College Bball Thread

[Uspshoosier]

4 hours ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Maybe it is, but what other team wouldn't drop out from 22md after getting completely dominated?

They would depend on who the voter is.   Some voters might not penalize the 22nd team(in whoever’s poll) for getting waxed on the road at a top 5 team in whoever’s poll.   Either way polls are for the fans and have no bearing in  March.   

 

[HoosierHoops1]

On 12/25/2022 at 3:35 PM, Demo said:

I think 2 things: 1) I think schedules where you aren’t playing everyone home and home are inherently unequal. No way around it. But, if you play 5 of your 1st 7 on the road, you’re then playing 8 of your last 13 at home. Everyone’s playing 10 and 10. I don’t want to hear preemptive bitching about it from a coach. 2) I think the idea that B1G seasonal scheduling has anything at all  to do with failures in the tournament lacks even the slightest merit, and a coach who’s yet to play a season in the conference needs to have a seat. 

Style of play, officiating, and lack of top end talent are the main factors behind the BIG's lack of titles.

 

[HoosierHoops1]

5 hours ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Maybe it is, but what other team wouldn't drop out from 22nd after getting completely dominated?

It depends on what other teams around them did. Teams don't play in a vacuum. Duke was #1 one season #2 and 3 lost and Duke stayed #1. They didn't just become 10th or 12th.

 Voters (AP et al) are much more fickle and reactionary these day, it seems.

[RaceToTheTop]

8 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

 

Just finished my way-too-early WAR rankings (comparison of teams to what I believe is the minimum number of wins they need to make the tournament.  It didn't d a great job of predicting seeding last year BUT if a team finished the year at +1 or better, they did make the tournament.  The top teams will be +10 by the end.

In my rankings, top 50 conference teams consisted of:

3 AAC teams

6 ACC teams

9 Big 10 teams

8 Big 12 teams

3 Big East teams

3 CUSA teams

1 Mountain East team

3 Mountain West teams

4 Pac 12 teams

7 SEC teams

1 WAC team

2 WCC teams

Rankings in order (parenthesis is current WAR)

1.  UConn, 13-0 (+3.93)

2.  Kansas 11-1 (+3.49)

3.  Purdue 12-0 (+3.31

4.  Arizona 12-1 (+3.17)

5.  Gonzaga 10-3 (+2.84)

6.  Miami (F) 12-1 (+2.68)

7.  Wisconsin 9-2 (+2.59)

8.  Houston 12-1 (+2.54)

9.  UCLA 11-2 (+2.29)

10. New Mexico 11-0 (+2.28)

11. Arkansas 11-1 (+1.96)

12. Virginia 8-2 (+1.93)

13. Tennessee 10-2 (+1.81)

14. Missouri 11-1 (+1.72)

15. Memphis 10-3 (+1.71)

16. Arizona St 11-2 (+1.69)

17. Baylor 9-2 (+1.60)

18. Auburn 10-2 (+1.55)

19. Texas 10-1 (+1.5)

20. NC State 11-3 (+1.55)

21T.. Duke 10-3 (+1.40)

21T. Kansas St 11-1 (+1.40)

21T. Xavier 10-3 (+1.40)

24.  Virginia Tech 11-2 (+1.38)

25. San Diego St 8-3 (+1.30)

26.  Mississippi St 11-1 (+1.29)

27.  UNLV 10-1 (+1.27)

28. Utah St 10-2 (+1.26)

29.  UNC 9-4 (+1.23)

30.  Charleston 11-1 (+1.15)

31T. Michigan St 8-4 (+1.14)

31T. Iowa St 9-2 (+1.14)

33T. Indiana 10-3 (+1.04)

33T West Virginia 10-2 (+1.04)

35.  USC 10-3 (+0.96)

36. TCU  10-1 (+0.94)

37. Oklahoma 9-3 (0.89)

38. Ohio State 8-3 (+0.82)

39T. Florida Atlantic 9-1 (+0.81)

39T. St. John's 11-2 (+0.81)

41. Maryland 9-3 (+0.80)

42.Northwestern 9-2 (+0.78)

43. North Texas 8-2 (+0.72)

44. St. Mary's 10-4 (+0.68)

45. LSU 11-1 (+0.63)

46. Kentucky 8-3 (+0.56)

47. Penn State 9-3 (+0.60)

48. Marquette 9-4 (+0.44)

49. Illinois 8-4  (+0.38)

50. UAB 9-2 (+0.37)

 

[RaceToTheTop]

4 hours ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

I do hate it, and that team will do what they do best, lose. 

Honestly, the 8/9/10th place Big 12 team probably has as good of a shot as a 2nd place team from a low mid major would.  Oklahoma, for instance, is better than Drake.

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

4 hours ago, Stuhoo said:

Who the hell had them at 22?

I had them at 22. I'm not the AP, I don't have 80 journos voting in my poll. It's just me. You can go back and look at the Top 25s I've posted. I think I've posted all of them. And you can see where Indiana slid from 14th to unranked. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

3 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

They would depend on who the voter is.   Some voters might not penalize the 22nd team(in whoever’s poll) for getting waxed on the road at a top 5 team in whoever’s poll.   Either way polls are for the fans and have no bearing in  March.   

 

 

3 hours ago, HoosierHoops1 said:

It depends on what other teams around them did. Teams don't play in a vacuum. Duke was #1 one season #2 and 3 lost and Duke stayed #1. They didn't just become 10th or 12th.

 Voters (AP et al) are much more fickle and reactionary these day, it seems.

Well... Other teams around them and behind them won sooo... 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

1 hour ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Honestly, the 8/9/10th place Big 12 team probably has as good of a shot as a 2nd place team from a low mid major would.  Oklahoma, for instance, is better than Drake.

Well... Actually no. Mid major teams that are at large bids and lower seeds, have faired better off in the tourney than Power conference teams with losing conference records. Teams who lose, lose. It's why they are under .500 in conference. 

[RaceToTheTop]

3 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

Well... Actually no. Mid major teams that are at large bids and lower seeds, have faired better off in the tourney than Power conference teams with losing conference records. Teams who lose, lose. It's why they are under .500 in conference. 

Link it's just conjecture.  Comparison needs to be apples to apples as well -- same seed.

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

2 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Link it's just conjecture.  Comparison needs to be apples to apples as well -- same seed.

I've done it before. Power conference teams with below .500 records vs mid majors at larges with similar seed lines. I've posted about it here before. The mid majors have done better outside a Syracuse run. I think the best a Power conference team has done is getting like a 7 or 8 seed once. But those teams just don't perform the same. Those mid majors were actually winning throughout the season unlike the below .500 teams. 

[RaceToTheTop]

2 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

I've done it before. Power conference teams with below .500 records vs mid majors at larges with similar seed lines. I've posted about it here before. The mid majors have done better outside a Syracuse run. I think the best a Power conference team has done is getting like a 7 or 8 seed once. But those teams just don't perform the same. Those mid majors were actually winning throughout the season unlike the below .500 teams. 

So link it.....and don't remove the Syracuse run just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

4 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

So link it.....and don't remove the Syracuse run just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

There is no link... I did the research myself. I'll have to just do it again like tomorrow or something. What do you want? Last 15? 20? 25 year?

[RaceToTheTop]

1 minute ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

There is no link... I did the research myself. I'll have to just do it again like tomorrow or something. What do you want? Last 15? 20? 25 year?

15 would be enough for relevance.  Seeds that would need checked likely would only be 9 through 12.......can't believe there would many cases at all where a team with a losing conference record would have made the tournament.  I'll meet you halfway and post the results from power conference teams (Big 12, Pac 12, SEC, ACC, Big 10, and Big East).  

For consistency, I will not post the results of a play in game UNLESS it is a game between a power conference team with a losing record v an at large team from a non-power conference since that would be head to head and would have some relevance.  Trying to eliminate 'cheap wins', i.e. a 12 beating a 12 unless it was comparing a power to a non-power.

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

2 minutes ago, RaceToTheTop said:

15 would be enough for relevance.  Seeds that would need checked likely would only be 9 through 12.......can't believe there would many cases at all where a team with a losing conference record would have made the tournament.  I'll meet you halfway and post the results from power conference teams (Big 12, Pac 12, SEC, ACC, Big 10, and Big East).  

For consistency, I will not post the results of a play in game UNLESS it is a game between a power conference team with a losing record v an at large team from a non-power conference since that would be head to head and would have some relevance.  Trying to eliminate 'cheap wins', i.e. a 12 beating a 12 unless it was comparing a power to a non-power.

So you don't want me to count play in games unless it's power vs non power? Got it. Power 6 conferences look right. Last 15 years. I'll look at that at lunch tomorrow. 

Ad there aren't too many cases of below .500 teams, though there have been more the last few years as conference realignment has taken its toll. 

[RaceToTheTop]

Last 15 seasons:  (so going back to the 2007-8 season)

Power conference teams with losing conference records in the tournament:

ACC:

Syracuse, 2017-8:  went 8-10 in the conference.  11 seed, play in game win over Arizona State.  Will not count that win as it wasn't against what would be what a 11 normally plays and it wasn't against a non-power conference.

Beat the 6 seed, then the 3 seed  before falling to the 2 seed.

Georgia Tech, 2009-10:  went 7-9 in conference.  10 seed, beat the 7 seed in the opening round and then lost to the 2 seed.-

Maryland, 2008-9:  went 7-9 in conference.  10 seed, beat the 7 seed in the opener before losing to the 2 seed.

Those are the only two instances of ACC teams with losing conference records that made the tournament in the last fifteen years from what I have found.

Big 10:

Michigan State, 2021-22:  9-11 in conference, 12 seed.  Lost in play in game to a power conference team.

Ohio State, 2018-19:  8-12 in conference, 11 seed.  Beat the 6 seed in the opener, lost to the 3 seed in round 2.

Indiana, 2021-22:  9-11 in conference, 12 seed.  Won play in game against a non-power, lost to 5 seed in next round.

Illinois, 2012-13:  8-10 in conference, 7 seed.  Didn't think any team would be seeded this high with a losing conference record.  Anyway, beat a 10 seed and then fell to a 2 seed

Minnesota 2018-19, 9-11 in conference, 10 seed.  beat the 7 seed then lost to the 2 seed.

Only partway through, but those power conference teams with losing conference records that received at large bids are looking really good.

Conclusions so far:

Of the 8 teams I've found so far, 7 teams won their first game (note that only one team was actually favored by seed -- Illinois -- who was seeded 7th).  

In two play in games, the power conference team with a losing record went 2-1;  1-0 when it was against a non-power conference team.

In the 'traditional opening round, teams with losing records in conference were 6-1;  an incredible 5-1 when they were underdogs, 1-0 when they were favored.

In the second round -- all games playing featuring a seed 10 or 11 playing against a 2 or 3 except for Illinois, which was a 7 v 2:  teams went 1-6.

Third round: 0-1.

That's a great track record for teams that are seeded as dogs.  The teams that were seeded 10 through 12 were .500 in NCAA played .500 ball in the NCAA tournament (7-7 if you eliminate power play in games, 8-8 if you include them).

In games involving 12 through 10 seeded teams v. 5 through 7, the 12 through 10 teams were .500:  historically 5 v 12 matchups are won by the 12 seed only 33% of the time;  6 v 11 are won the 11 seed only 37.5% of the time;  7 v 10 are won by the 10 seed only 40% of the time.

In non-play in games Statistically, win expectations for 12 seeds is 0.54 wins per tournament.  11 seeds project to 0.70 wins per tournament.  10 seeds project to 0.72 wins per tournament.  The teams I have above are averaging 1.00.

[RaceToTheTop]

4 minutes ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

So you don't want me to count play in games unless it's power vs non power? Got it. Power 6 conferences look right. Last 15 years. I'll look at that at lunch tomorrow. 

Ad there aren't too many cases of below .500 teams, though there have been more the last few years as conference realignment has taken its toll. 

Correct, not counting play in games because it might inflate the totals one way or the other.  I.e., not sure much could be gathered from seeing how a 9-11 power conference team playing a 10-10 power conference team in a play in game.  

I could expand to at .500 teams, but I am going off your originally post of '10th place Big 12 finishers' statement, in which case if you are talking about the bottom third or so of the Big 12, those teams are below .500.

I'm not sure I need to bother looking at the Pac 12 at all because I don't think they've had any below .500 in conference teams make it.  The SEC might not have either with maybe the exception of one of Bryce Drew's Vandy teams, but I'd have to check.

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

5 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Correct, not counting play in games because it might inflate the totals one way or the other.  I.e., not sure much could be gathered from seeing how a 9-11 power conference team playing a 10-10 power conference team in a play in game.  

I could expand to at .500 teams, but I am going off your originally post of '10th place Big 12 finishers' statement, in which case if you are talking about the bottom third or so of the Big 12, those teams are below .500.

I'm not sure I need to bother looking at the Pac 12 at all because I don't think they've had any below .500 in conference teams make it.  The SEC might not have either with maybe the exception of one of Bryce Drew's Vandy teams, but I'd have to check.

SEC has had them. I can't remember which year but I believe Alabama made it. Some Big Ten teams have. I think a Pac12 team has but not within the 15 year period. But I'm going to be looking at all 6 power conferences combined. The Big 12 was just an example. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

6 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Correct, not counting play in games because it might inflate the totals one way or the other.  I.e., not sure much could be gathered from seeing how a 9-11 power conference team playing a 10-10 power conference team in a play in game.  

I could expand to at .500 teams, but I am going off your originally post of '10th place Big 12 finishers' statement, in which case if you are talking about the bottom third or so of the Big 12, those teams are below .500.

I'm not sure I need to bother looking at the Pac 12 at all because I don't think they've had any below .500 in conference teams make it.  The SEC might not have either with maybe the exception of one of Bryce Drew's Vandy teams, but I'd have to check.

And there is something that's changed since the last time I've looked into this, Arizona 2008. They were 8-10 in conference that. But now, they are technically 0-10 after that season was vacated. Didn't even know they had that year vacated. 

[Loaded Chicken Sandwich]

Here is how teams with below .500 conference records have performed in the Round of 64. I didn't count a single play in game. Just 1st round and beyond. As you can see, from 2007-2017(including Arizona) only 12 teams made it. From 2018-2022 there have been 14.

**Vacated**

10. Arizona(08): 0-1

 

2007

10. Georgia Tech: 0-1

12. Arkansas: 0-1

 

2009

10. Maryland: 1-1

 

2010

10. Georgia Tech: 1-1

 

2012

9. UConn: 0-1

 

2013

11. Minnesota: 1-1

7. Illinois: 1-1

 

2014

9. Oklahoma State: 0-1

 

2015

11. Texas: 0-1

9. Oklahoma State: 0-1

 

2017

11. Kansas State: 0-1

 

2018

10. Texas: 0-1

9. Alabama: 1-1

11. Syracuse: 2-1

11. Arizona State: Lost in Play-In vs Syracuse

10. Oklahoma: 0-1

 

2019

10. Minnesota: 1-1

9. Oklahoma: 0-1

11. St. Johns: Lost in Play-In Game

11. Ohio State: 1-1

 

2021

11. Michigan State: Lost in Play-In Game

10. Maryland: 1-1

 

2022

12. Indiana: 0-1

11. Iowa State: 2-1

9. TCU: 1-1

 

Total: 13-23, 2 Sweet 16s, 25 teams making Round of 68

26 teams including 2008 Arizona, 13-24.

[HoosierHoops1]

9 hours ago, Loaded Chicken Sandwich said:

 

Well... Other teams around them and behind them won sooo... 

For this particular week, Virginia dropped 7 spots and Duke dropped 3, both going from higher than Indiana, to lower. Therefore IU moved up 2 spots.

I'm not sure what happened the week you dropped them to 22, then out, with respect to those around them.

Teams unranked need to legitimately have a big win and surpass a ranked team, not merely survive and leap up after a ranked team loses to a favored opponent.

#25 is very likely still top 25 by losing by 7 to #15 on the road.