No shade but any metric that has sparty and Wisconsin at 16 and 18 respectively is a touch suspect
Bracketology 2024
- Thread starter CoachHines3
- Start date
More than a touch. It's abominable.
Tennessee gets curb stomped and rises. Wisconsin was terrible against weak comp and only drops two spots. Aubrun gets stomped at Floirda but goes up from beating Bama on the road. Illinois loses to MSU and beats Nebby at home, in OT and goes up 1?
I like the Net as a tool but as a stand alone decider ti's trash.
Right? One of life's greatest mysteries. They are a **** team, with two good wins and a ton of REALLY bad losses.
There must be an IZZO elevator built into the algos to guarantee they make the tournament. It's also giving teams Q1 wins that clearly shouldn't be Q1 wins.
Only thing I will push back on is that there aren’t any “really” bad losses to use your term. JMU the first game is probably the only actual bad loss and Nebraska on the road would be the other. Outside of that it’s losses to Duke, Arizona, Illinois, and Wisconsin which were all ranked going into this week.
We also slaughtered Baylor by 24 so this team can really beat anyone but Izzo’s stubbornness makes it so we can also lose any game as well.
The JMU and Minnesota losses are fairly bad. But for me it's more about what have they SHOWN to have that NET ranking. They've lost to almost every decent team they've played. I'm not sure what Indiana St has shown to be a net 23. Their best win is Bradly, at home? Then when you look at Illinois's schedule their best win has been devalued by FAU being Jeckyl and Hyde. When I look at the Big 10 it feels like a conference that is extremely overrated in the NET.
Baylor was a great win and I don't want to completely take away form it. but when you look at the entire body of work, of both of those teams, it hardly feels like that game was representive of either.
Other than the Baylor win there is little in that body of work to suggest Michigan state is a good team. Or really any body in the Big 10 for that matter.
Totally agree this year the big ten only has one team in Purdue that has any real shot of a final 4 run and we all saw last year they lost to a 16 seed. I wouldn’t trust them in the tourney with painter as their HC.
Spartys was supposed to be incredible this year and Izzo has really mismanaged this team to a catastrophic degree.
I personally never look at computer rankings because they almost never hold up to scrutiny so I’m not going to defend them now.
To me, Izzo is like Belichick: yes, they've forgotten more about their games than I'll ever know, but (tongue in cheek) that's the problem - they've "forgotten" more about their games than I'll ever know.
Perhaps the game has simply just passed Izzo by. MSU has been this way for the last several years now, and honestly Izzo is such a god there that nobody would even think of moving on from him, even if it's that time.
8-2 Q1 and 7-0 Q2. 15-2 in Q1/2 games is insane and they deserve all of the praise they get this year. (As a comparison, Iowa State is 7-5 in Q1/2 games)
Yeah we’re kinda stuck with him which is a shame because I don’t want to go the Syracuse route and ride a legendary coach into obscurity.
This year the majority of alums were banking on a final four or potential championship run, we brought back the entire team from last years run and augmented that group with a top 5 recruiting class that was custom built to fill in our deficits. That recruiting class averages less than 1 min and 1 point per game as an entire class. We’re awful at 3 pointers and the can’t miss deadeye shooter Izzo decided to redshirt before the season begun as if that’s the way sports work anymore. The 5 star center was supposed to be a one and done but Izzo doesn’t like that he is skinny so he gets zero mins. If we were balling out that would be fine but before yesterday we were a bubble team.
Game has passed him by and with the AD getting a ton of love from alumni for his excellent football and hockey hires izzos seat is getting warm.
This is true. I know this from someone in an athletic department that is not Jamie Pollard nor at ISU.
Speaking of NET, there are now only 6 schools that only have Q1 losses:
1) Houston (Q1: 7-3)
2) Purdue (Q1: 8-2)
18) Dayton (Q1: 3-4)
19) San Diego St (Q1: 3-6)
20) Indiana St (Q1: 1-3)
31) Florida (Q1: 2-7)
We'd be there too, except VaTech has gone to hell and fallen to #62.
1) Houston (Q1: 7-3)
2) Purdue (Q1: 8-2)
18) Dayton (Q1: 3-4)
19) San Diego St (Q1: 3-6)
20) Indiana St (Q1: 1-3)
31) Florida (Q1: 2-7)
We'd be there too, except VaTech has gone to hell and fallen to #62.
File this away in the "no use crying over spilled milk category", but man those two games in Orlando bug me. We'd definitely be in the 1 seed discussion if we'd taken care of those, which I think we would have done with Ward.
Oh well.
I wasn't talking about Purdue, I was talking about MSU. Obviously Purdue is legit and a shoe in for a number 1 seed.
That V Tech game is probably the worst performance of the year, all things considered. We basically shot our way to a loss with terrible 3 point shooting (shot selection was bad) and at the line.
If committee has to nitpick on something that may end up being a loss that hurts us. V Tech has not only lost a lot of games but they've lost a lot by 20+ points. That's never a good look.
You literally just said there's nothing to suggest any Big 10 team is good based off their body of work.
