Bracketology and Team Resumes

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

3 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

On neutral courts, one is safely quad one and the other is quad two.

The two teams I've listed are Michigan and Florida State.  I think right now the prevailing thought is Florida State would just be over the bubble but Michigan wouldn't be in.  Yet a neutral court win over Florida State would count as a Q2 and Michigan a Q1.

Both would be considered quality resume wins for whoever beat them.  

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

31 minutes ago, Uspshoosier said:

Both would be considered quality resume wins for whoever beat them.  

Then why bother with quads?

[NashvilleHoosier 3,712]

9 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

Then why bother with quads?

I'm certainly not the expert here, but they still have to seed teams. It's all about having as many data points to look at as possible. The overall quality wins goes toward getting you in the field. The details are what differentiate seeding.

If it was random draw of who played who, 68 teams drawn one by one from a hat, then things like quads wouldn't matter. But the above example of both being a quality win but one being a Q1 win vs. the other being Q2 win could be the difference in a team being a 4 seed or a 5 seed, or for those so lucky enough to live and die on the bubble, a Q1 win vs. a Q2 win, though both quality, could mean the difference between heading to Dayton or hosting some NIT games. 

[bigrod 2,871]

9 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

Both would be considered quality resume wins for whoever beat them.  

The announcers said that Michigan got a quad 1 win by beating us. That surprised me a little. Is that just because we were at home?

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

1 minute ago, bigrod said:

The announcers said that Michigan got a quad 1 win by beating us. That surprised me a little. Is that just because we were at home?

Q1 wins are

1-30 for a home win 

1-50 for a neutral court win 

1-75 for a road win 

since IU has a NET between 1-75 and Michigan won in the road that win counts as a Q1 win.       If IU falls apart down the stretch and their NET falls to 76 then it would only be a Q2 win 

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

9 hours ago, brumdog45 said:

Then why bother with quads?

To group the wins in some kind of order 

quads have been around forever even with RPI it just wasn’t advertised like the NET has been 

RPI quads back in the day 

any win road, neutral or home 

Q1-1-50

Q2-51-100

Q3-101-150

Q4- 151+
 

i suggest finding old videos of Gavett explaining the all of this.  He breaks it down pretty good.  
They realize not all Quad wins within a quadrant are created equal.    Winning at 75 might be a Q1 win but winning a home game against 31 would  be just as impressive even though technically it falls within Q2 range.    

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

1 hour ago, NashvilleHoosier said:

I'm certainly not the expert here, but they still have to seed teams. It's all about having as many data points to look at as possible. The overall quality wins goes toward getting you in the field. The details are what differentiate seeding.

If it was random draw of who played who, 68 teams drawn one by one from a hat, then things like quads wouldn't matter. But the above example of both being a quality win but one being a Q1 win vs. the other being Q2 win could be the difference in a team being a 4 seed or a 5 seed, or for those so lucky enough to live and die on the bubble, a Q1 win vs. a Q2 win, though both quality, could mean the difference between heading to Dayton or hosting some NIT games. 

My point was that in the above example beating a team that the committee gives an at large bid to is worth less than a team they wouldn’t give a bid to.

The data point I would like to see added is expected wins above or below what the 50th or so rated team would get based on the schedule a team has.  50th ranked teams are basically a good bubble measure for at large bids.  An overall weaker schedule should produce more wins while a tougher one less — but a comparison to the expectation of what a fringe team should win to get in is very telling.

two fringish teams right now are 6 loss Oregon and 3 loss TCU.  
 

sample data based on pom 50ish ratings in the last couple of days:

A road win at the #6 team yields a +.85, loss a -.15

a home win against #82 yields a +.28, a loss yields -.72

a road win at #182 yields +.26, a loss yields -.74

a road win at #3 yields +.9, a loss -.1

a home win against #31 yields +.55, a loss -.45

a road win at #23 yields +.74, a loss -.26

a home win against #75 yields +.32, a loss -.68

a road win at #134 yields +.35, a loss yields -.65

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

Trying an endeavor.....used a powers regression tool to create win expectation formulas for a 'fringe' NCAA tournament at large team against a team based on their KenPom ranking at home, road, and on a neutral court.  Then compare the number of expected wins to the number of actual wins;  a score of 0 on the nose would say that team had done the absolute minimum in a normal season to just make the tournament at as an at large bid.

If you want me to run any team and see where it puts them, LMK.

I've run three teams so far:  IU, Michigan, and Wyoming (since they were a point of contention earlier).

Indiana:  

If they were the worst at large team, my calculations would expect them to have won 10.4 of their 13 home games (they've won 12) and 2.7 of their five road or neutral court games.  Overall, if their were a minimum qualifying team, the expectation would be they would be 13.1-5.9 right now;  at 14-5, they are 0.9 wins ahead of minimum.

Michigan:

Much tougher schedule.  Only 7 home games;  expectation would be to win 5.0 and lose 2.0 (they've won exactly 5), in road and neutral games if they were a minimum tourney team, they would have been expected to win 4.6 and lose 4.4;  they won 4 and lost 5.  So the expectation would be 9.6 wins and 6.4 losses;  they've won 9 and lost 7, so 0.6 wins behind the minimum.

Wyoming:

I thought they would be an interesting case.  What really stood out was that even though they aren't playing many top 100 teams, they have played a ton of decent road and neutral court games.  8 of their 9 road and neutral games have been against the top 156.....if you think about that in terms of IU -- Wyoming has already played 8 games on the road better than IU's only road win and the Cowboys have already have 6 road or neutral wins better than IU's.  Expected home wins would be 6.5 (in 7 games) and a road/neutral record of 5.1-3.9.  They've exceeded both -- they haven't lost at home and have won 7 of 9 away from home.  They sit at a plus 2.4 wins currently.  Unlike a lot of mid majors, their SOS is actually going to go up the rest of the year as they still have 6 games left against KenPom top 61.  While they won't have have the same big point value win opportunities as P5 teams will, if they could split the 6 games against the top 61 left and win the others I don't know how you could keep them out of the tournament with a 25-5 record.

[WayneFleekHoosier 48,388]

Indiana Basketball is perfect for the bracketolgy fans.  Always an exercise in how we can fit into the NCAAs until we can’t.  5 years ago, Fred Glass told us we are hiring Archie because we want to be elite, and win the B1G, and compete for national championships.  And here are today with a like talented team and like metrics.  The eternal optimists of IU fans keep churning.  Someday, maybe we can argue about if Indiana is a 1,2,3 or 4 seed vs if we can make the tournament.   Not feeling too optimistic about IUBB in general.  Offense is not improved.  Recruiting is just ok.  Not sure the master plan to make us a national contender, but those promises feel very hollow.  Let’s get some top 10 kids to commit.  That’ll help.  

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

1 minute ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

Indiana Basketball is perfect for the bracketolgy fans.  Always an exercise in how we can fit into the NCAAs until we can’t.  5 years ago, Fred Glass told us we are hiring Archie because we want to be elite, and win the B1G, and compete for national championships.  And here are today with a like talented team and like metrics.  The eternal optimists of IU fans keep churning.  Someday, maybe we can argue about if Indiana is a 1,2,3 or 4 seed vs if we can make the tournament.   Not feeling too optimistic about IUBB in general.  Offense is not improved.  Recruiting is just ok.  Not sure the master plan to make us a national contender, but those promises feel very hollow.  Let’s get some top 10 kids to commit.  That’ll help.  

After the Miller years, I just want steps forward.  I think on a short schedule the incoming staff did as much as possible.  Can't forget how dreadful this program was last year.

Would love to have the arguments someday if IU is a 1, 2, 3, or 4 seed.  

Still a wait and see on the recruiting front right now.  Currently the three players we have for 2022 rank us 3rd in the Big Ten and 17th overall.  One thing to keep in mind:  in just a few months time in Indiana, the staff was able to lank the top rated Big Ten recruit in Hood-Shifino.  The top ten players don't come the Big Ten's way much anymore.

[WayneFleekHoosier 48,388]

7 minutes ago, brumdog45 said:

After the Miller years, I just want steps forward.  I think on a short schedule the incoming staff did as much as possible.  Can't forget how dreadful this program was last year.

Would love to have the arguments someday if IU is a 1, 2, 3, or 4 seed.  

Still a wait and see on the recruiting front right now.  Currently the three players we have for 2022 rank us 3rd in the Big Ten and 17th overall.  One thing to keep in mind:  in just a few months time in Indiana, the staff was able to lank the top rated Big Ten recruit in Hood-Shifino.  The top ten players don't come the Big Ten's way much anymore.

