Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Uspshoosier

Bracketology and Team Resumes

Recommended Posts

Just now, realTomCrean said:

Does player injury have any effect? 6-7 w/o XJ 12-6 with him

A little but not a lot.  Those losses still count and other teams have battled injuries as well.  IUs overall resume even with a healthy Johnson just isn’t good enough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auburn will be an example of a team that has taken advantage of running up efficiency numbers to get great predictive metrics.  1-7 in Q1 games.  Those are the only losses and in Q1-Q4 games they have won all of them by double digits.   NET-6, Ken Pom-4.  Results based Metric SOR they are around 16.     This is where the NET number isn’t the end all be all that some think it is.    Even with a NET of 6 and Ken Pom of 4 Auburn isn’t in the running for 1 or 2 seed.   Once the committee sorts the teams and look inside the team sheet they will see that their resume is closer to the 4, 5 seed range with a shot to get to a 3 seed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the top 25 of my computer rankings through Sunday, March 10 games:

1 Houston   28 - 3   ( 1 )
2 Purdue   28 - 3   ( 2 )
3 Connecticut 28 - 3   ( 4 )
4 Arizona   24 - 7   ( 3 )
5 Tennessee 24 - 7   ( 5 )
6 Auburn   24 - 7   ( 7 )
7 North Carolina 25 - 6   ( 9 )
8 Alabama   21 - 10   ( 6 )
9 Iowa St   24 - 7   ( 8 )
10 Duke   24 - 7   ( 10 )
11 Creighton   23 - 8   ( 12 )
12 Baylor   21 - 9   ( 11 )
13 Illinois   23 - 8   ( 14 )
14 Marquette   23 - 8   ( 13 )
15 BYU   22 - 9   ( 15 )
16 Kansas   21 - 9   ( 17 )
17 Gonzaga   23 - 6   ( 18 )
18 Kentucky   23 - 8   ( 19 )
19 San Diego St 20 - 9   ( 16 )
20 Utah St   24 - 5   ( 21 )
21 New Mexico 21 - 9   ( 20 )
22 Dayton   24 - 6   ( 23 )
23 Nevada   25 - 6   ( 29 )
24 St Mary's CA 23 - 7   ( 22 )
25 Clemson   21 - 10   ( 24 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Dayton and FAU wins their conference tourney that will open up 2 at-large spots.  Richmond and S Florida are being projected into the field as the auto bid for the American and A10. Those teams wouldn’t get an at-large if they don’t win their tourneys.  Every bubble team will be pulling for those 2 teams stating today 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nova dropped 7 spots in NET (33 --> 40) from barely beating DuhPaul

Clemson dropped 9 (35 --> 26)

Cincinnati went up 9 (43 --> 34)

Indiana St went up 2 (29 --> 27) by simply doing nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAR multiple bid leagues

Atlantic 10 (2):  Tourney champion, Dayton (22)

ACC (5):  UNC (4),  Duke (18), Virginia (25), Clemson (37), Pittsburgh (45)

Big 12 (9):  Houston (2), Iowa State (9), Baylor (10), Kansas (16), Texas Tech (17), BYU (23), Texas (44), Oklahoma (46), TCU (50)

Big 10 (6):  Purdue (1), Illinois (12), Nebraska (30), Wisconsin (32), Northwestern (35), Michigan State (48)

Big East (4):  U Conn (3), Marquette (7), Creighton (14), Seton Hall (47)

MVC (2):  Drake (27), Indiana State (29)

MWC (6):  Utah State (15), Nevada (20), San Diego State (21), Colorado St (33), Boise State (42), New Mexico (43)

Pac 12 (4):  Arizona (5), Washington State (24), Colorado (31), Oregon (49)

SEC (6):  Tennessee (6), South Carolina (8), Auburn (11), Alabama (13), Kentucky (19), Florida (28)

WCC (2):  St. Mary's (34), Gonzaga (36)

Last four byes:  New Mexico, Texas, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma

Last four in:  Seton Hall, Michigan State, Oregon, TCU

First four out:  Providence, Mississippi State, St. John's, Ohio State

Next four out:  Syracuse, Indiana, South Florida, Kansas State

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

It doesn't like TCU or Michigan State as much as the committee does.

We actually don’t know how the committee feels about them yet. Right now it doesn’t like them as much as other bracketologist like them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

We actually don’t know how the committee feels about them yet. Right now it doesn’t like them as much as other bracketologist like them 

Would you say it's fair that bracketologists (at least the ones we give credibility too) put more emphasis on the NET when picking and seeding teams because it's the one tool that's made available to the public that we know the committee takes into consideration? It's been a really long time since I've gotten into the hoopla of constantly tracking Lunardi's reveals, but has there ever been a team in recent years to make the field as an at-large and be off the radar seemingly how IU is this year? Didn't Rutgers make it a few years back with a NET in the high 80's? Were they squarely on the bubble come Selection Sunday or did they come out of nowhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Would you say it's fair that bracketologists (at least the ones we give credibility too) put more emphasis on the NET when picking and seeding teams because it's the one tool that's made available to the public that we know the committee takes into consideration? It's been a really long time since I've gotten into the hoopla of constantly tracking Lunardi's reveals, but has there ever been a team in recent years to make the field as an at-large and be off the radar seemingly how IU is this year? Didn't Rutgers make it a few years back with a NET in the high 80's? Were they squarely on the bubble come Selection Sunday or did they come out of nowhere?

UCLA came out of nowhere one year.  Think it might have before NET, though.  Think they had appeared on only one bracket in the bracketmatrix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AH1971 said:

Would you say it's fair that bracketologists (at least the ones we give credibility too) put more emphasis on the NET when picking and seeding teams because it's the one tool that's made available to the public that we know the committee takes into consideration? It's been a really long time since I've gotten into the hoopla of constantly tracking Lunardi's reveals, but has there ever been a team in recent years to make the field as an at-large and be off the radar seemingly how IU is this year? Didn't Rutgers make it a few years back with a NET in the high 80's? Were they squarely on the bubble come Selection Sunday or did they come out of nowhere?

No bracketologist just use the NET as a sorting tool even the bad bracketologists. Belmont in 2019 not a lot thought they would get in.   I would have to check but it’s been awhile since a team off the radar got a one.   Mostly the teams that make it are in the conversion.   Rutgers had a ton of Q1 wins so they were in the discussion just had a terrible Non con sos and bad losses.    Notre Dame was only projected in 74 of 211 brackets in 2022 while A&M was projected in 200 of 211 but Notre Dame got the bid.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

UCLA came out of nowhere one year.  Think it might have before NET, though.  Think they had appeared on only one bracket in the bracketmatrix.

The year ucla was in the first 4 they were projected in 194 out of 211 brackets 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×