Selection Sunday thread... | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Selection Sunday thread...

NineOneSeven said:
I’ll keep saying it, it’s just unfathomable as a stand alone and if you actually include the posts here about their situation 5+ years ago. Yikes. A literal horror story. Literally can’t be made up.

Anyway, I will actually be shocked if they don’t repeat. How often can that ever be said?
Expand...

Some may refer to that as Karma.
 
OrlandoCuse said:
It’s SHOCKING how inflated Michigan State’s NET is. Someone will have to explain to me how they are tricking the system. Nothing about their record translates to 24 in NET, yet there they are.
Expand...
I think it has to do with losing but losing very close games as opposed to us who got blown out against better non conf competition. Its all crap
 
I’d like to see someone make an objective argument as to why Mich State deserves to be in.
 
OrlandoCuse said:
It’s SHOCKING how inflated Michigan State’s NET is. Someone will have to explain to me how they are tricking the system. Nothing about their record translates to 24 in NET, yet there they are.
Expand...

I'll just put my summary findings above ... so people don't have read the whole thing below. This isn't an argument for them getting in, but just showing how well Michigan St did in the margin game vs Syracuse.

Michigan St vs Syracuse is a convenient comparison, because neither team piled on playing Q4 games which is the typical form of abuse (both only played 4) which is less than the average Q4 team -- especially a B12, but even a Pitt or a Wake.

I don't they "tricked" or "gamed" the system because they didn't pile on Q4 which is the abuse. They just did very well in the margin game - you could then say the system itself is bad or stupid, but it wasn't really gaming.

Michigan St vs Syracuse (adjusted to Syracuse's # of games in each quadrant)
Q4 = 93 points better
Q3 = 103 points better
Q2 = 18 points better
Q1 = 105 points better

At eye level this makes sense - we did really bad against poor teams. But we did well against middle of the pack solid teams (Q2). And we got destroyed in Q1 games.

Overall - 229 points better, over 31 games, That is 7.4 points per game, adjusted to 70 possessions, and our KP rating would be 10.6 higher. Add 10.6 to our current KP of 9.3, and we would raise to 19.9 and from #87 to #20.


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

I don't think they did anything to game or trick the system. Unlike so many teams in the P6, they only played 4 games against Q4 - so they didn't go the B12 route either.

It just came down to the margin game which they did well in. I think its worth looking into vs Syracuse, so I dug down

Looking at their Quad's, looks like they did well in the "margin" game in Q1, Q3, and Q4. In fact it looks like Q3 margin is where they distinguished themselves vs others instead of Q4, which I don't mind as much as you can't control narrative as much against these "better" teams.

I'll compare it to Syracuse, which is convenient since neither team piled on a bunch of Q4 games - we played the same amount of 4, which is lower than the average of a P6 team. Neither team did the B12 thing or what many P6 teams did.

Q4 - (MSU went 4-0 winning by an average of 33, we won 4 games by an average of 9 points) Winning by 33 by MSU was better than the average tournament team, but its less than a lot of B12 teams and even a Pitt. What we did in our Q4 games hurt us as much as anything -- that is the system, as stupid as it is, but at the same time we have to take some blame for that. We let bad teams hang around all year. Anyway if we had been better by "93 points" in those 4 games, our KP would have increased from #87 to around #56

Q4 Impact vs Syracuse = +93 points

Q3 - (MSU margin of 104 points over 6 games (6-0), Syracuse was 56 over 9 (8-1)). MSU's margin of 17 points in all Q3 games, I'd imagine is very strong compared to many teams. These games you tend not to be able to control the narrative as much. I actually don't mind rewarding these games compared to Q4 games. If Syracuse had done as wll

If Syracuse had done as well as Michigan St in Q3 games, they win by 159 points instead of 53 points.

Q3 Impact vs Syracuse = +103 points (adjusted to 9 games)

Q2 - (MSU Margin of 47 points (6-5), Syracuse margin 16 points (4-4). Both teams overall did well in the margin game in Q2. We had the Oregon game that really helped us.

