Iowa 76 - Michigan St 73 | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Iowa 76 - Michigan St 73

Plebe said:
It's no different than the standard hop-step into the shot that is technically a travel but virtually never gets called, including against the UConn players who do it.
Expand ...
Katie Lou did one in the Elite 8 win over Louisville right in front of Jeff Walz who lost it. It was pretty egregious as those moves go. Lou made the 3 of course.
 
visitingcock said:
It amazes me how much attention people give to AP/Coaches polls. NET is what matters. Mich State is a Quad One team even when you play them on your home floor. Good win for Iowa.
Expand ...
AP poll is created by and for the media and thus exerts a hold on the media-consuming public. The resulting attention is by design. It's the geeks like us who go beyond that.

Obviously the NET is the only ranking the tournament committee uses, but no computer ranking can be the end-all be-all. Recall that Oregon last year was #19 in NET and didn't get a bid.
 
visitingcock said:
NET is what matters. Mich State is a Quad One team even when you play them on your home floor. Good win for Iowa.
Expand ...
If you're thinking about reality, that may be so. Iowa got a good test in this game and could come out of it stronger and more focused.

But if we're thinking about AP rankings, then this ought to benefit MSU and -- if this were a rational cosmos (who am I kidding?) -- cost Iowa a few spots. The #4 team was played to a virtual tie by an unranked team. If this had happened to UConn, they'd drop at least 4 maybe 6 spots for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmt
hoopsnloops32 said:
But NET isn't a good tool for evaluation. Its like RPI, it just tells the the quality of wins and losses but there are ways to game that system. Massey to me is a much better tool for evaluation which has Michigan St around 25 - 30 range
Expand ...
But Massey doesn't matter to the committee. NET is what they use for evaluating teams. MY or your or Massey's opinion don't matter. And, you can game any system - including Massey, if it was desirable to do so.

Top 25 is a meaningless ranking system, Used to be 20 when i wore a younger man's clothes. A more meaningful number would be Top 32. That's half the (old) NCAA field and it's close to the cutoff between where an at large team makes or misses the NCAA.

But, getting back to the point, Massey's or NET ranking "in the 25-30 range" is Quad One and a quality win for Iowa.
 
UConnCat said:
Katie Lou did one in the Elite 8 win over Louisville right in front of Jeff Walz who lost it. It was pretty egregious as those moves go. Lou made the 3 of course.
Expand ...
Ha I remember that. I also remember Kia Nurse habitually did the same hop step, and this forum even commented on it at some length at one time.

I recently saw an egregious one called at a crucial moment (can't recall offhand which game) and the analyst noted "yes that's a travel but it almost never gets called". But this was more like a catch, then pause, then hop and IMO had to be called.
 
.-.
Bone Dog said:
If you're thinking about reality, that may be so. Iowa got a good test in this game and could come out of it stronger and more focused.

But if we're thinking about AP rankings, then this ought to benefit MSU and -- if this were a rational cosmos (who am I kidding?) -- cost Iowa a few spots. The #4 team was played to a virtual tie by an unranked team. If this had happened to UConn, they'd drop at least 4 maybe 6 spots for it.
Expand ...
I object to use of the word "unranked." They were played very closely by a Quad One, Conference rival. I no longer recognize AP/Coaches as legitimate ranking services. Too much personal bias. The computers may have problems, but they lack personal bias. Indeed, they may have a mathmatical programming "bias" but ot personal bias for or against a team, conference, etc.
 
Bone Dog said:
But if we're thinking about AP rankings, then this ought to benefit MSU and -- if this were a rational cosmos (who am I kidding?) -- cost Iowa a few spots. The #4 team was played to a virtual tie by an unranked team. If this had happened to UConn, they'd drop at least 4 maybe 6 spots for it.
Expand ...
I'm not well versed on the history here. Can you name one occasion when UConn dropped 4 to 6 spots as a result of narrowly beating an unranked team?
 
