Bracketology '17

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... acketology

In Joe Lunardi's March 2nd update, he has 7 BE teams in the tournament, with Xavier coming to UD Arena. The A10 is down to 2 bids.

ON THE BUBBLE

Last Four Byes:
Syracuse
Seton Hall
Providence
Marquette

Last Four In:
Xavier
California
USC
Wake Forest

[stever20]

what is kind of strange tonight- Xavier fans are going to have to gulp sort of root for Cincy. A Cincy loss tonight puts Houston as a LOT more of a threat to make the tourney.

[billyjack]

So, I'm looking at some various non-BE bubble teams...

Wake Forest is being pimped by ESPN, but they've benefited this year from the uneven ACC schedule. In the past, the committee has given major props to schools/conferences that have played a round-robin.

This year Wake played twice against BC (2-0), NC State (2-0), Clemson (0-2), and Duke (0-2). They're 8-9, so half their ACC wins are against the bottom 2 teams... so they're 4-9 otherwise.

2 of Wake's other wins are home to Pitt and home to Georgia Tech... those 2 teams are in 10th and 13th place. Clemson (0-2) is currently in 12th place.

Also, Wake has 5 road wins, but they all are unimpressive... at BC, at NC State, at Charleston, at Unc-Greensboro, and at Richmond. Wake is 2-9 vs the Top-50.

They've also lost to fellow bubble teams Northwestern and Xavier, and haven't beaten any bubble teams themselves.

They have 2 good/great wins... home vs Miami (Fla) and home vs Louisville. They're like Keno's 2009 Friars, but Keno had wins over #1 Pitt and #15 Syracuse, and that wasn't enough.

Bottom line, to me, is that Wake shouldn't sniff the NCAA's, with the 2 key points being:
- bad on the road.
- 2-9 vs the Top-50

[Bill Marsh]

Since 2010, only 8 out of 28 1-seeds have made it to the Four Four. Meanwhile 9 teams seeded 5 or lower have made it to the Final Four. Here's the breakdown:

5 - 2
7 - 2
8 - 2
9 - 1
10-1
11-1

true- but when you combine with the 2's half of the final 4 teams have been top 2 seeds. Add in top 4(the first 2 round protected seeds)- and you are up to 19 of the 28- or nearly 3/4. Oh and kind of interesting that you did your thing at 7 years. looking at it for 10 years which is you know a bit more of a natural number.... 16/40 1 seeds made the final 4. Add to that 9 2 seeds and 25/40 have been top 2 seeds. 31/40 have been top 4 seeds.

Yes, that's my point. That you are less likely to make it to the Final 4 as a 1-seed than you are as a 2 despite having a more favorable path to get there and despite being rated as the better teams.

Should it be a surprise that more top 4 seeds make it than those below? What's a surprise is that any outside the top 4 make it to the F4. And it's not just a fuke team or two. It's 9 in just 7 years. The committee goes to excruciating lengths to identify the best teams. How could they get it so wrong?

I was focusing on the extremes - i.e. the 1-seeds vs everyone outside the top 4 because that's the starkest comparison. Those outside the top 4 have been slightly more successful getting to the Final 4 in recent years than the 1-seeds have. It's
Not supposed to work that way, is it?

I focused on 2010 and beyond because that's when the pattern changed. You're right that before 2010, it was very predictable and had been for years. But starting in 2010, a couple of other things changed in addition to the diminished success of 1-seeds:

1. Mid majors began to get to the Final Four - 5 in the last 7 years. Consider that between 1996 (UMass) and 2010 (Butler) George Mason was the only mid major to get to the Final 4. But in just the last 7 years, more mid majors have gotten to the Final 4 than in the 15 years before 2010 - 2.5 times many.

2. The C7 finally won another NC after 30 years. The C7 is a group that had won 3 NC in the first post-UCLA decade but then declined to the point that they didn't get a single team to the F4 from 1990-2002.

Seven years is long enough not to be a fluke of an oddball season or two. Something different is happening here.

[stever20]

So, I'm looking at some various non-BE bubble teams...

Wake Forest is being pimped by ESPN, but they've benefited this year from the uneven ACC schedule. In the past, the committee has given major props to schools/conferences that have played a round-robin.

This year Wake played twice against BC (2-0), NC State (2-0), Clemson (0-2), and Duke (0-2). They're 8-9, so half their ACC wins are against the bottom 2 teams... so they're 4-9 otherwise.

2 of Wake's other wins are home to Pitt and home to Georgia Tech... those 2 teams are in 10th and 13th place. Clemson (0-2) is currently in 12th place.

Also, Wake has 5 road wins, but they all are unimpressive... at BC, at NC State, at Charleston, at Unc-Greensboro, and at Richmond. Wake is 2-9 vs the Top-50.

They've also lost to fellow bubble teams Northwestern and Xavier, and haven't beaten any bubble teams themselves.

They have 2 good/great wins... home vs Miami (Fla) and home vs Louisville. They're like Keno's 2009 Friars, but Keno had wins over #1 Pitt and #15 Syracuse, and that wasn't enough.

