IUHoosierJoe

Just FYI, the portal closing doesn’t mean you can’t still sign kids out of the portal. It simply means kids can no longer put their name in it.

Appreciate the info. I’m assuming they’d give him some time to meet portal expectations, whatever those may be. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but that 5% chance of a change, assuming Pearl would come, potentially would not happen until maybe May or June, similar to the Ohio State/Thad Matta situation??

Simulated the tournament 1,000 times using my predictive ratings and it spit out these odds of winning: 1. Houston - 27.4% 2. Arizona - 16.6% 3. Purdue - 14.2% 4. Connecticut - 11.4% 5. Iowa St - 7.5% 6. Tennessee - 4.5% 7. Auburn - 4.4% 8. North Carolina - 2.7% 9. Creighton - 2.2% 10. Alabama - 2.0% The one thing I'd take from this is definitely don't bet on any one team vs. the field this year, lol.

I agree, as much as I’d love to see it. But I think Indiana State deserves to be in. I haven’t seen a metric anywhere that supports them being left out.

I’m interested to see how this committee views mid- majors vs. P5. Could affect a lot of teams, like Indiana State, St. John’s, Virginia, Northwestern, etc.

Cool….I do expect South Carolina to get a much higher seed than I show. My score-based rating for them—ranked around 55 or 60–kills their overall ranking. Result-based I have them ranked around 15.

I usually just do this just for my own amusement and entertainment, but the following is my computer-generated selection of teams for the tournament through yesterday's games (records are for Div. 1 games only). The teams are rated and ranked using a 50-50 split of score-based and result-based metrics. The first column on the left is the seeding, the second column is the overall ranking using the blending of the 2 systems. FF means First Four. For conferences (like the Big 10) where the champion has not yet been decided, I designated my higher ranked teams in today's games as the AQ. This is NOT my prediction of what the committee will do, but a lot of it may closely match up. The main difference will be that the inclusion of such a heavy percentage of the result-based metric causes a few mid-majors to be included here that won't get in, or to get a little bit higher seed here from me than the selection committee will give them: 1 1 Houston Big 12 30 - 4 1 2 Purdue Big 10 29 - 4 1 3 Connecticut (AQ) Big East 31 - 3 1 4 Arizona Pac 12 25 - 8 2 5 Auburn (AQ) Southeastern 26 - 7 2 6 Iowa St (AQ) Big 12 27 - 7 2 7 Tennessee Southeastern 24 - 8 2 8 North Carolina Atlantic Coast 27 - 7 3 9 Alabama Southeastern 21 - 11 3 10 Illinois (AQ) Big 10 25 - 8 3 11 Marquette Big East 25 - 9 3 12 Creighton Big East 23 - 9 4 13 Baylor Big 12 22 - 10 4 14 Duke Atlantic Coast 24 - 8 4 15 New Mexico (AQ) Mountain West 25 - 9 4 16 San Diego St Mountain West 22 - 10 5 17 BYU Big 12 23 - 10 5 18 Utah St Mountain West 25 - 6 5 19 Gonzaga West Coast 24 - 7 5 20 Kansas Big 12 21 - 10 6 21 Kentucky Southeastern 23 - 9 6 22 St Mary's CA (AQ) West Coast 25 - 7 6 23 Nevada Mountain West 25 - 7 6 24 Dayton Atlantic 10 24 - 7 7 25 Wisconsin Big 10 22 - 12 7 26 Drake (AQ) Missouri Val 27 - 6 7 27 Indiana St Missouri Val 27 - 6 7 28 Florida Southeastern 24 - 10 8 29 Colorado St Mountain West 22 - 10 8 30 Colorado Pac 12 24 - 10 8 31 Texas Tech Big 12 23 - 10 8 32 FL Atlantic American Athletic 25 - 8 9 33 Boise St Mountain West 20 - 10 9 34 Clemson Atlantic Coast 21 - 11 9 35 Grand Canyon (AQ) Western Athletic 28 - 4 9 36 Washington St Pac 12 24 - 9 10 37 Nebraska Big 10 23 - 10 10 38 Michigan St Big 10 19 - 14 10 39 South Carolina Southeastern 26 - 7 10 40 Mississippi St Southeastern 21 - 13 11 41 Princeton Ivy League 22 - 4 FF 11 42 Texas Big 12 20 - 12 FF 11 43 TCU Big 12 21 - 12 FF 11 44 Pittsburgh Atlantic Coast 22 - 11 FF 11 47 James Madison (AQ) Sun Belt 30 - 3 11 49 Oregon (AQ) Pac 12 23 - 11 12 50 McNeese St (AQ) Southland 26 - 3 12 52 Samford (AQ) Southern 27 - 5 12 62 NC State (AQ) Atlantic Coast 22 - 14 12 65 Yale (AQ) Ivy League 19 - 9 13 70 Vermont (AQ) America East 26 - 6 13 77 VCU (AQ) Atlantic 10 22 - 12 13 83 Col Charleston (AQ) Coastal 26 - 7 13 90 UAB (AQ) American Athletic 21 - 11 14 103 Akron (AQ) Mid-American 22 - 10 14 107 Morehead St (AQ) OH Valley 22 - 8 14 111 Oakland (AQ) Horizon 23 - 11 14 131 Colgate (AQ) Patriot League 24 - 9 15 132 WKU (AQ) Conference USA 19 - 11 15 139 S Dakota St (AQ) Summit Lg 19 - 12 15 154 Long Beach St (AQ) Big West 19 - 14 15 159 Longwood (AQ) Big South 18 - 13 16 171 Stetson (AQ) Atlantic Sun 19 - 12 16 178 St Peter's (AQ) Metro Atlantic 18 - 13 16 215 Montana St (AQ) Big Sky 15 - 16 FF 16 222 Grambling (AQ) Southwestern AC 17 - 14 FF 16 267 Howard (AQ) Mid-Eastern AC 16 - 16 FF 16 288 Wagner (AQ) Northeast 14 - 15 FF OUT 45 St John's Big East 20 - 13 OUT 46 Oklahoma Big 12 20 - 12 OUT 48 Cincinnati Big 12 20 - 14 OUT 51 Wake Forest Atlantic Coast 20 - 13 OUT 53 Northwestern Big 10 21 - 11 OUT 54 Utah Pac 12 19 - 14 OUT 55 Virginia Atlantic Coast 23 - 10 OUT 56 Ohio St Big 10 20 - 13

