Bracketology and Team Resumes

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

In a normal year if a team isn’t 4 games over .500 history says they are going to be on the wrong side of the bubble.   There are some bracketologist that are still sticking with that for their projections.   With the unbalanced non conference schedules I’m not using that rule this year until I hear from the committee.    IU is 11-8.  If this was a normal year they would be at least 16-8, or 15-8.    If you want to say the choke a buy game and loss they would still be 14-9

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

17 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

And that does not sound like a bubble team. Especially in light of this IU team’s arguable best quality; grinding out wins after things go to crap.

 

That’s why winning that grinder of a game was so important.   Winning that game gave IU a little cushion moving forward where they can afford to take a loss and still be in pretty good shape.   End up losing that game and IU is in a different conversation today.  Still got to take care of home but they are in decent shape as far as making the tournament.  I have them a 9 seed today.  

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

Top 16 Bracket Reveal: 

1. Gonzaga
2. Baylor
3. Michigan
4. Ohio State
5. Illinois
6. Villanova
7. Alabama
8. Houston
9. Virginia
10. West Virginia
11. Tennessee
12. Oklahoma
13. Iowa
14. Texas Tech
15. Texas
16. Missouri

[Stuhoo 75,557]

42 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Top 16 Bracket Reveal: 

1. Gonzaga
2. Baylor
3. Michigan
4. Ohio State
5. Illinois
6. Villanova
7. Alabama
8. Houston
9. Virginia
10. West Virginia
11. Tennessee
12. Oklahoma
13. Iowa
14. Texas Tech
15. Texas
16. Missouri

Wow. B1G 

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

12 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

Wow. B1G 

Wow Big 12 as well 

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

12 of the 16 teams were in the NET top 16 

The 4 that were not in the net top 16

West Virginia-17

Oklahoma-20

Texas-21

Missouri-35 

 

[RaceToTheTop 23,558]

On 2/13/2021 at 4:36 PM, Uspshoosier said:

12 of the 16 teams were in the NET top 16 

The 4 that were not in the net top 16

West Virginia-17

Oklahoma-20

Texas-21

Missouri-35 

 

NOTE:  Ratings listed below are after today.

For Pom, it was 

West Virginia - 17

Texas Tech - 18

Texas - 19

Oklahoma - 21

Missouri - 42

For Sagarin, it was

Texas Tech -- 17

Texas -- 18

Oklahoma -- 19

Missouri -- 45

 

 

 

[RaceToTheTop 23,558]

Just for shits and giggles, teams that were in the top 16 ratings but NOT in the top 16 bracket release:

NET:  

Loyala -- 10

Colgate -- 11

USC -- 15

Wisconsin -- 16

Pom (again, ratings after today):

Loyala -- 10

USC -- 12

Wisconsin -- 13

Colorado -- 14

Creighton -- 15

Sagarin:

Wisconsin -- 11

Creighton -- 12

Kansas -- 13

Florida State -- 16

 

 

 

 

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

America East decided to end their regular season at the conclusion of this weekend. 

Three-phase Conference Tournament will begin on Feb. 26th in two pods. The top two teams (UMBC/Vermont clinched) are on bye til the Semifinals.

#AEMBB

[Southside 1,914]

Nice step forward tonight. Great second half.

On to the next "must win" on Saturday vs the Fartans. 

[rcbowla 6,732]

So IU just needs to get in the tournament and get to Banker's Life and they'll get to the final 4. I mean Franklin would go 50-51(he'd miss the 1st one) from 3 and just roll on everyone.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

[RaceToTheTop 23,558]

USPS -- I know I've been complaining about the NET rankings, so I decided to just use their Quad system, road/neutral records, and give weighting to to those accomplishments how I saw fit and see how I would rank the teams based on their system.

Here is what I did:

Quad 1 wins were worth 4 points;  Quad 2 wins were worth 2.5 points;  Quad 3 wins were worth 1.5 points;  Quad 4 wins were worth 0.5 points;  Losses:  Quad 1 loss no deduction;  Quad 2 loss 1 point deduction;  Quad 3 loss 3 point deduction;  Quad 4 loss 5 point deduction.  Road wins were awarded an additional point (I know that quads already are supposed to weigh this as a factor, but if they truly do, I'm not sure why they would bother to put them on their sheet);  neutral court wins ear an additional half point.  Total points earned were then divided by games played.  Will probably tweak it a little, but I thought it produced a few interesting changes that I thought were glaring on net ratings.

As of Thursday morning, the top 20 using my system were:

1.  Gonzaga (2.75 ppg)

2.  Baylor (2.65 ppg)

3. Michigan (2.47 ppg)

4.  Ohio State(2.38 ppg)

5.  West Virginia (2.2 ppg)

6.  Illinois (2.18 ppg)

7.  Alabama (2.16 ppg)

8.  Villanova (2.00 ppg)

9.  Virginia (1.92 ppg)

10.  Clemson (1.916 ppg)

11. USC (1.86 ppg)

12.  Missouri (1.82 ppg)

13.  Loyola (1.81 ppg)

14(tie) Texas and Virginia Tech (1.75 ppg)

16.  Florida State (1.70 ppg)

17.  Houston (1.69 ppg)

18.  Oklahoma (1.67 ppg)

19.  Iowa (1.643 ppg)

20.  Arkansas (1.638 ppg)

Interesting notes:

My weighted system really moved four teams up significantly:  Clemson (NET 40, my weighting 10), Missouri (NET 35, my weighting 12), West Virginia (NET 17, my system 5), and Virginia Tech (NET 36, my system 15).  

The Bracket Matrix would put Clemson as the 27th best team, Missouri as the 21st, West Virginia as the 12th, and Va Tech as the 22nd).......so the four teams were all pretty much right in the middle of my weighting and what NET says.

On the other end:

My weighting moved Colgate to 32 from a NET of 10;  Colorado to 47 from a NET of 20, Houston to 17 from a NET of 5, Iowa to 19 from a NET of 7, Penn State to 64 from a NET of 38, San Diego State to 50 from a NET of 25, and St. Louis to 81 from a NET of 32.

Bracket matrix:  hard to rate Colgate....they win the Patriot, they are in, but we all know they aren't the 10th or even 32nd best team.  Low sample size.

Colorado would be 30th;  Houston would be 7th;  Iowa would be 10th;  Penn State not in the tournament;  SD State 35th; St.Louis not in the tournament.

Indiana, BTW, was 40th in my system and I think 42nd in NET.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

4 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

USPS -- I know I've been complaining about the NET rankings, so I decided to just use their Quad system, road/neutral records, and give weighting to to those accomplishments how I saw fit and see how I would rank the teams based on their system.

Here is what I did:

Quad 1 wins were worth 4 points;  Quad 2 wins were worth 2.5 points;  Quad 3 wins were worth 1.5 points;  Quad 4 wins were worth 0.5 points;  Losses:  Quad 1 loss no deduction;  Quad 2 loss 1 point deduction;  Quad 3 loss 3 point deduction;  Quad 4 loss 5 point deduction.  Road wins were awarded an additional point (I know that quads already are supposed to weigh this as a factor, but if they truly do, I'm not sure why they would bother to put them on their sheet);  neutral court wins ear an additional half point.  Total points earned were then divided by games played.  Will probably tweak it a little, but I thought it produced a few interesting changes that I thought were glaring on net ratings.

As of Thursday morning, the top 20 using my system were:

1.  Gonzaga (2.75 ppg)

2.  Baylor (2.65 ppg)

3. Michigan (2.47 ppg)

4.  Ohio State(2.38 ppg)

5.  West Virginia (2.2 ppg)

6.  Illinois (2.18 ppg)

7.  Alabama (2.16 ppg)

8.  Villanova (2.00 ppg)

9.  Virginia (1.92 ppg)

10.  Clemson (1.916 ppg)

11. USC (1.86 ppg)

12.  Missouri (1.82 ppg)

13.  Loyola (1.81 ppg)

14(tie) Texas and Virginia Tech (1.75 ppg)

16.  Florida State (1.70 ppg)

17.  Houston (1.69 ppg)

18.  Oklahoma (1.67 ppg)

19.  Iowa (1.643 ppg)

20.  Arkansas (1.638 ppg)

Interesting notes:

My weighted system really moved four teams up significantly:  Clemson (NET 40, my weighting 10), Missouri (NET 35, my weighting 12), West Virginia (NET 17, my system 5), and Virginia Tech (NET 36, my system 15).  

