Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 1/31/2025 at 9:43 AM, hskr4life said:

Our team sheet heading to Oregon.

 

- for the time being, we again have no blemishes as Rutgers and USC are both Q2 games.

 

- UCLA has again moved into the Q1 realm. That now gives us a 3-6 Q1 record with 2 Q1A wins!

 

- Our overall SOS is approaching Top 25 in the nation and Non-Conference SOS is respectable at 157.

 

-Definitely have metrics work to do, but in order to dance, we need to win, and those will naturally increase.

IMG_2769.jpeg

 

What do a couple of Q1 wins do for the ole resume? And the above was posted AFTER our Illinois win. We were even lower than that.

 

KPI 51 -> 44

SOR 54 -> 48

WAB 50 -> 44

Resume Average 51.6 -> 45.3

 

BPI 51 -> 48

Pom 46 -> 44

T-Rank 41 ->39

Predictive Average 46 -> 43.6

Posted (edited)

One thing I hate about the NET is its, what I think is, heavy reliance on win margin (efficiency). A team like VCU sitting at 43 in the NET with ZERO Q1 wins. ZERO.

 

Now-- I believe that if we're on the bubble, we'll be able to stand out above some of these teams WITH the number of Q1 wins we will have, but it's just frustrating. 

Edited by hskr4life
Posted
1 hour ago, hskr4life said:

One thing I hate about the NET is its, what I think is, heavy reliance on win margin (efficiency). A team like VCU sitting at 43 in the NET with ZERO Q1 wins. ZERO.

 

I think you're overlooking VCU's stellar 10-1 Q4 record 🙄

Posted
3 hours ago, hskr4life said:

One thing I hate about the NET is its, what I think is, heavy reliance on win margin (efficiency). A team like VCU sitting at 43 in the NET with ZERO Q1 wins. ZERO.

 

Now-- I believe that if we're on the bubble, we'll be able to stand out above some of these teams WITH the number of Q1 wins we will have, but it's just frustrating. 

That Q4 L just destroys VCU.

Posted
2 hours ago, millerhusker said:

As of now, six of the final nine games are quad 1. 

 

And this doesn't really matter but Michigan and Maryland are now ranked. What's the Nebraska record for most ranked teams beaten in a season?

 

This season we're currently tied at 4 along with 1998-99, 1993-94, 1990-91

Posted
33 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

This season we're currently tied at 4 along with 1998-99, 1993-94, 1990-91

Surprised we played that many ranked teams in 98-99. Was a down year for the Big 12. 

 

Just looked and KU was the only team to finish the year in the top 25, coming in at #22. 

Posted
On 2/3/2025 at 8:39 AM, hskr4life said:

One thing I hate about the NET is its, what I think is, heavy reliance on win margin (efficiency). A team like VCU sitting at 43 in the NET with ZERO Q1 wins. ZERO.

 

Now-- I believe that if we're on the bubble, we'll be able to stand out above some of these teams WITH the number of Q1 wins we will have, but it's just frustrating. 

And they can reasonably argue that quads are arbitrary and way overblown and that they would never lose multiple games by 35 points.  

Posted
20 minutes ago, millerhusker said:

Surprised we played that many ranked teams in 98-99. Was a down year for the Big 12. 

 

Just looked and KU was the only team to finish the year in the top 25, coming in at #22. 

 

 

Swept Kansas for the first time since 1983. Couldn't beat them in the conference tourney.

Between not being able to beat anyone good in our non-con and the down Big 12 we ended up in the NIT

 

image.png

 

 

Posted
31 minutes ago, hhcmatt said:

 

 

Swept Kansas for the first time since 1983. Couldn't beat them in the conference tourney.

Between not being able to beat anyone good in our non-con and the down Big 12 we ended up in the NIT

 

image.png

 

 

Oklahoma of course got a Bid instead of us & made a Sweet Sixteen Run with Eduardo Najera’ 

Posted (edited)

Jerry Palm...woof. His bracketology last night not only doesn't have us in, he doesn't even have us in First 4 Out. I seriously wonder how much effort these guys put into their jobs sometimes. Our metrics are equal to or better than the 8 teams he has immediately ahead of us (could be more, maybe he doesn't even have us as the 5th team out). Our Q1A is better than any of them. Our Q1 is better than any of them. Our Q1&2 is equal to or better than almost all of them. The only slight blemish is a Q3 loss that hovers around Q2 or 3 and is no different than Pitt or USC has (except we have much better wins). 

 

But whatever. Just keep winning. 

