~ Iowa's 2020 NCAA Resume Quadrant Breakdown ~

I am very confident we will make the NCAA with 19 wins. Take care of the non Quad 1 games and we are at 17. Then we just need 2 out of 11...4 of which are home games.
 
mopkins said:
Yeah this kind of crap really pisses me off. Coaches could easily game the system if they wanted to...and TBH I'm not sure why they don't. Especially annual bubble teams like Iowa. Go on the road to Kennesaw State and blow them out 120-42. I think it was Nebraska that did that last year and was a top 5 NET team for awhile.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right.

This is why you see an Oral Roberts jump almost 100 spots from last week to this week. They whomped up on Chicago State on the road greatly skewing their net efficiency numbers while also increasing their winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage, and net margin.... They checked all the boxes and were rewarded. Granted they also had double digit wins against Central Oklahoma and Missouri State but still, that was the main driver.

Larger sample sizes will even it out over time but games like this early really skew the numbers and it irks me. I'm surprised more teams don't try this type of manipulation. It's not like the home games against nobody state bring in a ton of money.
 
JG10Hawk said:
That's exactly right.

This is why you see an Oral Roberts jump almost 100 spots from last week to this week. They whomped up on Chicago State on the road greatly skewing their net efficiency numbers while also increasing their winning percentage, adjusted winning percentage, and net margin.... They checked all the boxes and were rewarded. Granted they also had double digit wins against Central Oklahoma and Missouri State but still, that was the main driver.

Larger sample sizes will even it out over time but games like this early really skew the numbers and it irks me. I'm surprised more teams don't try this type of manipulation. It's not like the home games against nobody state bring in a ton of money.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying Iowa should go back to playing at the UNI Dome? ;)
 
Updated NET today (12/30). Iowa #24

Interestingly San Diego State is #1 overall. Also UNI is ahead of Iowa at #22.

6 Big Ten teams in the top 25. 11 in the top 50.

Penn State is #15 in the NET, #23 in KenPom. ESPN FPI gives Iowa a 49.8% chance to win
 
How is Wisconsin 34? They were up as high as 29 this weekend. They are 7-5.

They beat Tennessee on the road without arguably their best player who is now out for the year.
 
Question - If we beat a Q1 team in December, but by February they've dropped to a Q2 team (due to injuries, over-hype, etc.), does our ranking still use the Q1 at-the-time win? Or the current Q2 of that opponent? Just curious how that all works.
 
Chickenlounge said:
Question - If we beat a Q1 team in December, but by February they've dropped to a Q2 team (due to injuries, over-hype, etc.), does our ranking still use the Q1 at-the-time win? Or the current Q2 of that opponent? Just curious how that all works.
Click to expand...

They take the current ranking. That's why you want to hope your opponents keep on winning.
 
Chickenlounge said:
Question - If we beat a Q1 team in December, but by February they've dropped to a Q2 team (due to injuries, over-hype, etc.), does our ranking still use the Q1 at-the-time win? Or the current Q2 of that opponent? Just curious how that all works.
Click to expand...

The quadrants use a team's current ranking so which quadrant games are presented in will fluctuate as the season unfolds and the opponent's NET ranking moves around.

With that said, an opponent's quadrant presentation on a team's sheet doesn't really effect a team's NET ranking directly. It's mostly used to help compare teams that are similar in NET rank so one can see the quality of teams they have actually beaten. For example just look at Iowa vs UNI. Iowa has played a much tougher schedule having played 8 Q1 & Q2 games while UNI has only played 3 Q1 & Q2 games. Yet UNI is ranked 2 spots higher in the NET currently due to the exploitable factors previously mentioned in this thread.
 
Ian Pike Hammer said:
Neb. is 6-7, with a composite SOS of 146? Ouch!
Click to expand...

That's brutal. But they beat Purdue and only lost by 6 to Indiana. They're a bad team but they have a legit coach. Playing in Lincoln is going to be about as tough a Q3 game as you'll see. Having them at home as a Q4 game just seems wrong.
 
JG10Hawk said:
The quadrants use a team's current ranking so which quadrant games are presented in will fluctuate as the season unfolds and the opponent's NET ranking moves around.

With that said, an opponent's quadrant presentation on a team's sheet doesn't really effect a team's NET ranking directly. It's mostly used to help compare teams that are similar in NET rank so one can see the quality of teams they have actually beaten. For example just look at Iowa vs UNI. Iowa has played a much tougher schedule having played 8 Q1 & Q2 games while UNI has only played 3 Q1 & Q2 games. Yet UNI is ranked 2 spots higher in the NET currently due to the exploitable factors previously mentioned in this thread.
Click to expand...

The good thing is it seems the committee is at least aware of some of the failures of the NET. At least they were last year when they left NC State out of the dance. They were a NET ranking of 33 but RPI 97 and non conference SoS of 352. Their high NET ranking was mostly due to pummeling shitty teams and because of it they were left out of the dance.

It still doesn't really explain why the NCAA feels they needed to add this new ranking system. There's already the polls (AP and Coaches) which adds a human element along with mathematical models (Kenpom, sagarin, BPI, RPI, etc). The quadrant win thing is handy and I really like it for the most part, but there are huge flaws in the NET and for some reason they keep refusing to address them.
 
mopkins said:
The good thing is it seems the committee is at least aware of some of the failures of the NET. At least they were last year when they left NC State out of the dance. They were a NET ranking of 33 but RPI 97 and non conference SoS of 352. Their high NET ranking was mostly due to pummeling shitty teams and because of it they were left out of the dance.

It still doesn't really explain why the NCAA feels they needed to add this new ranking system. There's already the polls (AP and Coaches) which adds a human element along with mathematical models (Kenpom, sagarin, BPI, RPI, etc). The quadrant win thing is handy and I really like it for the most part, but there are huge flaws in the NET and for some reason they keep refusing to address them.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm definitely glad they don't use the NET as the be all end all. IMO it was a marketing gimmick and they have pumped it up for that reason but realize it's flaws so also present the other computer rankings to the committee on the team sheets they give them.
 
After the Maryland win Iowa jumped 10 spots in the NET to #33. They are now #20 in kenpom.

Still tough to swallow that Nebraska game, but this certainly helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top