Not a great idea. Pike is a great scout coach. He devours tape and takes away opponents strengths. You get to Sweet 16 , playing 3 times in 5 days ( Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday or Wednesday , Friday and Sunday) is not ideal for his good to great game plans. Hard enough to prepare for 2 teams in a week , so 3 is not ideal.
BACATOLOGY: NCAA TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR 3/6 PAGE 23
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
This is simple
20 wins -lock
19 wins-
19-13.most likely in if the mid majors don’t have upsets that take away bids
19-14…a Penn state loss , then a Michigan or Indiana win and then a Wisconsin win gets us most likely in , unless mid majors have upsets that takes bid away
18-13…(beat PSU and lose to northwestern or Minnesota ). Big .trouble , on pins and needles
18-13…(beat PSU, get double bye , lose to Iowa )….trouble , on pins and needles
20 wins -lock
19 wins-
19-13.most likely in if the mid majors don’t have upsets that take away bids
19-14…a Penn state loss , then a Michigan or Indiana win and then a Wisconsin win gets us most likely in , unless mid majors have upsets that takes bid away
18-13…(beat PSU and lose to northwestern or Minnesota ). Big .trouble , on pins and needles
18-13…(beat PSU, get double bye , lose to Iowa )….trouble , on pins and needles
If you win, you fair well. Half the teams don’t win. Those teams have a drastically lower chance to advance because they have another game to play.
We are finishing no lower than 6th in the B1G. I know the committee doesn't look at conference records but I just can't fathom us not making the dance finishing the in the top 6 when typically the B1G gets no less than 7 bids. How can you justify Indiana over RU after we beat them. Also, Michigan is likely to lose Sunday (16-14 overall) and we split with them.
I supposed if Michigan or Indy make deep runs in the BTT but otherwise, we should be above them in the pecking orders (as long as we win Sunday).
I supposed if Michigan or Indy make deep runs in the BTT but otherwise, we should be above them in the pecking orders (as long as we win Sunday).
because Michigan does not have a Q4 loss and an extra Q3 loss, their SOS is 8/26 compared to RU's 34/301.
Overall its close between the two I can understand it going eithe rway
Sorry BAC. They are getting an incredibly strong pass because they are Michigan with that amount of losses. We split with them and have incredible resume and not getting respect deserved.
Same goes with State too. They love the blue bloods.
Same goes with State too. They love the blue bloods.
not sure what Joe is seeing in Loyola but its an impossible spot because if they lose they end up falling out, if they keep winning they are an AQ and it opens a spot up in the field for him
neither have a Q4 loss, an extra Q3 and a horrific out of conference sos, both of them also have a non conference win of note or two and Rutgers has zero
most likely need two, there is a shot at getting in with just 1 but its like 25%...too many warts
In reality we should probably thinking move every one over one slot. 1 bid stealer moves the last team in with a bye to a play in game and last team in the field OUT.
good way to put it
the only way that RU fans will not feel ANY angst is if they beat Penn St and then Iowa/OSU in the quarters and finish 19-13 with a loss in the semis. This scenario is 100% locked.
All the other scenarios will have somewhat doubt with 14 losses...even a little doubt is enough to make people have heart attacks on selection sunday..since there are flaws on the resume the selection committee can used them to leave us out.
the 18-13 scenario is the one where we will really be freaking...beat PSU but lose to a scrub in the first round because we are a 5 or 6 seed. In that case we are truly like 60/40 to get in and we are going to be freaking out all day. If the 18-13 scenario involves a double bye....and we lose to Iowa, we still are 85/15 in but there will always be that doubt
well he has basically done that by having Loyola in there. Despite a great net they really do not have the profile strong enough to get an at large and they were not even regular season champs in the MVC. Will there be more than one bid stealer....pac 12, a 10, cusa are the places to look. I dont think I am concerned by the AAC because they are not getting 3....they did last year when Cincy was a bid stealer and Wichita got thrown a bone but do not think SMU/Memphis are strong enough to garner that third bid though I believe its a two bid league. UNLV is playing really well in the Mountain West but they would just steal a bid from their own conference, they are not geting 5 and very well could end up with 3 if Wyoming stumbles tomorrow.
