Iowa's Advantage

[H8IAST8]

We all know our OOC SOS and RPI are weak, however this thread is to highlight our advantages.

-RPI TOP 50 Wins: 4 matches or beats any bubble team. Beat MSU and its 5
-Eye Test: We pass the eye test
-SOS (overall) is not the worst, in fact its better than the following teams: Virginai, Ole Miss, Oregon, Akron, Middle TN St, Maryland, & AZ ST,
-.500 Record in the Best Conference
-Sagarin of 35 is better than approximately 22 teams currently deemed "In" or "bubble teams"
USA TODAY
-Ken Pom of 30 is better than approximately 27 teams currently deemed "In" or "bubble teams"
2013 Pomeroy College Basketball Ratings

A few thoughts from the Selection Committee Chair Mike Bobinski:

I use a combination of different systems when I look at teams and also weigh that with my own observations. I want to see a team play and get a sense of who they are and how they look.
NCAA Tournament Selection Committee Chairman Defends the RPI - The Daily Fix - WSJ

Mike Bobinski: About a dozen. We have more data than any human can possibly digest. There are probably about a dozen tools. And one of the key things that we tell new committee members that come on here, the key to this job is really how you manage information. You need to figure out as an individual committee member what is the best way you can manage and process all of the data that’s available to us and make it meaningful and make it real for you so you can make good decisions, consistent decisions and decisions you’ll ultimately feel comfortable about when we get into selections.
Q&A: Mike Bobinski - NCAA.com

Q. With the short turnaround that those teams in that event face, is there the possibility that those that advance out of there, or some of those that advance out of there, would then be placed back in Dayton just to cut back on travel for the second and third rounds?
Mike Bobinski: I think that’s absolutely a possibility. I don’t know that we’ll be able to accommodate the entire group, but a number of them would make perfect sense to land them in Dayton, and I suspect that will happen.
We also have this year sites in Lexington, Auburn Hills, which are very convenient to Dayton also. So I think we have enough flexibility there to provide teams without disadvantage — successful teams without disadvantage, next round travel circumstances.

 

[H8IAST8]

While having to play your way into the tournment would suck (First 4), it sounds like the Committee will try to keep some of the winners either in Dayton or nearby Lexington or Auburn Hills.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Good list by the OP. Seems like about the only thing that is against Iowa right now is the RPI, and the fact that it doesn't have much in the way of road wins (but neither do most bubble teams).

Regarding SOS, everyone keeps harping on our non-con SOS, and for good reason. But it should really be the entire season's SOS that should matter, not JUST the non-con games. As was just pointed out, our overall SOS compares pretty favorably to alot of bubble teams.

Body of work.. RIGHT?

I mean, that's what I keep hearing is the reason that Minnesota is "IN", because of their body of work, and what they have done (or haven't done) the last month or two is apparently 100% irrelevant. So at least be consistent and look at SOS the same way if that's the way it's supposed to be with a team's resume.

I sense a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to SOS. I hope that's not really the case, though.

 

[PCHawk]

It doesn't make any sense at all to separate non conference and conference SOS. It should all be one number.

 

[BrueCrew3]

It seems to me I remember hearing that at one time, the committee took very seriously your record in the the last 10 games of the season. When did that change?

GO HAWKS!!!

 

[1977Hawkeye]

It doesn't make any sense at all to separate non conference and conference SOS. It should all be one number.

And what if Team A plays a soft non-conference schedule and has a difficult conference slate, while Team B plays in a soft conference but loads up on tough opponents in the non-con? I mean, one half of the schedule is soft, the other is difficult. In Team A's case, the easy part came first. It would seem really messed up if Team B gets the benefit of the doubt over Team A for playing a really tough non-conference SOS, when in reality, their overall SOS could be quite comparable.

Especially when, in our case, the conference schedule is 18 games plus the Big Ten Tournament, and the non-con is only 12-13 games or so.

I'm just afraid that Team B would get the nod though.. For years and years, you hear so much about non-conference SOS and the committee seems hellbent on punishing teams that schedule light in the non-conference.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

It seems to me I remember hearing that at one time, the committee took very seriously your record in the the last 10 games of the season. When did that change?

GO HAWKS!!!

Apparently Tubby Smith slipped the committee some cash under the table to ignore the last 10..

 

[Wassabbe]

Being .500 in the Big 10 doesn't mean anything. You could go .500 playing our schedule or .500 playing Minnesota's. What is more impressive?

 

[Cydkar]

It seems to me I remember hearing that at one time, the committee took very seriously your record in the the last 10 games of the season. When did that change?

GO HAWKS!!!

It's been a couple of years. The reason being that some teams played brutally hard schedules down the stretch and some just the opposite.

 

[WindsorHawk]

They may not look at those last 10 but they most likely will look at Minnesota's 8 game road losing streak. If Illinois beats them Thursday it goes to 9 consecutive losses away from home. I'm not saying they won't make it...even though I don't think they should. I'm saying their inability to beat anyone away from home since early January will come up in the conversation.

 

[Section136]

Being .500 in the Big 10 doesn't mean anything. You could go .500 playing our schedule or .500 playing Minnesota's. What is more impressive?

