What should Nebraska's real seed be?

[hhcmatt]

20 minutes ago, big red22 said:

Falsehood =

 

- 18-13 team with a 3-7 away record

- A 1-2 Neutral Court Record

- An 8-13 Record against Quad 1/Quad 2 

- Lost Heads up to multiple Teams Below them with a better resume

 

That is NOT a #19 Resume and any Metric that continues to keep a team there due to close losses in tough games is a Metric that I believe should never be a focal point of the Committee.

 

Edit - If Nebraska was 18-13 with a 3-7 Road record and finished the season 1-4 with losses to mediocre Ohio State and Iowa teams at home.  Do you think there is any way possible that they would be a #19 anywhere?

 

 

Wins and loses aren't factors in a KenPom ranking. The BPI does actually appear to give Izzo a bump for being Izzo.

[GhostOfJoeMcCray]

5 minutes ago, big red22 said:

Falsehood =

 

- 18-13 team with a 3-7 away record

- A 1-2 Neutral Court Record

- An 8-13 Record against Quad 1/Quad 2 

- Lost Heads up to multiple Teams Below them with a better resume

 

That is NOT a #19 Resume and any Metric that continues to keep a team there due to close losses in tough games is a Metric that I believe should never be a focal point of the Committee.

 

 

Michigan State has a resume average of 43 and predictive average of 19. If I had any power at all I would lead a revolution to abolish predictive metrics as I believe they serve no purpose, and KPI and SOR are more than enough. The NET more closely resembles the predictive metrics too, which is a huge problem considering your entire resume is built around the NET ranking of teams you played. South Carolina is 49 in NET and nearly won the SEC regular season title. Indiana State is 29 in NET and won 1 game against an NCAA Tournament team all season (Drake). 

 

According to predictive metrics, Michigan State is a 5 seed, Villanova is a 7 seed, Wake Forest is a 7 seed, Cincinnati is a 10 seed, Washington State is a 12 seed, and South Carolina and Utah State are not worthy of an At Large...

 

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. That is just using a metric just for the sake of using a metric to say you have more metrics. I understand there are many other factors at play, but you can look at data from the last few years and it all tells the same story: Resume Metrics are considered much more heavily than Predictive Metrics in the selections and seeding.

 

If Michigan State loses to Minnesota, I think they're either out or going to Dayton. If they beat Minnesota and lose to Purdue, I would guess 10 seed and yes we will be ahead of them.

 

 

 

[big red22]

8 minutes ago, GhostOfJoeMcCray said:

 

Michigan State has a resume average of 43 and predictive average of 19. If I had any power at all I would lead a revolution to abolish predictive metrics as I believe they serve no purpose, and KPI and SOR are more than enough. The NET more closely resembles the predictive metrics too, which is a huge problem considering your entire resume is built around the NET ranking of teams you played. South Carolina is 49 in NET and nearly won the SEC regular season title. Indiana State is 29 in NET and won 1 game against an NCAA Tournament team all season (Drake). 

 

According to predictive metrics, Michigan State is a 5 seed, Villanova is a 7 seed, Wake Forest is a 7 seed, Cincinnati is a 10 seed, Washington State is a 12 seed, and South Carolina and Utah State are not worthy of an At Large...

 

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. That is just using a metric just for the sake of using a metric to say you have more metrics. I understand there are many other factors at play, but you can look at data from the last few years and it all tells the same story: Resume Metrics are considered much more heavily than Predictive Metrics in the selections and seeding.

 

If Michigan State loses to Minnesota, I think they're either out or going to Dayton. If they beat Minnesota and lose to Purdue, I would guess 10 seed and yes we will be ahead of them.

 

 

 

Where do you get this predictive metric score at?

[GhostOfJoeMcCray]

1 minute ago, big red22 said:

Where do you get this predictive metric score at?

 

https://barttorvik.com/teamsheets.php?year=2024

 

Just looking at the QUALITY AVG (Predictive Metrics Avg) and then using 1-4 as a 1 seed, 5-8 as a 2 seed, 9-12 as a 3 seed, etc. 

Edited March 11 by GhostOfJoeMcCray

[GhostOfJoeMcCray]

3 hours ago, hskr4life said:

I think we need to be careful calling certain rankings “falsehood” as each ranking serves its purpose in the overall picture of a team.  If metrics were reversed and SOR was in the 30s-40s with BPI being in the 20’s, would we complain that the SOR is a bad metric or praise the BPI?

 

I don't know. South Carolina has had an incredible season. They are #8 in SOR and #19 in KPI. They are a 5 seed (Top 20 team) in Bracket Matrix. Their NET is 49, BPI is 48 and KP is 47. 

 

Utah State is #21 in SOR, #21 in KPI. They outright won maybe the toughest MWC ever. A 6 seed (Top 25 team) in Bracket Matrix. Their NET is 32, BPI is 67 and KP is 44. 

 

The predictive metrics have continued to say all year that these teams, for example, aren't very good. On the flip side, BPI and KP have said Michigan State (19) and Wake Forest (26.5) and Villanova (27) are very good teams all year. 

 

I don't think it has anything to do with personal bias. I'm sure they serve some purpose, but I think it's very flawed. 

Edited March 11 by GhostOfJoeMcCray

[OmahaHusker]

1 hour ago, millerhusker said:

Is this based on the bracketologist predictions? Our metrics don't really need to leapfrog anyone to be considered for a 7 seed. 

 

Based on our non-con sos is what is holding us back. I've been following Graham Doeren he kinda broke that down yesterday. 

 

https://x.com/GrahamDoeren/status/1766977184474804228?s=20

[HuskerFever]

13 minutes ago, OmahaHusker said:

Based on our non-con sos is what is holding us back. I've been following Graham Doeren he kinda broke that down yesterday. 

 

https://x.com/GrahamDoeren/status/1766977184474804228?s=20

 

Big 12 nonconference SOS:

 

347 UCF

328 Iowa State

324 Oklahoma State

322 TCU

321 Cincinnati

308 BYU

304 Texas Tech

271 Oklahoma

223 Kansas State

206 Texas

190 Houston

154 West Virginia

71 Baylor

35 Kansas

[Cazzie22]

It’s discouraging seeing Nebraska as the lowest seed by prognosticators of all B1G Teams.  Why? We beat Michigan St and have a win over Purdue.  Why is Wisconsin still being seen as a #6?  It should be somewhat based on how a team is playing recently.  I suppose our non conference schedule is hindering our seed.  Would love to be a 6 and get a 13.

[big red22]

11 minutes ago, Cazzie22 said:

It’s discouraging seeing Nebraska as the lowest seed by prognosticators of all B1G Teams.  Why? We beat Michigan St and have a win over Purdue.  Why is Wisconsin still being seen as a #6?  It should be somewhat based on how a team is playing recently.  I suppose our non conference schedule is hindering our seed.  Would love to be a 6 and get a 13.

6's get an 11, but I'd like that two.  The good thing is we can beat anyone if we are hot.  So I am just happy we are in!

[Vinny]

1 hour ago, big red22 said:

6's get an 11, but I'd like that two.  The good thing is we can beat anyone if we are hot.  So I am just happy we are in!

I agree! At this point, unless location is your biggest concern, our seed won’t be that big of a deal. We’re hand wringing over this because we feel slighted, and maybe we are. But the truth is 5 (maybe even 4) seeds through 11 seeds are all going to be very close in their metrics, signature wins, etc. There is no home advantage to the higher seed like batting last in baseball. It’s 40 minutes of basketball and I’m not going to feel overmatched against any team in the first round that we’re likely to play because of the little number next to their name in the bracket.

Edited March 11 by Vinny

[Cazzie22]

1 hour ago, big red22 said:

6's get an 11, but I'd like that two.  The good thing is we can beat anyone if we are hot.  So I am just happy we are in!

Bad math on my part

[49r]

14 minutes ago, Vinny said:

I agree! At this point, unless location is your biggest concern, our seed won’t be that big of a deal. We’re hand wringing over this because we feel slighted, and maybe we are. But the truth is 5 (maybe even 4) seeds through 11 seeds are all going to be very close in their metrics, signature wins, etc. There is no home advantage to the higher seed like batting last in baseball. It’s 40 minutes of basketball and I’m not going to feel overmatched against any team in the first round that we’re likely to play because of the little number next to their name in the bracket.

