NET Ranking: On March 17, Iowa is #43. How NET is Determined & What's a QUAD 1, 2, 3 & 4 Win/Loss
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Gonna guess that Iowa falls one spot to 29 in tomorrow’s update. Predicting that Wofford moves to 27, KSU to 28, and Iowa to 29.
i think we drop too! 20-5 and we are barely a top 30 team, baby!
My daily BS update.
Auburn up 3 spots to 21 after beating #130. Also, still searching for their 1st quad 1 win of the season.
Iowa still down 1 spot since beating #8 Michigan, #55 Indiana (road) #77 NW, #111 Rutgers(road). That’s 2 quad 1 wins.
Auburn also lost their previous two games which were against good teams.
I was informed Iowa dropped because ISU went from 14-17 after losing to TCU. Apparently doesn’t work the same when they go from 17-13.
Auburn up 3 spots to 21 after beating #130. Also, still searching for their 1st quad 1 win of the season.
Iowa still down 1 spot since beating #8 Michigan, #55 Indiana (road) #77 NW, #111 Rutgers(road). That’s 2 quad 1 wins.
Auburn also lost their previous two games which were against good teams.
I was informed Iowa dropped because ISU went from 14-17 after losing to TCU. Apparently doesn’t work the same when they go from 17-13.
Net does seem to favor the rich (teams already in the top 15 or so). But I didn't expect much movement. Pitt lost (104). UConn keeps sucking. Ohio State lost (44). Indiana lost (51) Rutgers was 112. Northwestern 72. No wins over 10 pts. The only thing I see here that makes sense is Kansas State being BELOW Iowa, which should be the case ALWAYS.
Last edited:
Things getting interesting. Ohio State is taming the Mildcats and are going to tie Minny. They'll be two games behind us. We need uncle mo'.
Did I hear right that the ncaa is gonna use all the metrics.
I’m thinking if iowa takes care of business at home and wins 1 @OSU or @ Wisky and gets to 22-23 wins they will be a 6-8 seed. Resume looks decent, but record vs quad 1 isn’t great.
If Iowa only gets to 21 wins and loses to both Rutgers/Nebbie and I think we will be a 9-11 seed.
I’m thinking if iowa takes care of business at home and wins 1 @OSU or @ Wisky and gets to 22-23 wins they will be a 6-8 seed. Resume looks decent, but record vs quad 1 isn’t great.
If Iowa only gets to 21 wins and loses to both Rutgers/Nebbie and I think we will be a 9-11 seed.
Yes, there’s the NET and then 5 other ratings/metrics listed on the team sheets, the quad wins/losses, and SOS/NCOS.
Well, our resume looks good right now; 20-6, no bad losses, 4-1 over our last 5 games.
It would be sweet if we could pull another 4-1 to finish the reg season, but I think 3-2 is more likely, which puts us at 23-8.
I think we probably go 1-1 in the BTT, which puts us at 24-9 entering Selection Sunday.
Hopefully that means no worse than a 6 or 7 seed.
Wouldn't you like to have do-overs with our home games vs Wisky & Maryland? 26-7 sure would look nice on Selection Sunday. But then again, we got lucky in 2 games (N'w & Rutgers) to counter that, I guess.
Just goes to show that it is not easy to beat B1G teams & a lot of other D-1 teams because (A) they have talented players, too & (B) they have good coaching staffs who have drawn up games plans to beat us.
I hate Wisky so much a rant isn't worth the effort lol. I wouldn't mind a do-over with the turtles though.
Not so daily BS update. Starting to lose interest in the NET. 
Before TCU, ISU was ranked 14th. Two home quad 2 losses to TCU and Baylor and a quad 1 win at KSU and ISU has dropped all the way to 14th.
As stated before, starting with Michigan, Iowa goes 4-0 with 2 quad one wins and moves down over that timeframe. Pittsburgh losing apparently has more influence than actually winning or losing.
Before TCU, ISU was ranked 14th. Two home quad 2 losses to TCU and Baylor and a quad 1 win at KSU and ISU has dropped all the way to 14th.
As stated before, starting with Michigan, Iowa goes 4-0 with 2 quad one wins and moves down over that timeframe. Pittsburgh losing apparently has more influence than actually winning or losing.
