2025-2026 MBB computer projections thread

[VeloClone]

Since there has been a lot of discussion about it, here is a NET/Nitty Gritty update after yesterday's games:

Iowa State NET 4 (as of 02 FEB)
20-2, 13-0 NC, 7-2 Conf
Home 12-0, Away 4-2, Neutral 4-0
NET SOS 58, RPI SOS 64
KPI 9, SOR 8, WAB 8, BPI 5, POM 4, T Rank 4

Q1 5-1
..Q1a 2-1 (A 8 Purdue +23, A 14 KU -21, N 24 St John’s +1)
..Q1b 3-0 (H 20 Iowa +4, A 56 BU +10, A 67 OSU +13)
Q2 8-1
..Q2a 3-1 (H 37 UCF +30, N 72 Syracuse +31, A 77 UC -9, A 93 KSU +34)
..Q2b 5-0 (H 66 WVU +21, H 67 OSU +12, H 75 CU +30, N 76 Creighton +18, N 94 Miss St +16)
Q3 0-0
Q4 7-0 (H 246 Long Beach +31, H 268 Grambling +40, H 300 HCU +28, H 316 EIU +25, H 327 Stonehill +39, H 339 FDU +38, H 349 Alcorn +64)

Notes:

• NET climbed from 6 to 4.
• Creighton and Syracuse games switched spots in the Q2a and Q2b tiers.
• CU game barely climbed to a Q2b game.
• NET SOS and RPI SOS are continuing to creep up.
• ISU resume looking good with 13 combined Q1 and Q2 wins and no losses below Q2a.
• From 10 FEB through 02 MAR ISU still faces 6 of 7 games as Q1.

Remaining games:
5 Home, 4 Away
Q1 6 (3H, 3A)
Q2 2 (1H, 1A)
Q3 1 (1H, 0A)
Q4 0

Remaining schedule:
St 2/7 Q2b 56 BU
Tu 2/10 Q1b @ 54 TCU
St 2/14 Q1a 14 KU
M 2/16 Q1a 9 UH
St 2/21 Q1a @ 15 BYU
Tu 2/24 Q2b @ 115 UU
St 2/28 Q1b 19 TTU
M 3/2 Q1a @ 2 UA
St 3/7 Q3 81 ASU
3/10-14 Big 12 Tournament

 

[bluestarcyclone]

I haven't seen much of it yet but won't be at all surprised if it gets brought up later this month. Once again, Iowa State's NCSOS stands out among the top 11 on kenpom. Personally, I don't think beating teams by 40 is a knock against someone's resume, but it's looking like the differences between teams vying for 2 seeds are going to be small

Its such a dumb thing for the committee to overweight when such a huge factor is "did your ****** teams suck or did they really suck?". Even if the intent is to encourage more quality games in the noncon, this metric really doesn't do it. Something like WAB would be better.

Better yet if it went away entirely. The SOS metrics already consider the noncon. Plus we see pretty clearly how meaningless some of these games in November\December are in terms of how good teams are in March, to essentially double-weight that period is just silly, and its gotten worse in the unlimited transfer era.

 

[VeloClone]

Its such a dumb thing for the committee to overweight when such a huge factor is "did your ****** teams suck or did they really suck?". Even if the intent is to encourage more quality games in the noncon, this metric really doesn't do it. Something like WAB would be better.

Better yet if it went away entirely. The SOS metrics already consider the noncon. Plus we see pretty clearly how meaningless some of these games in November\December are in terms of how good teams are in March, to essentially double-weight that period is just silly, and its gotten worse in the unlimited transfer era.

The narrative:

ISU's 58 overall NET SOS is bad because their Non-Con SOS is 107
Gonzaga's 89 overall NET SOS is good because their Non-con SOS is 54.

Keep in mind that the overall number includes the Non-Con and the conference.

It's asinine.

I'll say it again, the Non-Con SOS metric needs to go away. It shouldn't matter if the strength of your schedule is in your non-con or in your conference, the overall strength is what matters. Quit counting the non-con strength twice!