Plebe said:
I'm not well versed on the history here. Can you name one occasion when UConn dropped 4 to 6 spots as a result of narrowly beating an unranked team?
Expand ...
No. Can you?
 
visitingcock said:
I object to use of the word "unranked." They were played very closely by a Quad One, Conference rival. I no longer recognize AP/Coaches as legitimate ranking services. Too much personal bias. The computers may have problems, but they lack personal bias. Indeed, they may have a mathmatical programming "bias" but ot personal bias for or against a team, conference, etc.
Expand ...
I see you ignored my caveat, "if you're thinking about reality." My post was entirely about the bias built into the AP rankings.
 
Bone Dog said:
If you're thinking about reality, that may be so. Iowa got a good test in this game and could come out of it stronger and more focused.

But if we're thinking about AP rankings, then this ought to benefit MSU and -- if this were a rational cosmos (who am I kidding?) -- cost Iowa a few spots. The #4 team was played to a virtual tie by an unranked team. If this had happened to UConn, they'd drop at least 4 maybe 6 spots for it.
Expand ...
Where is this coming from? No victim mentality, please. The Huskies have been treated quite kindly in the polls considering the personnel losses over the last few years. If any other team lost its two best players and was running on a skeleton crew like last year, they’d drop out of the polls into oblivion. This year, UConn lost 3 games and still stayed ranked.

There is a bit of cliquiness in the polling. It’s very tough for “unknowns” to break into the polls and voters are reluctant to punish the old guard.
 
.-.
visitingcock said:
But Massey doesn't matter to the committee. NET is what they use for evaluating teams. MY or your or Massey's opinion don't matter. And, you can game any system - including Massey, if it was desirable to do so.

Top 25 is a meaningless ranking system, Used to be 20 when i wore a younger man's clothes. A more meaningful number would be Top 32. That's half the (old) NCAA field and it's close to the cutoff between where an at large team makes or misses the NCAA.

But, getting back to the point, Massey's or NET ranking "in the 25-30 range" is Quad One and a quality win for Iowa.
Expand ...

Yea Massey doesn't matter the committee and neither does top 25. But the committee isn't ranking the best teams, they are seeding teams based on resume.
NET is a good evaluate of resume a poor evaluate of quality of the team and actually ranking teams against each other. Michigan State is not the 14th best team in the country but they might have the 14th based resume. The #2 team in NET at the end of the year last year was UConn, not because they had the best team but because they had the second best resume. Do you see the difference.
 
HuskyNan said:
Where is this coming from? No victim mentality, please. The Huskies have been treated quite kindly in the polls considering the personnel losses over the last few years. If any other team lost its two best players and was running on a skeleton crew like last year, they’d drop out of the polls into oblivion. This year, UConn lost 3 games and still stayed ranked.

There is a bit of cliquiness in the polling. It’s very tough for “unknowns” to break into the polls and voters are reluctant to punish the old guard.
Expand ...
Why should UConn drop because of injuries when they are still beating ranked teams? You think UConn shouldn't be ranked right now because they lost Azzi, Carol, Ayanna and Jana? Does the same apply to Notre Dame who has less quality wins and doesn't have Miles, Citron, or Prosper and was above us until yesterday?
 
Bone Dog said:
Yup. Were those teams ranked, by the way?
Expand ...
Again, the pollsters don’t scour schedules, watch all the games, or even read box scores. They aren’t required to. A lot vote on win/loss records only. Do a Google search and you can find several sportswriters discuss how they voted and so much of it is squishy, “seems right to me” type of stuff it’s a wonder anyone takes the polls seriously
 
hoopsnloops32 said:
Why should UConn drop because of injuries when they are still beating ranked teams? You think UConn shouldn't be ranked right now because they lost Azzi, Carol, Ayanna and Jana? Does the same apply to Notre Dame who has less quality wins and doesn't have Miles, Citron, or Prosper and was above us until yesterday?
Expand ...
Please show me where I said where the Huskies should be ranked.
 
hoopsnloops32 said:
Yea Massey doesn't matter the committee and neither does top 25. But the committee isn't ranking the best teams, they are seeding teams based on resume.
NET is a good evaluate of resume a poor evaluate of quality of the team and actually ranking teams against each other. Michigan State is not the 14th best team in the country but they might have the 14th based resume. The #2 team in NET at the end of the year last year was UConn, not because they had the best team but because they had the second best resume. Do you see the difference.
Expand ...
I see a difference but believe that resume trumps mere opinion of best.
 