The Bracket Matrix would put Clemson as the 27th best team, Missouri as the 21st, West Virginia as the 12th, and Va Tech as the 22nd).......so the four teams were all pretty much right in the middle of my weighting and what NET says.

On the other end:

My weighting moved Colgate to 32 from a NET of 10;  Colorado to 47 from a NET of 20, Houston to 17 from a NET of 5, Iowa to 19 from a NET of 7, Penn State to 64 from a NET of 38, San Diego State to 50 from a NET of 25, and St. Louis to 81 from a NET of 32.

Bracket matrix:  hard to rate Colgate....they win the Patriot, they are in, but we all know they aren't the 10th or even 32nd best team.  Low sample size.

Colorado would be 30th;  Houston would be 7th;  Iowa would be 10th;  Penn State not in the tournament;  SD State 35th; St.Louis not in the tournament.

Indiana, BTW, was 40th in my system and I think 42nd in NET.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I appreciate  the extra work you did coming up with those numbers. Definitely interesting.  Did you compare your top 20 to Ken Pom or any other ones beside the NET 

[RaceToTheTop 23,558]

2 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

I appreciate  the extra work you did coming up with those numbers. Definitely interesting.  Did you compare your top 20 to Ken Pom or any other ones beside the NET 

I haven't yet.  I will, but my main interest was trying to compare it to NET because my ratings were meant to be reflective and not predictive.

EDIT:  Looking at the four teams that my system likes much more than NET -- Missouri, Va Tech, Clemson, and West Virginia -- Pom certainly does not like them like my system.  Pom hates Mizzou, putting them at #49.  It is worth mentioning that three of the four teams -- Missouri, Va Tech, and Clemson -- are ones that Pom puts in the top 10% in "luck", which would help explain why Pom wouldn't rank them as high as me as they consider their winning ways to be non-replicable in the future.  They rate Clemson as #3 in the nation in terms of luck, whereas my system simply views them as a 13-5 team with a top 15 schedule.

On the other end, teams my system was not a fan of -- Colorado, Iowa, Houston, Penn State, San Diego State, and St. Louis -- Pom likes much better and they are all on the lower end of the "luck" ratings.

I think ultimately my point system does a decent job of being a reflective system, which is what I wanted.  Pom's 'luck' ratings would indicate that the teams that I like more than NET and Pom will likely regress toward their mean and teams that I don't like will also move toward their mean assuming that their luck moves more toward a norm.  I'm fine with that -- my opinion is that teams should be seeded by accomplishments and not on their predicted future value.

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

Interesting one for you

Guess this teams NET and your projected seed for this resume 

Overall record 14-8.  (6-7 in conference)

Q1-(4-7).   Wins-@29, @28, 28, @21)

Q2-(0-1)

Q3 and 4- (11-0)    10 wins against NET 

147  or above teams 

NET SOS- 23.    Non sos-88

 

[Stuhoo 75,557]

3 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Interesting one for you

Guess this teams NET and your projected seed for this resume 

Overall record 14-8.  (6-7 in conference)

Q1-(4-7).   Wins-@29, @28, 28, @21)

Q2-(0-1)

Q3 and 4- (11-0)    10 wins against NET 

147  or above teams 

NET SOS- 23.    Non sos-88

 

    7 seed perhaps? Partially based on poll ranking and reputation.

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

21 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

    7 seed perhaps? Partially based on poll ranking and reputation.

Yep.   They have a NET of 16 still and most bracketologist have them in the 4-5 line.  This is a case where I think the committee will differ with the projections.   I agree with you. I had them around the 7-8 line.   

[HoosierAloha 29,887]

21 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Yep.   They have a NET of 16 still and most bracketologist have them in the 4-5 line.  This is a case where I think the committee will differ with the projections.   I agree with you. I had them around the 7-8 line.   

And they might have to play on the first day (play-in game) of their conference tourney.  I don't see the 4-5 seed.

[Stuhoo 75,557]

33 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Yep.   They have a NET of 16 still and most bracketologist have them in the 4-5 line.  This is a case where I think the committee will differ with the projections.   I agree with you. I had them around the 7-8 line.   

Apparently they fear the Beard.

[Uspshoosier 44,198]

If I’m IU I’m trying to schedule a winnable non conference game next Thursday.  

With the Michigan game cancelled that leaves one game they could schedule.  27 maximum games