Bottom line, to me, is that Wake shouldn't sniff the NCAA's, with the 2 key points being:
- bad on the road.
- 2-9 vs the Top-50

Wake though has the #14 OOC SOS and the committee loves to reward that. If they win on Saturday to get to 18 wins, with a top 35 RPI, it's going to be really hard to see them out.

And I wouldn't say the committee by any stretch of the imagination has given major props to those that have played a round robin over the uneven schedules.

Also comparing to 2009 3 HUGE differences. 1- the bubble is so much weaker. 2- there are now 2 more at larges compared to 2009. 3- Wakes OOC schedule much tougher than PC's was. Wake like I said 14, PC that year was 158.

Also not to nitpick- but Northwestern isn't a bubble team any longer. They're a lock.

[stever20]

Since 2010, only 8 out of 28 1-seeds have made it to the Four Four. Meanwhile 9 teams seeded 5 or lower have made it to the Final Four. Here's the breakdown:

5 - 2
7 - 2
8 - 2
9 - 1
10-1
11-1

true- but when you combine with the 2's half of the final 4 teams have been top 2 seeds. Add in top 4(the first 2 round protected seeds)- and you are up to 19 of the 28- or nearly 3/4. Oh and kind of interesting that you did your thing at 7 years. looking at it for 10 years which is you know a bit more of a natural number.... 16/40 1 seeds made the final 4. Add to that 9 2 seeds and 25/40 have been top 2 seeds. 31/40 have been top 4 seeds.

Yes, that's my point. That you are less likely to make it to the Final 4 as a 1-seed than you are as a 2 despite having a more favorable path to get there and despite being rated as the better teams.

Should it be a surprise that more top 4 seeds make it than those below? What's a surprise is that any outside the top 4 make it to the F4. And it's not just a fuke team or two. It's 9 in just 7 years. The committee goes to excruciating lengths to identify the best teams. How could they get it so wrong?

I was focusing on the extremes - i.e. the 1-seeds vs everyone outside the top 4 because that's the starkest comparison. Those outside the top 4 have been slightly more successful getting to the Final 4 in recent years than the 1-seeds have. It's
Not supposed to work that way, is it?

I focused on 2010 and beyond because that's when the pattern changed. You're right that before 2010, it was very predictable and had been for years. But starting in 2010, a couple of other things changed in addition to the diminished success of 1-seeds:

1. Mid majors began to get to the Final Four - 5 in the last 7 years. Consider that between 1996 (UMass) and 2010 (Butler) George Mason was the only mid major to get to the Final 4. But in just the last 7 years, more mid majors have gotten to the Final 4 than in the 15 years before 2010 - 2.5 times many.

2. The C7 finally won another NC after 30 years. The C7 is a group that had won 3 NC in the first post-UCLA decade but then declined to the point that they didn't get a single team to the F4 from 1990-2002.

Seven years is long enough not to be a fluke of an oddball season or two. Something different is happening here.

There's been 8 1 seeds, and 6 2 seeds. So don't know where you got that you are less likely to make it as a 1 than a 2.

I would also argue that a few of those 9 that made it were grossly unseeded. I'm sorry but a few years ago no way in hell was Kentucky a 8 seed. Same with UConn being a 7 seed.

Also, who are you saying is a mid-major final 4 since 2010?

[Bill Marsh]

So, I'm looking at some various non-BE bubble teams...

Wake Forest is being pimped by ESPN, but they've benefited this year from the uneven ACC schedule. In the past, the committee has given major props to schools/conferences that have played a round-robin.

This year Wake played twice against BC (2-0), NC State (2-0), Clemson (0-2), and Duke (0-2). They're 8-9, so half their ACC wins are against the bottom 2 teams... so they're 4-9 otherwise.

2 of Wake's other wins are home to Pitt and home to Georgia Tech... those 2 teams are in 10th and 13th place. Clemson (0-2) is currently in 12th place.

Also, Wake has 5 road wins, but they all are unimpressive... at BC, at NC State, at Charleston, at Unc-Greensboro, and at Richmond. Wake is 2-9 vs the Top-50.

They've also lost to fellow bubble teams Northwestern and Xavier, and haven't beaten any bubble teams themselves.

They have 2 good/great wins... home vs Miami (Fla) and home vs Louisville. They're like Keno's 2009 Friars, but Keno had wins over #1 Pitt and #15 Syracuse, and that wasn't enough.

Bottom line, to me, is that Wake shouldn't sniff the NCAA's, with the 2 key points being:
- bad on the road.
- 2-9 vs the Top-50

Impressive research. A good example of how other bubble teams have as many or more shortcomings as any BE teams fighting for a bid.

[Bill Marsh]

true- but when you combine with the 2's half of the final 4 teams have been top 2 seeds. Add in top 4(the first 2 round protected seeds)- and you are up to 19 of the 28- or nearly 3/4. Oh and kind of interesting that you did your thing at 7 years. looking at it for 10 years which is you know a bit more of a natural number.... 16/40 1 seeds made the final 4. Add to that 9 2 seeds and 25/40 have been top 2 seeds. 31/40 have been top 4 seeds.

