No poll movement?

[ssckelley]

Who are you going to drop in a scenario that Iowa should be higher? I'm not saying your wrong, but winning all your games doesn't automatically mean you're moving up. The Net rankings are all that matters now anyway and Iowa is currently at 28 - so a 7 seed. In fact, the polls like Iowa better than the actual rankings that matter do. If Iowa takes care of business tonight, they are likely to see a nice bump in the NET.

Man I hope Iowa doesn't fall into that 7/10 game, even a 6 seed would be WAY better and I'm hoping for better.

 

[HawksMN]

Iowa is not going to be a 7 seed if they can reasonably take care of biz the rest of the way. 20-5 and a projected 7 seed? Uh-uh.

 

[PCHawk]

It’s really how you do in the tournament that really matters. Get to the round of eight and then your getting people’s attention. That’s what people will remember. Sweet sixteen not so much, but the round of eight catches most fans attention as you are one win away from the final four.

Ranking only really matter in determining seed which could make your pathway easier but once you get to the sweet sixteen it really doesn’t matter at that point. Everyone is good at that point. Get to the next round after the sweet sixteen, then people are taking notice.

Who really takes note of the sweet sixteen teams other than the fans of the teams in question. Get knocked out at that point and no one remembers you except the fans of the ream that beat you to make it to the round of eight.

I barely remember who won the championship last year. I probably couldn't name 3 elite 8 teams. No one cares or remembers other teams no matter what they do unless they are a Cinderella or a dynasty.

 

[PCHawk]

Iowa is tied for the second fewest losses in the Big 10. With all the hype the conference gets they should probably be top 15 and they would be if they were a bigger named school. The only reason I care at all is because if they were ranked where they should be based on resume, they could damn near get into the top 10 if they win this week. Not a huge deal, but it is a small one, perception wise.

 

[atomicblue224]

I wish I have a quantum computer, I can play with to predict how far Iowa will go in NCAA!

 

[Fryowa]

Iowa is tied for the second fewest losses in the Big 10. With all the hype the conference gets they should probably be top 15 and they would be if they were a bigger named school.

Which is why there shouldn't even be a selection committee.

For selection it should be automatic bids first followed by going down the NET rankings until the bracket is full. Seeding should be 1-64 according to NET ranking.

No humans allowed.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

This time of year a team is not really going to move up a lot or many spots unless those teams above lose or have a bad loss. But I agree they should be up a little more and I also question Iowa State. Iowa beat them and apparently play in the toughest conference in the nation top to bottom. They must really think Iowa St is a juggarnot this year.

I think Iowa States depth of only playing 7 will catch up with them going thru the conference tourney then the NCAA.

 

[Cydkar]

Which is why there shouldn't even be a selection committee.

For selection it should be automatic bids first followed by going down the NET rankings until the bracket is full. Seeding should be 1-64 according to NET ranking.

No humans allowed.

Humans derived the formula in NET and it wasn't derived to pick the top 64 teams of the tournament.

 

[JG10Hawk]

This time of year a team is not really going to move up a lot or many spots unless those teams above lose or have a bad loss. But I agree they should be up a little more and I also question Iowa State. Iowa beat them and apparently play in the toughest conference in the nation top to bottom. They must really think Iowa St is a juggarnot this year.

I think Iowa States depth of only playing 7 will catch up with them going thru the conference tourney then the NCAA.

The Iowa beat ISU argument isn't a very good one. It should be the whole body of work and that's how the computer rankings decide it. ISU has been the more efficient team and it really isn't even close. All of their losses have been within 10 points outside of the Iowa game where they were missing 2 of their main players. Iowa has lost by 15+ 3 times. I also wouldn't say the Big Ten is necessarily the toughest conference either. Kenpom likes the Big Ten better but Sagarin and NET actually like the Big 12 more.





As for the human polls, those tend to have a "what have you done for me lately" aspect to it. ISU just won @ Kansas State by 14 while Iowa won with a buzzer beater @ Rutgers. ISU deserves to be ahead of Iowa right now per them and rightfully so. Kansas State is much better than Rutgers.



I agree with your ISU depth comment. That one will probably bite them at some point.

 

[Fryowa]

As for the human polls, those tend to have a "what have you done for me lately" aspect to it.

It's so much worse than that--total popularity contests.

Biases stacked upon biases. 100% statistically-based rankings are the only pure way to go. Just like recruiting rankings, the AP and Coaches Polls are barely a half notch above figure skating in objectivity.

The other bonus to computer rankings is that whether one agrees with the model or not, it's the same for everyone regardless of how many fans and administrators they have on some ridiculous committee.

 

[Fryowa]

Humans derived the formula in NET

No shit.

Humans developed the formula we use to determine how much lift an airplane wing needs to take off and the formulas to calculate whether the design is strong enough not to fall apart and kill 300 people in flight. But since humans derived all of that it isn't trustworthy or reliable?

That argument is tired and needs to go back to the drawing board.

...and it wasn't derived to pick the top 64 teams of the tournament.

So?

Your reason that it can't be used to seed teams is because it wasn't intended for that originally?

That's like when your dad told you, "because I said so" when you were a little kid. If you're going to tell me it's a bad way to determine seeds then give me a convincing reason why.

