Bracketology and Team Resumes

[Uspshoosier 45,024]

On 12/15/2022 at 6:54 PM, IU_FanClub said:

Not that it really matters because we've taken care of business against the bad teams, but I was absolutely shocked to see our noncon SOS is #300 in kenpom. As of right now only 3 of our 11 non conference games are sub 300 teams and we've got 4 of the toughest non conference games you can have.

In the one the matters for the committee IU’s NET Sos is 50 and non con sos is 86 

[Uspshoosier 45,024]

4 hours ago, str8baller said:

That’s kind of the dumb part of the NET/Quadrant thing…today won’t really change the fact that it was a Q1 win. It was pretty much assured to be that at the time.  To the extent the tournament committee puts a bunch of emphasis on the quadrant win tally versus raw predictor/SoS metrics Xavier being 20th versus 40th doesn’t help us all that much. 

Quadrants are used as a sorting tool for committee it’s not as big as factor as many think.   Not all wins in each Quad are created equal.    Committee knows the difference.  

[str8baller 5,042]

2 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

Committee knows the difference. 

Watching their work product each year and then hearing their explanations, I doubt that they do. I don’t think most of them could pass a high school statistics course. That’s not hyperbole, either.   
 

Either way, it is unequivocally good that we beat Xavier at Xavier. 

[Uspshoosier 45,024]

11 hours ago, str8baller said:

Watching their work product each year and then hearing their explanations, I doubt that they do. I don’t think most of them could pass a high school statistics course. That’s not hyperbole, either.   
 

Either way, it is unequivocally good that we beat Xavier at Xavier. 

Every year they get a bad wrap by some but most in the industry and for myself think they get the job done.   Always going to be criticism and you will not be able to please everyone.  For me going through a mock selection back in the day and taking a class on it gave me a better understanding of all the stuff going on in that room and all year long.   I would love to go through the process again with thr updated criteria and new NET ranking.   Maybe one day I will be able to.   I have faith in new committee chair Chris Reynolds that he will knock it out of the park in his first year as chair 

[Uspshoosier 45,024]

IU’s road and neutral games against power 6 competition so far this year are all top NET 21 teams 

[Uspshoosier 45,024]

18 hours ago, HoosierAloha said:

What's the difference between a Q1a and Q1b win?

They added this a couple years into the NET rankings so when they scrub the seeds they could break down team wins even further and sort them to help them differentiate the top teams.   Someone pointed out how they break them down.   For me I think they did it to help them for the seeding of the top 4 seeds especially the 1 seeds.   Those teams are usually so close with regards to resumes they every little way to separate helps 

[go iu bb 5,495]

20 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

They added this a couple years into the NET rankings so when they scrub the seeds they could break down team wins even further and sort them to help them differentiate the top teams.   Someone pointed out how they break them down.   For me I think they did it to help them for the seeding of the top 4 seeds especially the 1 seeds.   Those teams are usually so close with regards to resumes they every little way to separate helps 

So, in effect, there are actually 6 quads now? "Quads" appears to be a bad name for them and shows a lack of foresight. The NCAA lacking foresight is shocking, I'm sure, but here we are. 

[RaceToTheTop 24,923]

2 hours ago, go iu bb said:

So, in effect, there are actually 6 quads now? "Quads" appears to be a bad name for them and shows a lack of foresight. The NCAA lacking foresight is shocking, I'm sure, but here we are. 

The name for six sections is 'sextants'.  Maybe they had the foresight not to break them into 'sexts'.

[go iu bb 5,495]

5 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

The name for six sections is 'sextants'.  Maybe they had the foresight not to break them into 'sexts'.

No need for Latin based number words at all.  Group, class, category, cluster, set, or type are all words that would have worked just as well as quadrants and are more flexible since they don't specify a certain number of divisions. Sextants would have the same problem as quadrants if they wanted to further divide them in the future. 