 

Agree with all this.

[tcp]

this NU team is pretty simple to figure out in terms of winning and losing games right now. IF they defend for at least 30 of 40 mins and take70-80 percent quality shot attempts, we'll beat anyone at the table regardless of seed. However the reverse is also true. If we *don't* do that, we'll lose to just about anyone minus the 16 seeds.

 

I like that for the most part, we'll be able to tell if we're winning or losing within the first 10 mins of Rd 1. 

 

[Dead Dog Alley]

8 hours ago, big red22 said:

Falsehood =

 

- 18-13 team with a 3-7 away record

- A 1-2 Neutral Court Record

- An 8-13 Record against Quad 1/Quad 2 

- Lost Heads up to multiple Teams Below them with a better resume

 

That is NOT a #19 Resume and any Metric that continues to keep a team there due to close losses in tough games is a Metric that I believe should never be a focal point of the Committee.

 

Edit - If Nebraska was 18-13 with a 3-7 Road record and finished the season 1-4 with losses to mediocre Ohio State and Iowa teams at home.  Do you think there is any way possible that they would be a #19 anywhere?

 

We'd be the #19th seeded team overall in the NIT

[Huskerpapa]

1 hour ago, tcp said:

this NU team is pretty simple to figure out in terms of winning and losing games right now. IF they defend for at least 30 of 40 mins and take70-80 percent quality shot attempts, we'll beat anyone at the table regardless of seed. However the reverse is also true. If we *don't* do that, we'll lose to just about anyone minus the 16 seeds.

 

I like that for the most part, we'll be able to tell if we're winning or losing within the first 10 mins of Rd 1. 

 

The thing is, every team has this same dilemma.  Right?  What is good, is that we are one of the top 30 teams in the country that seem to do the right things way more often than the bad things.  Another plus is that our team finally understands what we need to do, and as a unit, we are getting it done. 

[royalfan]

With collier on the selection group I won’t rest easy until I see our name on any line.  

[royalfan]

1 hour ago, tcp said:

this NU team is pretty simple to figure out in terms of winning and losing games right now. IF they defend for at least 30 of 40 mins and take70-80 percent quality shot attempts, we'll beat anyone at the table regardless of seed. However the reverse is also true. If we *don't* do that, we'll lose to just about anyone minus the 16 seeds.

 

I like that for the most part, we'll be able to tell if we're winning or losing within the first 10 mins of Rd 1. 

 

Incredible how that is harder to do against great teams.  

[cornfed24-7]

Have always been too nervous to watch selection Sunday when Nebraska had a chance. And never paid it any attention otherwise. So a question - Do they start with the 1's and go down or start with he last 4 in and go up? I would assume it's 1's and go down. 

[tcp]

4 hours ago, royalfan said:

Incredible how that is harder to do against great teams.  

 

hahaha. point taken. i promised myself i'd be an optimist this week. 

[hskr4life]

8 hours ago, cornfed24-7 said:

Have always been too nervous to watch selection Sunday when Nebraska had a chance. And never paid it any attention otherwise. So a question - Do they start with the 1's and go down or start with he last 4 in and go up? I would assume it's 1's and go down. 

They actually go region by region starting with the #1 overall seed.  So Purdue will play ______.  Then the 8-9 game in that region.  Then the 5-12 in that region, and so on.

[millerhusker]

This is the first year in forever that I didn't take off work the first week of March Madness. If we don't play a night game in the first round I'm gonna be pissed. At myself. 

[throwback]

41 minutes ago, millerhusker said:

This is the first year in forever that I didn't take off work the first week of March Madness. If we don't play a night game in the first round I'm gonna be pissed. At myself. 

Start coughing randomly and sniffling occasionally at work now. Gotta set the tone early to make the sick day believable.

[cornfed24-7]

5 minutes ago, throwback said:

Start coughing randomly and sniffling occasionally at work now. Gotta set the tone early to make the sick day believable.

I'd say go stomach bug. No one ever wants to get into the details about explosive diarrhea. 

[Chuck Taylor]

Sorry, boss, but I just tested positive.

 

[Silverbacked1]

Is there going to be a selection “party” at the vault like they did that one year?  Because that was fun!!!

Edited March 12 by Silverbacked1