Wait till Coach K retires after this season and Boeheim retires in the next year to 2 after that at Cuse. The ACC is as dead as disco in basketball.
What we learned from the selection committee...
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
Sarahcuse is already dead.
Classic case of a coach hanging on too long.
Classic case of a coach hanging on too long.
I know you were very firm about conference record not mattering, but I think that is true to an extent. Committee won't care if you finished 6th and the 7th place team has a better resume.
Leaving out the 3rd place ACC team or 4th place B1G team is a little different and it impacts perception
Who you beat > who you lost to
Glad to see common sense prevail
High Q1 wins and wins against the field should be weighted the most
We broke the NET
Glad to see common sense prevail
High Q1 wins and wins against the field should be weighted the most
We broke the NET
Predict perfectly? Its not just about getting all 68 teams. Palm seeded only 32 of the 68 teams on the correct line. That is atrocious, and even worse when you realize that his information is the one being shared on CBS during the big games on the final weekend before Selection Sunday!
Correct Seed Percentage:
Palm (CBS) - 32/68 = 47%
Lunardi (ESPN) - 38/68 = 56%
DeCourcy (FOX) - 50/68 = 74%
DeCourcy by far had the best year of the three. Some above mentioned Brad Wachtel as well. He went 49/68 = 72% with exact seeding. He would be a great candidate to replace Palm on CBS.
what a learned is... short of winning (or AT LEAST winning 3)...conference tourneys mean little....
don't schedule cupcakes - because they don't help in any way (just play some pre-season or exempt games) and Do Good in conference...
don't schedule cupcakes - because they don't help in any way (just play some pre-season or exempt games) and Do Good in conference...
I think they matter if you lose early to a bad team (they can knock you out) or obviously (if you win it all). Seems like the committee did not put as much stock in winning these games as it did in winning the regular season games.
BAC, some great summary takeaways.
in my opinion , despite 1 or 2 seeding errors the committee did a good job. Much much better than the last 3-4 or forever years. For years the seeding was truly terrible trying to set up TV matchups that made no sense. Playing mid majors against each other instead of the Power 6 against a mid major which is what the tourney was about and miss seeding teams all the time.
I do think the Committee from their interviews over the weekend advised they had most of the field selected except 6-7 teams. I really think this is a true and more honest way to select teams. You go through an entire season and finish whatever place and with whatever wins in your conference and it should matter. One team struggling down the stretch winning 4 games in 4 days should not wipe out a season. We earned our 4th seed with 12 out of 20 BIG 10 games , most against the top half of the conference (7-4). That meant something and identified a worthy team. I cannot justify Michigan ahead of us in any way because they finished 10-10 , 2 games behind us and did not play 1,23 two times each like we did . Yeah their out of conference was a tougher but that is a relative term. They got blown out by a very good Arizona team , blown out by a mediocre UNC team , almost blown out by UCF a non tourney decent team. They beat San Diego State , who got better later and was a tourney team and beat Buffalo , UnLV and Tarelton State , all non tourney teams. If you are hanging your hat on beating San Diego State and getting blown out by the 3 other losses , something is wrong.
If a team gets hot , then if they weren’t in or that close to getting in at the end of the regular season , then they had to win the conference tourney. Va Tech if they lost to Duke would have and should have been out and completed the 4 in 4 to earn a bid. Texas A& M did not. ( Although personally thought their wins in the SEC tourney were more impressive , a much better conference , and I thought there were in on Saturday and would have bumped someone ( Indiana , Wyoming , Notre Dame. ).
Also , the strength of conferences has to play a role. The Committee selected 9 BIG 10 teams and 5 ACC teams ( a gift ) . Rutgers finishing 4 th in conference with a 12 -8 record is light years ahead of Notre Dame finishing second at 15–5 in an absolutely putrid , probably the worst ACC ever . If the Big 10 was like terrible like in 2018 , I think, when Nebraska was 13-5 , but beat no one , maybe 1 of the top teams , they deserved to be left off , because the BiG 10 sucked that year, same as the ACC this year , with an okay overrated Duke and bubbles Notre Dame , UNC , Miami and Wake Forest at year end. The Committee has to value conference records and standings and who you beat, the top half , when evaluating teams from consensus better conferences. It did with Rutgers but my point is that it should have done it more and we should have been firmly in the field at the end of the regular season. We earned it .
