*** Official #3 IOWA STATE vs Texas Tech Game(Day) Thread ***

[Clonefan32]

Rebounding isn't as bad as it appears IMO. It's easy to just look at the stat sheet and see the offensive boards the other team is gathering but some of that is scheme too. With our help side/trap style of defense it's almost impossible to account for everyone. Our biggest area for improvement is probably on the post. We have a tendency to get a little too deep. We also force teams into taking 3's which lead to long rebounds.

This is dead on and I was just talking about this with a buddy the other day. We do more rotating/scrambling than most teams defensively with our doubles and aggressiveness. "Boxing out" is premised on being in a position with the person you are guarding where you are between them and the basket. With the way we guard, that's often not the case. So I do think we give up some rebounding for our defensive aggressiveness, and I'm fine with that.

The only egregious one I can remember was Keshon not boxing out on that put back in the last minute of regulation. That one was effort. But other than that I think it's just a byproduct of a few bad bounces and a defense that leaves us vulnerable to rebounds.

 

[AllInForISU]

This is dead on and I was just talking about this with a buddy the other day. We do more rotating/scrambling than most teams defensively with our doubles and aggressiveness. "Boxing out" is premised on being in a position with the person you are guarding where you are between them and the basket. With the way we guard, that's often not the case. So I do think we give up some rebounding for our defensive aggressiveness, and I'm fine with that.

Yes. A forced turnover is the same outcome as a defensive rebound. As long as we have more turnovers/rebounds than the other team we are in good shape and we are +10/game differential in that at the moment.

 

[clone52]

The Net Rankings are really frustrating When you look at Q1 and Q2 resumes Iowa State should be 2. We should absolutely be in front of Houston ,Tennessee, and Florida. The algorithm is such a freaking mystery because it seems like they make tweaks to it ever year. This year it seems to be over valuing Q3 wins or at least that's all I can come up with. It's going t be really hard for the Clones to get in front of Tennessee and Florida if things stay the course because the SEC resumes are LOADED with Q1 games.


View attachment 140868

Pretty sure some offensive and defensive metrics come into play with NET. Like kenpom, torvik and bpi do, but maybe not exactly those. Potentially stuff like margin of victory.

Thats why you won't see the seed lines match exactly, though. Houston's full resume (as of 1/13/2025) would not have them seeded that high. You can see this where they are a 4 seed on bracket matrix and nobody has them as a 1 seed.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Strange ... zero wins in Q1 has more weight than zero wins in Q3.

Yeah Houston is a real head scratcher. Zero Q1 wins and we are 8-1 in Q1/Q2 and they are 5-3. NET is dumb.

 

[NorthCyd]

The Net Rankings are really frustrating When you look at Q1 and Q2 resumes Iowa State should be 2. We should absolutely be in front of Houston ,Tennessee, and Florida. The algorithm is such a freaking mystery because it seems like they make tweaks to it ever year. This year it seems to be over valuing Q3 wins or at least that's all I can come up with. It's going t be really hard for the Clones to get in front of Tennessee and Florida if things stay the course because the SEC resumes are LOADED with Q1 games.


View attachment 140868

Strange ... zero wins in Q1 has more weight than zero wins in Q3.

The net ranking is just a sorting tool to measure how well a team has performed. The quadrant of your wins and losses doesn't go into calculating the net ranking at all, it's how well a team performed in a game. So the fact that Houston hasn't won any of their quad 1 games doesn't really hurt their net ranking because they were all incredibly close losses and they still performed well in those games against great teams even though they lost, plus they have been more dominant than ISU against bad competition. When it comes tournament time the committee focuses on the resume (quadrant wins and losses) and not on the NET ranking when deciding who gets in and where they are seeded. We would be seeded ahead of Houston if the tournament was tomorrow.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Pretty sure some offensive and defensive metrics come into play with NET. Like kenpom, torvik and bpi do, but maybe not exactly those. Potentially stuff like margin of victory.

Thats why you won't see the seed lines match exactly, though. Houston's full resume (as of 1/13/2025) would not have them seeded that high. You can see this where they are a 4 seed on bracket matrix and nobody has them as a 1 seed.

OH I fully underrated that but my point is that I think Iowa State will ultimately HAVE to get in front of either Tennessee or Florida for a 1 seed. The ACC is awful and Duke is going to sleep walk to March and The SEC is really really good this year and they will absolutely be rewarded come selection Sunday.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

The net ranking is just a sorting tool to measure how well a team has performed. The quadrant of your wins and losses doesn't go into calculating the net ranking at all, it's how well a team performed in a game. So the fact that Houston hasn't won any of their quad 1 games doesn't really hurt their net ranking because they were all incredibly close losses and they still performed well in those games against great teams even though they lost, plus they have been more dominant than ISU against bad competition. When it comes tournament time the committee focuses on the resume (quadrant wins and losses) and not on the NET ranking when deciding who gets in and where they are seeded.

Those quadrants are absolutely part of the formula.

 

[NorthCyd]

Those quadrants are absolutely part of the formula.

Prove me wrong. Show me where the quadrants are used in the NET ranking. From what I have seen they are not.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nc...ollege-basketballs-net-rankings-explained?amp

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

Just another day in NC contender ISU glory.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Prove me wrong. Show me where the quadrants are used in the NET ranking. From what I have seen they are not.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2022-12-05/college-basketballs-net-rankings-explained?amp

The NET formula has been a moving target ever since it was rolled out in 2018. To say that the Quads aren't factored in would be crazy.

 

[Blackhawk6515]

All three of Lipsey, Gilbert and Jones have increased their % on two-point shots by a ton - it's an amazing improvement, that's not something that is usually prone to a big jump, but was obviously a big area of focus.

Lipsey (59.1% vs. 44.5%)
Jones (54.9% vs 44.4%)
Gilbert (58.8% vs. 47.4%)

Lipsey freshman year (52%) was the only season any of the 3 had gone over 50% on two-point shots previously. It's a huge part of the increased offensive efficiency this year.

Jones floater is unstoppable and that shot is going in the bucket.

 

[clone52]

OH I fully underrated that but my point is that I think Iowa State will ultimately HAVE to get in front of either Tennessee or Florida for a 1 seed. The ACC is awful and Duke is going to sleep walk to March and The SEC is really really good this year and they will absolutely be rewarded come selection Sunday.

They won't HAVE to get ahead of them in the NET, necessarily, though. Other things can come into play. Although with as many Q1 opportunities as any SEC school will have, if they finish in the Top 4 of the NET, they will likely have the resume of a #1 seed.

It's possible, but not likely that 3 SEC teams will get #1 seeds.

 

[CoachHines3]

@NoCreativity ???

i had to go back and watch.. it was 4 straight but 2 of them were from Anderson who had to double clutch after he jumped because Heise was there to block the shot, actually.

 

[NorthCyd]

The NET formula has been a moving target ever since it was rolled out in 2018. To say that the Quads aren't factored in would be crazy.

My only point is don't focus so much on the NET rankings because that is not what the committee ultimately uses to seed teams, it's the resume. They would not seed a team with significantly fewer quad 1 wins just because they are ranked higher in the NET ranking. That's not how they use it, or so they say.

 

[clone52]

The NET formula has been a moving target ever since it was rolled out in 2018. To say that the Quads aren't factored in would be crazy.

They are factored in for seeding, not for the NET rankings themselves.

 

[bawbie]

i had to go back and watch.. it was 4 straight but 2 of them were from Anderson who had to double clutch after he jumped because Heise was there to block the shot, actually.

The first one he got pushed too far down the lane, trying not to foul, but he did contest the shot well:


Here's the second one - no idea how Anderson made this shot:

 

[MJ271]

All three of Lipsey, Gilbert and Jones have increased their % on two-point shots by a ton - it's an amazing improvement, that's not something that is usually prone to a big jump, but was obviously a big area of focus.

Lipsey (59.1% vs. 44.5%)
Jones (54.9% vs 44.4%)
Gilbert (58.8% vs. 47.4%)

Lipsey freshman year (52%) was the only season any of the 3 had gone over 50% on two-point shots previously. It's a huge part of the increased offensive efficiency this year.

I'm sure it was an offseason focus to improve their efficiency at the rim, but I'm also curious how much Jefferson, Jackson, and Chatfield have to do with it. For one factor, perhaps the post defenders feel more obligated to stay attached to them, creating space for finishing. But also, it seems like all three have a very good sense of how to position themselves to clear out space for drivers. Fran Fraschilla spent a lot of time on Saturday talking about that with Chatfield clearing out space for Jones, but I know I've seen Jefferson and Jackson play the same kind of two-man game as well.

 

[clone52]

My only point is don't focus so much on the NET rankings because that is not what the committee ultimately uses to seed teams, it's the resume. They would not seed a team with significantly fewer quad 1 wins just because they are ranked higher in the NET ranking. That's not how they use it, or so they say.

Take UNC last year. #8 in NET but a 1 seed.

 

[Prone2Clone]

The first one he got pushed too far down the lane, trying not to foul, but he did contest the shot well:
View attachment 140871

Here's the second one - no idea how Anderson made this shot:

View attachment 140870

That second one was a bullet. If he had been off target a couple inches, it would have ended up past the 3-point line.

 

[twincyties]

The first one he got pushed too far down the lane, trying not to foul, but he did contest the shot well:
View attachment 140871

Here's the second one - no idea how Anderson made this shot:

View attachment 140870

This second one was an incredible shot. You live with that every time. He hung in the air and almost had to double clutch the ball to even get that off. That’s classic “great defense, better offense” play.