Objective Quadrant Analysis

[orangenirvana]

Sure. But that's why I maintain that last season we got hosed by the committee.

We didn't.

We did.

I thought we deserved to get in ahead of USC but I considered SU the last team in and it turned out they were the last team out. Tough to be too outraged about that.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I thought we deserved to get in ahead of USC but I considered SU the last team in and it turned out they were the last team out. Tough to be too outraged about that.

It was a crap shoot those last four teams in/out. I don’t know. I do know when I was watching Kansas St for instance in that play in game I was thinking that they would crush us inside and from the perimeter. They just had better personnel. Committee probably got it right with those teams. USC had a more talented and consistent team than Syracuse as well with a better chance to go deeper if it potentially came to some subjective/eye test criteria to break a tie or whatever in determining USC/Syracuse for a bid.

 

[djorange1989]

We did.

Don’t agree with you. Tourney games are away from home and away from home last year we were pathetic. Not to mention the utter garbage we put out there at home against SJU and Gtown. We had the 4 nice wins, all at home, and beyond that we stunk. The team played no D and couldn’t rebound to save their lives and when they absolutely needed a win against Miami in the ACC Tourney they played flat and uninspired. That was an NIT team. Talent wise it was a tourney team, performance wise they weren’t

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Don’t agree with you. Tourney games are away from home and away from home last year we were pathetic. Not to mention the utter garbage we put out there at home against SJU and Gtown. We had the 4 nice wins, all at home, and beyond that we stunk. The team played no D and couldn’t rebound to save their lives and when they absolutely needed a win against Miami in the ACC Tourney they played flat and uninspired. That was an NIT team. Talent wise it was a tourney team, performance wise they weren’t

We had better wins than teams that got in.

This is a dumb discussion.

 

[djorange1989]

We had better wins than teams that got in.

This is a dumb discussion.

We did, but too many awful losses and a horrible record away from the Dome. The ole entire body of work thing. But I am happy to move on to the here and now

 

[Consigliere]

Updated this morning. I took a suggestion from jncuse and added a 2 point uptick for "elite" wins defined as a win over a team in the top half of the quadrant (Top 15 away, Top 25 Neutral and top 37 at home). Might be too liberal of a definition of "elite" win and has nothing to do with who currently sits at No. 37.

 

[Consigliere]

Updated this morning, just out of habit. Not only did we miss opportunities to pick up 2 elite wins, but our opponents did us no favors with three wins dropping a level - Buffalo, UConn and Oakland and the Wake Loss dropping from a Q2 to a Q3.

Interesting seeing Baylor as in per Lunardi but the Texas Tech and Creighton wins carry a bit more weight than my methodology credits. And looks like the world is finally catching up to Louisville whose best win was at #48 FSU. We have 2 road wins against higher ranked teams, a similar overall record and a win at their place.
Chance for a solid Q2 Wednesday night and an elite Q1 on Saturday. With a little help from our friends who lost some stature last week a bounceback numbers-wise isn't out of the question.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Miami @ 24 is laughable.

 

[two3zone]

Miami @ 24 is laughable.

I can't take this seriously at all. Washington beats Kansas in Kansas and the win is equal to a Syracuse win in Miami without one of its best players. This system is a joke and should be scrapped. We have zero business sniffing this tournament and I don't care how many bad losses we had last year, we had major major wins while this year we beat mediocre teams that show as big wins? Give me a break. It's embarrassing.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I can't take this seriously at all. Washington beats Kansas in Kansas and the win is equal to a Syracuse win in Miami without one of its best players. This system is a joke and should be scrapped. We have zero business sniffing this tournament and I don't care how many bad losses we had last year, we had major major wins while this year we beat mediocre teams that show as big wins? Give me a break. It's embarrassing.

Oh for sure. Louisville has no business sniffing the tournament either. Miami should be in maybe by the hair of their chinny-chin-chin. Michigan seems too high. Hopefully SOME objectivity is applied and not as much data, frankly.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Speaking of Michigan though. Lose Zak Ervin, Derrick Walton, DJ Wilson, etc., and they are in great shape! That was most of their offense and leaderhip yet they are 36 in AdjO and 11 (!) in AdjD Efficiency. Tyus Battle didn’t pan out for them. No problem! Sure the Big Ten is down but so is the ACC as evidence by the current conference RPI rankings. We are simply unwatchable on offense and would be still, IMO, with Thorpe and maybe even Thompson.

