Bubble Stat Spreadsheet based on Bracket Matrix

[Tom W.]

Here is a bubble statistic/metric spreadsheet, based on the rankings in bracket matrix. St. Mary's and Louisville are IN on 67 and 44 of 102 brackets respectively.
The others are the first six out as listed on the matrix.
This is strictly following the matrix, not necessarily my own predictions.

Bracket Matrix Based Bubble Chart -

 

[SouthernCuse]

looks like out to me.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Here is a bubble statistic/metric spreadsheet, based on the rankings in bracket matrix. St. Mary's and Louisville are IN on 67 and 44 of 102 brackets respectively.
The others are the first six out as listed on the matrix.
This is strictly following the matrix, not necessarily my own predictions.

Bracket Matrix Based Bubble Chart -

Tom: great job to you and everyone else who is very diligent in updating and providing stats and rankings and who to root for. So, we know you have Syracuse in and we hope that's true, but what's your take on the Lunardi's of the world who have Syracuse as the next four out. What do you think they looking at that you might not be and what's your take on what the committee will be thinking, considering there is a such a variance. Thanks.

 

[LowHighPost]

Tom, thanks for the great reading you've given us to follow. I'm curious where you had the team at the end for the last couple of seasons. Thanks!

 

[jncuse]

Well done Tom. I have done spreadsheets like this in the past, and I know they take some time.

Since you have an active blog, you should put your name into the Matrix. Will get you more hits moving forward,

 

[jncuse]

Here is why I think St. Mary's gets in.

You can't compare standard metrics between them and P5 schools. Its apples and oranges. But you can use KP, BPI to compare them on an even basis, and they are well ahead of the others.

Of course they could try harder to close the gap in top games, and that might be what kills them.

But I am calling them in... hope I am wrong.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

As far as what Lunardi has, I don't necessarily have a problem with who he has IN the field. I think his first and next four out are a little out of whack. I suspect with Notre Dame, he is using the eye test and making judgment based on how good he thinks they "could be" in the tournament. With Louisville, I have no idea. They are 0-11 against the top 50. We have a win on their court. I don't see how he has them ahead of us, let alone that far ahead and just one out of the field.

What the committee will do year to year is largely a mystery. We can try to look at history and look for patterns, which is what the guys like Lunardi try to do. With the new quadrant system this year, the water gets even murkier. No one knows how they will implement it, or in which way other metrics will be applied with it. Usually the committee loves road wins, likes to see a respectable non-conference resume, and I think the past few years who a team can beat has been much more important than who they lost to. Big wins trump the bad losses, at least in most cases.

The bubble is generally not strong this year, and the last couple of teams in could be anyone's guess. It is just a matter of looking at the vast array of metrics and then making a judgement based on what one thinks the committee will do. Usually you can narrow the bubble list down to 8 or so teams for around 4 spots and then just make the picks to the best of your ability (which is pretty much the same thing the committee does).

I get the feeling that IF the Quadrants are going to be the thing that the committee hangs its hat on then maybe the top 50 and some other things will mean nothing at all. I also get the feeling that there is going to be a real odd selection come Sunday night and that there is much more discussion over the last one or two teams. Unless of course they decided a month ago what direction they were heading and the "eye test" means nothing at all. I mean, after all, how can you use the quadrants as your big parameter and then choose other teams based on other factors.

 

[Tom W.]

Tom, thanks for the great reading you've given us to follow. I'm curious where you had the team at the end for the last couple of seasons. Thanks!

Actually, I have been pretty good with Cuse the last couple of years. In 2016 I went crazy during championship week scouring scores and stats, watching every game imaginable. I got in so many syracuse.com arguments thinking that they would be in when no one would believe it. I thought we definitely deserved it that year. I still argue to this day with people who say we got the Final Four that year and shouldn't even have been in.
Last year I was not nearly as confident.

I would say this year I am more confident than last year, but less confident than 2016. However, I surely am no expert, my TCW Bracketology blog is my first attempt at doing a full scale bracket prediction.

I am going to look through everything again before I put my final bracket up just before Selection Sunday show starts and we'll see if I am a pretender or a contender.

 

[Tom W.]

Well done Tom. I have done spreadsheets like this in the past, and I know they take some time.

Since you have an active blog, you should put your name into the Matrix. Will get you more hits moving forward,

I actually contacted the site and just missed the cutoff date to be tracked throughout the month, but I can still enter a bracket into the final matrix tomorrow, which I plan to do.

 

[Tom W.]

I get the feeling that IF the Quadrants are going to be the thing that the committee hangs its hat on then maybe the top 50 and some other things will mean nothing at all. I also get the feeling that there is going to be a real odd selection come Sunday night and that there is much more discussion over the last one or two teams. Unless of course they decided a month ago what direction they were heading and the "eye test" means nothing at all. I mean, after all, how can you use the quadrants as your big parameter and then choose other teams based on other factors.

I sure hope they don't use the eye test too much this year, we were pretty hard to watch for much of the season...

 

[Tom W.]

Here is why I think St. Mary's gets in.

You can't compare standard metrics between them and P5 schools. Its apples and oranges. But you can use KP, BPI to compare them on an even basis, and they are well ahead of the others.

Of course they could try harder to close the gap in top games, and that might be what kills them.

But I am calling them in... hope I am wrong.

They have been consistently in my first four out, but I am starting to think more and more the committee is going to put one of A.) St Mary's B.) MTSU in the tournament, and leave one out. I am getting the feeling they aren't putting both in, but also aren't keeping both out based on the way the chair has been talking, and what some insiders have reported. I am going to scrub again in the morning and see.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

St Mary’s won’t get in

 

[jncuse]

They have been consistently in my first four out, but I am starting to think more and more the committee is going to put one of A.) St Mary's B.) MTSU in the tournament, and leave one out. I am getting the feeling they aren't putting both in, but also aren't keeping both out based on the way the chair has been talking, and what some insiders have reported. I am going to scrub again in the morning and see.

It's possible they go 2016 route, just take the P5 teams and say see you to the mid-majors. But I have to think one of the reasons they brought in other rankings was specifically to help evaluate teams like St/ Mary's.