Bracketology and Team Resumes

[AH1971 1,448]

I still firmly believe IU needs to win the BTT to get in, but things are shaping up for a nice draw. If Illinois hangs on, IU gets the 6th seed and avoids playing red hot Ohio State in the 7/10 game and wouldn’t see Illinois until Saturday. If the Illinois/Iowa results holds here is the likely draw:

Thursday: winner of 11 Maryland/Penn St vs Michigan

Friday: 3 Nebraska

Get to the weekend and anything can happen. If IU were to pick up Q1 wins on Friday and Saturday against Nebraska and Illinois….well who knows.

[Class of '66 Old Fart 84,346]

[RaceToTheTop 25,288]

WAR top 25:

1. Purdue 28-3, WAR +11.93
2. Houston 28-3, +10.91
3. U Conn 28-3, +10.16
4. North Carolina 25-6, +7.62
5. Tennessee 24-7, +7.27
6. Arizona 24-7, +6.91
7. Marquette 23-8, +6.38
8. South Carolina 25-6, +6.12
9. Iowa State 24-7, +5.87
10. Auburn 24-7, +5.70
11. Illinois 23-8, +5.65
12. Creighton 23-8, +5.62
13. Baylor 21-9, +5.49
14. Kansas 21-9, +5.39
15. Duke 24-7, +5.36
16. Alabama 21-10, +5.26
17. Utah State 24-5, +4.94
18. Nevada 25-6, +4.81
19. Kentucky 23-8, +4.73
20. Dayton 24-6, +4.59
21. Clemson 22-9, +4.55
22. Texas Tech 22-9, +4.27
23. BYU 22-9, +3.78
24. Florida Atlantic 24-7, +3.59
25. Drake 27-6, +3.57

Close:  San Diego State 20-9, +3.56, Indiana State 27-6, +3.50, Washington State 23-8, +3.49, Nebraska 22-9, +3.48, Virginia 22-9,  +3.24

[RaceToTheTop 25,288]

Maryland NET 77.  15-16 record, 2 quad 1 wins, 4 quad 2 wins.  4 quad 3 losses.  NET non con SOS 289, overall SOS 86.

Indiana NET 93.  18-13 record.  Beat Maryland twice.  3 quad 1 wins, 5 quad 2 wins.  1 quad 3 loss.  NET non con 90, overall SOS 21.

I don't know how much evidence there needs to be that NET is weighing efficiency WAY too much.

 

[str8baller 5,179]

13 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Maryland NET 77.  15-16 record, 2 quad 1 wins, 4 quad 2 wins.  4 quad 3 losses.  NET non con SOS 289, overall SOS 86.

Indiana NET 93.  18-13 record.  Beat Maryland twice.  3 quad 1 wins, 5 quad 2 wins.  1 quad 3 loss.  NET non con 90, overall SOS 21.

I don't know how much evidence there needs to be that NET is weighing efficiency WAY too much.

 

I’m not particular fan or expert of NET, but I wouldn’t use a statistical outlier to throw out the whole system. And that’s pretty much what IU is from an efficiency standpoint. Out of 350+ teams we’re 8th in terms of wins outperforming our efficiency on Kenpom. It’s “confusing” to such a system when you can barely beat Harvard, Army and FGCU at home but then also beat Wisconsin and MSU at home by similar margins. On the other end of things, we were blown out by good teams like a bad team usually does. We were just really, really competitive against other mediocre teams.  
 

I’ll let USPS or somebody else defend NET, but the one thing it gets right is that neither Maryland or IU are good enough to be tournament teams.   
 

I personally liked the old Sagrin style of reporting all 3 types of ratings so you could kind of flip back and forth between the efficiency, ELO and blended ratings in case one style really overrated or underrated a team.

[NashvilleHoosier 3,696]

On 3/3/2024 at 8:54 PM, NashvilleHoosier said:

PSU, NW and Nebraska at home. Crazy to think if we just win those 3 AT HOME (how many seasons have we considered those a given?) we’re 19-10, in 3rd place in the B1G at 11-7 and probably on the right side of the bubble? 

Still so frustrating that these 3 home games buried us. Flip those and at 21-10, 13-7 in conference finishing 3rd, 2 games clear….we’re probably solidly on the right side of the bubble. 

[True Fan 38]

1 minute ago, str8baller said:

I’m not particular fan or expert of NET, but I wouldn’t use a statistical outlier to throw out the whole system. And that’s pretty much what IU is from an efficiency standpoint. Out of 350+ teams we’re 8th in terms of wins outperforming our efficiency on Kenpom. It’s “confusing” to such a system when you can barely beat Harvard, Army and FGCU at home but then also beat Wisconsin and MSU at home by similar margins. On the other end of things, we were blown out by good teams like a bad team usually does. We were just really, really competitive against other mediocre teams.  
 

I’ll let USPS or somebody else defend NET, but the one thing it gets right is that neither Maryland or IU are good enough to be tournament teams.   
 