I demand daily BS updates!!!Not so daily BS update. Starting to lose interest in the NET.
Before TCU, ISU was ranked 14th. Two home quad 2 losses to TCU and Baylor and a quad 1 win at KSU and ISU has dropped all the way to 14th.
As stated before, starting with Michigan, Iowa goes 4-0 with 2 quad one wins and moves down over that timeframe. Pittsburgh losing apparently has more influence than actually winning or losing.
Not so daily BS update. Starting to lose interest in the NET.
Before TCU, ISU was ranked 14th. Two home quad 2 losses to TCU and Baylor and a quad 1 win at KSU and ISU has dropped all the way to 14th.
As stated before, starting with Michigan, Iowa goes 4-0 with 2 quad one wins and moves down over that timeframe. Pittsburgh losing apparently has more influence than actually winning or losing.
Well you better get used to it. Youre about about to be hearing alot more about it
Not so daily BS update. Starting to lose interest in the NET.
Before TCU, ISU was ranked 14th. Two home quad 2 losses to TCU and Baylor and a quad 1 win at KSU and ISU has dropped all the way to 14th.
As stated before, starting with Michigan, Iowa goes 4-0 with 2 quad one wins and moves down over that timeframe. Pittsburgh losing apparently has more influence than actually winning or losing.
Simple math. ISU dropped to 18 after the Baylor loss but jumped back to 14 because Louisville, LSU, and Nevada lost. Nevada lost to a team that ISU beat so there was an extra bump. You guys keep looking at these movements in a vacuum. You also have no idea of the separation of teams that are one spot apart. It could be the tiniest of difference. A 5 spot jump in one segment could be similar to a 1 spot jump elsewhere in the rankings.
I'm sure you could take a a deep dive into Iowa's ranking and explain some things.
Thank you, @Cydkar. Common sense ain’t so common in these parts. People complaining about the NET and daily ranking fluctuations, which team is where, and why Iowa gets screwed every day, have no clue how the NET rankings are calculated in the first place. Starting from a place of ignorance when debating the merits of a ranking system is a losing proposition.
LOL
You are one cocky, arrogant SOB, aren't you?
You talk about losing propositions and you don't bring up "the Truth's" Bracketology? Now that is a losing proposition.
You act like you are an expert on ALL OF THIS but let's be VERY clear; you are not an expert on ANY of this.
You create your own bracketology & think we are going to take a look when there are professional experts from various web sites creating realistic bracketologies.
"The Truth, the whole truth" is your profile name. Now that is funny.
How's that for common sense? Or can't you handle the TRUTH?
Last edited:
**** off, Fran. You’re the undisputed champ of spewing ignorance every chance you get. Do I understand the NET rankings more than your average Joe? Absolutely. Do I understand them more than a simpleton like yourself? LOL.
You want to bring up my Bracketology predictions as proof of what exactly? Selection Sunday is weeks away. You have no clue as to what the future holds, nor do I, but I can guarantee I put more research into what I do in a day than you do in an entire month.
Also, I’m willing to put my predictions in full view for criticism and feedback. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but I’m not afraid to make predictions unlike the people of your ilk who just sit back and criticize people who pour a lot of time and effort into Bracketology. Sure, there are those that use very little data and use the consensus view at bracketmatrix.com as their predictions. There’s no fun or originality in that approach imo.
Ignore time for you and your idiotic posts that’s try to dominate this site on a daily basis.
LOL; there you go again acting like some kind of expert on all of this. Talk about one ignorant SOB. LOL
I knew you couldn't handle the truth. Please change your handle name to "Cant handle the Truth."
PLEASE keep up with those "Cant handle the Truth" bracketologies and we will keep ignoring them. You said that you (and I quote you because this is too good) "put more research into what [you] do in a day than [what I] do in an entire month." LOL....Just more BS from "the Truth!" Any way, all that time you supposedly spend on research is put to waste because when it comes to "the Truth's Bracketology" no one is paying attention.
I am glad you will be putting me on ignore; that's what snow flakes do who can't handle the truth. But guess what? I bet you are reading this right now and it won't stop me or anyone else from making fun of your idiotic posts moving forward. At this rate you will have us all on ignore and then what? A new handle?
