2023-2024 MBB computer projections thread

[Gunnerclone]

I am writing a strongly worded email to the NET as we speak. This shall not stand!

 

[NoCreativity]

Meh, unless you are a blue blood I don't think a loaded non con does a lot of good.

It would have been nice to at least get one or two more decent games. I don't think the Big 12 is quite the gauntlet it has been in the years past.

It's unbalanced first of all so teams can miss certain teams. Kansas and Houston are national title contenders but Texas and Kansas State are both down this year. We beat Baylor twice last year. I think Oklahoma and BYU are overrated and will end up in the 8-11 seed range in the tourney.

Another thing is the conference actually has a bottom unlike most years with the true round Robin. Teams like Cincinnati,West Virginia, Tech, and UCF will struggle to win many games.

 

[ISUChippewa]

It would have been nice to at least get one or two more decent games. I don't think the Big 12 is quite the gauntlet it has been in the years past.

It's unbalanced first of all so teams can miss certain teams. Kansas and Houston are national title contenders but Texas and Kansas State are both down this year. We beat Baylor three times last year. I think Oklahoma and BYU are overrated and will end up in the 8-11 seed range in the tourney.

Another thing is the conference actually has a bottom unlike most years with the true round Robin. Teams like West Virginia, Tech, and UCF will struggle to win many games.

Fixed it for you...

 

[Cyhig]

It's really not though.

Yes and no. I would believe the final NET rankings will look quite a bit different than they do today

 

[CloneIce]

We haven’t beaten anyone good. Our resume thus far screams bubble team with much to prove in conference play.

How in the hell does any ranking criteria have us Top 5?

 

[Gunnerclone]

We haven’t beaten anyone good. Our resume thus far screams bubble team with much to prove in conference play.

How in the hell does any ranking criteria have us Top 5?

Math.

 

[NoCreativity]

Fixed it for you...

Yeah, my mistake. I had go lookup that we beat them early in Hilton. I was only remembering when we beat them twice in 5 days at the end.

 

[CyPunch]

We haven’t beaten anyone good. Our resume thus far screams bubble team with much to prove in conference play.

How in the hell does any ranking criteria have us Top 5?

These are all computer algorithms, not rankings. The algorithms reward outperforming the game expectation. Iowa State Against the Spread so far this year: 9-3. Very few teams are better than that.

Top 3 Nationally in Margin of Victory
1. BYU
2. Iowa St
3. Houston

Not coincidentally, all are high in the computers.

NCAA College Men's Basketball DI current team Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA Division I Men's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.

www.ncaa.com

 

[CloneIce]

Math.

That’s some ****** up math.

 

[Sigmapolis]

For those of you who want all you can read about this stuff...

https://cyclonefanatic.com/forum/th...rojections-thread.278155/page-42#post-9168899

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Yes and no. I would believe the final NET rankings will look quite a bit different than they do today

I don't disagree but when you play in a top conference and you come out of the non con with a high NET ranking you have a lot more wiggle room. There aren't many losses in the Big 12 that will penalize you.

 

[CloneIce]

These are all computer algorithms, not rankings. The algorithms reward outperforming the game expectation. Iowa State Against the Spread so far this year: 9-3. Very few teams are better than that.

Top 3 Nationally in Margin of Victory
1. BYU
2. Iowa St
3. Houston

Not coincidentally, all are high in the computers.

NCAA College Men's Basketball DI current team Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA Division I Men's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.

www.ncaa.com

Oh yeah, it’s been great betting on ISU to cover the spread (and the over) vs the sisters of the poor. It makes sense for a ranking for sports betting purposes.

Yes I know they are computer algorithms. I’m saying the algorithm calculations criteria has some issues - it sounds like the issue is overweighting performance above expectations in games against crappy teams. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to give us a huge boost for beating Florida A and M by 40 rather than 30.

 

[VeloClone]

I agree. The current NET formula (which isn't very transparent at all) seems to be rewarding teams for Running up the score on cupcake opponents. BYU is another prime example currently at #3 in NET. They've been beating sub 300 ranked teams by 40 and 50 points but losing their only game against a top 50 opponent.

NET used to reward teams for winning road games, but no longer does, so it encourages teams to schedule cupcakes at home in the pre-season and pile up blowout wins heading into conference play.

It would be nice if the NET would release their exact formula, but unfortunately they won't.

This isn't true at all. Texas Tech is NET 64. If you beat them in their house it is a Q1b win. If you beat them on a neutral floor it is Q2a and if beat them at home it is a Q2b win.

 

[NWICY]

For those of you who want all you can read about this stuff...

https://cyclonefanatic.com/forum/th...rojections-thread.278155/page-42#post-9168899

This thread actually should be merged. Help from the mods? @Ms3r4ISU @BoxsterCy ?

 

[Bigman38]

For people saying NET sucks because ISU is ranked too high, it's not just NET. Ranked 12th in Kenpom and 13th in Torvik. They are just tools. No model is perfect. You have to understand their strengths and weaknesses. That's why we have a committee that selects the teams.

And none of them are designed to be the most accurate on 12/27.

 

[ClonesFTW]

How in the hell does any ranking criteria have us Top 5?

In short - When you play a lot of bad teams your FG percentage, rebounding, turnovers, steals, etc. all look extremely efficient and effective.

For example - against Prairie View we shot 60% from the floor and caused 29 turnovers, we've continued to do that against 300+ rated teams making our season efficiency rating look fantastic. In reality most of us understand that will not be likely against B12 opponents so there will be some regression here in the next few weeks - and that's ok.

 

[isucy86]

Lunardi, NET, etc. Do they really matter in Nov, Dec, Jan? Better off just watching games and enjoying the season at this point. I'll state the obvious, media folks (ESPN w Lunardi) and rating services push the bracketology crap in Nov/Dec/Jan because it makes them money.

If the Cyclones go 11-2 for the non-conference season that is a solid record for a team with a lot of off-season turnover. But at this point the 11 wins are just notches in getting to 19/20 wins. So buckle up and enjoy the conference season.

 

[VeloClone]

It's too early in the season to really put this metric into good use. Let's come back to this in mid to late February. Even though I am usually optimistic, I highly doubt doubt ISU will be anywhere near a top 5 NET rankings come late February

Yes. It is designed as a tool for February/March for the Committee not a tool for November/December.

 

[ClonesFTW]

NET is pointless until about February - it's only purpose until March is to draw viewers and clicks throughout the season, which clearly works.

 

[NWICY]

In short - When you play a lot of bad teams your FG percentage, rebounding, turnovers, steals, etc. all look extremely efficient and effective.

For example - against Prairie View we shot 60% from the floor and caused 29 turnovers, we've continued to do that against 300+ rated teams making our season efficiency rating look fantastic. In reality most of us understand that will not be likely against B12 opponents so there will be some regression here in the next few weeks - and that's ok.

Agreeing with you there will be a regression on the metrics but as long as we keep winning we are going to be fine. I'm looking forward to getting into the B12 season.