ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The thing that everybody always says is going to happen but never ever actually happens has finally happened.
It's a down Big Ten this year.
It's a down Big Ten this year.
The thing that everybody always says is going to happen but never ever actually happens has finally happened.
It's a down Big Ten this year.
Quantity over qualityAnd yet we’re still projected to provide the most teams to the dance. Weird
The B1G lacks the number of top tier teams, but the depth of the league is super strong.And yet we’re still projected to provide the most teams to the dance. Weird
In fairness, it helps when you have the most teams.And yet we’re still projected to provide the most teams to the dance. Weird
Can some explain to me how Net rankings are calculated. O$U is ahead of us and doesn’t really have a great win on their resume. Meanwhile you have Wisky who is 69th and they at least beat Marquette. When people talk about who in the Big Ten is a tournament team Wisky is above O$U yet the Net rankings are 40 places apart. I think Wisky is about where they should be being a low seed
Can some explain to me how Net rankings are calculated. O$U is ahead of us and doesn’t really have a great win on their resume. Meanwhile you have Wisky who is 69th and they at least beat Marquette. When people talk about who in the Big Ten is a tournament team Wisky is above O$U yet the Net rankings are 40 places apart. I think Wisky is about where they should be being a low seed
Let me tell you about the underrated 13 over a 4 upset.Well sure. I'd just rather be a 4 or a 6 and still win the game.
I think O$U is an interesting outlier to assess if it a useful tool. The NET is what determines quad wins. They don’t have a great win, lost a lot recently, have a bad lost against Minnesota. Their NET ranking makes sense based on margin of victories/loses. I also understand NET is not meant to seed teams but it determines what a good win isSerious answer: doubtful. It's got a number of components with analytics in it. I think all the folks who use it know it's crude, but is a decent starting point for the committee. When it comes time for seeding, they'll look at teams in detail. The bracketmatrix is probably the only tool you need --it's very reliable, updated frequently, and only a couple experts beat it each year. They currently have the following BIG (seeds), which aligns more with what you're saying. (Today's win over Wiscy not included)
1 Purdue
5 Rutgers
6 Indiana
7 Illinois
7 MSU
9 Iowa
10 Northwestern
10 Wiscy
11 Maryland
Bubble teams:
tOSU
Penn State
I think O$U is an interesting outlier to assess if it a useful tool. The NET is what determines quad wins. They don’t have a great win, lost a lot recently, have a bad lost against Minnesota. Their NET ranking makes sense based on margin of victories/loses. I also understand NET is not meant to seed teams but it determines what a good win is
I think it is a better tool than the old RPI which has is 68 O$U is 100
College Basketball Rankings 2023-24 - RPI
Get the latest College Basketball rankings for the 2023-24 season. Find out where your favorite team is ranked in the AP Top 25, Coaches Poll, Top 25 And 1, NET, or RPI polls and rankings.www.cbssports.com
Looking at how the B1G performed in non-conference this year (before beating up on each other), the conference did fairly well, which helps explain how the conference is still considered top 2/3 in nation. There were a few bad losses for sure, but a number of notable wins (I may have missed a few):The B1G lacks the number of top tier teams, but the depth of the league is super strong.
We will still get 8-10 teams in the tourney. A true down year for the B1G as a whole was 2017-2018 where the conference only had 4 bids to the NCAA tourney (Michigan lost in champ game). That season was very top heavy for the league.
This year may lack a B1G making final four, but there could easily be five to six teams being capable of making S16.
You're completely wrong. All the conferences like the Big East and WCC are stepping it up. We are stepping backwards. The metrics prove me right. our conference is far behind what we have been. if you call the Pac 12 a power 5 for basketball then that shows your understanding. the ACC as well. The Big 10 is terrible compared to recent years. That is just a flat out truth. Anybody that can't see that is blind or hasn't watched our conference in recent years. We have always had depth and ranked teams. Now we have one ranked team and a bunch of bubble teams. Its clear as day, no point in me debating with people that are in outer space.This just isn't true, and I'm not sure why you're being resistant when presented with real data. Metrically, the conference is top 2 or 3. Purdue is a top team and the depth of the conference is fantastic. This is all a result of how the conference performed, as a whole, in non-conference play. KenPom, NET, Bartovik all paint the same picture. The Big 12 is running away with "best conference" metrics, then the SEC and Big Ten are right there with each other with the Big Ten slightly edging it out. The ACC and Pac-12 are both "power" conferences, why wouldn't they be compared with them? You're just using a deep conference as opposed to a more top heavy one to automatically mean bad. That's just silly and flawed. No offense, but I think you're drinking the opposite of koolaid.
Big East? They haven’t played well against the BIG this year…. Look at the results.You're completely wrong. All the conferences like the Big East and WCC are stepping it up. We are stepping backwards. The metrics prove me right. our conference is far behind what we have been. if you call the Pac 12 a power 5 for basketball then that shows your understanding. the ACC as well. The Big 10 is terrible compared to recent years. That is just a flat out truth. Anybody that can't see that is blind or hasn't watched our conference in recent years. We have always had depth and ranked teams. Now we have one ranked team and a bunch of bubble teams. Its clear as day, no point in me debating with people that are in outer space.
I give us the national title that year. I think that settles a lot of Illinois basketball internet arguments out there.There wasn't a tournament in 2020, so it's really just two years (of course the championship drought is a whole different topic)
All great points. Let’s be honest…Minnesota would be top 100 net and Ken Pom if they played in the WCC.The WCC?
KenPom wise, St. Mary's is 7th in KenPom, Gonzaga is 17th. Those are legit teams.
After that? BYU is 80th, Loyola Marymount is 86th, Santa Clara is 92nd, San Francisco is 104th. You really think these middle of the pack WCC teams would be able to hang in the Big Ten? 12/14 Big Ten teams are considerably higher than all those teams.
Not to mention the bottom of the league. Portland is 172nd, Pepperdine is 183rd, San Diego is 195th and Pacific is 209th. Even Nebraska is much better than all those teams. They'd get absolutely destroyed. With only Minnesota (KP #188) being around the level of those squads.
I'm sorry, but you're in a complete fantasy land if you think the WCC is up to par with the Big Ten.
I think O$U is an interesting outlier to assess if it a useful tool. The NET is what determines quad wins. They don’t have a great win, lost a lot recently, have a bad lost against Minnesota. Their NET ranking makes sense based on margin of victories/loses. I also understand NET is not meant to seed teams but it determines what a good win is
There’s also so many seeding rules an average fan doesn’t follow that dictate the bracket and teams even slightly changing their seed. Two years ago was a perfect example of all the big ten top 4 seeds impacted the entire bracketing.I used to follow the selection/seeding really closely because I thought the committee had it's share of misses, and I could get pretty close myself. When I disagreed, I'd have an informed argument. But over the last 5 or so years, the amount of data the committee deals with makes it very difficult for the them to screw it up. There's way more consensus on the modeling that allows for comparisons of teams. It'll never be perfect, and there are some oddball cases of teams where they don't have a lot of good wins, and it matters a lot how good those wins are perceived to be. The committee used to try and weight late season performance, conference championships, and other things more heavily that have (rightly IMO) fallen out of favor. That said, I think the committee does a good job 99% of the time and the complaints are often unjustified. Bracketmatrix is such a good tool for viewing the consensus that I rarely find it interesting to generate my own seeding.
KenPom is based on net rating adjusted for strength of schedule so Minnesota's rating would not get a big bump by playing in the WCC since it already accounts for strength of scheduleAll great points. Let’s be honest…Minnesota would be top 100 net and Ken Pom if they played in the WCC.
I think State of Chicago's point is that Minnesota would likely be top 4 in the league if they played in the WCC vs 14th place in the B1G. If that is the case, then Minnesota would definitely be hovering around the 100 level or slightly better.KenPom is based on net rating adjusted for strength of schedule so Minnesota's rating would not get a big bump by playing in the WCC since it already accounts for strength of schedule
Wins and losses do not factor into KenPom, so yes they would have more wins in the WCC and be higher in their conference standings but their strength of schedule adjusted net rating would not really change.I think State of Chicago's point is that Minnesota would likely be top 4 in the league if they played in the WCC vs 14th place in the B1G. If that is the case, then Minnesota would definitely be hovering around the 100 level or slightly better.
The WCC is by definition, what a top heavy league looks like (but at least it is two teams now compared to just Gonzaga at the top).