2023 Pre-NCAA Tourney Discussion and Bubble Watch

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[PoppyHart]

Shocked. Simply shocked.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[jncuse]

I think you put too much value into the NET rankings. If they were undefeated in CUSA then fine. But 2 Ls and nothing OOC, sorry.

They played no one OOC including 2 D2 games. Lost to a bad Ole Miss team.

They have no business making it.

I'm not putting too much value into anything. I assess base on what the committee tends to do and based on trends. Not what I want the committee to do.

You assess on what you want the committee to do. That is not the way it works.

I believe the lowest NET or RPI to be excluded from the tournament ever is #24. Florida Atlantic is #15 and #11 respectively. So they are going to need a lot of bad on their resume, outside fo that for them to be excluded.

I listed a number of things that show the resume is not "bad" outside of the NET
- Strong KP of #28, which the committee can now use to evaluate mid majors against the field
- 5-3 record Q1+Q2... once again 5 wins is not high, but the amount for a mid is good and more important the % is satisfactory. If you want to consider road games at North Texas and UAB as dog**** that is fine, but that is not how the system works.
- Under this system the loss at Ole Miss is not a bad loss. Just because you consider it a bad loss it isn't.
- They have no bad losses. (that is not easy for a bubble level team to accomplish) - most have at least 2. Here are the bad loss results for the last 6 teams in the tourney per the current matrix. Rutgers has 4 bad losses. Pitt has 2 (including a Q4). Utah St has 2 Q4 losses. Nevada has 2 losses. Miss St and Penn St have 1.
- Expecting them to go 20-0 in Conference USA is absurd, when that slate has 2 Q1 games and 3 Q2 games. Going 18-2 in Conference USA is fine. We are not comparing Florida Atlantic to top 4 seeds, we are comparing them to bubble teams. They had 5 Q1+Q2 games in conference and 8 Q3 games. Its not a tough schedule, but at the same time it would be very tough for a bubble team to go 18-2 in that schedule. A bubble team tends to go about .500 in Q1+Q2 games - so there is 2 losses expected right there. maybe 3 if they are unlucky. But they would also tend to lose at least 1 Q3 game as well or Q4 game as well.

- They do have one negative - the OOC SOS was not good. But that is not enough to kill them in my view. Not enough other bad for that factor to kill them.

 

[jncuse]

Big issue is rankings are still fairly subjective causing inflated metrics especially the net. Q1 and Q2 games would be different if the rankings were a bit more realistic. Everyone is saying how strong the Big 10 and Big 12 are this year because of their OOC. They further say the ACC is down for the same. There were some bad loses for sure, but where is the fact that the ACC won the ACC/Big 10 tourney 8-6? I havew watched a bunch of games from both Big 10 and Big 12 since I live in Iowa and I can tell you that there have been just as many bad games here as there was in the ACC. Some really really bad stinker of games.

#1. My analysis is based on quality wins against teams out of conference, not within conference. So any rankings bias within conference would not matter. But more importantly rankings have zero impact on the NET, and therefore have zero impact on what is defined as a Q1 or Q2 win. What drives NET is how a team performs, and how their conference performs as a whole in OOC, because this will drive the NET up of members (and Q1+q2 opportunities) when they start playing each other in conference.


#2. The Big 12 was extremely dominant compared to the ACC. Sure you watched some games in Iowa, but the OOC numbers speak for themselves, and that is what drives up the net of conference members once conference play starts.

At the end of the day the ACC lacked dominant teams, and more importantly they had 4 or 5 really bad teams that killed their metrics / limited quality wins compared to other better conferences.

B12 had 30 quality out of conference wins (3 per team). The ACC had 21 (1.4 per team) (Q1+Q2_
ACC had 18 out of conference bad losses. The B12 had 2. (Q3+Q4)
B12 had 15 Q1 wins out of conference, ACC had 7.
B12 has the #1 conference NET and conference RPI, ACC has the #7 conference NET (#6 RPI)

#3. While it is true that the ACC did beat the B10 8-6, the OOC slate is about 160 games for both conference -- not just 14 games. And thankfully the ACC did do well in the challenge, or their out of conference would have been really bad. These games helped limit the damage.

What happened in those other 140 or so games is going to be more important than the 14 games.