.-.
HuskyNan said:
Please show me where I said where the Huskies should be ranked.
Expand ...
"If any other team lost its two best players and was running on a skeleton crew like last year, they’d drop out of the polls into oblivion.This year, UConn lost 3 games and still stayed ranked."

Pretty heavily implies UConn shouldn't be ranked.

It's also unfair to say last years team shouldn't have been ranked considering they teams they beat early in the season. They ended the season 2 in net because their resume was that strong. I definitely don't think they deserved to fall out of the polls either.
 
visitingcock said:
But Massey doesn't matter to the committee. NET is what they use for evaluating teams. MY or your or Massey's opinion don't matter. And, you can game any system - including Massey, if it was desirable to do so.

Top 25 is a meaningless ranking system, Used to be 20 when i wore a younger man's clothes. A more meaningful number would be Top 32. That's half the (old) NCAA field and it's close to the cutoff between where an at large team makes or misses the NCAA.

But, getting back to the point, Massey's or NET ranking "in the 25-30 range" is Quad One and a quality win for Iowa.
Expand ...
People get weirdly attached to particular ratings systems and very dogged at times about relying on it to the exclusion of anything else.

No doubt this board in particular has a particular lean toward Massey though there is not obvious reason why it's preferable to anything else. It's not even an afterthought on men's side.

I will say because of its availability and this board's preference I use it a lot.

.
 
Gamecockfan77 said:
People get weirdly attached to particular ratings systems and very dogged at times about relying on it to the exclusion of anything else.

No doubt this board in particular has a particular lean toward Massey though there is not obvious reason why it's preferable to anything else. It's not even an afterthought on men's side.

I will say because of its availability and this board's preference I use it a lot.

.
Expand ...
I won't answer for anyone else, but IMO Massey passes the gut check more than the others do. That's why I prefer to use it versus others; however, none of them are infallible. I don't see as many oddball placements, I guess. At least those that I would consider oddball. LOL

One thing I do REALLY like about the NET is the Quad concept - even though it's imperfect too. I think it distills the SOS down to a level more reflective of the competition than just a broad SOS number.
 
.-.
Plebe said:
I don't agree there was "intent" other than being overly demonstrative. If she'd wanted to hit her opponent she would've swung behind her and not to the side where nobody was standing.

Commentators said the intentional foul was called for the contact as she stepped away with the other defender who'd fallen in front of her.

As for arguing with with the officials while running down the court, Tate must have learned that from Clark ;)
Expand ...
I’m not sure if you were there or not. This was definitely different than what Clark normally does.
 
hoopsnloops32 said:
Did no other schools besides Iowa recruit Caitlin Clark? She very easily could be at a program with many other options than her shooting 34 shots. She deliberately made that choice.
Expand ...
Suppose you're a baseball manager trying to decide who to send in to pinch hit to try to win a critical game. You look down the bench and see two possibilities: Player A has a .400 batting average; Player B is hitting .100. Not too difficult of a decision, right?

Caitlin Clark did chuck up 20 3's in this game, but she made 8, which equates to 40% shooting. Yesterday's NCAA statistics website showed that only 5 teams were making 3's at 40% or better...out of 348! So 40% is good I guess. The rest of Iowa's team shot 10% on 3's.

So if you want to win, and Clark does...BADLY, can you blame her for taking a lot of shots? This isn't Iowa's offensive profile, it's just what happens as some games play out. She would much rather be shooting 15, maybe 20 times and having 14 assists because her teammates are actually draining shots.

I rolled my eyes myself watching her do the same thing in high school. Now I understand why it happens...she just wants to win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,227
Messages
4,558,238
Members
10,444
Latest member
Billy Boy


Top Bottom