OT / General Interest: NCAA Bubble and Tourney Impact Games March 9 and 10 | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

OT / General Interest: NCAA Bubble and Tourney Impact Games March 9 and 10

Although I just fired shots at Georgia Tech,, they have an amazing quality win profile. Such an odd year for them.

4 Q1 Wins (4-6)
4 Q2 Wins (4-7)

In fact there 4 Q1 wins, are all "Q1A" wins as they are in the top half of the 1-75 range. There might be less than a dozen teams in the country who have that stat.

Looking at that on a standalone basis and more years than not that easily gets you in the tournament.

Of course teams with quality wins like that don't lose to UMass Lowell, BC, Notre Dame and Louisville at home either.
UMass Lowell is 21-9 and playing for their conference title

ND is like GaTech in that they have been playing very well since February.

Louisville, yeah, Louisville is Michigan esque
 
Although I just fired shots at Georgia Tech,, they have an amazing quality win profile. Such an odd year for them.

4 Q1 Wins (4-6)
4 Q2 Wins (4-7)

In fact there 4 Q1 wins, are all "Q1A" wins as they are in the top half of the 1-75 range. There might be less than a dozen teams in the country who have that stat.

Looking at that on a standalone basis and more years than not that easily gets you in the tournament.

Of course teams with quality wins like that don't lose to UMass Lowell, BC, Notre Dame and Louisville at home either.

Just stumbled upon this myself - such a weird team. Then you look at Wake who also has a weird resume too.

While this is a (for obvious reasons) non Syracuse thread, it would be a blast to be an agent of Chaos and win the whole ACCT. Likelihood is very low but hey who knows. I wonder if we get to the title game if we jump into the discussion at all or if it’s an all or nothing we are just a possible bid stealer scenario
 
Indiana State is good, they deserve a bid. Unless we rally this week and are on the bubble, then they suck

If you ask me "should they" or "will they" and you will get 2 different answers.

I have no problem giving these type of teams (Indiana St, a USF) that did good in solid conferences the nod over the middle/bottom-middle of a power conference. My answer on who should has always been on the middle guy where its debatable.

But will they - 1 quality win, 1-4 in Q1 games, will just do them in. They would rather go with some team that has 3 or 4, even with many more Q1 losses.
 
If you ask me "should they" or "will they" and you will get 2 different answers.

I have no problem giving these type of teams (Indiana St, a USF) that did good in solid conferences the nod over the middle/bottom-middle of a power conference. My answer on who should has always been on the middle guy where its debatable.

But will they - 1 quality win, 1-4 in Q1 games, will just do them in. They would rather go with some team that has 3 or 4, even with many more Q1 losses.

Indiana St is an interesting case too because all they did is blow out inferior teams and had a large net MOV thus really helping their efficiency and overall NET. Given they lack quality wins but avoided bad losses does the high NET driven by that MOV move them through?
 
UMass Lowell is 21-9 and playing for their conference title

ND is like GaTech in that they have been playing very well since February.

Louisville, yeah, Louisville is Michigan esque

GT is one of the biggest oddities in college basketball.

But getting back to that OOC loss though against Lowell - and ND's OOC losses. And FSU's losses.

UMass Lowell at home is still a bad loss. We need our lower tier teams to do better earlier in the season.

The ACC can't go worse in Q1, Q1+Q2, much worse in Q3 OOC games than the top ranked conferences and than expect the same respect. The ACC was 23-8 in Q3 OOC games (74%)... other power conferences win 90%+ of those games (the Big 12 won 96% of their Q3 games, 25-1). They hurt our numbers.
 
Last edited:
Indiana St is an interesting case too because all they did is blow out inferior teams and had a large net MOV thus really helping their efficiency and overall NET. Given they lack quality wins but avoided bad losses does the high NET driven by that MOV move them through?

There are 4 NET "Darlings this year" right around 30 on the bubble line. Never seen it with this many around such a low number. Last year there was 1, maybe 2, below 32, that were debatable. Usually that line is closer to high 30's or 40, where you start to get multiple teams that are not locked in.

Here is what we have learned about high NET's and RPI's in the past that are on the bubble line.

Could the high NET help a Villanova, Colorado? Decent chance if they have some other decent stuff.
Could the high NET help a team like Indiana St? Very unlikely.

NET's and RPI's get thrown out the door for teams like Indiana St, fair or not. They look at the quality wins, and say bye.

The MWC is more mixed historically. Utah St last year probably got helped by their NET of 18. New Mexico at 28 is pushing it with only 2 Q1 Wins.

I don't have New Mexico getting in as of now like many people do. 2 Q1 wins, with 2 bad losses. The NET will not carry them home against a mid P6 team with 4Q1 wins.
 