Despite what the ACC did in the challenge, in the end the B10 did much better, which will end up driving NET up for its member teams once conference play starts. Again the numbers speak for themselves.
- the B10 has 16 Q1 victories out of conference vs ACC's 7.
- And they only had 7 bad losses vs the 18 bad losses for the ACC.
- The B10 lost 37 games, the ACC lost 52.
- The B10 is #2 in Conference NET and #3 in Conference RPI

 

[jncuse]

Wisconsin lost yesterday (Q2) to Ohio St. They really needed it.
They are 17-14 with a NET of 81.
They are 6-7 in Q1 and 5-6 in Q2. And only 1 bad loss.
It's a similar resume to what got us in 1 year, but they really need that game against Ohio St yesterday who is 14-18

Oklahome St did what they had to do yesterday beating Q2 Oklahoma. Not enough to really move them up, but it gives them a shot agianst #7 in the country Texas today. That win would put them above the line.


Arizona St had a Q4 nuisance game win against Oreong St yesterday. Does nothing for them.
Today they play a Q1 game against USC which is a must win to stay alive.

Michigan plays Rutgers today, and UNC plays Virginia today. if they win those games they start getting looked at more closely. But clearly if they lose they should be done.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I'm not putting too much value into anything. I assess base on what the committee tends to do and based on trends. Not what I want the committee to do.

You assess on what you want the committee to do. That is not the way it works.

I believe the lowest NET or RPI to be excluded from the tournament ever is #24. Florida Atlantic is #15 and #11 respectively. So they are going to need a lot of bad on their resume, outside fo that for them to be excluded.

I listed a number of things that show the resume is not "bad" outside of the NET
- Strong KP of #28, which the committee can now use to evaluate mid majors against the field
- 5-3 record Q1+Q2... once again 5 wins is not high, but the amount for a mid is good and more important the % is satisfactory. If you want to consider road games at North Texas and UAB as dog**** that is fine, but that is not how the system works.
- Under this system the loss at Ole Miss is not a bad loss. Just because you consider it a bad loss it isn't.
- They have no bad losses. (that is not easy for a bubble level team to accomplish) - most have at least 2. Here are the bad loss results for the last 6 teams in the tourney per the current matrix. Rutgers has 4 bad losses. Pitt has 2 (including a Q4). Utah St has 2 Q4 losses. Nevada has 2 losses. Miss St and Penn St have 1.
- Expecting them to go 20-0 in Conference USA is absurd, when that slate has 2 Q1 games and 3 Q2 games. Going 18-2 in Conference USA is fine. We are not comparing Florida Atlantic to top 4 seeds, we are comparing them to bubble teams. They had 5 Q1+Q2 games in conference and 8 Q3 games. Its not a tough schedule, but at the same time it would be very tough for a bubble team to go 18-2 in that schedule. A bubble team tends to go about .500 in Q1+Q2 games - so there is 2 losses expected right there. maybe 3 if they are unlucky. But they would also tend to lose at least 1 Q3 game as well or Q4 game as well.

- They do have one negative - the OOC SOS was not good. But that is not enough to kill them in my view. Not enough other bad for that factor to kill them.

There is a difference in saying a team can make it vs saying they are a lock. If the committee actually looks behind the curtain, IMO they don't take FAU. CUSA doesn't get multi bids. Nothing from looking at their schedule warrants a bid. What do they have going for them outside of the NET?

Again the Q1/2 data is based off the NET. It is all garbage. Ole Miss is not a good team. Isn't the point to get the best at large teams? The only thing giving FAU a chance is their NET which is a biased BS metric. There is nothing from their resume to prove they would be anything better than a bottom P5 team had they played a P5 schedule.

Taking away the B1G games (just OOC), Rutgers played harder teams that FAU's entire schedule. I don't think Rutgers deserves a bid ending the year 2-9. But they deserve it more than FAU. Their "bad" losses are teams that are better than FAU.

FAU's OOC was a joke. You cannot reward a mid major for that. How many games have they played vs NCAAT teams this year? The answer if they lose their conf tourney is TWO. You cannot get lower than that as an at large. And if UAB Ws, FAU will have all of ONE win vs the NCAAT field. That would have to be the lowest of all time for an at large. If you look at their schedule it is absolutely insane that their NET ranking is Top 100 let alone where they are.

 

[NineOneSeven]

We could have beaten Miami.

