BACATOLOGY: NCAA TOURNAMENT ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR 3/6 PAGE 23
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Rutgers SOS across a variety of metrics:
27 - Sagarin
32 - NET
33 - Bart (elite)
43 - Kenpom
49 - Bart (current)
54 - Bart (basic)
79 - RPI
27 - Sagarin
32 - NET
33 - Bart (elite)
43 - Kenpom
49 - Bart (current)
54 - Bart (basic)
79 - RPI
It is problematic but out of conference games and whether it was or was not a good win is guesswork in November and December. There has to be some extra input that can be designed to account for beating a top team when you beat them. Purdue had already beat a number of teams and were undefeated when they played us as Number 1. They were consensus # 1 in both polls . That win was a tremendous win and we did it without Geo. That win has not gotten the proper weight as a great win as compared to how terrible and punishing the Lafayette loss has been. There has to be tiers established to define wins and losses so there is really a difference between a great win and a good win and a bad loss and a terrible loss. They each should be weighted the same. This is basketball , teams get beat. This isn’t football where 1 loss and except for Alabama and Ohio State you are done. The model has to change
11 sounds good to me. Anything but 8/9
I have always said NET is useful in looking at SOS, but nothing more. I think a win or lose should be binary. I do think when looking at SOS a team like Penn State should be looked at differently that a team like PSU that has same record and same schedule and gets blown out
does not make sense, that would mean beating Rutgers in November and December is worthless and Purdue should be given a bad loss because they lost to a bad Rutgers team in December
Michigan likely locks in a with a win. A loss puts them at 16-13 and back to worrying about staying 2 games above .500
SMU and Memphis cannot afford to lose tonight. Wins will not move the needle correct and losses really hurt
ditto for Oregon, a loss hurts but ultimately its about them making the Pac 12 finals.
Why is NET useful for SOS?
If the NET rating itself is involved in calculating the SOS, then the quality of the NET rating itself is key to the SOS's usefulness. Is Houston the 3rd best team in the country? Their #3 NET ranking certainly helps boost the SOS of the teams that played them.... which ends up lifting the whole AAC.
Won’t happen, but I assume if North Texas loses to awful UTSA tonight, they’ll be in trouble
I am trying to identify the SOS metric I feel is best to use. The bart metrics can be thrown off by real bad teams. I feel a game against a team that is a .1 pythag (#345) shouldn't be viewed much differently than .2 ptyhag (#309) or even .3 pythag (#264) because they all should be a 95-99% W but each have much different impact on BART SOS.
Now the elite bart seems to match NET. NET and BART are pretty close so I am guessing the elite kind of ferets out some of the #350 dreg so maybe it is a purer measure
yet they have a pretty good shot of an at large if they dont get the AQ but not with a hideous loss like that
It's close for us, but not close in general. For example, Elite Bart has Iowa's SOS at 36 and NET has it at 61.
A big part of why our SOS isn’t much better than many of those other schools is because Maine and Lehigh turned out to be worse than Kennasaw St and Bellamine. Unless you actually lose the game (and suffer the relative penalty - like we are for Lafayette), selection should have as little emphasis as possible on which of these cupcakes you beat at home. A bubble team should beat a 220ish midmajor just the same as 350 95%+ of the time.
Let’s now do as you say and flip Purdue and Lafayette. No Purdue win. Instead we have no Q4 losses. On the wins side we have a road win @ NET 20 (Wisconsin), Illinois (14), Iowa (17), Ohio State (22), Michigan State (35), Michigan (32) and @ Indiana (45). We also have a decent road with @ Maryland (87) and even the win @ Nebraska (148) looking a little better.
Sure, Maryland would still be quad 3 because it was at home, but with the switch you describe Rutgers would have only one loss outside the NET top 107. And that road game (UMass) you’d most certainly be able to chalk it up to Geo’s absence.
We’re probably a lock right now if you swap those two games - Purdue and Lafayette.
I agree that SOME metrics hammer us for scheduling 99%ers when we wouldn't get hit by scheduling 95%ers.
I honestly don't see us in any different shape flip flopping Purdue and Lafayette.
We will just disagree here (respectfully). I think all teams should be evaluated SOLELY on what their record is/was adjusted for SOS. Was the team above their expected win/loss for a NCAA team on a SOS adjusted basis.
This is the reason why I am not 100% confident that the resume we bring to the committee is top 43-46. I have no doubts that right now we are a top 30-35 team in terms of ability on March 3rd.
Not sure about lock, but we'd be much more comfortable right now. I think we'd still need to beat PSU to become a true lock.
We also have losses to
190 UMass
107 Minnesota
100 DePaul
94 Penn State
87 Maryland
83 Northwestern
And a single-possession OT win over 300 Lehigh
The top of our resume looks great, and the bottom has a lot of warts.
Would HATE to play a B10 team in the first round, please give us LSU or St Marys
Dave’s Seed List
Below is Dave’s current Seed List (at the time of publication). A couple of things to note: Teams in BOLD represent the projected automatic bid based on league results at the time of publicat…
bracketville.wordpress.com
Outside of some of the stat tools, close losses are forgiven and forgotten. Lehigh was the first game of the season and we found a way to win.
The teams you list above really aren’t that bad except UMass. And I really feel Geo’s absence from that game should be getting more mentions on the media bubble discussions. 16 threes they hit. That’s with 19 minutes of Jones and 9 minutes of Hyatt defending the perimeter. Geo would’ve clearly been a better choice.
that will not happen, dont get caught up in Iowa being the 6 opposite of us..they would be adjusted
I don’t mind rewarding a team when they have an all time year. Wyoming hasn’t been good in forever. Remember the days and aging myself with one of the best names in basketball history, Fennis Dembo!!
I gotta think we beat PSU, we are already out of the first four game. Everything post is gravy and seeding.
Ive been saying it, yes they looked good at 21-3 but 3 losses in last 4 not so much. Remember CSU was left out last year from Mountain West...do they deserve 4..does the WCC deserve 4. Those bids are likely to go to A10 and AAC 2nd
bad net, bad losses, 18-13 not a great record, power conference school on display in first 4 just like last year ucla/msu....match up with ACC school like UNC
What about Boise? 100% lock? Their non-conference kind of looks like ours. 4 losses and several bad ones. 15-2 looks nice - lots of road wins in conference but mostly against crap schools.
If you are right we can't have UNC beat Duke and/or Indiana beat Purdue. Good chance that would permanently have them leap frog us.
Boise is a lock. For starters they are regular season champs. That is enough there. Yes not an overwhelming profile and I feel the NET has inflated the mediocre to bad teams in the MWC. Fresno is not better than penn state and maryland. They did sweep San Diego State and beat Wyoming. 11 Q1 and 2 look good on the surface but not much quality. A bad Q4 loss but the Irvine loss is also bad even if its a Q2
the odds of either is less than 1%. UNC is in the field anyway as of now so its more Indiana but they would also need to win another game in the Big 10 tourney
BYU is going to be out if they cannot beat San Fran in the WCC quarters likely replaced by a AAC school.
for RUs purposes...Oregon, Florida, and Va Tech are the ones to fear for any runs . Florida hosts Kentucky Saturday.
You are absolutely correct and that is why Net is stupid. Beating Purdue should offset the loss to Lafayette especially considering we are a different team now as compared to date of Lafayette game
What happens
1. beat PSU and lose NW or MIN
2. lose PSU and beat NW or MIN and lose OSU
each of those scenarios will require us to bubble watch and be wary of bid stealers
1. beat PSU and lose NW or MIN
2. lose PSU and beat NW or MIN and lose OSU
each of those scenarios will require us to bubble watch and be wary of bid stealers
I am having trouble with your logic......
UNC loses to Duke and loses in 1st round of ACC has their resume thrown up on the overhead next to RU if we beat PSU and lose to NW OR lose to PSU beat NW and lose to OSU
neither is optimal but #1 we still probably get in.....#2 is not a good scenerio at all.
do you think UNC is beating Duke?
UNC loses that first round game in the ACC they are in trouble depending on what the other acc bubbles are doing, stop comparing them to Rutgers
my ultimate goal is to make the tournament, schools who play in the first 4 end up being relatively successful
Since 2011, the NCAA tournament welcomes 68 teams each year. But to get to 64, we first have to play the First Four. In those games, the last four automatic qualifiers and the last four at-large bids play.
Though these AQ teams, which are 16 seeds, have yet to win after the First Four, the at-large victors have had outsized success when it comes to their seeds once playing in the 64-team tournament. Don't sleep on these teams in your bracket. In the first year, 2010-11 VCU went from No. 11 and playing USC in Dayton in the First Four to playing in the Final Four in Houston. In 2020-21, UCLA also went First Four to Final Four after beating No. 1 Michigan in the Elite Eight.
So far, 2019 is the only tournament where at least one at-large First Four team failed to win a game in the 64-team bracket.
In total, First Four winners are 18-20 starting with appearances in the field of 64 — a 47.4 win percentage overall.
Also, at-large First Four winners are 9-11 in the first round/round of 64, which comes out to a 45 win percentage. For comparison, No. 9 seeds are 17-23 vs. the No. 8 seed since 2011 (the first instance of the First Four). That 17-23 record is...a 42.5 win percentage. In other words, at-large First Four winners, though seeded between No. 11 and No. 14, are winning in the first round at a greater rate than a seed at least two spots better (No. 9 seeds).
Though these AQ teams, which are 16 seeds, have yet to win after the First Four, the at-large victors have had outsized success when it comes to their seeds once playing in the 64-team tournament. Don't sleep on these teams in your bracket. In the first year, 2010-11 VCU went from No. 11 and playing USC in Dayton in the First Four to playing in the Final Four in Houston. In 2020-21, UCLA also went First Four to Final Four after beating No. 1 Michigan in the Elite Eight.
So far, 2019 is the only tournament where at least one at-large First Four team failed to win a game in the 64-team bracket.
In total, First Four winners are 18-20 starting with appearances in the field of 64 — a 47.4 win percentage overall.
Also, at-large First Four winners are 9-11 in the first round/round of 64, which comes out to a 45 win percentage. For comparison, No. 9 seeds are 17-23 vs. the No. 8 seed since 2011 (the first instance of the First Four). That 17-23 record is...a 42.5 win percentage. In other words, at-large First Four winners, though seeded between No. 11 and No. 14, are winning in the first round at a greater rate than a seed at least two spots better (No. 9 seeds).
| 010-11 VCU (23-11) | 11 | W, No. 6 Georgetown, 74-56 W, No. 3 Purdue, 94-76 W, No. 10 Florida State, 72-71 (OT) W, No. 1 Kansas, 71-61 L, No. 8 Butler, 70-62 |
| 2010-11 Clemson (21-11) | 12 | L, No. 5 West Virginia, 84-76 |
| 2011-12 South Florida (20-13) | 12 | W, No. 5 Temple, 58-44 L, No. 13 Ohio, 62-56 |
| 2011-12 BYU (25-8) | 14 | L, No. 3 Marquette, 88-68 |
| 2012-13 Saint Mary's (27-6) | 11 | L, No. 6 Memphis, 54-52 |
| 2012-13 La Salle (21-9) | 13 | W, No. 4 Kansas State, 63-61 W, No. 12 Ole Miss, 76-74 L, No. 8 Wichita State, 72-58 |
| 2013-14 Tennessee (21-12) | 11 | W, No. 6 UMass, 86-67 W, No. 14 Mercer, 83-63 L, No. 2 Michigan, 73-71 |
| 2013-14 NC State (21-13) | 12 | L, No. 5 Saint Louis, 83-80 (OT) |
| 2014-15 Ole Miss (20-12) | 11 | L, No. 6 Xavier, 76-57 |
| 2014-15 Dayton (25-8) | 11 | W, No. 6 Providence, 66-53 L, No. 3 Oklahoma, 72-66 |
| 2015-16 Wichita State (24-8) | 11 | W, No. 6 Arizona, 65-55 L, No. 3 Miami (FL), 65-57 |
| 2015-16 Michigan (22-12) | 11 | L, No. 6 Notre Dame, 70-63 |
| 2016-17 USC (24-9) | 11 | W, No. 6 SMU, 66-65 L, No. 3 Baylor, 82-78 |
| 2016-17 Kansas State (20-13) | 11 | L, No. 6 Cincinnati, 75-61 |
| 2017-18 St. Bonaventure (25-7) | 11 | L, No. 6 Florida, 77-62 |
| 2017-18 Syracuse (20-13) | 11 | W, No. 6 TCU, 57-52 W, No. 3 Michigan State, 55-53 L, No. 2 Duke, 69-65 |
| 2018-19 Belmont (26-5) | 11 | L, No. 6 Maryland, 79-77 |
| 2018-19 Arizona State (22-10) | 11 | L, No. 6 Buffalo, 91-74 |
| 2020-21 Drake (25-4) | 11 | L, No. 6 USC, 72-56 |
| 2020-21 UCLA (17-9) | 11 | W, No. 6 BYU, 73-62 W, No. 14 Abilene Christian, 67-47 W, No. 2 Alabama, 88-78 (OT) W, No. 1 Michigan, 51-49 L, No. 1 Gonzaga, 93-90 (OT) |
NCAA tournament records by seed since 2010-11 starting with the first round/round of 64
| SEED | RECORD | WIN PERCENTAGE |
|---|---|---|
| No. 8 | 31-36 | 46.3 |
| No. 9 | 23-36 | 39.0 |
| At-large First Four teams (combining below records) | 18-20 | 47.4 |
| No. 11 First Four (15 teams) | 15-15 | 50.0 |
| No. 12 First Four (3 teams) | 1-3 | 25.0 |
| No. 13 First Four (1 team) | 2-1* | 66.7 |
| No. 14 First Four (1 team) | 0-1* | 0. |