 

[Consigliere]

I can't take this seriously at all. Washington beats Kansas in Kansas and the win is equal to a Syracuse win in Miami without one of its best players. This system is a joke and should be scrapped. We have zero business sniffing this tournament and I don't care how many bad losses we had last year, we had major major wins while this year we beat mediocre teams that show as big wins? Give me a break. It's embarrassing.

There is NO system that can effectively evaluate 31 game resumes for 337 teams. That is over 5200 individual game results if my math is right. Schedules are wildly unbalanced, dynamics of individual teams are constantly changing and consistent criteria are nowhere to be found. Yes, Washington's win at Kansas and our win at Miami are both deemed Q1 wins but then again Washington's 25 point loss to Oregon and our 4 point loss to North Carolina are both charged as Q1 losses.

RPI, BPI and the quadrant analytics is just an attempt to put SOME data in the decision making rather than simply relying on the subjective personal opinions of the committee members discussed over a weekend behind the curtains.

 

[jncuse]

I can't take this seriously at all. Washington beats Kansas in Kansas and the win is equal to a Syracuse win in Miami without one of its best players. This system is a joke and should be scrapped. We have zero business sniffing this tournament and I don't care how many bad losses we had last year, we had major major wins while this year we beat mediocre teams that show as big wins? Give me a break. It's embarrassing.

They are just grouping victories. They will dig much more deeper into the quality of those wins in order to determine if you are in or not.

They don't sit around for hours saying 3-1 vs 3-2, or 4-7 vs 5-6. They will dig deeper for those last few teams,

But if they just go major wins then Temple will be in.

 

[jncuse]

There is NO system that can effectively evaluate 31 game resumes for 337 teams. That is over 5200 individual game results if my math is right. Schedules are wildly unbalanced, dynamics of individual teams are constantly changing and consistent criteria are nowhere to be found. Yes, Washington's win at Kansas and our win at Miami are both deemed Q1 wins but then again Washington's 25 point loss to Oregon and our 4 point loss to North Carolina are both charged as Q1 losses.

RPI, BPI and the quadrant analytics is just an attempt to put SOME data in the decision making rather than simply relying on the subjective personal opinions of the committee members discussed over a weekend behind the curtains.

Nailed it.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Nailed it.

There has always been data. That’s not the point. It’s just getting a litte crazy now. Some of these rubes (and we do need more basketball guys) on the committee probably don’t even know when key players are injured in certain games outside of a Bonzi Colson type name. Some eye test/tangible criteria could and should be applied, IMO. It’s easy to see if teams repeatedly play hard and give effort (us this year, us NOT last year). I would think some other data in terms of Offensive/Defensive Efficiency, Floor %, etc., is applied as well as it should be. I mean they keep saying that they have “hundreds” of pieces of information on each team so it ain’t coming down to just this quadrant and especially RPI baloney.

 

[two3zone]

They are just grouping victories. They will dig much more deeper into the quality of those wins in order to determine if you are in or not.

They don't sit around for hours saying 3-1 vs 3-2, or 4-7 vs 5-6. They will dig deeper for those last few teams,

But if they just go major wins then Temple will be in.

If this is the case I don't see how we're in.

 

[jncuse]

The quad wins as a means of sorting data as a starting point is actually quite good. Building in road wins into the quads made perfect sense due to unbalanced schedules. And as I said, nobody is equating all quad 1 wins, it is merely a start for the anlysis or discussion of bubble teams. Now in the middle of the bracket where they spend little time they basically just look at # of wins and that is it. But not at the bubble level.

To me the major flaw remains that RPI is still at the heart of this. The RPI has a multiplier effect that is larger than other systems, and it will unjustly elevate or crush some conferences. For example the SEC has many more quality win opportunities than the B10.