Final takeaway is Pike should not decline any of these preseason tourneys , playing 3 games on a neutral floor or 2 games is not going to bite us in the ass if we take care of business in conference. If we didn’t , then we didn’t deserve a bid. It also would be better for our fan base and season ticket holders. For the life of me , Jimmy V was a Rutgers graduate. We should be 1 of the featured teams going forward every year. MSG is our second home and now that we are good again( took a long time ) all the bandwagon fans will fill the joint. Stop with the local round robin 3-4 game home schedule and play 3-4 not 6-7 against them. You do not know who is going to end up below 300 so do whatever you want. Plus the Committee can never say you played 6 teams in the 300’s again.
Love the job BAC has done and all the regulars that have made this a very vibrant message board that is followed closely by the media people but more importantly just basketball junkies shooting the breeze.
in my opinion , despite 1 or 2 seeding errors the committee did a good job. Much much better than the last 3-4 or forever years. For years the seeding was truly terrible trying to set up TV matchups that made no sense. Playing mid majors against each other instead of the Power 6 against a mid major which is what the tourney was about and miss seeding teams all the time.
I do think the Committee from their interviews over the weekend advised they had most of the field selected except 6-7 teams. I really think this is a true and more honest way to select teams. You go through an entire season and finish whatever place and with whatever wins in your conference and it should matter. One team struggling down the stretch winning 4 games in 4 days should not wipe out a season. We earned our 4th seed with 12 out of 20 BIG 10 games , most against the top half of the conference (7-4). That meant something and identified a worthy team. I cannot justify Michigan ahead of us in any way because they finished 10-10 , 2 games behind us and did not play 1,23 two times each like we did . Yeah their out of conference was a tougher but that is a relative term. They got blown out by a very good Arizona team , blown out by a mediocre UNC team , almost blown out by UCF a non tourney decent team. They beat San Diego State , who got better later and was a tourney team and beat Buffalo , UnLV and Tarelton State , all non tourney teams. If you are hanging your hat on beating San Diego State and getting blown out by the 3 other losses , something is wrong.
If a team gets hot , then if they weren’t in or that close to getting in at the end of the regular season , then they had to win the conference tourney. Va Tech if they lost to Duke would have and should have been out and completed the 4 in 4 to earn a bid. Texas A& M did not. ( Although personally thought their wins in the SEC tourney were more impressive , a much better conference , and I thought there were in on Saturday and would have bumped someone ( Indiana , Wyoming , Notre Dame. ).
Also , the strength of conferences has to play a role. The Committee selected 9 BIG 10 teams and 5 ACC teams ( a gift ) . Rutgers finishing 4 th in conference with a 12 -8 record is light years ahead of Notre Dame finishing second at 15–5 in an absolutely putrid , probably the worst ACC ever . If the Big 10 was like terrible like in 2018 , I think, when Nebraska was 13-5 , but beat no one , maybe 1 of the top teams , they deserved to be left off , because the BiG 10 sucked that year, same as the ACC this year , with an okay overrated Duke and bubbles Notre Dame , UNC , Miami and Wake Forest at year end. The Committee has to value conference records and standings and who you beat, the top half , when evaluating teams from consensus better conferences. It did with Rutgers but my point is that it should have done it more and we should have been firmly in the field at the end of the regular season. We earned it .
Final takeaway is Pike should not decline any of these preseason tourneys , playing 3 games on a neutral floor or 2 games is not going to bite us in the ass if we take care of business in conference. If we didn’t , then we didn’t deserve a bid. It also would be better for our fan base and season ticket holders. For the life of me , Jimmy V was a Rutgers graduate. We should be 1 of the featured teams going forward every year. MSG is our second home and now that we are good again( took a long time ) all the bandwagon fans will fill the joint. Stop with the local round robin 3-4 game home schedule and play 3-4 not 6-7 against them. You do not know who is going to end up below 300 so do whatever you want. Plus the Committee can never say you played 6 teams in the 300’s again.
Love the job BAC has done and all the regulars that have made this a very vibrant message board that is followed closely by the media people but more importantly just basketball junkies shooting the breeze.
Actually Pike should hire Wachtel to advise on the OOC schedule.
