NCAA tourney hopes

[stever20]

The thing with the bad OOC schedule is that it's 13/31 of the games. That's a lot.
Looking at Marquette:
IUPUI projected 8-22
Jackson St projected 16-13
Grambling projected 6-21(and that's generous)
Maine projected 6-23
San Jose St 5-22
Chicago St 4-24
Presbyterian 7-19
Stetson 8-19
all of those would be in the 50% pot for Marquette.

I'm comparing Nova 12-13 to Marquette this year. I think you would be surprised at what level the OOC schedule That 166 is.
This year DePaul is 152 projected OOC SOS.....
BE- has 4 teams worse
B12 has 3 teams worse than 166 (and a 4th at 158)
P12 has 4 teams worse
SEC has 3 teams worse than 166 (and a 4th at 160)
B10 has 7 teams worse
ACC has 7 teams worse
so 166 is better than 28 of the 74 power teams. about the 37% level.. Only TCU, Clemson and Northwestern are in the 300's this year- with only Clemson and Northwestern really near Marquette.

The other point is that the overall SOS for Nova that year was really good #20. Part of that is their 4 teams that they played 2x were Syracuse, Pitt, Providence(19-15), and USF(only 12-19). Only had to play DePaul, Rutgers, and Seton Hall 1x). They got 10 top 50 games.

I pretty much agree with you that one off those teams will likely emerge out of the pack. I don't think the 5th one will be all that comfortably though- unless Georgetown can get rolling. Marquette and Seton Hall have too many problems with their OOC SOS to get in comfortably unless they go 11-7 or 12-6 in conference play.

If 13/31 games is a lot, what would you consider 18/31? Chopped liver? And thanks for confirming for me that a #167 ooc schedule would indeed be towards the bottom of that particular list. You keep avoiding the fact that in conference SOS has a huge(bigger) impact than ooc SOS. Is a really poor ooc a hindrance or obstacle to overcome? Of course, but it's not the insurmountable obstacle you are going to great lengths to make it seem. Especially if you play in a strong conference like the BE. Now if Marquette were in AAC with that ooc, they'd probably be screwed.

2 things..
1st off- the Big East 13 a lot different than the Big East 16. In conference SOS for Marquette won't be close to the in conference SOS for Nova back in '13.
2nd off- the projected OVERALL SOS for Marquette is 100. Nova was 20. Only 4 power conference teams worse than they are- Clemson, South Carolina, Ole Miss, and Northwestern

it's definitely not an insurmountable obstacle, but it requires far more than just going 9-9 in conference play. 9 wins won't even get them close to the bubble. That's all I'm saying.

[XUFan09]

Essentially, Marquette has to have a strong conference showing to make up for their noncon SOS. The Committee doesn't like teams that don't challenge themselves, though I understand why Wojo developed the schedule that way two years ago when he pretty much had no one. Stever is right that they will have a tough time if they go 9-9 in conference like Xavier did last year. Yes, Xavier had only two top 50 noncon wins last year (UC and S.F. Austin) and a couple top 100 wins, but their overall noncon SOS was leaps and bounds better than Marquette's this year. Let's also keep in mind that Xavier was quite possibly an 8 seed before their conference tournament run, as they were the last 6 seed on the S-curve.

Now, Xavier did get a 6 seed (or probably an 8/9 seed with a first-round loss), so plausibly Marquette could make it with a 9-9 record in a strong conference, albeit with a lower seed than Xavier's. There does appear to be a drop-off factor with the Committee, though, where small or singular differences in resumes can sometimes lead to big changes in how a team is viewed. For example, it seems like there is a big drop in perception from 9-9 to 8-10, despite the real difference being small. Or a 9-9 record and a sub-300 noncon SOS could be viewed drastically different from a 9-9 record and a top-50 noncon SOS with all other factors being equal. It would be a singular difference, but one the Committee cares a lot about.

[stever20]

Essentially, Marquette has to have a strong conference showing to make up for their noncon SOS. The Committee doesn't like teams that don't challenge themselves, though I understand why Wojo developed the schedule that way two years ago when he pretty much had no one. Stever is right that they will have a tough time if they go 9-9 in conference like Xavier did last year. Yes, Xavier had only two top 50 noncon wins last year (UC and S.F. Austin) and a couple top 100 wins, but their overall noncon SOS was leaps and bounds better than Marquette's this year. Let's also keep in mind that Xavier was quite possibly an 8 seed before their conference tournament run, as they were the last 6 seed on the S-curve.

