Bracketology 2024

Its driven me crazy for the past 2 weeks seeing Kansas ahead of us on the 2 line. Everyone seems pretty keen to find teams to jump us, I've seen Kansas (again) just because they beat k State at home, Baylor, and now Duke if we lose tonight. I'm done worrying about it, as long as we get Omaha I'm good.
What bothers me the most is all these a$$hats seem to want literally anyone to jump in front of us...every damn season!
 
Just bought tickets to 1st session in omaha. Hoping that's when clones play, if not I'll buy 2nd session too.
 
Last edited:
They only hate ISU because they love to read our meltdowns on Cyclone Fanatic. It's their go to message board!
 
Do you have a specific example where they weigh the non con differently? They say they don't and I could see it being used to differentiate between 2 otherwise similar teams, but it'd take some effort to find something egregious that showed they do that.
Isn't it enough that the Nitty Gritty sheets the Committee uses has both non-con NET and RPI SOS and then the overall NET and RPI? The non-con is baked into both the non-con numbers and the overall numbers while the conference is only in the overall. So the non-con result is given twice as much weight.
 
Especially since Power 6 teams for the most part(hate to say it but this includes Iowa State) refuse to play teams like Drake .
I'm pretty sure that there has been an open invitation for Drake to come to Hilton, but they won't do it unless it is a home/home situation. Same for UNI...
 
“Iowa States win over BYU tonight should solidify Kansas as the 2 seed in Omaha” -Joe Lunardi…. Probably
No it's more like "ISUs win over BYU was at home so it's not that impressive" then ISU fans say "You do realize Kansas lost at home to BYU" then the bracketologists say "Ya but BYU is top 10 in the NET so it's a good loss, we should keep them on the 2 line"
 
Dude, when you post your opinion and someone disagrees with it, it simply means that they don't share your opinion. It shouldn't be that hard to understand and it certainly isn't something to get all worked up about.
When they address my opinion instead of their straw man, sure, I agree.
 
Isn't it enough that the Nitty Gritty sheets the Committee uses has both non-con NET and RPI SOS and then the overall NET and RPI? The non-con is baked into both the non-con numbers and the overall numbers while the conference is only in the overall. So the non-con result is given twice as much weight.

I've been beating this drum for years.
 
The NCAA needs to look at Auburn and Bama and figure out why the NET formula is reacting to their resume in such a favorable way. At some point those Q1 results have to matter. The difference between a Q1 win and Q2 win is pretty significant but these two teams seem to be getting rewarded significantly for a bunch of soft Q2 wins. If this is the primary tool the NCAA is going to use they HAVE to fix it.


1709820260474.png