2024-2025 MBB computer projections thread

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,915
41,599
113
Waukee
What do they base NCAA seeding on?

5 seed is way too low. I think we're a 3, but if they said 4 I could at least entertain a justification.

I post it because they keep sending the emails but agree with you a #5 is too low unless they completely screw the pooch and drop another bad game to a bad team like Oky St. or Cincinnati.

The Cyclones are no lower than a #4 on Bracket Matrix right now.

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

Would love to see the 2% of models that have us missing the NCAA tournament.

Yeah, we're well into 100% "checkmark" territory.

Not sure how far down you have to go to be sweating out that 2% risk. You never know what the committee might do sometimes, but we're well above the point where we need to worry about that one.
 

Cyched

CF Influencer
May 8, 2009
38,357
66,324
113
Colorado
I post it because they keep sending the emails but agree with you a #5 is too low unless they completely screw the pooch and drop another bad game to a bad team like Oky St. or Cincinnati.

The Cyclones are no lower than a #4 on Bracket Matrix right now.

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/



Yeah, we're well into 100% "checkmark" territory.

Not sure how far down you have to go to be sweating out that 2% risk. You never know what the committee might do sometimes, but we're well above the point where we need to worry about that one.

Yeah, at 9th in the NET (top 3 seed), I'd be surprised if we dropped to a 4 (also biased in hoping that doesn't happen)

While dropping from a solid 2/borderline 1 has sucked, I think we kept ourselves on the 3 line with the win over Arizona. Then prevented any further slippage by winning at KSU.

Win the Wednesday game in KC and I don't foresee any movement. We won't get punished if we do lose to BYU again.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Nothingman

Cyched

CF Influencer
May 8, 2009
38,357
66,324
113
Colorado
Also, for some reason Bracket Matrix doesn't show its usual 'last updated' date.

Wiscy is the top 3 seed but I have no idea if the brackets have accounted for their loss to PSU.
 

bawbie

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 17, 2006
54,358
47,031
113
Cedar Rapids, IA
How did ISU’s offensive efficiency drop like seven spots in kenpom? Points per possession probably weren’t great today but it was not a bad showing. I guess I thought single games could only bump adjusted efficiency ratings up or down 1-3 at this point in the season. Is it because some opponents’ defensive metrics have dropped recently?
I think it's just that there's a cluster in that range - between 24th and 31st there's ~.5 points per possession difference, which is not much. Torvik had the game yesterday basically right on our average, so it shouldn't have moved it much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: not-the-manager

NorthCyd

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 22, 2011
21,139
35,658
113
What do they base NCAA seeding on?

5 seed is way too low. I think we're a 3, but if they said 4 I could at least entertain a justification.
The bracketology projections are just flat broke. No way ISU could end up a five and no way there is a 2% chance ISU misses the tournament. That part of the model needs a lot of work.
 

NiceMarmot

Well-Known Member
Oct 25, 2017
275
977
93
I post it because they keep sending the emails but agree with you a #5 is too low unless they completely screw the pooch and drop another bad game to a bad team like Oky St. or Cincinnati.

The Cyclones are no lower than a #4 on Bracket Matrix right now.

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/



Yeah, we're well into 100% "checkmark" territory.

Not sure how far down you have to go to be sweating out that 2% risk. You never know what the committee might do sometimes, but we're well above the point where we need to worry about that one.

I know they send you emails but why post it here if it’s inaccurate? It’s just misinformation at this point.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,915
41,599
113
Waukee
I know they send you emails but why post it here if it’s inaccurate? It’s just misinformation at this point.

I think "misinformation" is a bit strong of wording considering how loaded that term is nowadays and we're dealing with college basketball here, not matters of war and peace and life and death.

My justification for posting them for now would be something like...

(1.) This thread became an annual tradition 4-5 years ago when I was posting that email update in the more general bracketology thread. @Cyclonepride made the suggestion we should have an annual thread for a consolidated discussion of the analytics and the men's basketball team; hence, it started.

It has some incumbency and nostalgia value for me and is easy to do.

(2.) Most of the regular posters in here and probably most of the lurker readers know by now that Team Rankings has its flaws (especially weird edge cases in its model "they" should really do some work to clean up in a newer version). It is a flawed source but its flaws are "known knowns" easy to adjust for.

(3.) Their round-by-round odds in the Big 12 tournament and the NCAA tournament are unique from what I've seen of these projection models. FiveThirtyEight used to do something like that and maybe Nate Silver will in the future, but FiveThirtyEight is dead now. So, we might as well use all the data we have.

