The amount of butthurt from countless people about

[StPaulCyclone]

There's no such thing as gaming the system. At worst, it's exploiting an existing advantage which was already available to everyone else. At best, it's a system of measure factually showing the conference is strong and others are in denial of this.

Agreed.

Also, SEC’s 8 league games and an FCS opponent in November, anyone?

 

[mctallerton]

It is absolutely true that many Big 12 teams scheduled super soft in the non-conference; there is no disputing that. Iowa State (331 in NET NCSOS), BYU (301), Cincinnati (318), TCU (323), Texas Tech (307, Oklahoma (281). These teams all did it.

But what's weird to me is how Iowa State has become the "lightning rod" team of this topic, because once you remove those Q3 and Q4 games and just look at performance in Q1+Q2 games, Iowa State's performance still looks great. It's the other Big 12 teams that perform worse.

Here is the Big 12 efficiency profiles at Torvik in Q1+Q2 games.

View attachment 124707

Here's how Big 12 teams ranking at Torvik changes from performance in all games to performance in just Q1+Q2 games:

• Houston: #1 --> #1
• Iowa State: #7 --> #9
• Kansas: #9 --> #11
• Baylor: #15 --> #20
• BYU: #17 --> #31
• Texas: #23 --> #35
• TCU: #34 --> #43
• Oklahoma: #40 --> #36
• Texas Tech: #39 --> #57
• Cincinnati: #48 --> #51
• Kansas State: #64 --> #53
• UCF: #67 --> #87
• Oklahoma State: #94 --> #99
• West Virginia: #129 --> #133

I understand if there's some ire toward BYU, TCU, Texas Tech, and UCF considering they've performed clearly worse once facing better competition (although BYU just won at Kansas so are people really still doubting how good they are?). But Iowa State has essentially performed just as good against quality competition as against non-con cupcakes. I can't help but think part of it is just people being surprised Iowa State, the brand, is an actual top-10 team and coming up with arguments against them because they're not a traditional brand/name.

I think if we were vying for a 6 or 7 seed nobody would bat an eye, but we are looking at a 2-3 seed.

 

[dahliaclone]

It is absolutely true that many Big 12 teams scheduled super soft in the non-conference; there is no disputing that. Iowa State (331 in NET NCSOS), BYU (301), Cincinnati (318), TCU (323), Texas Tech (307, Oklahoma (281). These teams all did it.

But what's weird to me is how Iowa State has become the "lightning rod" team of this topic, because once you remove those Q3 and Q4 games and just look at performance in Q1+Q2 games, Iowa State's performance still looks great. It's the other Big 12 teams that perform worse.

Here is the Big 12 efficiency profiles at Torvik in Q1+Q2 games.

View attachment 124707

Here's how Big 12 teams ranking at Torvik changes from performance in all games to performance in just Q1+Q2 games:

• Houston: #1 --> #1
• Iowa State: #7 --> #9
• Kansas: #9 --> #11
• Baylor: #15 --> #20
• BYU: #17 --> #31
• Texas: #23 --> #35
• TCU: #34 --> #43
• Oklahoma: #40 --> #36
• Texas Tech: #39 --> #57
• Cincinnati: #48 --> #51
• Kansas State: #64 --> #53
• UCF: #67 --> #87
• Oklahoma State: #94 --> #99
• West Virginia: #129 --> #133

I understand if there's some ire toward BYU, TCU, Texas Tech, and UCF considering they've performed clearly worse once facing better competition (although BYU just won at Kansas so are people really still doubting how good they are?). But Iowa State has essentially performed just as good against quality competition as against non-con cupcakes. I can't help but think part of it is just people being surprised Iowa State, the brand, is an actual top-10 team and coming up with arguments against them because they're not a traditional brand/name.

I get what you're saying but again...how were any of the Big 12 teams supposed to know their non-con sched were going to be this low? Did they know they were scheduling 'lesser' teams? Absoloutely. But like I said before...just like how were we supposed to know we were gonna be THIS good, how is any team supposed to know their non con is going to be SUPER low etc?

 

[alarson]

I think if we were vying for a 6 or 7 seed nobody would bat an eye, but we are looking at a 2-3 seed.

I think the thing a lot of people don't get though is that if our strength of schedule was stronger we would be solidly on the two seed line

 

[NiceMarmot]

I think if we were vying for a 6 or 7 seed nobody would bat an eye, but we are looking at a 2-3 seed.

But even against Q1+Q2 competition, ISU is ranked #9 in performance, which would be a 2-3 seed.

 

[mctallerton]

I think the thing a lot of people don't get though is that if our strength of schedule was stronger we would be solidly on the two seed line

I agree that the scheduling hurt us from that standpoint, i just mean why is the focus on us at a national level? Because its an easy target to say look they didnt play anyone and are a 2-3. We would beat the absolute **** out of clemson/wake/insert bubble acc team here and they know it, but they want to say its unfair.