When I said predict perfectly I meant who gets in, not seeding etc. He is terrible, I know.
Also, I found it very telling that I saw an interview with next year's chairman (I think they're in the room the year before they take over) and he actually mentioned someone's conference record when discussing a specific team. They've been telling us forever that conference records don't matter but if you're following college basketball closely and watching and reading all year, if you don't know a bubble team's conference record then you're blind. It has to have some influence even if they don't normally admit it.
One other point I forgot. Conference tournaments meaning almost nothing is a travesty . They shouldn’t change the pre set teams except when teams win the tourney have to be rewarded. Iowa was a 5 seed going in and should have ended a 4 at least and borderline 3 for winning the BIG 10. For them to remain a 5 is a joke. Why kill yourselves playing 3 games in 3 nights or 4 games in 4 nights to have no reward except to say you are BIG 10 tourney champs. Teams risk injury. That has to change. Contingency plans were always done and done this year with Davison losing.
Providence was a 4 in the first reveal and won a ton of close games and then lost a few games at the end and got blown out by Creighton by 25. They shouldn’t have remained a 4 since they did nothing to remain a 4 from the first reveal to the end of the tourneys. Duke another overrated team. Why no swap of Tennessee and Duke where Tennessee was a top 3 team before and won the more difficult SEC, as they should have been a 2.
So a bunch of other things need to be cleaned up.
Providence was a 4 in the first reveal and won a ton of close games and then lost a few games at the end and got blown out by Creighton by 25. They shouldn’t have remained a 4 since they did nothing to remain a 4 from the first reveal to the end of the tourneys. Duke another overrated team. Why no swap of Tennessee and Duke where Tennessee was a top 3 team before and won the more difficult SEC, as they should have been a 2.
So a bunch of other things need to be cleaned up.
This is what always made me so convinced we were a lock.
The NCAA would never leave out the 4th place team from the best conference.
I've been looking at the relationship between NET and seeding. The correlation between NET and seeding for the 50 1-12 teams is .817. It's higher for all teams, but that would include teams for which NET wouldn't have been a factor (AQs). .817 is pretty high, with NET accounting for roughly 2/3 of the variance in seeding. That is not to say that NET actually influenced the seedings in that fashion, but rather that is how strong the relationship is.
I graphed the scatterplot between NET and seeding below. As you can see, it's pretty much linear with a few moderate outliers. Houston (HO) got a substantially worse seed than it's NET and Wisky and Providence did better. Below this graph is one with all 68 teams in it (except for T A&M CC, for whom I cannot find a NET). Caveat emptor: I entered these data myself, so could be some key entry errors.
I graphed the scatterplot between NET and seeding below. As you can see, it's pretty much linear with a few moderate outliers. Houston (HO) got a substantially worse seed than it's NET and Wisky and Providence did better. Below this graph is one with all 68 teams in it (except for T A&M CC, for whom I cannot find a NET). Caveat emptor: I entered these data myself, so could be some key entry errors.
Last edited:
SkilletHead thinks like me.
Here is the difference between four rankings (NET, Bart's WAB, My Computer Ranking that I post in the "computer rankings" thread, and my "better NET") and the committee's rankings for everyone above the last at-large line:
Here is the difference between four rankings (NET, Bart's WAB, My Computer Ranking that I post in the "computer rankings" thread, and my "better NET") and the committee's rankings for everyone above the last at-large line:
| Team | Seed | NET | Wins Above Bubble (Bart) | My Model A | My "Better NET" | NET Error | WAB Error | My Model Error | "Better NET" Error |
| Gonzaga | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 1 |
| Arizona | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kansas | 3 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Baylor | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Auburn | 5 | 11 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Kentucky | 6 | 5 | 9 | 7 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Villanova | 7 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Duke | 8 | 12 | 11 | 13 | 17 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 9 |
| Wisconsin | 9 | 24 | 10 | 16 | 12 | 15 | 1 | 7 | 3 |
| Tennessee | 10 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 3 |