Last edited:
Not so daily BS update. Starting to lose interest in the NET.
Before TCU, ISU was ranked 14th. Two home quad 2 losses to TCU and Baylor and a quad 1 win at KSU and ISU has dropped all the way to 14th.
As stated before, starting with Michigan, Iowa goes 4-0 with 2 quad one wins and moves down over that timeframe. Pittsburgh losing apparently has more influence than actually winning or losing.
@HawkLand don't you love it when know it alls like "the Truth!" say that you lack common sense and that you are ignorant?
"the Truth" seems to think he is an expert on NET and on bracketologies. Hawkeye Report should put him on the payroll! Or....not.
Don't call him out on any of this, either, or he will put you on ignore. Hate it when that happens. Or...not.
Yes Fran. pretty much what I’ve gathered over a few weeks of comments is the following:
- Iowa is the only team that their previous opponents that have lost games in the last 6 weeks
- Iowa is the only team that hasn’t had teams near them in the polls lose.
I’m not even saying Iowa is better or worse then their ranking. I think it’s pretty darn close. If people would read all of the posts I’ve stated the NET rankings are not too bad, and what is bad would be most likely positioned out correctly by the committee. I’m just pointing out very strange movement from a ranking system. I don’t care if anyone agrees or not. If people don’t think it’s strange that a team can beat a top10 team 2 quad 1 wins and two other wins to go 4-0 and still go down in the polls over that same period then that is fine as well. If people don’t think it’s strange that Nevada has yet to even play a quad 1 game and getting beat by 1 bad team and one mediocre team to put kindly and still be ranked highly by this poll then so be it. I would love to apologize to the people who don’t agree, just kidding, no I wouldn’t. Just random observations I somewhat enjoy posting.
- Iowa is the only team that their previous opponents that have lost games in the last 6 weeks
- Iowa is the only team that hasn’t had teams near them in the polls lose.
I’m not even saying Iowa is better or worse then their ranking. I think it’s pretty darn close. If people would read all of the posts I’ve stated the NET rankings are not too bad, and what is bad would be most likely positioned out correctly by the committee. I’m just pointing out very strange movement from a ranking system. I don’t care if anyone agrees or not. If people don’t think it’s strange that a team can beat a top10 team 2 quad 1 wins and two other wins to go 4-0 and still go down in the polls over that same period then that is fine as well. If people don’t think it’s strange that Nevada has yet to even play a quad 1 game and getting beat by 1 bad team and one mediocre team to put kindly and still be ranked highly by this poll then so be it. I would love to apologize to the people who don’t agree, just kidding, no I wouldn’t. Just random observations I somewhat enjoy posting.
Well, if you spent HOURS every day working on the NET rankings & on your own personal bracketology, perhaps you would better understand all of this!!!
Instead, as you can see above, we are all ignorant and we all lack common sense when it comes to understanding the NET rankings (according to "the Truth!").
Be careful; if you call him out he might put you on ignore! You don't want that! LOL
I know "the Truth" claims he puts hours each day into studying the NET rankings, but I will go with what real journalists say.
From HawkCentral.com:
NET gains and losses
It was a truth-hurts kind of Tuesday for the home-state hopes of Iowa State and Iowa.
Barring a 2018 Michigan-esque hot streak to zoom up the rankings, or such a cold spell that either of these teams drops all the way to the No. 7 line like I hypothesized weeks ago, Des Moines ain't happening. No way, no how.
(And, for reasons too complicated to elaborate, based on who's probably going to make it to Des Moines, Iowa wouldn't get that No. 7 Des Moines placement, anyway, because of intra-conference tournament scheduling rules).
So, the numbers themselves. What do they say now?
Remarkably, Iowa State (19-7, 8-5 Big 12 Conference, NET 14) is still essentially treading water in spite of two straight Hilton Coliseum setbacks. Such treatment is underscored by the perceived strength of the Big 12, in which only losing to West Virginia can really harm you.
At the Mountaineers on March 6 and home against Oklahoma on Monday are the two remaining games that can do significant damage to the Cyclones' resume. Otherwise, we've had no movement between the quadrants on other results.