Seeing this on the matrix too, splitting of Northern Iowa and Loyola as the rep, the rule is that the school seeded first in the conference tourney is the AQ, some of the bracketologists are being lazy.
So I listened to the discussion between 5 respected bracketologists last night including Bracketville Dave and Shelby from USA Today..both have us in the last 4 in right now...Dave has us as the 4th team in and he actually bounced Michigan out today
So in understand how the committee works you have to understand they dont come in with a bracket seed list like bracketologists with a field already selected in mind
The members first compile a list of schools they think should be eligible for consideration,
Each committee member will submit the ballot by a designated time on the first full day of selection meetings:
a. In the first column, each member shall identify not more than 37 teams that, in that member’s opinion, should be at-large selections (AL) in the tournament based upon play to date, regardless of whether the team could eventually represent its conference as the automatic qualifier.
b. In the second column, each member shall identify all teams that should receive consideration (C) for an at- large berth. There is no minimum or maximum limit in the second column; however, only teams meriting serious consideration should receive votes.
2. Any team receiving all but two of the eligible votes in Column 1 (AL) is moved into the tournament field as an at-large selection.
3. The committee will form an "under-consideration” board consisting of an alphabetical listing of teams that:
a. Received at least three votes in either of the columns of the initial ballot but did not receive enough votes to be an at-large team; or
b. Won or shared the regular-season conference championship, as determined by the conference’s tie-break policy where applicable. This does not include teams that won or shared a division title but were not the regular-season conference champion.
4. A team may be removed from the “under-consideration” board at any time if it receives all but two eligible votes.
Now here is where it gets interesting and I think alot of people are not aware of this. The selections are made by grouping teams together and then voting on them and paring them down until the field is set
Remaining Ballots
1. The committee then begins evaluating those teams on the “under consideration” board.
2. Each committee member will select the best eight teams from the “under consideration” board, in no particular order, to be added to the at-large field:
a. When 20 or more teams are under consideration in “list” ballots, each member shall select eight teams;
b. When 14 to 19 teams are under consideration, each member shall select six or fewer teams;
c. When 13 or fewer teams are under consideration, each member shall select four teams.
3. When 24 or fewer teams remain in the pool of teams (during the selection or seeding process), a member may not participate in “list X teams” votes if a team he or she represents as a commissioner or athletics director is included in the “pool.”
4. The eight teams receiving the most votes comprise the next at-large ballot.
5. Committee members then rank the eight teams, using a “ranking” scoring system (i.e., the best team is valued at one point).
6. The four teams receiving the fewest points shall be added to the at-large field. The other four teams will be held for the next ballot.
7. Each committee member then submits a list of the best eight teams remaining on the “under consideration” board to be added to the at-large field. The four teams with the highest vote totals are added to the teams carried over from No. 6 to comprise the next at-large ballot.
8. Steps No. 5, 6 and 7 will be repeated until all at-large berths are filled.
9. If a team fails to be included among the four teams receiving the fewest points (Step No. 6) for two consecutive ”rank” ballots, it shall be returned to the “under- consideration” board, without prejudice.
10. At any time during the process, the number of teams eligible to receive votes may be increased or decreased by the chair if circumstances warrant. Further, the chair has the option to revise the number of teams from four to fewer than four to be moved into at- large berths per No. 6.
11. A team may be removed from the at-large field by a vote of all but two of the eligible votes. Such a team would be returned to the “under consideration” board, without prejudice.
12. After the completion of three rounds of secret voting, if the voting results are still tied, the Chair shall break the tie.
13. At any time during the process of selecting the at-large teams, the committee may elect to begin seeding the teams (Section II). This allows the committee to proceed while allowing time for results of games played during selection weekend.
