Indy1987 Posted February 20, 2020 Report Share Posted February 20, 2020 10 minutes ago, IU Scott said: Two of the play in games are teams going for a 11 or 12 seed and the other two games are for the 16 seeds. The last 5 years the play in games were 2 games(4 teams) playing for two #16 seeds And 2 games(4 teams) playing for two #11 seeds. The 12 seeds were not determined by play in games. From 2011 to 2014 there were play in games for the 11, 12, 13 and 14 seeds along with the two 16 seeds each year. I don't think the play in games are set but they have been #11 and #16 the past 5 years. Go Hoosiers!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted February 20, 2020 Report Share Posted February 20, 2020 15 minutes ago, Indy1987 said: The last 5 years the play in games were 2 games(4 teams) playing for two #16 seeds And 2 games(4 teams) playing for two #11 seeds. The 12 seeds were not determined by play in games. From 2011 to 2014 there were play in games for the 11, 12, 13 and 14 seeds along with the two 16 seeds each year. I don't think the play in games are set but they have been #11 and #16 the past 5 years. Go Hoosiers!!! Most of this started when they start having conference realignments and forming more conferences. When there were 30 conference you have 30 automatic bids and 34 at large bids. When it went to having 32 conferences they did not want to lower the at large bids so they decided to do play in games. The first couple of years they expanded to 65 teams and the play in game consisted of two 16 seeds playing to get into the field of 64. Now they have 68 teams with the 32 automatic bids bids and 36 at large bids. There are 4 16 seeds playing for two spots for a 16th seed. To me this is not fair because I think those 16 seeds are teams that own their conference so they should not have to play in the play in games. It is all about making sure they have more teams from the power conferences in the tournament. Now with having those 4 teams that would have been a 16 seed in the field of 64. What it has done it made the 16 seed line a little harder for the 1 seed because a couple of the 16 seeds today would have been a 15 seed in the old days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted February 20, 2020 Report Share Posted February 20, 2020 https://www.oddsshark.com/ncaab/history-ncaa-tournament-first-four-play-games This shows the teams and the seeding of each year of the play in games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted February 20, 2020 Report Share Posted February 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Hoosierfan1215 said: I’d take a 11 v 6 and playing a 3 in the second round rather than an 8v9 and playing a 1.the difference this year between a 4-9 probably isn’t gonna be that big anyway. I would want to avoid a play in though. Just an extra game you have to win. I think this is a year that SDSU or Gonzaga or Dayton could go really far. Heck I’m not sure how Baylor keeps going winning. I have watched them 5-6 times this year and thought they weren’t dominant. Just very solid. Who knows. Odd year. Just my opinion, but to me this season is more about program momentum than anything else. I'd almost rather IU just get the best seed possible regardless of what that means matchup-wise. I don't really anticipate a deep March run either way, so I'd prefer IU finish the regular season really strong and with momentum, even if that means an 8 seed (potentially facing a 1 seed in round 2) as opposed to squeaking in at an 11-seed even if it means a better potential second round matchup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud2BAHoosier Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 Just keep winning Hoosiers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 Lunardi's current bracket has Oklahoma, they of the 16-10 overall record, including a ghastly 1-9 in Quad 1 games, as a 9 seed, while IU is his first team out. Oklahoma's 2 road wins are against North Texas and Texas. Other than Joe is just plain stupid, can someone explain this to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierfan1215 Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, 5fouls said: Lunardi's current bracket has Oklahoma, they of the 16-10 overall record, including a ghastly 1-9 in Quad 1 games, as a 9 seed, while IU is his first team out. Oklahoma's 2 road wins are against North Texas and Texas. Other than Joe is just plain stupid, can someone explain this to me? Nope Joe is just plain stupid. That makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornHoosier Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 Some time ago a GM said, Who the Heck is Mel Kiper! Same can be said today, Who in the HELL is Joe Lunardi? I’m sorry and may be bias but put all these BS teams that he ranks so high in the B10 and watch them crumble! I think he wants such a diverse field that he makes up such BS to back up his decisions. His main goal is to get a little bit of each region in the field to sell ALL of America come March! I think he works for the NCAA which makes my conspiracy all that more believable. Sounded good at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FW_Hoosier Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 3 hours ago, 5fouls said: Lunardi's current bracket has Oklahoma, they of the 16-10 overall record, including a ghastly 1-9 in Quad 1 games, as a 9 seed, while IU is his first team out. Oklahoma's 2 road wins are against North Texas and Texas. Other than Joe is just plain stupid, can