Bubble Watch - Week of February 25th to March 3rd

[djorange1989]

TCU - 2-10 vs. Top 50 (0-7 vs. Top 25)
Wake Forest - 1-9 vs. Top 50 (0-8 vs. Top 25)
Rhode Island - 2-3 vs. Top 50 (2-3 vs. Top 25)
Syracuse - 6-7 vs. Top 50 (3-4 vs. Top 25)

I have no idea what Palm is smoking. Who cares that we lost to a few crappy teams early on, there are no crappy teams in the Dance, you have to prove you can beat good teams if you are on the bubble. You think we have proven that in comparison to TCU/Wake/Rhode Island??

 

[Briancuse]

I'm not going to argue that we are on the bubble , but TCU lost this weekend and Syracuse beat Wake Forest. Obviously a lot more goes into it than that, I get it , but to get put out by losing to a top ten team at their place ? If we lose vs tech Saturday , okay, but this is a little confusing.

Wake is 1-9 against the top 50, they have a worse conference record than we do, its insane.

 

[Briancuse]

USC a 9 seed

They had them as a 6 seed on their graphic last night, it could have been a mistake.

 

[djorange1989]

Wake is 1-9 against the top 50, they have a worse conference record than we do, its insane.

and we beat them head to head. besides that, Palm is brilliant.

 

[Knicks411]

I'm a big admirer of the Wichita State program and think Marshall is one of the best coaches in the country. And I agree with you they def deserve an NCAA bid. But I wonder what it is that they've done that would merit them being several slots ahead of the three PAC-12 teams. They don't have road wins at AZ or UK like UCLA. And there is no way they would be favored over any of those three PAC-12 teams on a neutral court. Same goes for WVA and UVA. That's not speculation on my part as it's borne out in the current Vegas odds to win the NC. I obviously don't believe the PAC-12 teams are overrated and in fact they're wildly underrated looking at Kenpom.

I think they might be; the vegas game spreads are almost always within a point of the KP projection. Wichita is 10 and UCLA is 13; that's basically nothing in the KP ratings, so I'd consider that a tossup.

As to why Arizona and UCLA have better odds to win the title, I would assume that has something to do with the public backing the Pac12 teams better, and also Vegas assuming that the PAC12 teams will have higher seeds and then an easier road to winning than Wichita?

I dunno, I struggle with accepting Wichita as the tenth best team in the country based on their results, but I do have faith in KP and the like.

 

[jncuse]

Wake is 1-9 against the top 50, they have a worse conference record than we do, its insane.

I will just play Devil's advocate here in support of Wake Forest. Let's say I was a committee member and they were discussing these two teams

Here is where unbalanced schedules come into play. Syracuse has had 7 games against top 50 teams at home. Wake Forest has had 3 games against top 50 teams at home (3) or neutral courts (0). The 3 games for Wake were against UNC, Miami, and Duke. They beat Miami, and lost to Duke by 2.

It's quite unfair to compare the top 50 records without making some significant adjustments for where they are played. I wonder what Syracuse's top 50 record would be it played the same schedule as Wake, and if the Wake/Syracuse was played in Wake. I think we would see things quite the opposite.

If we try to match up common home games (Miami and Duke), then Syracuse is 2-0 and Wake is 1-1. So Syracuse does have the advantage because it beat Duke at the buzzer and Wake lost to Duke in the last minute. Is that enough to argue for Syracuse?

Let's remember the other primary factors per our stated guidelnes even if they are less important than quality victories.

1. Non Conference SOS - Wake Forest played Villanova, Xavier and Northwestern away from home. It is also doing what we have asked P5 teams to do -- play on the road at teams like Charleston and Richmond and Greensboro. It has done what we have explicitly said we will reward.

2. It has won 5 road games vs Syracuse's 2. That's a big difference and is a primary factor (As a Syracuse fan let's hope another committee member sees the connection between 1 and 2, and diminishes this point)

3. Syracuse has an RPI in the 80's. Sure we said we would diminish it's importance with other ranking systems. KP has Wake at 33 and Syracuse at 51. Sagarin has it at 38 vs 39, BPI has it 32 vs 33. Wake is ahead in 3 of the 4 rankings. Since the schedules are so different maybe we rely on those rankings which in general say Wake is a bit better.


