Bracketology Thoughts

H

hawkeye12345

Well-Known Member
The latest bracketology came out.

Current Standings

IN:

Illinois (3)
Purdue (2)
Wisky (4)
Mich St (5)
fOSU(5)
Rutgers (out)
Iowa (7)
Michigan (out)
Indiana (9)
NW (out)
PSU (out)
Minny (out)
Maryland (out)
Debby (out)


First: How the F is Indiana in? Their only win against a top 25 team is in conference and the rest of their schedule looks like dog shit. Indiana will go 2-4 over their final 6.
Second: How is Iowa in and Rutgers out? Head to Head it was a L for Iowa in one of the ugliest games of the season and Rutgers is a game and a half ahead of is in conference play. Rutgers beat Purdon't and has had 2 creampuff W games postponed or cancelled. I'm not complaining but looks a bit off and gives me concern that we may get bumped once the committee starts digging into it deeper.
Third: If Purdon't wins the conference then they will be a 1 seed. No doubt in my mind.


Hawks play Michigan (out), @ fOSU (5), MSU (5), @ Debby (out), NW (out), @ Michigan (out), and @ llinois (3) to finish out the season. The two games against Michigan are going to be make or break for both teams imo. If we can go 4-3 over the final 7 then we have a good shot but 3-4 just isn't going to get it done.
 
Interesting. I was thinking that both Michigan and Rutgers were headed to the dance but if you look at their overall record as opposed to their conference record it tells a different story. I agree that our games against Michigan are going to go a long way towards deciding if we make the dance. We need to protect our home court. Right now it seems like we’re pretty much in but it’s not a done deal by any means. If we do make the big dance then I feel we need to give the team and coaches credit for exceeding expectations this year.
 
hawkeye12345 said:
The latest bracketology came out.

Current Standings

IN:

Illinois (3)
Purdue (2)
Wisky (4)
Mich St (5)
fOSU(5)
Rutgers (out)
Iowa (7)
Michigan (out)
Indiana (9)
NW (out)
PSU (out)
Minny (out)
Maryland (out)
Debby (out)


First: How the F is Indiana in? Their only win against a top 25 team is in conference and the rest of their schedule looks like dog shit. Indiana will go 2-4 over their final 6.
Second: How is Iowa in and Rutgers out? Head to Head it was a L for Iowa in one of the ugliest games of the season and Rutgers is a game and a half ahead of is in conference play. Rutgers beat Purdon't and has had 2 creampuff W games postponed or cancelled. I'm not complaining but looks a bit off and gives me concern that we may get bumped once the committee starts digging into it deeper.
Third: If Purdon't wins the conference then they will be a 1 seed. No doubt in my mind.


Hawks play Michigan (out), @ fOSU (5), MSU (5), @ Debby (out), NW (out), @ Michigan (out), and @ llinois (3) to finish out the season. The two games against Michigan are going to be make or break for both teams imo. If we can go 4-3 over the final 7 then we have a good shot but 3-4 just isn't going to get it done.
Click to expand...

Rutgers is 81st in the Net Rankings. Btw, Iowa is 19th.

Iowa currently doesn't have a bad loss so the computers love them. Yes, it is important to get a Q1 win, but avoiding a crappy loss is huge also.
 
If Iowa beats Michigan, it would be really hard for them to not make the Big Dance. They would only need to split the @Nebraska game or Michigan St game at home. I'm chalking the Northwestern game as a win.
Out number 2 would be any upset against @Illinois, @Ohio St, @Michigan....unlikely in all, but you never know.
Out number 3 would be just win one game in the BTT if they fail to win the @Nebraksa, Michigan St, or any of the other hard road games.

If Iowa loses to Michigan, things get much tougher as they likely will need to win both the @Nebraska and Michigan St games to be in before the BTT tournament. If they split here and get no upsets in the other big road games, then they must win one in the BTT.

I think Rutgers should be in if the tournament was held now. However, they have a very tough schedule to finish out and may not even be in the discussion when it is all said and done.

I think Indiana can get three more wins before the BTT...and probably will need to win one game in the BTT to get in.
 
Iowa needs to beat NW and Nebraska and one game in the conference tourney and they are in. 20 wins, 9-11 in conference and no bad losses. That gets them a 10 seed, easy. If the Hawks just win the games they are favored going down the stretch, they are in.

Iowa has some chances to boost that resume and seeding. I think they should split the Michigan games and then I am hoping they can find a way to beat one of the 3 ranked teams left. If so, that is 11-9 in the conference. 6 or 7 seed.

Love this time of year!!!!
 
hawkeye12345 said:
The latest bracketology came out.

