We will get into the tournament if

[Victorbmyboy]

I’m just quoting from the link you posted from the NCAA site. Did they reintroduce scoring margin this year?

There is another link in that link.

I’m just quoting from the link you posted from the NCAA site. Did they reintroduce scoring margin this year?

They changed it to the women’s formula.

NCAA Evaluation Tool to replace RPI as team sorting tool for women's college basketball

The NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Committee announced that beginning with the upcoming 2020-21 season, the NCAA Evaluation Tool will replace the Ratings Percentage Index as the contemporary sorting tool used to measure a team’s quality and help evaluate team resumes for selection and...

www.ncaa.com

 

[cshartle123]

Bump

 

[trailrunner]

we win five more games:
@Maryland
@Minnesota
Michigan State
BTT Game 1
BTT Game 2

You think we get invited if we win tomorrow? I think perhaps if we make the final.

 

[cshartle123]

You think we get invited if we win tomorrow? I think perhaps if we make the final.

I don’t know because those guys love their metrics, but I think we should. If we win tomorrow and lose Saturday we will end 20-14 overall, B10: 10-10, Q1: 5-9, Q2: 6-4, Q3: 3-1, Q4: 6-0. That looks like a 10 seed to me.

 

[asindc]

I don’t know because those guys love their metrics, but I think we should. If we win tomorrow and lose Saturday we will end 20-14 overall, B10: 10-10, Q1: 5-9, Q2: 6-4, Q3: 3-0, Q4: 6-0. That looks like a 10 seed to me.

IU lost a Q3 game to PSU at home.

 

[cshartle123]

IU lost a Q3 game to PSU at home.

You’re right. I edited my post.

Indiana Hoosiers Nitty Gritty at Bracketologists

bracketologists.com

 

[GeddyHoosier]

You think we get invited if we win tomorrow? I think perhaps if we make the final.

Not enough. We’d have to win it, which means beating Purdue on Sunday. Highly unlikely.

 

[Cavanagh]

Not enough. We’d have to win it, which means beating Purdue on Sunday. Highly unlikely.

We make it to Sunday (and beat IL on the way) we are in. People decide at the end of the day, and the IU fanbase will have the world thinking we just made the final four. That IL neutral site win would be the feather in the cap. 6 or 7 quad one wins, one quad 3 loss.

Don’t underestimate the power of IU nation. It is 100% elite.

 

[TomEric4756]

Got the PSU monkey off our back … Must also beat the Huskers tonight…

 

[YOTHN]

I don’t know because those guys love their metrics, but I think we should. If we win tomorrow and lose Saturday we will end 20-14 overall, B10: 10-10, Q1: 5-9, Q2: 6-4, Q3: 3-1, Q4: 6-0. That looks like a 10 seed to me.

Maryland fell from 72 to 82, making that road win a quad 2 game. We're 3-8 in quad 1 and can only improve that with wins from here out.

IU NET is 94 after beating PSU. IU will not be an at- large contender even if we made the title game. We must win the title.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Labrador!

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

I heard that this year, they are just going to look at any team with 20 wins and then flip a coin to decide if you get in to The Dance.

 

[IndyResident16]

Bubble shrank by at least 1 last night with Dayton losing; A10 is now a 2 bid league. Teams like Mich St, Pitt, St. Johns and Virginia all likely secured bids yesterday with wins.

 

[cshartle123]

Bubble shrank by at least 1 last night with Dayton losing; A10 is now a 2 bid league. Teams like Mich St, Pitt, St. Johns and Virginia all likely secured bids yesterday with wins.

It looks like we need to win two more to get onto the bubble.

 

[YOTHN]

It looks like we need to win two more to get onto the bubble.

Onto the bubble.....maaaaaybe. But on the fringe yet non-realistic side of the bubble. IU needs to win the title to be in tournament. Those early season games where IU played awful teams close and then took a home blowout loss to PSU set IU too far back to overcome.

Listen, Penn State finished 11th in the B1G and is 16-17 overall. 2-8 vs Quad 1 games. They have two Quad 3 losses and even a Quad 4 loss. Yet they are 86th and we are 94th. Losing to IU didn't even push them back further and IU beating them only moved us up 2 spots.

Maryland finished 12th in the B1G and 16-17 overall. They are 2-9 vs Q1 and have FOUR Q3 losses yet they are ranked 13 spots ahead of IU. Prior to losing to Wisconsin yesterday, they were 24 spots ahead of IU.

So I say all of this to get everyone back to reality. IU has NO shot to be an at-large bid in any world. They must win the tournament.

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

Onto the bubble.....maaaaaybe. But on the fringe yet non-realistic side of the bubble. IU needs to win the title to be in tournament. Those early season games where IU played awful teams close and then took a home blowout loss to PSU set IU too far back to overcome.