What is more important
1. That Syracuse beat Duke at buzzer with an off the backboard shot and Wake lost at the buzzer to Duke

OR

2. The 3 factors I have mentioned above -- non conference scheduling, road wins, rankings.

I think gentleman the choice is obvious. Let's go with Wake Forest.

-------------------------------------------

Now we need someone to make a good counter argument. I often think these committees are inconsistent because some members are more convincing than others and will get more buy in.

 

[bpo57]

I think they might be; the vegas game spreads are almost always within a point of the KP projection. Wichita is 10 and UCLA is 13; that's basically nothing in the KP ratings, so I'd consider that a tossup.

As to why Arizona and UCLA have better odds to win the title, I would assume that has something to do with the public backing the Pac12 teams better, and also Vegas assuming that the PAC12 teams will have higher seeds and then an easier road to winning than Wichita?

I dunno, I struggle with accepting Wichita as the tenth best team in the country based on their results, but I do have faith in KP and the like.

The public affect all Vegas spreads - individual match-ups and futures odds to win the title. You can't have UCLA at 8-1 to win it all and Wichita State at 110-1 and think they'd be even up on the spread. No way. There's a reason why UCLA will be a much higher seed than WS and why they're deemed far more likely to win it all- they're correctly perceived as the much better team.

 

[Cusefan0307]

and we beat them head to head. besides that, Palm is brilliant.

He put's way more value into the RPI than most other bracketologists. We've been told that the RPI will be less important, so I guess we will see what happens.

 

[RaleighSUfan]

There's no other bubble team that comes close to Syracuse in terms of good wins (top 50 or 25). On the flip side, Syracuse has arguably the worst losses of any fellow bubble team. So the question comes down to what's more important to the committee... avoiding bad losses or beating quality teams??? Personally, I'd rather see a team in the tournament that's shown the ability to upset some of the top teams. And I'm a little biased...

 

[jncuse]

The public affect all Vegas spreads - individual match-ups and futures odds to win the title. You can't have UCLA at 8-1 to win it all and Wichita State at 110-1 and think they'd be even up on the spread. No way. There's a reason why UCLA will be a much higher seed than WS and why they're deemed far more likely to win it all- they're correctly perceived as the much better team.

The pubic has little impact on the spreads during conference play . This I have observed. With big schools they can never get it close to 50/50 otherwise it would be a constant game of sharps making large bets at the last minute at insanely great value and Vegas falling below 50% on the bad side. Seems like Vegas is pretty committed to it's ranking system. They move it a few points after posting but not much more than that. I am sure they have a reason for that.

When it comes to postseason, it may not be the same system due to volume of bets or the fact that conferences are now playing against each other again. I know that Wichita St would be the dog against UCLA, but probably by not as much as we expect.

I guess we will find out in the first game if Wichita seems like a large favourite than they should be.

 

[Knicks411]

The public affect all Vegas spreads - individual match-ups and futures odds to win the title. You can't have UCLA at 8-1 to win it all and Wichita State at 110-1 and think they'd be even up on the spread. No way. There's a reason why UCLA will be a much higher seed than WS and why they're deemed far more likely to win it all- they're correctly perceived as the much better team.

Are those the actual odds? if so, then yeah, I can't imagine Wichita state would be even up with them if they played on a neutral court.

Here's one where the Vegas line is way off with KP; UVA is projected to be -3 vs UNC tonight; they're actually getting 3.5.

 

[jncuse]

There's no other bubble team that comes close to Syracuse in terms of good wins (top 50 or 25). On the flip side, Syracuse has arguably the worst losses of any fellow bubble team. So the question comes down to what's more important to the committee... avoiding bad losses or beating quality teams??? Personally, I'd rather see a team in the tournament that's shown the ability to upset some of the top teams. And I'm a little biased...

Playing Devil's Advocate. Syracuse has had more opportunity as well. Many more top 50 or top 25 home games than other bubble teams. How do you compare 7 top 50 home games vs 3 top 50 home games.