They might not be on the dot, but I think the 11.1% chance to win the tournament in KC and 2% to win The Big One are reasonable enough estimates, which help me ground my expectations this month. Even a very good team by the historical standards of Iowa State basketball only has roughly 1/50 odds to win it.

It is just so hard to do. :/

It's a flawed source but I don't think it is intentionally and maliciously misleading somehow. Saying Iowa State is going to be a #5 seed instead of a #3 or maybe a #4 isn't exactly genius propaganda.
 

KennyPratt42

The Legend
Jan 13, 2017
1,421
2,596
113
Every committee might be a little different, but based on interviews and brackets from recent years the committee is likely working through placing teams in their s-curve early this week. Then latter in the week makes adjustments based on conference tournament results and does their scrubbing work of going through their s-curve and comparing every team next to each other to adjust if needed. So it feels kind of likely this is the resume the committee will be looking at when we get an initial placement in the s-curve.

Screenshot 2025-03-10 105436.png

With that said we should definitely be cheering for K-State on Tuesday, if they win our win is very likely to stay a Q1b win and the loss stays a Q2b loss. The Arizona St. win dropping from a Q1b to a Q2a matters a lot less to our resume.
 

CoachHines3

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 29, 2019
9,573
19,530
113
Every committee might be a little different, but based on interviews and brackets from recent years the committee is likely working through placing teams in their s-curve early this week. Then latter in the week makes adjustments based on conference tournament results and does their scrubbing work of going through their s-curve and comparing every team next to each other to adjust if needed. So it feels kind of likely this is the resume the committee will be looking at when we get an initial placement in the s-curve.

View attachment 144902

With that said we should definitely be cheering for K-State on Tuesday, if they win our win is very likely to stay a Q1b win and the loss stays a Q2b loss. The Arizona St. win dropping from a Q1b to a Q2a matters a lot less to our resume.
Need Baylor to get to #30 in NET. Sitting at #31 makes them a Q2
 

CycloneNoah13

Active Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 6, 2019
85
188
33
25
Need Baylor to get to #30 in NET. Sitting at #31 makes them a Q2
K-State sitting at 75 too. IF we could get purple kittens to win their first game that stays Q1 (Road w) and Q2 (home L) versus dropping to Q2 and 3. Crazy we have like 3-4 teams that minor jumps or falls can really change those quad records.

Kstate- 75. Need them to stay q1 and q2.
Baylor- 31. Need them to jump one spot for Q1.
ASU- 72. Need them to not fall 4 spots to Q2.
UCF- 77. Need them to jump 2 spots for Q1(w) and Q2(w).
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,915
41,599
113
Waukee
Torturing myself but we had three overtime games this season.

W @ Tech
L @ Arizona (and we all remembered how that one went down... **** me)
L v. BYU (a hard-fought game by both teams... they were just slightly better)

Flip those two to wins on Torvik and we're likely a #2 and not a #3 coming up...

1741623870491.png
 

cyclones500

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2010
38,800
26,810
113
Michigan
basslakebeacon.com
Every committee might be a little different, but based on interviews and brackets from recent years the committee is likely working through placing teams in their s-curve early this week. Then latter in the week makes adjustments based on conference tournament results and does their scrubbing work of going through their s-curve and comparing every team next to each other to adjust if needed. So it feels kind of likely this is the resume the committee will be looking at when we get an initial placement in the s-curve.

View attachment 144902

With that said we should definitely be cheering for K-State on Tuesday, if they win our win is very likely to stay a Q1b win and the loss stays a Q2b loss. The Arizona St. win dropping from a Q1b to a Q2a matters a lot less to our resume.

Most of the notable non-con W positions appear locked/fairly safe (Marquette, Dayton, Iowa).
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
10,875
13,954
113
Our current rankings in the ones I check frequently:

NET: 9
WAB: 14
Kenpom: 10
Torvik: 8
Teamrankings Predictive: 7

Didn't someone last year crack the code and figure out which one of these was most correlated with seed? It wasn't NET. I kinda want to say it was KP, but can't really recall.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,915
41,599
113
Waukee
Didn't someone last year crack the code and figure out which one of these was most correlated with seed? It wasn't NET. I kinda want to say it was KP, but can't really recall.

I've always thought WAB should be the magic one but it probably isn't the one.
 

hawksuck75

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2006
335
554
93
Chicago, IL
I know this is a crazy long YT video but this is a group of well established online bracketologists (all pretty high on bracket matrix) who basically did a mock NCAA committee bracket process yesterday afternoon. It's super thorough and I think the most high level bracketology prediction your going to find.

They have us as the last 3 seed in Milwaukee ahead of Wisconsin. If Wisconsin and us were to filp then we'd be in Denver as the 1st 4 seed.