Latest Bracketology

[drmwevr08]

Entertainment man, it's a message board!

Fair enough. But at the current trajectory, we should dream of a 7. Lets hope by years end they've truly earned it.

 

[TopCy]

At this point I just want to see them get in the tournament. I've seen enough to know they'll likely have one or two games where they hit shots and play good defense and win, then hit a game where nothing is falling and the other team shoots 25 more free throws and they lose. It won't matter what their seed is.

From round 2 on, you're probably going to play a top-25 caliber opponent, and it seems like you're actually more likely to catch a bad team who got lucky if you're seeded a little lower.

​

 

[clone52]

I actually liked RPI. People would hate on it because until the last 8-10 games or so it churned out some goofy stuff, but by the end of the season it was pretty damn good. The only thing that I think is a legit criticism of RPI is that it was SO incredibly SOS weighted. A team might take care of business and hammer a bottom team in the conference and still take a big hit. The other legit criticism is something that was never addressed by the other systems used - which is the "gaming" idea, which really meant trying to schedule teams that still suck, but just don't suck as bad. Beating the 180th ranked team looked way better than beating the 340th ranked team, when in reality both should be pretty easy wins.

Mainly what I liked about RPI is that it helped push more teams to schedule big opponents in the non-con and conferences to do some of these cross-conference challenges to boost SOS.

Seems like NET does all of the same things you rate highly with RPI. It churns out some goofy stuff until late in the season. It also helps push more teams to schedule big opponents in the non-con.

 

[ISUChippewa]

Why argue about current resume really? Right now, I'm just hoping we don't keep slipping as we have been. A lot of work to do to keep the 24th best (or whatever) resume through the next month and a half. Need to stack up well in march, not January.

I know we looked like trash at Texas Tech and especially against TCU in Hilton, but IMO it's a bit of a "hot take" to suggest we're still slipping right after we win our first conference road game in almost three years.

 

[madguy30]

We're listed as a 7 seed and people are ... mad?

No ****.

If they get in everything else is compete icing and it is 100% guaranteed that they will play their tail off which is all you can ask for.

 

[Cydkar]

NET is a tool among other tools used to evaluate the teams and seedings. Every tool will have outliers. It is unavoidable.

 

[jdoggivjc]

I am sure he gets paid more than anybody else on the planet to do this, and yet he only ranks 55th out of the 135 ranked bracketologists on bracket matrix. That's pathetic when you consider its probably a hobby for most of those people and it's his job. I would bet there are people on CF who could do better than he does given the time and resources he has. And yet he is considered the foremost expert by most people.

The average chimpanzee can probably guess at least 60 of the 68 teams that will be involved in the NCAA Tournament in any given year, so when ESPN promotes Lunardi as having this excellent track record at predicting who will be in the tournament, that's not exactly the credit to him that ESPN wants it to be.

The real trick and what makes a bracketologist special or not is if they can accurately predict the seeds, and better yet the regions each team will be playing, and it's this area that Lunardi is a complete failure. If Lunardi thinks we're a 7 seed, we're likely a 6 at minimum and quite possibly a 5.

 

[brett108]

You know what some on here are really mad about, and it's not the 7th seed.

In all fairness Iowa is a bubble team by all metrics except W-L.

 

[ISUTex]

So anyone we beat should be a lower seed than us?

By 20 with 0 quad 1 wins? Yes.

 

[qwerty]

Posted in another thread but it fits better here.

Current status and projection of top 50 NET teams: Baylor will play 17 Q1 games to lead the nation. Iowa State, Texas and Tech all right behind at 16, then Kansas, Oklahoma at 15.

Michigan leads B1G with 13, Iowa comes in 8th in B1G (30th overall) with 9 Q1 games (already 0-5, on pace for 0-9).

I hope ISU can get to 8-8 (or better) in Q1 (currently 6-4). In Big12, Texas still has 10 Q1 left so hardest remaining.

 

[drmwevr08]

I know we looked like trash at Texas Tech and especially against TCU in Hilton, but IMO it's a bit of a "hot take" to suggest we're still slipping right after we win our first conference road game in almost three years.