Q2 Impact vs Syracuse = + 18 points (adjusted to 8 games)

Q1 - ( MSU Margin of negative 34 points (3-8) Syracuse margin of negative 136 points (3-7)
We all know the story here. Michigan St also benefits from the 24 point win over Baylor.

Q1 Impact vs Syracuse = +105 points (adjusted over 10 games)
 
Marsh01 said:
I think it has to do with losing but losing very close games as opposed to us who got blown out against better non conf competition. Its all crap
Expand...

It was more do to our poorer win margins in Q3 and Q4, but there was a huge gap in Q1 games as well. All big factors.

Interestingly against similar quality teams (Q2) we almost played as well.
 
cusefan88 said:
Regular Season mid-major champ > mediocre P5 team
Expand...

Yes would have been a great argument to put Indiana St against certain teams like Virginia, St. John's, Providence, A&M. Unfortunately the 5 bubble busters this week, took that discussion away from us.

I would always prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt (teams like Indiana St), but I know the committee usually does not. And this week it just became the numbers game.
 
jncuse said:
I'll just put my summary findings above ... so people don't have read the whole thing below. This isn't an argument for them getting in, but just showing how well Michigan St did in the margin game vs Syracuse.

Michigan St vs Syracuse is a convenient comparison, because neither team piled on playing Q4 games which is the typical form of abuse (both only played 4) which is less than the average Q4 team -- especially a B12, but even a Pitt or a Wake.

I don't they "tricked" or "gamed" the system because they didn't pile on Q4 which is the abuse. They just did very well in the margin game - you could then say the system itself is bad or stupid, but it wasn't really gaming.

Michigan St vs Syracuse (adjusted to Syracuse's # of games in each quadrant)
Q4 = 93 points better
Q3 = 103 points better
Q2 = 18 points better
Q1 = 105 points better

At eye level this makes sense - we did really bad against poor teams. But we did well against middle of the pack solid teams (Q2). And we got destroyed in Q1 games.

Overall - 229 points better, over 31 games, That is 7.4 points per game, adjusted to 70 possessions, and our KP rating would be 10.6 higher. Add 10.6 to our current KP of 9.3, and we would raise to 19.9 and from #87 to #20.


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

I don't think they did anything to game or trick the system. Unlike so many teams in the P6, they only played 4 games against Q4 - so they didn't go the B12 route either.

It just came down to the margin game which they did well in. I think its worth looking into vs Syracuse, so I dug down

Looking at their Quad's, looks like they did well in the "margin" game in Q1, Q3, and Q4. In fact it looks like Q3 margin is where they distinguished themselves vs others instead of Q4, which I don't mind as much as you can't control narrative as much against these "better" teams.

I'll compare it to Syracuse, which is convenient since neither team piled on a bunch of Q4 games - we played the same amount of 4, which is lower than the average of a P6 team. Neither team did the B12 thing or what many P6 teams did.

Q4 - (MSU went 4-0 winning by an average of 33, we won 4 games by an average of 9 points) Winning by 33 by MSU was better than the average tournament team, but its less than a lot of B12 teams and even a Pitt. What we did in our Q4 games hurt us as much as anything -- that is the system, as stupid as it is, but at the same time we have to take some blame for that. We let bad teams hang around all year. Anyway if we had been better by "93 points" in those 4 games, our KP would have increased from #87 to around #56

Q4 Impact vs Syracuse = +93 points

Q3 - (MSU margin of 104 points over 6 games (6-0), Syracuse was 56 over 9 (8-1)). MSU's margin of 17 points in all Q3 games, I'd imagine is very strong compared to many teams. These games you tend not to be able to control the narrative as much. I actually don't mind rewarding these games compared to Q4 games. If Syracuse had done as wll

If Syracuse had done as well as Michigan St in Q3 games, they win by 159 points instead of 53 points.

Q3 Impact vs Syracuse = +103 points (adjusted to 9 games)

Q2 - (MSU Margin of 47 points (6-5), Syracuse margin 16 points (4-4). Both teams overall did well in the margin game in Q2. We had the Oregon game that really helped us.