I don't like their chances (basically nil)- just comes down to lacking quality wins and a few bad losses including a Q4. I tend to evaluate largely independent of your individual NET, and focus on quality win record and bad losses, because that is how the committee generally looks at thing.

Loyola and USF have similar resumes -- both have done very well in solid conferences, with one big mistake (or two for USF) in OOC. But they both lack quality wins.

For Loyola
1-2 in Q1
5-6 in Q1+Q2
2 bad losses, including a Q4

None of them standout as positive, and then add in a NET in the 80's they don't get considered.

Loyola (and USF for that matter) may be about as good some of the middling teams that get in from the P6 conferences, but they just don't have the resumes to compete with them (in part because of lack of opportunity)
Appreciate your response.

It is interesting to compare Loyola and Dayton. There is an 18 game sample size in the A-10 and Loyola finished with a better record and beat Dayton head to head. But somehow it's more important what happened in November/December. Meanwhile the differential in NET between the two is more than 60 slots. One advantage Dayton has is it was highly ranked from the jump while Loyola wasn't even in the top 100. They had a bad year last year and were relying on transfers this year. They started slowly but began to mesh in January and now the two teams have been essentially even yet one is a middle of the pack seed and the other is miles away from inclusion.

There are so many goofy anomalies when it involves the NET and the matrix and most of it revolves around the foolish emphasis on games played 3-4 months ago. In my opinion it distorts the selection process and really screws up the seedings.

I'll give an example. Auburn has been in the top six for NET and kenpom for at least a month. All 24 of Auburn's wins have been by double digits. Meanwhile KU has played like total dog sheet for at least a month and yet they're a 3 and Auburn is the lowest rated 4 seed. Makes no sense. Any 2 or 6 seed that draws KU in their bracket is lucky while the 1 or 5 seed that has Auburn in their bracket is not so fortunate.
 
I like Chaos around the line -- and teams above the line are 2-2 today, and teams below the line are 4-0 with a Q1 win and 2 Q2 wins.

As of now, i would not have New Mexico in, unlike the consensus. If they get a Q1 win today it really helps them, but if they lose I don't think they are in great shape.
UNLV is very interesting. Even moreso had they won last night.
 
2 teams from the same conference

Team A/Team B
Record: 18-13 vs 18-13
Conference Record: 10-10 vs 10-10
Q1 Record: 4-8 vs 4-8
Q2 Record: 5-5 vs 5-4
Q1+Q2: 9-13 vs 9-12
Marquee Q1 (Top Half): 2 (one in OOC) vs 0
Bad Losses: 0 / 1 (#95 at Home)
RPI: 60 vs 63

Team A is largely viewed as lock to get in.
Team B need to win their conference tournament to get in.

I think we can answer that Team A has the better resume because it has 2 "top half" Q1 victories, but the difference in results is not huge.

Answers and NET, on next post.
 
Last edited:
2 teams from the same conference

Team A/Team B
Record: 18-13 vs 18-13
Conference Record: 10-10 vs 10-10
Q1 Record: 4-8 vs 4-8
Q2 Record: 5-5 vs 5-4
Q1+Q2: 9-13 vs 9-12
Marquee Q1 (Top Half): 2 (one in OOC) vs 0
Bad Losses: 0 / 1 (#95 at Home)
RPI: 60 vs 63

Team A is largely viewed as lock to get in.
Team B need to win their conference tournament to get in.

I think we can answer that Team A has the better resume because it has 2 "top half" Q1 victories, but the difference in results is not huge.

Answers and NET, on next post.

Team A - Michigan St NET #24 (Tourney Lock)
Team B - Indiana NET #97 (Needs to win B10)

Michigan St because of the Baylor win is clearly above them in terms of selection. That is fine - but the gap should not be huge

NET is doing crazy things. This is two teams from the same conference, same W-L record, with similar level of quality victories and no stupid losses.

Don't feel bad for Indiana, but just pointing it out.
They don't have a bad resume by the traditional analysis, but getting NET crushed. Opposite
 
Appreciate your response.

It is interesting to compare Loyola and Dayton. There is an 18 game sample size in the A-10 and Loyola finished with a better record and beat Dayton head to head. But somehow it's more important what happened in November/December. Meanwhile the differential in NET between the two is more than 60 slots. One advantage Dayton has is it was highly ranked from the jump while Loyola wasn't even in the top 100. They had a bad year last year and were relying on transfers this year. They started slowly but began to mesh in January and now the two teams have been essentially even yet one is a middle of the pack seed and the other is miles away from inclusion.

There are so many goofy anomalies when it involves the NET and the matrix and most of it revolves around the foolish emphasis on games played 3-4 months ago. In my opinion it distorts the selection process and really screws up the seedings.

