Not seeing that. At least not comparative to RU. Think about it this way - the B12 is considered “better” than the BIG but they play 18 conference games vs 20, right. Let’s pretend RU didn’t play the 2 Nebraska games (both wins). RU’s conference schedule is then on par with Oklahoma’s. They went 7-11. We went 10-8. That’s a very big difference and while they did better than RU in non-conference play (didn’t take much) it’s not like they had a great showing to justify getting in based on that. Losses to Butler and Utah State more than cancel out a win over Arkansas.
BACATOLOGY: NCAA ANALYSIS 3/7......NEW UPDATE 3/12 1PM PAGE 37
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
A few premises that I think need be rejected which is Big 12 and big 10 schedules are not on par. Loss to Butler in OT does not cancel any win.
I think you may be right that they could be left out of the field but I would not.
Virginia Techs performance may have even helped Oklahoma as they are similarly well regarded metrics wise.
I think we can get in but I also believe the prevailing wisdom from committees going forward is going to be valuing underlying metrics any time there’s only a win or two separating teams.
And yet there is little evidence to show its determining NCAA selections anymoreso that 15 years ago when the rpi was used
I saw a comment on Twitter yesterday where someone noted that including Tennessee as a 3 seed in their top-16 reveal shows the Committee puts a lot of stock in high quality wins moreso than metrics.
Not going to pretend that I know whether he was on base or not (their NET is very good today but not sure what it was back then?) but if true that would bode well for us.
Also Houston has great metrics and the Committee didn't even include them in top 16.
Not going to pretend that I know whether he was on base or not (their NET is very good today but not sure what it was back then?) but if true that would bode well for us.
Also Houston has great metrics and the Committee didn't even include them in top 16.
I really don't think they care a lot about the NET.
BAC, one thing I don’t agree on is you talk about OOC SOS yet the Big Ten plays 20 games instead of 18 like the other conferences, so you have to include 2 teams from the B1G in that OOC SOS … not doing so is incredibly stupid and the committee won’t do that to the B1G because why?? Obviously if we didn’t have those we’d have 2 other P5 games scheduled in their place. Overall SOS is all that should be used when comparing B1G teams to other teams, and we have #31
See ASU and ST Johns in 2019..one in 60s one in 70s both got in with poor nets and just ok resumes. Both sent to Dayton
I do think NET leaned on in certain seeding situations
Baylor and Texas Tech would be the two best wins on our schedule.
At some point wins and losses begin to matter less and less when it comes to selection. That’s what regular season championships, conference tournament championships, and national championships are for. Metrics are beginning to rule the roost in selection and will only continue to move further in that direction imo.
I think we are sweating this much more than most think. Hoping we have some conventional committee members on our side.
Here is the metric question
The Inrerview with the chairman of the selection committee said the top 9 seeds line were already basically determined …and only a handful of teams to be selected left
So if they have the teams mostly picked …then
Does the committee then switch to as a key metric …record against the field and less to the computers .
My hunch says yes in selecting the last 6-8 in ….
The Inrerview with the chairman of the selection committee said the top 9 seeds line were already basically determined …and only a handful of teams to be selected left
So if they have the teams mostly picked …then
Does the committee then switch to as a key metric …record against the field and less to the computers .
My hunch says yes in selecting the last 6-8 in ….
We have 8..they have 4
Baylor is better than anything we have
That TT win is equivalent to at Wisky or Purdue..nice try
You just did a word salad like VP Harris wothout proof. Yes wins matter. Losses matter
There is no evidence metrics are leaned on..none
Photo of RU and Michigan on the main page of ESPN for the article: "The eight biggest questions facing the 2022 NCAA men's basketball tournament selection committee"
Good sign or bad sign? :)
I think again too much focus on wins. One possession losses to Kansas Texas tech are probably held in same or higher regard (certainly by metrics) thwn win over Iowa and Purdue. Include one possession loss to Texas and these results are same or better than our Q1 wins metrics wise v Ohio st Mich Illinois maybe, etc
Based on all these Oklahoma results computer has them beating the lesser quad 1 teams that we beat.
