College Bball Thread

[HoosierAloha]

55 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Also means our loss to them is a Q1 loss for now 

Losing to Northwestern kept that a quad 1 game too.

[Uspshoosier]

29 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Cool. We losses. That means a lot...

Cool 

[RaceToTheTop]

1 hour ago, TheWatShot said:

More NET ranking hilarity: Michigan moved up 17 spots after beating Purdue last night, putting them at #30. Since Purdue beat Michigan at home last week, this temporarily gives Purdue another Quad 1 win. 

It's one of the reason I don't like quads.  Just keep the rankings.  If Purdue played better last night but lost, Michigan would have been at like 40 instead of 30 it's a quad 2 loss instead of a quad 1.

Then again, IU's loss to Michigan at least for now is a quad 1 instead of a quad 2, which puts 5 of IU's 7 losses as quad 1.  Then again, IU lost to Northwestern and only dropped one spot from 33 to 34......then IU didn't play the next two days and dropped 3 spots to 37.  It happens as teams shuffle.  I don't know how the NCAA's formula for NET uses quads -- if it lumps all quads as the same value, then it makes a big difference.  If it instead looks at the NET rating of the other team instead of the quad, that's better -- basically saying there is no difference between 31 and 30 on the NET in terms of your schedule.

[RaceToTheTop]

18 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

Losing to Northwestern kept that a quad 1 game too.

Beating Northwestern had a pretty good chance of not changing that anyway unless we blew them out.  Since it was a home game for Northwestern, only top 30 NET games would be considered as Q1.  We were at 33 and at 37 now, so it was a quad 2 victory for them but a quad 1 loss for us.  The quad 2 victory didn't seem to do much to their NET.

[RaceToTheTop]

51 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Cool. We losses. That means a lot...

It's the game the NCAA plays.  Don't have to like it -- and I don't like the quad system -- but them's the rules.  And if we had beaten them and it had dropped them into Q2 territory, that Q2 win is better than the Q1 loss we had.

[HoosierAloha]

8 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

Beating Northwestern had a pretty good chance of not changing that anyway unless we blew them out.  Since it was a home game for Northwestern, only top 30 NET games would be considered as Q1.  We were at 33 and at 37 now, so it was a quad 2 victory for them but a quad 1 loss for us.  The quad 2 victory didn't seem to do much to their NET.

haha, if we would have blown them out. It moves to a quad 2 win for us and a quad 1 loss for them. Have I ever mentioned how I love random cutoffs? 20 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds-ish and you can't legally drink in the US. Wait that final second and BOOM, you're old enough to drink.

[Uspshoosier]

Just now, HoosierAloha said:

haha, if we would have blown them out. It moves to a quad 2 win for us and a quad 1 loss for them. Have I ever mentioned how I love random cutoffs? 20 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds-ish and you can't legally drink in the US. Wait that final second and BOOM, you're old enough to drink.

No one knows the ncaa formula so no one can say for certain what would of happened in those cases 

[TheWatShot]

1 hour ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Cool. We losses. That means a lot...

Why are you always such a ****** about this stuff? No one said it was a good thing or that they were happy about it. 

[HoosierAloha]

8 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

No one knows the ncaa formula so no one can say for certain what would of happened in those cases 

They didn't move much after beating us by 8 and we dropped 4. IF we blow them out by 20+ you don't think we would have moved up 3? That's a top 10 Big 1.o team, top 100 NET, on the road, that we would have blown out. That certainly would have moved us up by 3. I know they keep that formula locked up like it's the 11 herbs and spices of KFC's secret recipe but you can extrapolate a little from other games.

[Uspshoosier]

3 minutes ago, HoosierAloha said:

They didn't move much after beating us by 8 and we dropped 4. IF we blow them out by 20+ you don't think we would have moved up 3? That's a top 10 Big 1.o team, top 100 NET, on the road, that we would have blown out. That certainly would have moved us up by 3. I know they keep that formula locked up like it's the 11 herbs and spices of KFC's secret recipe but you can extrapolate a little from other games.

You would think but you just never know.   I’ve seen results where I thought a team should of skyrocketed for a win and the barely moved and I’ve also seen times where I didn’t think a team would drop much after a loss and they end up sliding down.   I stopped trying to figure it out.  The minute I think I see a pattern and project what will happen a result will come out and be way off what I thought it should be.  I just wait and see each day where teams move 

[Hovadipo]

One game? Lol yikes.

[reconmkd]

2 minutes ago, Hovadipo said:

One game? Lol yikes.

Wow, I guess he was really sincere in his apology! Total BS!

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

19 minutes ago, Hovadipo said:

One game? Lol yikes.

Brad Davison would have gotten 3 more years of eligibility. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

1 hour ago, TheWatShot said:

Why are you always such a ****** about this stuff? No one said it was a good thing or that they were happy about it. 

People consider it a "good loss." Even though we were annihilated on our home court. It's the biggest problem with college sports now. Losses don't mean as much anymore. Because you're allowed 15 "good losses." It's a joke. 

[Stuhoo]

11 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Brad Davison would have gotten 3 more years of eligibility. 

 

8 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

People consider it a "good loss." Even though we were annihilated on our home court. It's the biggest problem with college sports now. Losses don't mean as much anymore. Because you're allowed 15 "good losses." It's a joke. 

 

[TheWatShot]

4 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

People consider it a "good loss." Even though we were annihilated on our home court. It's the biggest problem with college sports now. Losses don't mean as much anymore. Because you're allowed 15 "good losses." It's a joke. 

Again, nobody is glad we lost that game or happy about it. The NET rankings were created to get teams to strengthen/diversify their schedules instead of just gobbling cupcakes at home (like Crean's teams used to do). Like any metric, it's not perfect, and a loss that should have disgraced our program out of existence turns into a loss that the tournament selection committee just views as a loss. You don't have to agree with it, but I don't know why you're always making snarky comments toward posters like USPS for simply pointing out how someone else would look at our results. 

[HoosierAloha]

1 hour ago, Uspshoosier said:

You would think but you just never know.   I’ve seen results where I thought a team should of skyrocketed for a win and the barely moved and I’ve also seen times where I didn’t think a team would drop much after a loss and they end up sliding down.   I stopped trying to figure it out.  The minute I think I see a pattern and project what will happen a result will come out and be way off what I thought it should be.  I just wait and see each day where teams move 

[Uspshoosier]

UConn/Xavier tonight and 3 MWC games.  

[Uspshoosier]

St. Louis has a big one tonight.  They host St Bonaventure.   St. Louis has won enough to get in the conversation for an at-large.   

[OliviaPope40]

23 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

for people that didn’t see it 

I was watching the game happened pretty fast thankfully Moore wasn't hurt worst.