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

2 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Memphis smashed their non tourney opponent and moved up a couple more spots.   If IU would of smashed Minny on the road they would of moved up some 

Oh I know. but IU shouldn't have dropped for winning on the road, probably an outlier event but makes me laugh 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IUc2016 said:

Oh I know. but IU shouldn't have dropped for winning on the road, probably an outlier event but makes me laugh 

Yeah definitely makes you laugh dropping after winning but keep in mind that their formula takes into account the whole season so I know people get sick of me saying it but a teams result from 1 game doesn’t happen in a vacuum and teams that you have played before can affect  your number even if you don’t play.   Yesterday for example one of the teams that beat iu (Penn st) lost to a really terrible team which dropped their net which affected IU’s number in the Team Value Index(part of the net they don’t release the algorithm.   Houston a team that Memphis beat on the road smashed a bubble team and moved up to net 3 which probably affected Memphis new number.   Not saying it’s right but this is the system in place.   At the end of the day if IU takes care of business the number won’t matter. If they got the full body of work to get selected then they will.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IUc2016 said:

https://barttorvik.com/resume-compare.php?team=Indiana&year=2022

Similar resume tool on Torvik's site have 9/10 teams with a past resume similar to IU's as selected for NCAA tournament

Worth mentioning that the one resume similar to IU's in which the team didn't make it, in four of the five measures the team was a little worse than IU and the other they were exactly the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bracketville has IU at #43, so the last of the first four byes.  Final four in are Michigan, Rutgers, BYU, and San Diego State.

Of interest:  bracketville has San Francisco at 40 and BYU at 46.  BYU will play the winner of the 8/9 game and assuming they win that, they will have to play San Francisco.  So one of the two is guaranteed to pad their resume and one drop.

San Diego State plays at Wyoming tonight in a big game.

Am still surprised to see bracketville having Rutgers in and Memphis out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My current standings on the wins above minimum:

1 seed:  Kansas +8.43, Baylor +8.34, Auburn +7.75, Wisconsin +7.53

2 seed: Providence +7.04, Arizona +6.91, Purdue +6.71, Duke +6.33

3 seed:  Tennessee +6.03, Kentucky +6.02, Texas Tech +5.64, Gonzaga +5.62

4 seed:  Villanova +5.59, USC +5.53, Colorado St +4.66, Houston +4.64

5 seed:  Illinois +4.53, St. Mary's +4.51, Arkansas +4.50, Alabama +4.40

6 seed:  UCLA +4.31, Texas +4.2, UConn +3.64, Boise State +3.58

7 seed:  Ohio State +3.52, Wyoming +3.39, Iowa State +3.21, Murray State +2.96

8 seed:  LSU +2.86, Davidson +2.85, UNC +2.64, Michigan State +2.4, 

9 seed:  Notre Dame +2.28, TCU +2.28, Seton Hall +2.19, North Texas +2.12

10 see: Iowa +2.01, San Francisco +1.99, Creighton +1.97, Marquette +1.89

11 seed:  VCU +1.78, San Diego +1.70, Wake Forest +1.57, Miami (F) +1.53

12 seeds:  South Dakota St +1.45, SMU +1.31, BYU +1.24, Loyola +1.15, Xavier +0.78, St Bonaventure +.077

First four out:  St.  Michigan +0.68, Belmont +0.55, Indiana +0.38

Next four out: Memphis +0.15, South Caroilna -0.03, Colorado -0.29, Florida -0.3

Oregon is 9th out, Oklahoma 10th, Kansas St St 11th, UAB 12th, Santa Clara 13th, Rutgers 14th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

My current standings on the wins above minimum:

1 seed:  Kansas +8.43, Baylor +8.34, Auburn +7.75, Wisconsin +7.53

2 seed: Providence +7.04, Arizona +6.91, Purdue +6.71, Duke +6.33

3 seed:  Tennessee +6.03, Kentucky +6.02, Texas Tech +5.64, Gonzaga +5.62

4 seed:  Villanova +5.59, USC +5.53, Colorado St +4.66, Houston +4.64

5 seed:  Illinois +4.53, St. Mary's +4.51, Arkansas +4.50, Alabama +4.40

6 seed:  UCLA +4.31, Texas +4.2, UConn +3.64, Boise State +3.58

7 seed:  Ohio State +3.52, Wyoming +3.39, Iowa State +3.21, Murray State +2.96

8 seed:  LSU +2.86, Davidson +2.85, UNC +2.64, Michigan State +2.4, 

9 seed:  Notre Dame +2.28, TCU +2.28, Seton Hall +2.19, North Texas +2.12

10 see: Iowa +2.01, San Francisco +1.99, Creighton +1.97, Marquette +1.89

11 seed:  VCU +1.78, San Diego +1.70, Wake Forest +1.57, Miami (F) +1.53

12 seeds:  South Dakota St +1.45, SMU +1.31, BYU +1.24, Loyola +1.15, Xavier +0.78, St Bonaventure +.077

First four out:  St.  Michigan +0.68, Belmont +0.55, Indiana +0.38

Next four out: Memphis +0.15, South Caroilna -0.03, Colorado -0.29, Florida -0.3

Oregon is 9th out, Oklahoma 10th, Kansas St St 11th, UAB 12th, Santa Clara 13th, Rutgers 14th

You have us out??? Did you go to the Jerry Palm school of bracketology? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Chris007 said:

You have us out??? Did you go to the Jerry Palm school of bracketology? 

