I'd happily sign up for 8-9 right now. Win it and play with house money.
BACATOLOGY: NCAA TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS 2/12
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Normally, I'd agree, but I'm not that impressed with the 1-seeds this year and think we'd actually have a chance to pull off an upset, which would be ginormous for the program.
Baylor is really the only standout among the ones.. Kansas is very good but never confident with them in the NCAA tourney as history bores out. The other 2 are good but this is not vintage Gonzaga and San Diego State still a mystery. The two seeds are hardly unbeatable as well. Duke is not that good and we know how RU matched up with Maryland. I actually think the Terps are serious national title contenders. I think Dayton is overrated and Florida State a 2 seed in name only.
and after I have dived into start numbers crunching, right off the bat my last 4 in and out will be changing
Here's a deep look into the NCAA tourney stats for the last 34 years and especially for 2019, mostly with regard to performance vs. seed once in the tournament and the various team statistics that correlate with wins. For stats junkies, lol.
https://www.kaggle.com/jaseziv83/a-recent-deep-look-at-the-men-s-ncaab
https://www.kaggle.com/jaseziv83/a-recent-deep-look-at-the-men-s-ncaab
bac - do you happen to know if the NET folks ever publish the actual numerical scores used to produce the overall rankings? Was kind of curious if it would show larger differences near the top than, say, where we've been, i.e., in the 25-35 range. I suspect that's the case, i.e., the numerical score difference is probably smaller between #25 and #35 than between #5 and #15. Smaller NET differences would then likely make it easier for the humans to focus on some other stat/factor in selecting teams vs. just using the NET.
top 25 what? AP...no that is not a metric. Tulsa is trash. They have 3 wins...Houston, Wichita State and Memphis....2 Q1 wins but seriously UConn isnt a quality win
They have a q4 loss to Arkansas State. Have a whopping 5 Q2 losses to nobodies, they have a sos of 179, non conference 321 and their best non conference win is Boise State
Do not think they have made that available. What I find absurd though is how schools like Arizona and Michigan State are so high. Arizona really does not have a lot of quality wins, there is some factor keeping them up there
Michigan State has had some losses recently but they seem to actual be moving up.
Arizona has the efficiency metrics on their side. They win big and lose small.
It's the efficiency margins keeping them up I'm pretty sure. If you look at kenpom both teams are highly rated.
That was an interesting and exhaustive link... have you tried to parse it and interpret it for where Rutgers is today? Looks to me like we need a much better offensive rating to expect to go far.
Last edited:
well I wouldnt say 0
if they win out which includes win at Houston and Wichita State they are going to be right there, that would give them the regular season AAC. I do not think they are going to do that..they will probably lose at least 3 more times.
I see Memphis, Tulsa and SMU all in the nether regions of the bubble needing to win out the regular season to seriously position themselves for the bubble...and guess what that aint going to happen for any of the 3
I think the other huge factor is this....Played at 2 Baylor and hosted 3 Kansas sos 7 also just 4 Q4 games which is low
Its bizarre that Arizona is ranked so high in the NET. The only thing I can think of is they played both Baylor and Gonzaga. They lost both of course but it appears as they have been rewarded for having them on the schedule.
Not enough time and I doubt it's worth it. These kinds of analyses are interesting, to me, in the aggregate, but in a one-and-done tournament upsets occur so often that aggregate metrics aren't nearly as predictive as some would like them to be. All it takes is a hot shooting night for a team like RU to beat anyone in the country, assuming we play our tough D all game. Similarly, if we don't play great defense and that coincides with a hot shooting night be a Q3 team, like the Bonnies, we can lose. Having said that, they're good for giving one a sense of the probabilities of going deep in the tourney and I'd say that's unlikely for us, since odds are high we'd hit a poor shooting game over the 3 games or so if we get in.
Thanks, it would be nice to see those numbers - I assume the committee sees them (since they must exist) and without seeing the actual formulas involved it's hard to know exactly how things like quad wins/losses, locations, and SOS (and margins) factor in.
I'm looking for the stat about conference performance vs. Teams in Tourney and Seeding. Didn't quite see that there. Good stuff though!
play around with this dataset in Tovik
some abbreviations to note
PAKE - performance against KenPom expectation
PASE - performance against Seed expectation
(for those 2, it basically says if you are the #1 seed and they usually win 3 games in the tourney if you win 4 you were +1 and if you win 1 you are -2 and same thing for KenPom rank)
Similar threads