Q2 Impact vs Syracuse = + 18 points (adjusted to 8 games)

Q1 - ( MSU Margin of negative 34 points (3-8) Syracuse margin of negative 136 points (3-7)
We all know the story here. Michigan St also benefits from the 24 point win over Baylor.

Q1 Impact vs Syracuse = +105 points (adjusted over 10 games)
Expand...
So NET really needs an overhaul. The overuse of continuous mathematics in a system of discrete mathematics (winning and losing) really exposes significant flaws to the NET algorithm.
 
OrlandoCuse said:
It’s SHOCKING how inflated Michigan State’s NET is. Someone will have to explain to me how they are tricking the system. Nothing about their record translates to 24 in NET, yet there they are.
Expand...
maybe they paid the NCAA to give them a high NET this year

in this era would that really be all that shocking to anyone?
 
jncuse said:
I'll just put my summary findings above ... so people don't have read the whole thing below. This isn't an argument for them getting in, but just showing how well Michigan St did in the margin game vs Syracuse.

Michigan St vs Syracuse is a convenient comparison, because neither team piled on playing Q4 games which is the typical form of abuse (both only played 4) which is less than the average Q4 team -- especially a B12, but even a Pitt or a Wake.

I don't they "tricked" or "gamed" the system because they didn't pile on Q4 which is the abuse. They just did very well in the margin game - you could then say the system itself is bad or stupid, but it wasn't really gaming.

Michigan St vs Syracuse (adjusted to Syracuse's # of games in each quadrant)
Q4 = 93 points better
Q3 = 103 points better
Q2 = 18 points better
Q1 = 105 points better

At eye level this makes sense - we did really bad against poor teams. But we did well against middle of the pack solid teams (Q2). And we got destroyed in Q1 games.

Overall - 229 points better, over 31 games, That is 7.4 points per game, adjusted to 70 possessions, and our KP rating would be 10.6 higher. Add 10.6 to our current KP of 9.3, and we would raise to 19.9 and from #87 to #20.


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

I don't think they did anything to game or trick the system. Unlike so many teams in the P6, they only played 4 games against Q4 - so they didn't go the B12 route either.

It just came down to the margin game which they did well in. I think its worth looking into vs Syracuse, so I dug down

Looking at their Quad's, looks like they did well in the "margin" game in Q1, Q3, and Q4. In fact it looks like Q3 margin is where they distinguished themselves vs others instead of Q4, which I don't mind as much as you can't control narrative as much against these "better" teams.

I'll compare it to Syracuse, which is convenient since neither team piled on a bunch of Q4 games - we played the same amount of 4, which is lower than the average of a P6 team. Neither team did the B12 thing or what many P6 teams did.

Q4 - (MSU went 4-0 winning by an average of 33, we won 4 games by an average of 9 points) Winning by 33 by MSU was better than the average tournament team, but its less than a lot of B12 teams and even a Pitt. What we did in our Q4 games hurt us as much as anything -- that is the system, as stupid as it is, but at the same time we have to take some blame for that. We let bad teams hang around all year. Anyway if we had been better by "93 points" in those 4 games, our KP would have increased from #87 to around #56

Q4 Impact vs Syracuse = +93 points

Q3 - (MSU margin of 104 points over 6 games (6-0), Syracuse was 56 over 9 (8-1)). MSU's margin of 17 points in all Q3 games, I'd imagine is very strong compared to many teams. These games you tend not to be able to control the narrative as much. I actually don't mind rewarding these games compared to Q4 games. If Syracuse had done as wll

If Syracuse had done as well as Michigan St in Q3 games, they win by 159 points instead of 53 points.

Q3 Impact vs Syracuse = +103 points (adjusted to 9 games)

Q2 - (MSU Margin of 47 points (6-5), Syracuse margin 16 points (4-4). Both teams overall did well in the margin game in Q2. We had the Oregon game that really helped us.