I personally liked the old Sagrin style of reporting all 3 types of ratings so you could kind of flip back and forth between the efficiency, ELO and blended ratings in case one style really overrated or underrated a team.

NET definitely doesn't capture a team's improvement from early season to March.  Fortunately, as far as I understand it anyways, the committee is allowed to use other factors in determining at large bids.

[True Fan 38]

3 minutes ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

Still so frustrating that these 3 home games buried us. Flip those and at 21-10, 13-7 in conference finishing 3rd, 2 games clear….we’re probably solidly on the right side of the bubble. 

Maybe, but not blowing out Army, FGCU, Harvard, is what dug that hole.  We blow those teams out and we are probably on the right side of the bubble even with those losses.

[Uspshoosier 45,528]

37 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

I don't know how much evidence there needs to be that NET is weighing efficiency WAY too much.

 

Road wins at Illinois and at Iowa had a lot to do with Marylands NET being  above IUs.   Marylands NET was around the 100s until the Illinois game 

[Demo 19,754]

Just now, Uspshoosier said:

Road wins at Illinois and at Iowa had a lot to do with Marylands NET being  above IUs.   Marylands NET was around the 100s until the Illinois game 

And just to be clear, since I’m too lazy to find where you’ve already answered this many times, zero chance of an at large, correct? If they go on a heater and beat Penn St, Nebraska and Illinois and lose in the final, 2 quad 1’s and a quad 2, right, it just doesn’t get there? 

[Uspshoosier 45,528]

6 minutes ago, codesbane said:

NET definitely doesn't capture a team's improvement from early season to March.  Fortunately, as far as I understand it anyways, the committee is allowed to use other factors in determining at large bids.

A teams overall NET number  is used as a sorting tool.   A teams NET number isn’t nearly as important as their opponents NET number.    The numbers within a team sheet are far more important then the NET number.  Committee will look at all metrics, SOS, KPI, SOR, Ken Pom,  BPI.  Each committee member can value a certain metric more important then the other though.   

[NashvilleHoosier 3,696]

8 minutes ago, codesbane said:

Maybe, but not blowing out Army, FGCU, Harvard, is what dug that hole.  We blow those teams out and we are probably on the right side of the bubble even with those losses.

Very true. Lot's of things buried our chances.

[Dave from Dayton 3,080]

Just win, baby!

[str8baller 5,179]

9 minutes ago, codesbane said:

NET definitely doesn't capture a team's improvement from early season to March.  Fortunately, as far as I understand it anyways, the committee is allowed to use other factors in determining at large bids.

It was a month ago that we were blown out by Purdue, similar to our early season performance against top teams. It was only a few weeks ago, that Nebraska spanked us at home.  
 

An improved IU might be a tough case to make in front of the committee despite this little win streak we’re on. 

[Uspshoosier 45,528]

1 minute ago, Demo said:

And just to be clear, since I’m too lazy to find where you’ve already answered this many times, zero chance of an at large, correct? If they go on a heater and beat Penn St, Nebraska and Illinois and lose in the final, 2 quad 1’s and a quad 2, right, it just doesn’t get there? 

Probably not but I would have to see how the bubble looks at that time.  It would be about the metrics at that point.  Their metric are just too bad.  Yesterday they win a home game against Sparty who was 24 and IU only moved from 97 to 93.   It’s just not the predictives metrics that are shot it’s the results based as well SOR is 58 and KPI is 68.    The problem also is the only tourney quality teams they have beat are teams on the bottom half of the bracket and those were at home.   No wins against tourney quality teams away from home.   

[Uspshoosier 45,528]

16 minutes ago, codesbane said:

Maybe, but not blowing out Army, FGCU, Harvard, is what dug that hole.  We blow those teams out and we are probably on the right side of the bubble even with those losses.

IU would have been closer by blowing them out but their resume would still be lacking.  Only tourney teams IU would have beaten would be a Sparty team and Wisky at home  that are struggling down the stretch.  Still tourney teams but bottom of the bracket.  IU currently doesn’t have any win against a team projected as a protected seed 

[Hovadipo 55,503]

38 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Only tourney teams IU would have beaten would be a Sparty team and Wisky at home

This Morehead St erasure will. not. stand. 

[hoosiersoxfan 230]

We also blew two games where we had late leads against good teams.  Home against Kansas and at Illinois were both very winnable games and we just couldn't get the job done.

[Uspshoosier 45,528]

11 minutes ago, Hovadipo said:

This Morehead St erasure will. not. stand. 

Only at-large quality teams 

[Uspshoosier 45,528]

December 3rd is when I knew IU had an uphill battle for its tourney chances.  
 

They were 6-1 with single digit wins against teams other high major teams were blowing out.  They had been blowed out by UConn and barely beat Louisville ( I even talked myself into thinking they were better).  At the time I thought the Maryland win was a step in the right direction.   The 3rd was the day the NET released their original ranking where I figured IU would be in the 80s or 90s.   I was wrong IU started the NET journey at 137.    Now they cut that to 98 with a win against Michigan but that would rise to 124 with a loss to Auburn.    Uphill battle from Dec 3rd on.