Honestly just let some AI program build the bracket at this point
Jamie Pollard had us as the last 2 seed in his submission
- Thread starter Cfinnerty16
- Start date
I don't know about last 10 games.
Lets start with actually considering them all equally first and see how it goes. Not by using crap metrics like NCSOS that give special value to a portion of the season (and not even what you achieved in that portion, just how you scheduled). And not by doing small-sample size transitive value of sports comparisons the way Jamie was justifying things. We have lots of analytics now. NET, BPI, SOR, WAB, Kenpom, T-rank, etc. Use them! They do exactly what the committee claims they want, weighing the season holistically. Instead we value the noncon double and essentially don't count the tournament at all. Its ass-*******-backwards.
crazy to say this, but unless we get to the final four somehow, I don’t see how Pollard doesn’t get blamed.
There's definitely a window in the S16\E8 range where he would.
If we lose earlier than that we weren't making it there anyway.
I wonder if North Carolina’s athletic Director put them at a 1 seed. I would bet anything he did.
Before we gripe too much, let’s remember that Matt Campbell wants to work for Jaime Pollard. Let’s not respond in a way that makes Pollard want to retire early.
I mean, if he's undervaluing us you certainly can't expect his peers to do any different.
There are people like Gary Parrish whose only job is watching college basketball and formulating rankings on a pretty much daily basis. Not saying he should be on the committee, but might be a good consultant to have around. The Top 25 + 1 is the only non-computer ranking I look at.
Or, honestly, pick a few of the higher rated 'bracket guys' from bracketmatrix and bring them in to consult.
They know the metrics they're *supposed* to be considering, they know the seeding principles.
The committee ADs just talk out of both sides of their mouth to justify their final selections, Pollard included apparently.
"It's the whole body of work."
"Iowa State's non-con SOS was 300 spots away from the other 2-seeds."
"North Carolina won the ACC."
If it's the whole body of work, why do we even look at NCSOS, which is quite clearly not "the whole body of work"? Overall SOS is on the teamsheets and ISU's was more difficult than UNC's.
If it's the whole body of work, why are we even mentioning who wins conferences? And when you do that, now you're excluding the NCSOS, which you just said was used to justify another decision.
I find it hard to believe these ADs and conference commissioners are staying up until 2:30 on Friday night like the committee chair claimed. I think they've got the 95% of the teams selected and basically seeded on Thursday and have a couple contingencies set up for bid stealers. Then they spend all morning Sunday discussing the last handful of bubble spots. And they still get those wrong (Virginia).
Put Ken Pomeroy on the committee, put Bart Torvik on the committee, put Parrish or Norlander or John Gasaway on there. The ADs and commissioners just view it as another item they can add to their resume.
Oh well, it's done and finished now. UConn drawing the toughest region might be good for ISU, maybe Florida Atlantic or Auburn can upset them. But I just can't stand the illogical framing as if it's logical.
"It's the whole body of work."
"Iowa State's non-con SOS was 300 spots away from the other 2-seeds."
"North Carolina won the ACC."
If it's the whole body of work, why do we even look at NCSOS, which is quite clearly not "the whole body of work"? Overall SOS is on the teamsheets and ISU's was more difficult than UNC's.
If it's the whole body of work, why are we even mentioning who wins conferences? And when you do that, now you're excluding the NCSOS, which you just said was used to justify another decision.
I find it hard to believe these ADs and conference commissioners are staying up until 2:30 on Friday night like the committee chair claimed. I think they've got the 95% of the teams selected and basically seeded on Thursday and have a couple contingencies set up for bid stealers. Then they spend all morning Sunday discussing the last handful of bubble spots. And they still get those wrong (Virginia).
Put Ken Pomeroy on the committee, put Bart Torvik on the committee, put Parrish or Norlander or John Gasaway on there. The ADs and commissioners just view it as another item they can add to their resume.
Oh well, it's done and finished now. UConn drawing the toughest region might be good for ISU, maybe Florida Atlantic or Auburn can upset them. But I just can't stand the illogical framing as if it's logical.