 

[jncuse]

So a loss to Louisville on Sunday bumps us out and puts Wake and TCU in? Huh?

It truly does not make sense. If you viewed Syracuse as better before the game a loss at Louisville should change absolutely nothing if that other team did not play. I could see if Wake Forest or TCU had done something positive yesterday (a top 50 win, a conference road win), but they didn't even play.

Even our RPI did not move much (1 spot down). I can see if a loss had moved us to the mid 80's, and the negative optics of that, but that did not happen either.

 

[orangenirvana]

Here is where unbalanced schedules come into play. Syracuse has had 7 games against top 50 teams at home. Wake Forest has had 3 games against top 50 teams at home (3) or neutral courts (0). The 3 games for Wake were against UNC, Miami, and Duke. They beat Miami, and lost to Duke by 2.

It's quite unfair to compare the top 50 records without making some significant adjustments for where they are played. I wonder what Syracuse's top 50 record would be it played the same schedule as Wake, and if the Wake/Syracuse was played in Wake. I think we would see things quite the opposite.

Syracuse is 6-1 against Top 50 teams at home (.857 winning percentage).
Wake Forest is 1-2 against Top 50 teams at home (.333 winning percentage).

Syracuse is 0-6 against Top 50 teams on the road. That's obviously bad.
Wake Forest is 0-7 against Top 50 teams on the road. Also bad.

Also consider: Syracuse has played #3 UNC and #4 Louisville on the road. The highest ranked team Wake has played on the road is #12 Florida State.

Advantage: Syracuse

If we try to match up common home games (Miami and Duke), then Syracuse is 2-0 and Wake is 1-1. So Syracuse does have the advantage because it beat Duke at the buzzer and Wake lost to Duke in the last minute. Is that enough to argue for Syracuse?

Yes, obviously. A win is a win. Has the committee historically punished winning teams for buzzer beaters?

Let's remember the other primary factors per our stated guidelnes even if they are less important than quality victories.

1. Non Conference SOS - Wake Forest played Villanova, Xavier and Northwestern away from home.

And Wake lost all three. Syracuse played South Carolina and Wisconsin away from home. Does Wake get advantage over Syracuse because they lost three games against quality opponents on the road compared to Syracuse's two? Does the committee reward teams for losing games? From what I've seen, the committee cares more about who you beat than who you lost to.

It is also doing what we have asked P5 teams to do -- play on the road at teams like Charleston and Richmond and Greensboro. It has done what we have explicitly said we will reward.

Charleston, Richmond, and Greensboro?

2. It has won 5 road games vs Syracuse's 2. That's a big difference and is a primary factor (As a Syracuse fan let's hope another committee member sees the connection between 1 and 2, and diminishes this point)

Wake Forest best true road victory: vs. #91 Richmond
Syracuse best true road victory: vs. #61 Clemson

3. Syracuse has an RPI in the 80's. Sure we said we would diminish it's importance with other ranking systems. KP has Wake at 33 and Syracuse at 51. Sagarin has it at 38 vs 39, BPI has it 32 vs 33. Wake is ahead in 3 of the 4 rankings. Since the schedules are so different maybe we rely on those rankings which in general say Wake is a bit better.

Wake's rankings are the only thing they have going for them now. They are good because Wake has avoided bad losses. Which is nice. But based on the evidence we have available to us from the selection committee's choices over the last two seasons, the committee will reward teams much more for winning quality games than they they will for avoiding bad losses.

I think gentleman the choice is obvious. Let's go with Wake Forest.

The choice is obvious. But it ain't for Wake Forest.

 

[jncuse]

All the above being said Wake's home game against Louisville is huge. Probably one of the biggest obtacles of this week for us.

I would also add Houston at Cincinnati.

 

[bpo57]

The pubic has little impact on the spreads during conference play . This I have observed. With big schools they can never get it close to 50/50 otherwise it would be a constant game of sharps making large bets at the last minute at insanely great value and Vegas falling below 50% on the bad side. Seems like Vegas is pretty committed to it's ranking system. They move it a few points after posting but not much more than that. I am sure they have a reason for that.

When it comes to postseason, it may not be the same system due to volume of bets or the fact that conferences are now playing against each other again. I know that Wichita St would be the dog against UCLA, but probably by not as much as we expect.

I guess we will find out in the first game if Wichita seems like a large favourite than they should be.

Well going forward I am going to take note of those power ranking visa vis the spread. According to kenpom Wich State would be a very slight favorite against UCLA and a little more so against the other two Pac-12 teams. We may never find out but I'd say WS would be minimum a 7-8 point dog against UCLA and a little less so against the other two teams.

Vegas sets the odds trying to theoretically draw as much money on both sides of the equation. $$ moves the line whether we're talking about individual games or futures odds. I've seen college lines move 2-3 points in the matter of an hour or two obviously based on disproportionate money coming in on one side or the other. Vegas is not going to hold a line steady in the face of heavy action on one side or the other. They'd go out of business in a hurry if they did that.

 

[Knicks411]

Playing Devil's Advocate. Syracuse has had more opportunity as well. Many more top 50 or top 25 home games than other bubble teams. How do you compare 7 top 50 home games vs 3 top 50 home games.

I get everything you say about Wake in your longer post, and i get that the schedules aren't the same and all that, but at the end of the day, Wake has beaten one team that's going to make the field? (Miami). At some point, you gotta beat teams in the field to earn a spot. Which is why Louisville is so big for them this week.

 

[Knicks411]

Well going forward I am going to take note of those power ranking visa vis the spread. According to kenpom Wich State would be a very slight favorite against UCLA and a little more so against the other two Pac-12 teams. We may never find out but I'd say WS would be minimum a 7-8 point dog against UCLA and a little less so against the other two teams.

Vegas sets the odds trying to theoretically draw as much money on both sides of the equation. $$ moves the line whether we're talking about individual games or futures odds. I've seen college lines move 2-3 points in the matter of an hour or two obviously based on disproportionate money coming in on one side or the other. Vegas is not going to hold a line steady in the face of heavy action on one side or the other. They'd go out of business in a hurry if they did that.

Unless the heavy action was coming in on the side Vegas thought was the bad side, which does happen. In which case they'd make a ton of money. Which they usually do.

i think it's a fallacy they always want the same money on both sides. That is a guarantee win for them, sure, but there are times when the books absolutely take a side, so to speak.

 

[bpo57]

Are those the actual odds? if so, then yeah, I can't imagine Wichita state would be even up with them if they played on a neutral court.

Here's one where the Vegas line is way off with KP; UVA is projected to be -3 vs UNC tonight; they're actually getting 3.5.

Those are the actual futures odds.

I would expect to see those kinds of anomalies (re UVA/UNC) almost every night.

 

[jncuse]

Syracuse is 6-1 against Top 50 teams at home (.857 winning percentage).
Wake Forest is 1-2 against Top 50 teams at home (.333 winning percentage).

Syracuse is 0-6 against Top 50 teams on the road. That's obviously bad.
Wake Forest is 0-7 against Top 50 teams on the road. Also bad.

Also consider: Syracuse has played #3 UNC and #4 Louisville on the road. The highest ranked team Wake has played on the road is #12 Florida State.

Advantage: Syracuse

Yes, obviously. A win is a win. Has the committee historically punished winning teams for buzzer beaters?

And Wake lost all three. Syracuse played South Carolina and Wisconsin away from home. Does Wake get advantage over Syracuse because they lost three games against quality opponents on the road compared to Syracuse's two? Does the committee reward teams for losing games? From what I've seen, the committee cares more about who you beat than who you lost to.

Charleston, Richmond, and Greensboro?

Wake Forest best true road victory: vs. #91 Richmond
Syracuse best true road victory: vs. #61 Clemson

Wake's rankings are the only thing they have going for them now. They are good because Wake has avoided bad losses. Which is nice. But based on the evidence we have available to us from the selection committee's choices over the last two seasons, the committee will reward teams much more for winning quality games than they they will for avoiding bad losses.

The choice is obvious. But it ain't for Wake Forest.

Good counter argument - let's hope we have someone at the table does the same when the bully supporting Wake makes his case.

--

Let met put on my Wake bully hat and try to counter your points. (those that I am ignoring is because I can't argue... I may deflect them)

- One of 3 games is against UNC so using winning % does not make sense. It's still a case of one having more opportunity than the other and the big difference being a made 3 pointer. I think Wake could have beaten Syracuse, Monmouth, Virginia, and Florida St if it played them at home.

- You diminish the games against Richmond, Charleston and Greensboro, but it should not be diminished. These were the exact games we said we would reward P5 teams with. When we set this factor it was not too measure who was good or bad, but to punish and reward. For the integrity of the system and to help smaller schools it is important that we continue to stand for this primary factor and not ignore it.

- And that RPI, come on guys, it's awful. We ccan't let them in 2 years in a row with the worst RPI. And this year they did not even on the road.

---

I thought the argument I had made above in my first post on this topic could come across as very convincing. And someone could see it as tight and clear. Or someone could poke it and put major holes in it. In my response to Orange Nirvana all I could really do is deflect,

The reason I put something up was to show potential Committee Mechanics. We are never quite sure what they might do, and the quality of the arguments / counterarguments.

 

[bpo57]

Unless the heavy action was coming in on the side Vegas thought was the bad side, which does happen. In which case they'd make a ton of money. Which they usually do.

i think it's a fallacy they always want the same money on both sides. That is a guarantee win for them, sure, but there are times when the books absolutely take a side, so to speak.

I work in a business where we lend money to large corporations including several gaming concerns. I've heard their senior management discuss this very issue at length. They're in the game of volume and risk management. They will take a stand to a small degree but nothing crazy. That's why lines move.

 

[Knicks411]

I work in a business where we lend money to large corporations including several gaming concerns. I've heard their senior management discuss this very issue at length. They're in the game of volume and risk management. They will take a stand to a small degree but nothing crazy. That's why lines move.

Very cool, the whole business of line setting and the like fascinates me.

 

[Knicks411]

Those are the actual futures odds.

I would expect to see those kinds of anomalies (re UVA/UNC) almost every night.

I don't check every game, but I check a lot of them, and something like that (6 point discrepancy) is pretty rare.

Back to the original topic; from what i've read, generally the committee is voting on groups of teams, not necessarily team a vs team b. (though it may come down to that at the end).

 

[jncuse]

I work in a business where we lend money to large corporations including several gaming concerns. I've heard their senior management discuss this very issue at length. They're in the game of volume and risk management. They will take a stand to a small degree but nothing crazy. That's why lines move.

Absolutely the lines move a bit to reduce risk and get it a bit closer to 50%. But it will tend to not be moved to the point to get the game to 50/50 . As I said before the problem with College Basketball is you may have to move the line so much to get to this level, and then would be at the mercy of the sharps jumping you at the end.

Let me you ask this, what would you prefer as the house:

Setting reasonable lines that come in around 70-30, that you can move down slightly with some line movements. You are confident in your system that over time you will come out to at least 50/50 (and usually slightly more), and you will still collect your house cut.

Or

Trying to set college basketball lines at 50/50, which will create tremendous value for one team in certain instances. an crapping your pants at the last minute hoping the sharps don't push it to 52/48 for the team that is great value. That is a much worse scenario.

The 52/48 scenario in the latter example is much worse than taking a position in a game and moving it a few points to try to equalize it a bit.

 

[RaleighSUfan]

Playing Devil's Advocate. Syracuse has had more opportunity as well. Many more top 50 or top 25 home games than other bubble teams. How do you compare 7 top 50 home games vs 3 top 50 home games.

Great point. That works when Syracuse is compared to the Mid-majors, but what about other power 5 conference teams? Compare Syracuse to fellow ACC teams like Wake Forest or Clemson? How about to TCU, Kansas State, Michigan State, etc. Prior to last nights win over Wisconsin, Michigan State's resume looked unimpressive. Their best wins were against Minnesota. Not trying to downplay Michigan State, but Syracuse's wins are superior.