OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 244,796
- Like
- 453,767
NCAA Tournament Expansion
- Thread starter Cappy3
- Start date
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 244,796
- Like
- 453,767
Orangezoo
In the wind
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 42,932
- Like
- 102,996
That’s cool - put everything in one place very interesting that includes the NIT….
cusefan88
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,812
- Like
- 21,960
Torvik is a great site. Exciting to see them get proper analytics involved.
cusefan88
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,812
- Like
- 21,960
Copied this from an article:
Wins Above Bubble is not all that different than the idea of Wins Above Replacement in baseball. It’s the measurement of how much better you are than a team that would be right on the cut line. How many more wins do you have than a team that would be on the edge of missing the tournament.
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 244,796
- Like
- 453,767
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 20,729
- Like
- 36,272
TLDR Summary based on my look at comparative rankings shown below
1. Barttorvik will do much the same as NET/KP - heavily impacted by margin. Wouldn't have been popular here last year.
2. People should like WAB WAB is calculated very differently than NET/KP/BART - more based on your actual W/L record and not really impacted by margin. WAB treated us better last year
In theory I think WAB should be a better measure in comparing P6 teams as it is more related to actual W/L records and schedule levels while different are in the same stratosphere.. I don't think it would be that strong to rank poorer conference teams or to rank 360 teams - you need margin to try to compare those teams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick look at the two new rankings. I think people should like the WAB based on the complaints of the NET. The NET criticizers won't like BARTTORVIK.
Barttorvik will be much of same old, based on Margin. Wins Above Bubble will be a very different ranking that is much more based on pure W/L.
#1. Barttorvik is heavily based on margin - its not going to produce significantly different rankings than KP Or NET. It was not friendly to Syracuse last year just like NET and KP. Barttorvik will have the same strengths and weaknesses as those two ranking systems
#2 Wins Above Bubble doesn't seem to be heavily based on margin. It seems to be much more based on W/L record, so it was friendlier to Syracuse last year than Bart/KP/NET. There is a certain profile of team that this ranking system is much more friendlier to and we can tie it back to the good old KP luck. So that is a positive or at least a complement to others - now I don't have a great feel how it is calculated, but based on the data presented below that its not driven by margin at all. Its probably a strong ranking to compare P6 level teams who have stronger schedules so you can run some sort of meaninful algorithm. Its probably pretty sketchy in ranking teams from mid to poor conferences, because its almost impossible to compare those type of teams to power teams without using margins
#3. Both rankings are still highly impacted by OOC play by your conference as a whole.
Some data to support my analysis above.
Barttorvik/NET/KP/Wins Above Bubble / KP Luck
Syracuse - 71/84/80/53/7
Utah St - 58/38/51/17/8
South Carolina - 50/51/54/11/4
Michigan St - 18/24/16/56/309
Just a reminder that "LUCK" is just an output derived from your expected W/L record based on your margin vs your actual W/L record.
Michigan St had great margins in their wins last year, with generally tight losses, so they were rewarded by NET/KP/Bart. They also had "bad" luck. The WAB doesn't reward them for their good margin - their BART was 18 but their WAB was 56.
Syracuse/Utah St/South Carolina did not have great margins last year - theirr ecords were much better than their margin suggests. The WAB doesn't punish them for their poor margin - the average BART for these 3 teams was 60 -- the average WAB was 27.
1. Barttorvik will do much the same as NET/KP - heavily impacted by margin. Wouldn't have been popular here last year.
2. People should like WAB WAB is calculated very differently than NET/KP/BART - more based on your actual W/L record and not really impacted by margin. WAB treated us better last year
In theory I think WAB should be a better measure in comparing P6 teams as it is more related to actual W/L records and schedule levels while different are in the same stratosphere.. I don't think it would be that strong to rank poorer conference teams or to rank 360 teams - you need margin to try to compare those teams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A quick look at the two new rankings. I think people should like the WAB based on the complaints of the NET. The NET criticizers won't like BARTTORVIK.
Barttorvik will be much of same old, based on Margin. Wins Above Bubble will be a very different ranking that is much more based on pure W/L.
