Bracketology and Team Resumes

[realTomCrean]

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

[Uspshoosier]

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.  

[Uspshoosier]

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 

[IUHoosierJoe]

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	)

[Uspshoosier]

https://x.com/davidworlock/status/1767937910031147229?s=46
 

Follow his timeline if you want updates on where the committee stands within the process 

[Uspshoosier]

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 

[LIHoosier]

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

[str8baller]

Is St Johns in? Do they need to win right now?

[WayneFleekHoosier]

3 minutes ago, str8baller said:

Is St Johns in? Do they need to win right now?

Yep.  Winning cements it. They always wanted a chance to put Pitino in. 

[Uspshoosier]

5 minutes ago, str8baller said:

Is St Johns in? Do they need to win right now?

They probably need to win this.  If they lose they will be sweating it out.  

[RaceToTheTop]

@Uspshoosier

kansas state in if they beat Iowa state?

[Uspshoosier]

2 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

@Uspshoosier

kansas state in if they beat Iowa state?

Still work to do in my opinion 

[Uspshoosier]

1 minute ago, Uspshoosier said:

Still work to do in my opinion 

Non con Sos of 221 and being on the bubble would be a big black eye 

[RaceToTheTop]

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

[RaceToTheTop]

My WAR calculations still aren't there, but they definitely are getting closer to what the committee thinks.  I know Oregon isn't going to make the tournament but WAR likes them.  It doesn't like TCU or Michigan State as much as the committee does.

[Uspshoosier]

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 

[AH1971]

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?

[RaceToTheTop]

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.

[Uspshoosier]

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.      

[Uspshoosier]

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