Why is going 13-0 against a bad non con sos worse than going 10-3 against a decent non con sos? Especially when you know you’re gonna have 15-18 quad 1 and 2 games ahead..
I’ll hang up and listen..
I’ll hang up and listen..
SOS question
- Thread starter SotaHawk87
- Start date
I see your point but I think it’s been drilled into schools that it pays to schedule a tough NC schedule and year after year we somehow schedule a gaggle of plus 300 teams. The Big Ten seemed like a great league at the beginning of the year and it appears now with MSU’s injuries that there isn’t a team that can win 6 games in 3 weeks. I think Iowa will make it even if they lose their next 3 games but we really haven’t played a great schedule - and when we have played good teams we have lost most of them.
Because the computers that are unbiased will always even it out. You can trick the eye test for the human polls by having a gaudy record, but the computers take all that out. Winning is still better than losing because you'd drop further losing, but edging Bryant or beating Pitt by one at home are as good as a loss in everything but avoiding a quadrant 3 or 4 loss. They are trying to pick the best 36 at large teams, not the best 36 at large records. Iowa fans should've learned this lesson in 1998 when they were left out of the tournament because they played nobody out of conference and their RPI was awful. Our non-conference SOS is 315, there are literally 38 teams in the whole country that played an easier one So you should go undefeated with that according to the computers and you probably should have double digit victories in three/fourths of those. If you didn't take advantage of that, have to look in the mirror and not cry about it.
I don’t disagree with much of what you said but I’m just thinking like what’s the actual difference between 13-0 vs bad competition and 10-3ish versus average. I have no problem with where Iowa is seeded right now..
Also a very good point considering intentions of scheduling UConn Oregon (or Cuse) Iowa State.. not much of a say in the ACC B10 scheduling..
Two things here. One, how does the NCAA weigh the rankings of Quad 1 vs 2, 3 & 4? Is it equally weighted?? Or a sliding scale? And does anyone but the NCAA selection committee know??
Two, am I the only one who is embarrassed(and pissed about boring non-con games) by such a super weak SOS??
It is embarrassing... Living in DSM, with obsurd amount of Cyclown fans, I get a lot of flak about such a weak, pussy schedule.
Two, am I the only one who is embarrassed(and pissed about boring non-con games) by such a super weak SOS??
It is embarrassing... Living in DSM, with obsurd amount of Cyclown fans, I get a lot of flak about such a weak, pussy schedule.
We didn’t get invited to Maui but outside of that what the hell are cyclone fans bragging about? Eastern Illinois?
And FWIW their MAUI schedule was weak as hell too
It is a good point but it is intentional when you schedule teams from the MEAC or SWAC. UConn/Oregon/Syracuse/Iowa St/ACC game are usually pretty good bets to be decent/good/great. UNI/Green Bay can be pretty salty too just not this year.
Maybe it’s harder than I realize to schedule the 150-250 ranked teams instead of the 300+ teams. I would imagine there’s quite a bit of competition to get the better mid major teams instead of the really bad ones.
Pretty sure that NYC tournament game with the agreement of playing two other awful teams
You’re an insufferable SOB.. you know that right? Live a little! Enjoy casual banter..
UMKC and Green Bay were the prelim games for the NYC tournament this year. Like I said, though, there’s probably quite a bit of competition to get the better bad teams.
Money plays a role. I'm sure it's cheaper to schedule one of the truly awful teams (e.g., Bryant) rather than teams that are often middle of the road (e.g., Indiana State).
You’re correct.
Good thing Iowa doesn’t rank near the bottom of the B1G (13th) when it comes to the budget/resources.
I actually don't understand why NCSOS is so emphasized. With the B1G moving to 20 games this year, why should we schedule so many tough nonconference games? Very few other teams will, so why add extra losses for comparison. We've got plenty of opportunities for wins, and we've already shown we can beat good teams, and still have some opportunities coming up to end the regular season and in the BTT.
Yeah, I know that, generally. I certainly have annoyed a lot of people in my life over my desire for accuracy and quality thinking and communication.
I think there is a difference, though, between casual banter and sloppy banter.
It mattered a lot more when the RPI was being utilized. Playing the #200 team at home vs. the #350 team at home should both result in Iowa winning. However, playing so many terrible teams (i.e., ranked #300 or worse) absolutely sank our RPI, and nearly every year in which we have made (or should have made) the tournament under Fran we were under-seeded as a result.
- 2013: 29 KenPom, NIT
- 2014: 22 KenPom, 11 seed
- 2015: 23 KenPom, 7 seed
- 2016: 23 KenPom, 7 seed
I understand the impact that the soft NCSOS has on the various ratings, I just haven't understood why the committee has decided to put emphasis on the NCSOS vs the Overall SOS. If a team knows they will play a murderous conference schedule where even good teams go .500, why should they play a murderous non conference schedule where they'll put their team in jeopardy of being .500 overall and not get considered for the tournament.
If your overall SOS is top 50, why does it matter what your NCSOS was? You clearly played enough good teams to get a sense of whether the team is worthy for the tournament.
I was not aware of the committee putting a special emphasis on the NCSOS. I agree with your reasoning, and if the committee is indeed putting a special emphasis on the NCSOS I would share in your confusion.
The only rationale I could think of is that the NCAA wants to provide an incentive for tournament-caliber teams to play each other in the non-conference schedule in order to have more entertaining games and increase viewership.
Because putting guaranteed wins on a schedule should not be rewarded.
Otherwise everyone would schedule Ithaca colleges of the world, why even play the games?
It's been cited as rational for teams that get "overseeded" and who seems to be the last few in/out. They say they want teams to schedule tougher to get good games, but with the B1G increasing the conference schedule to 20 games, that is automatically 2 more "good games"
