their projected seed and whatnot.
