Bracketology 2024

[cykadelic2]

Show me evidence that it has been a factor on a team's seeding. I don't think you can.

During the Sweet 16 Committee reveal a couple of weeks ago, the Committee chair specifically referenced BU's NonCon SOS (which was in the 70s at that time compared to ISU's being in the 320s). And BU was one spot ahead of ISU on that reveal Seed List.

It will be used as a tiebreaker where necessary on the Selection Sunday Seed List.

 

[clone52]

During the Sweet 16 Committee reveal a couple of weeks ago, the Committee chair specifically referenced BU's NonCon SOS (which was in the 70s at that time compared to ISU's being in the 320s). And BU was one spot ahead of ISU on that reveal Seed List.

It will be used as a tiebreaker where necessary on the Selection Sunday Seed List.

Was it obvious at the time that Iowa State was WAY more deserving that Baylor? I think they were pretty close and SOS could definitely be the tiebreaker.

People are claiming that Alabama with a 4-9 q1 and a 7-1 q2 might jump Iowa State due to SOS and that is just absurd.

Kansas is closer. Their Q1 and Q2 results are very similar to Iowa State's (for now), and Iowa State has head to ahead (albeit a home game). It is possible they consider Iowa State and Kansas really close and use SOS as a tiebreaker. I think they'd use head to head as a tiebreaker, but its close.

 

[clone52]

During the Sweet 16 Committee reveal a couple of weeks ago, the Committee chair specifically referenced BU's NonCon SOS (which was in the 70s at that time compared to ISU's being in the 320s). And BU was one spot ahead of ISU on that reveal Seed List.

It will be used as a tiebreaker where necessary on the Selection Sunday Seed List.

I should have read more closely. I agree, definitely is used a tiebreaker. Iowa States SOS isn't going to drop them more than a couple spots down the seed list, though.

 

[CoachHines3]

Come on. They will look at the overall picture for both teams. Right now Iowa State compares favorably to Kansas in Q1 and Q2 and has the head to head win. Kansas's SOS is not going to put them ahead of Iowa State unless they storm through the Big 12 tournament.

I know they look at overall picture of both teams.

At the end of the day, the out of conference SOS isn't going to effect Iowa State... really at all.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Was it obvious at the time that Iowa State was WAY more deserving that Baylor? I think they were pretty close and SOS could definitely be the tiebreaker.

People are claiming that Alabama with a 4-9 q1 and a 7-1 q2 might jump Iowa State due to SOS and that is just absurd.

Kansas is closer. Their Q1 and Q2 results are very similar to Iowa State's (for now), and Iowa State has head to ahead (albeit a home game). It is possible they consider Iowa State and Kansas really close and use SOS as a tiebreaker. I think they'd use head to head as a tiebreaker, but its close.

Literally nobody is claiming that.

 

[dahliaclone]

It’s really too bad the refs gave Kansas that win over TCU early on or else they’d be finishing 9-9.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

LMAO Palm still has Baylor as a 2 seed over us and he doesn't even have Iowa State as the Midwest 3. What else do we have to do?

 

[CycloneErik]

lets re-word it

the committee will look at KU beating UCONN and Tennessee as better than Iowa State beating Green Bay and Lindenwood.

But our wins have more letters to them. Doesn't that matter anymore?

 

[wcamnclone]

I bit the bullet and this morning bought an all-session ticket in Omaha. That ticket for 3 games cost just a little more than my Big12 Tournament ticket for 11 games.

All session tickets should be a total of 6 games. The 2 morning/afternoon games, the 2 evening games, and the 2 games for Saturday.

 

[clone52]

Literally nobody is claiming that.

Not directly, but people were saying that Non-con strength of schedule was given twice as much weight as overall SOS. Something used as a last resort tiebreaker is not given much weight at all.

Seems like we might be in agreement.
1) Non-con SOS might be the decider between 2 otherwise equivalent teams.
2) Non-con SOS is never going to move a team down more than 1 or 2 spots on the overall seed line.

 

[Cydkar]

LMAO Palm still has Baylor as a 2 seed over us and he doesn't even have Iowa State as the Midwest 3. What else do we have to do?

Ignore Palm, maybe?

 

[clone52]

Even if those teams drop a game the committee isn't giving us a 1 seed with our non con SOS. Not saying I agree with it because it should be full body of work but the committee weighs the non con differently, which is dumb.

You literally said the committee weighs the non-con above the full body of work. There is simply zero evidence that they have ever done that.

 

[clone52]

LMAO Palm still has Baylor as a 2 seed over us and he doesn't even have Iowa State as the Midwest 3. What else do we have to do?

Curious on the analysis here.
Iowa State is 5-3 in q1a vs 5-6 for Baylor.
Iowa State is 2-2 in q1b vs 3-0 or Baylor
Iowa state is 7-5 in q1 versus 8-6 for Baylor.
Iowa State is 5-1 in q2 versus 5-2 for Baylor.
Iowa State is 8/9/11/13/5 in the metrics the nitty gritty report has while Baylor is 13/13/13/9/7.

The two teams are very close. The metrics give Iowa State a slight edge and its reasonable to put Iowa State above Baylor. You could also argue that the head to head win against Iowa State makes them pretty even and then let SOS be the deciding factor.

I don't think its as crazy as it appears.

 

[dahliaclone]

Ignore Palm, maybe?

yes. he always has massive changes the day or two Selection Sunday for no good reason. All he's doing now is just clickbait

 

[bluestarcyclone]

You literally said the committee weighs the non-con above the full body of work. There is simply zero evidence that they have ever done that.

They were clearly doing that in the top 16 reveal.

Honestly any time they quote the NCSOS they're overweighting it. Because its such a skewed metric.

Most team's NC includes about 4-5 'real' games and then some buy games. Some of those buy teams are in the 150 range, some in the 200 range, etc. All should be easily beatable by elite teams. But teams that play teams in the 150 range get rewarded with their NCSOS being higher even though functionally their chance of winning those games didn't change much. In reality, all we should really be looking at are those 4-5 'real' games and ignoring the rest entirely. This is where metrics like SOR and WAB come in handy, because they treat those buy games relatively equally since any bubble\top 25 team should handle those teams equally well.

 

[jcf817]

LMAO Palm still has Baylor as a 2 seed over us and he doesn't even have Iowa State as the Midwest 3. What else do we have to do?

Stop giving him clicks? I'm guilty, too.

 

[CyPunch]

 

[clone52]

They were clearly doing that in the top 16 reveal.

Honestly any time they quote the NCSOS they're overweighting it. Because its such a skewed metric.

Most team's NC includes about 4-5 'real' games and then some buy games. Some of those buy teams are in the 150 range, some in the 200 range, etc. All should be easily beatable by elite teams. But teams that play teams in the 150 range get rewarded with their NCSOS being higher even though functionally their chance of winning those games didn't change much. In reality, all we should really be looking at are those 4-5 'real' games and ignoring the rest entirely. This is where metrics like SOR and WAB come in handy, because they treat those buy games relatively equally since any bubble\top 25 team should handle those teams equally well.

You could be right. I wish I had a snapshot of the metrics when that came out though to see if there were egregious errors.

 

[clone52]

This guy doesn't think we can fall below a 2 seed now but I have a hard time believing that

I don't think he said that. He just said teams seeded 1-7 are locks and can't fall out of the tourney. I don't think he meant the top overall 7 seeds were locks not to drop.

 

[CyPunch]

I don't think he said that. He just said teams seeded 1-7 are locks and can't fall out of the tourney. I don't think he meant the top overall 7 seeds were locks not to drop.

You're right. I misread that.