 

[Paz23]

I will be brief. The issue here is not whether we "gamed" the system or took a few liberties with our non-conference schedule. We did. But can you hold a whole conference responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted teams? For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole computerized rankings system? And if the whole system is guilty, isn't that an indictment of the math used to create those systems in general? I put it to you, haters. Isn't this an indictment of all of college basketball rankings?!!

I guess if your team's NET isn't very good but you think your team is very good, then you didn't do good enough math to build your schedule.

 

[mctallerton]

But even against Q1+Q2 competition, ISU is ranked #9 in performance, which would be a 2-3 seed.

I agree, im not saying its a good argument, im just saying its why we are the lightning rod

 

[1UNI2ISU]

But even against Q1+Q2 competition, ISU is ranked #9 in performance, which would be a 2-3 seed.

True but you don't just get to ignore the things on the resume that you don't like.

 

[Carlisle Clone]

Imagine being upset because someone is smarter than you

 

[NiceMarmot]

I get what you're saying but again...how were any of the Big 12 teams supposed to know their non-con sched were going to be this low? Did they know they were scheduling 'lesser' teams? Absoloutely. But like I said before...just like how were we supposed to know we were gonna be THIS good, how is any team supposed to know their non con is going to be SUPER low etc?

Teams have a feel for how good their competition will be. I've read this before and I assume it's still true -- a lot of college teams actually consult with Ken Pomeroy to help with scheduling based on his preseason rankings. If anything, ISU's non-conference looks barely better now than the preseason due to Green Bay, Idaho State, and New Hampshire all significantly improving their Kenpom ranking from the start of the year to now.

 

[FerShizzle]

I agree that the scheduling hurt us from that standpoint, i just mean why is the focus on us at a national level? Because its an easy target to say look they didnt play anyone and are a 2-3. We would beat the absolute **** out of clemson/wake/insert bubble acc team here and they know it, but they want to say its unfair.

it is 100% because ISU is an easy target. they can have take, and then have larger fanbases 'like and 'repost' said take without any fear of the blowback exceeding the likes and reposts.

it is the same **** with Brock Purdy. elitism BS. keep the poor being poor.

 

[2forISU]

And what isn't talked about is how the Big 12 as a conference has done very well playing good teams from other conferences as well.

3 out of the last 4 title games the Big12 has had a team in it and 2 out of 4 Big12 was the champ, enough said

 

[alarson]

Teams have a feel for how good their competition will be. I've read this before and I assume it's still true -- a lot of college teams actually consult with Ken Pomeroy to help with scheduling based on his preseason rankings. If anything, ISU's non-conference looks a little better now than the preseason due to Green Bay, Idaho State, and New Hampshire all significantly improving their Kenpom ranking from the start of the year to now.

That being said, it would stand to reason that if this information is out there teams in that sweet spot of like 150 to 200 would seem like they could drive up their asking price for buy games if they can sell themselves on being a buy team that does more for NCSOS ratings

 

[NiceMarmot]

True but you don't just get to ignore the things on the resume that you don't like.

I think we're saying the same thing. ISU scheduled super soft in the non-conference. That hurts them in the eye of the committee. But because they've played really solidly in conference play and have picked up a lot of quality wins, we're a 2-3 seed. Unlike BYU, Texas Tech, or TCU, which are on the 6 to 8 line with their non-con schedules and .500 records in league play rather than 10-4.

If ISU played a harder non-con and had the same record, they'd be a 1-seed right now, but I think we'd both agree they wouldn't have the same record as this particular team might have needed a softer schedule to start to see what they had.

 

[alarson]

3 out of the last 4 title games the Big12 has had a team in it and 2 out of 4 Big12 was the champ, enough said

And it's highly likely that the Big 12 would have had the same in 2020 had that tournament not been canceled

 

[dahliaclone]

 

[CascadeClone]

Clemson's coach Brownell: “People forget Virginia Tech beat Iowa State in a nonconference game pretty handedly down in Orlando. Iowa State’s second in the Big 12. "

Also Clemson:

Wed, Jan 10

@ Virginia Tech

L87-72

11-4 (1-3)

It's almost like we were playing an early non-con neutral-location game while missing one of our bigs due to injury or something.

I want to meet them in the tourney and pound them flat.

You forgot the 6th game of the year, with 2 new starters and new 6th man as well. Chemistry was not exactly established to say the least.

 

[psycln11]

One thing the Clemson coach fails to point out during his rant. Iowa State brought in a completely different team this year. We lost games to aTm and Virginia Tech early on before they started to gel.

I doubt we lose those games now!!

 

[Clonefan32]

Two simple thoughts on this:

1) Our metrics are strong across the board. If NET were some outlier, then I’d get it. But it isn’t.

2) The data they use is publicly available. If we are so successfully cheating the NET system, then everyone else can feel free to do the same.

3) Could there be a reason it’s only the Big 12 that appears to do this beyond gaming NET? Sure. Because it’s the only league you know you’ll have 8+ Q1 opportunities. We don’t need those in the non-con.