Minnesota didnt go .500 playing Minnesota's conference schedule.

 

[PCHawk]

And what if Team A plays a soft non-conference schedule and has a difficult conference slate, while Team B plays in a soft conference but loads up on tough opponents in the non-con? I mean, one half of the schedule is soft, the other is difficult. In Team A's case, the easy part came first. It would seem really messed up if Team B gets the benefit of the doubt over Team A for playing a really tough non-conference SOS, when in reality, their overall SOS could be quite comparable.

Especially when, in our case, the conference schedule is 18 games plus the Big Ten Tournament, and the non-con is only 12-13 games or so.

I'm just afraid that Team B would get the nod though.. For years and years, you hear so much about non-conference SOS and the committee seems hellbent on punishing teams that schedule light in the non-conference.

I think in this situation neither team should have an advantage over the other. As long as they have the same overall SOS.

 

[HawkeyeMHA]

You make the case for me! We're in!

 

[Clowns]

It's been a couple of years. The reason being that some teams played brutally hard schedules down the stretch and some just the opposite.

For some reason I can't think of a team that fits this description...

 

[ssckelley]

I am starting to wonder if Iowa should have played D2 schools instead of low majors with an RPI above 300, because then those wins do not show up on the RPI at all. If those wins really are that bad and rule Iowa out of the tournament then why can't a committee member take those wins out of the equation? Assuming Iowa beats NW, MSU, and loses in semi would Iowa be in the tournament as a 17-12 team?

Here are the wins killing Iowa's non conference SOS:
Texas Pan American (303)
Howard (334)
Texas A&M Corpus Christy (319)
South Carolina St (335)
Coppin State (313)

If Iowa only had this schedule for their non conference would it make a difference?

Central Michigan (267)
Gardner Webb (194)
Western Kentucky (155) <neutral court>
Wichita State (39) <neutral court>
@ Virginia Tech (169)
South Dakota (235)
Iowa State (47)
Northern Iowa (86) <neutral court>

For comparison purposes take a look at another bubble teams non conference: http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Virginia.html

I get they beat Duke on their home court, Iowa should have done the same against Indiana or MSU but failed. But that win is what seems to set Virginia apart from Iowa. If Iowa beats MSU on a neutral court shouldn't that put Iowa ahead of a team like Virginia?

 

[1977Hawkeye]

I am starting to wonder if Iowa should have played D2 schools instead of low majors with an RPI above 300, because then those wins do not show up on the RPI at all. If those wins really are that bad and rule Iowa out of the tournament then why can't a committee member take those wins out of the equation? Assuming Iowa beats NW, MSU, and loses in semi would Iowa be in the tournament as a 17-12 team?

Here are the wins killing Iowa's non conference SOS:
Texas Pan American (303)
Howard (334)
Texas A&M Corpus Christy (319)
South Carolina St (335)
Coppin State (313)

If Iowa only had this schedule for their non conference would it make a difference?

Central Michigan (267)
Gardner Webb (194)
Western Kentucky (155) <neutral court>
Wichita State (39) <neutral court>
@ Virginia Tech (169)
South Dakota (235)
Iowa State (47)
Northern Iowa (86) <neutral court>

For comparison purposes take a look at another bubble teams non conference: http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Virginia.html

I get they beat Duke on their home court, Iowa should have done the same against Indiana or MSU but failed. But that win is what seems to set Virginia apart from Iowa. If Iowa beats MSU on a neutral court shouldn't that put Iowa ahead of a team like Virginia?

It's also worth nothing that Iowa lost by 3 to MSU when Iowa was without its leading scorer. Virginia also has a lot more bad losses than Iowa does. And Duff will probably show up now spouting off about how bad losses don't matter and it's only about who you've beaten, but by that logic, Iowa and Virginia both have 4 wins against the RPI Top 50. So am not sure why a team like UVA should have such an advantage over Iowa.. They have a couple more wins over RPI 51-100 than Iowa, but as I said, quite a few more bad losses as well.

 

[ssckelley]

It's also worth nothing that Iowa lost by 3 to MSU when Iowa was without its leading scorer. Virginia also has a lot more bad losses than Iowa does. And Duff will probably show up now spouting off about how bad losses don't matter and it's only about who you've beaten, but by that logic, Iowa and Virginia both have 4 wins against the RPI Top 50.

But the RPI does not measure that at all, a loss is a loss no matter how wide of a margin. The RPI profiles of each team is the only document we know for sure each committee member looks at (they are encouraged to look at others).

 

[1977Hawkeye]

But the RPI does not measure that at all, a loss is a loss no matter how wide of a margin. The RPI profiles of each team is the only document we know for sure each committee member looks at (they are encouraged to look at others).

You are correct, and that's why I think the RPI is garbage. According to the RPI, a team that loses by 40 to Duke gets just as much "credit" as a team that loses to Duke in triple overtime. Just because a loss is a loss. That's nuts.

As for Lunardi's Bracketology, I love how he knocks Iowa's four Top 50 wins as being "modest", yet he has MTSU and Southern Miss each ahead of us in the pecking order, and from what I'm currently seeing on ESPN's RPI rankings, neither of those teams has a single Top 50 RPI win. Not a one.

I just don't get it.