Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

2025-2026 MBB computer projections thread

The committee will do whatever the hell they feel like doing, and then justify it however they want after the fact. Its not as bad as the CFP bullsh!t, but it is similar.

I wouldn't worry too much about it, and just assume we will get Duke in the East or Michigan in the MW. And in the end, you're gonna get someone good playing close to their place anyway. I get that ISU has been scorched by that a dozen times, but that's how it is - at least until the NCAA is entirely played in KC.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: herbicide, Cyclones8824, Jimbo ISU and 1 other person
I guess I’m in the minority as I don’t believe our seeding even matters at this point.

All that matters is what version of ISU shows up each game. Outside of being a 1 seed, which is for sure not happening, a 2-4 seed does not change the math much. If good ISU shows up, we could make the Final 4. If bad ISU shows up, we could lose in the Round of 32.

Even with a worst case matchup like Wisconsin, Illinois, etc, we haven’t had a single game where we played well and had a close loss. We’ve either played terribly and been unable to make up for it, or kicked ass and dominated.

In short: relax and hope it’s enjoyable. The committee has no power at this point.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: clonechemist, Cyclones8824, larry and 6 others
I agree that how far this team goes depends much more themselves than on seeding, except dropping to a 4-seed. I feel a lot better about playing any of the 2s and 3s than any of the projected 1s (Duke, Michigan, Arizona, Florida).

Of them, give me Duke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABECyguy
This seems like a good site for a lot of data.

Bracketologists :: NCAA Tournament Resumes with NET Rankings.

bracketologists.com bracketologists.com

Iowa State is on the 2/3 line in predictive metrics, but on the 3/4 line on results based metrics.

I found the Average Net Win and Average Net Loss to be really interesting. Iowa State is fine in the average Net Loss, but not good at all in the average Net win. We assume that Creighton, Syracuse, Miss State are the problem, but really its our Quad 3's that are the problem. Houston Christian, FDU, Grambling, Eastern Illinois, Alcorn State, Long Beach State and Stonehill are all really bad. They were all really bad last year too. Replace some of them with Lamar, Mercyhurst, UT Martin, Lindenwood, Southern and San Diego and our average Net Win is much better and our results based metrics are also a lot better.

I'm not sure what the committee prefers, but my guess is Predictive. I did go through and seed teams based on the following criteria:
  1. Average Predictive Metric (Kenpom, BPI, T-Rank)
  2. Average Results Metric (KPI, SOR, WAB)
  3. Raw Net Rankings
  4. Root Sum Square of Avg Net Win and Avg Net Loss (low is better) - This got really funky
Iowa State was a 2 seed based on #1, a 4 seed based on #2, a 2 seed based on #3 and a 7 seed based on #4.

It seems to me like Predictive Metrics make more sense for seeding, while Results based metrics make sense for the bubble. The weird thing I did with #4 might make sense on close calls.

I went through things and arbitrarily decided that if you were a single digit seed based on Net, Predictive Metrics and Results Metrics, you were in no matter what. If you were a double digit seed in any of those, you were a bubble team. That left me with 16 bubble teams to fill 12 spots. Those are:

Safe: UCF, Texas A&M, Santa Clara
Last 4 Byes: TCU, NC State, Iowa, Missouri
Last 4 In: VCU, SMU, Texas, Auburn
Out: Indiana, Va Tech, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Cincinnati
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GotHops32 and not-the-manager
ChickenNuggetMan said:
I guess I’m in the minority as I don’t believe our seeding even matters at this point.

All that matters is what version of ISU shows up each game. Outside of being a 1 seed, which is for sure not happening, a 2-4 seed does not change the math much. If good ISU shows up, we could make the Final 4. If bad ISU shows up, we could lose in the Round of 32.

Even with a worst case matchup like Wisconsin, Illinois, etc, we haven’t had a single game where we played well and had a close loss. We’ve either played terribly and been unable to make up for it, or kicked ass and dominated.

In short: relax and hope it’s enjoyable. The committee has no power at this point.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, a 2 vs. a 3 does matter. But, this season I fall into your camp, because my contention is that, with teams AP #5 through ~11 being a tier below the top four but pretty similar to each other in terms of performance, I think things may start to shift, and we may see a gradual convergence of the percentages of 2 and 3 seeds making deep runs. Similar to how I think we'll see fewer and fewer Cinderellas as talent amasses among the same P4 teams, one result of the transfer portal has been that there aren't huge differences between 3 or 4 seeds through ~7 seeds
 
NENick said:
I agree that how far this team goes depends much more themselves than on seeding, except dropping to a 4-seed. I feel a lot better about playing any of the 2s and 3s than any of the projected 1s (Duke, Michigan, Arizona, Florida).

Of them, give me Duke.
Click to expand...
I have watched Michigan play a couple games recently and they do not scare me. They really struggled when they had someone actually play aggressively on defense and no one they played matches our defensive intensity.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Informative
Reactions: VeloClone and NENick
clone52 said:
This seems like a good site for a lot of data.

Bracketologists :: NCAA Tournament Resumes with NET Rankings.

bracketologists.com bracketologists.com

Iowa State is on the 2/3 line in predictive metrics, but on the 3/4 line on results based metrics.

I found the Average Net Win and Average Net Loss to be really interesting. Iowa State is fine in the average Net Loss, but not good at all in the average Net win. We assume that Creighton, Syracuse, Miss State are the problem, but really its our Quad 3's that are the problem. Houston Christian, FDU, Grambling, Eastern Illinois, Alcorn State, Long Beach State and Stonehill are all really bad. They were all really bad last year too. Replace some of them with Lamar, Mercyhurst, UT Martin, Lindenwood, Southern and San Diego and our average Net Win is much better and our results based metrics are also a lot better.

I'm not sure what the committee prefers, but my guess is Predictive. I did go through and seed teams based on the following criteria:
  1. Average Predictive Metric (Kenpom, BPI, T-Rank)
  2. Average Results Metric (KPI, SOR, WAB)
  3. Raw Net Rankings
  4. Root Sum Square of Avg Net Win and Avg Net Loss (low is better) - This got really funky
Iowa State was a 2 seed based on #1, a 4 seed based on #2, a 2 seed based on #3 and a 7 seed based on #4.

It seems to me like Predictive Metrics make more sense for seeding, while Results based metrics make sense for the bubble. The weird thing I did with #4 might make sense on close calls.

I went through things and arbitrarily decided that if you were a single digit seed based on Net, Predictive Metrics and Results Metrics, you were in no matter what. If you were a double digit seed in any of those, you were a bubble team. That left me with 16 bubble teams to fill 12 spots. Those are:

Safe: UCF, Texas A&M, Santa Clara
Last 4 Byes: TCU, NC State, Iowa, Missouri
Last 4 In: VCU, SMU, Texas, Auburn
Out: Indiana, Va Tech, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Cincinnati
Click to expand...
I get the math and what you’re saying but also if we are making decisions on a 2 seed because of the early season buy games being extremely weak vs just really weak, we are missing the point. Anything below quad 2 is pretty similar in my view.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABECyguy
Cydwinder said:
I get the math and what you’re saying but also if we are making decisions on a 2 seed because of the early season buy games being extremely weak vs just really weak, we are missing the point. Anything below quad 2 is pretty similar in my view.
Click to expand...
If we want to benefit by crushing those teams by beating them by more than thirty, then we can't just ignore their rankings.

Our kenpom, bpi and torvik would be a lot worse if you ignored those games.
 
Cydwinder said:
I get the math and what you’re saying but also if we are making decisions on a 2 seed because of the early season buy games being extremely weak vs just really weak, we are missing the point. Anything below quad 2 is pretty similar in my view.
Click to expand...
ESPECIALLY if you are supposed to be a top 10 team. You should roll #100 just as much as you should roll #300.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cydwinder and Acer88
Okie State's win over Colorado last night did the trick, at least for the moment.

OSU is up to 72 in the NET which puts them above that crucial 75/76 threshold. So the home win goes from Q3 to Q2b and the road win goes from Q2a to Q1b. That give ISU an additiona Q1 win and a winning Q1 record of 7-6. It does push CU down to 77 which puts ISU's home win down to Q3 but all in all it's a...

EDmXDs.gif


One more Q1 win and one less Q2 win. They are still 16-6 in Q1+Q2. Let's hope OSU's eventual loss in the tournament doesn't drop them back down again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clone37, NENick, Letterkenny and 3 others
VeloClone said:
Did ISU beat them so bad that it will drive both of the wins down to lower level? ASU was NET 67 going into today. If they drop to >75 the Q2b home win goes to Q3 and the Q2a neutral win drops to Q2b.

First world problems...
Click to expand...
It's a wide scoring margin, but this late in the season I'd have to guess NET wouldn't drop a whole bunch for ASU. That's a Q1a loss for Arizona State. Is it even possible to dip much for that in mid-March?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone and Letterkenny
That should pretty well lock up a 3 seed at worst. I would say the potential possible range on the s-curve right now is 6 to 11. I don't think we can move above Florida or fall below Purdue.

The teams that we could move in relation to are Houston, Alabama, and Nebraska. Houston would have to lose early and we make a run to pass them and Alabama/Nebraska would have to make a deep run in their conference tournament to pass us. Its hard to know for sure if we are above or below UConn, Michigan St., & Illinois. My gut says we are below at least 2 of the 3 right now. (We are below Duke, Michigan, Arizona, & Florida regardless of results and ahead of Purdue, Gonzaga, Virginia, Kansas, & TT.)

If forced to guess where we are right now if everything stopped, I would have us at 8.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone
cyclones500 said:
It's a wide scoring margin, but this late in the season I'd have to guess NET wouldn't drop a whole bunch for ASU. That's a Q1a loss for Arizona State. Is it even possible to dip much for that in mid-March?
Click to expand...
A single win yesterday caused OSU to jump 7 spots yesterday. Pretty unusual, thoughh.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: cyclones500
KennyPratt42 said:
That should pretty well lock up a 3 seed at worst. I would say the potential possible range on the s-curve right now is 6 to 11. I don't think we can move above Florida or fall below Purdue.

The teams that we could move in relation to are Houston, Alabama, and Nebraska. Houston would have to lose early and we make a run to pass them and Alabama/Nebraska would have to make a deep run in their conference tournament to pass us. Its hard to know for sure if we are above or below UConn, Michigan St., & Illinois. My gut says we are below at least 2 of the 3 right now. (We are below Duke, Michigan, Arizona, & Florida regardless of results and ahead of Purdue, Gonzaga, Virginia, Kansas, & TT.)

If forced to guess where we are right now if everything stopped, I would have us at 8.
Click to expand...

I think that's a pretty fair range. However, I think 1-5 are nearly locked in as Duke, Michigan, Arizona, Florida and Houston. I think there is likely a pretty big gap between Houston and UConn. A loss to West Virginia maybe changes that, but I doubt it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevdiv48 and not-the-manager
Hoggins said:

Well, well, well. How the turntables turn
Click to expand...

I love being as close to the top as possible, but I assume this is because Houston, Michigan State, Purdue, and Nebraska haven't played. Though one could also argue that playing one more game than Houston, Michigan State, and Nebraska isn't the worst thing in the world as long as you take care of business, which you certainly did

KennyPratt42 said:
That should pretty well lock up a 3 seed at worst. I would say the potential possible range on the s-curve right now is 6 to 11. I don't think we can move above Florida or fall below Purdue.

The teams that we could move in relation to are Houston, Alabama, and Nebraska. Houston would have to lose early and we make a run to pass them and Alabama/Nebraska would have to make a deep run in their conference tournament to pass us. Its hard to know for sure if we are above or below UConn, Michigan St., & Illinois. My gut says we are below at least 2 of the 3 right now. (We are below Duke, Michigan, Arizona, & Florida regardless of results and ahead of Purdue, Gonzaga, Virginia, Kansas, & TT.)

If forced to guess where we are right now if everything stopped, I would have us at 8.
Click to expand...

I don't think Iowa State could hop Houston, though a loss to West Virginia would be pretty bad. Assuming that doesn't happen, I think 8 is as high as Iowa State can get. I still hope they get there though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom