Massey rankings seem heavily skewed by last year's season ending rank. The ranking are going to have really wild swings and be way off for teams that had major roster turnover. That said, the ap top 25 is likely not to hold up well either. There is just not enough data to count. Our offense is currently sitting at 39, but cupcake games distort the numbers
I agree strongly with, "Massey rankings seem heavily skewed by last year's season ending rank."
I agree with, "The ranking are going to have really wild swings and be way off for teams that had major roster turnover."
I suspect this is very much a likelihood, "That said, the ap top 25 is likely not to hold up well either."
I agree somewhat with, " There is just not enough data to count."
This one I'm gonna push back on, "Our offense is currently sitting at 39, but cupcake games distort the numbers"
Whether our offense is 39th, that may or may not be in the ball park.
Now maybe I'm just misunderstanding who you are referring to with, "cupcake games distort the numbers."
Are you referring to all bs games played by highly ranked teams vs >=250 teams or are you referring to just Iowa playing cupcake games to distort our numbers?
If you're referring to Iowa playing cupcake games, I do not agree with that one. If you are referring to just any game that are cupcakes, then disregard the following push back and I agree with you again.
I'll compare the ranks of two closely ranked teams in the B1G for the first 10 games using Bart Torvik's rankings because they somewhat align with the AP/Coaches rankings.
The main grid column to reference below is 'Opp Rank'.
Iowa only has 1 opponent ranked >150 with 4 home games, while Mich St has 7 games with ranked opponents >150 with 7 home games. Half of Michigan State opponents are >250. Now that's a cupcake schedule.
As far as I can tell, Iowa has one of the toughest non-conference schedules this year. I would not even consider the N IL game a cupcake game. Guess my definition of cupcakes are ~250 or greater. Meaning Iowa has ZERO cupcakes while Mich St has 5 of their 10 games as cupcakes. This is where I don't think our numbers are or will be distorted.
Iowa
| Date | Loc | Our Rank | Opp Rank | Opponent | Act/Proj Score |
| Wed 11-06 | H | 26 | 200 (Ⅳ) | Northern Illinois | W, 91-73 |
| Sun 11-10 | N | 28 | 62 (I-A) | Virginia Tech | W, 71-52 |
| Wed 11-13 | H | 27 | 134 (Ⅱ) | Toledo | W, 94-57 |
| Sun 11-17 | A | 69 (I) | Drake | -7.3, 82-75 | |
| Wed 11-20 | N | 47 (I) | Kansas | -5.7, 73-67 | |
| Sun 11-24 | H | 76 (I) | Washington St. | -14.5, 79-65 | |
| Thu 11-28 | N | 110 (Ⅱ) | Rhode Island | -13.7, 76-62 | |
| Fri 11-29 | N | 81 (Ⅱ) | BYU | -11.0, 76-65 | |
| Sat 12-07 | N | 20 (I) | Tennessee | +0.7, 79-78 | |
| Wed 12-11 | H | 21 (Ⅱ) | Iowa St. | -2.6, 77-74 |
WBB T-Page for Iowa - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.
www.barttorvik.com
Michigan State
| Date | Loc | Our Rank | Opp Rank | Opponent | Act/Proj Score |
| Tue 11-05 | H | 29 | 287 (Ⅳ) | Oakland | W, 107-42 |
| Fri 11-08 | H | 28 | 307 (Ⅳ) | Yale | W, 100-44 |
| Mon 11-11 | H | 27 | 282 (Ⅳ) | Eastern Michigan | W, 95-49 |
| Thu 11-14 | H | 26 | 234 (Ⅳ) | Eastern Kentucky | W, 96-54 |
| Sun 11-17 | A | 266 (Ⅲ) | Western Michigan | -20.7, 79-58 | |
| Wed 11-20 | H | 308 (Ⅳ) | Detroit Mercy | -37.7, 88-50 | |
| Tue 11-26 | N | 32 (Ⅱ) | California | -1.5, 71-69 | |
| Sun 12-08 | H | 119 (Ⅲ) | DePaul | -20.5, 86-66 | |
| Sun 12-15 | H | 24 (I-A) | Iowa | -1.8, 77-75 | |
| Thu 12-19 | N | 154 (Ⅱ) | Montana | -16.6, 78-62 |
WBB T-Page for Michigan St. - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.
www.barttorvik.com
Last edited:
Ironic statement, seeing that Feuerbach still has yet to be on the floor when it counts.
I was referring to all of the cupcake games. There are a lot of teams ranked ahead of iowa in pointer per game that will average fewer points per game than iowa when they start playing higher level competition. For example texas is currently 1st with 107 pts per game
Oh sh*t, no wonder I misunderstood it. My bad, my mind went somewhere else with it. I guess because I just went through a similar exercise with someone else, my mind went total brain fart on me.
Do you have something against Iowa State to put them in the II category?I agree strongly with, "Massey rankings seem heavily skewed by last year's season ending rank."
I agree with, "The ranking are going to have really wild swings and be way off for teams that had major roster turnover."
I suspect this is very much a likelihood, "That said, the ap top 25 is likely not to hold up well either."
I agree somewhat with, " There is just not enough data to count."
This one I'm gonna push back on, "Our offense is currently sitting at 39, but cupcake games distort the numbers"
Whether our offense is 39th, that may or may not be in the ball park.
Now maybe I'm just misunderstanding who you are referring to with, "cupcake games distort the numbers."
Are you referring to all bs games played by highly ranked teams vs >=250 teams or are you referring to just Iowa playing cupcake games to distort our numbers?
If you're referring to Iowa playing cupcake games, I do not agree with that one. If you are referring to just any game that are cupcakes, then disregard the following push back and I agree with you again.
I'll compare the ranks of two closely ranked teams in the B1G for the first 10 games using Bart Torvik's rankings because they somewhat align with the AP/Coaches rankings.
The main grid column to reference below is 'Opp Rank'.
Iowa only has 1 opponent ranked >150 with 4 home games, while Mich St has 7 games with ranked opponents >150 with 7 home games. Half of Michigan State opponents are >250. Now that's a cupcake schedule.
As far as I can tell, Iowa has one of the toughest non-conference schedules this year. I would not even consider the N IL game a cupcake game. Guess my definition of cupcakes are ~250 or greater. Meaning Iowa has ZERO cupcakes while Mich St has 5 of their 10 games as cupcakes. This is where I don't think our numbers are or will be distorted.
Iowa
Date Loc Our Rank Opp Rank Opponent Act/Proj Score Wed 11-06 H 26 200 (Ⅳ) Northern Illinois W, 91-73 Sun 11-10 N 28 62 (I-A) Virginia Tech W, 71-52 Wed 11-13 H 27 134 (Ⅱ) Toledo W, 94-57 Sun 11-17 A 69 (I) Drake -7.3, 82-75 Wed 11-20 N 47 (I) Kansas -5.7, 73-67 Sun 11-24 H 76 (I) Washington St. -14.5, 79-65 Thu 11-28 N 110 (Ⅱ) Rhode Island -13.7, 76-62 Fri 11-29 N 81 (Ⅱ) BYU -11.0, 76-65 Sat 12-07 N 20 (I) Tennessee +0.7, 79-78 Wed 12-11 H 21 (Ⅱ) Iowa St. -2.6, 77-74 WBB T-Page for Iowa - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.www.barttorvik.com
Michigan State
Date Loc Our Rank Opp Rank Opponent Act/Proj Score Tue 11-05 H 29 287 (Ⅳ) Oakland W, 107-42 Fri 11-08 H 28 307 (Ⅳ) Yale W, 100-44 Mon 11-11 H 27 282 (Ⅳ) Eastern Michigan W, 95-49 Thu 11-14 H 26 234 (Ⅳ) Eastern Kentucky W, 96-54 Sun 11-17 A 266 (Ⅲ) Western Michigan -20.7, 79-58 Wed 11-20 H 308 (Ⅳ) Detroit Mercy -37.7, 88-50 Tue 11-26 N 32 (Ⅱ) California -1.5, 71-69 Sun 12-08 H 119 (Ⅲ) DePaul -20.5, 86-66 Sun 12-15 H 24 (I-A) Iowa -1.8, 77-75 Thu 12-19 N 154 (Ⅱ) Montana -16.6, 78-62 WBB T-Page for Michigan St. - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.www.barttorvik.com
Yes, I do but it has nothing to do with data. 😉Do you have something against Iowa State to put them in the II category?
I just copied what Bart had on his website. So far, I haven't figured out what he is coding with (I-A), (II), (III) and (IV). Maybe someone else knows what it is?
I guess questions can be asked here on what (I-A), (II), (III) and (IV) means after their rank.
Sacred Data
Adam Chorlton and Bart Torvik discuss Wisconsin sports, mostly the Badgers.
adamcwisports.blogspot.com
Found an interesting tool on Ken Massey's Ratings/Metrics. Seems we're giving up ~12.5 points to Drake.
Bart Torvik's Ratings/Metrics is more conservative. Giving up 7 points.
Date Loc Rank Opponent Pts, Score Chance to Win Sun 11-17 A 69 (I) Drake -7.3, 82-75 WBB T-Page for Iowa - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.www.barttorvik.com
I guess Massey won in it's prediction on the Iowa Vs Drake game. Check out the Mean Score line.
Torvik wasn't far off either with his projection of 82-75 .
Her play, especially on offense still seems to swing widely from contributing to almost non existent. She'll makes a couple of three's one game and then go numerous games and not make one. Still some of the same issues driving into traffic in the lane with no where to go leading to a turnover. We need Kylie in for defense, but McCabe for what she brings in the three game where she's been the only consistent threat.
Agree, Kylie was hot that first game or so and now she's back to not hitting. Wildly inconsistent. She's more off than on unfortunately. She always plays great defense although
Re: Feuerbach, here's her line this season: 7.0 ppg, 37.0% fg, 26.3% from 3, 4.5 rpg, 2.5 apg, 2.8 spg
Here's Player B's line from her final season: 6.1 ppg, 37.6% fg, 35.7% from 3, 1.2 rpg, 1.6 apg, 1.2 spg.
Who is Player B?
Here's Player B's line from her final season: 6.1 ppg, 37.6% fg, 35.7% from 3, 1.2 rpg, 1.6 apg, 1.2 spg.
Who is Player B?
I'm guessing its Gabby. If your post was meant for me saying that Kylie is still very inconsistent then I'd say this. IF she gives us 7 pts and 5 rebounds per game (consistently) that would be great,as the numbers you posted for player B are for an entire season. I realize that we've only played 4 games , but I'm looking at Kylies entire career at Iowa, and it seems to swing more from game to game. 14 points one game and then multiple games where she can't make a three and still makes poor decisions driving into traffic in the lane. Obviously she's a plus defender and could very well lead this team in steals. I'm more concerned about our wings being a real threat from the three point line given Lucy is a mid range scorer and to this point I don't see Hannah's game has evolved at all to be able to hit jump shots of any distance. Someone is going to have to be a real threat from the arc. To this point thats really only been McCabe, with some spurts from Mallengi.
I feel Feuerbach's dribbling has got better. I'm not as worried about a turnover when she has the ball as previous seasons.
It was Gabbie. The point I wanted to make is that strong defense with wildly inconsistent offense describes Gabbie extremely well also.
Last year, Gabbie scored 3 or fewer points in 17 different games. She scored 0 in 5 of the first 13 games.
We tend to remember Gabbie for her big shooting games or key defensive moments and tend to forget the inconsistency or cold spells.
86-73.. they were right on target.I guess Massey won in it's prediction on the Iowa Vs Drake game. Check out the Mean Score line.
Torvik wasn't far off either with his projection of 82-75 .
https://masseyratings.com/game.php?gid=942721973
All true, BUT the difference clearly is CC22 not being on this team. Clark created spacing and challenged the defense from the perimeter to the extreme. This created more driving lanes, and then we also had Kate who could make you pay from deep. With those two, while Gabby's offense provided extra punch (and made us almost unbeatable when teamed with her CC and Kate), we could still win most games when she did not shoot well. This is a different team obviously. Lucy is a drive the lane mid range player. Other then McCabe we have no consistent threat from three, or basically outside the lane. Add into the mix that we used to have a player like warnock at the 4 knocking down three's. Moving Hannah to the 4 will increase the congestion in the paint and driving lanes if she can't start shooting some three's with confidence. This just amplifies the need for that wing player to knock down perimeter shots. If thats going to be Kylie instead of or in conjunction with Mccabe she's going to need to provide some perimeter shooting, or we're going to see a ton of packed zones. Jans other option is what we saw some last night moving Hannah back in the post and Mallegni (a Warnock type player) to the 4 spot.
Had you actually heard of Bryce Savage and pretty eyes before or just google it LOL. Never heard that song before.
Not to hijack the thread. If iirc, it was a recommended video while watching one of my favs. To answer your question, no I had not heard of him before this.
I have to watch or listen to music when researching or else I'll go insane. It breaks up tunnel vision for a reset.
Virginia Tech beat Rutgers 91 - 80.
A plus in our column today. Better than a negative.
It was a VT home game.
A plus in our column today. Better than a negative.
It was a VT home game.
I think Syd and Teagan can be threats from three and outside the lane.
Iowa with a 73% - 75% chance to win from both models.
Iowa projected with a 10 point win today by Massey.
Iowa projected with a 6 point win today by Torvik. Iowa ranked at #23.
Iowa projected with a 10 point win today by Massey.
Iowa projected with a 6 point win today by Torvik. Iowa ranked at #23.
| Wed 11-20 | N | 49 (I) | Kansas | -6.1, 73-67 | 73% |
WBB T-Page for Iowa - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.
www.barttorvik.com
Last edited:
One thing Bluder and now Jensen deserve credit for is scheduling winnable games that are beneficial to Iowa's resume. Virginia Tech and Drake weren't the toughest games for Iowa, but both could end up being Quad 1 wins because they were neutral and away. Kansas could be the same if Iowa gets the win tonight and BYU could be similar in Cancun.
It's possible Iowa could get 4 Quad 1 wins in November without playing a ranked opponent.
It's possible Iowa could get 4 Quad 1 wins in November without playing a ranked opponent.
Very good point, Hoping Tennessee can end up being a good neutral court win in December as well.
Good point. I'm assuming however that this years non con schedule would have been finalized before Lisa announced her retirement in April? Wasn't the return matchup with VT announced when we were still playing last season?
I believe these specific games were scheduled pre-Bluder's retirement. Not sure the whole non-conference schedule was. I assume, however, that Jensen had a hand in scheduling them even during Bluder's tenure.
Natalie Potts tore her ACL and is out for the year, Really good young player. Tough loss for the Huskers, Injuries suck.
Iowa with a 83% - 91% chance to win from both models.
Iowa projected with a ~13 point win today by Massey. Iowa ranked #2. WA St ranked #53.
Iowa projected with a 15 point win today by Torvik. Iowa ranked #19. WA St ranked #80.
Iowa ranked #5. WA St ranked #141 by AMSTS.
www.allmysportsteamssuck.com
Iowa projected with a ~13 point win today by Massey. Iowa ranked #2. WA St ranked #53.
|
Iowa projected with a 15 point win today by Torvik. Iowa ranked #19. WA St ranked #80.
| Sun 11-24 | H | 80 (I) | Washington St. | -14.9, 78-63 | 91% |
WBB T-Page for Iowa - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.
www.barttorvik.com
Iowa ranked #5. WA St ranked #141 by AMSTS.
| 2024-11-24 | Washington State (141) | 0 | 0 | Iowa (5) | – | – |
NCAA Women's College Basketball Schedule - All My Sports Teams Suck
NCAA Women's College Basketball Schedule information for all Division 1 teams with data stretching back to the 2019-2020 NCAA Season
www.allmysportsteamssuck.com
Warren Nolen has Iowa by 17 (80-63) and HerHoopStats has Iowa by 26 with a 96.7% chance to win 85-59. Last season HerHoop stats was pretty on point, but the numbers have been inflated this year. I assume that is because of the small number of games. Betting lines opened at 18.5. Of course, all this is just computer models. You gotta come out and take the win.Iowa with a 83% - 91% chance to win from both models.
Iowa projected with a ~13 point win today by Massey. Iowa ranked #2. WA St ranked #53.
Washington St (#53)
Pullman, WA, USAIowa (#2)
Iowa City, IA, USAActual Score 0 0 Most Likely 65 78 Median 65 78 Mean 64.96 78.97 Win Probability 17% 83%
Iowa projected with a 15 point win today by Torvik. Iowa ranked #19. WA St ranked #80.
Sun 11-24 H 80 (I) Washington St. -14.9, 78-63 91%
WBB T-Page for Iowa - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.www.barttorvik.com
Iowa ranked #5. WA St ranked #141 by AMSTS.
2024-11-24 Washington State (141) 0 0 Iowa (5) – – NCAA Women's College Basketball Schedule - All My Sports Teams Suck
NCAA Women's College Basketball Schedule information for all Division 1 teams with data stretching back to the 2019-2020 NCAA Season
Go Hawks
Thanks for those references. Yes, I'm trying to see who has the better models for game predictions and team rankings. If I was a betting man, I'd be right there with you on the small sample size as well.
I just did an eyeball look at who WA St played already and was thinking 20+. But then I'm reminded that Jan seems to roll the dice with her talented frosh to gain valuable experience when they get up ~18+ points. Then she gradually puts back the starters when it gets back to ~12 points. I think this is why we've seen the ebb and flow of it bouncing back and forth from 10 - 18 point range in several games already. Think getting these younger players valuable time to be more battle tested to make deep tournament runs is better than winning by 25+ points early in the year.
Go Hawks!
I would be very surprised if Iowa is not ranked tomorrow. Frankly, they should be top 20 and ahead of Iowa State. I’m glad they have two more games this week. Every game they look more comfortable playing with each other.
HawksGone Wild,
I can post the HerHoopStats info for future games if you want them.
Go Hawks
This early in the season HerHoopStats still incorporates data from last season into their model for ranking teams and predicting the outcome of matchups. It's not a perfect system, especially in the era of massive player movement via the transfer portal, but doing so reasonably assumes a certain amount of continuity from year to year within a program. This helps reduce the noisy data created by everyone demolishing cupcake teams.
HerHoopStats is the best imo.
Also, they have “Spread the Floor” which is a betting portion of the website which is pretty sharp if you are into that sort of thing.
Yes, if you wouldn't mind posting them from HerHoopStats. I would appreciate that.
Here's my initial thoughts on these computer models.
1) Not a fan of NET or RPI. Viewed too many flaws that just flat out don't make sense, imho. The methodology of RPI seems like complete nutwagry. Texas at 121? Who would even want to publish this as an accomplishment for all to see?
Compare Rankings - 2025 Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com
2025 Women's College Basketball Ranking Comparison: NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET), RPI, Predicted RPI, ELO
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the NET or RPI measure?
"The NCAA Tournament selection committee has replaced the traditional Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) with the NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET) as its primary evaluation tool for ranking Division I men’s basketball teams."
2) Of all the rankings I have access to or know about, ELO makes the most sense to me.
ELO Chess Ranking - Women's College Basketball | WarrenNolan.com
Women's College Basketball ELO Chess Ranking: a ranking of teams by their ELO Chess Score which increases or decreases based the outcome of the game and opponents skill level (ELO ranking).
3) AMSTS has a flaw with Michigan State ranked #12. Their Points Rank is #1 which may be true, but they've only played cupcakes. Doesn't work for me.
NCAA Women's College Basketball Live Computer Rankings - All My Sports Teams Suck
Live NCAA Women's Basketball Computer Rankings updated every 15 minutes as games are played! Also see every Division 1 team schedule and history.
www.allmysportsteamssuck.com
4) Bart Torvik has a flaw in that USC is still ahead of UCLA. However, he doesn't have South Carolina on top like Massey.
NCAAW T-Rank - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.
www.barttorvik.com
5) Massey with South Carolina 1 and Iowa 2 don't seem to be right, unless you really know what he's rating here. I'm assuming it's to be like the poll rankings. Michigan State at #15 and they've only played creampuffs so far. Not even close to buying that one either.
Massey Ratings - College Basketball Women's Ratings
Computer ratings and rankings for CBW (College Basketball Women's), with links to team predictions, scores, and schedules.
masseyratings.com
I see some of these rankings can have huge movements from one game to the next played. We're talking +-30 positions swings. Probably from the small sample size so far in the season. Some of these systems will most likely correct themselves when they start playing multiple <150 ranked teams and get into their conference games.
I'm going to spend time matching up HerHoopStats against Nolan ELO to see how much they differ in the Top 25. Maybe I agree with letsgosports and get a subscription later. For now, I noticed HerHoopStats shows the team rankings prior to the game (after game is played) without a subscription.
I take it you need the $99/yr subscription to get the game predictions on HerHoopStats. The $49/yr subscription doesn't offer game predictions as far as I can tell. My goal is to see if Nolan ELO is very close HerHoopStats rankings and then I don't need a HerHoopStats subscription and then I could grab your info from them instead. Maybe in the end I think they're all full of it and create my own.
EDIT:
Question: When does HerHoopStats recalc its rankings list?
Went back 9 or 10 days and they basically had the same rankings during that same time period.
Going to give a quick and dirty assessment on HerHoopStats vs Nolan ELO.
If I had to choose one over the other to assess rankings today, it would be Nolan ELO.
As you know, these rankings are somewhat subjective. I came up with a quick scorecard to rate the two systems.
You are welcome to give your assessment and you're allowed to kick my ass if I really messed it up.
The poorman's scorecard below works as follows:
0 = Reasonable Ranking
-1 = Not #1
-1 = Little Low or Little High
-2 = Too Low or Too High
In the end, I would consider Nolan ELO a closer snapshot of the rankings because it scored higher, imho.
Now the one caveat to this and which could change my mind is the question I presented earlier. Maybe HerHoopStats recalibrates their rankings on Wednesdays and then these rankings I just pulled could be out of date compared to Nolan ELO.
Oops, had to post the scorecard in another post as it went over the limit.