Listen, Penn State finished 11th in the B1G and is 16-17 overall. 2-8 vs Quad 1 games. They have two Quad 3 losses and even a Quad 4 loss. Yet they are 86th and we are 94th. Losing to IU didn't even push them back further and IU beating them only moved us up 2 spots.

Maryland finished 12th in the B1G and 16-17 overall. They are 2-9 vs Q1 and have FOUR Q3 losses yet they are ranked 13 spots ahead of IU. Prior to losing to Wisconsin yesterday, they were 24 spots ahead of IU.

So I say all of this to get everyone back to reality. IU has NO shot to be an at-large bid in any world. They must win the tournament.

I agree with you, but it's so odd to compare MSU and us...damned near exact NET situation, but separated by 70 points or so? Maybe 60+? That just doesn't make any sense.

 

[YOTHN]

I agree with you, but it's so odd to compare MSU and us...damned near exact NET situation, but separated by 70 points or so? Maybe 60+? That just doesn't make any sense.

I should clarify, I don't agree with the rankings. I don't think IU is great but frickin 94th?? I also don't think MSU should be 24. That is wild.

The only math I can do is those early seasons close games vs Q4 teams established our ranking really low. Then it must take a lot to overcome that. I certainly could be wrong but it's a weird situation to try and validate.

 

[IUNorth]

I should clarify, I don't agree with the rankings. I don't think IU is great but frickin 94th?? I also don't think MSU should be 24. That is wild.

The only math I can do is those early seasons close games vs Q4 teams established our ranking really low. Then it must take a lot to overcome that. I certainly could be wrong but it's a weird situation to try and validate.

The IU/MSU comp is a very good example that should cause "The NET Nerds" to change their formulas. But for this seasons decisions, IU's NET is a very heavy boat anchor. I doubt many on the committee will spend a ton of time digging in to why our NET is so low either.

Every year, there seems to be a surprise team that is either very low on all the Lunardi/Palm type projections, or not even talked about, that gets in as a solid at large. I guess our best hope is that IU is that team this year, for whatever reason. Because all the logical stuff that is being projected says we don't have a chance at an at large, no matter what we do in our next couple games, and/or who the games are against.

 

[tru123dt]

I think if we can make it to the championship game then we have a good chance getting in even with a poor NET ranking, since the committee does consider injuries as a factor.

 

[IUNorth]

I think if we can make it to the championship game then we have a good chance getting in even with a poor NET ranking, since the committee does consider injuries as a factor.

I think we had a chance to make a much stronger case last night. With how poorly PSU played, we had a chance to thump them. Style points, at this point, do matter. And for committee members that are actually watching the games, we didn't really look all that good last night.

A win is a win. And I'll be ecstatic if we win tonight and tomorrow night, no matter how they look. But playing well, and winning either/both of the games comfortably, would go a long way to getting us more seriously considered.

 

[ce36ei]

Beat NEB and OSU/ILL. 21 wins.

 

[papawboog]

I think if we can make it to the championship game then we have a good chance getting in even with a poor NET ranking, since the committee does consider injuries as a factor.

They’ve always said the tourney committee not only looks at injuries but how well a team is playing at the end of the year. If IU makes the BTT championship game that would give them a 7 game win streak. I would hope that would be enough to put them in

 

[ce36ei]

I think we had a chance to make a much stronger case last night. With how poorly PSU played, we had a chance to thump them. Style points, at this point, do matter. And for committee members that are actually watching the games, we didn't really look all that good last night.

A win is a win. And I'll be ecstatic if we win tonight and tomorrow night, no matter how they look. But playing well, and winning either/both of the games comfortably, would go a long way to getting us more seriously considered.

We win by 10+ with Gallo. If we’re going to win, they’re going to be ugly grinds without him.

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

They’ve always said the tourney committee not only looks at injuries but how well a team is playing at the end of the year. If IU makes the BTT championship game that would give them a 7 game win streak. I would hope that would be enough to put them in

End of season isn't a factor like it used to be but there is either some discussion of or it has been decided that that will be a factor in the future.

 

[IUNorth]

We win by 10+ with Gallo. If we’re going to win, they’re going to be ugly grinds without him.

Probably right...but that goes both ways. They won't reward us for winning ugly without him, without also factoring in how we'll look in the tournament without him. Injuries really only go your way when you have all your guys back, and are playing well with a fully healthy team.

 

[surjay]

I agree with you, but it's so odd to compare MSU and us...damned near exact NET situation, but separated by 70 points or so? Maybe 60+? That just doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense when you dive in. I posted this earlier in the week so its not up-to-date with BIGT results but the gist is still pertinent:

For those who still think we should have similar numbers to MSU based on record and want to blame the metric systems instead of the play on the court, here is the reality:

MSU

3-8 Q1
5-5 Q2
6-0 Q3
4-0 Q4

At a glance, they are similar but there are some big differences.