Iowa (20-6, 9-6 Big Ten Conference, NET 29) has not been as fortunate. And frankly, if you take the past four games into account, the eye test says the Hawkeyes are beyond lucky to be 3-1 in that Indiana, Northwestern, Rutgers and Maryland stretch. There's a seemingly decent case for Jordan Bohannon getting fouled in Tuesday's final seconds, but Iowa also stole the Northwestern game. And having to trade punches with Rutgers for 40 minutes and watch a Twilight Zone final 20 seconds unfold isn't exactly something to strut about.
So, save the gripes and the snide comments about winning games and dropping in the polls. Iowa had been playing with fire and not playing all that well. The result was deserved. And it's all about March now, anyway.
To that end, the Hawkeyes lost a Q1 victory (at Northwestern, Jan. 9), probably for good. The Wildcats are down to 85th in the NET. Penn State, despite just 10 wins to its credit, is inexplicably 63rd in the rankings, so that January road win seems pretty safe to stay in Q1 the rest of the way.
So Iowa is 4-6 in such high-leverage games this season. The best news is that there are no bad losses for this team, which will serve it well some seeding placement time. The Michigan and Iowa State wins are really good; the other Q1 wins are misleading. In essence, this feels like a No. 7 seed resume that will likely get a bump up a line because of that "good losses" factor.
IOWA STATE CYCLONES
(All rankings and projections as of Thursday)
NCAA NET: No. 14
Ken Pomeroy: No. 13, 22-9 projected overall record
Jeff Sagarin: No. 13
ESPN BPI: No. 14
USA TODAY Sports projection: West Region, No. 4 seed, vs. UC-Irvine in San Jose, California
ESPN projection: South Region, No. 4 seed, vs. Yale in San Jose
CBS Sports projection: West Region, No. 5 seed, vs. Play-in Winner in Hartford, Connecticut
Bracketville projection (the top-rated metric with a history of 10-plus years predicting brackets, according to the Bracket Matrix): East Region, No. 5 seed, vs. Belmont in Jacksonville, Florida
IOWA HAWKEYES
NCAA NET: No. 29
Ken Pomeroy: No. 29, 23-8 projected overall record
Jeff Sagarin: No. 32
ESPN BPI: No. 31
USA TODAY Sports projection: Midwest Region, No. 6 seed, vs. Temple in Tulsa, Oklahoma
ESPN projection: West Region, No. 6 seed, vs. VCU in Tulsa
CBS Sports projection: South Region, No. 4 seed, vs. UC-Irvine in San Jose
Bracketville projection: Midwest Region, No. 6 seed, vs. Arizona State in Tulsa
Sports reporter and producer Danny Lawhon has been at the Register since 2012, working in a variety of sports and news capacities. He writes on the evolving online sports
conversation in Iowa and contributes to the editing and social media operation. Follow Danny on Twitter @DannyLawhon.
LINK: https://www.hawkcentral.com/story/s...es-iowa-state-cyclones-des-moines/2936810002/
From HawkCentral.com:
NET gains and losses
It was a truth-hurts kind of Tuesday for the home-state hopes of Iowa State and Iowa.
Barring a 2018 Michigan-esque hot streak to zoom up the rankings, or such a cold spell that either of these teams drops all the way to the No. 7 line like I hypothesized weeks ago, Des Moines ain't happening. No way, no how.
(And, for reasons too complicated to elaborate, based on who's probably going to make it to Des Moines, Iowa wouldn't get that No. 7 Des Moines placement, anyway, because of intra-conference tournament scheduling rules).
So, the numbers themselves. What do they say now?
Remarkably, Iowa State (19-7, 8-5 Big 12 Conference, NET 14) is still essentially treading water in spite of two straight Hilton Coliseum setbacks. Such treatment is underscored by the perceived strength of the Big 12, in which only losing to West Virginia can really harm you.
At the Mountaineers on March 6 and home against Oklahoma on Monday are the two remaining games that can do significant damage to the Cyclones' resume. Otherwise, we've had no movement between the quadrants on other results.