Current Standings

IN:

Illinois (3)
Purdue (2)
Wisky (4)
Mich St (5)
fOSU(5)
Rutgers (out)
Iowa (7)
Michigan (out)
Indiana (9)
NW (out)
PSU (out)
Minny (out)
Maryland (out)
Debby (out)


First: How the F is Indiana in? Their only win against a top 25 team is in conference and the rest of their schedule looks like dog shit. Indiana will go 2-4 over their final 6.
Second: How is Iowa in and Rutgers out? Head to Head it was a L for Iowa in one of the ugliest games of the season and Rutgers is a game and a half ahead of is in conference play. Rutgers beat Purdon't and has had 2 creampuff W games postponed or cancelled. I'm not complaining but looks a bit off and gives me concern that we may get bumped once the committee starts digging into it deeper.
Third: If Purdon't wins the conference then they will be a 1 seed. No doubt in my mind.


Hawks play Michigan (out), @ fOSU (5), MSU (5), @ Debby (out), NW (out), @ Michigan (out), and @ llinois (3) to finish out the season. The two games against Michigan are going to be make or break for both teams imo. If we can go 4-3 over the final 7 then we have a good shot but 3-4 just isn't going to get it done.
Click to expand...
Indiana didn't help themselves tonight, but they sure helped Iowa.
 
Keegan has shown he can D up the other team's power forward/big. This game could very well come down to whether Keegan can guard Dickinson and stay out of foul trouble. For that reason, I suspect Fran starts Flip on Dickinson with a lot of help.

Let's hope Carver is rocking.
 
hawkeye12345 said:
First: How the F is Indiana in? Their only win against a top 25 team is in conference and the rest of their schedule looks like dog shit. Indiana will go 2-4 over their final 6.
Second: How is Iowa in and Rutgers out? Head to Head it was a L for Iowa in one of the ugliest games of the season and Rutgers is a game and a half ahead of is in conference play. Rutgers beat Purdon't and has had 2 creampuff W games postponed or cancelled. I'm not complaining but looks a bit off and gives me concern that we may get bumped once the committee starts digging into it deeper.
Third: If Purdon't wins the conference then they will be a 1 seed. No doubt in my mind.
Click to expand...

Everything I'm going to say here is not meant with any disrespect but there is a lot of thinking in this post that doesn't line up with how the committee thinks.

1. Conference standings don't matter. It's not in the criteria. ISU is dead last in the Big 12 right now and is still in most brackets.
2. Indiana is in because they have a top 40 NET. A major conference team named Indiana with a top 40 NET isn't getting left out of the tourney.
3. Rutgers has a NET at 81. That's not even on the bubble. Honestly it's probably not even in the NIT.

There will be some extremely weird resumes this year and I'll be very curious to see if things hold as they what the committee does. I mean currently Iowa has a top 20 NET - that would typically mean you're looking at a top 5 seed. But Iowa also has zero Q1 wins, and a team has never been selected for an at large with zero Q1 wins. I think Iowa is in even if they have zero, but I could see that being a major impact on seed.

ISU is the flip - NET in the 40s, bad conference record which I think doesn't matter anymore, but has 8 Q1 wins, tied for second most in the country. Normally a NET in the 40s is bubble territory but I have a hard time seeing the committee leaving a team out with 8 Q1 wins.
 
BryceC said:
Everything I'm going to say here is not meant with any disrespect but there is a lot of thinking in this post that doesn't line up with how the committee thinks.

1. Conference standings don't matter. It's not in the criteria. ISU is dead last in the Big 12 right now and is still in most brackets.
2. Indiana is in because they have a top 40 NET. A major conference team named Indiana with a top 40 NET isn't getting left out of the tourney.
3. Rutgers has a NET at 81. That's not even on the bubble. Honestly it's probably not even in the NIT.

There will be some extremely weird resumes this year and I'll be very curious to see if things hold as they what the committee does. I mean currently Iowa has a top 20 NET - that would typically mean you're looking at a top 5 seed. But Iowa also has zero Q1 wins, and a team has never been selected for an at large with zero Q1 wins. I think Iowa is in even if they have zero, but I could see that being a major impact on seed.

ISU is the flip - NET in the 40s, bad conference record which I think doesn't matter anymore, but has 8 Q1 wins, tied for second most in the country. Normally a NET in the 40s is bubble territory but I have a hard time seeing the committee leaving a team out with 8 Q1 wins.
Click to expand...
So. Are you saying this whole damn thing is weird? Yup, sure is…
 
BryceC said:
Everything I'm going to say here is not meant with any disrespect but there is a lot of thinking in this post that doesn't line up with how the committee thinks.

1. Conference standings don't matter. It's not in the criteria. ISU is dead last in the Big 12 right now and is still in most brackets.
2. Indiana is in because they have a top 40 NET. A major conference team named Indiana with a top 40 NET isn't getting left out of the tourney.
3. Rutgers has a NET at 81. That's not even on the bubble. Honestly it's probably not even in the NIT.