Yeah, this is all fair.  I’m a results oriented person.  And feel pretty good and projecting basketball talent and roster talent.  I’m beyond tired of the excuses and the hope and pray method of building a basketball giant.  And that’s where we are.  No reason to expect next season to be any different than this season.  Could easily be worse.  We aren’t very good this season.  We just don’t act like we want to win NOW.  I guess, it is what it is.  Indiana can’t become Duke, Kansas, Kentucky level of want to win, so what’s necessary to win.  So therefore, I guess we enjoy the wave of mediocrity and hope we can build the Purdue model.  However, we don’t have Painter on the sidelines.  

[WayneFleekHoosier 48,388]

5 minutes ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

Yeah, this is all fair.  I’m a results oriented person.  And feel pretty good and projecting basketball talent and roster talent.  I’m beyond tired of the excuses and the hope and pray method of building a basketball giant.  And that’s where we are.  No reason to expect next season to be any different than this season.  Could easily be worse.  We aren’t very good this season.  We just don’t act like we want to win NOW.  I guess, it is what it is.  Indiana can’t become Duke, Kansas, Kentucky level of want to win, so what’s necessary to win.  So therefore, I guess we enjoy the wave of mediocrity and hope we can build the Purdue model.  However, we don’t have Painter on the sidelines.  

Maybe if we ditched Adidas and got that Nike money we could compete. How bad does Cuban want Indiana to be relevant again?  

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

Try and keep this about bracketology and team resumes please.   Thanks 

[WayneFleekHoosier 48,388]

Try and keep this about bracketology and team resumes please.   Thanks 

Noted. I’m admittedly frustrated. We stink, and I want rose colored glasses to put on. Anyway, Indiana will provide great Bracketology reports for the pundits. I’ll slink away and comeback another day…. In a different thread.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners mobile app

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

Initial numbers from the system I'm working on.  For an initial work, I think it came out pretty good.  Remember +0.0 would be approximately the last at large team to get a bid.

Wisconsin +5.1

Michigan State +4.3

Purdue +3.7

Ohio State +2.5

Illinois +2.0

Iowa +1.1

Indiana +0.9

Minnesota +0.6 (I was little surprised that they were above the cut line on the system, but if you ignore their 2-5 conference record their 11-5 overall is good considering they've played 7 top 50 teams)

Michigan -0.6

Rutgers -1.0

Penn State -1.6

Maryland -1.9

Northwestern -2.2

Nebraska -5.8

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

Been running quite a few more teams outside the Big Ten.  Looks like the actual cut line would be higher than +0.0.  Probably more around the +0.7 mark.

 

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

Massive game for IU’s resume tonight.   Not because it’s some kind of signature win but avoiding getting swept by a non-tournament team.  IU’s Non conference SOS leaves IU no wiggle room.  If they fall to being a bubble team near the cut line history tells you the committee will leave them out.   340 out 358 is no bueno.  260+ is no good for bubble teams.  Just got to hope that number goes down but at this point in the season I don’t see that happening.   If they play good enough to stay in the 8-10 range then they will be fine 

most important games left ranked 

Penn St 

Wisky

@Maryland 

@Northwestern

@Minny 

Rutgers 

Maryland 

Illinois 

@Ohio St

@Sparty 

@Purdue 

 

[RaceToTheTop 25,837]

Pom and Tarvik both predicting 6-5 in the remaining schedule, 20-10 overall.  IMO that would certainly get IU in.  5-6, 19-11 would be on the bubble.

Percentage chance of winning each (first Pom, then Tarvik):

Penn St   74 / 81

Wisky  59 / 64

@Maryland  53 / 55 

@Northwestern  49 / 53

@Minny  55 / 56

Rutgers  80 / 86

Maryland  75 /80

Illinois 49 / 50

@Ohio St  34 / 38

@Sparty  30 / 31

@Purdue  18 / 18

[bigrod 2,871]

Wow, end of the season is brutal. Definitely the potential to lose the last 4.

[Uspshoosier 45,689]

7 minutes ago, bigrod said:

Wow, end of the season is brutal. Definitely the potential to lose the last 4.

Those are not the last 4 games of the season