Q2 Impact vs Syracuse = + 18 points (adjusted to 8 games)

Q1 - ( MSU Margin of negative 34 points (3-8) Syracuse margin of negative 136 points (3-7)
We all know the story here. Michigan St also benefits from the 24 point win over Baylor.

Q1 Impact vs Syracuse = +105 points (adjusted over 10 games)
Expand...
I can understand that margins (winning and loosing) are an indication of how good
a given team is. However, the margin also should reflect the quality of the opponent.
Loosing to a top level Q1 by 20 is not the same as loosing to a low level Q1 by that
margin. The same goes for winning margins. For me there is far too much emphasis in the algorithm for "margin" than it deserves.
 
OrlandoCuse said:
So NET really needs an overhaul. The overuse of continuous mathematics in a system of discrete mathematics (winning and losing) really exposes significant flaws to the NET algorithm.
Expand...

I don't think Michigan St did anything "devious" or "gamey" - they just played.
Is it better they got to their NET that way, then by abusing way (like B12) Probably. But it doesn't make NET any less flawed.

It needs some real tweaks. As I have said for a little while now -- half RPI, half NET would fix a lot of things. Both NET and RPI are flawed individually, but the strengths and weaknesses of each tend to be different which creates a nice hedge.

And it also needs to committee to focus purely on W and L's at the end of the day, and not standalone NET - and for bubble teams needs their quad edges scrubbed. Things the committee has always done which is why team's in the high 30's miss sometimes, and teams in the 70's get in. But avoiding a team that is at #25 is hard to expect. Biggest NET aberration I have seen.

But NET #25 - that will be really hard for them to ignore given who it is, and that add in a win like Baylor. Do I think they deserve to get in - they are very close to the other teams, but I personally think they fall just short in a true W/L perspective if I was selecting.
 
Last edited:
Cuse1055 said:
I’ve come to terms with the fact that UConn is probably going to win another one (although this time it wouldn’t be due to luck).
Expand...
Last year was luck?
 
Bubble is an absolute mess. I am like 3 hours deep into bracketology and finally threw my hands up and said I have no idea.

Have it down to 12 teams for 7 spots.

Texas
Seton Hall
Providence
Michigan St
Northwestern
Texas A&M
Colorado
FAU
Indiana St
Oklahoma
Johnnies
UVA

I am fairly confident that Indiana St (very sad), OU, Johnnie's and UVA are left out. Colorado or Northwestern getting left out would be the most surprising to me on the list.

Miss St and TCU were on that list, too, but I think they are both somewhat comfortably in. MSU just has too many high end wins.

Obviously I wish we were in the mix but this has to be one of the most stressful years to be a bubble team in a long time.
 
OCESIP said:
I can understand that margins (winning and loosing) are an indication of how good
a given team is. However, the margin also should reflect the quality of the opponent.
Loosing to a top level Q1 by 20 is not the same as loosing to a low level Q1 by that
margin. The same goes for winning margins. For me there is far too much emphasis in the algorithm for "margin" than it deserves.
Expand...

Michigan St played a harder Q1 schedule than us. They have never been a team to duck the OOC. Purdue, Purdue, Arizona, Duke, Baylor. 9 top half Q1 games which they had a net margin of -19 points. We had 7 top half Q1 games, and lost by -86 points.

Too simplify things I grouped things together, because when you average things out they tend to be pretty equal.

Not justifying them using margin so much though.
 
two3zone said:
People seem to think if you have one elite win you automatically get in for some reason.
Expand...

Some years it has been enough for some teams (NC St last year for example) -- while doing nothing stupid and plodding along. But not this year.

I think there is a general impression that the Bubble is garbage this year because Michigan St is there (but that's a NET thing). But due to the bubble busters, the teams that will be in the play-ins will be far stronger based on W/L's than they have been in a long time.

It's a strong bubble.
 
Cuse1055 said:
Maybe not luck, but they certainly had a favorable draw for a team that wasn’t a top 3 seed.
Expand...

Everything changed in 2011. The year that St. Joes got totally jobbed by the refs in a first round game against UConn - UConn should have lost that game.

