Bracketology

[waterhead]

It's interesting to see the difference between voter polls and Bracket Matrix in how it relates to preferred conferences.

Specifically Clemson and Auburn. These are not two blue blood brand names (in basketball). They are ranked 17 and 18 in the AP but are listed as 3 seeds in Bracket Matrix. Their AP rank would "suggest" a 5 seed. UC ranked 9th is listed as a 4 seed but they are closing in on a "suggested" 2 seed.

I think Auburn moved up a seed after a week which included a loss and Clemson stayed put with a loss. Meanwhile we moved up 1 spot over...you guessed it...WSU. Auburn jumped us with a loss and picked up no big wins.

 

[kskenyon4]

It's interesting to see the difference between voter polls and Bracket Matrix in how it relates to preferred conferences.

Specifically Clemson and Auburn. These are not two blue blood brand names (in basketball). They are ranked 17 and 18 in the AP but are listed as 3 seeds in Bracket Matrix. Their AP rank would "suggest" a 5 seed. UC ranked 9th is listed as a 4 seed but they are closing in on a "suggested" 2 seed.

I think Auburn moved up a seed after a week which included a loss and Clemson stayed put with a loss. Meanwhile we moved up 1 spot over...you guessed it...WSU. Auburn jumped us with a loss and picked up no big wins.

They both boast top 10 RPI's, which of course AP voters don't care anything about. Obviously Clemson losing a major player for the year to injury, I full expect them to NOT be a 2-4 seed. Not to mention they lost to Temple.

Coincidentally enough, Auburn has lost to Temple and does not have any major wins as far as media goes, but 4 Quadrant 1 wins. They're definitely a team to monitor that will be fighting UC for a seed line.

Other teams I now track:

UNC (lost last night)
OSU (won last night)
Oklahoma
Arizona
West Virginia (lost last night)
Texas Tech
Tennessee
Florida

 

[sedziobs]

Auburn has ... 4 Quadrant 1 wins.

As of right now, Auburn is 3-2 in Group 1, but two of those games (Temple, at Miss St) are projected to fall out of Group 1. They have six expected Group 1 games left on the schedule though. I think Auburn has a slightly better resume than we do at the moment.

 

[kskenyon4]

As of right now, Auburn is 3-2 in Group 1, but two of those games (Temple, at Miss St) are projected to fall out of Group 1. They have six expected Group 1 games left on the schedule though. I think Auburn has a slightly better resume than we do at the moment.

Arkansas fell from 30 to 32 this morning, so that is on the border of a quadrant 1 win.

 

[sedziobs]

Yep, and Miss St is at 75, exactly on the cut line. Temple is at 46, just barely in. At least according to rpiforecast, none of those three teams will end up in Group 1 though.

 

[sedziobs]

Looking at the other 4 seeds on bracketmatrix. I think we have a better resume than Arizona. We're both 4-2 in Group 1, and we both have some wins toward the bottom of that Group that are in danger of falling out. However, Arizona has a pair of Group 2 losses, where we are clean so far.

I also think we're ahead of Ohio St. They have just a single Group 1 win, which is at the bottom of the Group. They are an impressive 8-1 in Group 2, but I don't think that overcomes our four Group 1 wins.

I would put us about even with Texas Tech. They are 3-3 in Group 1, but with some better wins within the Group than ours. That's balanced out by their Group 2 loss.

As previously mentioned, I think we're below Auburn, the worst 3 seed. So by my estimation we're 13-14 on the S curve right now.

 

[Jon Rycek]

Looking at the other 4 seeds on bracketmatrix. I think we have a better resume than Arizona. We're both 4-2 in Group 1, and we both have some wins toward the bottom of that Group that are in danger of falling out. However, Arizona has a pair of Group 2 losses, where we are clean so far.

I also think we're ahead of Ohio St. They have just a single Group 1 win, which is at the bottom of the Group. They are an impressive 8-1 in Group 2, but I don't think that overcomes our four Group 1 wins.

I would put us about even with Texas Tech. They are 3-3 in Group 1, but with some better wins within the Group than ours. That's balanced out by their Group 2 loss.

As previously mentioned, I think we're below Auburn, the worst 3 seed. So by my estimation we're 13-14 on the S curve right now.

Yeah just leave it to RPI to give OSU more credit for losing to only good teams then actually beating anyone other than MSU.

 

[Jon Rycek]

It's interesting to see the difference between voter polls and Bracket Matrix in how it relates to preferred conferences.

Specifically Clemson and Auburn. These are not two blue blood brand names (in basketball). They are ranked 17 and 18 in the AP but are listed as 3 seeds in Bracket Matrix. Their AP rank would "suggest" a 5 seed. UC ranked 9th is listed as a 4 seed but they are closing in on a "suggested" 2 seed.

I think Auburn moved up a seed after a week which included a loss and Clemson stayed put with a loss. Meanwhile we moved up 1 spot over...you guessed it...WSU. Auburn jumped us with a loss and picked up no big wins.

I was very surprised to see them both in a seed line above us. Goes to show we have some work to do if we want to cement ourselves into a nice seed. I really think 3 is so much better than a four. Especially this year. I don't see any two seeds being that big of a threat.

 

[waterhead]

RPI forecast says we have an 82%-95% chance against 8 of our next 12 opponents. 7 of 8 is 87.5%. Probability would say we probably lose 1. The remaining 4 games are between 46% and 68% so probability would say we probably lose 2...since winning 3 of 4 is 75%.