#1. Barttorvik is heavily based on margin - its not going to produce significantly different rankings than KP Or NET. It was not friendly to Syracuse last year just like NET and KP. Barttorvik will have the same strengths and weaknesses as those two ranking systems
#2 Wins Above Bubble doesn't seem to be heavily based on margin. It seems to be much more based on W/L record, so it was friendlier to Syracuse last year than Bart/KP/NET. There is a certain profile of team that this ranking system is much more friendlier to and we can tie it back to the good old KP luck. So that is a positive or at least a complement to others - now I don't have a great feel how it is calculated, but based on the data presented below that its not driven by margin at all. Its probably a strong ranking to compare P6 level teams who have stronger schedules so you can run some sort of meaninful algorithm. Its probably pretty sketchy in ranking teams from mid to poor conferences, because its almost impossible to compare those type of teams to power teams without using margins
#3. Both rankings are still highly impacted by OOC play by your conference as a whole.
Some data to support my analysis above.
Barttorvik/NET/KP/Wins Above Bubble / KP Luck
Syracuse - 71/84/80/53/7
Utah St - 58/38/51/17/8
South Carolina - 50/51/54/11/4
Michigan St - 18/24/16/56/309
Just a reminder that "LUCK" is just an output derived from your expected W/L record based on your margin vs your actual W/L record.
Michigan St had great margins in their wins last year, with generally tight losses, so they were rewarded by NET/KP/Bart. They also had "bad" luck. The WAB doesn't reward them for their good margin - their BART was 18 but their WAB was 56.
Syracuse/Utah St/South Carolina did not have great margins last year - theirr ecords were much better than their margin suggests. The WAB doesn't punish them for their poor margin - the average BART for these 3 teams was 60 -- the average WAB was 27.
Last edited:
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 20,729
- Like
- 36,272
I have no clue how it is calculated exactly, but based on comparing teams with large gaps between their BART (which is about the same as NET) and their WAB, "wins above bubbles" doesn't seem to cater to margin that much. Its more based on your W/L record.
I think people should like it more here based on the complaints last year about the NET. At a top level glance I think its a better measure for teams from power conferences. I don't think its a great measure for mid to low conference schools but they aren't typically fighting for the bubble anyway.
Last edited:
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 20,729
- Like
- 36,272
I got some long posts above, so I will isolate the fact here:
Syracuse BART/KP/NET in 2024 = 71/80/84
Syracuse WAB in 2024 = 53
Margin matters much less under WAB - that becomes evident when you look at the similar numbers for teams like South Carolina and Utah St who also didn't have great margin profiles but good relative W/L reocrd. They were rewarded in WAB. A team like Michigan St who had good margins overall but not a great W/L record. Accordingly their WAB was much worse.
Syracuse BART/KP/NET in 2024 = 71/80/84
Syracuse WAB in 2024 = 53
Margin matters much less under WAB - that becomes evident when you look at the similar numbers for teams like South Carolina and Utah St who also didn't have great margin profiles but good relative W/L reocrd. They were rewarded in WAB. A team like Michigan St who had good margins overall but not a great W/L record. Accordingly their WAB was much worse.
STEVEHOLT
There are FIVE letters in the name BLAIN.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 17,639
- Like
- 26,361
NCAA talks expanding hoops tourney to 72 or 76
NCAA president Charlie Baker says talks are ongoing to expand the basketball tournament to 72 or 76 teams.
At some point everyone is bubble eligible
Sbucketball
All Conference
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2022
- Messages
- 2,930
- Like
- 10,432
Alrighty, just need them to let 100 more teams in and we're ready to rock.NCAA talks expanding hoops tourney to 72 or 76
NCAA president Charlie Baker says talks are ongoing to expand the basketball tournament to 72 or 76 teams.www.espn.com
At some point everyone is bubble eligible
FRANKIEFAN
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2018
- Messages
- 9,985
- Like
- 10,985
No thanks we still wouldn't get in.
So dumb. Essentially the tournament is already a 350 team event since everyone playing in a conference tournament has an opportunity to win their way in to the big dance.