Eitger this is becoming a bigger part of the selection conversation or it isn’t. But it’s trending that way for good reason.
Update on my W/L ranking
(Note: this thing is not actually a tournament prediction model. If wanting to see who will actually be in the tournament the proper weighting is:
My thing 0%
Bac 100%)
#1s
Arizona*
Gonzaga*
Kansas*
Baylor
#2s
Villanova*
Providence
Tennessee*
Auburn
#3s
Purdue*
Texas Tech
Kentucky
Wisconsin
#4s
UCLA
Connecticut
Colorado St
Murray St*
#5s
Duke
Arkansas
St Mary's CA
Illinois
#6s
Texas
Houston*
USC
Creighton
#7s
Seton Hall
Iowa
Boise St*
Marquette
#8s
Michigan St
San Diego St
Iowa St
TCU
#9s
LSU
Texas A&M
Wyoming
Alabama
#10s
Ohio St
North Carolina
Davidson*
Oklahoma
#11s
Xavier
San Francisco
Michigan/Indiana
Memphis/Colorado
#12s
S Dakota St*
Virginia Tech*
Loyola-Chicago*
New Mexico St*
#13s
UAB*
Chattanooga*
Vermont*
Princeton*
#14s
Montana St*
Delaware*
Akron*
Longwood*
#15s
CS Fullerton*
Georgia St*
St Peter's*
Jacksonville St*
#16s
Norfolk St*
Colgate*
Bryant*/Wright St*
TX Southern*/TAM C. Christi*
Last Four Byes
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Xavier
San Francisco
Last Four In
Michigan
Indiana
Memphis
Colorado
First Four Out
Miami FL
Rutgers
West Virginia
S Dakota St
Next Four Out
Notre Dame
Oklahoma St
SMU
Florida
(Note: this thing is not actually a tournament prediction model. If wanting to see who will actually be in the tournament the proper weighting is:
My thing 0%
Bac 100%)
#1s
Arizona*
Gonzaga*
Kansas*
Baylor
#2s
Villanova*
Providence
Tennessee*
Auburn
#3s
Purdue*
Texas Tech
Kentucky
Wisconsin
#4s
UCLA
Connecticut
Colorado St
Murray St*
#5s
Duke
Arkansas
St Mary's CA
Illinois
#6s
Texas
Houston*
USC
Creighton
#7s
Seton Hall
Iowa
Boise St*
Marquette
#8s
Michigan St
San Diego St
Iowa St
TCU
#9s
LSU
Texas A&M
Wyoming
Alabama
#10s
Ohio St
North Carolina
Davidson*
Oklahoma
#11s
Xavier
San Francisco
Michigan/Indiana
Memphis/Colorado
#12s
S Dakota St*
Virginia Tech*
Loyola-Chicago*
New Mexico St*
#13s
UAB*
Chattanooga*
Vermont*
Princeton*
#14s
Montana St*
Delaware*
Akron*
Longwood*
#15s
CS Fullerton*
Georgia St*
St Peter's*
Jacksonville St*
#16s
Norfolk St*
Colgate*
Bryant*/Wright St*
TX Southern*/TAM C. Christi*
Last Four Byes
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Xavier
San Francisco
Last Four In
Michigan
Indiana
Memphis
Colorado
First Four Out
Miami FL
Rutgers
West Virginia
S Dakota St
Next Four Out
Notre Dame
Oklahoma St
SMU
Florida
I don't know why anyone would want to pick the NCAA tournament field based on metrics.
NBA teams use metrics to help them win games. Sports bettors (and bookmakers) use metrics to help them predict games. They don't use metrics to pick the ****ing playoffs because that's stupid. Why even have a tournament? Declare Gonzaga Kenpom champion of 2022 and be done with it.
Brad Wachtel
@Brad_Wachtel
·
19m
History suggests that Rutgers will be left out of the field today, but history hasn't seen a resume quite like Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights have EIGHT wins over at-large teams, including FIVE HIGH Q1 wins. Wisconsin is the only other team with more high Q1 wins.