someone explain this to me? It is baffling that IU was being projected as a 10 seed, proceeds to win 2 out of 3 games with one being a home win over a ranked team and one being a Quad 1 road win... And now the projection goes to first four out. Makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierhoopster Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said: It is baffling that IU was being projected as a 10 seed, proceeds to win 2 out of 3 games with one being a home win over a ranked team and one being a Quad 1 road win... And now the projection goes to first four out. Makes no sense. Lunardi is an idiot. Ok that’s a bit harsh, rather, he’s a phony who just does his self-promoting, clueless bracket thing annually because it’s been turned into a thing to watch. His predictions are flat out terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 6 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said: Lunardi is an idiot. Ok that’s a bit harsh, rather, he’s a phony who just does his self-promoting, clueless bracket thing annually because it’s been turned into a thing to watch. His predictions are flat out terrible. But, his brackets are promoted in a very public manner. And, the average fan, which makes up 98% of the people that are interested in March Madness, has this perception that IU is not really deserving of a NCAA bid, while a team with a far worse resume (Oklahoma) or one that is about equal (Texas Tech) are viewed as solid tournament teams. When a casual fan asks me at the office, or another public setting, about IU's tournament chances, and I explain this to them, their eyes glaze over. They think it's all IU bias on my part, because how can an 'expert' like Lunardi be wrong. He needs to do his job or ESPN needs to find someone that will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLDIUFAN Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 20 hours ago, 13th&Jackson said: Well Purdue does have the win at AH, but overall, the NET is a mess. After the game last night, Andy Katz commented that the NET isn't to a place where the selection committee can use an arbitrary NET number as a cut off for at-large teams. The really bizarre one to me is Texas Tech at 21. They have the same overall record as IU and every other metric is worse, except 2-5 on road vs 2-6. But they're 2-2 on neutral courts. 2-8 in Quad 1 games. 7-9 combined Quad 1 & 2, same as IU, but 38 spots ahead? NET Team Record SOS NC Rec NC SOS Home Road Neutral Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Avg NET Ws Avg NET Ls 21 Texas Tech Big 12 (8-5) 17-9 78 9-4 172 13-2 2-5 2-2 2-8 5-1 2-0 8-0 161 35 I am not even going to try and act like I understand this net stuff! Who came up with it ? Who can explain it? When the record of one team is almost identical to another. How can one teams net be 32 another’s be 59. So what’s the factor that drops the one team so far down. On the argument that we play to many cupcakes. Everyone plays thier share of cupcakes early, I get that, but I do believe IU has gone a little to far. We should be able to toughen that early schedule up and still win those games. Not saying play top 50 teams, but we shouldn’t be playing 300 plus teams either. Maybe this is the difference in our net rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePaulieWalnuts Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 Win the remaining home games and were a lock imo. Our wins currently: Iowa @ home Michigan State @ home Ohio State @ home Florida State @ home Louisiana Tech @ home South Dakota State @ home UConn *neutral* Notre Dame *neutral* Minnesota *away* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FW_Hoosier Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, ThePaulieWalnuts said: Win the remaining home games and were a lock imo. Our wins currently: Iowa @ home Michigan State @ home Ohio State @ home Florida State @ home Louisiana Tech @ home South Dakota State @ home UConn *neutral* Notre Dame *neutral* Minnesota *away* Only 15 teams currently have more Quad 1 wins than IU. If we win out at home, that gives us one or potentially two more Quad 1 wins (although I’m sure Wisconsin will drop from #29 to #49 if we beat them). 20 total wins, a 6-9 record in Quad 1 games, 4-2 record in Quad 2 games, and 10-0 record in Quad 3/4 games would make IU a total lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 30 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said: Only 15 teams currently have more Quad 1 wins than IU. If we win out at home, that gives us one or potentially two more Quad 1 wins (although I’m sure Wisconsin will drop from #29 to #49 if we beat them). 20 total wins, a 6-9 record in Quad 1 games, 4-2 record in Quad 2 games, and 10-0 record in Quad 3/4 games would make IU a total lock. Sure, but let's say we stumble against Penn State. That still does not make Oklahoma or Texas Tech more qualified. If you're going to be in the business of bracket projections, do it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 People continue to call IU a bubble team or say we're on the outside, yet no one can put together a legitimate bracket that should have us on the outside at this point and time. Sure, Lunardi can put together an idiotic bracket that has Oklahoma on the 9 line. But, I'm looking for a reasonable bracket that has us out. Lets say we lose 4 of the next 5. Then it's a different story. Let's talk then. But any bracket that has IU in the play-in games, let alone out, at this moment is garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FW_Hoosier Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, 5fouls said: Sure, but let's say we stumble against Penn State. That still does not make Oklahoma or Texas Tech more qualified. If you're going to be in the business of bracket projections, do it right. Agreed. IU is currently 5-7, 2-2, 4-0, 6-0 in Quadrant 1-4 games, and TTU is 2-8, 5-1, 2-0, 8-0. Oklahoma is 1-9, 8-1, 3-0, 4-0. To me, IU’s resume is better than TTU’s in pretty much every way. Exact same record against Quad 1/2 teams, except IU has more wins, fewer losses, and more total games against Quad 1 teams. Exact same record against Quad 3/4 teams, except IU has more games against Quad 3 teams and fewer games against Quad 4 teams. Oklahoma has kind of a weird resume with all those wins in Quad 2 games. They have a better overall record against Quad 1/2 teams and fewer games against Quad 3/4 teams, but all of their “good” wins have been Quad 2. Comparing these 3 resumes, it almost seems like the NET values Quad 2 games more than it values Quad 1 games, which makes no sense. Only other thing I can think of is margin of victory, but that’s capped at 10, and I would doubt TTU and OU are THAT much better than IU in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, 5fouls said: People continue to call IU a bubble team or say we're on the outside, yet no one can put together a legitimate bracket that should have us on the outside at this point and time. Sure, Lunardi can put together an idiotic bracket that has Oklahoma on the 9 line. But, I'm looking for a reasonable bracket that has us out. Lets say we lose 4 of the next 5. Then it's a different story. Let's talk then. But any bracket that has IU in the play-in games, let alone out, at this moment is garbage. Look on the bright side, it is refreshing not seeing St. Joe's in his predictions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th&Jackson Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 As if we needed further evidence of the fallacy of the NET, Lunardi, etc. OSU: #21 NET. 17-9 overall, 7-8 conference, Q1 4-7, Q2 5-1, SOS 58, Lunardi seed 6. Wins over NET 14 Villanova, 22 KY, 25 PSU. Lost twice to #53 MN. Won at 24 MI when MI was losing 5 of 7 w/o Livers. Since his return MI's 4-0, including home wins over IU, MSU and road win at Rutgers (only home loss for Rutgers this season). These wins are now helping OSU, although they're a different team. IN: #59 NET, 17-9 overall, 7-8 conference, Q1 5-7, Q2 2-2, SOS 56, Lunardi seed 12, play in as of this AM. Wins over NET 13 MSU, 15 FSU, 21 OSU, 27 IA. Beat 53 MN on road. OSU & IN split home & home. IU by 12, OSU by 9. Currently tied for 9th in B1G By any objective analysis, these teams are as even as you can get. Also, prior to OSU's loss at IA last night, they were somehow ranked in both AP and Coaches poll, 25 & 24. MI, ILL, WI & Rutgers all ahead of OSU in conference, but unranked. MSU 2.5 games ahead of OSU was ranked behind them in one poll and unranked in other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th&Jackson Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 13 hours ago, 5fouls said: Lunardi's current bracket has Oklahoma, they of the 16-10 overall record, including a ghastly 1-9 in Quad 1 games, as a 9 seed, while IU is his first team out. Oklahoma's 2 road wins are against North Texas and Texas. Other than Joe is just plain stupid, can someone explain this to me? FWIW Palm currently has both IU and OK as 9 seeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PritchardPutBack Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 On the topic of bracketology, I've slowly begun to use bracketmatrix.com more than just solely checking a guy like Lunardi. I like how it throws together a bunch of bracketologist and it has rankings of the best people at predicting over the years (guy like Andy from Assembly Call is surprisingly high on the list and Lunardi is surprisingly low). The only thing is that the latest bracket they have updated is currently from the day of the Minnesota game so it has IU as a 12 seed on 87 of 116 brackets while 11 seeds Georgetown and Cincy on more brackets have both lost since the morning of the IU/MINN game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU878176 Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 I’m in the camp that does not understand the NET rankings. Ohio State - 21 Oklahoma -46 Minnesota - 54 Yale - 58 Indiana - 59 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JugRox Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, IU878176 said: I’m in the camp that does not understand the NET rankings. Ohio State - 21 Oklahoma -46 Minnesota - 54 Yale - 58 Indiana - 59 Throw BYU (18), Houston (26), and Rugers (35) in there as well.... Notre Dame is 61!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrflynn03 Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 Whoever runs the calculations for the NET must be a purdoo grad and is manipulating the data or just doing it wrong. 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PritchardPutBack Posted February 21, 2020 Report Share Posted February 21, 2020 The NCAA tweeted out "most" of the formula with this picture once. It says that the weight of each numbered section is in descending order but I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of road wins are hurting and the scoring margin in conference games, even with the differential in a game being capped at 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.