So in understand how the committee works you have to understand they dont come in with a bracket seed list like bracketologists with a field already selected in mind
The members first compile a list of schools they think should be eligible for consideration,
Each committee member will submit the ballot by a designated time on the first full day of selection meetings:
a. In the first column, each member shall identify not more than 37 teams that, in that member’s opinion, should be at-large selections (AL) in the tournament based upon play to date, regardless of whether the team could eventually represent its conference as the automatic qualifier.
b. In the second column, each member shall identify all teams that should receive consideration (C) for an at- large berth. There is no minimum or maximum limit in the second column; however, only teams meriting serious consideration should receive votes.
2. Any team receiving all but two of the eligible votes in Column 1 (AL) is moved into the tournament field as an at-large selection.
3. The committee will form an "under-consideration” board consisting of an alphabetical listing of teams that:
a. Received at least three votes in either of the columns of the initial ballot but did not receive enough votes to be an at-large team; or
b. Won or shared the regular-season conference championship, as determined by the conference’s tie-break policy where applicable. This does not include teams that won or shared a division title but were not the regular-season conference champion.
4. A team may be removed from the “under-consideration” board at any time if it receives all but two eligible votes.
Now here is where it gets interesting and I think alot of people are not aware of this. The selections are made by grouping teams together and then voting on them and paring them down until the field is set
Remaining Ballots
1. The committee then begins evaluating those teams on the “under consideration” board.
2. Each committee member will select the best eight teams from the “under consideration” board, in no particular order, to be added to the at-large field:
a. When 20 or more teams are under consideration in “list” ballots, each member shall select eight teams;
b. When 14 to 19 teams are under consideration, each member shall select six or fewer teams;
c. When 13 or fewer teams are under consideration, each member shall select four teams.
3. When 24 or fewer teams remain in the pool of teams (during the selection or seeding process), a member may not participate in “list X teams” votes if a team he or she represents as a commissioner or athletics director is included in the “pool.”
4. The eight teams receiving the most votes comprise the next at-large ballot.
5. Committee members then rank the eight teams, using a “ranking” scoring system (i.e., the best team is valued at one point).
6. The four teams receiving the fewest points shall be added to the at-large field. The other four teams will be held for the next ballot.
7. Each committee member then submits a list of the best eight teams remaining on the “under consideration” board to be added to the at-large field. The four teams with the highest vote totals are added to the teams carried over from No. 6 to comprise the next at-large ballot.
8. Steps No. 5, 6 and 7 will be repeated until all at-large berths are filled.
9. If a team fails to be included among the four teams receiving the fewest points (Step No. 6) for two consecutive ”rank” ballots, it shall be returned to the “under- consideration” board, without prejudice.
10. At any time during the process, the number of teams eligible to receive votes may be increased or decreased by the chair if circumstances warrant. Further, the chair has the option to revise the number of teams from four to fewer than four to be moved into at- large berths per No. 6.
11. A team may be removed from the at-large field by a vote of all but two of the eligible votes. Such a team would be returned to the “under consideration” board, without prejudice.
12. After the completion of three rounds of secret voting, if the voting results are still tied, the Chair shall break the tie.
13. At any time during the process of selecting the at-large teams, the committee may elect to begin seeding the teams (Section II). This allows the committee to proceed while allowing time for results of games played during selection weekend.
The more people talk about bids, the more the subjevtivdness is obvious, like throwing a bone to a school,or blue blood status ,etc--- the all important "objectivity " of the Net ranking seems more like BS as each day goes by ,face it humans are making the final decision not a machine
So in their mock selection last night the first grouping they had....
Notre Dame, Miami, North Carolina, Xavier, Davidson, San Francisco, San Diego State, and Wake.
