Bracketology 2024
- Thread starter CoachHines3
- Start date
Rooting for Chris Beard tonight over Alabama. Ole Miss really needs it after losing 5 of 6.
- Jan 26, 2019
- 1,150
- 1,756
- 113
- 34
Well hell yes!! I still say their floor is a 4 and maybe even a 3. ISU went 21-11 10-8 in 2016 and got a 4 seed and KU has better wins than we did that year.
It's Bill Self but assuming they don't win in Waco Saturday and won't win at Houston to end the regular season without McCullar... they will be close to falling towards the 4 line depending on results in Kansas City.
I tend to agree that their floor is a 4. They have 6 Quad 1A wins which is more than most will finish with.
That was also the pre-NET era... The committee is using a completely different set of tools now.
I compile the averages of the NET for the P5 & Big East to compare.
Average Top 11 is to keep the amount of teams equal to the total in the Big East.
Average Top 9 was chosen to remove the bottom two teams from the Big East from the average.
Average Top 11 is to keep the amount of teams equal to the total in the Big East.
Average Top 9 was chosen to remove the bottom two teams from the Big East from the average.
Found this on reddit, I assume the guy's research is accurate. Basically tells you there is a lot of floof with the NET vs seeding. You're 2x more likely to be 3(!!) seeds higher/lower from expected than exactly what is expected - that's nuts.
NET is only part of seeding of course, I am sure they use KP/BT/BPI in some way as well, so they can have both "most deserving" and "strongest". Although looking at the teams that were jacked UP - they are all big power conference schools. 3 of the 4 DOWN were mid-majors. So apparently TV matters too...
If I get some time, I might take last years NET and BPI and see how those look vs seed given.
Of the 52 teams from the top 67 in the NET who made the tournament, only six teams were given their expected seed (Houston – 1, Alabama – 1, Texas – 2, Maryland -8, Illinois – 9, NC State – 11).
Ten teams were given seed positions 3 spots or better than their NET ranking suggests they should have gotten. (Pitt, Arizona St, Missouri, Northwestern, Miami, Indiana, Providence, Virginia, Kansas St., Xavier)
Four teams were given seed positions 3 spots or worse than their NET ranking suggests they should have gotten. The big losers here are Florida Atlantic (NET 13, seed 9) and Utah St (NET 18, seed 10). (Tennessee and Oral Roberts are the other two.)
NET is only part of seeding of course, I am sure they use KP/BT/BPI in some way as well, so they can have both "most deserving" and "strongest". Although looking at the teams that were jacked UP - they are all big power conference schools. 3 of the 4 DOWN were mid-majors. So apparently TV matters too...
If I get some time, I might take last years NET and BPI and see how those look vs seed given.
Of the 52 teams from the top 67 in the NET who made the tournament, only six teams were given their expected seed (Houston – 1, Alabama – 1, Texas – 2, Maryland -8, Illinois – 9, NC State – 11).
Ten teams were given seed positions 3 spots or better than their NET ranking suggests they should have gotten. (Pitt, Arizona St, Missouri, Northwestern, Miami, Indiana, Providence, Virginia, Kansas St., Xavier)
Four teams were given seed positions 3 spots or worse than their NET ranking suggests they should have gotten. The big losers here are Florida Atlantic (NET 13, seed 9) and Utah St (NET 18, seed 10). (Tennessee and Oral Roberts are the other two.)
I believe Strength of Record is historically the metric most correlated with seeding
2025-26 Resume Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN
View the 2025-26 Resume Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance of the season.
Last edited:
That doesn't surprise me; the NET is used primarily by the committee to view how good your opponents are, not how good you are. ISU's high NET rating doesn't benefit them so much as it benefits the other Big 12 schools, particularly teams that beat Iowa State.
Last edited:
Right now it feels like most metrics, rankings, and current bracket projections after last night have us as the 8th team. Always depends on what everyone around us does, but feels like going 3-1 to end the season will hold serve and keep us around there. 4-0 moves us into the 4th through 7th range and 2-2 probably bumps us down a couple spots.
| 2023 MBB NCAAs | SEED LIST CORRELATION | AT LARGE MISSES |
| NET | 0.937397412 | 6 |
| KPI | 0.933198458 | 4 |
| SOR | 0.968164294 | 2 |
| | |
| BPI | 0.947360385 | 7 |
| SAG | 0.950337825 | 6 |
| POM | 0.935297935 | 5 |
In terms of 1st/2nd round locations the ones that seem locked at this point are:
Houston - Memphis
UConn - Brooklyn
Purdue - Indianapolis
Arizona - Salt Lake City
North Carolina - Charlotte
The next three teams right now excluding us are probably:
Tennessee - Charlotte
Alabama - Memphis
Marquette - Indianapolis
So as things sit right now, Omaha is looking pretty good if we can stay in that 8th or 9th team on the S-curve spot.
Houston - Memphis
UConn - Brooklyn
Purdue - Indianapolis
Arizona - Salt Lake City
North Carolina - Charlotte
The next three teams right now excluding us are probably:
Tennessee - Charlotte
Alabama - Memphis
Marquette - Indianapolis
So as things sit right now, Omaha is looking pretty good if we can stay in that 8th or 9th team on the S-curve spot.
Do they still try to avoid conference rematches in the S16 and E8 like they do in the first 2 rounds? Would they keep us out of the South Region (Dallas) to potentially avoid Houston in the E8?
Would we have better fan support in Dallas or Detroit if we made the 2nd weekend? FWIW, I want to avoid UCONN in Boston more than anything.
Would we have better fan support in Dallas or Detroit if we made the 2nd weekend? FWIW, I want to avoid UCONN in Boston more than anything.
If Houston, ISU, Kansas and Baylor are all top-4 seeds, they're all put in different regions by rule.
Dated for 2/28 still, Jerry Palm has ISU as a 3 seed in Brooklyn taking on 14 Vermont. (Vermont is GOOD)
Winner has to play the winner of 6 Dayton and 11 Gonzaga....(YUCK!!!!!)
As a 3 seed, it'd be hard to imagine a worse draw.
Winner has to play the winner of 6 Dayton and 11 Gonzaga....(YUCK!!!!!)
As a 3 seed, it'd be hard to imagine a worse draw.
Palm is a shill. Don't ever use him as a source. Same goes for Lunardi. They are both truly awful at what they do.
Yet this own site is writing up articles using those two as their examples of where Iowa State currently stands…………
I know it's easy to link to them because they're the most popular but...it's also not hard to use Bracket Matrix to find/cite those who really are good at this stuff.
Evan Miyakawa just posted this on X for his strength metric called relative ratings:
blog.evanmiya.com
Introducing "Relative Ratings" and an all-new Matchup Preview at EvanMiya.com
A groundbreaking new team strength metric and a whole suite of new tools
blog.evanmiya.com