 

[jncuse]

In terms of teams above the line, there are 6 teams on the matrix that still seem uncertain to various degrees (near locks or closer to the line)

The following table is out of 92 brackets

Pitt beat Georgia Tech yesterday, which is what it had to do. Personally I think what was most important for them this week was avoiding a bad loss. I think they will now get in. That being said 13 of 92 on the matrix still have them out, so a win today against Duke makes them a pure lock.

Utah St plays NET#50 New Mexico tonight in MWC quarters. If they win it may be enough, if they lose they will certainly be uneasy. Also not sure if the committee will respect the MWC metrics this year or not... its always a mystery in that regard, and what the MWC did last year in the tourney may have not helped them,

Rutgers (69 of 92) plays Michigan today. If they lose they are certainly not going to be resting easy come Selection Sunday. They are currently last team in per the matrix, and with teams like Oklahoma St and Arizona St still alive, and potential for a bubble buster they could be the team falling out.

Nevada (87 of 92) plays Q2 San Jose State. See my comments on Utah St regarding concern for MWC. Its certainly possible they can absorb this loss, but its best for them not to test it.

Penn St is in on 83 of 92. It plays Q1 Illinois today - a win puts them in. A loss put them in the pack of teams that some will survive, a few will not.

 

[jncuse]

We could have beaten Miami.

Miami seems to have turned it up
We could have beaten many teams this year - but we are also capable of losing to many teams this year!

I do think the one thing we had helping us in a longer ACC tourney run was that we play a deeper bench this year than normal. JB will play the hot hand between Benny and the other non Mintz freshman.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

To put the NET and Q1/2 into further perspective. North Texas is 42nd in the NET. So beating them home and away like FAU did gives you a Q1 win and a Q2 win. Now how did North Texas get to their 42nd ranking?

OOC they played two D2 teams.

They lost OOC to the Colonial's 3rd placed team UNC Wilmington on a Neutral court.

Their best W OOC was against the MWC's 5th placed team San Jose State on a Neutral court.

Against CUSA's top team they went 0-2. Against the 3rd place team they went 2-0. They lost on the road to a team that went 9-11 in conference. They lost at home to a team that went 8-12 in conference.

So how in the heck does that get you a Top 50 rankings? Do they even have a single quality W?

Meanwhile a team like VA Tech is 77th. So if you beat them home and away you only get one Q2 win and one Q3 W. How the heck is that right? No one rather play VA Tech than North Texas.

Looking further behind the curtain of VA Tech...

OOC they lost on the road to the Colonial's 1st placed team. They beat the SWAC's 1st place team. They beat the 2nd placed teams from the A10 and the Patriot. They beat Penn State and Oklahoma State both on Neutral courts.

VA Tech's OOC schedule was 1000x harder than North Texas's schedule. So what the NET is saying is going 16-4 in CUSA is waaaay harder than going 8-12 in the ACC. Which is laughable.

It isn't right that teams like Clemson, Pitt, NC State get less credit for beating VA Tech than FAU gets for beating North Texas in the Q1/2 metrics.

Edit

So if you want to count UAB, North Texas has TWO quality Ws and 2 bad Ls. VA Tech has 10 quality Ws and ONE bad L. That gets you a 35 rankings difference in North Texas's favor.

 

[kirbivore]

I know Lunardi sucks but he's good for a 30K foot view. He had UNC in his "first 4 out" last night. With a true blue blood we know the committee will put them in if anywhere close. A Duke, UK, KU, UNC has to be waaaaay out to miss tourney. If UNC beats UVA tonight the Heels get in. Not that they deserve it but they will get the invite.

 

[jncuse]

Rutgers beats Michigan.
Unfortunately one team had to win -- but a loss would be big for both as well.


Michigan done (a shame)
Rutgers was last one in before this, so a Q2 win helps, but still not close to a lock. Could be enough but could well not be.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[jncuse]

I know Lunardi sucks but he's good for a 30K foot view. He had UNC in his "first 4 out" last night. With a true blue blood we know the committee will put them in if anywhere close. A Duke, UK, KU, UNC has to be waaaaay out to miss tourney. If UNC beats UVA tonight the Heels get in. Not that they deserve it but they will get the invite.

I just use the consolidated views from the bracket matrix as the 30K foot view.

The interesting thing with your theory is that there is not much evidence to prove it right or wrong the last 20 years - perhaps one instance as discussed below. I don't disagree at all that it could happen -- but we have never really seen a trend or any conclusive evidence either way.