Yes, that's my point. That you are less likely to make it to the Final 4 as a 1-seed than you are as a 2 despite having a more favorable path to get there and despite being rated as the better teams.

Should it be a surprise that more top 4 seeds make it than those below? What's a surprise is that any outside the top 4 make it to the F4. And it's not just a fuke team or two. It's 9 in just 7 years. The committee goes to excruciating lengths to identify the best teams. How could they get it so wrong?

I was focusing on the extremes - i.e. the 1-seeds vs everyone outside the top 4 because that's the starkest comparison. Those outside the top 4 have been slightly more successful getting to the Final 4 in recent years than the 1-seeds have. It's
Not supposed to work that way, is it?

I focused on 2010 and beyond because that's when the pattern changed. You're right that before 2010, it was very predictable and had been for years. But starting in 2010, a couple of other things changed in addition to the diminished success of 1-seeds:

1. Mid majors began to get to the Final Four - 5 in the last 7 years. Consider that between 1996 (UMass) and 2010 (Butler) George Mason was the only mid major to get to the Final 4. But in just the last 7 years, more mid majors have gotten to the Final 4 than in the 15 years before 2010 - 2.5 times many.

2. The C7 finally won another NC after 30 years. The C7 is a group that had won 3 NC in the first post-UCLA decade but then declined to the point that they didn't get a single team to the F4 from 1990-2002.

Seven years is long enough not to be a fluke of an oddball season or two. Something different is happening here.

There's been 8 1 seeds, and 6 2 seeds. So don't know where you got that you are less likely to make it as a 1 than a 2.

I was writing on the fly between other things at work. I misread something you wrote, so ignore that point.

I would also argue that a few of those 9 that made it were grossly unseeded. I'm sorry but a few years ago no way in hell was Kentucky a 8 seed. Same with UConn being a 7 seed.

Argue to your heart's content. Over the years the committees always makes mistakes. That's my point - that there's no need to stress over where a team gets seeded. The evidence is that it doesn't make all that much different where you're seeded.

Also, who are you saying is a mid-major final 4 since 2010?

Why do I have the feeling that you have a point ro make? Why don't you just make your point and I'll respond. We all know which are the mid major conferences and which are the power conferences. I included the Big East as a power conference for basketball purposes.

[gmoser1210]

It depends on how you define mid-major. Are you defining a mid-major team or a mid-major conference? I know others (sometimes vehemently) disagree, but I believe the mid-major label is primarily based on your conference. A high-major conference has a majority of its membership contending to reach the final four at least once every few years. They may not actually make it there very often, but they're at least contenders, and at least a couple teams actually make it to the final four every now and then. High-major conferences are the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, PAC-12, or SEC.

Mid-major conferences are those that typically have multiple teams contending for at-large bids to the NCAA tournament, but it's very rare that the conference is represented deep into the tournament, especially by more than one team. Mid-major conferences are the A10, AAC, MVC, WCC, MWC. That means that currently, Gonzaga, Wichita State, UConn, Cincinnati, VCU, Memphis, and George Mason are all from mid-major conferences. That doesn't necessarily mean the product those teams put on the floor is inferior to, say, Northwestern or Boston College. It just means they don't have a very strong conference schedule to help their tournament chances.

Low-major conferences are the conferences that almost always have only one team represented in the NCAA tournament and it's practically unheard of that they make it past the Sweet Sixteen.

Final Four appearances by teams from mid-major conferences since 2010:
2010: Butler
2011: Butler, VCU
2012: none
2013: Wichita State
2014: UConn
2015: none
2016: none

[Bill Marsh]

It depends on how you define mid-major. Are you defining a mid-major team or a mid-major conference? I know others (sometimes vehemently) disagree, but I believe the mid-major label is primarily based on your conference. A high-major conference has a majority of its membership contending to reach the final four at least once every few years. They may not actually make it there very often, but they're at least contenders, and at least a couple teams actually make it to the final four every now and then. High-major conferences are the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, PAC-12, or SEC.

Mid-major conferences are those that typically have multiple teams contending for at-large bids to the NCAA tournament, but it's very rare that the conference is represented deep into the tournament, especially by more than one team. Mid-major conferences are the A10, AAC, MVC, WCC, MWC. That means that currently, Gonzaga, Wichita State, UConn, Cincinnati, VCU, Memphis, and George Mason are all from mid-major conferences. That doesn't necessarily mean the product those teams put on the floor is inferior to, say, Northwestern or Boston College. It just means they don't have a very strong conference schedule to help their tournament chances.

Low-major conferences are the conferences that almost always have only one team represented in the NCAA tournament and it's practicall unheard of that they make it past the Sweet Sixteen.

Final Four appearances by teams from mid-major conferences since 2010:
2010: Butler
2011: Butler, VCU
2012: none
2013: Wichita State
2014: UConn
2015: none
2016: none

That's the way I see it too.

If we're to start calling any of those teams anything other than mid majors, then we'd have to start cherry picking perennial bottom feeders from the 6 power basketball conferences and start redefining them as mid or low majors.