Jump to content

B1G Teams in NCAA (early projection)


DWB

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JugRox said:

What if the unranked team at home was being beat by 16 with 3 mins to go,  and the unranked team went off on the 3 point line for the last 3 mins?

You want to reward them for 3 mins of play?

The final score tells a part of the story, not the whole story.

KenPom doesn't account for wins or losses in anyway.

I'm the guy that has been posting all of the computer rankings just for the sake of the entire picture.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Agree with those that question the metrics, they're pretty bad off right now on IU, can rationalize all you want, they're just crap looking at teams like Minn, etc.

But none of it really matters, it's all just noise at this point -- what matters is taking care of business through our remaining games. Get to 20 wins there's really no question we're in. Get to 19, probably but I'm a little nervous. I think we'll be in the NCAA tourney. But work remains to be done, picking up from this W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 5fouls said:

Chew on this for a moment.  IU's loss to Purdue is considered a Quad 1 loss for IU because the Boilers are #29 in the NET.  Now, assume IU had beaten Purdue instead.  Would it be a Quad 1 win?  No, it would not.  With a loss to IU, there is no way Purdue stays in the Top 30 of the Net, which is the requirement for IU to get credit for a Quad 1 win. 

So, in essence, forget the actual score.  Forget who won or lost.  The game became more important in the overall scheme of things because Purdue won instead of IU.  That's illogical if you ask me.    The season is 31 games long for a reason.  Teams have highs and teams have lows.  Good games and bad games.  IU had a low at the same time where Purdue had a relative high.  Does who won matter?  Sure, it does.  But, it should not matter any more than IU's loss at home to Maryland.  But, because of the arbitrary cutoff assigned to the NET ratings, it does.  

Can you imagine if they used NET ratings back in '81 when IU won the championship?  That loss to Pan American would have destroyed IU's resume and likely affected their tournament seed.  But, with their run through the tournament, IU clearly showed they were the best team in the country, despite losing to Pan American.  

You have a point about where it stands right now as far as the Purdue game, but they calculate the quadrant of each win and loss at the end of the season based on where each team finishes the season after all the games have been played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rogue3542 said:

I think this year, with how wide open the Big Ten and, really, the entire NCAA is, we are seeing just how far stats can take us (hint: not very far).

There's some obvious shortcomings in several of these advanced statistical rankings, and, at the end of the day, whether you win by 50 or lose by 100, a win is a win, and a loss is a loss, and right now, IU has 16 in the win column.

IU: 16-8, 58 in NET ranking

Minnesota: 12-11, 40 in NET ranking

Clear example of how stats can only tell you so much.

Even looking just at the wins and losses, there’s an argument that Minnesota has a better resume than IU.  But an 18 spot difference is probably too much.

Minnesota: 5 wins against top 50 teams (4 home, 1 away). 3 losses to sub-50 teams (1 home, 2 away).

Indiana: 4 wins against top 50 teams (4 home).  No losses to sub-50 teams.

If the teams switched schedules, they’d probably also switch records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FW_Hoosier said:

Even looking just at the wins and losses, there’s an argument that Minnesota has a better resume than IU.  But an 18 spot difference is probably too much.

Minnesota: 5 wins against top 50 teams (4 home, 1 away). 3 losses to sub-50 teams (1 home, 2 away).

Indiana: 4 wins against top 50 teams (4 home).  No losses to sub-50 teams.

If the teams switched schedules, they’d probably also switch records.

I don't see how those stats suggest that Minnesota has a better resume. They have one more win against the top 50, but three "bad" losses whereas IU has zero.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, FW_Hoosier said:

Even looking just at the wins and losses, there’s an argument that Minnesota has a better resume than IU.  But an 18 spot difference is probably too much.

Minnesota: 5 wins against top 50 teams (4 home, 1 away). 3 losses to sub-50 teams (1 home, 2 away).

Indiana: 4 wins against top 50 teams (4 home).  No losses to sub-50 teams.

If the teams switched schedules, they’d probably also switch records.

You are going to have to explain your logic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rico said:

You are going to have to explain your logic...

Actually my original post was wrong.  Minnesota now only has 2 losses against sub-50 teams — #79 Utah on the road and #67 DePaul at home.  We have the exact same conference record, with IU owning top-50 wins over #14 FSU, #11 MSU, #23 OSU, and #30 Iowa at home, and Minnesota having wins over OSU, #28 Michigan, #18 Penn State, and #31 Wisconsin at home, and OSU on the road.  So they have more wins against top 50 teams, including a win against OSU away from home.

And again, they had a more challenging non-conference schedule.  Their losses came against #45 Oklahoma at a neutral site, on the road against #12 Butler and #79 Utah, and at home against #67 DePaul.  Like I said in my earlier post, if the teams switched schedules, they’d also likely switch records.  IU fans can continue to stick their head in the sand and act like the only thing that matters is total wins and losses, but the rankings and selection committee value games away from home far more than they value home games.

Edit: Another metric that shows why Minnesota is ahead of Indiana in the NET right now: Minnesota is 4-9 in Quad 1 games, 2-2 in Quad 2 games, 2-0 in Quad 3 games, and 4-0 in Quad 4 games.  IU is 4-7, 2-1, 4-0, and 6-0.  The only real difference between the two is that Minnesota has played a more difficult schedule, hence the 3 more losses.  But like I also said, there’s no way it should be an 18 spot difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading somewhere yesterday where the author was breaking down the B1G.  The number of teams the B1G gets in probably will come down to what teams have bad losses.  With the exception of getting beat by Nebraska or Northwestern, there are no other bad losses.  Taking that into account then it would come down to the bad losses outside of conference.  It was a good read...I am trying to locate it again as he had it broke down team by team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

Actually my original post was wrong.  Minnesota now only has 2 losses against sub-50 teams — #79 Utah on the road and #67 DePaul at home.  We have the exact same conference record, with IU owning top-50 wins over #14 FSU, #11 MSU, #23 OSU, and #30 Iowa at home, and Minnesota having wins over OSU, #28 Michigan, #18 Penn State, and #31 Wisconsin at home, and OSU on the road.  So they have more wins against top 50 teams, including a win against OSU away from home.

And again, they had a more challenging non-conference schedule.  Their losses came against #45 Oklahoma at a neutral site, on the road against #12 Butler and #79 Utah, and at home against #67 DePaul.  Like I said in my earlier post, if the teams switched schedules, they’d also likely switch records.  IU fans can continue to stick their head in the sand and act like the only thing that matters is total wins and losses, but the rankings and selection committee value games away from home far more than they value home games. 

Thanks for expanding.  And I tend to agree with you.  Minny played a very, very tough non-con schedule as a matter of fact you left out they had wins over Clemson and Okie St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rico said:

Thanks for expanding.  And I tend to agree with you.  Minny played a very, very tough non-con schedule as a matter of fact you left out they had wins over Clemson and Okie St.

Yep.  Everyone wants to act like IU should be rewarded for going 10-1 in a non-conference schedule with only two games against top-50 teams (both at home, one of which we lost) and zero true road games, but that’s just not going to happen.  It was clear this was going to be an issue before the season started, and here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

Yep.  Everyone wants to act like IU should be rewarded for going 10-1 in a non-conference schedule with only two games against top-50 teams (both at home, one of which we lost) and zero true road games, but that’s just not going to happen.  It was clear this was going to be an issue before the season started, and here we are.

I understand...but I would say both teams have no bad losses and IU had better wins in the non-con.  I think a win at home over Fla. St. and neutral floor wins over ND and UConn trumps a home court win over Clemson and a neutral floor win over Okie St.  But the Minnesota vs. IU debate is really moot seeing how they play each other twice coming down the stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rico said:

I understand...but I would say both teams have no bad losses and IU had better wins in the non-con.  I think a win at home over Fla. St. and neutral floor wins over ND and UConn trumps a home court win over Clemson and a neutral floor win over Okie St.  But the Minnesota vs. IU debate is really moot seeing how they play each other twice coming down the stretch.

Definitely an argument to be made either way.  I’d say IU’s best two wins over FSU and MSU at home are probably better than Minnesota’s best two wins over PSU at home and OSU on the road.  And I do agree with everyone else that the disparity between the two in the current rankings doesn’t make much sense.  Will be interesting to see how everything shakes out at the end of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

Definitely an argument to be made either way.  I’d say IU’s best two wins over FSU and MSU at home are probably better than Minnesota’s best two wins over PSU at home and OSU on the road.  And I do agree with everyone else that the disparity between the two in the current rankings doesn’t make much sense.  Will be interesting to see how everything shakes out at the end of the season.

At some point in time the win total will matter.  And I give credit to Minny for their scheduling and if they would have won 1 or 2 of those non-con games we wouldn't be having this discussion.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Purdue has 4 games left...Michigan, IU, at Iowa, and Rutgers.  Can they sweep, go 3-1, split, etc.?

I ask because the pundits keep comparing them to a Georgia team from 20 years ago.  Going off memory the Bulldogs had a real tough non-con.  Beat some ranked teams but got beat some too.  The SEC must have been pretty tough that year and UGA finished 9-7 in it.  Finished the regular season 16-13 OA and got beat in the 1st game of the SECT.  16-14 heading into Selection Sunday.  Not only did they get in, but they got a #8 seed.  Of course they got bounced their first game.

So can Purdue emulate that sort of scenario?  According to the "experts" they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, rico said:

Well Purdue has 4 games left...Michigan, IU, at Iowa, and Rutgers.  Can they sweep, go 3-1, split, etc.?

I ask because the pundits keep comparing them to a Georgia team from 20 years ago.  Going off memory the Bulldogs had a real tough non-con.  Beat some ranked teams but got beat some too.  The SEC must have been pretty tough that year and UGA finished 9-7 in it.  Finished the regular season 16-13 OA and got beat in the 1st game of the SECT.  16-14 heading into Selection Sunday.  Not only did they get in, but they got a #8 seed.  Of course they got bounced their first game.

So can Purdue emulate that sort of scenario?  According to the "experts" they can.

I did find this on CBS...

The fewest wins for a team to ever receive an at-large bid to the tournament is 16 (11 times, most recently Georgia in 2001). The lowest winning percentage for a team to ever receive an at-large bid to the tournament is .533 (Villanova 16-14 in 1991, Georgia 16-14 in 2001).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other than having IU's number (which is 100% mental), Turdue is barely above water, can't win away from Mackey and simply doesn't pass the smell test. They're an NIT team even according to GBI.

I can't think of a worse loss for this year's IU team than losing at home to crappy Turdue. That one will piss me off for eternity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rutgers has 1 win away from home...

No team since 1994 has made it into the field with fewer than three wins away from home. The only one since 2007 to get in with fewer than four was Oklahoma, which had three in 2018. That was the Sooners squad that got off to an amazing start, only to crash and burn through most of conference play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, bobtcat2 said:

To use a tennis analogy,  if they hold serve and win one in BTT, 8 seed at worst

If we win out at home (PSU, Wisconsin, and Minnesota), IU is probably the 10 or 11 seed BTT. It's messed up, but IU really can't get higher than the 10 at this point. And win the first round game vs Nebraska or Northwestern.

That would make IU 21-11 (10-10) with a Quad 1 record of 7-7 with no Quad 3 or 4 losses. For reference, there are only 7 teams right now with more than 7 Quad 1 wins.

That is easily in and you are right, the worst is a 8 seed. Probably a 7....maybe a 6 depending how other teams finish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...