How many Tournament bids?

[Barley]

Butler seems most likely because their OOC wins were strongest but they have not played well in league games. Hoyas are a mirage that will disappear. Seton Hall and Creighton play like NCAA teams at times but not often enough to give me any confidence that they'll dance.

[stever20]

I think a key in seeing how many tourney bids is how the committee is regarding using RPI a lot or using Ken Pom a lot....

look at the RPI's right now-
Nova 2
X 3
PC 23
Seton Hall 54
Butler 59
Georgetown 71
Creighton 93

But now look at the Ken Pom:
Nova 4
X 14
Creighton 34
Butler 38
Providence 42
Seton Hall 43
Georgetown 52

Just a huge difference. I'm of the thought that Ken Pom and advanced metrics are at least as important as the RPI, which would be a HUGE help for the Big East this year in terms of getting teams in. If it's straight RPI, Seton Hall, Butler, Georgetown are in trouble, and Creighton is in deep trouble. If it's mostly Ken Pom, Georgetown is in trouble, and Seton Hall has little/no wiggle room just about.

[Jet915]

Has the committee ever acknowledged using ken pom?

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

Has the committee ever acknowledged using ken pom?

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men ... ournaments

Ron Wellman answers questions about conference tournaments, Big Dance - NCAA Press Release - March 12, 2014

Q. The Kenpom analytic service that a lot of coaches use to evaluate teams, I'm curious if that's part of your discussion at all. There's some dramatic swings in what a team's RPI is and what a teams Kenpom number is. I wonder if the Committee is aware of those situations.

RON WELLMAN: To me, the Committee is very aware of everything. The Committee looks at every piece of data that we can put our hands on.

Kenpom, RPI, all that data, we have a list of data points that we can use. Sagarin, the LRNC, it just goes on and on.

Various Committee members will emphasize and use that data to various degrees. Some of them will reply on certain data more than others. So it just depends upon the Committee member.

This process can be very subjective. Certain Committee members will value certain pieces of data more than others. All of that information is available and easily accessible by the Committee members.

[stever20]

Has the committee ever acknowledged using ken pom?

last year, yes.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt- ... 20578.html

These common-sense changes aren’t nearly as significant, though, as the committee’s increasing willingness to move away from the simple but inevitably flawed RPI to evaluate teams. Barnes acknowledged on Selection Sunday that the committee looked beyond RPI in deciding to leave Temple and Colorado State out of the field, but this week confirmed the use of such metrics as Ken Pomeroy’s and Jeff Sagarin’s efficiency ratings was even more extensive than Barnes described that day in March.

“More this year than any prior year, we looked at other systems when there were gaps and inconsistencies in the RPI,” Barnes said. “We talked more about it, how the RPI doesn’t tell the whole story.”

This is a change from past practice, when the committee hewed so closely to its procedures and principles that, combined with its slavish devotion to RPI, it was possible for the increasingly educated consumer to mimic the process from outside the committee room. The average score on Bracket Matrix, a website which tracks bracketologists, went up each year from 2010 through 2014 as predictions, collectively, improved.

That changed in 2015, when teams like Texas and UCLA benefited from strong KenPom ratings to get into the field and Oklahoma was seeded ahead of Maryland. In each case, use of the RPI-based resume to compare teams would have suggested different results.

[chopper]

Has the committee ever acknowledged using ken pom?

kenpom is a measure of how good/efficient teams are, but it does not rate on results...aka W's and L's. That is why the committee still utilizes RPI. Who cares if Creighton is ranked 34 by kenpom if they can't turn that higher rate of efficiency into W's when they need to.

[ecasadoSBU]

Has the committee ever acknowledged using ken pom?

last year, yes.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt- ... 20578.html

These common-sense changes aren’t nearly as significant, though, as the committee’s increasing willingness to move away from the simple but inevitably flawed RPI to evaluate teams. Barnes acknowledged on Selection Sunday that the committee looked beyond RPI in deciding to leave Temple and Colorado State out of the field, but this week confirmed the use of such metrics as Ken Pomeroy’s and Jeff Sagarin’s efficiency ratings was even more extensive than Barnes described that day in March.

