2023-2024 MBB computer projections thread

Everybody should know the NET can be manipulated. It's going to be true with any kind of ranking system. You could do the same thing with RPI, although that was more about scheduling than game performance.

At the end of the day it's the Quad 1-2 wins and 3-4 losses that really matter come tournament time.
Pollard and TJ planned and executed a perfect heist of the NET ranking this non-conference, and now the bankers are realizing the vault is empty.
The rankings should be adjusted to reward teams for a balanced, fun schedule. Hopefully they adjust the algorithm now that several teams including ISU have gamed it in its current form.
 
Pollard and TJ planned and executed a perfect heist of the NET ranking this non-conference, and now the bankers are realizing the vault is empty.
The rankings should be adjusted to reward teams for a balanced, fun schedule. Hopefully they adjust the algorithm now that several teams including ISU have gamed it in its current form.

I don’t think anyone is gaming the system. It’s almost impossible to predict which teams are going to be #250 vs # 362, available when they need to be, and then guarantee you're going to be able to beat any given team in that area by 20-30-40. That seems pretty far-fetched. Especially for a team in the Big 12 where no matter what happens in pre-con 12/14 teams have a chance to go 8-10 or better in conference and be right there to make the tourney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Letterkenny
I don’t think anyone is gaming the system. It’s almost impossible to predict which teams are going to be #250 vs # 362, available when they need to be, and then guarantee you're going to be able to beat any given team in that area by 20-30-40. That seems pretty far-fetched. Especially for a team in the Big 12 where no matter what happens in pre-con 12/14 teams have a chance to go 8-10 or better in conference and be right there to make the tourney.
I think the gaming comes in to play with continuing to play the best players when the game is well out of hand to maximize your per possession offensive and defensive efficiency. I don't know its happening for a fact, but it seems very intentional on TJs part to maximize our NET. There is an incentive to pummeling the crap out of weaker opponents.
 
I'm not disagreeing that ISU hasn't played anyone yet, but it is just a symptom of sports journalist arrogance that they talk about teams as definitively NCAA tournament teams or not NCAA tournament teams at this juncture of the season.
I’m not a sports journalist but I can assure you that no team Iowa State has beat will make the tournament unless they win their conference tournament.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Nothingman
I don't think anybody thinks this team sucks and will fold when it plays real teams based on being "overrated" in the NET. I think it is more a "the NET needs more data to be dependable," which it does, and I think our fans (or at least the nerds who take the time to post in a basketball analytics thread on Cyclone Fanatic) would be the first ones to admit we haven't proven much but have ample chance to in the Big 12.

I'm not the stat nerd but I've watched enough Cyclone BB teams to know this one looks pretty darn good so far.
 
I think the gaming comes in to play with continuing to play the best players when the game is well out of hand to maximize your per possession offensive and defensive efficiency. I don't know its happening for a fact, but it seems very intentional on TJs part to maximize our NET. There is an incentive to pummeling the crap out of weaker opponents.
We're redshirting two players and have a very solid top 10. That results in our bench continuing to outscore the opponent rather than intentionally running it up just because.
 
We're redshirting two players and have a very solid top 10. That results in our bench continuing to outscore the opponent rather than intentionally running it up just because.
Players like Watson and Omaha barely seeing the floor in blowouts suggests otherwise.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: isufbcurt
I think the gaming comes in to play with continuing to play the best players when the game is well out of hand to maximize your per possession offensive and defensive efficiency. I don't know its happening for a fact, but it seems very intentional on TJs part to maximize our NET. There is an incentive to pummeling the crap out of weaker opponents.

Bill Self played all four of his best players 32 minutes plus against Thursday's opponent - Eastern Illinois.

DaJuan Harris - 36 minutes
Kevin McCullar - 37 minutes
Hunter Dickinson - 35 minutes
KJ Adams - 32 minutes

 
Bill Self played all four of his best players 32 minutes plus against Thursday's opponent - Eastern Illinois.

DaJuan Harris - 36 minutes
Kevin McCullar - 37 minutes
Hunter Dickinson - 35 minutes
KJ Adams - 32 minutes


In our last buy game here were our starter minutes...

Tamin - 31 minutes
Milan - 27 minutes
Keshon - 26 minutes
Rob Jones - 23 minutes
Tre King - 23 minutes
 
Everybody should know the NET can be manipulated. It's going to be true with any kind of ranking system. You could do the same thing with RPI, although that was more about scheduling than game performance.

At the end of the day it's the Quad 1-2 wins and 3-4 losses that really matter come tournament time.
Right, and the NET isn't designed to be a tool in November and December - it is a tool for March.
 
In our last buy game here were our starter minutes...

Tamin - 31 minutes
Milan - 27 minutes
Keshon - 26 minutes
Rob Jones - 23 minutes
Tre King - 23 minutes
Yeah, I think it may be a bit overstated how much Otz is trying to run up the score to take advantage of the NET calculations. I'm not quite sure what the ideal number of starter minutes in a blowout is, but it seems reasonable not to want Tamin to get used to playing less than 25 minutes a game and then suddenly make the physical and mental jump to 35 or more when Big 12 play hits.

Edit:
To add in some more comparison, that's a total of 130 minutes played by the starters against Florida A&M. Here are their other losses to P6 teams and those teams' starters' minutes.
Creighton: 104
Oregon: 147 (game was actually close)
Florida: 122
Nebraska: 123
Iowa: 102

Besides for Creighton (first game of the season) and Iowa (super weird rotations), Iowa State wasn't out of line, especially considering the fact that most of those games were earlier in the year when you figure starters are playing even less.
 
Last edited:

Help Support Us

Become a patron