6 seed: 0-5
5 seed: 1-4
4 seed: 2-3
3 seed: 3-3, or 4-3 (maybe 5-2?)
2 seed: 5-2? or 6-1
5 seed: 1-4
4 seed: 2-3
3 seed: 3-3, or 4-3 (maybe 5-2?)
2 seed: 5-2? or 6-1
2022-2023 MBB computer projections thread
- Thread starter Sigmapolis
- Start date
Lol, you're making fun of my post that said we need 4 more wins to get a 3 seed but you turn right back around and say 4-3 will get us a 3.
I'd be curious to see this data for 2000's only. Maybe too small of a data set, but seems like college basketball and the tournament have changed quite a bit.View attachment 109935
I'd rather be a 6 than a 5..
I'd rank my preference 1,2,3,4,6,5,11,12,7,10,8,9
BracketOdds - How Far Does Each Seed Advance?
March Madness: What are the odds? A tool for bracketologists.bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu
He said 3 wins gets us a 3 seed and that 4 wins won’t get us a 2 seed. You can’t tell the difference?
I love Gary Parrish, but I'd hardly call him the be all end all of college basketball rankings. His ranking is mostly tied to resume.
Does the committee factor in performance in last 10 or 5 or something (honest question)? If so, that might not have been factored into Saturday's release yet. I have a hard time believing that a 17-14 ISU team who finished the season 2-10 is a 6 seed. I understand overall record doesn't matter anymore, and we still would have 8 Q 1 wins, but I just can't see a 6 seed in that case.
You really think he put us against Drake as a way to get clicks?Joe Lunardi does not give a **** about getting clicks from Iowa State fans. Some of you guys need to take a step back.
I'm sorry if you can't see that we aren't playing as well as we were at the beginning of the conference season. Doesn't mean we're a bad team.
I think we might've dipped a little bit, but I honestly think 80% of it has to do with where you play the games and the other 20% has had to do with not having a healthy Caleb.
You throw out the outlier of Okie State and we've handled most teams at home while losing in the last couple possessions on the road.
For a few years, there was record in final 10 games, then adjusted to 12 games. That aspect was dropped, quite a few years ago (unable to pinpoint what year).
Basic summary: Intention was to add value for "playing well down the stretch," didn't take into account schedule strength.
Ok thanks. I'd be very surprised if recent performance wasn't at least "discussed" as part of the seeding process. Might not be a formal weighted "factor".
I think with the players available tired legs and the general slog of the season shows more greatly. It's just trickier to really push through.
Parts of the 2019 season were an example of a team being bad. If this team were playing bad they'd be getting blown out.
Committee is allowed to consider injury factors. So if that happens to fall into late-season, it would apply. I'm sure some individual members might have tracked progress closely throughout the season and note how "good" teams are playing down the stretch. But it isn't an official category, and considering all other info that's necessary to evaluate, I imagine it'd have minor impact.
Here's a summary of the process.
How the field of 68 DI men’s teams is picked for March Madness
The NCAA’s guide to how the 68 teams are chosen, seeded and bracketed for the Division I men's basketball tournament every season.
It is my understanding that "momentum" or "recency bias" is not supposed to be one the criteria used by the selection committee. The datasheets they receive on each team doesn't even organize the results by their dates on the schedules -- it organizes it from the best to the worst games by NET rating.
Here is an example one with Iowa State's "team sheet" from last year...
Yes, the sheet has dates, but it is not organized around that. In theory the first game of the season is supposed to count just as much as the last game of the season, like in the NBA.
You still feeling confident about that 3 seed after last night with 3 more wins?
Let's revisit this on selection Sunday and see who was right.
Oklahoma, West Virginia, and beating OSU or TCU in KC won't be enough imo.
Assume this --
Gives you this --
Oh darn. A #4 seed. For a team that wasn't even sure to be on the bubble.
Whatever shall we do. The sky must be falling.
Last edited:
That's beside the point. I think objectively we should be on the 4 or 5 line. I'll take that any day. The simulation you ran further proves my point.
I'm responding to all the posters from yesterday who think we will be a 3 by just holding serve at home. The selection committee showed its hand and the losses won't matter from here on out was the theme.
I think you have a point that holding serve probably gives you a #4.
The simulation above shows you right on the 3/4 line with one in KC, though.
That really could go either way depending on the human whims of the committee and maybe needing to move Iowa State somewhere to avoid a Big 12 #1 seed (e.g., Kansas) or #5 seed (e.g., TCU).
I find debating if we'll be a #3 or #4 kind of like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, though. Is there a substantial difference there? Isn't either an amazing outcome for this year?
Is there a site I can find that simulator? Seems like I'd seen it in the past, but no clue where to look.
Lol, nope. If you read and comprehend my post I believe that if we win our last 2 home games plus the first round game in KC (likely over KState) we will be a 3 seed. Say we win 4 games somehow, I still think we'll be a 3 seed. I think we'd essentially need to win out to move all the way up to a 2 seed.
