If it was still 115.1, we'd be ranked only 49th. So the drop the last 3 games wasn' tbad.
Do you happen to know what it was prior to Houston?
2023-2024 MBB computer projections thread
- Thread starter Sigmapolis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bracketology cyclones net quad rankings
If it was still 115.1, we'd be ranked only 49th. So the drop the last 3 games wasn' tbad.
Do you happen to know what it was prior to Houston?
There seems to be a lot of teams in metrics this year clustered really close together. It seems like one game even very late in the year has a big effect on rankings.
Yeah, wow, our drop really is because a ton of teams are improving their offensive rankings.
I’m curious what the reasoning is behind offensive efficiency increasing nationwide this late in the season?
It does feel since the Houston game did cause a bit of hesitation in the passing, uptick in TO and short arming some shots. The physicality the Cougar imposed affects a lot of teams the next couple of games ISU defense does the same to the opponents. (I think UH only scored 26 in the 1st half vs UC).
I did dee some improvement vs UCF, ISU got 7-8 wide open 3's that the guys just didn't hit. If they get just 2 of those to go down the game isn't close. I trust that Jones, Lipsey and Milan can get back to their normal 3pt shooting prior to UH and the offensive number will rebound. I don't like the dip in offense but really think it is just a 3 game lull the team will get back to normal. We've see broken Offenses the past two years and this doesn't feel anywhere near as an issue.
Informally I'd guess teams gelling late in the NIL/transfer era and this is the time of year when that may happen anyway.
After halftime, yes. Prior to that, the first half game plan is consistently the same. The players even state as such in post game interviews previewing the next game.
I'm not asking the players to change, so armchair coaching isn't in play.
Last edited:
You don't think the coaches aren't adding wrinkles or emphasis on certain concepts or areas in scouting for an opponent to start the game?
Of course they are. And yet, the core concepts (the non wrinkles/points of emphasis) will remain the same. Those principles have led to lots of wins.
No one is arguing the coaches are doing a poor job. One can point out what we struggle with and not have it be a condemnation towards either the players or the coaches.
Yes, agreed, little wrinkles.
But TJ is a firm believer that execution takes priority over radical changes. If ISU tries to change who they are one week for a particular opponent the team isn't doing what they have done daily for the last several months. Anyone who has been watching including just about every commentator that does an ISU game raves about ISU's rotations and defenders being in the right place and on time. That comes from repeating and executing the same philosophy again and again. ISU players don't have to take time to think, they know it to the level of muscule memory.
The same thing happens on offense but not necessarily to the same degree. But we have seen passes that we aren't even sure that the passer saw their teammate. They just knew that was where they were supposed to be and they trusted that they were executing the plan.
TJ will sacrifice a bit of trying to outwit the opponent with coaching tricks for his emphasis on execution and being true to the team they are.
After last night's victory over the Latter Day Saints (rankings in NET/KenPom/Torvik/BPI/SOR):
What are their metrics so high?
- Iowa State: 8/11/7/9/5, avg = 8
- Kansas: 15/17/10/15/8, avg = 13
- Baylor: 13/13/14/13/7, avg = 12
- Alabama: 7/9/13/8/13, avg = 10
- Auburn: 6/6/5/6/14, avg = 7
- Creighton: 11/10/12/10/16, avg = 12
- Marquette: 14/14/9/14/9, avg = 12
What are their metrics so high?
The SEC taking a page from political playbooks. Get ESPN to spend a week harping on the Big 12 "gaming" the NET. All the while it's SEC teams actually doing all the "gaming".
The Big 12 "gaming" the system talking points 100% came from either the SEC or the Big Ten. No way ESPN just went off on that on their own. Always follow the money.
Don't look now, but in the last 3 games our opponents have shot 18% (12/65) from 3-pt range
And since the Baylor game (they went 12-23), in the nine games where we've gone 8-1 with the only loss at Houston, we've held opponents to 27.6% (54/195). Our 3-pt defense has gotten better and better as the year has gone on.
