BACATOLOGY: NCAA TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR 3/6 PAGE 23

[RU848789]

RU is likely going to be stuck in that first four or 11 spots....I could see 6s like LSU, Alabama, Boise State, St Marys, Iowa State. Would love any of those matchups

I think if we beat PSU we're a 10 seed and I also think both Iowa and OSU lose one more and we finish 4th and I think even with a first round loss (probably a Q1 loss), we'd stay a 10 seed (11 at worst - and not a play-in 11). Of course, if we win 1 in the tourney, we're a 9 seed; win 2 and we're a 7 seed and if we win the B1G tourney, we should be a 4/5 seed. But let's just beat PSU for now and get in.

 

[bac2therac]

let me tell you...I am going to struggle to see if I actually can bounce Indiana out, they may be my last team in tomorrow....the schools on the outside have tragically thin or flawed resumes. I know one of them will make a right but right now their resumes are pretty gross

Im not saying Indiana is going to be in the field, they will easily bounce out if and when they lose to Purdue but for now they may be just hanging by a thread if the selection was today

 

[goru7]

this is ridiculous thinking.....how can you count wins by Q1 when you beat them rather than how it evolves during the season, mathematically impossible. You could have a team like Texas A&m that was 14-2 and then lost 8 in a row...ditto for the Big 12 schools...you are what you are as the season evolves. You have to have good wins early in the season non conference counts, you cannot lose to shit teams like Lafayette and UMass and then cry about it.

RU is in the spot they are in because they have not won enough games and lost too many

Try staying on topic. When you beat a team , how well they were playing , Were they ranked , should be rewarded. Texas A&M beat up on some bad teams that were bad early. They didn’t beat any ranked teams. Your BIg 12 versus Rutgers example makes my point. Rutgers has beaten the other top 8 teams in the conference , all of them , most of them ranked at the time. Oklahoma and Kansas State and West Virginia and Iowa State to a little less of an extent , have lost to the top of the conference or have 1-3 wins where we have 5-6 wins versus the top. So the schedule will weed out the teams that are not as good.

 

[Caliknight]

Indianas chances too a huge hit tonight.

 

[goru7]

absolutely wrong.....body of work

you can argue how the net is made up is wrong, I agree fully with you there but the grouping and sorting has to happen and it has to happen based on the evolving NET and quad numbers as each game is played

Why ? Not every Quad 1 or Quad 2 wins or losses are the same. Could be at the top or bottom of the Quads. I am saying the NET has to change the weights on wins, who you beat at the time you beat them. It needs to be overhauled. It can punish you for a bad loss but shouldn’t bury you. Biggest joke , Indiana losing to us is a Quad 3 loss , supposedly a bad loss. We all know that is bullshit .,

 

[Scangg]

let me tell you...I am going to struggle to see if I actually can bounce Indiana out, they may be my last team in tomorrow....the schools on the outside have tragically thin or flawed resumes. I know one of them will make a right but right now their resumes are pretty gross

Im not saying Indiana is going to be in the field, they will easily bounce out if and when they lose to Purdue but for now they may be just hanging by a thread if the selection was today

Starting to look like Indiana most likely the odd man out of the B1G bubble teams. They will likely need multiple wins in the B1G Tournament

Purdue has a lot to play for and will want to bounce back at home. Edey Williams too much for them

 

[bac2therac]

Starting to look like Indiana most likely the odd man out of the B1G bubble teams. They will likely need multiple wins in the B1G Tournament

Purdue has a lot to play for and will want to bounce back at home. Edey Williams too much for them

The bubble is really poor right now. Need to see tourney play especially in ACC with all those bubbles and also WCC where San Fran-BYU to meet in quarters and AAC SMU-Memphis semi matchup. SEC could have a surprise

 

[MiamiWolv]

in the distance nowhere close to RU

Yeah A&Ms overall schedule strength of atrocious so no shot unless they save some of that NiL money for the selection committee

 

[Scarlet Blind]

Watch out for Arizona St(12-16) being the next Pac12 team to make a run like Oregon St in 2020-21, 12 seed and Oregon 2018-19, 12 seed. They have won 5 of 6 and are playing well at the right time.

 

[IL Lusciato]

Why ? Not every Quad 1 or Quad 2 wins or losses are the same. Could be at the top or bottom of the Quads. I am saying the NET has to change the weights on wins, who you beat at the time you beat them. It needs to be overhauled. It can punish you for a bad loss but shouldn’t bury you. Biggest joke , Indiana losing to us is a Quad 3 loss , supposedly a bad loss. We all know that is bullshit .,

Yes. The biggest indictment to me, is how it unfairly affects teams we beat...that could happen any year. Where a legit major conference team has a rough November and then they start giving everyone in their conference quad 3 losses but its absolute nonsense. The way losses are weighed vs wins is ridiculous

 

[RUBlackout]

Watch out for Arizona St(12-16) being the next Pac12 team to make a run like Oregon St in 2020-21, 12 seed and Oregon 2018-19, 12 seed. They have won 5 of 6 and are playing well at the right time.

Will lose steam....

 

[kcg88]

Let's see where Maryland ends up in the NET refresh today. They're at 90 right now. They moved up to 81 in KenPom which tracks kinda closely. You wouldn't think a home win over Minnesota would move the needle much but you never know. If they can win at tailspinning Michigan State there's a shot they climb into the top 75 and give us another Q1 win and move a Q3 loss to a Q2.

 

[friar10]

Not surprising at all. DePaul has been decent all year. Marcus Liberty missed 5-6 games in the middle of the year and they forfeited 2 losses because of Covid. BAC called it a bad loss early but at the time we were playing them they were playing well before Covid hit them. They have also lost a bunch of closes games to the top of the league without their best players. Missing Jones a few games as well( the guy who hit 5 threes against us. ).
One thing I cannot stand is people do not take into account when you beat someone . Did you beat them when they were on a winning streak ( MSU) and put them on their downward spiral , as compared to beating a team in the middle of a losing streak or playing hurt and losing one or more of their starters and a team gets a win. Big Difference in my opinion.

Also , something that definitely needs to be fixed in the NET. If you beat the team when they are legitimately ranked , when they were all healthy , and they stumble outside Quad 1 later ( MSU) , it should still be a Quad 1. This calling it a Quad 1 at the end is ridiculous. Beating Duke now as compared to earlier in the year, is not the same. Beating ranked teams back to back to back to back has to be weighed more heavily. So many things wrong with the NET. Only good thing is that a human decides who the best at large teams are not the NET. It is a sorting tool and maybe a factor to look at when 2 teams are very close in your evaluation.

Agreed don't sleep on DePaul they are playing very well.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

Yeah A&Ms overall schedule strength of atrocious so no shot unless they save some of that NiL money for the selection committee

Stupid thing to say…but if a UM fan, completely makes sense! Clearly and unless they win the SECT, they’re NIT bound…oh and NIL $$ comes from non university donors, like at every other school…dumbass

 

[Hoosierfan1901]

Ah yes, out of the “insufficient privileges” hole. Congrats on the win guys, hope you guys do well in the Tournament! It’s been fun chatting

 

[RUChoppin]

Let's see where Maryland ends up in the NET refresh today. They're at 90 right now. They moved up to 81 in KenPom which tracks kinda closely. You wouldn't think a home win over Minnesota would move the needle much but you never know. If they can win at tailspinning Michigan State there's a shot they climb into the top 75 and give us another Q1 win and move a Q3 loss to a Q2.

NET including games through 3/2

13 - Purdue
14 - Illinois
17 - Iowa
20 - Wisconsin
22 - Ohio State
32 - Michigan
35 - Michigan State
45 - Indiana
75 - Rutgers
83 - Northwestern
87 - Maryland
94 - Penn St
104 - Minnesota
148 - Nebraska

 

[RU23]

Ah yes, out of the “insufficient privileges” hole. Congrats on the win guys, hope you guys do well in the Tournament! It’s been fun chatting

Thanks man, very classy after one of the toughest losses I’ve seen.

Still much work for both of us to do but I think we’re both Tournament teams who no one should want to play.

The B1G is a gauntlet, no other league compares. I’d rather play the 4th/5th best teams out of literally any other conference than the 9th best team out of the B1G. That’s been true for the last few years and is really telling, but doesn’t get talked about.

We need to start taking care of business in March, though. Will be rooting for y’all the rest of the way (unless we happen to meet).

 

[kcg88]

NET including games through 3/2

13 - Purdue
14 - Illinois
17 - Iowa
20 - Wisconsin
22 - Ohio State
32 - Michigan
35 - Michigan State
45 - Indiana
75 - Rutgers
83 - Northwestern
87 - Maryland
94 - Penn St
104 - Minnesota
148 - Nebraska

Maryland's probably not getting above 75 unless they totally spank MSU, or win a couple games in Indy. Ah well.

 

[G- RUnit]

Why ? Not every Quad 1 or Quad 2 wins or losses are the same. Could be at the top or bottom of the Quads. I am saying the NET has to change the weights on wins, who you beat at the time you beat them. It needs to be overhauled. It can punish you for a bad loss but shouldn’t bury you. Biggest joke , Indiana losing to us is a Quad 3 loss , supposedly a bad loss. We all know that is bullshit .,

And that’s the utter ridiculousness of the NET. It simply over emphasize bad losses and under emphasizes good wins. I wonder how Georgetown would have been penalized in the NET for losing to Chaminade?

 

[G- RUnit]

I think if we beat PSU we're a 10 seed and I also think both Iowa and OSU lose one more and we finish 4th and I think even with a first round loss (probably a Q1 loss), we'd stay a 10 seed (11 at worst - and not a play-in 11). Of course, if we win 1 in the tourney, we're a 9 seed; win 2 and we're a 7 seed and if we win the B1G tourney, we should be a 4/5 seed. But let's just beat PSU for now and get in.

This is so weird. I’d rather take my chances as a 10 seed than 8-9. I wouldn’t want to play the Zags, Baylor or KU second game in the Big Dance.

 

[RU23]

This is so weird. I’d rather take my chances as a 10 seed than 8-9. I wouldn’t want to play the Zags, Baylor or KU second game in the Big Dance.

People say that every year, we were thrilled with our 10 last year.

I’m interested in the percentage of teams that make the Sweet 16 by seed, if anyone can find that.

 

[RUChoppin]

Why ? Not every Quad 1 or Quad 2 wins or losses are the same. Could be at the top or bottom of the Quads. I am saying the NET has to change the weights on wins, who you beat at the time you beat them. It needs to be overhauled. It can punish you for a bad loss but shouldn’t bury you. Biggest joke , Indiana losing to us is a Quad 3 loss , supposedly a bad loss. We all know that is bullshit .,

The problem with the "who you beat at the time you beat them" approach is that who the hell really knows how strong a team is in November/December? No model is going to be close to useful at that point with scant data available, and human polls are largely relying on prior year performance and reputation.

I can see adjusting for missing players (illness, injury, suspension, etc) but not for "how were they rated at the time?". Maybe a lookback at trends at the end of the year, if a team showed steady growth in efficiency or whatever that they'd be weighted as a better win later in the year than earlier, or vice versa - but that gets squirrelly.

 

[Scarlet Shack]

This is so weird. I’d rather take my chances as a 10 seed than 8-9. I wouldn’t want to play the Zags, Baylor or KU second game in the Big Dance.

I’ll take it a step further

Goal: 11 seed without playing in Dayton

Avoiding a 1 or 2 seed on one day prep ….I’ll take my chances on everyone else

Plus…in a 6-11 game , if you win, historically you probably have a 15% chance of playing a 14 seed , whereas you have only a 6% chance of playing a 15 seed from a 7-10 game and less than 1% chance (thank you UMBC) to play a 16 seed from the 8-9 game

.

 

[jordkap]

I’ll take it a step further

Goal: 11 seed without playing in Dayton

Avoiding a 1 or 2 seed on one day prep ….I’ll take my chances on everyone else

Plus…in a 6-11 game , if you win, historically you probably have a 15% chance of playing a 14 seed , whereas you have only a 6% chance of playing a 15 seed from a 7-10 game and less than 1% chance (thank you UMBC) to play a 16 seed from the 8-9 game

.

I would be very happy to be an 11 seed with a shot at 3 seed Wisconsin.

 

[kcg88]

I would be very happy to be an 11 seed with a shot at 3 seed Wisconsin.

Or Providence

 

[G- RUnit]

I wouldn’t mind Nova either. I think we match up well. I’m curious to see if Gillespie holds up in the Big East tourney. They might prefer an early exit. I think I’d want to avoid UConn.

 

[goru7]

The problem with the "who you beat at the time you beat them" approach is that who the hell really knows how strong a team is in November/December? No model is going to be close to useful at that point with scant data available, and human polls are largely relying on prior year performance and reputation.

I can see adjusting for missing players (illness, injury, suspension, etc) but not for "how were they rated at the time?". Maybe a lookback at trends at the end of the year, if a team showed steady growth in efficiency or whatever that they'd be weighted as a better win later in the year than earlier, or vice versa - but that gets squirrelly.

Maybe they hold off ranking Quad 1,2,3 and 4 until mid January. Like football polls in the preseason are meaningless as at least 4-10 teams come from unranked to ranked. It is an indictment of any model that uses last year’s results on this year’s team and why Kenpom should be ignored early in the year, first 10 games. The object is to align your eye test with what you are seeing on the court so good teams can be identified and then mid way thru the season does the data confirm it.

 

[RUChoppin]

Maybe they hold off ranking Quad 1,2,3 and 4 until mid January. Like football polls in the preseason are meaningless as at least 4-10 teams come from unranked to ranked. It is an indictment of any model that uses last year’s results on this year’s team and why Kenpom should be ignored early in the year, first 10 games. The object is to align your eye test with what you are seeing on the court so good teams can be identified and then mid way thru the season does the data confirm it.

Yeah, but by mid-January, any single game isn't going to move the needle too much for you, so the "how were they ranked when you beat them" becomes less of a thing.... and judging how a team was in early December by their late-January ranking isn't really "when you beat them" anyway.

Ranking wins/losses by that team's full resume is really a better way to go. If anything, though, I'd give a bit more recency bias when it comes to selection or seeding. If a team finishes a lot stronger than it started, imo it should have a better case than a team that finished a lot weaker than it started.

 

[fatsam98]

Even Wachtel has us in as first four now, one guy who is highly respected but seems to rely on the NET more than others

 

[bac2therac]

Maybe they hold off ranking Quad 1,2,3 and 4 until mid January. Like football polls in the preseason are meaningless as at least 4-10 teams come from unranked to ranked. It is an indictment of any model that uses last year’s results on this year’s team and why Kenpom should be ignored early in the year, first 10 games. The object is to align your eye test with what you are seeing on the court so good teams can be identified and then mid way thru the season does the data confirm it.

then you are not even measuring ooc play at all, you cannot just wait until January. I do agree though the net is meaningless until February when we have a strong enough example. The problem is narratives are made and pundits are slow to adjust.

OOC play counts you seem to want to downplay it. If it doesnt matter then we should just play 30 conference games

 

[bac2therac]

Even Wachtel has us in as first four now, one guy who is highly respected but seems to rely on the NET more than others

View embedded media

he is good at what he does but as I explained earlier, two camps of bracketology and Brad is a metrics leaning guy. Others are more who you beat. He still had Loyola in the field yesterday and as last out today but good to see he woke on Wyoming's troubles.

 

[RUScrew85]

The problem with the "who you beat at the time you beat them" approach is that who the hell really knows how strong a team is in November/December? No model is going to be close to useful at that point with scant data available, and human polls are largely relying on prior year performance and reputation.

I can see adjusting for missing players (illness, injury, suspension, etc) but not for "how were they rated at the time?". Maybe a lookback at trends at the end of the year, if a team showed steady growth in efficiency or whatever that they'd be weighted as a better win later in the year than earlier, or vice versa - but that gets squirrelly.

Maybe a hybrid approach would work. Use goru's idea after half the season is played.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Try staying on topic. When you beat a team , how well they were playing , Were they ranked , should be rewarded. Texas A&M beat up on some bad teams that were bad early. They didn’t beat any ranked teams. Your BIg 12 versus Rutgers example makes my point. Rutgers has beaten the other top 8 teams in the conference , all of them , most of them ranked at the time. Oklahoma and Kansas State and West Virginia and Iowa State to a little less of an extent , have lost to the top of the conference or have 1-3 wins where we have 5-6 wins versus the top. So the schedule will weed out the teams that are not as good.

NO

 

[RUScrew85]

Maybe they hold off ranking Quad 1,2,3 and 4 until mid January. Like football polls in the preseason are meaningless as at least 4-10 teams come from unranked to ranked. It is an indictment of any model that uses last year’s results on this year’s team and why Kenpom should be ignored early in the year, first 10 games. The object is to align your eye test with what you are seeing on the court so good teams can be identified and then mid way thru the season does the data confirm it.

You beat me to it.

 

[friar10]

Marquette hasn’t been good either. Very interesting

Marquette lost to DePaul who happens to be playing very good. Other than that they have wins over Illinois, Providence, and twice Villanova.

 

[G- RUnit]

Marquette lost to DePaul who happens to be playing very good. Other than that they have wins over Illinois, Providence, and twice Villanova.

I know. Losses in five of the last eight is concerning. One of wins was Georgetown. Peaked way too early? If you’re a Marquette fan I’d be nervous.
Then again UCLA lost four in a row before Final Four run last year?

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

Marquette lost to DePaul who happens to be playing very good. Other than that they have wins over Illinois, Providence, and twice Villanova.

The Illinois win was without Kofi…

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

If I am on the committee what I care about is a team's record relative to the SOS. Losing to Lafayette and beating Purdue is no different than beating Purdue and losing to Lafayette.

Going off of NET SOS
UM 16-12 SOS 10
RU 17-12 SOS 32
ORE 17-11 SOS 47
FL 19-11 SOS 49
IU 18-11 SOS 53
BYU 19-9 SOS 65
UNC 22-8 SOS 68
MEM 17-9 SOS 76
USF 22-8 SOS 81
WF 23-8 SOS 99
SMU 20-7 SOS 104

Ranked by BART WAB (wins above bubble)
UNC +2.7
SMU +1.6
WF +1.6
USF +1.6
BYU +1.0
UM +0.5
MEM +0.1
FL +0.0
RU -0.4
IU -0.5
ORE -1.1

 

[mugrat86]

And that’s the utter ridiculousness of the NET. It simply over emphasize bad losses and under emphasizes good wins. I wonder how Georgetown would have been penalized in the NET for losing to Chaminade?

It also doesn’t take into account enough close losses to quality teams. We gave Wisconsin and Purdue all they could handle

 

[bac2therac]

full update 3/3


1 SEEDS

• GONZAGA*
• ARIZONA*
• BAYLOR*
• AUBURN*

2 SEEDS

• KENTUCKY
• KANSAS
• WISCONSIN*
• DUKE*

3 SEEDS

• VILLANOVA
• TEXAS TECH
• PURDUE
• TENNESSEE

4 SEEDS

• ILLINOIS
• PROVIDENCE*
• UCLA
• ARKANSAS

5 SEEDS

• HOUSTON *
• CONNECTICUT
• TEXAS
• ALABAMA

6 SEEDS

• LSU
• OHIO STATE
• SAINT MARY'S
• IOWA

7 SEEDS

• BOISE STATE*
• USC
• MARQUETTE
• MURRAY STATE*

8 SEEDS

• COLORADO STATE
• MICHIGAN STATE
• IOWA STATE
• TCU

9 SEEDS

• SETON HALL
• SAN DIEGO STATE
• CREIGHTON
• DAVIDSON*

10 SEEDS

• MICHIGAN
• NOTRE DAME
• MIAMI
• XAVIER

11 SEEDS

• NORTH TEXAS*
• WYOMING
• WAKE FOREST
• RUTGERS

12 SEEDS

• SAN FRANCISCO/INDIANA
• NORTH CAROLINA/BYU
• SOUTH DAKOTA STATE*
• IONA*

13 SEEDS

• CHATTANOOGA*
• NEW MEXICO STATE*
• TOLEDO*
• NORTHERN IOWA*

14 SEEDS

• VERMONT*
• TEXAS STATE*
• PRINCETON*
• MONTANA STATE*

15 SEEDS

• COLGATE*
• UNC WILMINGTON*
• JACKSONVILLE STATE*
• CLEVELAND STATE*

16 SEEDS

• LONGWOOD*
• LONG BEACH STATE*
• ALCORN STATE*/BRYANT*
• NICOLLS STATE* /NORFOLK STATE*

LAST FOUR IN

• INDIANA
• BYU
• NORTH CAROLINA
• SAN FRANCISCO

FIRST FOUR OUT

• SMU
• OREGON
• MEMPHIS
• FLORIDA

NEXT FOUR OUT

• VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH
• VIRGINIA TECH
• LOYOLA CHICAGO
• OKLAHOMA

ON THE FRINGES

• TEXAS A&M
• VIRGINIA
• DAYTON
• COLORADO
• SAINT BONAVENTURE

Rutgers moves ahead of the first 4 for now but hardly safe from dropping back into that grouping for seeding purposes.

Indiana falls to last team in the field. Struggled with this one because their resume is poor with just 3 quality wins to point to. However there are no bad losses. Obviously they will need to beat Purdue to stay in the field and may be jumped by others as early as tonight. In for now but likely will not be a tourney team unless they reach the Big 10 tourney semis

Wyoming is in trouble after losing for the third time in 4 games. NET has slipped to 47. Their BPI is 105 and their SAG is 80. A must win at home vs Fresno State or they may be sitting on the last in or last out line.

Xavier also in trouble, losers of 7 of 8. Georgetown now becomes a must win. Lose that out they are out of the field. Even with a win its not going to help them,.....its likely they need a must win in the Big East tourney.

None of the 4 ACC bubbles are safe. Looking like UNC/ND are in the 2/3 spots, Wake and Miami in the 4/5 and Va Tech/UVA in the 6/7 so alot to be sorted out.