Now, Xavier did get a 6 seed (or probably an 8/9 seed with a first-round loss), so plausibly Marquette could make it with a 9-9 record in a strong conference, albeit with a lower seed than Xavier's. There does appear to be a drop-off factor with the Committee, though, where small or singular differences in resumes can sometimes lead to big changes in how a team is viewed. For example, it seems like there is a big drop in perception from 9-9 to 8-10, despite the real difference being small. Or a 9-9 record and a sub-300 noncon SOS could be viewed drastically different from a 9-9 record and a top-50 noncon SOS with all other factors being equal. It would be a singular difference, but one the Committee cares a lot about.

I think the big thing as well is Arizona St has got to remain a top 50 win.

What I've seen recently- the committee has placed a HUGE emphasis on the OOC scheduling. I don't understand why folks here think that's really going to suddenly change.

[GumbyDamnit!]

No one is saying non conf is not important. But the fact remains that MU will have at least 8 more games vs the RPI top 50, and many of those could be vs the top 25. That is sooooo much more important for their tourney resumes than anything they've done yet. That is where they will either make the tourney or not. If they go .500 in conf but they beat both Nova and X once and Butler and PC twice, win both vs DePaul and one vs SJU that's a pretty solid 9-9. In that case I would feel good being MU on selection Sunday if all of those teams finished close in the rankings to where they are now.

Bigger point though...there are about 200 million combinations of what could happen from here on out in college BB. Why the hell are you trying to predict what will definitively happen? It's fine if you want to offer an opinion on what you think might happen, but you are offering up data points based on KenPom predictive analysis as if it already happened. You did the same exact thing last year and your January predictions weren't even close. Do we really have to go through 2 months of you telling us who will definitively be left out and who is getting, complete with your obvious bias against all things Big East?

Such a tired, tired act.

[stever20]

No one is saying non conf is not important. But the fact remains that MU will have at least 8 more games vs the RPI top 50, and many of those could be vs the top 25. That is sooooo much more important for their tourney resumes than anything they've done yet. That is where they will either make the tourney or not. If they go .500 in conf but they beat both Nova and X once and Butler and PC twice, win both vs DePaul and one vs SJU that's a pretty solid 9-9. In that case I would feel good being MU on selection Sunday if all of those teams finished close in the rankings to where they are now.

Bigger point though...there are about 200 million combinations of what could happen from here on out in college BB. Why the hell are you trying to predict what will definitively happen? It's fine if you want to offer an opinion on what you think might happen, but you are offering up data points based on KenPom predictive analysis as if it already happened. You did the same exact thing last year and your January predictions weren't even close. Do we really have to go through 2 months of you telling us who will definitively be left out and who is getting, complete with your obvious bias against all things Big East?

Such a tired, tired act.

If PC got swept by Marquette, they wouldn't be top 50.

And sorry- but if you are thinking a team would be good enough to beat Nova and X once, and Butler and PC 2x- but then get swept by Seton Hall, Creighton, AND Georgetown- sorry- but that's insane. And even there, they would have at least 3 home losses. Sorry but 11 losses(and then 12 in the BET) against the #100 SOS isn't good. Neither is 5 home losses. Marquette would totally be a historical outlier in making the tourney with the schedule they have. Marquette at 20-11(what you are saying- would have a projected RPI of 88. The highest RPI ever to get in at large was 67. That's what Marquette is fighting. Now, I'm giving Marquette a decent chance at 10-8(even though RPI is 74 projected).

What you are saying about the conference season is right- for teams that actually schedule with a pulse. But you see, for teams that schedule one of the 15 worst schedules in the country, the standard becomes higher for them. They have to make up for their dreadful OOC schedule.

[stever20]

and the thing you have to remember for the RPI purposes, if you are 9-9, in a round robin conference, it doesn't matter for terms of the RPI who you beat and who you lost to. You are going to get the 18 opponents added to the SOS column no matter if you beat them or if you lose to them. So the projections for the end of season overall SOS are going to be pretty accurate. You are going to get exactly .500 added to your w-l record no matter what(just a matter of how much you are adding to both sides). It's weird- but it is what it is.