 

  Resume Avg Predict Avg Q1A Q1 Q2 Q1&2 Q3 Q4
Georgia 40.7 38.3 1-6 2-7 3-0 5-7 2-0 8-0
WF 41 71.3 1-5 1-6 5-0 6-6 4-0 6-0
Pitt 50.7 49 1-3 1-5 5-2 6-7 2-1 6-0
BYU 52 28.7 0-4 2-4 3-3 5-7 4-0 6-0
UCF 43.7 55 2-6 3-6 0-2 3-8 5-0 5-0
SMU 48 44 0-1 0-4 5-1 5-5 7-0 5-0
Indiana 49 58 1-5 2-9 2-0 4-9 6-0 4-0
USC 58 53.7 1-1 3-7 2-1 4-8 2-1 6-0
Nebraska 41 44.3 3-5 4-6 2-1 6-7 2-1 6-0
Edited by GhostOfJoeMcCray
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, GhostOfJoeMcCray said:

Jerry Palm...woof. His bracketology last night not only doesn't have us in, he doesn't even have us in First 4 Out. I seriously wonder how much effort these guys put into their jobs sometimes. Our metrics are equal to or better than the 8 teams he has immediately ahead of us (could be more, maybe he doesn't even have us as the 5th team out). Our Q1A is better than any of them. Our Q1 is better than any of them. Our Q1&2 is equal to or better than almost all of them. The only slight blemish is a Q3 loss that hovers around Q2 or 3 and is no different than Pitt or USC has (except we have much better wins). 

 

But whatever. Just keep winning. 

 

  Resume Avg Predict Avg Q1A Q1 Q2 Q1&2 Q3 Q4
Georgia 40.7 38.3 1-6 2-7 3-0 5-7 2-0 8-0
WF 41 71.3 1-5 1-6 5-0 6-6 4-0 6-0
Pitt 50.7 49 1-3 1-5 5-2 6-7 2-1 6-0
BYU 52 28.7 0-4 2-4 3-3 5-7 4-0 6-0
UCF 43.7 55 2-6 3-6 0-2 3-8 5-0 5-0
SMU 48 44 0-1 0-4 5-1 5-5 7-0 5-0
Indiana 49 58 1-5 2-9 2-0 4-9 6-0 4-0
USC 58 53.7 1-1 3-7 2-1 4-8 2-1 6-0
Nebraska 41 44.3 3-5 4-6 2-1 6-7 2-1 6-0

 

None of the talking heads are any good at Bracektology. Bracket Matrix 5 year average has Palm at #164, Lunardi at #118, and DeCourcey at #71 out of 179.

Edited by Shawn Eichorst's Toupee
Posted
14 minutes ago, nuhusker7 said:

I think these talking heads goals are more about views and engagement than it is about accuracy. 

They have almost no incentive to be accurate either. No matter what there will be a handful of fan bases angry at them every season.

Posted
Just now, Vinny said:

They have almost no incentive to be accurate either. No matter what there will be a handful of fan bases angry at them every season.


They do have incentives from those that use their market though. Probably why Lunardi only gives in depth Twitter updates for the B12, SEC, and ACC.

Posted

A number of bracketologists I’ve seen have talked about how much the bubble absolutely sucks this year. There are few good teams on the bubble. It’s why a team like Nebraska (with quality wins and quality wins away from home) could fare pretty well.

 

I even saw one say that 3 more wins might put us in. Definitely disagree with that one but that statement does reaffirm my thoughts on only needing to get to 19 wins.

Posted
54 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

A number of bracketologists I’ve seen have talked about how much the bubble absolutely sucks this year. There are few good teams on the bubble. It’s why a team like Nebraska (with quality wins and quality wins away from home) could fare pretty well.

 

I even saw one say that 3 more wins might put us in. Definitely disagree with that one but that statement does reaffirm my thoughts on only needing to get to 19 wins.

Just my thinking on this is that we also cant afford any more 25-35 point losses, correct?

Posted
14 minutes ago, Silverbacked1 said:

Just my thinking on this is that we also cant afford any more 25-35 point losses, correct?


Ohhh… yes and no. Our metrics would certainly take a hit, but you also can’t hide things like our Q1 win total, Q1A wins, etc.  I don't believe we would be “out” with one big loss. Also, as you get later and later into the year, it seems it’s usually harder to move up and down. There’s also things like this….

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, hskr4life said:


Ohhh… yes and no. Our metrics would certainly take a hit, but you also can’t hide things like our Q1 win total, Q1A wins, etc.  I don't believe we would be “out” with one big loss. Also, as you get later and later into the year, it seems it’s usually harder to move up and down. There’s also things like this….

 

 

That could be a big boost being in that company of teams.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...