Bracketology and Team Resumes

[Uspshoosier 44,293]

Lunardi dropped IU from 13th overall to 14th after the loss to Iowa 

Bracket Dave dropped IU from 12th overall to 13th after the loss to Iowa 

[DoctorP 815]

Interesting. That’s reassuring

[HoosierAloha 29,897]

So you're thinking we have 2 more opportunities to effect our seeding with the game against Michigan and first game in Big 1.o tourney before the committee stops paying attention to the games?

[Uspshoosier 44,293]

35 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Straight forward question:  what does it mean to say that it's a sorting tool?

I’m at work so can’t give you a long answer until I get home but basically the same as it meant the last couple years you ask me this question 

[RaceToTheTop 23,767]

49 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

I’m at work so can’t give you a long answer until I get home but basically the same as it meant the last couple years you ask me this question 

Don't know if that's a dig or not, but I'm not asking you defend NET.  It's not your tool.  But I do think there are big issues with it.  I know your interests are in predicting what the NCAA committee is going to seed teams based on how the committee view teams.  You're great at that and know how the committee does so.  I'm not so much interested in that but rather how they are coming up with their numbers in the different tools.  Things like Pom are understandable and you know what they measure.  NET not so much.

From my understanding, the main value of NET is to put teams into ratings so that they can be assigned quads.  I know that it won't be perfect and there is margin of error.  But there are errors I see that go beyond what should be an acceptable one.  For instance, hosting Utah State would be a quad 1 game right now, yet they are pretty much not in any's bracket and they don't have a single quad 1 victory themselves.

I know you are just the messenger -- you state what the committee does and how they use NET.  But knowing how they use it is different than saying that how they come up with is logical.

[Uspshoosier 44,293]

3 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Don't know if that's a dig or not, but I'm not asking you defend NET.  It's not your tool.  But I do think there are big issues with it.  I know your interests are in predicting what the NCAA committee is going to seed teams based on how the committee view teams.  You're great at that and know how the committee does so.  I'm not so much interested in that but rather how they are coming up with their numbers in the different tools.  Things like Pom are understandable and you know what they measure.  NET not so much.

From my understanding, the main value of NET is to put teams into ratings so that they can be assigned quads.  I know that it won't be perfect and there is margin of error.  But there are errors I see that go beyond what should be an acceptable one.  For instance, hosting Utah State would be a quad 1 game right now, yet they are pretty much not in any's bracket and they don't have a single quad 1 victory themselves.

I know you are just the messenger -- you state what the committee does and how they use NET.  But knowing how they use it is different than saying that how they come up with is logical.

No dig just having a little fun with me answering this question every year.    I’m sure there are articles you can find about all that stuff or ask bracketologist that do this for a living on Twitter for their thoughts that can explain better then me.  You really think there is a difference between a team 30 compared to 31 just because one says Q1 and the other says Q2?    Just like NET is a sorting tool for teams the quads are a sorting tool for wins and losses.    At the end of the day humans still select the teams and seed them.   I think people overreact to overall net number and Quads.   At the end of the day it will comes down to who did you play, where did you play and who you beat.   

[Uspshoosier 44,293]

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2022-11-07/how-field-68-di-mens-teams-picked-march-madness-each-season

[Bowhunter 2,667]

Which teams are we rooting for or against for big ten tournament best seeding 

[RaceToTheTop 23,767]

44 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2022-11-07/how-field-68-di-mens-teams-picked-march-madness-each-season

Interesting read.  Sounds like about 30 (give or take) teams would get locked in as at large teams initially -- but that includes probably about 10 teams that will win their conference tournament, so probably 20 or so lock in at large bids.  Thinking with 32 auto bids and 20 locked at large, they are then looking at 16 at large.  Some of those 16 won't be locked at larges but really aren't in danger.  If you aren't at least on the 'under consideration' grouping (which requires 4 voters having you under consideration or in the 36 in column one), you had better win your conference tournament to get in.

[RaceToTheTop 23,767]

31 minutes ago, Bowhunter said:

Which teams are we rooting for or against for big ten tournament best seeding 

Northwestern and Maryland both to lose their last two games and Iowa to lose their finale.  Under those conditions, I believe an IU win over Michigan would guarantee a bye  with a 2 seed possibility.

