Bracketology 2024

[ZRF]

I'm a part time Badger fan, and those wins over MSU should be each downgraded a level. I feel like Sparty deserves to be somewhere in the 40-50 range but for whatever reason they're 22.

The away win would be a regular Q1 and the home win a Q2.

This.

How is MSU ranked 22nd? Because they got lucky and played their best game against Baylor while Baylor played their worst. Not trying to take away from that particular win but there is enough body of work to suggest that game was an outlier, rather than an indication of what that team consistently is.

 

[ZRF]

MSU has been overranked all year. Werent they #4 when they laid an egg against James Madison?

Yeah. They were pegged as a Final Four contender to start the year but have underperformed all season, even in Big 10 play.

They are at least 15-20 spots too high on this Net ranking. I'm not sure what the Net likes to get them to that level. My guess is SOS is being weighted too heavily here.

 

[CoachHines3]

I'm a part time Badger fan, and those wins over MSU should be each downgraded a level. I feel like Sparty deserves to be somewhere in the 40-50 range but for whatever reason they're 22.

The away win would be a regular Q1 and the home win a Q2.

MSU has been overranked all year. Werent they #4 when they laid an egg against James Madison?

Yeah. They were pegged as a Final Four contender to start the year but have underperformed all season, even in Big 10 play.

They are at least 15-20 spots too high on this Net ranking. I'm not sure what the Net likes to get them to that level. My guess is SOS is being weighted too heavily here.

 

[ZRF]

View attachment 123408

Thanks.

I'd say SOS is definitely being over-weighted here. While yes, I think it's definitely more difficult to play a harder schedule, I think the breakdown of said schedule is infinitely more important than the schedule as a whole. When you look at Alabama and Wisconsin they lost to pretty much every elite team they've played with the exception of 1. Their wins are often at home or against the weaker segment of Quad 1 teams.

One of the biggest flaws in SOS is the general idea that playing a 150th ranked team is all that much different than playing a 356th ranked team. Our SOS was weak but we really got hammered on those super weak teams. I get some of the other games, but is it really all that much different playing a 100th ranked team vs a 300? A large majority of the time there isn't and whatever difference their is lies mostly in the final spread of the game.

This is where Wisconsin's schedule is severely overrated. It's not like there went out and played a bunch of world beaters and when they did they lost, with the exception of an in-state rival at home. I don't know any objective person who would look at their schedule and say it wasn't easy in it's entirety. Our non-con was weak but it's a hell of a lot harder winning the games we've played in our conference than all but maybe 3 games Wisconsin has played. How is that a top 20 schedule? The weaker top 100-150 teams shouldn't make as much difference as they do.

This is where Jamie needs to do a better job of making the schedule. Get rid of most of the Quad 3 opponents as your SOS, and potentially a tourney seed, gets hurt by it. Meanwhile it really doesn't help you accumulate much in the way of wins.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Thanks.

I'd say SOS is definitely being over-weighted here. While yes, I think it's definitely more difficult to play a harder schedule, I think the breakdown of said schedule is infinitely more important than the schedule as a whole. When you look at Alabama and Wisconsin they lost to pretty much every elite team they've played with the exception of 1. Their wins are often at home or against the weaker segment of Quad 1 teams.

One of the biggest flaws in SOS is the general idea that playing a 150th ranked team is all that much different than playing a 356th ranked team. Our SOS was weak but we really got hammered on those super weak teams. I get some of the other games, but is it really all that much different playing a 100th ranked team vs a 300? A large majority of the time there isn't and whatever difference their is lies mostly in the final spread of the game.

This is where Wisconsin's schedule is severely overrated. It's not like there went out and played a bunch of world beaters and when they did they lost, with the exception of an in-state rival at home. I don't know any objective person who would look at their schedule and say it wasn't easy in it's entirety. Our non-con was weak but it's a hell of a lot harder winning the games we've played in our conference than all but maybe 3 games Wisconsin has played. How is that a top 20 schedule? The weaker top 100-150 teams shouldn't make as much difference as they do.

This is where Jamie needs to do a better job of making the schedule. Get rid of most of the Quad 3 opponents as your SOS, and potentially a tourney seed, gets hurt by it. Meanwhile it really doesn't help you accumulate much in the way of wins.

There is just so much wrong with this.

There is a massive difference between a team ranked 100-150 and 300+. For example, Arkansas is 131 in the NET today. You think that would be the same level game as playing NJIT or Northwestern State? The metrics absolutely should reward you for playing better teams in the non-con.

Lastly, the AD doesn't schedule basketball. That's a program choice. That's basically what DOBOs do all day every day.

 

[ZRF]

There is just so much wrong with this.

There is a massive difference between a team ranked 100-150 and 300+. For example, Arkansas is 131 in the NET today. You think that would be the same level game as playing NJIT or Northwestern State? The metrics absolutely should reward you for playing better teams in the non-con.

Lastly, the AD doesn't schedule basketball. That's a program choice. That's basically what DOBOs do all day every day.

You picked out one of the few random examples of a team that has some talent and athletes yet has massively underachieved. In general, I'd say most of the time, there is very little difference when a legit top 30 team is playing them at home or on a neutral court. Playing on the road could make a significant different but that is often dependent on the road environment, which can vary wildly.

Then it's a bad choice, whoever is making it. I think I likely understand what TJ was thinking, but when you look at Wisconsin's schedule it's not appreciably harder, especially when most of those games are/were at home. The fact that a mediocre poser can be a 3 seed is a testament to SOS being overrated and not looked at as a whole.

I think it's safe to say Wisconsin used "smart" scheduling to their advantage. The schedule is weak, especially with the Big Ten being terrible, yet they are a 3 seed with a weak resume.

 

[CyPunch]

The Bracket Project's Bracket Matrix - 2024

with updates trickling in from yesterday, we still sit on the 4 line. (even palm from CBS has us there!)

We are actually the last 3 seed in the matrix currently

 

[CoachHines3]

We are actually the last 3 seed in the matrix currently

i cant read

 

[CyPunch]

Bounced back ahead of KU in the NET. Thank you purple kitties!

I think a loss tonight bumps us down to the 4 line. A win put us firmly on the 3 line.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

You picked out one of the few random examples of a team that has some talent and athletes yet has massively underachieved. In general, I'd say most of the time, there is very little difference when a legit top 30 team is playing them at home or on a neutral court. Playing on the road could make a significant different but that is often dependent on the road environment, which can vary wildly.

Then it's a bad choice, whoever is making it. I think I likely understand what TJ was thinking, but when you look at Wisconsin's schedule it's not appreciably harder, especially when most of those games are/were at home. The fact that a mediocre poser can be a 3 seed is a testament to SOS being overrated and not looked at as a whole.

I think it's safe to say Wisconsin used "smart" scheduling to their advantage. The schedule is weak, especially with the Big Ten being terrible, yet they are a 3 seed with a weak resume.

Wisconsin played the 33rd non-con schedule (KenPom) and Iowa State played the 343rd and you don't think there's a difference? Wisconsin's worst opponent was Western Illinois (NET 223). Iowa State played 9(!) games worse than that.

When you add in league games, Wisconsin has played the 2nd hardest schedule in the country, Iowa State is 93rd.

I'm more than willing to listen to arguments about Wisconsin being overseeded/overranked but schedule ain't one of them.

 

[ZRF]

Wisconsin played the 33rd non-con schedule (KenPom) and Iowa State played the 343rd and you don't think there's a difference? Wisconsin's worst opponent was Western Illinois (NET 223). Iowa State played 9(!) games worse than that.

When you add in league games, Wisconsin has played the 2nd hardest schedule in the country, Iowa State is 93rd.

I'm more than willing to listen to arguments about Wisconsin being overseeded/overranked but schedule ain't one of them.

I never said that.

What I did say is the current SOS calculations are faulty in that they value a game against someone...say like a Chicago St or a Robert Morris much more than some of the patsies we played. When a team is good or a quality team, which us and even Wisconsin certainly are, I really don't think it matter if it's a team you are assuredly going to beat by 10 or 30. In that context no, I don't think it really makes that much of a difference.