Instead of just having more basketball, the NCAA should focus on trying to make the game better. I’ll take quality over quantity please.
Instead of just having more basketball, the NCAA should focus on trying to make the game better. I’ll take quality over quantity please.
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 244,796
- Like
- 453,767
Money talks. More games = more viewers and it’s a cash cow for a cash strapped (somewhat) NCAA.
The last time the NCAAT was designed to pit the best against the best and determine the best team in college hoops was before I was born.
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 244,796
- Like
- 453,767
RandygoCuse
All Conference
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,682
- Like
- 2,968
Good point. The fact that a small percentage of the teams make the postseason speaks to the large number of D1 basketball teams rather than insufficient post-season opportunities.
Sherman20
2018 Iggy Leading Scorer Winner
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2017
- Messages
- 7,036
- Like
- 17,830
This is such an annoying talking point/narrative that’s now become calcified with many fans, especially people who hate change. Maybe this was true 10-15 years ago, but the amount of quality teams has increased and it’s only become more true in the NIL era. The tournament definitely needs expansion.
Yeah, let’s just water this thing down even more. Now we can talk about the bubble to make the bubble to make the Tourney. Why not turn the NIT into a play-in tourney for the NCAA's?
FrancoPizza
2018 Iggy Leading Minutes Per Game Winner
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2015
- Messages
- 10,662
- Like
- 14,647
The criteria to be D1 has nothing to do with the quality of play.
There's only so many good players and teams out there. Just because D1 has expanded over the years doesn't change that.
ScriptCuse
Walk On
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2021
- Messages
- 111
- Like
- 566
Tourney Expansion - How You Could Get Me To Buy In
For as pro-expansion as I am the Football Playoff --- I'm pretty anti expansion of the basketball tournament. However, when I saw this news yesterday it would be quite cool if they made the expansion four pods for the play-ins similar to pre-season tournaments and would probably get my buy in.
-A 16 seed pod
-Two 11 seed pods
-12 seed pod
Example Schedule
Tuesday:
16 Pod
12:10 - Missouri State vs Texas Southern
3:30 - Tennessee State vs Portland
11 Seed 1
12:30 - Arizona State vs Maryland
5:15 - Purdue vs N.C. State
11 Seed 2
2:10 - Dayton vs TCU
6:45 - Missouri vs Butler
12 Seed
2:45 - Pittsburgh vs Georgia
7:30 - Murray State vs BYU
Wednesday:
12:30 - 16 Seed Winners
3:15 - 11 Seed Pod 1 Winners
5:45 - 11 Seed Pod 2 Winners
8:15 - 12 Seed Winners
Play “first round” on the Fridays
Tell me that wouldn't make some damn awesome television. Also a 16-seed winning TWO tournament games and two 16-seeds winning at least 1 game would be huge for their conference shared revenue. With that said - it's a cool idea so there's no way the NCAA does it.
For as pro-expansion as I am the Football Playoff --- I'm pretty anti expansion of the basketball tournament. However, when I saw this news yesterday it would be quite cool if they made the expansion four pods for the play-ins similar to pre-season tournaments and would probably get my buy in.
-A 16 seed pod
-Two 11 seed pods
-12 seed pod
Example Schedule
Tuesday:
16 Pod
12:10 - Missouri State vs Texas Southern
3:30 - Tennessee State vs Portland
11 Seed 1
12:30 - Arizona State vs Maryland
5:15 - Purdue vs N.C. State
11 Seed 2
2:10 - Dayton vs TCU
6:45 - Missouri vs Butler
12 Seed
2:45 - Pittsburgh vs Georgia
7:30 - Murray State vs BYU
Wednesday:
12:30 - 16 Seed Winners
3:15 - 11 Seed Pod 1 Winners
5:45 - 11 Seed Pod 2 Winners
8:15 - 12 Seed Winners
Play “first round” on the Fridays
Tell me that wouldn't make some damn awesome television. Also a 16-seed winning TWO tournament games and two 16-seeds winning at least 1 game would be huge for their conference shared revenue. With that said - it's a cool idea so there's no way the NCAA does it.
Similar threads