“If you want to talk to Greg Oden, you get on a plane and come see Greg Oden.”

Yep

Thanks for doing this. It was usually more fun than the actual games. So, did I tie you for a top 5 finish or did you invoke a tiebreaker? lol

Belmont won 9-3. Lost in the discussion of their horrible pitching is that they can’t hit either, especially with anybody on base.

Agree, but assuming a Leal back cut, and Ware's position already, getting the ball to the rim is not a bad choice either because you have Ware and Leal in offensive rebounding position for either a putback or drawing a foul.

Nebraska 76, Indiana 70

There could be reasons for Scott giving that out other than it being a final decision

And when she does give answers, they contradict.

Penn St 76, Indiana 75

Yeah, everybody who produces predictive ratings/rankings uses the same base formula with a few variations here and there as to how they use the data. While everybody can pick certain teams where they don't agree with their ranking, they all really do a good job of predicting winners of games.

Here is the top 25 of my computer rankings through Sunday, March 10 games: 1 Houston 28 - 3 ( 1 ) 2 Purdue 28 - 3 ( 2 ) 3 Connecticut 28 - 3 ( 4 ) 4 Arizona 24 - 7 ( 3 ) 5 Tennessee 24 - 7 ( 5 ) 6 Auburn 24 - 7 ( 7 ) 7 North Carolina 25 - 6 ( 9 ) 8 Alabama 21 - 10 ( 6 ) 9 Iowa St 24 - 7 ( 8 ) 10 Duke 24 - 7 ( 10 ) 11 Creighton 23 - 8 ( 12 ) 12 Baylor 21 - 9 ( 11 ) 13 Illinois 23 - 8 ( 14 ) 14 Marquette 23 - 8 ( 13 ) 15 BYU 22 - 9 ( 15 ) 16 Kansas 21 - 9 ( 17 ) 17 Gonzaga 23 - 6 ( 18 ) 18 Kentucky 23 - 8 ( 19 ) 19 San Diego St 20 - 9 ( 16 ) 20 Utah St 24 - 5 ( 21 ) 21 New Mexico 21 - 9 ( 20 ) 22 Dayton 24 - 6 ( 23 ) 23 Nevada 25 - 6 ( 29 ) 24 St Mary's CA 23 - 7 ( 22 ) 25 Clemson 21 - 10 ( 24 )

Booker was a 5-star, top 20 recruit, so I'd think so. Essegian, maybe not so much.

Women’s program seems to have the same luck as the men’s when it used to make tournaments regularly….key players always get hurt at tournament time.

Not surprising. If you remember back when Crean was coach, Dakich did nothing but rip him up until everybody wanted him gone and he was fired, and then he said he shouldn't have been fired. In his business, the contrarian position is the most profitable.

Michigan St 72, Indiana 65

The fan base is the only thing this program has going for it right now. If you want to know what this program looks like without the fan base, look at DePaul. But hey, DePaul doesn't have to worry about "toxic" fans anymore, lol. And one thing's for sure, once a fan base leaves, it doesn't come back.

A lot of us getting up there in age are tired of the endless marathon, where just when it looks like the finish line is in sight, it moves far away again. Maybe it’s time to find a more enjoyable race. Might be something the administration should consider before it commits to yet another year of crap.

And in the process, shooting the whole program in the foot. If it’s got any feet remaining.