In general Wisconsin lost to all of it's quality non-con teams you can unequivocally say had a pulse aside from Marquette, an in-state rival they played at home. Okay, Iowa State lost to basically all of the respectable non-conference teams they played. But then they get to the conference and have 3 wins better than anything Wisconsin has on it's schedule (Houston, KU, and at TCU).

Simply put, I don't think SOS is valuable without context as it A) overestimates the value of Quad 2 vs Quad 3 wins and underestimates the difficulty of beating (proven) elite teams. Wisconsin's schedule difficulty is massively overrated. And when they DID play a truly good/great team? They lost, save for Marquette.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

I never said that.

What I did say is the current SOS calculations are faulty in that they value a game against someone...say like a Chicago St or a Robert Morris much more than some of the patsies we played. When a team is good or a quality team, which us and even Wisconsin certainly are, I really don't think it matter if it's a team you are assuredly going to beat by 10 or 30. In that context no, I don't think it really makes that much of a difference.

In general Wisconsin lost to all of it's quality non-con teams you can unequivocally say had a pulse aside from Marquette, an in-state rival they played at home. Okay, Iowa State lost to basically all of the respectable non-conference teams they played. But then they get to the conference and have 3 wins better than anything Wisconsin has on it's schedule (Houston, KU, and at TCU).

Simply put, I don't think SOS is valuable without context as it A) overestimates the value of Quad 2 vs Quad 3 wins and underestimates the difficulty of beating (proven) elite teams. Wisconsin's schedule difficulty is massively overrated. And when they DID play a truly good/great team? They lost, save for Marquette.

They value them higher because they're objectively harder games. You absolutely should get more credit for beating a Q3 team than a Q4 team.

The model understands that and rewards the performance accordingly, had Wisconsin beaten Arizona they'd have been rewarded in the metric but losing to Arizona shouldn't hurt them as much as losing to Robert Morris.

There really isn't a more 'fair' metric than Strength of Schedule.

 

[CascadeClone]

Lastly, the AD doesn't schedule basketball. That's a program choice. That's basically what DOBOs do all day every day.

DOBO ORIGATO, MR ROBOTO


(sorry, I had to think what DOBO was for a second and then this came to mind. and yes I know its "domo")

 

[CyPunch]

Wisconsin played the 33rd non-con schedule (KenPom) and Iowa State played the 343rd and you don't think there's a difference? Wisconsin's worst opponent was Western Illinois (NET 223). Iowa State played 9(!) games worse than that.

When you add in league games, Wisconsin has played the 2nd hardest schedule in the country, Iowa State is 93rd.

I'm more than willing to listen to arguments about Wisconsin being overseeded/overranked but schedule ain't one of them.

Wisconsin needed it. Their Big 10 schedule is trash. Take a look at their next 6 games..

 

[HouClone]

Our out-of-conference schedule was trash, and we deserve to get hammered on it. The teams with a pulse were Iowa, VCU, VA Tech, and A&M - not exactly juggernauts and we lost to 2 of them.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Our out-of-conference schedule was trash, and we deserve to get hammered on it. The teams with a pulse were Iowa, VCU, VA Tech, and A&M - not exactly juggernauts and we lost to 2 of them.

Who cares about that now?

 

[HouClone]

Who cares about that now?

NCAA seeding.

 

[Cyclonepride]

NCAA seeding.

Right now we're hovering between 3 and 4. I suppose a stronger noncon could have put us slighter higher than that, but it also could have worked out poorly as our team came together.

 

[Cyowa 14]

Seems like teams that are ahead of ISU in most brackets have been losing lately, Wisconsin, Creighton, Kansas. Curious to see what brackets look like tomorrow

 

[Cyowa 14]

I think the committee comes out with their mid season top 16 next week, it really wouldn't surprise me at all if ISU comes in as a 2 seed if we take care of business. Thinking back to last year we were 17-8 when they did it, had lost like 4 of 5 and still came in as a 3 seed when most brackets experts had us in the 4-6 range. Always super interested to see what brackets are close to the committee and who is way off