I think I rank the games from easiest to hardest as:
SMU
WSU
@SMU
@UCONN
UCF
@MEMPHIS
@UCF
HOUSTON
@HOUSTON
In all reality, your must wins are SMU/WSU/@SMU. In the remaining 7, just gotta go 4-3, and sit at 25-6. Which I think is a 6 seed.
Torvik ranks our remaining games from easiest to hardest as:
Wichita St
SMU
Memphis
UCF
@SMU
Houston
@Memphis
@UConn
@UCF
@Houston
That matches Waterhead's tiers, which also correspond to actual NET quadrants. SMU/WSU are Q3. Memphis/UCF/@SMU are Q2. The rest are Q1.
The tourney is a crapshoot. That's not a knock. In regards to Houston, the have a senior PG and two guards that can shoot the living shit out of the ball...that's a nice recipe come March. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but it's all about matchups. For instance, if Houston and Marquette payed in the Elite 8 or Sweet 16...that's a matchup of two teams that mirror one another (In my non-paid opinion).Jay Bilas released his top 68. Has UC #25 as 2nd weekend contenders. He says:
"This is the first time in forever that Cincinnati's offense is better than its defense. Mick Cronin is now an offensive coach. One of the reasons is the play of junior guard Jarron Cumberland, who is shooting better from 3 than from 2. Cumberland has hit 61 3-point field goals, but only he and Justin Jenifer (40) have hit more than 18."
Has Houston #10 as Final Four contenders.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...llege-basketball-rankings-tiers-valentine-day
Team A:
25-2
Q1 wins: 0,
Q2 wins: 8,
Q3/4 losses: 1
SOS 118
Team B:
23-4
Q1 wins: 3
Q2 wins: 5
Q3/4 losses: 1
SOS 76
Nevada
I like Torvik's site because it is free and has tons of cool customizable features. But I think his ranking system is inferior to Kenpom. It values blowout margins too much, and is very volatile. As an example, UCF moved up from 44 to 33 after their blowout over SMU. On Kenpom UCF is still 45. Similarly, UC has been close to 30 all season on Kenpom, but we were ranked as high as 15 at the start of conference play before falling to 32 on T-Rank.We are doing a good job of winning basketball games so we look good for our quadrant wins and losses but we are doing a poor job with our metrics.
We were ranked #19 after the ECU loss (per T-rank). We are now ranked #31 after winning 11 of 12 games. The Houston loss dropped us only 1 spot. So in the other 11 wins we have dropped a total of 11 spots. Every game since Tulsa we have either lost ground or stayed about even. That includes 6 out of 7 wins.
I like Torvik's site because it is free and has tons of cool customizable features. But I think his ranking system is inferior to Kenpom. It values blowout margins too much, and is very volatile. As an example, UCF moved up from 44 to 33 after their blowout over SMU. On Kenpom UCF is still 45. Similarly, UC has been close to 30 all season on Kenpom, but we were ranked as high as 15 at the start of conference play before falling to 32 on T-Rank.
Any way you slice it, our current efficiency rating near 30 puts us in the 8 seed range. Our resume is in the 6/7 seed range. Altogether it equals a 7 seed.
There has also been talk of Nevada. While their resume is probably 7/8 seed quality, their 22 ranking in Kenpom is in the 6 seed range. Their game at Utah St this Saturday will probably determine their fate, since it could be their only Q1 game of the season.
Doesn't Villanova have a couple home bad losses?March 1 bracketology update:
Records are (Q1,Q2,bad losses).
6 Nevada (0-0,8-1,1)
6 Miss St (9-4,2-3,0)
6 Buffalo (2-1,5-1,1)
6 Villanova (4-6,10-2,0)
7 Iowa (4-7,7-0,0)
7 Louisville (4-9,4-2,0)
7 Cincinnati (4-2,5-1,1)
7 Washington (1-4,5-1,1)
8 Baylor (4-6,8-1,2)
8 Auburn (2-7,8-2,0)
8 Wofford (3-4,4-0,0)
8 Ole Miss (4-8,3-1,0)
You're probably thinking of Furman, but they are 46 in the NET. They also lost at Penn. Both are Q2 games.Doesn't Villanova have a couple home bad losses?