[HoosierAloha 30,024]

3 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

They added this a couple years into the NET rankings so when they scrub the seeds they could break down team wins even further and sort them to help them differentiate the top teams.   Someone pointed out how they break them down.   For me I think they did it to help them for the seeding of the top 4 seeds especially the 1 seeds.   Those teams are usually so close with regards to resumes they every little way to separate helps 

If not every quad win is equal why would they need to break quad 1 wins into two other categories?

This goes back to a point I've made a million times that we have random cutoffs in our society.

[RaceToTheTop 24,923]

14 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

No need for Latin based number words at all.  Group, class, category, cluster, set, or type are all words that would have worked just as well as quadrants and are more flexible since they don't specify a certain number of divisions. Sextants would have the same problem as quadrants if they wanted to further divide them in the future. 

You know the chicken didn't really cross the road to get the other side.  Chickens just kind of wander aimlessly.

[IUc2016 7,121]

Maryland dropped from 27th to 51st in the NET after yesterday's beat down at UM.

IU is still at 19

 

[RaceToTheTop 24,923]

5 hours ago, IUc2016 said:

Maryland dropped from 27th to 51st in the NET after yesterday's beat down at UM.

IU is still at 19

 

Maryland came in as a quad 1 game for Michigan, but because they got beat so bad it's a mediocre quad 2 win for the Wolverines.

[Uspshoosier 45,024]

Entire Big 12 is in the NET top 45 

[RaceToTheTop 24,923]

26 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Entire Big 12 is in the NET top 45 

From top to bottom, they are as good as any conference in the last ten years.  The most likely team to not make the tournament --- Oklahoma State -- nearly just won at Kansas.

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

8 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Maryland came in as a quad 1 game for Michigan, but because they got beat so bad it's a mediocre quad 2 win for the Wolverines.

Teams should get the value of what a team was rated prior to the game. Getting punished for kicking someone's tail is asinine.

 

If Purdue goes on a 15 game losing streak, Rutgers should get credit for beating #1, quad 1A.

[go iu bb 5,495]

8 hours ago, HoosierHoops1 said:

Teams should get the value of what a team was rated prior to the game. Getting punished for kicking someone's tail is asinine.

 

If Purdue goes on a 15 game losing streak, Rutgers should get credit for beating #1, quad 1A.

If PU goes on a 15 game losing streak, it shows they aren't as good as thought. Why should Rutgers get credit for beating a quad 1A team when that team is actually quad 2? The rankings get more accurate the more data they have.

Should teams be penalized for winning a game against a team that is better than thought? Let's say Team A beats Team B in December. At the time of the win, Team B is quad 2. Team B goes on a tear after the loss and ends up quad 1A. Should Team A get credit for beating a quad 2 or quad 1A? I say quad 1A.

The rankings at the end of the season are the most accurate they can be and take the fluctuations during the season into account. Those are the most fair to use. 

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

19 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

If PU goes on a 15 game losing streak, it shows they aren't as good as thought. Why should Rutgers get credit for beating a quad 1A team when that team is actually quad 2? The rankings get more accurate the more data they have.

Should teams be penalized for winning a game against a team that is better than thought? Let's say Team A beats Team B in December. At the time of the win, Team B is quad 2. Team B goes on a tear after the loss and ends up quad 1A. Should Team A get credit for beating a quad 2 or quad 1A? I say quad 1A.

The rankings at the end of the season are the most accurate they can be and take the fluctuations during the season into account. Those are the most fair to use. 

No.

 

The collective expertise has to have some accountability. If you thought PU was #1 and they lose 15 in a row, you need a credibility whack, not just the ability to adjust with info.

[go iu bb 5,495]

1 minute ago, HoosierHoops1 said:

No

No what? I asked no yes/no questions. Care to elaborate? 

[HoosierHoops1 5,024]

4 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

No what? I asked no yes/no questions. Care to elaborate? 

You did ask at least 1, but I amswered NO as a catch all for the post. I edited it immediately and thought it would make it to you in it's new version.