- IU has a Q3 LOSS. Not only a loss but a 15 point blowout loss at home to PSU. MSU has no losses past Q2.

- MSU has better Q1 wins:
14 - Baylor
15 - Ill
29 - ISU

So, 2 top 20 and none below 30. IU has 0 top 20 and 1 win was over 55 OSU on the road. This matters. Not all quad wins are created equal. MSU's are clearly of a higher magnitude.

Q2 wins mostly a wash.

Q3/Q4 - Past the really bad Q3 loss for IU this is also an area for separation. IU struggled to win many of their Q3/Q4 games and had several single digit wins. MSU mostly destroyed their Q3/Q4 slate. Its not even close

Q3 average margin of victory:
17.3 - MSU
8.5 - IU

Q4 average margin of victory:
32.5 - MSU
10.8 - IU

Blowout losses (10+ points:
8 - IU
3 - MSU

So, if you look at things with any depth you see that MSU stands out quite a bit from IU. IU did not have signature wins this season. They have worse losses (by metrics and by margins) and they struggled to beat bad teams. The gap is quite large, honestly.

 

[IndyResident16]

It does make sense when you dive in. I posted this earlier in the week so its not up-to-date with BIGT results but the gist is still pertinent:

For those who still think we should have similar numbers to MSU based on record and want to blame the metric systems instead of the play on the court, here is the reality:

MSU

3-8 Q1
5-5 Q2
6-0 Q3
4-0 Q4

At a glance, they are similar but there are some big differences.

- IU has a Q3 LOSS. Not only a loss but a 15 point blowout loss at home to PSU. MSU has no losses past Q2.

- MSU has better Q1 wins:
14 - Baylor
15 - Ill
29 - ISU

So, 2 top 20 and none below 30. IU has 0 top 20 and 1 win was over 55 OSU on the road. This matters. Not all quad wins are created equal. MSU's are clearly of a higher magnitude.

Q2 wins mostly a wash.

Q3/Q4 - Past the really bad Q3 loss for IU this is also an area for separation. IU struggled to win many of their Q3/Q4 games and had several single digit wins. MSU mostly destroyed their Q3/Q4 slate. Its not even close

Q3 average margin of victory:
17.3 - MSU
8.5 - IU

Q4 average margin of victory:
32.5 - MSU
10.8 - IU

Blowout losses (10+ points:
8 - IU
3 - MSU

So, if you look at things with any depth you see that MSU stands out quite a bit from IU. IU did not have signature wins this season. They have worse losses (by metrics and by margins) and they struggled to beat bad teams. The gap is quite large, honestly.

I should have responded to your first post because I laughed at it then as well. I don't think anybody is disagreeing that MSU has a better "resume" than Indiana, rather MSU and IU shouldn't be so far apart. Either MSU is hilariously overrated based on their NET ranking ( that's my opinion) or Indiana is criminally underrated.

 

[Harpo Marxist]

I should have responded to your first post because I laughed at it then as well. I don't think anybody is disagreeing that MSU has a better "resume" than Indiana, rather MSU and IU shouldn't be so far apart. Either MSU is hilariously overrated based on their NET ranking ( that's my opinion) or Indiana is criminally underrated.

Considering IU "underrated' would indeed be criminal.

 

[IndyResident16]

Considering IU "underrated' would indeed be criminal.

Right they aren't underrated, but trying to justify why MSU is 70 spots ahead of Indiana is also laughable. It just goes to show how flawed the NET rating system actually is. MSU has two "good" wins this year. A home win against Illinois and basically a home game against Baylor back in early December in Detroit. Not to mention MSU lost to....checks notes...Indiana.

MSU deserves to get in over Indiana, no qualms there, but the mental gymnastics on display justifying MSU's absurdly high NET rankings is just crazy.

 

[Al Bino]

Right they aren't underrated, but trying to justify why MSU is 70 spots ahead of Indiana is also laughable. It just goes to show how flawed the NET rating system actually is. MSU has two "good" wins this year. A home win against Illinois and basically a home game against Baylor back in early December in Detroit. Not to mention MSU lost to....checks notes...Indiana.

MSU deserves to get in over Indiana, no qualms there, but the mental gymnastics on display justifying MSU's absurdly high NET rankings is just crazy.

To me, one of the big problems with net is how the rating of your opponent can change as the year goes along.
A Q1 win can become a Q2 win depending on how that team does.
IMO, once the game has been played, whatever the losing team's rating is at that time should not change.
Who came up with that idea?