If “recency bias” isn’t a thing, then what’s the point of allowing lesser teams the ability to “earn” an Automatic Qualifier?
Remove the AQ tag altogether.
Or just continue to talk out of four sides of your mouth.
You see all of the time: “if this team wins two games in the conference tournament the. They will be at-large” etc etc.
So if Iowa beats Ohio State , they get in?
If Ohio State beats Iowa and Illinois, they get in?
Whatever.
That said, is it possible that the trade-off was a hand picked bracket to give ISU a better path to the Sweet 16? I’d say familiarity works to our advantage.
I don’t put anything past anyone when Millions of Dollars are at stake.
Remove the AQ tag altogether.
Or just continue to talk out of four sides of your mouth.
You see all of the time: “if this team wins two games in the conference tournament the. They will be at-large” etc etc.
So if Iowa beats Ohio State , they get in?
If Ohio State beats Iowa and Illinois, they get in?
Whatever.
That said, is it possible that the trade-off was a hand picked bracket to give ISU a better path to the Sweet 16? I’d say familiarity works to our advantage.
I don’t put anything past anyone when Millions of Dollars are at stake.
This is a problem with the whole committee, it changes what is important every year. This year it was non-conference SOS, at least for ISU, next year it will be something else. They say they gave UCONN the first choice and the pick of the place they want to play, then load the bracket against the, and doing so placed 4 conference championship winners in that bracket one of which is ISU.
Just set the guidelines and the follow them, stop changing what you feel to be important one year and then change it the next year. When the bracket is draw, then look at it and ask yourself one question "is this a fair bracket for the 1-4 rated teams?" if it is not then reshuffle them to make it fair. Oh, and stop looking at the name on the front of the jersey and start looking at the metrics that you claim are important and follow them. Because we all saw last night that Virginia did not deserve a bid.
Just set the guidelines and the follow them, stop changing what you feel to be important one year and then change it the next year. When the bracket is draw, then look at it and ask yourself one question "is this a fair bracket for the 1-4 rated teams?" if it is not then reshuffle them to make it fair. Oh, and stop looking at the name on the front of the jersey and start looking at the metrics that you claim are important and follow them. Because we all saw last night that Virginia did not deserve a bid.
We have good reason to be upset, but if I were UCONN I'd be downright furious. You've got the hardest region by far - as the overall #1 seed, while UNC, who arguably shouldn't have been a 1 or was closest to the line gets a cakewalk. I don't really want them to repeat but I'd have to have a lot of respect for them if they make it through this region. All to say - ADs need to get out of this and get people in who know what they're doing. This is just basketball, but it does mean a lot to the players who may only experience this once or twice in their lifetimes.
Problem is… JP’s son IS the MBB’s resident data scientist
Why did he feel the need to come out and say this the day before our game? He had to know that'd piss the fanbase off right?
His strategic scheduling strategy was schedule really bad teams then later penalize his own team for a weak non-con schedule. Lol
There are two levels to this for me:
First is the very obvious disdain this guy has for the average Iowa State fan. His dismissive tone in everything he does is incredibly annoying. Fan base riding high and everyone feeling great and our AD feels the need to go on the radio and remind everyone we really aren’t as good as we think we are. Just bizarre.
Second, he’s just wrong. He says “all games matter” and then proceeds to talk exclusively about a one month stretch during the season. Just ignored all the metrics in our favor about who we have beaten.
I’m just over the guy and as far as I’m concerned he can go somewhere else. He’s done a lot of good but his attitude towards the fanbase as a whole is ridiculous.
First is the very obvious disdain this guy has for the average Iowa State fan. His dismissive tone in everything he does is incredibly annoying. Fan base riding high and everyone feeling great and our AD feels the need to go on the radio and remind everyone we really aren’t as good as we think we are. Just bizarre.
Second, he’s just wrong. He says “all games matter” and then proceeds to talk exclusively about a one month stretch during the season. Just ignored all the metrics in our favor about who we have beaten.
I’m just over the guy and as far as I’m concerned he can go somewhere else. He’s done a lot of good but his attitude towards the fanbase as a whole is ridiculous.
Last edited:
