Since its your first shot,you can say you have never been wrong before.Can I become a bracketoligist and say iowa is last 4 in, then my bracket gets added to the discussion?
Since its your first shot,you can say you have never been wrong before.Can I become a bracketoligist and say iowa is last 4 in, then my bracket gets added to the discussion?
Yes. First one of the year. Was going to post this tomorrow.I wonder if markfromj will acknowledge tomorrow's game is a "must win" for Iowa's NCAA tournament chances?
Which one should be left out? The resumes of the 6 teams likely in are all tourney resumes.
NIT is 6-3Counting post regular season tournaments (non in season holiday tournaments/exempt tournaments)
BTT: 9-11 .450
NIT: 5-3 .625
NCAA: 4-7 .364
Overall: 18-21 .462
Thx. Not great but not terrible.Counting post regular season tournaments (non in season holiday tournaments/exempt tournaments)
BTT: 9-11 .450
NIT: 5-3 .625
NCAA: 4-7 .364
Overall: 18-21 .462
No. Win 2, probably in. Win 3, in.Sure. If they win the BTT 🙄
About as you get if making the tournament is the objective.
I see New Mexico is now outside looking in. UNLV is 4th in conference standing, but not in Lunardi's brackets. They haven't beat anyone outside of the MWC. That leaves 5 teams to choose from. If one of them (CSU definitely) gets beat early in conference tournament, they could be considered out.
NIT is 6-3
However, that very unimpressive 19-21 W-L record doesn't tell the whole story - many of those losses were crushing upsets. Iowa's record as the BETTER seed in the BTT and NCAA's under Fran is 10-8, including six losses as prohibitive favorites (#2-#7, two #5-#12, two #5-#13, and a #6-#11). Literally some of the ugliest post-season numbers you will find.
Happens every year. There really doesn't seem to be a set criteria. They will put in the teams they want, and make up the reasons as they go.
Need kansas to put down cincyI wouldn’t say unimpressive and I certainly wouldn’t call them impressive either. I’d say they’re probably about average for a program that sits nationally 25-35ish over this time. The biggest disappointment has been the BTT. Outside of one season (and one cancelled tournament) the numbers would be awful.
That is a poor post season record.Counting post regular season tournaments (non in season holiday tournaments/exempt tournaments)
BTT: 9-11 .450
NIT: 5-3 .625
NCAA: 4-7 .364
Overall: 18-21 .462
They are inGood to see some of the very fringe bubble teams like Syracuse, VA Tech, and Butler lose tonight.
Kansas St is going to start seeing quite a bit of buzz after the Texas win. 5 Q1 wins, no bad losses, and they’ve beaten Providence, Nova, ISU, Baylor, Kansas, and BYU. Their NET isn’t great but they are definitely in the conversation.
NIT is 6-3
However, that very unimpressive 19-21 W-L record doesn't tell the whole story - many of those losses were crushing upsets. Iowa's record as the BETTER seed in the BTT and NCAA's under Fran is 10-8, including six losses as prohibitive favorites (#2-#7, two #5-#12, two #5-#13, and a #6-#11). Literally some of the ugliest post-season numbers you will find.
Correct. Losing first game to a double digit seed four straight years in BTT doesn't seem possible.I wouldn’t say unimpressive and I certainly wouldn’t call them impressive either. I’d say they’re probably about average for a program that sits nationally 25-35ish over this time. The biggest disappointment has been the BTT. Outside of one season (and one cancelled tournament) the numbers would be awful.
Auburn was 3 point favorites last year. Pretty disingenuous to use 8/9 game as a higher vs lower seed.Correct. Losing first game to a double digit seed four straight years in BTT doesn't seem possible.
Losing 3 straight years to a lower seeded team in ncaa tournament also discouraging.
2 | 2 | Purdue | Big Ten | 28-3 | 7-3 | 5-0 | 16-0 | 12-3 | 6-0 | 7-0 | 3-0 |
16 | 15 | Illinois | Big Ten | 23-8 | 6-5 | 2-0 | 15-3 | 6-6 | 5-2 | 7-0 | 5-0 |
22 | 22 | Wisconsin | Big Ten | 19-12 | 3-9 | 2-0 | 14-3 | 4-8 | 8-4 | 3-0 | 4-0 |
23 | 24 | Michigan St. | Big Ten | 18-13 | 3-7 | 1-2 | 14-4 | 4-8 | 5-5 | 5-0 | 4-0 |
38 | 37 | Nebraska | Big Ten | 22-9 | 3-8 | 1-0 | 18-1 | 4-7 | 4-2 | 7-0 | 7-0 |
51 | 50 | Northwestern | Big Ten | 21-10 | 4-7 | 2-1 | 15-2 | 5-6 | 5-3 | 4-0 | 7-1 |
55 | 55 | Ohio St. | Big Ten | 19-12 | 2-8 | 4-0 | 13-4 | 3-6 | 3-5 | 8-1 | 5-0 |
59 | 61 | Iowa | Big Ten | 18-13 | 4-8 | 2-1 | 12-4 | 3-9 | 5-3 | 4-1 | 6-0 |
72 | 77 | Maryland | Big Ten | 16-16 | 4-8 | 1-2 | 11-6 | 2-8 | 4-4 | 3-4 | 7-0 |
86 | 89 | Penn St. | Big Ten | 16-16 | 2-8 | 1-4 | 13-4 | 2-9 | 5-4 | 4-2 | 5-1 |
88 | 87 | Minnesota | Big Ten | 18-13 | 2-8 | 0-1 | 16-4 | 1-8 | 6-3 | 2-2 | 9-0 |
96 | 94 | Indiana | Big Ten | 18-13 | 4-6 | 1-2 | 13-5 | 4-8 | 5-4 | 3-1 | 6-0 |
103 | 102 | Rutgers | Big Ten | 15-17 | 3-9 | 0-3 | 12-5 | 3-12 | 3-4 | 2-1 | 7-0 |
135 | 131 | Michigan | Big Ten | 8-24 | 2-10 | 1-4 | 5-10 | 3-13 | 1-7 | 2-3 | 2-1 |
I know we love to watch and react to all other teams but the mission is simple, win 2 in the BTT and we are in IMO re: of bubble. Tall task and job #1 is to win today but we've been stung so many times around this time of year literally nothing surprises me anymore.
Iowa's record broken down:
Quad 1: 3-9
Quad 2: 5-3
Quad 3: 4-1
Quad 4: 6-0
...............................
.............18-13
In what follows, Iowa is 8 (Quad 1 & 2 wins) and 1 (Quad 3 & 4 losses) currently, which is roughly an 11 seed.
Iowa's record broken down:
Quad 1: 3-9
Quad 2: 5-3
Quad 3: 4-1
Quad 4: 6-0
...............................
.............18-13
In what follows, Iowa is 8 (Quad 1 & 2 wins) and 1 (Quad 3 & 4 losses) currently, which is roughly an 11 seed.
I'd love for them to differentiate the 11 seed data between AQ 11 seeds and at-large 11 seeds. AQ 11 seeds like Drake are likely going to have a much fewer Q1&2 wins than a team that's getting in off the bubble. That's why I think there's such a huge gap between the 10 seeds and the 11 seeds in that list. It really doesn't tell me much.Interesting. 10 seed data is surprising.
Very good point. Plus there’s so much more that goes into the selection/seeding of teams as can be seen by the similarities between seeds 4-10.I'd love for them to differentiate the 11 seed data between AQ 11 seeds and at-large 11 seeds. AQ 11 seeds like Drake are likely going to have a much fewer Q1&2 wins than a team that's getting in off the bubble. That's why I think there's such a huge gap between the 10 seeds and the 11 seeds in that list. It really doesn't tell me much.
it's a mid major conference... reason enoughNM is the same as Indiana State. Top 30 NET. Again, it’d be a super outlier to leave NM out.
Co State is 36 in the net and has 5 Q1 wins. Bracket Matrix has them as a 9 seed.
NM is the only one of the 6 that makes sense to leave out with only 2 Q1 wins. But it seems like any team that would get in over them would have a worse resume.
I'd love for them to differentiate the 11 seed data between AQ 11 seeds and at-large 11 seeds. AQ 11 seeds like Drake are likely going to have a much fewer Q1&2 wins than a team that's getting in off the bubble. That's why I think there's such a huge gap between the 10 seeds and the 11 seeds in that list. It really doesn't tell me much.
What are NIT and CBI bracketologists saying about Iowa now?