I'll give an example. Auburn has been in the top six for NET and kenpom for at least a month. All 24 of Auburn's wins have been by double digits. Meanwhile KU has played like total dog sheet for at least a month and yet they're a 3 and Auburn is the lowest rated 4 seed. Makes no sense. Any 2 or 6 seed that draws KU in their bracket is lucky while the 1 or 5 seed that has Auburn in their bracket is not so fortunate.

As an aside - If you want another interesting comparison in terms of the higher mid-majors look at South Florida and Florida Atlantic.

To be fair, it's not a "matrix" issue that Dayton is clearly in and Loyola is not. The matrix is based on who you think will get in, and Dayton has the much better resume in terms of what is considered (disregarding NET, although their NET is nice) .and that is due to use of the "Full Body of Work" Principle (Equal value to games whenever they were played) -- a principle I know you don't like as you made clear above. Its fine not liking it, there are some decent arguments for that as you have laid out. But that is the "rules" they have chosen to select by.

You are correct in isolating the November/December portion as to the only reason why Dayton is well ahead "full body"
3 Q1 Wins vs 0
0 bad losses vs 2
That's like a 3-4 game separation in itself.

A 15-3 record vs 14-4 record in an unbalanced schedule doesn't make up for significant difference achieved in OOC Play.

Interestingly Dayton would have an RPI of #4. Unlike many of the high NET teams that seem off, which usually the direction is the other way.
 
Last edited:
Watching the Iowa-Illinois game and Iowa is on the bubble, so will add to this thread. But our old pal Quincy G has already made 2 3 pointers. His shot looks much improved and he's shooting 38% on 3's this year.
 
As an aside - If you want another interesting comparison in terms of the higher mid-majors look at South Florida and Florida Atlantic.

To be fair, it's not a "matrix" issue that Dayton is clearly in and Loyola is not. The matrix is based on who you think will get in, and Dayton has the much better resume in terms of what is considered (disregarding NET, although their NET is nice) .and that is due to use of the "Full Body of Work" Principle (Equal value to games whenever they were played) -- a principle I know you don't like as you made clear above. Its fine not liking it, there are some decent arguments for that as you have laid out. But that is the "rules" they have chosen to select by.

You are correct in isolating the November/December portion as to the only reason why Dayton is well ahead "full body"
3 Q1 Wins vs 0
0 bad losses vs 2
That's like a 3-4 game separation in itself.

A 15-3 record vs 14-4 record in an unbalanced schedule doesn't make up for significant difference achieved in OOC Play.

Interestingly Dayton would have an RPI of #4. Unlike many of the high NET teams that seem off, which usually the direction is the other way.
Thx all fair comments.

I was just using the matrix as a proxy for how things are expected to play out re the contrast with Auburn/KU and Loyola/Dayton. I can understand how Dayton would get in over Loyola but not by the margin shown in the NET, Kenpom or the matrix itself. Loyola and Dayton could meet in the A-10 semifinals this week and if Loyola beat them again and landed in the finals it would seem more than a little unfair to Loyola but this no doubt is an imperfect process.

You are correct that I hate the full body of work approach. It can end up leading to poor seedings which in reality is more problematic than which one of the last 2-3 teams are selected into the tourney. Some of these teams are often much better or worse than their full body resume would indicate.
 
I just want to go on record and thank jncuse for all of the work on this. It's one thing to review the daily bubble when SU is in the thick of things. It is another level entirely when SU can only realistically get in with an ACCT championship.
 
People still seeing Villanova and Providence as having a shot is absolutely absurd. Please take Indiana State over both.

The committee, rightly or wrongly, has historically shown they will pick a team like Villanova and Providence almost every time over Indiana St... not always maybe, but usually.

I would certainly have the chances of Villanova and Providence, higher than Indiana St, even if I think deserves Indiana St deserves more of the benefit of the doubt. They generalll can't help themselves he P6 team with 4 or 5 Q1 wins, over the team that went 1-4 in them, even if that one team is 4-10 like Villanova in those games.

5 Q1 wins, with two "top half" Q1, and no bad losses, like Providence, would be tough for them to pass on over Indiana St.

Villanova has more holes vs Providence, but benefits from the NET in the eyes of some. I don't tend to focus on NET overly, and their 3 bad losses can't help them. I have Providence over Nova - Nova might be the one more exposed to Indiana St.
 
Last edited:
I just want to go on record and thank jncuse for all of the work on this. It's one thing to review the daily bubble when SU is in the thick of things. It is another level entirely when SU can only realistically get in with an ACCT championship.

Thanks, its just something I like to do to pass time.
 
The committee, rightly or wrongly, has historically shown they will pick a team like Villanova and Providence almost every time over Indiana St... not always maybe, but usually.