The only time one of those programs was close to a legit bubble team was the 2013 Kentucky Team. 17 of the 120 people on the matrix had them in - and I suspect those people only put them in because they were Kentucky - one could argue they were not close enough to disregard the theory.

Kansas has been a 4 seed or above every year since 2001.

Duke has only missed the tourney once since 2000 -- that was in 2020 and they were not close to a tourney team.

When UNC has been bad, they have been bad - 2002, 2003, 2010, 2020 - they were not close to a tourney team.

Kentucky was clearly out in 2009 and in 2013 there was a debate (as discussed above)

 

[jncuse]

Some key results from today

Above the Line

San Jose St beats Nevada - Nevada was on the bubble line entering this (somewhere in the last 4 in). On a neutral court this is a Q2 loss (so not brutal) They are not clearly out, but will be one of those teams that could go either way Selection Sunday, or be forced out if the remaining bubble teams do better than expected (or bubble busters)

Duke beats Pitt - Pitt was 3rd last out entering today per Matrix (86 of 100). Only a Q1 loss. I think they will get in, but they are certainly not a lock entering Selection Sunday.

Miss St beats Florida - Miss St was 5th last in (92 out of 100) entering today, With Pitt and Nevada losing above, this Q2 win will make them feel even more solid. In really good shape at this point.

Rutgers beats Michigan - As noted above, Rutgers was last team in on the matrix. Get a Q2 win over Michigan. Not a lock, but in pretty good shape tonight compared to this morning.

Below the Line

With the losses of Nevada and Pitt (even if neither were bad) will anyone take advantage? It doesn't appear so.

First team out Oklahoma St is down 9 vs Texas.
UNC is losing by nine to Virginia.
Michigan lost to Rutgers.
Wisconsin is done.
It could be Arizona St playing tonight vs USC.

I would also add that while Nevada and Utah St are above the line, the treatment of the MWC is always a bit of a mystery by the committee from year to year.

 

[jncuse]

Penn St gets a huge Q1 win over Illinois (they were in on on 91 of 100 brackets) but also had the lowest avg seed of teams in.

They have to be feeling quite good about their chances, but will not quite call it a lock.

 

[kirbivore]

Pedo U should be rooting for Maryland right? A game tomorrow vs Minnesota is zero upside

 

[blust2i3d4]

#1. My analysis is based on quality wins against teams out of conference, not within conference. So any rankings bias within conference would not matter. But more importantly rankings have zero impact on the NET, and therefore have zero impact on what is defined as a Q1 or Q2 win. What drives NET is how a team performs, and how their conference performs as a whole in OOC, because this will drive the NET up of members (and Q1+q2 opportunities) when they start playing each other in conference.


#2. The Big 12 was extremely dominant compared to the ACC. Sure you watched some games in Iowa, but the OOC numbers speak for themselves, and that is what drives up the net of conference members once conference play starts.

At the end of the day the ACC lacked dominant teams, and more importantly they had 4 or 5 really bad teams that killed their metrics / limited quality wins compared to other better conferences.

B12 had 30 quality out of conference wins (3 per team). The ACC had 21 (1.4 per team) (Q1+Q2_
ACC had 18 out of conference bad losses. The B12 had 2. (Q3+Q4)
B12 had 15 Q1 wins out of conference, ACC had 7.
B12 has the #1 conference NET and conference RPI, ACC has the #7 conference NET (#6 RPI)

#3. While it is true that the ACC did beat the B10 8-6, the OOC slate is about 160 games for both conference -- not just 14 games. And thankfully the ACC did do well in the challenge, or their out of conference would have been really bad. These games helped limit the damage.

What happened in those other 140 or so games is going to be more important than the 14 games.

Despite what the ACC did in the challenge, in the end the B10 did much better, which will end up driving NET up for its member teams once conference play starts. Again the numbers speak for themselves.
- the B10 has 16 Q1 victories out of conference vs ACC's 7.
- And they only had 7 bad losses vs the 18 bad losses for the ACC.
- The B10 lost 37 games, the ACC lost 52.
- The B10 is #2 in Conference NET and #3 in Conference RPI

Most bad ACC losses are committed by two teams, Louisville and Florida State. If Big12 had two teams in bad year, they will have the same result.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Ohio State 68, Sparty 58