Nah. We've been exposed a bit and while that win was nice, that team is not great either. There's a lot of work to do to stay a top 7 seed. Not saying it can't be done but yes rn I'd look at us as more likely to slide than rise.

 

[qwerty]

Bc Covid year. PAC played fewest games of any conf.

PAC plays easiest sched, in top 50 NET teams, UCLA plays most Q1 in PAC at 8. EVERY single team in Big12 plays more than that. TCU is lowest at 14 Q1 games (currently 2-3, 9 left).

 

[VeloClone]

I am sure he gets paid more than anybody else on the planet to do this, and yet he only ranks 55th out of the 135 ranked bracketologists on bracket matrix. That's pathetic when you consider its probably a hobby for most of those people and it's his job. I would bet there are people on CF who could do better than he does given the time and resources he has. And yet he is considered the foremost expert by most people.

Just another example of ESPN's tactic - if you say it enough the whole world will believe it.

 

[AuH2O]

Seems like NET does all of the same things you rate highly with RPI. It churns out some goofy stuff until late in the season. It also helps push more teams to schedule big opponents in the non-con.

It does some of the things I liked about RPI, but then does stupid **** like making teams that are 0fer against quad one ranked really high because they blow out MAC teams, cut a blowout down to a respectable score against reserves and get to the FT line a lot. Weighing efficiency metrics so heavily that a team can ride meaningless things to a high NET without beating a single good team is a problem.

 

[VeloClone]

Well, you're poo-pooing any discussion because it's not "relevant". So it seems you are the gatekeeper.

 

[NoCreativity]

Just another example of ESPN's tactic - if you say it enough the whole world will believe it.

My favorite part about Espn when Lunardi is on is the hosts asking him questions act like they know nothing about college basktball. Yeah, you got a job at the most prestigious sports company and you have no idea Gonzaga and Baylor were #1 seeds.

 

[cyfan92]

Can we PLEASE normailize The Bracket Matrix.

STOP using Linardi. He isn't even in the top 50 of Bracketologists on Bracket Matrix

The Bracket Project - Ranking the Bracketologists

 

[ISUChippewa]

Nah. We've been exposed a bit and while that win was nice, that team is not great either. There's a lot of work to do to stay a top 7 seed. Not saying it can't be done but yes rn I'd look at us as more likely to slide than rise.

IIRC, we've got one of the easier schedules in the conference left in front of us, unlike most other Big 12 teams. Granted, we could sh!t the bed again at some point like we did against TCU, but we've got lot of winnable games left, starting tomorrow afternoon.

 

[drmwevr08]

IIRC, we've got one of the easier schedules in the conference left in front of us, unlike most other Big 12 teams. Granted, we could sh!t the bed again at some point like we did against TCU, but we've got lot of winnable games left, starting tomorrow afternoon.

For sure. We aren't nearly done, just a lot of work to put in!

 

[jctisu]

Iowa, and to a lesser extent Texas are pretty much the clear outliers, and national writers are starting to catch on. The problem is the blind KP and efficiency followers that look at it on its surface.

Those paying attention know that Iowa's metrics are based on three things:
1. Leaving starters in while piss-pounding SWAC and MAC teams to pump up efficiencies
2. Leaving starters in losses while the game is out of reach to pump up efficiencies. The mad scramble and press with the Murrays and JBo jacking up threes against Wisconsin's walk-ons was a nice touch
3. Flailing their 12 year old girl arms into a defender without attempting to make a basketball play to get to the line, as FT attempts factor in big in OE

Iowa isn't a good team. Anybody digging into the records for 10 seconds knows it. Anybody who watches them knows it. They are purely being propped up by dorks that think a handful of the ingredients that go into a game are more important than the totality of the game.

The season is 2/3 over. There are thousands of college basketball games in the books. The real data is there.

They've lost every game to every good team they have played, and often have not been competitive. The best thing they've done is pour it on at the end to make it closer and get the analytics dorks excited. Analytics are great, but like any predictive model, you will accept reality when it's presented to you. Let's hope the committee does the same and treats all of the outliers appropriately.

This is as close to a mic drop post as you get when it comes to analytics-only preachers. Thank you for posting this. I am all for analytics and that pile of data, but sports in the end most of the time you can use what you actually see on the court, field, ice etc. to make a much better judgment.