I would certainly have the chances of Villanova and Providence, higher than Indiana St, even if I think deserves Indiana St deserves more of the benefit of the doubt. They generalll can't help themselves he P6 team with 4 or 5 Q1 wins, over the team that went 1-4 in them, even if that one team is 4-10 like Villanova in those games.

5 Q1 wins, with two "top half" Q1, and no bad losses, like Providence, would be tough for them to pass on over Indiana St.

Villanova has more holes vs Providence, but benefits from the NET in the eyes of some. I don't tend to focus on NET overly, and their 3 bad losses can't help them. I have Providence over Nova - Nova might be the one more exposed to Indiana St.
I realize records mean sht, but they are going to be like 18-15. That’s ridiculous.
 
Final Results from this Weekend

Before this weekend I was not a huge fan of the resumes of the 3 teams of the 8 "above the line" teams in Miss St, New Mexico, Villanova that loss. Would have projected that New Mexico was out before, and was looking to take out Nova. So to convince me anyway they needed that Q1 win, which they did not get. I think this weekend was actually big for Wake given they were the only team of the entire 16, to get a Q1 win.

Nebraska 77 (100%) (Q2 Win at Michigan)
Florida Atlantic 77 (100%) (Q2 Win at Home vs Memphis)
Miss St 76 (99%) (Q2 Loss at home South Carolina)
Seton Hall 76 (99%) (Q4 Win vs Depaul)
Virginia 71 (91%) (Q3 Win vs Georgia Tech)
St Johns 68 (88%) (Q4 Win at Home vs Georgetown)
Villanova 59 (74%) (Q1 Loss at home vs Creighton,)
New Mexico 56 (71%) (Q1 Loss at Utah St)
--------
Colorado 48 (Q3 Win at Oregon St)
Providence 18 (Q1 Loss vs UConn)
Drake 8 ** (Q2 Win vs Bradley MVC Semi's, Win MVC)
Iowa 7 (Q1 Loss vs Illinois, Sun 7:00)
Utah 5 (Q1 Loss at Oregon)
Pitt 4 (Q3 Win vs NC ST,)
Texas A&M 3 (Q2 Win at Ole Miss)
Wake 1 (Q1 Win vs Clemson)
 
I realize records mean sht, but they are going to be like 18-15. That’s ridiculous.

I don't think Nova's in great shape. I know part of the reason they are in is the NET being below / near that #30 number. And historically that has always been good enough (NET/RPI) -- which is why some are putting them in. But there are too many of those teams this year (New Mex, Nova, Colorado, Indiana St. -- they have to exclude some.

But I think its much more possible a team like Wake Forest takes their spot over an Indiana St.
 
I think its fairly close amongst the following 8 teams, but this is my current line.
Indiana St is somewhere in there too, but they are hard to compare. But they are in the group of 8 below. I'll just leave them hanging on the list.

I'm higher on Providence, Texas A&M and Wake than others. Villanova and UNM are helped a little too much by their NET in my eyes. Villanova is only 4-10 in Q1 -- with 3 bad losses.
UNM is 2-6 in Q1, with 2 bad losses including Q4.


St. John's
Providence
Texas A&M
Miss St
--------
Colorado
Wake Forest
Villanova
New Mexico

Indiana St is somewhere there too.
 
UNLV is very interesting. Even moreso had they won last night.

5-4 in Q1 games is very good... but the 3 Q4 losses will do them in.

They are close to as good UNM, except for the big NET difference.
That said I think New Mexico is being viewed too favourably right now.
UNLV is after all 2 games ahead of them in the MWC (12-8 vs 10-6) and they have a huge win against Creighton that New Mexico doesn't have. But those 2 bad OOC Q4 losses do them in.
 
Good stuff, amazed by the number crunching and insight.

I’m the end it’s kind of like paraphrasing Jimmy B...”you just gotta watch a lot of games to know who’s good and deserves to get in.”
 
5-4 in Q1 games is very good... but the 3 Q4 losses will do them in.

They are close to as good UNM, except for the big NET difference.
That said I think New Mexico is being viewed too favourably right now.
UNLV is after all 2 games ahead of them in the MWC (12-8 vs 10-6) and they have a huge win against Creighton that New Mexico doesn't have. But those 2 bad OOC Q4 losses do them in.

Now we just need someone to do as you and many of us agreed - create a hybrid ranking 50 pct NET and 50 pct RPI then let’s see what it looks like. Simply the quadrants to home, away and neutral with records vs top 50, top 100, top 150 and then 150 plus as means to look at performance against the rest of the country.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,964
Messages
4,740,460
Members
5,934
Latest member
bspencer309

Online statistics

Members online
248
Guests online
1,153
Total visitors
1,401


Top Bottom