| Purdue | 11 | 13 | 7 | 11 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| Texas Tech | 12 | 9 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| UCLA | 13 | 10 | 15 | 10 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| Illinois | 14 | 15 | 19 | 19 | 21 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Providence | 15 | 32 | 14 | 14 | 6 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Arkansas | 16 | 20 | 18 | 18 | 19 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| UConn | 17 | 17 | 26 | 17 | 14 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 3 |
| Houston | 18 | 3 | 12 | 12 | 18 | 15 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Saint Mary's | 19 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Iowa | 20 | 14 | 16 | 15 | 24 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Alabama | 21 | 30 | 34 | 29 | 35 | 9 | 13 | 8 | 14 |
| LSU | 22 | 18 | 32 | 23 | 33 | 4 | 10 | 1 | 11 |
| Texas | 23 | 16 | 28 | 21 | 22 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| Colorado State | 24 | 28 | 17 | 22 | 15 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 9 |
| USC | 25 | 35 | 21 | 25 | 23 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| Murray State | 26 | 21 | 24 | 36 | 16 | 5 | 2 | 10 | 10 |
| Michigan State | 27 | 36 | 25 | 28 | 30 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Ohio State | 28 | 26 | 42 | 35 | 36 | 2 | 14 | 7 | 8 |
| Boise State | 29 | 29 | 22 | 26 | 27 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 2 |
| North Carolina | 30 | 31 | 23 | 34 | 38 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| San Diego State | 31 | 25 | 27 | 24 | 29 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 2 |
| Seton Hall | 32 | 37 | 35 | 27 | 26 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Creighton | 33 | 55 | 39 | 31 | 25 | 22 | 6 | 2 | 8 |
| TCU | 34 | 44 | 29 | 32 | 32 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 2 |
| Marquette | 35 | 42 | 52 | 37 | 28 | 7 | 17 | 2 | 7 |
| Memphis | 36 | 33 | 43 | 40 | 48 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 12 |
| San Francisco | 37 | 22 | 36 | 30 | 41 | 15 | 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Miami | 38 | 62 | 37 | 50 | 46 | 24 | 1 | 12 | 8 |
| Loyola Chicago | 39 | 23 | 38 | 48 | 61 | 16 | 1 | 9 | 22 |
| Davidson | 40 | 41 | 33 | 43 | 43 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 3 |
| Iowa State | 41 | 49 | 30 | 33 | 31 | 8 | 11 | 8 | 10 |
| Michigan | 42 | 34 | 54 | 42 | 42 | 8 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Wyoming | 43 | 50 | 31 | 41 | 34 | 7 | 12 | 2 | 9 |
| Rutgers | 44 | 77 | 61 | 63 | 47 | 33 | 17 | 19 | 3 |
| Indiana | 45 | 38 | 55 | 45 | 44 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 1 |
| Virginia Tech | 46 | 27 | 48 | 46 | 57 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 11 |
| Notre Dame | 47 | 53 | 45 | 54 | 51 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Mean Abs Error | 7.06383 | 5.276596 | 3.638297872 | 5.063829787 |
All three of the other models predict committee seed much better than NET.
My computer rankings (which contain are margin of victory component and a pure W/L component) were off by an average of 3.6 spots for the committee's top 47.
My "Better NET" which is a pure W/L model was off by 5.1
Bart's WAB which is a pure W/L where the game difficulty depends on efficiency was off by 5.3
The NET, which the committee is supposedly using, was off by 7.1
Conclusions
(a) MOV / efficiency does matter to some degree
(b) They do not give a **** about the NET
My computer rankings (which contain are margin of victory component and a pure W/L component) were off by an average of 3.6 spots for the committee's top 47.
My "Better NET" which is a pure W/L model was off by 5.1
Bart's WAB which is a pure W/L where the game difficulty depends on efficiency was off by 5.3
The NET, which the committee is supposedly using, was off by 7.1
Conclusions
(a) MOV / efficiency does matter to some degree
(b) They do not give a **** about the NET
Correlation between seed and model:
NET = 0.814 (slightly different from Skillet's # because I am using the actual seed # and not the 1-16 and also because I only included up through Notre Dame as that is the last team we can infer an overall ranking from the committee for)
WAB = 0.898
"Better NET" = 0.903
My original model = 0.942
NET = 0.814 (slightly different from Skillet's # because I am using the actual seed # and not the 1-16 and also because I only included up through Notre Dame as that is the last team we can infer an overall ranking from the committee for)
WAB = 0.898
"Better NET" = 0.903
My original model = 0.942
Using solver in Excel I fit a linear combination of the four models (constraints each model weight between 0 and 1, sum of weights = 1)
The weights are:
NET 18.1%
WAB 12.3%
My Original Model 40.5%
Better NET 29.0%
This gets the average error to 3.2 spots and the correlation to 0.954
The weights are:
NET 18.1%
WAB 12.3%
My Original Model 40.5%
Better NET 29.0%
This gets the average error to 3.2 spots and the correlation to 0.954
Rutgers was the biggest miss by every one of these models except for Better NET.
Actual seed 44
NET 77
WAB 61
My Original Model 63
Better NET 47
Combined Model Prediction 60.6
Actual seed 44
NET 77
WAB 61
My Original Model 63
Better NET 47
Combined Model Prediction 60.6
Bart's actual T-Ranketology has an avg error of 2.74 and a correlation of 0.968, outperforming even the in-sample performance of the fitted model. Which makes sense because none of the other ones are actual designed for this purpose.
If you let his model into the combined model the weighting of the actual NET drops to zero:
NET 0%
WAB 10.3%
My Original Model 0.2%
Better NET 18.1%
Bart T-Ranketology 71.5%
Average Error 2.02 spots, Correlation 0.982
Caveats:
- There are multicollinearity issues because Bart's T-Ranketology already uses NET and WAB as inputs
- We are probably pushing how many parameters we can fit on a data set of 47 teams without overfitting
It's interesting that my original model, which was the best performing and had the highest weight of the four before, drops to basically zero weight once Bart's T-Ranketology comes in.
It's also interesting that Better Net seems to add significant information to what he has.
If I exclude it from the fit I get:
NET 0.0%
WAB 13.1%
My Original Model 21.1%
Bart T-Ranketology 65.7%
Average Error 2.23 spots, Correlation 0.977
If you let his model into the combined model the weighting of the actual NET drops to zero:
NET 0%
WAB 10.3%
My Original Model 0.2%
Better NET 18.1%
Bart T-Ranketology 71.5%
Average Error 2.02 spots, Correlation 0.982
Caveats:
- There are multicollinearity issues because Bart's T-Ranketology already uses NET and WAB as inputs
- We are probably pushing how many parameters we can fit on a data set of 47 teams without overfitting
It's interesting that my original model, which was the best performing and had the highest weight of the four before, drops to basically zero weight once Bart's T-Ranketology comes in.
It's also interesting that Better Net seems to add significant information to what he has.
If I exclude it from the fit I get:
NET 0.0%
WAB 13.1%
My Original Model 21.1%
Bart T-Ranketology 65.7%
Average Error 2.23 spots, Correlation 0.977
I'm a Syracuse hater, but they were in the Sweet 16 last year. So it seems to me that SU and Boeheim are still relevant. But I do wonder if he's just playing out the string with his son and if the end is near.
You could say the same the same about Iowa too. Their stellar NET made little sense until they finished on fire down the stretch and won the Big10 tournament. But that may just be the numbers working like a broken clock — now matter how shaky, they are still right twice a day. 😏
bumping this from last year and the example of Dayton last year is interesting.....they were 23-10 and the last team left out. Somewhat surprising because the A10 already had 2 schools in the field, if Richmond didnt win the conference tourney, Dayton would have went. Remember Daytons numbers...Q1: 4-2, Q1/2: 9-6 but Q3: 5-1 and Q4: 9-3. A whopping 3 Q4 losses plus a Q3 and these were really bad losses like LaSalle, Lipscomb, Austin Peay and UMass Lowell. They had great wins: Kansas, Va Tech, and Miami with league wins over Richmond and Davidson so 5 wins vs the field. Again they made their hay OOC but still they were going to dance with those 3 Q4 losses until Richmond stole their bid. I didnt have them in my last 8 out, I was so dismissive of those losses...so keep that in mind this year
The original post is a must read to refresh ourselves on what we forget.....note the stuff about 15 loss schools and that will be put to the test with Oklahoma State should they lose today.
Original post is the committee values Q1 wins and wins against the field . That would help us.
i would feel more confident if we beat someone ooc or had wisconsins ooc sos...to have a sos of 308 non conference in this day and age is embarrassing
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
BB Recruiting Rutgers Basketball lands Princeton transfer forward Zach Martini- Latest: RUSCFORMERLYRULOU