If any tie - multiple team -- occurs with Northwestern or Iowa, IU is pretty much going to the bottom of that grouping.  An IU win over Michigan alone will still likely result in not getting the double bye.  A loss to Michigan actually puts getting the ninth seed in play but IMO if you don't have the double bye this year, it really doesn't matter if your seed is 5,6,7,8,9, or 10.  Given Purdue's recent woes, the second round game against a 1,2,3, or 4 seed doesn't seem to make much difference.

[Uspshoosier 44,293]

23 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Interesting read.  Sounds like about 30 (give or take) teams would get locked in as at large teams initially -- but that includes probably about 10 teams that will win their conference tournament, so probably 20 or so lock in at large bids.  Thinking with 32 auto bids and 20 locked at large, they are then looking at 16 at large.  Some of those 16 won't be locked at larges but really aren't in danger.  If you aren't at least on the 'under consideration' grouping (which requires 4 voters having you under consideration or in the 36 in column one), you had better win your conference tournament to get in.

Did you watch the videos or just read it?

[HoosierFan1994 4,631]

Bracket experts..what does IU have to do to be able to jump to a 3 seed? Bartorvik (I know it's not 100%) pretty much has it at no chance from what I've messed around with. Figure teams in front of us need to lose. 

[vemmeistars 202]

10 minutes ago, HoosierFan1994 said:

Bracket experts..what does IU have to do to be able to jump to a 3 seed? Bartorvik (I know it's not 100%) pretty much has it at no chance from what I've messed around with. Figure teams in front of us need to lose. 

Not an expert, but it feels like IU is capped at a 4 seed. I think I've read that the conference tourneys have a pretty minor impact on seeding. The positive is that IU shouldn't be worse than a 5 seed with 2 additional losses (Michigan, 1st BTT game).

[ALASKA HOOSIER 11,169]

BUT I REALLY WANTED THAT 3 SEED! son of a purdue person!

[Uspshoosier 44,293]

46 minutes ago, HoosierFan1994 said:

Bracket experts..what does IU have to do to be able to jump to a 3 seed? Bartorvik (I know it's not 100%) pretty much has it at no chance from what I've messed around with. Figure teams in front of us need to lose. 

Would depend on what others do around that area but at least win the next one and pick up another Q1 win and they will be in the conversation win 2 other Q1 games and they could get there.    They are probably not that far off right now.  Keep In mind committee loved Q1A road wins and IU picked up anther one against a committees projected 1 seed giving them 3 Q1a road wins.    Stinks they didn’t show up but at the end of the day it was only a loss to a projected tourney team.   IU still doesn’t have a Q3 loss like some of these teams 

[RaceToTheTop 23,767]

50 minutes ago, HoosierFan1994 said:

Bracket experts..what does IU have to do to be able to jump to a 3 seed? Bartorvik (I know it's not 100%) pretty much has it at no chance from what I've messed around with. Figure teams in front of us need to lose. 

I think bartovik compares resume to teams similar resumes from previous years as opposed to comparing resumes of teams this year.  I think it’s better to look at around the middle of the year than the end when resumes of this years teams are more solidified.

[RaceToTheTop 23,767]

1 hour ago, Uspshoosier said:

Did you watch the videos or just read it?

I read it.  Wasnt in a place where I could listen to the videos.

[Rico 2,911]

1 hour ago, HoosierFan1994 said:

Bracket experts..what does IU have to do to be able to jump to a 3 seed? Bartorvik (I know it's not 100%) pretty much has it at no chance from what I've messed around with. Figure teams in front of us need to lose. 

JMO, but I feel barttorvik hasn't "liked" us all year.

[str8baller 4,777]

14 minutes ago, Rico said:

JMO, but I feel barttorvik hasn't "liked" us all year.

His metrics have had us a little lower than kenpom and net all year. But after that butt kicking by iowa Kenpom dropped us pretty hard too.   We’ve been the best in sagarin and are still top 20 there. 
 

The much made fun of Kentucky is now better than us in all 3 major efficiency rankings. So that sucks…!!

[RaceToTheTop 23,767]

2 hours ago, Rico said:

JMO, but I feel barttorvik hasn't "liked" us all year.

IU actually started the year higher ranked than Pom.  I think there are wider swings on Bartovik.