Houston and Arizona play each other next so you know one of them will have a loss
2025-2026 MBB computer projections thread
- Thread starter Sigmapolis
- Start date
Cincinnati was a horrible defensive performance against a bad offensive team. TCU was a bad offensive performance against a good defensive team. For me, I would rank the Cincinnati loss worse than TCU.
We need the winner of that game to pick up another loss.
(Arizona losing to Iowa State in Tucson if they beat Houston would count.)
And we need to win out.
Those conditions and we at least share the conference title if I calculate it correctly.
In terms of the metrics, yes. TCU is better than Cincinnati.
But the team just felt spent against UC. I never felt they were going to win that game.
They pissed away a five-point lead with ~2:30 left against TCU.
Just. Stop. Turning. The *******. Ball. Over!
The NET agrees with you. TCU's NET is 45 while UC's is 63. Both are Q1b losses, but TCU is close to Q1a (<41) while UC is closer to Q2a (>75).
The broadcast that night talked about TCU having such a good defense too. But for the record, take out our game and they have averaged giving up 82.9 PPG in conference play. We scored ******* 55. It's semantics, but seems silly to me to call the Cincy game "horrible defense" and the TCU game just "bad offense"
Houston didn't have a 10-0 run, but they did have 9-0 I believe, which got them to 63-53 lead. It was almost enough.
I don't think they ever had a "clean" run that large.
Even as Houston was building that ten-point lead there were a few ISU buckets in there.
I'll just go on record and say I'd trade a loss Saturday at BYU for a win out of the regular season. That'd be guaranteed 2 seed, and got potential for a 1, depending on what others do down the stretch.
In regards to potential seeding in the NCAA tournament, if it was done today we would very likely be 4, 5, or 6 on the s-curve. Our expected record over the last 5 is right around 3.5-1.5. So if all games outside ours go as expected (which they won't obviously) it feels like:
5-0 = 2 or 3 on the s-curve (1 seed)
4-1 = 4 to 6 on the s-curve (1 or 2 seed, 2 more likely)
3-2 = 7 to 9 on the s-curve (2 or 3 seed, 2 more likely)
2-3 = 10 to 12 on the s-curve (3 seed)
It probably wouldn't break down quite that cleanly and margin of victory and who the losses are to obviously matters, but that feels like a reasonable projection at this point.
5-0 = 2 or 3 on the s-curve (1 seed)
4-1 = 4 to 6 on the s-curve (1 or 2 seed, 2 more likely)
3-2 = 7 to 9 on the s-curve (2 or 3 seed, 2 more likely)
2-3 = 10 to 12 on the s-curve (3 seed)
It probably wouldn't break down quite that cleanly and margin of victory and who the losses are to obviously matters, but that feels like a reasonable projection at this point.
The CIN loss was super-frustrating because, while yes we needed to score a little more and could have done more on our own independent efforts to achieve that, we missed a lot of shots at the rim in a close game, CIN took and hit a lot of long two-point shots. "Did they really?" Yes, here is the shot chart, they were like 10/15 on shots taken outside the paint and inside the three-point line. Compared to a more typical shot chart in the modern game like ours where we only even attempted 2-4 such shots depending on how you categorize those two right at the free-throw line.
Normally forcing an opponent into taking 15 such shots is good defense, but they hit 67% of them. I can't be bothered to check the rest of CIN's games but I doubt they've shot like this in any other game this year.
Normally forcing an opponent into taking 15 such shots is good defense, but they hit 67% of them. I can't be bothered to check the rest of CIN's games but I doubt they've shot like this in any other game this year.
I mentioned the Cyclones closed the UH game on a 17-4 run.
Here are the men who scored those 17.
Batemon = 6
Pleta = 4
Heise = 3
Jefferson = 3 (including the "it was mostly over" FT with a few seconds left)
Lipsey = 1 (missed way too many FTs but made up for it on the boards)
Momcilovic = 0 (not to pick on him just to note it)
Our three bench guys beat mighty Houston for us. Not our three AAs.
Batemon has a bright future. I hope he stays a Cyclone.
Here are the men who scored those 17.
Batemon = 6
Pleta = 4
Heise = 3
Jefferson = 3 (including the "it was mostly over" FT with a few seconds left)
Lipsey = 1 (missed way too many FTs but made up for it on the boards)
Momcilovic = 0 (not to pick on him just to note it)
Our three bench guys beat mighty Houston for us. Not our three AAs.
Batemon has a bright future. I hope he stays a Cyclone.
Fair, but they had the opportunity because of the Big 3. During scrambles who is Sampson going to be okay with getting an open look - MIlan or Batemon/Heise?
But it is a good point, picking your poison just might still be poison.
I thought the story about Milan walking away from the scorer's table when Batemon hit the 3 was great. The best sniper in the country and he is deferring to the freshman because he recognizes the kid is on a heater.
I'll admit I saw Batemon out there late in crunch time and had a "huh" moment.
Where's Milan? Your AA all-timer shooter in one of the biggest games of the year?
Or where's Toure? Supposedly the best on-ball defender we have even over Lipsey?
...then Batemon drills two threes and balls out on defense.
Way to go, kid.
For the first time in the Otz era, "poison" is a good way to describe the offense. Houston has one of the five best defenses in the country and was not able to shut Iowa State down. At times, sure. And was it a shootout, no. But how many tournament teams can take away Momcilovic and Jefferson, and keep Lipsey from creating, and keep Buchanan off the boards, and keep Pleta out of the paint, and close out on Batemon and Heise? I'm NOT saying they're invincible—they could turn around and lose Saturday. But on paper, as an opponent you are really just doing your best and hoping the third and fourth guys you physically can't shut down are ice cold
Not a shootout, clearly, but 43 in the first half ain't anything to sneeze at either.
Is Larry Eustachy around to help advise on improving rebounding and Free Throw shooting.
Dude was masterful in those areas.
Dude was masterful in those areas.
I figured Milan wasn't in for defensive reasons, but was a little surprised he didn't come in for FT shooting, OFF/DEF subbing. There may not have been opportunities to do it, other than when Uzan went to the line and missed the front end of a one and one.