[XUFan09]

Essentially, Marquette has to have a strong conference showing to make up for their noncon SOS. The Committee doesn't like teams that don't challenge themselves, though I understand why Wojo developed the schedule that way two years ago when he pretty much had no one. Stever is right that they will have a tough time if they go 9-9 in conference like Xavier did last year. Yes, Xavier had only two top 50 noncon wins last year (UC and S.F. Austin) and a couple top 100 wins, but their overall noncon SOS was leaps and bounds better than Marquette's this year. Let's also keep in mind that Xavier was quite possibly an 8 seed before their conference tournament run, as they were the last 6 seed on the S-curve.

Now, Xavier did get a 6 seed (or probably an 8/9 seed with a first-round loss), so plausibly Marquette could make it with a 9-9 record in a strong conference, albeit with a lower seed than Xavier's. There does appear to be a drop-off factor with the Committee, though, where small or singular differences in resumes can sometimes lead to big changes in how a team is viewed. For example, it seems like there is a big drop in perception from 9-9 to 8-10, despite the real difference being small. Or a 9-9 record and a sub-300 noncon SOS could be viewed drastically different from a 9-9 record and a top-50 noncon SOS with all other factors being equal. It would be a singular difference, but one the Committee cares a lot about.

I think the big thing as well is Arizona St has got to remain a top 50 win.

What I've seen recently- the committee has placed a HUGE emphasis on the OOC scheduling. I don't understand why folks here think that's really going to suddenly change.

Arizona State doesn't really have to remain a top 50 team. It would be nice, but the Committee watches ridiculous amounts of basketball, with two members covering each conference, and they report to each other weekly. They have a better idea of how ASU was at that point than just about anyone.

[stever20]

Essentially, Marquette has to have a strong conference showing to make up for their noncon SOS. The Committee doesn't like teams that don't challenge themselves, though I understand why Wojo developed the schedule that way two years ago when he pretty much had no one. Stever is right that they will have a tough time if they go 9-9 in conference like Xavier did last year. Yes, Xavier had only two top 50 noncon wins last year (UC and S.F. Austin) and a couple top 100 wins, but their overall noncon SOS was leaps and bounds better than Marquette's this year. Let's also keep in mind that Xavier was quite possibly an 8 seed before their conference tournament run, as they were the last 6 seed on the S-curve.

Now, Xavier did get a 6 seed (or probably an 8/9 seed with a first-round loss), so plausibly Marquette could make it with a 9-9 record in a strong conference, albeit with a lower seed than Xavier's. There does appear to be a drop-off factor with the Committee, though, where small or singular differences in resumes can sometimes lead to big changes in how a team is viewed. For example, it seems like there is a big drop in perception from 9-9 to 8-10, despite the real difference being small. Or a 9-9 record and a sub-300 noncon SOS could be viewed drastically different from a 9-9 record and a top-50 noncon SOS with all other factors being equal. It would be a singular difference, but one the Committee cares a lot about.

I think the big thing as well is Arizona St has got to remain a top 50 win.

What I've seen recently- the committee has placed a HUGE emphasis on the OOC scheduling. I don't understand why folks here think that's really going to suddenly change.

Arizona State doesn't really have to remain a top 50 team. It would be nice, but the Committee watches ridiculous amounts of basketball, with two members covering each conference, and they report to each other weekly. They have a better idea of how ASU was at that point than just about anyone.

Well then that wouldn't be good. ASU wasn't a top 50 team or anywhere close at that point(looked and in KP they were 65 entering that game). On the reports that the committee gets- it only shows the ratings of each team current.

[XUFan09]

No, you're missing the point. Sure, they get regular reports with the numbers, but that is only a minor part of their analysis, and they know things like Kenpom are heavily weighted on preseason expectations early in the season. They actually know how good ASU was because they have Committee members who watch them play. When discussions of teams' wins and losses come up, these members can give specifics on the opponents with no need for numbers.

[stever20]

No, you're missing the point. Sure, they get regular reports with the numbers, but that is only a minor part of their analysis, and they know things like Kenpom are heavily weighted on preseason expectations early in the season. They actually know how good ASU was because they have Committee members who watch them play. When discussions of teams' wins and losses come up, these members can give specifics on the opponents with no need for numbers.

Arizona St had lost to Sacramento St just a few weeks before.

And the thing is, if Arizona St were to go 3-15 in Pac 12 play(totally not expecting that but just for discussions sake)-the game wouldn't be viewed as a good win at all. Just like the LSU win if LSU doesn't wake up won't help Marquette out at all whatsoever.

Sorry- but Marquette absolutely needs for Arizona St to hold up. And they need LSU to get their head out of their you know what.