Iowa (20-6, 9-6 Big Ten Conference, NET 29) has not been as fortunate. And frankly, if you take the past four games into account, the eye test says the Hawkeyes are beyond lucky to be 3-1 in that Indiana, Northwestern, Rutgers and Maryland stretch. There's a seemingly decent case for Jordan Bohannon getting fouled in Tuesday's final seconds, but Iowa also stole the Northwestern game. And having to trade punches with Rutgers for 40 minutes and watch a Twilight Zone final 20 seconds unfold isn't exactly something to strut about.
So, save the gripes and the snide comments about winning games and dropping in the polls. Iowa had been playing with fire and not playing all that well. The result was deserved. And it's all about March now, anyway.
To that end, the Hawkeyes lost a Q1 victory (at Northwestern, Jan. 9), probably for good. The Wildcats are down to 85th in the NET. Penn State, despite just 10 wins to its credit, is inexplicably 63rd in the rankings, so that January road win seems pretty safe to stay in Q1 the rest of the way.
So Iowa is 4-6 in such high-leverage games this season. The best news is that there are no bad losses for this team, which will serve it well some seeding placement time. The Michigan and Iowa State wins are really good; the other Q1 wins are misleading. In essence, this feels like a No. 7 seed resume that will likely get a bump up a line because of that "good losses" factor.
IOWA STATE CYCLONES
(All rankings and projections as of Thursday)
NCAA NET: No. 14
Ken Pomeroy: No. 13, 22-9 projected overall record
Jeff Sagarin: No. 13
ESPN BPI: No. 14
USA TODAY Sports projection: West Region, No. 4 seed, vs. UC-Irvine in San Jose, California
ESPN projection: South Region, No. 4 seed, vs. Yale in San Jose
CBS Sports projection: West Region, No. 5 seed, vs. Play-in Winner in Hartford, Connecticut
Bracketville projection (the top-rated metric with a history of 10-plus years predicting brackets, according to the Bracket Matrix): East Region, No. 5 seed, vs. Belmont in Jacksonville, Florida
IOWA HAWKEYES
NCAA NET: No. 29
Ken Pomeroy: No. 29, 23-8 projected overall record
Jeff Sagarin: No. 32
ESPN BPI: No. 31
USA TODAY Sports projection: Midwest Region, No. 6 seed, vs. Temple in Tulsa, Oklahoma
ESPN projection: West Region, No. 6 seed, vs. VCU in Tulsa
CBS Sports projection: South Region, No. 4 seed, vs. UC-Irvine in San Jose
Bracketville projection: Midwest Region, No. 6 seed, vs. Arizona State in Tulsa
Sports reporter and producer Danny Lawhon has been at the Register since 2012, working in a variety of sports and news capacities. He writes on the evolving online sports
conversation in Iowa and contributes to the editing and social media operation. Follow Danny on Twitter @DannyLawhon.
LINK: https://www.hawkcentral.com/story/s...es-iowa-state-cyclones-des-moines/2936810002/
Some of the new bracketologies coming out today. It appears that we are either the last 6 seed or highest 7 seed. With that in mind, the teams we’re fighting against for the last 6 seed are Mississippi State and Cincy.
Just so people know who to cheer against.
Just so people know who to cheer against.
And Wisconsin is still a 4 seed? Good grief. LOL
Wisky's NET is 12 so in theory I suppose they could be the lowest 3 seed. Barf. Sorry, but with the flopper Davison and the HackAhapp dude, I don't think they pass the eye test. It still bugs me losing to them at home.
Wisconsin a 4 and Iowa a 7 (according to many bracketologists) just doesn't look right to anyone paying attention & watching both teams.
With Iowa's NET being 29, I guess in "theory" that is a 6 or 7 (more likely) seed right now.
I just hope we stay out of the 8/9 match up!
Last edited:
Lets face it; who cares about the AP Poll or the Coaches poll? Those polls don't matter when it comes to whether you get selected to the NCAA Tournament or not.
What matters is your NET Ranking and the Quad 1 & Quad 2 wins you have.
The original post has been updated with what follows.
Today (Feb 24) Iowa is #30 in the NET Rankings. Right now are we looking at a 7 or 8 (?!?) seed for the NCAA Tournament?
TWO things will be used by the NCAA Selection Committee when selecting the NCAA Tournament Teams & then seeding them:
(1) The NET ranking, an index that incorporates the most current evaluation measures; and
(2) A tighter definition of a quality win, classifying wins as Quad 1, Quad 2, Quad 3 and Quad 4.
The hope is that by using (1) and (2) we will have a more accurate selection and seeding procedure.
The quadrant system will still be used on team sheets, which sort results in the following manner:
To date, WHAT FOLLOWS are the Iowa (21-6) Quadrant WINS & LOSSES. NOTE that:
* The date of the opponent's NET Ranking is listed.
* Similar to the NET ranking, a Quad 1 win on the date listed might not be a Quad 1 win TODAY or in March (there has been fluidity). Time will tell.
SORTING OF #30 (NET Rank) IOWA'S RESULTS (21-6) INTO THE 4 QUADS:
Quadrant 1 (4-6): Home vs a 1-30 team, Neutral site vs 1-50, Away vs 1-75.
WINS
# 24 on Jan 16 (H) Iowa State
#60 on Feb 23; #84 on Jan 17 (A) Penn State
#2 on Jan 17 Michigan (H)
#54 on Feb 23; #30 on Jan 17 Indiana (A)
LOSSES
# 20 on Jan 16 (H) Wisconsin
#7 on Jan 16 (A) Michigan State
#17 on Jan 16 (A) Purdue
#6 on Jan 17 Michigan State (H)
#63 on Jan 17 Minnesota (A)
#21 on Jan 17 Maryland (H)
Quadrant 2 (7-0): Home vs a 31-75, Neutral site vs 51-100, Away vs 76-135.
WINS
#77 on Jan 16 (N) Oregon
#88 on Jan 16 (N) UConn
#85 on Feb 23; # 58 on Jan 16 (A) Northwestern
# 36 on Jan 16 (H) Ohio State
#46 on Feb 23; # 10 on Jan 16 (H) Nebraska
#109 on Feb 23; #136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (A)
#54 on Feb 23; #30 on Jan 17 Indiana (H)
Quadrant 3 (4-0): Home vs a 76-160, Neutral site vs 101-200, Away vs 135-240.
WINS
#112 on Feb 23; #53 on Jan 16 (H) Pittsburgh
#169 on Feb 23; #217 on Jan 16 (N) UNI
#99 on Jan 17 Illinois (H)
#85 on Feb 23; #59 on Jan 17 Northwestern (H)
Quadrant 4 (6-0): Home vs a 161-353, Neutral vs 201-353, Away vs 241-353
WINS
#234 on Jan 16 (H) UMKC
#192 on Jan 16 (H) Green Bay
#324 on Jan 16 (H) Alabama State
#269 on Jan 16 (H) Western Carolina
#343 on Jan 16 (H) Savannah State
#316 on Jan 16 (H) Bryant
4 games left on the schedule:
Quadrant 1 (3 games): Home vs a 1-30 team, Neutral site vs 1-50, Away vs 1-75
#36 on Jan 17 Ohio State (A)
#22 on Jan 17 Wisconsin (A)
#46 on Feb 23; #11 on Jan 17 Nebraska (A)
.
Quadrant 2 (0 games): Home vs a 31-75, Neutral site vs 51-100, Away vs 76-135.
NONE LEFT ON THE SCHEDULE
Quadrant 3 (1 game): Home vs a 76-160, Neutral site vs 101-200, Away vs 135-240.
#109 on Feb 23; #136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (H)
Quadrant 4 (0 games): Home vs a 161-353, Neutral vs 201-353, Away vs 241-353
NONE LEFT ON THE SCHEDULE
_______________________________
Previous NET Rankings for Iowa (notice the fluidity):
#30 on Feb 22, 23 and 24
#29 on Feb 13 & 14
#26 on Feb 10, 11 & 12
#24 on Feb 7
#22 on Feb 2 (after Feb 1's 15 pt home win vs Michigan)
#27 on Jan 30 & Jan 31
#28 on Jan 29
#30 on Jan 28
#25 on Jan 27
#24 on Jan 26
#22 on Jan 23
#25 on Jan 22
#25 on Jan 19
#24 on Jan 18
#29 on Jan 13
#35 on Jan 12
_______________________________
To see all teams' NET Rankings & quadrant results, open the link that follows, scroll down on the page that comes up & on the far right you will see NET Team Sheets - Games through [date]. Click on the most recent link or a previous date.
LINK: https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx
_______________________________
ALL B1G TEAMS' CURRENT (FEB 24) NET RANKINGS:
Rank..Previous..Road..Neutral..Home..Non Div 1
7 7 Michigan Big Ten 24-3 6-3 2-0 16-0 0-0
9 8 Michigan St. Big Ten 22-5 7-3 2-1 13-1 0-0
11 11 Purdue Big Ten 20-7 5-5 2-2 13-0 0-0
13 12 Wisconsin Big Ten 19-8 7-4 2-1 10-3 0-0
21 23 Maryland Big Ten 21-7 6-4 1-1 14-2 0-0
30 30 Iowa Big Ten 21-6 4-3 3-0 14-3 0-0
42 43 Ohio St. Big Ten 17-10 5-5 1-0 11-5 0-0
46 46 Nebraska Big Ten 15-13 2-7 2-1 10-5 1-0
54 51 Minnesota Big Ten 17-10 1-7 4-0 12-3 0-0
57 54 Indiana Big Ten 13-14 2-9 1-0 10-5 0-0
59 60 Penn St. Big Ten 11-16 3-8 1-2 7-6 0-0
84 85 Northwestern Big Ten 12-15 1-8 2-1 9-6 0-0
89 79 Illinois Big Ten 10-17 1-7 1-4 8-6 0-0
108 109 Rutgers Big Ten 12-14 3-8 0-0 9-6 0-0
What matters is your NET Ranking and the Quad 1 & Quad 2 wins you have.
The original post has been updated with what follows.
Today (Feb 24) Iowa is #30 in the NET Rankings. Right now are we looking at a 7 or 8 (?!?) seed for the NCAA Tournament?
TWO things will be used by the NCAA Selection Committee when selecting the NCAA Tournament Teams & then seeding them:
(1) The NET ranking, an index that incorporates the most current evaluation measures; and
(2) A tighter definition of a quality win, classifying wins as Quad 1, Quad 2, Quad 3 and Quad 4.
The hope is that by using (1) and (2) we will have a more accurate selection and seeding procedure.
The quadrant system will still be used on team sheets, which sort results in the following manner:
To date, WHAT FOLLOWS are the Iowa (21-6) Quadrant WINS & LOSSES. NOTE that:
* The date of the opponent's NET Ranking is listed.
* Similar to the NET ranking, a Quad 1 win on the date listed might not be a Quad 1 win TODAY or in March (there has been fluidity). Time will tell.
SORTING OF #30 (NET Rank) IOWA'S RESULTS (21-6) INTO THE 4 QUADS:
Quadrant 1 (4-6): Home vs a 1-30 team, Neutral site vs 1-50, Away vs 1-75.
WINS
# 24 on Jan 16 (H) Iowa State
#60 on Feb 23; #84 on Jan 17 (A) Penn State
#2 on Jan 17 Michigan (H)
#54 on Feb 23; #30 on Jan 17 Indiana (A)
LOSSES
# 20 on Jan 16 (H) Wisconsin
#7 on Jan 16 (A) Michigan State
#17 on Jan 16 (A) Purdue
#6 on Jan 17 Michigan State (H)
#63 on Jan 17 Minnesota (A)
#21 on Jan 17 Maryland (H)
Quadrant 2 (7-0): Home vs a 31-75, Neutral site vs 51-100, Away vs 76-135.
WINS
#77 on Jan 16 (N) Oregon
#88 on Jan 16 (N) UConn
#85 on Feb 23; # 58 on Jan 16 (A) Northwestern
# 36 on Jan 16 (H) Ohio State
#46 on Feb 23; # 10 on Jan 16 (H) Nebraska
#109 on Feb 23; #136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (A)
#54 on Feb 23; #30 on Jan 17 Indiana (H)
Quadrant 3 (4-0): Home vs a 76-160, Neutral site vs 101-200, Away vs 135-240.
WINS
#112 on Feb 23; #53 on Jan 16 (H) Pittsburgh
#169 on Feb 23; #217 on Jan 16 (N) UNI
#99 on Jan 17 Illinois (H)
#85 on Feb 23; #59 on Jan 17 Northwestern (H)
Quadrant 4 (6-0): Home vs a 161-353, Neutral vs 201-353, Away vs 241-353
WINS
#234 on Jan 16 (H) UMKC
#192 on Jan 16 (H) Green Bay
#324 on Jan 16 (H) Alabama State
#269 on Jan 16 (H) Western Carolina
#343 on Jan 16 (H) Savannah State
#316 on Jan 16 (H) Bryant
4 games left on the schedule:
Quadrant 1 (3 games): Home vs a 1-30 team, Neutral site vs 1-50, Away vs 1-75
#36 on Jan 17 Ohio State (A)
#22 on Jan 17 Wisconsin (A)
#46 on Feb 23; #11 on Jan 17 Nebraska (A)
.
Quadrant 2 (0 games): Home vs a 31-75, Neutral site vs 51-100, Away vs 76-135.
NONE LEFT ON THE SCHEDULE
Quadrant 3 (1 game): Home vs a 76-160, Neutral site vs 101-200, Away vs 135-240.
#109 on Feb 23; #136 on Jan 17 Rutgers (H)
Quadrant 4 (0 games): Home vs a 161-353, Neutral vs 201-353, Away vs 241-353
NONE LEFT ON THE SCHEDULE
_______________________________
Previous NET Rankings for Iowa (notice the fluidity):
#30 on Feb 22, 23 and 24
#29 on Feb 13 & 14
#26 on Feb 10, 11 & 12
#24 on Feb 7
#22 on Feb 2 (after Feb 1's 15 pt home win vs Michigan)
#27 on Jan 30 & Jan 31
#28 on Jan 29
#30 on Jan 28
#25 on Jan 27
#24 on Jan 26
#22 on Jan 23
#25 on Jan 22
#25 on Jan 19
#24 on Jan 18
#29 on Jan 13
#35 on Jan 12
_______________________________
To see all teams' NET Rankings & quadrant results, open the link that follows, scroll down on the page that comes up & on the far right you will see NET Team Sheets - Games through [date]. Click on the most recent link or a previous date.
LINK: https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx
_______________________________
ALL B1G TEAMS' CURRENT (FEB 24) NET RANKINGS:
Rank..Previous..Road..Neutral..Home..Non Div 1
7 7 Michigan Big Ten 24-3 6-3 2-0 16-0 0-0
9 8 Michigan St. Big Ten 22-5 7-3 2-1 13-1 0-0
11 11 Purdue Big Ten 20-7 5-5 2-2 13-0 0-0
13 12 Wisconsin Big Ten 19-8 7-4 2-1 10-3 0-0
21 23 Maryland Big Ten 21-7 6-4 1-1 14-2 0-0
30 30 Iowa Big Ten 21-6 4-3 3-0 14-3 0-0
42 43 Ohio St. Big Ten 17-10 5-5 1-0 11-5 0-0
46 46 Nebraska Big Ten 15-13 2-7 2-1 10-5 1-0
54 51 Minnesota Big Ten 17-10 1-7 4-0 12-3 0-0
57 54 Indiana Big Ten 13-14 2-9 1-0 10-5 0-0
59 60 Penn St. Big Ten 11-16 3-8 1-2 7-6 0-0
84 85 Northwestern Big Ten 12-15 1-8 2-1 9-6 0-0
89 79 Illinois Big Ten 10-17 1-7 1-4 8-6 0-0
108 109 Rutgers Big Ten 12-14 3-8 0-0 9-6 0-0
Last edited:
I think we win 3 of our last 4 games;
24-7, 13-7 in the B1G?
10 win improvement from last year?
I will take it.
Well apparently I still have no common sense. ISU has dropped a grand total of 1 spot from 14 to 15 during a 1-3 stretch. Iowa is down 3 spots from 27-30 during a 4-1 stretch that includes beating Michigan. Every time Wofford and Nevada beat a crap team they move up 2-4 spots. And in today’s case a bonus 5 point jump for beating a solid Furman team for Wofford.
Last edited:
It is beyond head scratching. The net makes no sense whatsoever.
Check this out! Lets compare our NET ranking to what our RPI ranking is:
LINK: https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/rpi-ranking/rpi-rating-by-team
