IU Scott Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, IowaHoosierFan said: Losing close to the #3 NET team by 5 points on a neutral court, probably doesn't hurt them at all. It is a shame that the outcome on the court has no bearing on the rating. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 Is this t true that Auburn has not had 1 quad 1 win all year. I heard someone say that but I found that hard to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUskim Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 5 minutes ago, IU Scott said: Is this t true that Auburn has not had 1 quad 1 win all year. I heard someone say that but I found that hard to believe. They are 1-7 in quad 1 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 2 hours ago, Kdug said: Ageeed, you don’t ignore the last 3 weeks either. Which is why I said we’ve played like a tourney caliber team during that stretch. But that’s only 5 games out of the 32 we’ve played. You can’t just ignore the other 27 games, or 85% of the season, of mostly mediocre to bad basketball. If we would’ve played like this most of the season, we would be in the tourney. Unfortunately we didn’t, and we dug a hole too deep both in terms of wins and losses and efficiency metrics. I’d bet most of the top 100 teams have a stretch of games where they’ve looked tourney caliber. But it’s about doing that consistently throughout the year, not just the last 5 games of the year. MSU lost today. If IU wins today and tomorrow, but loses to Purdue on Sunday, who should get the 6th B1G bid? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 2 minutes ago, IUskim said: They are 1-7 in quad 1 games. Yet they probably be a 4 or 5 seed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Hoosier Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 59 minutes ago, Maedhros said: My problem with the NET is its not being used in a manner consistent with the way it was designed. It's clear from this season that NET ratings are weighted heavily toward efficiency metrics. Those measures, like KenPom and Torvik, are predictive. They tell you what you should expect from teams going forward, even project spreads in a matchup between any two teams. What those measures don't tell you is what a team has accomplished over a season. NCAA Tournament selection is supposed to be about your resume. Who did you play. Who did you beat. Who beat you. Yes, we need a way to sort teams, a way to identify which games are quality wins and which are bad losses. That's a fine use for efficiency metrics. But efficiency doesn't care if you won or lost. As long as it's going to depend so heavily on efficiency metrics, a team's own NET ranking shouldn't be used a proxy for the worthiness of their resume. I'm as much an advocate for analytics as anyone, but wins and losses have to matter. Six wins in a row over lousy teams still wins you a National Championship. And the thing is, we have statistics that measure resumes. We could use Wins Above Bubble or Strength of Record. By WAB, Indiana started the day at 53 and Michigan St at 52. Those numbers make a lot more sense, based on actual outcomes, than the two teams being ranked 70 spots apart. I have no problem saying that on a neutral floor, Michigan St would be the favored team. That's a categorically different thing, though, than saying MSU is more deserving of an NCAA Tournament bid. Excellent post sir. It doesn’t upset me that IU isn’t really on the bubble radar for most people and I honestly don’t think MSU should be either but that’s another story. What’s frustrating is that IU and MSU have similar records and nearly identical schedules since they play in the same conference, but one is considered a lock due to their NET rating and the other isn’t even mentioned. Like you said, results have to matter. I understand the efficiency metrics and that IU hasn’t beat anyone convincingly, but somehow we’re actually winning games and have a decent record and resume. These two teams are much closer to each other than the NET suggests. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94hoosier Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 18 minutes ago, IU Scott said: Is this t true that Auburn has not had 1 quad 1 win all year. I heard someone say that but I found that hard to believe. 1-7 quad 1 9-0 quad 2 net 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 (edited) 11 minutes ago, 94hoosier said: 1-7 quad 1 9-0 quad 2 net 6 Yeah, but they were really impressive when they beat Directional State Community College by 32 points on November 1st Edited March 15 by 5fouls 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5fouls Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 3 hours ago, Kdug said: Again, I think there’s a substantial gap in overall efficiency (which is what the NET is) between MSU and IU. 70 spots doesn’t seem all that off from what I’d expect when looking at the results. Pure wins and losses we’re closer to MSU, but even then MSU has wins over some top tier teams like Baylor and Illinois, while IU’s best win is probably vs MSU or Wisconsin (and basically nothing after those 2), who are mid to lower seeded teams. There’s also a reason MSU is in the bubble conversation, and that’s because their resume isn’t as strong as their efficiency numbers. IU is very weak in both areas. And I don’t know that citing IU’s losses to top teams - almost all of which we got blown out in - is a good argument for us being in or close to being in. Who cares if you played good teams if you can’t compete with them. If anything that shows that we can’t compete consistently with good competition. By the very same metrics you are defending, before today's games MSU's Quad 1 record was the same as IU and their Quad 2 record was worse. So, I'm not sure where you are coming up with the idea that they have 'better' wins than us. This all comes down to them beating Directional U by 25 in November and us beating them by 9. That may be how it's designed, but that's not the way it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kdug Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 42 minutes ago, 5fouls said: MSU lost today. If IU wins today and tomorrow, but loses to Purdue on Sunday, who should get the 6th B1G bid? We might have a case then, but the B1G isn’t necessarily entitled to 6 bids, especially with how mediocre the conference did in the non-con. I think there’s a better argument for MSU being out than us being in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th&Jackson Posted March 15 Author Report Share Posted March 15 21 minutes ago, 5fouls said: Yeah, but they were really impressive when they beat Directional State Community College by 32 points on November 1st Did IU change it's name? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kdug Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 2 minutes ago, 5fouls said: By the very same metrics you are defending, before today's games MSU's Quad 1 record was the same as IU and their Quad 2 record was worse. So, I'm not sure where you are coming up with the idea that they have 'better' wins than us. This all comes down to them beating Directional U by 25 in November and us beating them by 9. That may be how it's designed, but that's not the way it should be. The quads are just a way of sorting, not the end all be all. A neutral court win vs Baylor is much more impressive than a home win vs Wisconsin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 (edited) 13 minutes ago, 5fouls said: By the very same metrics you are defending, before today's games MSU's Quad 1 record was the same as IU and their Quad 2 record was worse. So, I'm not sure where you are coming up with the idea that they have 'better' wins than us. This all comes down to them beating Directional U by 25 in November and us beating them by 9. That may be how it's designed, but that's not the way it should be. Preach it brother. These kinds of things is just making sports less enjoyable. Sports are for entertainment but everyone now has to have every little thing dissected to 1 one millionth. I enjoyed selection Sunday so much more when you were surprised when the selections were revealed. Now every outlet starts their bracketology the day after the season ends. Edited March 15 by IU Scott 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 58 minutes ago, 5fouls said: MSU lost today. If IU wins today and tomorrow, but loses to Purdue on Sunday, who should get the 6th B1G bid? Imho, nobody from thr conf deserves sixth bid. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaHoosierFan Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 (edited) 28 minutes ago, 5fouls said: By the very same metrics you are defending, before today's games MSU's Quad 1 record was the same as IU and their Quad 2 record was worse. So, I'm not sure where you are coming up with the idea that they have 'better' wins than us. This all comes down to them beating Directional U by 25 in November and us beating them by 9. That may be how it's designed, but that's not the way it should be. You're right on they handled worst competition better than we did. But its not about them beating us by 9. Its Uconn beating us by 20, Auburn by almost 30, Nebraska by by 16, Purdue twice by 20+, Wisc by 12, PSU by 14, Nebraska again by 20. And we had 5 double digit wins all year. While MSU lost 3 games all year by double digits and won 14 games won by double digits. There is a difference in how they and we played all year and its showing up in the NET. Regardless of the Quad wins/losses. Some years, you barely keep your head above water. my last opinion on this. Not saying its right, but every single coach knows how the NET works. Win better, lose better = Better NET Edited March 15 by IowaHoosierFan 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kdug Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 14 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said: You're right on they handled worst competition better than we did. But its not about them beating us by 9. Its Uconn beating us by 20, Auburn by almost 30, Nebraska by by 16, Purdue twice by 20+, Wisc by 12, PSU by 14, Nebraska again by 20. And we had 5 double digit wins all year. While MSU lost 3 games all year by double digits and won 14 games won by double digits. There is a difference in how they and we played all year and its showing up in the NET. Regardless of the Quad wins/losses. Some years, you barely keep your head above water. my last opinion on this. Not saying its right, but every single coach knows how the NET works. Win better, lose better = Better NET Spot on. The one thing I’d add is that if IU would have picked up several big wins, that could make up for poor Effie my metrics. Rutgers 2 years ago was able to make the tourney with bad efficiency numbers because they picked off a bunch of wins against high level teams. This year’s IU team doesn’t have that - we don’t have the efficiency or the resume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUJoe Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, hoopsta007 said: So essentially we should switch to using Vegas point spreads for results. In NET world some wins aren’t actually wins and some losses aren’t actually losses anymore? Vegas uses systems almost exactly like the NET to develop their pointspreads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 The thing about using scoring margins as one of the metrics is you don't always no the circumstances. Team A is winning by 30 with 7 minutes to go and takes all of their starters out. They want to give their young players some work against a bad non conference opponent. Team A only wins by 14. Team B playing the same bad non conference team but keeps their starters in until the end and wins by 40. So Team B gets credit for running up the score against an inferior team and Team A gets marked off for calling off the dogs. All this will lead to is coaches running up scores instead of trying to develop your players and helping your team in the long run 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronkonagurski Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Indiana State at #29 becomes the highest rated NET team to miss the field of 68. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13th&Jackson Posted March 17 Author Report Share Posted March 17 On 3/15/2024 at 5:39 PM, IowaHoosierFan said: Not saying it’s right, but every single coach knows how the NET works. Facts not in evidence your honor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaHoosierFan Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Just now, 13th&Jackson said: Facts not in evidence your honor Objection, badgering the witness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SawatchHoosier Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 17 minutes ago, bronkonagurski said: Indiana State at #29 becomes the highest rated NET team to miss the field of 68. 45th KenPOM 41st BPI 44th Torvik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bronkonagurski Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 6 minutes ago, SawatchHoosier said: 45th KenPOM 41st BPI 44th Torvik All I wanted was to see Larry Nerd in the Big Dance! 😭 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parakeet Jones Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 32 minutes ago, bronkonagurski said: Indiana State at #29 becomes the highest rated NET team to miss the field of 68. Since IU is not in the tournament, I think I’m going to bandwagon watch ISU in the NIT. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaHoosierFan Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 6 minutes ago, bronkonagurski said: All I wanted was to see Larry Nerd in the Big Dance! 😭 Cream Abdul Jabar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.