If we are going to get a protected seed...I think we will have to win up until the point we play @ SMU and @ Hou. We will need to take one of those games. Then we need to win the home game vs WSU.

We are going to have a target on our back the whole time. It's not going to be easy. We play away on SR night the last two games against WSU and Tulane. If we can manage 2 losses or less I think we have a protected seed without a doubt. If we lose any more...we may need some help.

Make no mistake 2 more losses (or less) would be a GREAT finish! 3 more losses would not be embarrassing but not sure if we can ensure a protected seed that way.

 

[sedziobs]

Blind resume test:

Team A: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses
Team B: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses

 

[jacobkdoyle]

Blind resume test:

Team A: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses
Team B: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses

Team UC

 

[sedziobs]

...and team Duke.

 

[kskenyon4]

...and team Duke.

Lunardi moves Cincy to the 3 lines this morning.

I REALLY want us to be 22-2 on Feb 11 and see what seed they peg us at.

 

[waterhead]

Blind resume test:

Team A: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses
Team B: 4-2 Group 1, 3-0 Group 2, no bad losses

So this is the obvious starting point. We have to consider who might be in the same columns by years end. What the average rank is. Does one team have top 10 wins vs maybe top 25. What is the road/neutral record. etc

I am trying to understand the committee but the only good way to do that would be researching 2-3 years of selections, team sheets and seeds to see what the major preferences are.

I would imagine column 1 is huge and column 2 is next. I really doubt column 3 and 4 matter much at all unless you have 2-3 losses there. The committee isn't going to be impressed by column 3 or 4...but it could hurt.

Column 2 is going to be important for the mid majors this year. We will likely see a few more of these teams get in...and some of the lower "power" conference teams left out. In the end it's probably a small impact...but the overriding principles of committee selection will remain.

 

[waterhead]

Lunardi moves Cincy to the 3 lines this morning.

I REALLY want us to be 22-2 on Feb 11 and see what seed they peg us at.

Slowly but surely...

I would love a 3 seed. 2 or 3 doesn't matter. So much better than 4. We aren't getting a 1.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

Lunardi moves Cincy to the 3 lines this morning.

I REALLY want us to be 22-2 on Feb 11 and see what seed they peg us at.

That would be 3 22-2 starts in the last 5 years. Insane.

 

[ThomasMac]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

3 seed in Joe's updated bracketology

 

[sedziobs]

I took a look at the resumes for last year's protected seeds, even though the criteria are different now.

Seed list rank, top 50, 50-100, 101+ losses

1 Villanova 12-2, 5-1, 0
2 Kansas 8-2, 7-2, 0
3 UNC 10-5, 7-2, 0
4 Gonzaga 5-0, 6-1, 0
5 Kentucky 8-4, 10-1, 0
6 Arizona 6-4, 6-0, 0
7 Duke 13-6, 4-1, 1
8 Louisville 7-8, 7-0, 0
9 Oregon 4-3, 10-0, 2
10 Fla St 11-4, 6-2, 1
11 UCLA 6-4, 4-0, 0
12 Baylor 9-4, 5-2, 2
13 Butler 10-4, 6-1, 3
14 Florida 6-8, 9-0, 0
15 WVU 6-4, 7-1, 3
16 Purdue 7-5, 5-1, 1

One thing that sticks out to me is that all of the 1 and 2 seeds had two losses or less outside the top 50. Also, there are two protected seeds who had losing records against the top 50.

 

[waterhead]

I took a look at the resumes for last year's protected seeds, even though the criteria are different now.

Seed list rank, top 50, 50-100, 101+ losses

1 Villanova 12-2, 5-1, 0
2 Kansas 8-2, 7-2, 0
3 UNC 10-5, 7-2, 0
4 Gonzaga 5-0, 6-1, 0
5 Kentucky 8-4, 10-1, 0
6 Arizona 6-4, 6-0, 0
7 Duke 13-6, 4-1, 1
8 Louisville 7-8, 7-0, 0
9 Oregon 4-3, 10-0, 2
10 Fla St 11-4, 6-2, 1
11 UCLA 6-4, 4-0, 0
12 Baylor 9-4, 5-2, 2
13 Butler 10-4, 6-1, 3
14 Florida 6-8, 9-0, 0
15 WVU 6-4, 7-1, 3
16 Purdue 7-5, 5-1, 1

One thing that sticks out to me is that all of the 1 and 2 seeds had two losses or less outside the top 50. Also, there are two protected seeds who had losing records against the top 50.

I think we were 3-4 in column 1 (including conference tourney) and 3-1 in column 2. No other losses. But our resume was screaming we can't win the big ones and I think we got docked for it. 3-4 is worse than every team in there or tied at best.

We were 6-5 in column 1 and 2 last year. That is worse than all the teams up there I think. 12-6 was Purdue at 16. Did I read that right?

 

[waterhead]

I think we were 3-4 in column 1 (including conference tourney) and 3-1 in column 2. No other losses. But our resume was screaming we can't win the big ones and I think we got docked for it. 3-4 is worse than every team in there or tied at best.

We were 6-5 in column 1 and 2 last year. That is worse than all the teams up there I think. 12-6 was Purdue at 16. Did I read that right?

We aren't going to get the heavy totals the P6 gets. We have to take care of the % of column 1 and 2 wins to make an impression. Somewhere around 50% is not going to get it done.