Is the SEC better this year? Sure. But it only has 5 of the top 40 teams in KenPom. But its RPI is out of whack, which is creating way too many quality victories for some of their schools.

If they just used KP/BPI to rank the quality of a victory within the quad system, you would see resumes would be quite different.

 

[jncuse]

If this is the case I don't see how we're in.

If you look at the other schools on the bubble line to see how many elite wins they have most of them don't. Some will have 1 or 2 more Q1 wins however.

Texas
Kansas St
St Bonaventure
UCLA
USC
Boise St
Miss St

None of these teams have elite wins, or a team that would be in the top 4 line (some of those B12 teams may have a win against a 4 seed).

Part of it is we expect a bubble team to have 1 or 2 wins against teams that will be in top 4 seed lines, based on our recent experience. But that was the only reason we were on the bubble in 2016 and 2017, because we had elite wins to make up for our scabs.

 

[bpo57]

There has always been data. That’s not the point. It’s just getting a litte crazy now. Some of these rubes (and we do need more basketball guys) on the committee probably don’t even know when key players are injured in certain games outside of a Bonzi Colson type name. Some eye test/tangible criteria could and should be applied, IMO. It’s easy to see if teams repeatedly play hard and give effort (us this year, us NOT last year). I would think some data in terms of Offensive/Defensive Efficiency, Floor %, etc., is applied as well as it should be. I mean they keep saying that they have “hundreds” of pieces of information on each team so it ain’t coming down to just this quadrant baloney.

Perfect case in point is Jerry Palm. Not to pick on Palm but somebody mentioned Loyola to him on twitter. He dismissed them because of two bad losses. He's not even aware that both of Loyola's guards (and best players) missed those two games because of injury.

The anomalies within the RPI are stunning. MTSU is #25- they've played just three games with the Top 50 and they're 0-3. Buffalo is #36 and they're 0-4 with the top 50. Temple at #40 has three losses outside the top 100. Btw kenpom has Temple at #82 and Buffalo at #84.

 

[bpo57]

The quad wins as a means of sorting data as a starting point is actually quite good. Building in road wins into the quads made perfect sense due to unbalanced schedules. And as I said, nobody is equating all quad 1 wins, it is merely a start for the anlysis or discussion of bubble teams. Now in the middle of the bracket where they spend little time they basically just look at # of wins and that is it. But not at the bubble level.

To me the major flaw remains that RPI is still at the heart of this. The RPI has a multiplier effect that is larger than other systems, and it will unjustly elevate or crush some conferences. For example the SEC has many more quality win opportunities than the B10.

Is the SEC better this year? Sure. But it only has 5 of the top 40 teams in KenPom. But its RPI is out of whack, which is creating way too many quality victories for some of their schools.

If they just used KP/BPI to rank the quality of a victory within the quad system, you would see resumes would be quite different.

Your second paragraph nailed it and is why I call it garbage in, garbage out. The foundation is built on sand.

 

[SoBeCuse]

The quad wins as a means of sorting data as a starting point is actually quite good. Building in road wins into the quads made perfect sense due to unbalanced schedules. And as I said, nobody is equating all quad 1 wins, it is merely a start for the anlysis or discussion of bubble teams. Now in the middle of the bracket where they spend little time they basically just look at # of wins and that is it. But not at the bubble level.

To me the major flaw remains that RPI is still at the heart of this. The RPI has a multiplier effect that is larger than other systems, and it will unjustly elevate or crush some conferences. For example the SEC has many more quality win opportunities than the B10.

Is the SEC better this year? Sure. But it only has 5 of the top 40 teams in KenPom. But its RPI is out of whack, which is creating way too many quality victories for some of their schools.

If they just used KP/BPI to rank the quality of a victory within the quad system, you would see resumes would be quite different.

Right and that is why the SEC I believe has the most quadrant 1 wins of any conference currently? Bizarre.

 

[jncuse]

There has always been data. That’s not the point. It’s just getting a litte crazy now. Some of these rubes (and we do need more basketball guys) on the committee probably don’t even know when key players are injured in certain games outside of a Bonzi Colson type name. Some eye test/tangible criteria could and should be applied, IMO. It’s easy to see if teams repeatedly play hard and give effort (us this year, us NOT last year). I would think some other data in terms of Offensive/Defensive Efficiency, Floor %, etc., is applied as well as it should be. I mean they keep saying that they have “hundreds” of pieces of information on each team so it ain’t coming down to just this quadrant and especially RPI baloney.