“More this year than any prior year, we looked at other systems when there were gaps and inconsistencies in the RPI,” Barnes said. “We talked more about it, how the RPI doesn’t tell the whole story.”

This is a change from past practice, when the committee hewed so closely to its procedures and principles that, combined with its slavish devotion to RPI, it was possible for the increasingly educated consumer to mimic the process from outside the committee room. The average score on Bracket Matrix, a website which tracks bracketologists, went up each year from 2010 through 2014 as predictions, collectively, improved.

That changed in 2015, when teams like Texas and UCLA benefited from strong KenPom ratings to get into the field and Oklahoma was seeded ahead of Maryland. In each case, use of the RPI-based resume to compare teams would have suggested different results.

The Commmite is just looking for ways to squeeze more Power-5 schools into the tournament. it's a shame that they are doing that.

If they are going to use multiple systems they have to be absolutely transparent on how much they are using it and what are the precise methods to choose one team over another. Otherwise I see it as a way to benefit the teams of major conference at the expense of the mid-major that may have a high RPI but may not be as high in other metrics. Bottom line is that you need to choose a system and STICK to it and use it all the time. You can't be arbitrary about this...

[jaxalum]

So how many are we realistically looking at now? I'd be happy with 5.

[stever20]

So how many are we realistically looking at now? I'd be happy with 5.

to me right now-
best case scenario is 5 bids, with no one going to Dayton.
worst case scenario is 4 bids, with a team going to Dayton.

[MackNova]

Has the committee ever acknowledged using ken pom?

last year, yes.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt- ... 20578.html

These common-sense changes aren’t nearly as significant, though, as the committee’s increasing willingness to move away from the simple but inevitably flawed RPI to evaluate teams. Barnes acknowledged on Selection Sunday that the committee looked beyond RPI in deciding to leave Temple and Colorado State out of the field, but this week confirmed the use of such metrics as Ken Pomeroy’s and Jeff Sagarin’s efficiency ratings was even more extensive than Barnes described that day in March.

“More this year than any prior year, we looked at other systems when there were gaps and inconsistencies in the RPI,” Barnes said. “We talked more about it, how the RPI doesn’t tell the whole story.”

This is a change from past practice, when the committee hewed so closely to its procedures and principles that, combined with its slavish devotion to RPI, it was possible for the increasingly educated consumer to mimic the process from outside the committee room. The average score on Bracket Matrix, a website which tracks bracketologists, went up each year from 2010 through 2014 as predictions, collectively, improved.

That changed in 2015, when teams like Texas and UCLA benefited from strong KenPom ratings to get into the field and Oklahoma was seeded ahead of Maryland. In each case, use of the RPI-based resume to compare teams would have suggested different results.

The Commmite is just looking for ways to squeeze more Power-5 schools into the tournament. it's a shame that they are doing that.

If they are going to use multiple systems they have to be absolutely transparent on how much they are using it and what are the precise methods to choose one team over another. Otherwise I see it as a way to benefit the teams of major conference at the expense of the mid-major that may have a high RPI but may not be as high in other metrics. Bottom line is that you need to choose a system and STICK to it and use it all the time. You can't be arbitrary about this...

This is just a paranoid thought process. What if a team is high in KenPom and not other metrics? Gonzaga is 20th in KenPom and 73rd in RPI. Valparaiso is #22 on KenPom and 40th in RPI. UConn is 27th in KenPom and 59th in RPI. RPI/KenPom splits work both ways.

I'm a strong KenPom believer in terms of evaluating how good teams are, and I think it should be a consideration, particularly for seeding. But I think who makes the tournament should be based more on your win-loss resume as opposed to how good your team measures up statistically.