 

[bluestarcyclone]

The narrative:

ISU's 58 overall NET SOS is bad because their Non-Con SOS is 107
Gonzaga's 89 overall NET SOS is good because their Non-con SOS is 54.

Keep in mind that the overall number includes the Non-Con and the conference.

It's asinine.

I'll say it again, the Non-Con SOS metric needs to go away. It shouldn't matter if the strength of your schedule is in your non-con or in your conference, the overall strength is what matters. Quit counting the non-con strength twice!

I don't necessarily mind it if used in limited situations. Like when looking at a midmajor a "sure, their conference schedule drags down their overall SOS but you can see they tried to schedule up in the nonconference to balance that".

But its usefulness is pretty minimal for most P5 teams that are vying for those top few seeds who almost certainly have their share of quality wins that they don't need a separate noncon metric to justify it. It certainly shouldn't be something that drags a team like that down if their overall SOS is fine.

 

[rosshm16]

The noncon SOS is a metric that largely favors the traditional power / brand-name teams who agree to play each other in their noncons.

 

[not-the-manager]

agree with all of that, just think the average committee member makes up his or her mind and works backwards. Frankly, I think a lot of times it's as simple as

*Iowa State isn't a national brand* -> "If they didn't go 16-2 in conference, were they truly great or did they just have Q1 opportunities a Gonzaga or UConn didn't?" -> "Oh, and their non-con was weak"

(assist from @rosshm16 here) It's ridiculous, of course, because Kansas won't be viewed as Q1-opportunity merchants. UConn, Duke, and North Carolina agreed to play them, so, lo and behold, their conference wins will be "impressive" and "quite a body of work." In short, when it comes to 1-3 seeds, there's a lot of framing at play

 

[VeloClone]

The noncon SOS is a metric that largely favors the traditional power / brand-name
teams who agree to play each other in their noncons.

It also favors a periennial power from a mid major conference who has all of their strength in their resume in the non-con and then plays a bunch of patsies in their conference. "We get to count all of the strength of our schedule twice" as opposed to teams from the best conferences in the country who play a gauntlet in conference play.

 

[rosshm16]

It also favors a periennial power from a mid major conference who has all of their strength in their resume in the non-con and then plays a bunch of patsies in their conference. "We get to count all of the strength of our schedule twice" as opposed to teams from the best conferences in the country who play a gauntlet in conference play.

I would include Gonzaga in my category of "brand-name teams" above. I agree with your general sentiment though.

 

[VeloClone]

How does the top 12 stack up…

Duke NET 1
20-1, 11-1 NC, 9-0 Conf
NET SOS 9, RPI SOS 11
KPI 2, SOR 3, WAB 1, BPI 1, POM 3, T Rank 5
Q1 9-1, Q2 4-0, Q3 1-0, Q4 6-0

Arizona NET 2
22-0, 13-0 NC, 9-0 Conf
NET SOS 38, RPI SOS 37
KPI 3, SOR 1, WAB 2, BPI 2, POM 2, T Rank 2
Q1 9-0, Q2 3-0, Q3 3-0, Q4 7-0

Michigan NET 3
20-1, 10-0 NC, 10-1 Conf
NET SOS 15, RPI SOS 5
KPI 1, SOR 4, WAB 3, BPI 3, POM 1, T Rank 1
Q1 8-0, Q2 7-1, Q3 4-0, Q4 1-0

Iowa State NET 4
20-2, 13-0 NC, 7-2 Conf
NET SOS 58, RPI SOS 64
KPI 9, SOR 8, WAB 8, BPI 5, POM 4, T Rank 4
Q1 5-1, Q2 8-1, Q3 0-0, Q4 7-0

Gonzaga NET 5
22-1, 12-1 NC, 10-0 Conf
NET SOS 89, RPI SOS 146
KPI 16, SOR 7, WAB 11, BPI 6, POM 11, T Rank 14
Q1 3-1, Q2 5-0, Q3 7-0, Q4 7-0

Illinois NET 6
19-3, 9-2 NC, 10-1 Conf
NET SOS 14, RPI SOS 12
KPI 11, SOR 6, WAB 6, BPI 9, POM 5, T Rank 7
Q1 7-3, Q2 3-0, Q3 2-0, Q4 7-0

UConn NET 7
21-1, 10-1 NC, 11-0 Conf
NET SOS 22, RPI SOS 27
KPI 4, SOR 2, WAB 4, BPI 10, POM 10, T Rank 8
Q1 5-1, Q2 8-0, Q3 3-0, Q4 5-0

Purdue NET 8
18-4, 10-1 NC, 8-3 Conf
NET SOS 16, RPI SOS 16
KPI 6, SOR 12, WAB 9, BPI 8, POM 8, T Rank 9
Q1 6-4, Q2 2-0, Q3 8-0, Q4 2-0

Houston NET 9
19-2, 12-1 NC, 7-1 Conf
NET SOS 50, RPI SOS 76
KPI 8, SOR 9, WAB 10, BPI 4, POM 6, T Rank 3
Q1 5-2, Q2 4-0, Q3 5-0, Q4 5-0

Nebraska NET 10
20-2, 11-0 NC, 9-2 Conf
NET SOS 27, RPI SOS 33
KPI 5, SOR 5, WAB 5, BPI 18, POM 12, T Rank 12
Q1 6-2, Q2 5-0, Q3 3-0, Q4 6-0

Michigan State NET 11
19-3, 10-1 NC, 9-2 Conf
NET SOS 28, RPI SOS 28
KPI 13, SOR 10, WAB 7, BPI 12, POM 9, T Rank 13
Q1 4-1, Q2 0-0, Q3 2-0, Q4 5-0

Florida NET 12
16-6, 9-4 NC, 7-2 Conf
NET SOS 10, RPI SOS 7
KPI 23, SOR 18, WAB 18, BPI 7, POM 7, T Rank 6
Q1 4-5, Q2 6-1, Q3 1-0, Q4 5-0

 

[rosshm16]

I would like to see us play one or two more strong opponents in the noncon (and one or two fewer overmatched low-major buy-game opponents), but I'm not sure who those opponents would be, it's not like a bunch of perennial top-25 opponents are chomping at the bit to come play at Hilton.

 

[CHim]

I would like to see us play one or two more strong opponents in the noncon (and one or two fewer overmatched low-major buy-game opponents), but I'm not sure who those opponents would be, it's not like a bunch of perennial top-25 opponents are chomping at the bit to come play at Hilton.

I thought we tried this year but Creighton and Miss State were not what everyone thought they would be. I wonder how the numbers would look if Creighton was still a top 25 team or whichever spot they started the year at. I thought Miss State was in the 30s to start the year but I could be making that up. So it seems like they tried to schedule a better noncon, some of them just fell off. Shoot even the Syracuse win was starting to look nice when they beat Tennessee right after we played but they have since fallen off a cliff.

We did have some absolute jokes of a noncon schedule for a couple years there but seemed like this year they at least tried to build it out.

 

[BCClone]

We have some tough games coming up. Seems like we had an easier front side.

 

[nrg4isu]

We have some tough games coming up. Seems like we had an easier front side.

Right. When 5 of our last 7 games are going to be against ranked opponents, I don't think the committee will be screaming "sandbagging" when seeding day comes around.

 

[dahliaclone]

We have some tough games coming up. Seems like we had an easier front side.

Arizonas four games starting Feb 9 are brutal too

 

[Sigmapolis]

Its such a dumb thing for the committee to overweight when such a huge factor is "did your ****** teams suck or did they really suck?". Even if the intent is to encourage more quality games in the noncon, this metric really doesn't do it. Something like WAB would be better.

Better yet if it went away entirely. The SOS metrics already consider the noncon. Plus we see pretty clearly how meaningless some of these games in November\December are in terms of how good teams are in March, to essentially double-weight that period is just silly, and its gotten worse in the unlimited transfer era.

I can understand why there was a human committee back in the day. However, given our modern understanding of analytics and computing power, they're really unnecessary at this point.

I could easily imagine an algorithmic process for generating the bracket.

AQs are "in."

At-large and seeding determined by WAB. WAB right now would give you this list for the top 16 (sorted the seed lines with the highlight marks), which looks completely acceptable to me.



Let a computer program run that respects seed lines, sorts the top 16 into preferred sites, avoids repeat matchups until after the first weekend, and then minimizes travel distance.

A WAB-centric system would incentivize the snot out of good teams to play one another. Sure, you might still want one or two Q4 de facto preseason games and/or a break game between semesters before going home for a week, but you'd have more and longer MTEs and more bespoke series.

On the other hand... if the main controversy for us right now is if the committee will give us a #2 or a #3 and we're thinking about which team might be in our region standing in our way of the Final Four in the regional finals, we have good problems to have. If the worst thing the committee can do to you is give you a seed line that is "off by one" and put you in a region with difficult opponents... well...

If you want to make the Final Four or win a national championship, you're probably going to have to beat at least three or even four of the teams up there at some point -- so go out and do it. The committee can't "bless" you around that fact or somehow screw you into it. It's the simple reality.

The noncon SOS is a metric that largely favors the traditional power / brand-name teams who agree to play each other in their noncons.

Iowa State should be at the point reputationally where teams on that tier would want to play us in a similar fashion. TJ having lots of relationships across college basketball and the scope of the McDermott tree at this point should help with that idea. We should be calling around looking to play those games.

 

[Sigmapolis]

 

[Sigmapolis]

Up to #4 on Torvik after stomping on the Wildcats in the Octagon.



Big 12 is...

Top 3/4
Top 4/11
Top 5/19

Big big big BIG games against Arizona and Houston. Need to go at least 1-1.

Back to fighting for a #1 seed. Might need to take down the Wildcats in Tucson to do it. Even then, Arizona might be "safe" as a #1 seed. Might need a stumble from Michigan, Duke, or UConn.

 

[KennyPratt42]

Ok, so technically they dont have the offense, currently ranked 34th, the criteria to be national champions going back to UCONN in 2014 is a top 25 offense and defense both.

They also beat BYU, Kansas, Illinois, and Florida, have lost once , and have the #4 ranked defense. I also just remembered the part where Hurley has won national championships before.

What about them besides being just outside the Top 25 in offense screams "not a title contender" and who would your replace them with?

In the last 25 years for Kenpom metrics there have only been two offense or defensive efficiency rankings outside the top 20 that won a national title. Baylor had a defensive ranking of 22 in 2021 and Connecticut had an offensive ranking of 39 in 2014. They likely don’t have the offense to win a national title (or an individual player that can take over for 6 games to make up for that like the ‘14 team). Outside of the 3 you mentioned Iowa St., Houston, and Florida all have the metric profiles to win a title. Illinois, Purdue, UConn, Gonzaga, Vanderbilt, and Kansas are close with Vanderbilt being the most balanced (but not elite at either) and the others being clearly better on one side than the other.

 

[VeloClone]

I thought we tried this year but Creighton and Miss State were not what everyone thought they would be. I wonder how the numbers would look if Creighton was still a top 25 team or whichever spot they started the year at. I thought Miss State was in the 30s to start the year but I could be making that up. So it seems like they tried to schedule a better noncon, some of them just fell off. Shoot even the Syracuse win was starting to look nice when they beat Tennessee right after we played but they have since fallen off a cliff.

We did have some absolute jokes of a noncon schedule for a couple years there but seemed like this year they at least tried to build it out.

Yes, that didn't help ISU any. But the point remains that ISU could help themselves by scheduling a couple of teams that would end up being Q3 games in place of a couple of the seven low Q4 teams. The first couple games of the season when they need a ramp up a Q4 or two are fine. Also fine to have a Q4 between Iowa and the start of the Big 12 season, but a ramp up Q3 or two before the Big 12 season might be nice rather than 3 Q4 cupcakes in a row. It also might be nice to have a Q3 between Las Vegas and the Purdue/Iowa pair.

I imagine that the non-con SOS would look a bit more respectible with a couple/three of those Q4s as Q3s instead.

 

[VeloClone]

Right. When 5 of our last 7 games are going to be against ranked opponents, I don't think the committee will be screaming "sandbagging" when seeding day comes around.

And 6 of ISU's last 8 are Q1 opportunities.