There will be some extremely weird resumes this year and I'll be very curious to see if things hold as they what the committee does. I mean currently Iowa has a top 20 NET - that would typically mean you're looking at a top 5 seed. But Iowa also has zero Q1 wins, and a team has never been selected for an at large with zero Q1 wins. I think Iowa is in even if they have zero, but I could see that being a major impact on seed.

ISU is the flip - NET in the 40s, bad conference record which I think doesn't matter anymore, but has 8 Q1 wins, tied for second most in the country. Normally a NET in the 40s is bubble territory but I have a hard time seeing the committee leaving a team out with 8 Q1 wins.
Click to expand...
Indiana is 45, not 40.

This whole thing is fucking stupid anyway. There should be no selection process.

They should take the 32 conference champs and the next top 32 NET rankings to get the tournament field (play in games are dumb). At that point the NET ranking is the criteria for everyone, no school could bitch, and everyone would know what they had to do to get in.
 
Fryowa said:
Indiana is 45, not 40.

This whole thing is fucking stupid anyway. There should be no selection process.

They should take the 32 conference champs and the next top 32 NET rankings to get the tournament field (play in games are dumb). At that point the NET ranking is the criteria for everyone, no school could bitch, and everyone would know what they had to do to get in.
Click to expand...

I disagree - I think just seeing everybody based on NET would be absurd due to the outliers. Biggest example to me has and remains Wisconsin - #22 in NET, but tied for the most Q1 wins in the country and has a 9-3 record against Q1 teams. IMO that is a great resume but for some reason the predictive stuff in NET hates Wisconsin. 20-5 overall.

Houston on the flipside is 20-4, 0-3 against Q1 teams, and is NET #6. If it were up to me I'd flip them in the seeding but that's why you have a committee.

If you look at the bubble teams this year, nobody has any room to complain. There will be some pretty bad teams in the tourney this year.
 
BryceC said:
I disagree - I think just seeing everybody based on NET would be absurd due to the outliers. Biggest example to me has and remains Wisconsin - #22 in NET, but tied for the most Q1 wins in the country and has a 9-3 record against Q1 teams. IMO that is a great resume but for some reason the predictive stuff in NET hates Wisconsin. 20-5 overall.

Houston on the flipside is 20-4, 0-3 against Q1 teams, and is NET #6. If it were up to me I'd flip them in the seeding but that's why you have a committee.

If you look at the bubble teams this year, nobody has any room to complain. There will be some pretty bad teams in the tourney this year.
Click to expand...
Any system that removes 100% of bias is fundamentally better in every way than a system that allows humans to hold a popularity contest, even when that system is flawed, because it is applied equally to all teams regardless of how popular or "major" or how the "optics" look. Because for every BryceC that thinks WI and Houston should flip, there is another person who thinks it's good as it is. Opinions are like assholes, and no one is wild about seeing or hearing another's...

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's your brain that's misinterpreted the results and not the system? Your bias tells you Wisconsin should be higher. My bias is different, your best friends biases are different, and the committee's biases are different. At the end of the day, tournament selection is no different than figure skating. A dumb (while impressive) popularity contest that will be judged 50 different ways by 50 different people.

Do the best you can to come up with a mathematical formula, and even if it's flawed apply it to each team equally and without bias. That's as fair and objective as you can possibly get.
 
BryceC said:
I disagree - I think just seeing everybody based on NET would be absurd due to the outliers. Biggest example to me has and remains Wisconsin - #22 in NET, but tied for the most Q1 wins in the country and has a 9-3 record against Q1 teams. IMO that is a great resume but for some reason the predictive stuff in NET hates Wisconsin. 20-5 overall.
Click to expand...
That IMO right there fully demonstrates my point. No one on earth as the 100% exact same opinion.
 
1645035624262.png



Gentlemen, I wouldn't trust this overgrown pile of microchips any further than I can throw it.

Computers are one metric. The human eye and brains is another. Computers can also be rigged by the person who set-up the system to get the outcomes they want to have happen.

I think both are needed.
 
Fryowa said:
Lol. The committee is just another bunch of opinions.
Click to expand...

Of course. The point is I trust a plurality of opinions much more than one opinion. That's why you have things like selection committees, to get some level on consensus among people and organizations that have disparate priorities.
 
HaydenHawk56 said:
View attachment 8714



Gentlemen, I wouldn't trust this overgrown pile of microchips any further than I can throw it.

Computers are one metric. The human eye and brains is another. Computers can also be rigged by the person who set-up the system to get the outcomes they want to have happen.

I think both are needed.
Click to expand...
Even if it were "rigged," it's applied equally and evenly to every team. Duke has as much significance and Iona in a computer metric. The algorithm is blind.

Still more fair and objective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top