The problem with basketball guys on the committee is there are way too many teams, way too many games, so it makes it hard for someone to make a valid assessment They can't possibly watch all the games. There is also a real bias against teams that are good offensively vs bad offensively if we go with the eye test.

If you guaranteed me that each guy watched at least ten full games of each bubble team then I am OK with their call. But if they watched a few games on TV, I am not interested in eye test based on small sample size.

Some teams are all over the place, and some teams play well versus some style. I wouldn't want somebody calling somebody out because they had bad games 2 of the 3 times he watched them.

 

[SoBeCuse]

The problem with basketball guys on the committee is there are way too many teams, way too many games, so it makes it hard for someone to make a valid assessment They can't possibly watch all the games. There is also a real bias against teams that are good offensively vs bad offensively if we go with the eye test.

If you guaranteed me that each guy watched at least ten full games of each bubble team then I am OK with their call. But if they watched a few games on TV, I am not interested in eye test based on small sample size.

Some teams are all over the place, and some teams play well versus some style. I wouldn't want somebody calling somebody out because they had bad games 2 of the 3 times he watched them.

True. I think it should be applied only in a tiebreaker or close call/tough deliberation scenarios assuming these guys are sharp and know their stuff. From what I understand, committee members past and present are sent all over the country weekly to watch games in person. They watch everything. A conversation I had once with a random scout at MSG years ago about the Tourney was interesting. His words not mine. Former Big Ten player. He said that they watch everything...players’ attitudes, possible mutinies/dissension in the ranks, level of play, etc. Lots of stuff behind the scenes and more than just a bunch of doofuses with spreadsheets. Or not.

This guy was amazing. Just talked my ear off with all sorts of nuggets and gems of info. Just happened to be sitting next to him randomly for two nights at the BET.

 

[bpo57]

True. I think it should be applied only in a tiebreaker or close call/tough deliberation scenarios assuming these guys are sharp and know their stuff. From what I understand, committee members past and present are sent all over the country weekly to watch games in person. They watch everything. A conversation I had once with a random scout at MSG years ago about the Tourney was interesting. His words not mine. Former Big Ten player. He said that they watch everything...players’ attitudes, possible mutinies/dissension in the ranks, level of play, etc. Lots of stuff behind the scenes and more than just a bunch of doofuses with spreadsheets.

This guy was amazing. Just talked my ear off with all sorts of nuggets and gems of info. Just happened to be sitting next to him randomly for two nights at the BET.

That's actually comforting to hear.

 

[jncuse]

Perfect case in point is Jerry Palm. Not to pick on Palm but somebody mentioned Loyola to him on twitter. He dismissed them because of two bad losses. He's not even aware that both of Loyola's guards (and best players) missed those two games because of injury.

The anomalies within the RPI are stunning. MTSU is #25- they've played just three games with the Top 50 and they're 0-3. Buffalo is #36 and they're 0-4 with the top 50. Temple at #40 has three losses outside the top 100. Btw kenpom has Temple at #82 and Buffalo at #84.

Why should Palm care?

I know you don't like when I say this, but you calling out Palm is a classic case of you shooting the messenger. Palm's role is to assess whether a team is a tourney team based on the current system. It is not to assess whether the system that locks Loyola out is bad.

I will also say Loyala has limited chance of getting in. Should the system be fairer to them? In my view yes, those teams deserve the benefit of the doubt, but they never get it. That is a different question however. These teams are apples and oranges with P5 teams in terms of data comparison, so I have no problem using subjective analysis or straight power rankings for smaller schools... or giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Teams like Buffalo have no chance of an at large. Each year there are around 3 mid level progams that have RPI's in the 30's or early 40's and they get ignored. The commitee is smart enough to realize the RPI doesn't work for some teams, or individually it has little meaning if a team gets in or not, but yet still uses it for their numberical framework to create all the other data.