LOL.  My system is much like KPI and matches up with it pretty well.  My system has IU at 53, KPI has IU at 54.  I recognize that my system isn't one that would predictive of what teams the committee would select, but rather what I feel should be the basis of selecting teams.  For instance, I would personally say SMU is a better selection from the American conference than Memphis, but if I were to predict what the committee would select, it would be Memphis over SMU.  My system is meant to measure wins as wins regardless of point spread;  losses are losses regardless of spread.  The value of the win or loss is combined with where it was played and the opponent played.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, vemmeistars said:

With the selection committee, does KPI trump other metrics like Net and KenPom? 

It's one of the metrics, but I wouldn't say one metric jumps others.  They are all used.  I think one metric being low might be considered an outlier but it would be examined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vemmeistars said:

I'd say KPI and Torvik would be outliers for the committee looking at IU's resume:

NET 44

KenPom 42

BPI 38

Sagarin 32

KPI 54

T-Rank 22

Yeah, that's why a variety of metrics are available.  Average of those six is 38. 

The metrics I believe that are the team sheets are NET, KPI, SOR (IU is 46 on it), BPI, Pom, and Sagarin.  IU is 44, 54, 46, 38, 42, and 32 on the 6.  Non-conference SOS is 317, overall SOS is 47.  Quad records of 3-6, 3-4, 4-0, and 8-0.  That's a resume that typically gets you in.  Typically teams ranked 50 or higher get in with the remainder being auto bids below that -- IU is only above 50 on one of the six metrics right now.

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/team-net-sheet?team=Indiana

Here are a couple of other bubble teams:

Memphis:

NET 42, KPI 44, SOR 55, BPI 26, POM 35, SAG 30.  Non-conference SOS 65, overall SOS is 75.  Quad records 3-3, 3-4, 7-2, 4-0

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/team-net-sheet?team=memphis

SMU:

NET 47, KPI 43, SOR 45, BPI 45, POM 57, SAG 45.  Non-conference SOS 288, overall SOS is 88. Quad records 2-2, 4-3, 6-1, 8-1

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/team-net-sheet?team=smu

Michigan:

NET 37, KPI 39, SOR 47, BPI 31, POM 38, SAG 25.  Non-conference SOS 26, overall SOS is 9,  Quad records 4-8, 2-3, 5-1, 4-0

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/team-net-sheet?team=Michigan

Rutgers (this sheet is why I don't think they are at all in good shape)L

NET 83, KPI 62, SOR 58, BPI 77, POM 76, SAG 63.  Non-conference 296, overall SOS is 26.  Quad records 5-5, 3-4,  2-2, 6-1.

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/team-net-sheet?team=Rutgers

BYU:

NET 50, KPI 51, SOR 54, BPI 85, POM 50, SAG 46.  Non-conference 97, Overall SOS is 63.  Quad records 4-5, 3-3, 3-0, 9-1.

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/team-net-sheet?team=BYU

VCU:

NET 53, KPI 29, SOR 39, BPI 61, POM 65, SAG 52.  Non-conference 67, overall SOS is 93.  Quad records 3-2, 3-4, 10-1, 4-0.

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2022/team-net-sheet?team=vcu

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

Memphis smashed their non tourney opponent and moved up a couple more spots.   If IU would of smashed Minny on the road they would of moved up some 

Does the NCAA put a cap on the efficiency metrics?  What is the incentive for teams not to play their starters until the end to increase the margin?

Not saying that happened in the Memphis game, because it didn't.  But when you look back to the Wisky/Michigan game, the way that things are set up why shouldn't have Juwan Howard had starters in to the end and kept pressing until the end to make the metrics look better?  And why shouldn't Greg Gard have called timeout with 10 seconds left....or just left his starters in altogether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

Does the NCAA put a cap on the efficiency metrics?  What is the incentive for teams not to play their starters until the end to increase the margin?

Not saying that happened in the Memphis game, because it didn't.  But when you look back to the Wisky/Michigan game, the way that things are set up why shouldn't have Juwan Howard had starters in to the end and kept pressing until the end to make the metrics look better?  And why shouldn't Greg Gard have called timeout with 10 seconds left....or just left his starters in altogether?

Not that I’m aware of.   They used to cap scoring margin at 10 but they got rid of that.   Teams should definitely keep starters in and keep the efficiency numbers up.   A couple of teams have done that over the years.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the sor metrics get updated for conference tournament games. If iu gets the win vs Rutgers and the performance metrics stay relatively the same, I don’t see the rationale behind putting any A10/AAC bubble team in over IU. If IU’s sor is 30+ spots ahead of these other teams, why should non conference sor be looked at.

Share this post


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

Not that I’m aware of.   They used to cap scoring margin at 10 but they got rid of that.   Teams should definitely keep starters in and keep the efficiency numbers up.   A couple of teams have done that over the years.   

This is why I hate using all of these metrics because it is more about numbers than who are actually the best teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IU Scott said:

This is why I hate using all of these metrics because it is more about numbers than who are actually the best teams.

The only way to select teams is to come up with some formula or “metrics” to cross compare differing schedules, conferences, etc. The “best” otherwise is simply subjective.

That’s not to say they don’t screw it up and weigh things differently in different years and leave out teams that “should” be in, no system is perfect 

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

×