Since then nothing goes wrong for them -- and they get some breaks -- but to their credit, they still have played extremely well. The 2023 tourney team was a juggernaut in the tournament that just seemed in total control once we got to the sweet 16.
 
UpstateSM said:
Bubble is an absolute mess. I am like 3 hours deep into bracketology and finally threw my hands up and said I have no idea.

Have it down to 12 teams for 7 spots.

Texas
Seton Hall
Providence
Michigan St
Northwestern
Texas A&M
Colorado
FAU
Indiana St
Oklahoma
Johnnies
UVA

I am fairly confident that Indiana St (very sad), OU, Johnnie's and UVA are left out. Colorado or Northwestern getting left out would be the most surprising to me on the list.

Miss St and TCU were on that list, too, but I think they are both somewhat comfortably in. MSU just has too many high end wins.

Obviously I wish we were in the mix but this has to be one of the most stressful years to be a bubble team in a long time.
Expand...

Consensus have Northwestern and Texas as cleanly in, but I think its also fair to include them on your list as they are really not that distinctive from the others. Northwestern and Texas would be clear ins in prior years, but the bar to get in is a bit higher this year. But I think they are safe.

I disagree on being fairly confident that Oklahoma and St. John's will be out. Not saying they won't be or disagreeing on those choices, but I wouldn't be fairly confident about too much.

I do agree that Indiana St and Virginia are SOL.

I actually preferred Providence to St. John's entering the conference tournament, and they both got nice wins. Seems like you might be thinking the same as me in that regard. St. John's was 11-9 in conference vs 10-10 which does mean something because they do have a balanced schedule. And neither distinguished themselves in OOC or did anything stupid. But Providence did better in the quality games.
 
Last edited:
jncuse said:
Consensus have Northwestern and Texas as cleanly in, but I think its also fair to include them on your list as they are really not that distinctive from the others. Northwestern and Texas would be clear ins in prior years, but the bar to get in is a bit higher this year. But I think they are safe.

I disagree on being fairly confident that Oklahoma and St. John's will be out. Not saying they won't be or disagreeing on those choices, but I wouldn't be fairly confident about too much.

I do agree that Indiana St and Virginia are SOL.

I actually preferred Providence to St. John's entering the conference tournament, and they both got nice wins. Seems like you might be thinking the same as me in that regard. St. John's was 11-9 in conference vs 10-10 which does mean something because they do have a balanced schedule. And neither distinguished themselves in OOC or did anything stupid. But Providence did better in the quality games.
Expand...
Providence's resume was surprisingly good to me once I really jumped in. And Johnnies' was surprisingly lacking. I just don't see it with OU but there are enough bracket guys with them in Dayton that I shouldn't be surprised if they get in. Agreed on Northwestern 100% and lean towards agreeing on Texas. Was very close to moving both of them to the tier above with Miss St and TCU but the margins are so thin this year.

I try to look at the matrix as little as possible as I go through it but looking after and reading bracketologist's opinions on Twitter, the variance this year is just nuts. I think there will be one shocking team that gets in and one shocking team that gets left out. Fingers crossed Indiana St is the shocking one that gets in and Colorado St isn't the shocking that get left out. Would much rather see each of them than one of the handful of middling P5s. Especially A&M. That many bad losses is ugly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cto
    • Like
What does the NCAA have against NC State?
Replies
15
Views
2K
ar inj
ar inj
jncuse
    • Like
The New NIT Selection Process and Syracuse
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
bevosu
bevosu
jncuse
OT / General Interest - Bubble Watch and Tourney Comments - Week of March 11 (Part 1)
2 3
Replies
72
Views
3K
jncuse
jncuse
jncuse
    • Like
Weekend of March 1 to March 3 - Bubble Watch
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
jncuse
jncuse
C
    • Like
Quad 1-3 Records: a Reason for Hope
Replies
16
Views
1K
Red2003
R

Forum statistics

Threads
167,767
Messages
4,726,168
Members
5,920
Latest member
CoachDiddi

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
187
Guests online
1,743
Total visitors
1,930
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom