IUHoosierJoe

Your system is quite interesting to me. Seems to be a unique way of looking at it, and hard to argue with the results. Pittsburgh is a team I’m keeping my eye on. Their resume is reminding me a little of Rutgers last year. I have them at 67 but they have 5 wins over my top 50.

My system actually ranks the Mountain West higher than the Pac 12 and ACC. In looking over their out of conference schedules, they have had some pretty good results. I’ll be interested to see how the tournament committee treats them.

Probably the same guy who tweeted that Tayven Jackson was going to Purdue, lol.

I wasn’t aware last year’s teams were playing. In any event, ESPN lost the Big 10 contract so they will be show the ACC every day and twice on Sunday, regardless of how good the teams are.

Through yesterday's games, my computer-generated rankings, 50/50 weighting of result-based and score-based: 1. Tennessee 2. Houston 3. Alabama 4. Purdue 5. UCLA 6. Kansas 7. Arizona 8. Texas 9. St Mary's CA 10. Gonzaga 11. Kansas St 12. Baylor 13. FL Atlantic 14. Connecticut 15. San Diego St 16. Marquette 17. Virginia 18. Iowa St 19. Xavier 20. TCU 21. New Mexico 22. Boise St 23. Duke 24. Utah St 25. Indiana As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, these have been a decent predictor of tournament selections and seeds with a couple exceptions: I tend to rank teams from smaller conferences higher than their seeding. For example, I have Florida Atlantic in the 4-seed range, and my sense, just based on past experience, is their ceiling is probably an 8-seed even if they win out, and even if they're ranked in the top 15 of the AP poll. But we'll see. The other exception, as I mentioned before, is a team here and there that gets in the tournament because of an abnormal number of Quad 1 wins versus their entire body of work. For example, I had Rutgers ranked nowhere near the cut off line last year. With that being said, I have Indiana a solid 7 seed now, playing 10-seed NC State in the first round.

True, but that year all the power conference teams had at least 5 regular-season losses. Gonzaga only had 2.

Interesting. Just to be clear, what I posted for 2013 isn't what I used for my top 25 I posted Monday, but what I have come up with to closely replicate the NET. For 2013, my NET-duplication formula resulted in Kansas ranked #6, behind Louisville, Indiana, Florida, Gonzaga, and Duke. Florida, with a 3 seed, certainly ended up below their ranking, lol.

I found it, and I was actually mistaken. I had Louisville the slight #1 over us in my attempted duplication. I had IU #2. Here are what I had as Quad 1 games: W N Georgetown (#14) W North Carolina (#29) L N Butler (#39) W @ Iowa (#51) W Minnesota (#26) L Wisconsin (#16) W Michigan State (#12) W Michigan (#8) L @ Illinois (#43) W @ Ohio State (#7) W @ Michigan State (#12) L @ Minnesota (#26) L Ohio State (#7) W @ Michigan (#8) W N Illinois (#43) L N Wisconsin (#16) So it looks like I had us 10-6 in Quad 1 in the regular season. And I'll note North Carolina is on the borderline and I can't duplicate it exactly, but pretty close.

I actually did that a while back, tried to replicate the NET formula (I can get very close to the current rankings but not exact) for that season. I think IU finished the regular season #1 with Louisville a close second. I can try to find it if you’re interested.

NET is reflective and predictive but there is more weight on predictive.

Alright, you guys have inspired me to post my computer-generated rankings 1. Alabama 2. Houston 3. Tennessee 4. UCLA 5. Purdue 6. Kansas 7. Texas 8. St Mary's CA 9. Arizona 10. Gonzaga 11. Kansas St 12. Connecticut 13. FL Atlantic 14. Baylor 15. Iowa St 16. Virginia 17. Auburn 18. New Mexico 19. Marquette 20. San Diego St 21. Xavier 22. TCU 23. Boise St 24. Utah St 25. Kent (Indiana #30)

Well, you forgot Billy Donavan, lol.

I realize that. There are no “set criteria.” They have criteria until they don’t. For instance, they look at “total body of work” until they want to take a team like Rutgers last year and ignore their bad losses. They have the NET, but it does not line up with the seeding because it weighs the predictive side too much. You don’t even need to dig into the sheet much, just weigh the result-based metric more than the NET does. With the RPI, there was no predictive side at all, so it wasn’t a set criteria either. They’re never going to put anything out there that gives away the whole field, because they want to leave themselves the flexibility to pick who they want. But Sagarin’s old ratings, before he changed his formula, was a really good predictor of the field and fairly good on seedlings, outside of, again, your teams like Rutgers last year getting in.

You may notice the NET rankings have Indiana 32 and Maryland 52. Mine are also computer generated but I put more weight on the result-based side than the NET does. I actually put equal weight on result-based and predictive, so mine are nearly identical to Sagarin’s old version in which he used pure points and elo chess. The committee used to rely on that old version of Sagarin’s rankings very heavily.

I’ve got Indiana in as a 12 seed (#47) and Maryland well out (#62).

99.9% of “disruptors” are a very small fraction as intelligent as they think they are.

He certainly outcoached Akron’s Groce a couple nights ago.

According to a teaser on Peegs, there has been some “encouraging chatter,” whatever that means.

In all seriousness, thank you for putting this in writing and attempting to explain it. I still don’t get it and never will, why it makes some people feel so good to trash our athletic programs, players, coaches, and athletic directors on a public forum for everyone to see. To me it isn’t any less gross than the guy who sent the letter to TJD. You just don’t have to use a stamp and envelope here. But to each their own, I guess. And again, truly, thank you for explaining it.

Sure, because Indiana football fills the seats like Kentucky basketball, right? Indiana football has the NIL money of Kentucky basketball, right? In short, Kentucky basketball has a lot of positives to counteract the negativity of some of their fanbase. We, on the other hand, have tailgating instead of coming into games, leaving at halftime, and grown men (I assume) sucking their thumbs and carrying their blankies to message boards and crying when things don't go their way. Not real enticing to potential recruits. But thanks for the laughable comparison to Kentucky basketball, lol.

IU also needs a better fanbase. No recruit is going to look at an IU football message board filled with post after post of this junk and choose IU, especially with NIL now a main consideration.

Appears to have a broken finger. Appears to be middle finger of left hand.

I've heard that Jones did visit.

Newsflash: Other fan bases have been laughing at our football program since long before any of us were born. You honestly thought that was something new?

Omg