Last edited:
Poorman's Scorecard:
| Rank | Her Hoop Stats | HHS Note | HHS Score | Nolan ELO | ELO Note | ELO Score |
1 | South Carolina | Not #1 | -1 | UConn | ||
2 | UConn | UCLA | ||||
3 | Texas | Notre Dame | ||||
4 | UCLA | South Carolina | ||||
5 | Iowa | Little High | -1 | LSU | ||
6 | LSU | Texas | ||||
7 | Ohio St. | USC | ||||
8 | Notre Dame | Duke | ||||
9 | Michigan St. | Too High | -2 | Oklahoma | ||
10 | Stanford | Ohio St. | ||||
11 | USC | North Carolina | ||||
12 | West Virginia | Kansas St. | ||||
13 | Duke | West Virginia | ||||
14 | Oklahoma | Iowa | ||||
15 | Kansas St. | Maryland | ||||
16 | Vanderbilt | Iowa St. | Little High | -1 | ||
17 | Maryland | NC State | ||||
18 | NC State | Baylor | ||||
19 | Tennessee | Kentucky | ||||
20 | Utah | Too High | -2 | Alabama | ||
21 | TCU | Georgia Tech | ||||
22 | Mississippi St. | Penn St. | ||||
23 | Michigan | Little High | -1 | Illinois | ||
24 | Richmond | California | ||||
25 | Indiana | Richmond | ||||
26 | Illinois | TCU | ||||
27 | Baylor | Ole Miss | ||||
28 | Ole Miss | Tennessee | ||||
29 | Alabama | Louisville | ||||
30 | Florida St. | Miami (FL) | Little High | -1 | ||
31 | Nebraska | George Mason | Too High | -2 | ||
32 | Virginia Tech | Vanderbilt | ||||
33 | UNLV | Too High | -2 | Stanford | Too Low | -2 |
34 | Penn St. | Creighton | ||||
35 | Creighton | Florida St. | ||||
36 | Oklahoma St. | Too High | -2 | Michigan St. | ||
37 | Minnesota | Columbia | ||||
38 | North Carolina | Too Low | -1 | Mississippi St. | ||
39 | Saint Joseph's | Minnesota | ||||
40 | California | Nebraska | ||||
41 | Louisville | Gonzaga | ||||
42 | Colorado | Indiana | ||||
43 | Georgia Tech | Too Low | -2 | Middle Tenn. | ||
44 | Princeton | Utah | ||||
45 | Gonzaga | Michigan | Little Low | -1 | ||
46 | South Dakota St. | Toledo | Too High | -2 | ||
47 | Middle Tenn. | Saint John's | Too High | -2 | ||
48 | Fairfield | Too High | -2 | Portland | Too High | -2 |
49 | Marquette | Too High | -2 | Arizona | Too High | -2 |
50 | Florida | Too High | -2 | Virginia Tech | ||
51 | Iowa St. | Too Low | -2 | Ball State | ||
52 | Kentucky | Too Low | -2 | Colorado | ||
| Score | -24 | -15 |
Rhode Island - 95.9% chance of winning; 78-56 (22.6)
BYU - 97.7% Chance of winning; 86-57 (28.6)
As someone noted above it does look like some data from last year is still included. I compared Nolan to HHS last year. For the most part they were pretty aligned, but HHS would have outliers where they were impactfully different. It seemed HHS was generally more accurate.
I generally am anxious to see the Vegas line as it seems to be the most telling, but more times than not it aligned (or close to) HHS.
The Net has a component that rewards teams that win by more than 25 points. Last year MSU had a better Net than you would have thought, but they had a lot of cupcake blowouts. The year before Nebraska seemed to benefit in a similar manner.
The NET on HHS is last years NET. I have not seen one for 2024-25 season.
Last year the committee used RPI but will be moving to the NET this season. They did modify the Quads compared to the Men and the system used last year.
| HOME | NEUTRAL | AWAY | |
| QUAD 1 | 1 to 26 | 1 to 35 | 1 to 45 |
| QUAD 2 | 26-55 | 36-65 | 46 to 80 |
| QUAD 3 | 56-90 | 66 - 105 | 81-130 |
| QUAD 4 | 91+ | 106+ | 131+ |
Thanks again for the Rhode Island and BYU lines.
Yep, these systems seem to love powderpuff games too much. To me, you have a lot of creampuffs games at the beginning of the year it becomes a little more negative in my book. If you don't play <#150 and <#75 in your first X games, I figure you don't have confidence in your team to roll the dice. Probably just trying to pad your win-loss record to get fans into the seats for all I know.
Thanks for the Quads grid. When I was thinking about creating my own ranking sys, I had a problem to solve in a couple of areas. This grid helped to at least apply a possible solution to them. Not used the exact same way, but gave me a template to grade games.
Similar threads
