As they move more towards predictive modeling, it’ll be interesting to see if the number of upsets in the tournament goes down over time. Upsets are part of the charm, so hopefully they aren’t impacted too much.
This is why chicks shouldn't be posting. No offense, Nobody
I'm not getting my hopes up for a 4 seed. I would bet on a 6 in the big 10 tourney.
Go play with your cats
What were they at this time last season?
Worse.
That doesn't sound like Iowa fan at all. At least their football fans aren't as stupid.
I dunno how to find week by week numbers but they finished 19th in offense and 242nd in defense last year so 115th is genuinely a big step up
It hasn't really slipped much, they are still #25 in KenPom and NET.
They're 29th in NET today.
Is NET supposed to be a predictive rating or a resume rating? Because if it's a resume rating and they don't use it to seed, then even if it's a better system it's just as pointless as RPI.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-i-men-s-basketball-committee-adopts-new-ranking-system
It sounds like they are still going to use some measure of "eye test" and other factors for seeding, so as long as the NET rating isn't way far off I think Iowa is going to be fine for a decent seed.
Then Choo-Choo
2 seed.
Yes, winning out would def be a 2 seed, fuck, maybe a 1. That aint happenin tho homes.
I think 6-1 and 1 win in the BTT gets them a 3.
Looking at the four 3 seeds from just last year, the above finish (6-1 with 1 BTT win) would give them a higher winning percentage (78.8%) than the combined winning percentage of four 3 seeds from last year (78.6%).
Scott Steiner: You know they say that all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Samoa Joe and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one on one with another wrestler, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But I'm a genetic freak and I'm not normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, at beat me. Then you add Kurt Angle to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the 3 way at Sacrifice, you got a 33 1/3 chance of winning, but I, I got a 66 and 2/3 chance of winning, because Kurt Angle KNOWS he can't beat me and he's not even gonna try!
This is very, very true.
Why? It's just a way to sort wins/losses and an improvement over top 50 or top 100 with no distinction on site.
Because if your ranking formula takes the relative difficulty of home, neutral, and road games into account, there's no need to double down and re-emphasize that portion of the ranking when using it to make a decision.
what the fuck is wrong with your soul?
Lunardi had Iowa as a 6 in Des Moines I thought at one point.
Lol. Ya... no
No, the top 4 seeds in each region are ranked 1-16 and get placed to the closest site in that order. If Iowa was a 1 seed (hypothetically), they would be in Des Moines. If Iowa ends up a 3 or 4, they could be in Des Moines if there is a spot left, but we would be competing with schools like Michigan, MSU, Marquette, Wisconsin, Purdue, Kansas, etc. We'd have to hope we are ahead of them in the rankings or they get placed elsewhere.
I wouldn't put much stock into the locations on Lunardi's brackets outside of the top 4 seeds. I doubt the committee would make the 3 seed play Iowa in Des Moines in the second round. They did it to Duke a couple of years ago (they were a 2 and played 7 seed South Carolina in South Carolina), but that seems to be the exception, not the rule.
I might not be following your argument but I think we're talking about two different applications. The Quads are just a sorting tool for resume. Iowa has a better resume than some teams ranked ahead of them in the NET.
Duke had to play in South Carolina against South Carolina as a 2 seed in 2017, so it may be a guideline, but it surely isn't a rule.
The horror!
Uh, ok?