 

[IUNorth]

To me, one of the big problems with net is how the rating of your opponent can change as the year goes along.
A Q1 win can become a Q2 win depending on how that team does.
IMO, once the game has been played, whatever the losing team's rating is at that time should not change.
Who came up with that idea?

I would hope they're planning to change that, somehow.

Take Kansas for example...their best 2 players are out with injuries. Its caused them to falter down the stretch. If they had happened to fall out of the top 30 because of that, it would change our game with them to a Quad 2 game. They were one of the best teams in the nation when we played them.

Obviously this could also go the other way, and benefit your resume when teams move UP in NET rankings. And I'm sure that'd be the central argument for not changing anything. That, and the early season data is inherently flawed, so allowing all the games to fluctuate based of more data coming in throughout the season, has its benefits.

If they don't want to lock in NET rankings at the time of the game. Maybe they should consider:

1. Ranking all players as well, and factoring in when they don't play in games.
2. Figure out how to weight games later in the season versus games played earlier in the season.
3. Factor in the AP and Coaches Polls, in some way, even if its a small amount.

In the end...if the committee isn't using the NET heavily to influence their decisions, it doesn't really matter. But if they are, and are expected to, they need to keep working to improve the tool.

 

[GOSHOE71]

That might get us back into bubble consideration but still a longshot to make the field. Our metrics (NET/KenPom) are just terrible even if we add 3-4 more Q1 wins between now and then.

But to think this team is capable of stringing together 5 straight wins is downright funny.

This didn't age well.

 

[YOTHN]

The IU/MSU comp is a very good example that should cause "The NET Nerds" to change their formulas. But for this seasons decisions, IU's NET is a very heavy boat anchor. I doubt many on the committee will spend a ton of time digging in to why our NET is so low either.

Every year, there seems to be a surprise team that is either very low on all the Lunardi/Palm type projections, or not even talked about, that gets in as a solid at large. I guess our best hope is that IU is that team this year, for whatever reason. Because all the logical stuff that is being projected says we don't have a chance at an at large, no matter what we do in our next couple games, and/or who the games are against.

Well, no, the NET plays a very large factor in the committees' decisions. The Lundardi/Palm projections have minimal impact. The NET and those random prognostications are not in any way related. There is no overlooking some unknown fact, we are going off past precedent. 77 was the absolute lowest ranked NET to make the tourney and that was due to a Rutgers team having a .500 record vs. Quad 1 teams. IU is 3-8 and would max out at 5-9 if they make the B1G title game but lose in the title. This isn't a gray area here, this is purely black and white. IU wins the tournament or they are NOT in. Period. End of story. Next topic. You can try and sugar coat it all you want but its worthless conjecture.

 

[YOTHN]

I should have responded to your first post because I laughed at it then as well. I don't think anybody is disagreeing that MSU has a better "resume" than Indiana, rather MSU and IU shouldn't be so far apart. Either MSU is hilariously overrated based on their NET ranking ( that's my opinion) or Indiana is criminally underrated.

His whole post was pointing out that its not that MSU has a better resume but that the vast discrepancy in the net is reflected in the resume itself. His entire post was predicated on explaining why MSU is rated vastly hire than IU and why those rankings are accurate. So had you responded to either post, you would have the same erroneous response.

 

[IUNorth]

Well, no, the NET plays a very large factor in the committees' decisions. The Lundardi/Palm projections have minimal impact. The NET and those random prognostications are not in any way related. There is no overlooking some unknown fact, we are going off past precedent. 77 was the absolute lowest ranked NET to make the tourney and that was due to a Rutgers team having a .500 record vs. Quad 1 teams. IU is 3-8 and would max out at 5-9 if they make the B1G title game but lose in the title. This isn't a gray area here, this is purely black and white. IU wins the tournament or they are NOT in. Period. End of story. Next topic. You can try and sugar coat it all you want but its worthless conjecture.

What are you disagreeing with on my post?

 

[IndyResident16]

His whole post was pointing out that its not that MSU has a better resume but that the vast discrepancy in the net is reflected in the resume itself. His entire post was predicated on explaining why MSU is rated vastly hire than IU and why those rankings are accurate. So had you responded to either post, you would have the same erroneous response.

IU and Michigan State's resume (his entire argument) aren't a 70 spot difference anyway you try and slice it unless concluding the system being used is completely flawed.

 

[twenty02]

It looks like we need to win two more to get onto the bubble.

Bump

 

[kraft cheese+macaroni]

Bump

Why?

 

[twenty02]

Why?

Drunk posting from the beach most likely

 

[trailrunner]

Oh! That’s way more in depth. Now it’s starting to make a bit more sense. All those double digit losses are coming back to haunt us.

Getting smoked has always been a metric to determine a squad’s level of performance.