BPI has Iowa IN with a #12 seed.







It's hard to take this very seriously. They don't even know that we got 6th and Minnesota 7th in coference play. This shouldn't be that tough for ESPN to piece together.
 


No no no... this is just using BPI... not a human prediction.

Between the 2007 and 2011 NCAA tournaments, it picked 74.4 percent of the matchups correctly, whereas Sagarin picked 73.2 percent and RPI picked 71.9 percent. (Kenpom is more difficult to evaluate because its pre-tournament rankings are not available.) The average ranking of the NIT finalists was better in BPI than in Sagarin or RPI.

BPI -The College Basketball Power Index explained - ESPN
 




UPDATED:
Iowa OUT
Baylor still in with 12 seed
Creighton moved down to 5th seed.

IDK... the most accurate system since 2007... worth paying attention to over the weekend as Iowa wins games.
 














WindsorHawk said:
Minnesota was in a 3 way tie for 7th. Their finish in conference play and their tournament seed are 2 different things. Anyway, the BPI link shows Iowa finished 7th and Minnesota finished 6th.
Click to expand...

The link shows that the Hawks are the 7th highest ranked Big Ten team in the BPI ranking. Notice Michigan's conference rank is 2: not that they're second in the conference , but that they're the second highest Big Ten team on the list. Also, North Dakota St's conference rank is 1, although they're in 3rd in the Summit.
 


volhawk50 said:
The link shows that the Hawks are the 7th highest ranked Big Ten team in the BPI ranking. Notice Michigan's conference rank is 2: not that they're second in the conference , but that they're the second highest Big Ten team on the list. Also, North Dakota St's conference rank is 1, although they're in 3rd in the Summit.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I was trying to figure out what I was missing...maybe didn't try all that hard.
 


I have derived that these various prognosticators produce varying results through manipulation of both the data they chose to input and the algorithms employed to analyse said data. The result is to get results intended not to produce a realistic denouement, but alternatively derive conclusions aspiring for ambiguous results determined to motivate conversation.
 


Klondike53226 said:
I have derived that these various prognosticators produce varying results through manipulation of both the data they chose to input and the algorithms employed to analyse said data. The result is to get results intended not to produce a realistic denouement, but alternatively derive conclusions aspiring for ambiguous results determined to motivate conversation.
Click to expand...

this is funny?
 


Its completely in the Hawks hands, they can win two and likely slide in for certain, win one and a close loss to a high ranked team and be a maaaaybe needing help, win 3 and make it a lock, or just go ahead and win the whole d@mn thing and strike fear in the hearts of everyone.....

....i just blacked out....what happened????
 






You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top