RaceToTheTop

Nothing will change. They'll keep their tip offs exactly two hours apart regardless of what games are being played.

And it's pretty easily fixed with ONE change.

I don't know what to say right now. I mean, I don't know what to say because I haven't seen a damn thing. **** BTN and **** foxsports.com.

Thanks. Still majorly annoying. Also loaded up IU/Illinois and they still have it on Iowa/Rutgers women's game even though it says IU/Illinois....and it's five minutes behind there.

The BTN use to have alternate channels on DirectV and would show and they would show multiple games. Somehow my tv bill hasn't gone down even though they got rid of them and cram games two hours apart now. ....and Rutgers runs no offense and chucks one up. ******* OT.

Jesus. Score here Rutgers.

For all that is holy, don't let the Iowa/Rutgers women's game go overtime.

I feel dirty rooting for Houston. The Xavier/Georgetown one is interesting because Xavier is currently at a 10 seed in the bracketmatrix while Georgetown is in only 1 of 103 brackets. A Xavier win should put them in the safely in category and basically eliminate Georgetown. A loss by Xavier probably drops them down to a worse 10 or high 11 and keeps Georgetown alive but still not in.

In you play 13 games against top 35 NETtish teams — 5 at home and 8 on the road — and win 5, you are a tournament team.

The problem is that most of us tend to try to think about selection using our own measures while USPS is approaching it from what the NCAA thinks. There is a reason that before yesterday UCLA wasn’t in anyone’s bracket despite leading the PAC 12.

Take a look at the last four in and last four out and see if you think their resumes are better than IU. Clemson is 15-13 with a ton of losses to similar 15-13 type of teams (and a loss to Yale).....Clemson is not seriously anywhere near the bubble. Texas has 11 losses and is .500 in a Big 12 conference that really only has two upper tier teams this year. Texas Tech is safely in right now and moving back.

While that may have predictive power, it doesn't have reflective power. Isn't it ultimately about winning and losing?

Two semesters is very doable. A lot of the seniors at the school I teach at do two classes in the summer.

But one is a top 35 and one is to 56....and the one to the 35 is one to a team that they would leave out of the field while the other is safely in. There is an issue if the rating system you are using to determine value of wins has such descrepancy.

So which is better to have: a win at Purdue, a team not in the field, or at IU, a projected 9 seed? That’s a big issue if it is rewarding wins for beating teams that they don’t actually feel are worthy of being in the field. i mean, cool, Texas gets a top 35 road win at Purdue while Arkansas doesn’t get one for their win at IU. There is something incredibly wrong with NET and the fact that they won’t even release its methodology means they know it’s jacked up.

For comparison, here are the ratings for Maryland and Purdue (again, not adjusted for PACE or SOS). Maryland: J.Smith 57 + 8.8 + 6.1 = 71.9 Cowan 57 + 8.6 + 3.8 = 69.4 Lindo 57 + 3.8 + 3.2 = 64 Morsell 57 + 3.4 + 2.3 = 62.7 Scott 57 + 2.2 + 2.6 = 61.8 Wiggins 57 + 2.6 + 2.0 = 61.5 Ayala 57 + 1.7 + 0.7 = 59.4 S.Mith 57 - 3.2 + 0.2 = 54.0 PURDUE Williams 57 + 5.1 + 6.8 = 69.4 Haarms 57 + 5.6 + 4.1 = 66.7 Boudreaux 57 + 3.6 + 3.5 = 64.1 Proctor 57 + 3.4 + 1.2 = 61.6 Hunter 57 + 2.7 + 1.3 = 60.9 Stefanovic 57 + 3.4 +0.5 =60.9 Eastern 57 - 0.6 + 4.9 = 60.4 Wheeler 57 - 1.5 + 3.7 = 59.2 Thompson 57 + 1.1 -1.9 = 56.2 B

I mentioned this in another thread, buut at one point I had worked on creating a "WARP" (wins above replacement player for those not into baseball analytics) for college basketball players. I'm in the process of rebuilding it and running it for IU (and other players). Here is the jist of it: WARP is meant to reflect a player's value in relation to a replacement level NCAA Division 1 player. I define that player to be an average player playing at a low division 1 school; a team consisting of such players, playing against average division 1 opponents, I give estimate values of 57 points scored per game (40% shooting on 60 shots, 60% free throw shooting on 15 free throws per game, 20 turnovers per games, assists on half of all scored goals, 5 steals, 1.5 blocks per game as a team). As part of the WARP calculation, I refigure the team's stats based, replacing a replacement player with the player I am calculating value for. I then figure a new scoring average based on what that player adds. Unfortunately defense is hard to figure, so the best I can do is use the player's steal and blocked shot stats to increase or decrease their value; this number is added or subtracted to their offensive value since the number I am creating is meant to be an overall value. I've ran the current calculations for IU players....note that the following numbers do not factor in strength of schedule. Additionally, the numbers posted are the per/40 numbers; i.e., the addition or subtraction of value is based on the player playing a full 40 minutes in a game. Later I will run numbers on WARP, which does adjust for SOS, pace of play, and factors in how much they actually player per game. The numbers listed below are: base points (57; see above) + scoring addition/loss over replacement (based on field goal shooting/rate of shooting/free throw shooting/rate of shooting) + other factors (rebounding/assists/steals/blocks) = new team point value with player Trayce Jackson Davis: 57 + 8.7 scoring addition + 5.7 other addition = 71.4 Thompson: 57 + 3.6 + 7.1 = 67.7 Durham: 57 + 6.0 + 0.5 = 63.5 Green: 57 + 4.5 + 1.3 = 62.8 Phinissee 57 + 2.2 + 3.0 = 62.2 Brunk 57 + 2.4 + 2.8 = 62.2 Smith 57 + 4.2 + 0.9 = 62.1 Davis 57 + 1.8 + 1.5 = 60.3 Hunter 57 + 2.1 - 0.8 = 58.3 Franklin 57 + 0.7 +0.6 =58.3 I was a little surprised to see Smith that low....and I know it doesn't factor in defense well. But examining closer, he's a guy who is basically an in the perimeter guy shooting 48%, doesn't shoot free throws well and turns it over a lot.

That's cool. I use to run a WARP (wins above replacement calculator) for NCAA players, focusing on IU players and top national players. Have to dust that formula off and see what it thinks.

I can't fathom Texas getting in. Pom 62, Sagarin 48, Net 65, RPI 53. Only wins of any consequence are Oklahoma and Texas Tech, both of which you say are bubble teams. 0-5 against Sagarin top 25 only 2 wins against top 50.

IMO, there is still early season bias. Ohio State shot up when they killed North Carolina and everyone assumed that meant something. For the life of me I don’t see a resume much different than IU’s.

Liberty down 12 to Lipscomb with 7 1/2 minutes left. It’s one they can’t afford to lose and have a chance at an at large if they don’t win their tournament.

His response of 21 wins being a lock, IMO, isn't based in reality either. 20 wins is a lock.

I get that. But given that, how in the hell does the NCAA have our NET at 56? Point blank: RPI was a bad measurement.....and the NCAA replaced it with NET, which is much worse. Sorry, but Minnesota's and Purdue's NET have no business being as low as they are.

I wouldn't be shocked at all. That's two of the last three games in conference, with two being at home, and one 50/50 game in the BTT. That said, I can certainly see any result in the last three games from 0 to 3 wins.

I'd have to say that his response isn't based in reality and I wouldn't call him a top bracket guy based on that response. His version of IU solidifying their chances is to win 21 games with 9 of them being Quad 1.