College Bball Thread

[Uspshoosier 44,831]

MWC delivering at 2 am.    New Mexico up 7 with 1:12 to go 

[RaceToTheTop 24,782]

5 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

MWC delivering at 2 am.    New Mexico up 7 with 1:12 to go 

That’s probably not great for Indiana state.Boise State was safe but New Mexico firmly on the bubble

[RaceToTheTop 24,782]

6 hours ago, rcbowla said:

You are as level headed a fan as I know. Gun to head...ISU get in? My bias says yes but my mind says no. Also you're the only the bracketologist I can ask lol

Really good net, weak sos.  Think if they don’t get in it will be because 22 of their 27 wins were Q3 and Q4 and they only had one Q1 win.

Havent looked — @UspshoosierDo they have any wins against teams safely in outside of Drake who won the tourney?

[str8baller 4,964]

7 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Quad 2 win today.  IU now has 4 quad one wins and 6 quad twos.  Entering today, only 20 teams had at least 4 quad 1 wins and 10 quad 1 + quad 2.  That number would have increased today, but still probably like 25 teams with 4 Q1 and 10 Q1 + Q2.   Efficiency metrics are what killed IU's shot.

It’ll be interesting at least if IU wins against Nebraska. I believe everyone that says they’re not in, but they’ll arguably have the gross wins. It’ll be interesting in that everyone will have to explain efficiency metrics to the common fan. 

[Uspshoosier 44,831]

40 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Really good net, weak sos.  Think if they don’t get in it will be because 22 of their 27 wins were Q3 and Q4 and they only had one Q1 win.

Havent looked — @UspshoosierDo they have any wins against teams safely in outside of Drake who won the tourney?

They don’t.  It will all come down what committee want to do with them.   
 

In 2019 56 out of 195 bracketologist had Belmont in 

in 2019 182 out of 195 bracketologist had TCU in 

 Belmont was in and TCU was out and I was someone who had Belmont out as well 

[Demo 19,384]

23 minutes ago, str8baller said:

It’ll be interesting at least if IU wins against Nebraska. I believe everyone that says they’re not in, but they’ll arguably have the gross wins. It’ll be interesting in that everyone will have to explain efficiency metrics to the common fan. 

Hell, explain them to me. The idea that playing poorly while winning in November mitigates playing well and winning against better teams in March will never not be funny to me. And the idea that IU is still something like 15 places in the NET behind Maryland is a pretty ugly outlier.

[Uspshoosier 44,831]

30 minutes ago, Demo said:

Hell, explain them to me. The idea that playing poorly while winning in November mitigates playing well and winning against better teams in March will never not be funny to me. And the idea that IU is still something like 15 places in the NET behind Maryland is a pretty ugly outlier.

That’s why there isn’t 1 metric the committee looks at.    Predictives metrics try to predict a likely outcome based on how teams preformed all year.    You can argue the NET is too heavy in the predictive side of things since it’s suppose to be results based and predictive.   It needs to be somewhere in between the 2.   Results based metrics don’t get payed attention enough throughout the year fans and they are just as important on a team sheet.    IUs SOR is 51and KPI is 64 while Marylands SOR 92 and KPI is 98.    Simple way to look at it is Results based metrics get you selected while the predictive metrics will be used for seeding. Sorry   If I confused you more.   NET needs tweaking but so does about every metric that is used.   

[str8baller 4,964]

9 minutes ago, Demo said:

Hell, explain them to me. The idea that playing poorly while winning in November mitigates playing well and winning against better teams in March will never not be funny to me. And the idea that IU is still something like 15 places in the NET behind Maryland is a pretty ugly outlier.

I’m actually sympathetic to the argument. Every system has outliers. (Have I done my rant about Kenpom calling his outlier rating “luck” yet….no?…. Remind me sometime. ).  While I love the efficiency ratings and predictor systems, what happens on the court should ultimately matter.  
 

With that said, Indiana’s problems are two-fold there. Yes, we get dinged for not pulverizing bad opponents which seems a little unfair (why shouldn’t a coach be able to give minutes to the end of the bench if you’re still going to win?)…BUT, we also get dinged for all the bad losses. That’s more fair, imo. Blow out losses to every top team besides Kansas at home. 20 point losses to Purdue x2, and UConn and a 30pt loss to Auburn. Double digit losses to Nebraska and Penn St at home hurt.  
 

I’d have to sit down with the math and the formula to know for sure, but I bet those games kill us as much as not blowing out the cupcakes. And even the average fan can see that any decent team doesn’t rack up a bunch of 15-20+ drubbings, especially at home. 
 

 

[Uspshoosier 44,831]

17 minutes ago, Demo said:

Hell, explain them to me. The idea that playing poorly while winning in November mitigates playing well and winning against better teams in March will never not be funny to me.

Also total body of work matters. Games in November count just as much as games in March.    A team can definitely improve over the course of the year but that team still has to beat good teams.   You can throw all the metrics out and teams still have to beat tourney quality teams.  It’s awesome IU is on a 5 game winning streak to end the year but the total body of work shows they have only beat 2 tourney quality teams all year and those were at home and none of them are against protected seeds.  IU could have a NET of 35 and they just don’t have the wins to warrant an at-large bid.  Win the next 2 and let’s see where they stand against the rest of the bubble.   

