That first CU game is the first trip up game there. I don’t think they can correctly price in playing us already. We get the same thing but I think it helps them more because they have to adjust their game if they want to win, we’re going to do most of the same things we always do.
2024-2025 MBB computer projections thread
- Thread starter Sigmapolis
- Start date
That first CU game is the first trip up game there. I don’t think they can correctly price in playing us already. We get the same thing but I think it helps them more because they have to adjust their game if they want to win, we’re going to do most of the same things we always do.
ACC doesn't seem to have the "quality depth" or as much power-at-the-top in recent years, looking at it historically.
We can't base everything on tournament, but in '24 tournament, ACC had 4 teams in Sweet 16, two in Elite 8 and one Final Four. Granted, NC State, as 11 seed, going that distance is one of those 2-week outlier situations (and UNC got bounced as a 1 seed in second weekend).
I don't want to compare ACC vs B12 results in last season's tournament, despite XII being the top league during regular season.
ACC probably "punched above weight" in postseason.
#3 KenPom offense. When Iowa came out on fire from 3, TJ teams of the past would have been buried and down 15-20 points. They simply could not score with high enough efficiency. This offense kept them within arms reach all game. Eventually Iowa's legs wore down and those jumpers werent falling.
There is a good chance we finish top ten KenPom in both offense and defense. There will likely only be a 1 or 2 other teams in the country that can make that claim.
THAT...in addition to several other factors is why this team is DIFFERENT. Helps that we have 7 or 8 freaking dawgs on the roster as well.
I noticed we are up to #6 on offense, and #10 on D now on Torvick. I know the season is only 30% over we got ourselves a national title contender with those numbers.
Virginia 59-41 Bethune-Cookman (Dec 12, 2024) Play-by-Play - ESPN
Play-by-play action for the Virginia Cavaliers vs. Bethune-Cookman Wildcats NCAAM game from December 12, 2024 on ESPN.
www.espn.com
For anyone who wants a slight laugh and to also think we were around that bad offensively just a few years back. FYI, Virginia is the team on the right when you're scrolling. Bethune-Cookman held a 10-2 lead at the 10-minute mark of the first half. Yes, you read that right lol.
Halftime score was 21-18 BCU.
Your chance of winning against the average Division I team.
90% = you'd be projected to win 90% of the time against the average team
(Which seems to be Boston College this year at 50.02%.)
Functionally it also serves as the way Torvik ranks teams from worst to best.
Iowa State is a 94.28% so, if we played BC for some forsaken reason, we'd have a 95% win expectation.
More description here...
https://adamcwisports.blogspot.com/p/every-possession-counts.html
Once the numbers have stopped changing, for each team you average their Adj. OE and Adj. DE from each game to get their overall adjusted efficiencies. From the adjusted efficiencies, I use Bill James' "pythagorean expectation" formula to calculate the actual rating, which I jokingly call its "Barthag" (a play on "pythag," which is the correct term). The Barthag is an estimate of what a team's chance of winning would be against the average DI team. So it is between 0 and 1, and higher is better.
Companion of Fran the Hysterical, once every 100 lunar cycles the great and terrible Barthag will birth another highly overrated Hawkeye basketball recruit.
How does it make sense that they pick them as a #3 seed while they also say they are the 6th best team?
Short version --
These models predict your seed line not just based on your ranking divided by four and then rounded up. They take the mixture of criteria provided to the commit when making its decisions:
Analytical rating (e.g., BT, KenPom, NET, etc.)
Win and loss quality through the quadrant system (their projections of the same)
Head-to-head matchups
Raw win and loss total
Conference
etc.
Sometimes these can give you conflicting messages (e.g., sorting out where to rank a team that racked up a ton of wins a weaker P5 conference and blew people out so their analytics look good but doesn't have a really attractive win like going into a gym like Hilton or Phog Allen and coming away with a win... versus a team that didn't win as many games in a VERY strong conference... but the wins they do have are stellar and they have few "bad losses" on their CV... with the analytics giving you no strong indication between the two).
(What I've described is roughly what Iowa/Iowa State the first few years of TJ's tenure, by the way.)
Figuring out how the committee is going to weigh those factors is more art than science. And it can change year-to-year in unpredictable ways. And that is before you have to account for the committee making the bracket with locations and moving teams up/down to avoid rematches until the second weekend.
It's hard. The models do their best. I've noticed the Team Rankings one tends to favor the "old school" wins and losses approach compared to Torvik, which leans more heavily into analytical quality.
one measure saying 'in a vacuum, they are the 6th best'
another measure saying 'when you combine that vs the projected resume, that resume looks like a 3 seed'.
Its not necessarily a dramatic difference. The #9 seed is a 3 seed.
If the Big 12 was performing like that, you’d hear about it on every college basketball show, especially on ESPN.
Iowa State's current NET team sheet...
Iowa State Overall: 8-1
NET 6 (first in Big 12 - UH 9)
NET SOS: 27, NET OOC SOS: 27
Q1 3-1
..Q1a 1-1 (1 N Auburn L-2, 7 H Marquette W+11)
..Q1b 2-0 (38 N Dayton W+5, 59 A Iowa W+9)
Q2 1-0
..Q2a
..Q2b 1-0 (77 N CU W+28)
Q3
Q4 4-0 (313 H UMKC W+26, 320 H UI Indy+35, 340 H JSU+42, 364 H MVS+39)
ISU
Low Score: 81 High Score: 100 Ave Score: 87.9
OPP
Low Score: 44 High Score: 83 Ave Score: 66.4
Iowa State Overall: 8-1
NET 6 (first in Big 12 - UH 9)
NET SOS: 27, NET OOC SOS: 27
Q1 3-1
..Q1a 1-1 (1 N Auburn L-2, 7 H Marquette W+11)
..Q1b 2-0 (38 N Dayton W+5, 59 A Iowa W+9)
Q2 1-0
..Q2a
..Q2b 1-0 (77 N CU W+28)
Q3
Q4 4-0 (313 H UMKC W+26, 320 H UI Indy+35, 340 H JSU+42, 364 H MVS+39)
ISU
Low Score: 81 High Score: 100 Ave Score: 87.9
OPP
Low Score: 44 High Score: 83 Ave Score: 66.4