The 4 schools that moved INTO THE FIELD were Davidson, San Diego State, , San Fran and Wake....the next 4 schools will be held over with remaining schools from the next grouping
the next grouping was BYU, Indiana, Memphis, Michigan, Rutgers, SMU, VCU and Wyoming.
those advancing to face off with 4 leftovers for a matchup to get into the field were Michigan, Rutgers, SMU, and Wyoming
So the next ballot to determine 4 to get in was Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame , Xavier, Michigan, Rutgers, SMU, and Wyoming
From that group the winners and those that advance to the field were Miami, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Wyoming which won the tie over UNC
that is where they stopped and will pick up today
the next group of 8 will be picked, pared to 4 and then be matched up with North Carolin, Rutgers, Xavier and SMU
it can be confusing but once you see what they are doing its not
Notre Dame, Miami, North Carolina, Xavier, Davidson, San Francisco, San Diego State, and Wake.
The 4 schools that moved INTO THE FIELD were Davidson, San Diego State, , San Fran and Wake....the next 4 schools will be held over with remaining schools from the next grouping
the next grouping was BYU, Indiana, Memphis, Michigan, Rutgers, SMU, VCU and Wyoming.
those advancing to face off with 4 leftovers for a matchup to get into the field were Michigan, Rutgers, SMU, and Wyoming
So the next ballot to determine 4 to get in was Miami, North Carolina, Notre Dame , Xavier, Michigan, Rutgers, SMU, and Wyoming
From that group the winners and those that advance to the field were Miami, Michigan, Notre Dame, and Wyoming which won the tie over UNC
that is where they stopped and will pick up today
the next group of 8 will be picked, pared to 4 and then be matched up with North Carolin, Rutgers, Xavier and SMU
it can be confusing but once you see what they are doing its not
I agree with you, but the SOS computer numbers make the difficulty of their relative non-conference more extreme than reality. They played a bunch of neutral games against bad teams like Praire View that prop up their numbers relative to our home games.
Like us, they lost every “real” game they played except the home gave vs. SDSU. Our comparable is the one win vs. Clemson at home. We lost @ SHU, @ DePaul, and @ UMass. They lost Arizona (neutral), SHU (home), @ UCF.
Theirs is harder but that’s not what moves the needle. It’s the Q4 loss we have. They don’t have that.
so I asked a question about Rutgers and here is some of their thoughts
When you analyze Rutgers you have to put things in the good column and in the bad column and there is plenty in both.
NET of 75 is not good, historically teams with that high a NET do not get and also teams with non conference SOS around the 300 mark have trouble getting in
6 quad one wins, 7 win against the field. No more curious team
get to couple more wins to 19-12 and they are in
cannot ask committee to forget the bad stuff on the resume.
cannot coast to the finish....17-14 will not get them in, 14 loss number is tough to have and not many although it has happened, receive bids and usually a strong sos
several brought up that seeding is totally different from getting in, RU could struggle to get in but once they are in they could actually be seeded a 10 because of their good wins. Some felt if they got in, they will not be in Dayton
I tended to think alot of these bracketologists do not know exactly what to make of Rutgers and not sure how much they have seen RU so I sensed some skepticism perhaps until RU finishes the deal with a win or two. One guy said while we would voting RU to get in, he could see a situation where if they dont get in on the first few ballots that maybe he changes his vote on them as the process goes further on.
When you analyze Rutgers you have to put things in the good column and in the bad column and there is plenty in both.
NET of 75 is not good, historically teams with that high a NET do not get and also teams with non conference SOS around the 300 mark have trouble getting in
6 quad one wins, 7 win against the field. No more curious team
get to couple more wins to 19-12 and they are in
cannot ask committee to forget the bad stuff on the resume.
cannot coast to the finish....17-14 will not get them in, 14 loss number is tough to have and not many although it has happened, receive bids and usually a strong sos
several brought up that seeding is totally different from getting in, RU could struggle to get in but once they are in they could actually be seeded a 10 because of their good wins. Some felt if they got in, they will not be in Dayton
I tended to think alot of these bracketologists do not know exactly what to make of Rutgers and not sure how much they have seen RU so I sensed some skepticism perhaps until RU finishes the deal with a win or two. One guy said while we would voting RU to get in, he could see a situation where if they dont get in on the first few ballots that maybe he changes his vote on them as the process goes further on.