It's a non-biased way to rank basketball teams ability from best to worst. Which is precisely what seeding is--ranking something from best to worst; nothing more, nothing less. Even if you were able to show some sort of bias in the formulas, that's negated by the fact that the formulas are the exact same for everyone and teams aren't cherry picked by the most emotional and irrational creatures on the planet--humans.

Convince me that it's a bad idea. I'm interested in what you're thinking.

 

[mopkins]

The efficiency thing is what drives me the most nuts. I think it should just be thrown out. Some teams win by lighting up the scoreboard, other teams win by playing tough defense. Who really cares in the end? A win should be a win.

 

[JG10Hawk]

It's so much worse than that--total popularity contests.

Biases stacked upon biases. 100% statistically-based rankings are the only pure way to go. Just like recruiting rankings, the AP and Coaches Polls are barely a half notch above figure skating in objectivity.

The other bonus to computer rankings is that whether one agrees with the model or not, it's the same for everyone regardless of how many fans and administrators they have on some ridiculous committee.

You're preaching to the choir my man. I've taken the human polls with a grain of salt since Kenpom started to become known in the mid 2000s. I view the AP and coaches polls as free marketing and that's about it.

 

[WindsorHawk]

The Iowa beat ISU argument isn't a very good one. It should be the whole body of work and that's how the computer rankings decide it. ISU has been the more efficient team and it really isn't even close. All of their losses have been within 10 points outside of the Iowa game where they were missing 2 of their main players. Iowa has lost by 15+ 3 times. I also wouldn't say the Big Ten is necessarily the toughest conference either. Kenpom likes the Big Ten better but Sagarin and NET actually like the Big 12 more.

View attachment 5058

View attachment 5059

As for the human polls, those tend to have a "what have you done for me lately" aspect to it. ISU just won @ Kansas State by 14 while Iowa won with a buzzer beater @ Rutgers. ISU deserves to be ahead of Iowa right now per them and rightfully so. Kansas State is much better than Rutgers.

View attachment 5060

I agree with your ISU depth comment. That one will probably bite them at some point.

I’ll take an inefficient win over an efficient loss. If winning inefficiently means being a 5 or 6 seed then I accept that penalty. Because I really enjoyed the last 2 buzzer beaters. And I stand by my argument that playing...and winning...a lot of close games is good preparation for the inevitable close games in postseason play. Been there and done that is a good thing IMO.

 

[InGoodCo]

The efficiency thing is what drives me the most nuts. I think it should just be thrown out. Some teams win by lighting up the scoreboard, other teams win by playing tough defense. Who really cares in the end? A win should be a win.

absolutely - my only point in ALL of this is that the Polls (with biased voters who all suck) actually like us better than the computers (who are ran by biased voters who suck)

 

[InGoodCo]

I’ll take an inefficient win over an efficient loss. If winning inefficiently means being a 5 or 6 seed then I accept that penalty. Because I really enjoyed the last 2 buzzer beaters. And I stand by my argument that playing...and winning...a lot of close games is good preparation for the inevitable close games in postseason play. Been there and done that is a good thing IMO.

I think it helps too - to have experience in those close game situations. You have a calming - been there, done that feeling with experience. I don't know that this season would be happening with out last season. Losing that often, by that many sure was a learning experience and prepared them for this season.

 

[JG10Hawk]

I’ll take an inefficient win over an efficient loss. If winning inefficiently means being a 5 or 6 seed then I accept that penalty. Because I really enjoyed the last 2 buzzer beaters. And I stand by my argument that playing...and winning...a lot of close games is good preparation for the inevitable close games in postseason play. Been there and done that is a good thing IMO.

I agree 100%. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is the computer systems that measure efficiency and adjust it by opponent strength gives a much better picture for comparing one team to another vs looking at just the W & L column.

 

[Fryowa]

absolutely - my only point in ALL of this is that the Polls (with biased voters who all suck) actually like us better than the computers (who are ran by biased voters who suck)

I'll never argue that the ranking systems are perfect. But I will argue that they apply the criteria equally to all teams and that they're better than human opinion in all cases. Therefore I think they are the best way to classify teams.

TL;DR, it's more fair.

 

[greghammel]

It’s really how you do in the tournament that really matters. Get to the round of eight and then your getting people’s attention. That’s what people will remember. Sweet sixteen not so much, but the round of eight catches most fans attention as you are one win away from the final four.

Ranking only really matter in determining seed which could make your pathway easier but once you get to the sweet sixteen it really doesn’t matter at that point. Everyone is good at that point. Get to the next round after the sweet sixteen, then people are taking notice.

Who really takes note of the sweet sixteen teams other than the fans of the teams in question. Get knocked out at that point and no one remembers you except the fans of the ream that beat you to make it to the round of eight.

Loyola-Ill, Texas Tech, FSU and KSU... had to look that up... no.... this round of 8 jibberish not true. Michigan made it to the Championship by playing a very fortunate bracket. They were not much better than Iowa.

 

[WindsorHawk]

I agree 100%. I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is the computer systems that measure efficiency and adjust it by opponent strength gives a much better picture for comparing one team to another vs looking at just the W & L column.

I understand. I shouldn’t have quoted your post when making mine. I knew you were just explaining to the masses.