[Uspshoosier 44,831]

44 minutes ago, str8baller said:

I’d have to sit down with the math and the formula to know for sure, but I bet those games kill us as much as not blowing out the cupcakes. And even the average fan can see that any decent team doesn’t rack up a bunch of 15-20+ drubbings, especially at home. 

https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_rankings/nitty_gritties/36708/teams/560558/team_sheet
This will show you the rise and fall of a teams NET throughout the year and shows you wins and losses and the dates so you can see where it’s at.    I knew from the start when they started 137 in the NET that it would be an uphill battle.   Not smashing those teams early and getting blown out by UConn made IUs starting point too high however as it’s showed they gained a ton of ground early with that Michigan road win and then lost a ton after the Auburn loss and the home loss to Nebraska 

[johnsoniu 6,214]

The #2,3, and 4 seeds in the Mountain West are gone.

The #1 seed plays the #5 seed today, and is a 4 point underdog.

Mountain West forever

[cleeter 2,106]

Is it just me, or is the IU game tonight not showing up on DraftKings?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JimmerNoe 497]

1 hour ago, Uspshoosier said:

Also total body of work matters. Games in November count just as much as games in March.    A team can definitely improve over the course of the year but that team still has to beat good teams.   You can throw all the metrics out and teams still have to beat tourney quality teams.  It’s awesome IU is on a 5 game winning streak to end the year but the total body of work shows they have only beat 2 tourney quality teams all year and those were at home and none of them are against protected seeds.  IU could have a NET of 35 and they just don’t have the wins to warrant an at-large bid.  Win the next 2 and let’s see where they stand against the rest of the bubble.   

Are you feeling like they will at least be considered on the bubble now if they are able to make it to Sunday? I agree that right now they just don’t have the resume but have to believe Nebraska and Illinois on neutral court would be considered significant wins compared to other bubble teams. 4-5 quad one wins, no “bad” losses, and 21 wins feels like it should be enough for the blind resume test at least.

[Uspshoosier 44,831]

1 minute ago, JimmerNoe said:

Are you feeling like they will at least be considered on the bubble now if they are able to make it to Sunday? I agree that right now they just don’t have the resume but have to believe Nebraska and Illinois on neutral court would be considered significant wins compared to other bubble teams. 4-5 quad one wins, no “bad” losses, and 21 wins feels like it should be enough for the blind resume test at least.

Home loss to Penn St is a Q3.   They will be on the teams to consider list even if they don’t make it to Sunday however winning the next 2 will put them really in the conversation.    They only moved up 2 spots today in the NET for a neutral court win over Penn St who had a better NET than them.   They need to at least get that NET in the low 80s or 70s in my opinion.   

[Demo 19,384]

22 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Home loss to Penn St is a Q3.   They will be on the teams to consider list even if they don’t make it to Sunday however winning the next 2 will put them really in the conversation.    They only moved up 2 spots today in the NET for a neutral court win over Penn St who had a better NET than them.   They need to at least get that NET in the low 80s or 70s in my opinion.   

Who's the highest ranked NET team to be left out that you can remember?

[Uspshoosier 44,831]

Just now, Demo said:

Who's the highest ranked NET team to be left out that you can remember?

I want to say Clemson or NC State around 33 or 32 I believe.   Let me look it up 

[Uspshoosier 44,831]

1 minute ago, Uspshoosier said:

I want to say Clemson or NC State around 33 or 32 I believe.   Let me look it up 

NC state was 33 and Clemson was 35.  In same year committee chose St. John’s (72), Arizona St (63), Temple(56) and Belmont(46) as the last 4 in.   

[go iu bb 5,406]

4 hours ago, str8baller said:

I’m actually sympathetic to the argument. Every system has outliers. (Have I done my rant about Kenpom calling his outlier rating “luck” yet….no?…. Remind me sometime. ).  While I love the efficiency ratings and predictor systems, what happens on the court should ultimately matter.  
 

With that said, Indiana’s problems are two-fold there. Yes, we get dinged for not pulverizing bad opponents which seems a little unfair (why shouldn’t a coach be able to give minutes to the end of the bench if you’re still going to win?)…BUT, we also get dinged for all the bad losses. That’s more fair, imo. Blow out losses to every top team besides Kansas at home. 20 point losses to Purdue x2, and UConn and a 30pt loss to Auburn. Double digit losses to Nebraska and Penn St at home hurt.  
 

I’d have to sit down with the math and the formula to know for sure, but I bet those games kill us as much as not blowing out the cupcakes. And even the average fan can see that any decent team doesn’t rack up a bunch of 15-20+ drubbings, especially at home. 
 

 

It seems that since the NET was introduced, IU has more often than not been an outlier and in a bad way. I guess it's not really that surprising considering Miller and Woodson don't really care about analytics so they haven't really looked for ways to game the system or even how to make sure they aren't hurt by it.

[Home Jersey 6,249]

I really dislike Loyer on Purdue

[Home Jersey 6,249]

Can't wait for March Madness and Zach Edey to not get literally every.single.call.