they have a shot but not sure how good....Remember they beat Purdue last year as a 13 and that will not play into any consideration, this is a capable program. Objectively there is nothing to give them a bid on the resume besides being regular season champs. 21-4 with a NET of 39. They split with UAB and have a win over Wichita which is just a Q2 win. 5-2 in Q2 but come on those are not needle movers. They have a Q3 loss to Buffalo and 11 of their 21 wins are to Q4. They have a loss to Kansas.
Similar situation to Drake and Belmont from years past who got bids but Drake had a better profile its more like Belmont
Technically, the committee supposedly strips all biases. That said - I’m sure glad North Texas ditched the Southland conference for CUSA. Can’t imagine there will be much advocacy there from the Southland commissioner (selection chair).
San Diego State is a way better win than Clemson. They have better losses. OOC SOS matters
well I believe that a committee member cannot be in the room....
- A committee member (“member”) shall not be present during any discussion regarding the selection or seeding of a team the individual represents as an athletics director or commissioner;
- A member is permitted to answer only general, factual questions about teams in the conference the individual represents;
- At no point in the process shall a member vote for a team the individual represents as an athletics director or commissioner;
- A committee member shall not be present during any discussion regarding the selection or seeding of a team in which an immediate family member is a student-athlete on the men’s basketball team, is a member of the men’s basketball coaching staff or is a senior athletics administrator at the institution (however upon returning to the room committee members will be updated on relevant discussion by the NCAA’s vice president of men’s basketball);
- At no point in the process shall a member vote for a team in which an immediate family member is a student-athlete on the men’s basketball team, is a member of the men’s basketball coaching staff or is a senior athletics administrator at the institution;
- All votes will be by secret ballot.
Hmm. How does that apply for a team that just ditched his conference?
North Texas has been in the CUSA for 9 years, what the heck are you talking about
Basically we need to win Sunday. It’s like 80 percent lock if we win
Also - note that I wasn’t disagreeing their schedule was harder. I was just pointing out that when you look at the games side by side, focusing on the 26 vs. 303 blended average is misleading. If we had played @ Kansas instead of @ DePaul our non-conference probably improves a massive amount. But in reality, we wouldn’t have change the number of real opponents we played - we just made one single game (that was already a real game - not a complete cupcake - that we ended up losing anyway) much harder.
If we win and lock up the dance , I got no problem with storming. Remember these are college kids just looking to have fun
I can’t really keep track of the musical chairs. The commissioners Southland Conference has been raided a ton though. You’d guess that his personal bias probably doesn’t favor the “raider” conferences like C-USA.
Bac - do you see any locks for a bid from what would otherwise be a one-bid league? Example, Davidson or Murray State - will they get at-large consideration if they stumble?
There’s no way we could be a “lock” until we know the auto bids. This feels to me like a year for more potential bid stealers than usual. Would it really shock anyone if Syracuse or someone like that won the ACC? Any of the lower B-12 teams could get hot and win their conference too. St Louis or St Bonnie’s could with the A-10. The top teams in some of these conferences feel more vulnerable to me than usual.
I attempted this
BID STEALERS--I am expecting 2. (Is analysis flawed?)
I will rank conferences by probability of bid stealer. I do not count a bid stealer a team that is currently on the radar as an at large team (examples Oklahoma or Virginia) A10 (80%) Any non Davidson team that wins the tournament is in the field along with Davidson (probably, help BAC) OVC...
rutgers.forums.rivals.com
What is the logic here? Either you think they deserve to get in or not. Why would he stop voting for them?
This continues to drive me crazy. Our Q4 and extra Q3 loss were in November 2021. November. NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER!!! Post autumn, I think our resume kicks Michigan's ass.