And since the Baylor game (they went 12-23), in the nine games where we've gone 8-1 with the only loss at Houston, we've held opponents to 27.6% (54/195). Our 3-pt defense has gotten better and better as the year has gone on.
Bruce Pearl must have pictures of certain people in compromising positions.
Well, if he did he would sure tell the NCAA all about it, since that is his MO.Bruce Pearl must have pictures of certain people in compromising positions.
The other thing I find interesting is to look at our opponents turnovers against us vs. their season high:
Take aways:
7/13 conf opponents have their conference high in turnovers against us - and 10 opponents have their season high against us.
In conf teams we played twice, it was often one high TO game and one low. KU and Texas were the only conference teams we didn't turnover at a high rate - I'd love to play either of them in KC, I think we'd turn them over better the second time
Orlando sucked in a lot of ways
Anyone we play in the tourney won't have seen us before and likely won't be prepared for the level of defense we apply.
Specifics (from game logs on basketball-reference.com):
BYU - 17 (18 vs Cincy)
UCF - 20 (season high)
OU - 14 (18 vs. UNC / WVU)
WVU - 23 (season high)
Houston - 16 (season high)
TTU - 15 (17 vs. UTCC / UTA) [highest in conf]
Cincy - 21 (season high)
TCU - 26 (season high)
Texas - 12 (21 vs WVU)
Baylor - 18 (21 vs KU)
Kansas - 12 (18 vs Marq / TCU)
OSU - 19 (27 vs Tusla) [highest in conf]
KSU - 17 (19 vs Cincy)
UNH - 18 (19 vs NJIT)
EIU - 17 (18 vs IUPUI)
FAMU - 23 (season high)
PVAMU - 29 (season high)
Iowa - 19 (season high)
DePaul - 17 (22 vs Marq)
TAMU - 13 (18 vs Aub)
VT - 15 (21 vs Aub)
VCU - 16 (19 vs Samford)
Grambling - 20 (21 vs PVAMU / MVSU)
Idaho St - 24 (season high)
Lindenwood - 21 (season high)
Green Bay - 15 (20 vs Mont St)
Take aways:
7/13 conf opponents have their conference high in turnovers against us - and 10 opponents have their season high against us.
In conf teams we played twice, it was often one high TO game and one low. KU and Texas were the only conference teams we didn't turnover at a high rate - I'd love to play either of them in KC, I think we'd turn them over better the second time
Orlando sucked in a lot of ways
Anyone we play in the tourney won't have seen us before and likely won't be prepared for the level of defense we apply.
Specifics (from game logs on basketball-reference.com):
BYU - 17 (18 vs Cincy)
UCF - 20 (season high)
OU - 14 (18 vs. UNC / WVU)
WVU - 23 (season high)
Houston - 16 (season high)
TTU - 15 (17 vs. UTCC / UTA) [highest in conf]
Cincy - 21 (season high)
TCU - 26 (season high)
Texas - 12 (21 vs WVU)
Baylor - 18 (21 vs KU)
Kansas - 12 (18 vs Marq / TCU)
OSU - 19 (27 vs Tusla) [highest in conf]
KSU - 17 (19 vs Cincy)
UNH - 18 (19 vs NJIT)
EIU - 17 (18 vs IUPUI)
FAMU - 23 (season high)
PVAMU - 29 (season high)
Iowa - 19 (season high)
DePaul - 17 (22 vs Marq)
TAMU - 13 (18 vs Aub)
VT - 15 (21 vs Aub)
VCU - 16 (19 vs Samford)
Grambling - 20 (21 vs PVAMU / MVSU)
Idaho St - 24 (season high)
Lindenwood - 21 (season high)
Green Bay - 15 (20 vs Mont St)
Hey everybody.
We're gonna get laid.
We're gonna get laid.