@Brad_Wachtel
·
19m
History suggests that Rutgers will be left out of the field today, but history hasn't seen a resume quite like Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights have EIGHT wins over at-large teams, including FIVE HIGH Q1 wins. Wisconsin is the only other team with more high Q1 wins.
I think Oklahoma should be in but I don't think they will be. If they get in it's a win for the schedule complainers.
Andy Katz brackets. RU/Wyoming in one of the 12/12 play in games:
www.ncaa.com
Final NCAA men's bracket projections made Selection Sunday, according to Andy Katz
Here is the 2022 NCAA bracket projection for the DI men's basketball tournament, predicted by Andy Katz for Selection Sunday.
www.ncaa.com
1) 300 plus teams playing ridiculous unbalanced schedules requires different strategy
2) part of the process IS selected without metrics with auto bids; it would make sense in at large bids to predict the best to use the best info you have
The selection process has already trended in this direction. I don’t see why anyone would argue otherwise if it’s already taking place, just slowly.
“Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.” - PLAndy Katz brackets. RU/Wyoming in one of the 12/12 play in games:
Final NCAA men's bracket projections made Selection Sunday, according to Andy Katz
Here is the 2022 NCAA bracket projection for the DI men's basketball tournament, predicted by Andy Katz for Selection Sunday.
Damn right.
What is the "best info" I have?
If I am trying to predict which teams are the best teams I should be using scoring margin and probably even other game statistics all day. But sports playoffs are not about picking the "best" teams. You really want to live in a world where the difference between a 1 point win and a 1 point loss is just.. two points? That's insane, that just completely subverts the purpose and fun of sports in the first place.
I'm not saying you can't use computers to help select (because I completely agree that 300 plus teams playing unbalanced schedules is not something than can be sorted by, say, winning percentage) but feed those computers wins and losses only. Leave the predictive metrics where they belong, doing predictions. A team like Providence or Wisconsin should be rewarded for winning all of those games even if they would be very unlikely to repeat the performance if they had to go through the schedule again.
Team has no one to blame but themselves if they miss out
+1
Several truly awful losses. Going to the NIT would be a wasted season.
Well said. Nobody on the bubble and even very few well into the 6/7 seed range is anywhere close to our record against high quality teams. All of that ought to outweigh one horrific loss to Lafayette, which is the biggest reason our NET is so bad. And proof the NET is broken with regard to outliers like RU is having us in the mid 70s when it's obvious to the eye test that we're at least a top 30-40 team. Fortunately humans still do the selections and I see us as a 10/11 seed. But being an RU fan I'll still have tiny doubts until I hear our name called.
Last edited:
This is really not true. The NET is bad because our efficiency numbers are bad. They wouldn't be significantly better if we had scored 3 more points against Lafayette.
disagree about NIT. Winning NIT > losing a first four, imo.
let’s hope we make it though
Nope. NIT winner is 69th place. And while that is nice, it's worse than T65th place.
Not making the NCAA with this amount of talent and experience is one hell of a wasted opportunity.
Then explain to me why Oklahoma State is like 50 in the NET? Several OT wins against mid majors. Loss to Oakland. Yeah they have big wins but so do we. And we have less losses. I don’t get it.
I'm not convinced this senior laden team would accept an NIT invite.
True. But it appears we’re headed to Dayton I would assume…which isn’t the NCAA.
it’s a “play in game” to play into the ncaa. Again, if we lose that game…it’s worse than making a long run in the NIT.
And yes, both are disappointments
I know it doesn't work like this but it seems most logical just to throw us in the first 4 due to our bizarre resume. Then the people who saw we should be in are right and those who don't force us to play a prove it game to get into the field of 64.
Very close..ru 74 smu 75 nd 78
There will be one more final bracket update from them
Brad Wachtel says history says Rutgers is left out, yet when was the last team to go 8-6 against the field and pick up 6 Quad 1 wins and be left out? Leaving us out would be historic too. I don’t see them caring all that much about the metrics, at least for selection.
Similar threads
