(3) Wed. Big East Games 2/1/17

[Bill Marsh]

well, the number the committee is seeing is 270, so that's really end of the day all that matters for this year.

Stever, the truth is that it doesn't matter at all for a team from a power conference like the Big East. The only thing that will matter for Marquette or any other Big East team is overall SOS. And that's all that should matter.

The only time it matters is in evaluating a team from a weaker conference. If a team blows through the MAAC, for example, and the committee wants to look beyond their conference records, they'll ask who else did you play? Such a team that scheduled a strong OOC schedule and did well against it will be viewed favorably because it demonstrated that it did all it could to challenge itself within the limits of what it has control over. In contrast, a team that didn't challenge itself OOC will be viewed unfavorably regardless of how it did OOC because it never challenged itself. It's those latter teams with high RPI but weak OOC SOS that get passed over despite the high RPI.

[stever20]

well, the number the committee is seeing is 270, so that's really end of the day all that matters for this year.

Stever, the truth is that it doesn't matter at all for a team from a power conference like the Big East. The only thing that will matter for Marquette or any other Big East team is overall SOS. And that's all that should matter.

The only time it matters is in evaluating a team from a weaker conference. If a team blows through the MAAC, for example, and the committee wants to look beyond their conference records, they'll ask who else did you play? Such a team that scheduled a strong OOC schedule and did well against it will be viewed favorably because it demonstrated that it did all it could to challenge itself within the limits of what it has control over. In contrast, a team that didn't challenge itself OOC will be viewed unfavorably regardless of how it did OOC because it never challenged itself. It's those latter teams with high RPI but weak OOC SOS that get passed over despite the high RPI.

We've seen teams from power conferences who didn't play a good SOS OOC get penalized when they're close.

Look at 2013-14 St John's They finished 20-12 with #51 SOS. #140 OOC SOS though, and they got bumped as a result.

or look back at 2006-07 Syracuse. They finished 22-10 with #46 SOS. #122 OOC SOS though, and they didn't make the tourney.

To act like it's meaningless is a joke. Like I've said, Marquette would be extremely wise to not leave it in the hands of the committee.

[REDMEN1415]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XyZwwUm4t4

[Bill Marsh]

well, the number the committee is seeing is 270, so that's really end of the day all that matters for this year.

Stever, the truth is that it doesn't matter at all for a team from a power conference like the Big East. The only thing that will matter for Marquette or any other Big East team is overall SOS. And that's all that should matter.

The only time it matters is in evaluating a team from a weaker conference. If a team blows through the MAAC, for example, and the committee wants to look beyond their conference records, they'll ask who else did you play? Such a team that scheduled a strong OOC schedule and did well against it will be viewed favorably because it demonstrated that it did all it could to challenge itself within the limits of what it has control over. In contrast, a team that didn't challenge itself OOC will be viewed unfavorably regardless of how it did OOC because it never challenged itself. It's those latter teams with high RPI but weak OOC SOS that get passed over despite the high RPI.

We've seen teams from power conferences who didn't play a good SOS OOC get penalized when they're close.

Look at 2013-14 St John's They finished 20-12 with #51 SOS. #140 OOC SOS though, and they got bumped as a result.

or look back at 2006-07 Syracuse. They finished 22-10 with #46 SOS. #122 OOC SOS though, and they didn't make the tourney.

To act like it's meaningless is a joke. Like I've said, Marquette would be extremely wise to not leave it in the hands of the committee.

As a result? As a result? You're making a connection where none exists. That's the joke because It's not why either of those teams were bumped.

St John's and Syracuse were both bumped because of bad losses. In St John's case, they had the added problem of the #82 RPI ro losses to Penn State OOC and to DePaul in conference. They were never close to a bid. Syracuse lost to Wichita State OOC and to St John's in conference. To begin with, they were a borderline 46 RPI at a time when there were only 34 at-large bids before the tournament had been expanded.

Obviously a weak OOC increases the potential for bad losses just as a weak in conference does for teams in weaker conferences. But this year's Marquette team didn't stumble in that OOC schedule. Two of their losses came to teams that Sagarin has ranked in the top 30 - #10 Wisconsin and #30 Michigan. Of the 3 teams that Sagarin has ranked 53-61, Marquette was 2-1, beating #53 Georgia and #57 Vandy while losing to #61 Pitt. Picking up wins over 2 teams just outside the top 50 - bubble type teams - enhances their resume while the Pitt loss doesn't hurt.

[ecasadoSBU]

Steve, may I ask why are you using out-of-conference SOS?

It's well known that most major conference teams schedule lightly in the early half of the non-conference season as they will face tougher competition in the conference match-ups... So why are you using OOC SOS and not SOS overall (including Big East opponents)?

To me it doesn't make sense...

Right now Warren Nolan has Marquette as SOS#55 (which is great. In the top 14% of all Division I) yet you want to use OOC SOS?

[hoyahooligan]

I actually agree with Stever, major conference teams with weak OOC schedules get dinged by the comittee every year. The committee wants to see teams test temselves OOC. If you don't have a good OOC SOS you can get burned. Overall SOS is always going to be high for high majors so isn't as big of a factor because it unfairly punishes midmajors who are stuck in their conferences.

[Bill Marsh]

I actually agree with Stever, major conference teams with weak OOC schedules get dinged by the comittee every year. The committee wants to see teams test temselves OOC. If you don't have a good OOC SOS you can get burned. Overall SOS is always going to be high for high majors so isn't as big of a factor because it unfairly punishes midmajors who are stuck in their conferences.

The charge to the committee isn't to punish anyone. It's to get the best field they can, specifically the best 36 at-large teams they can find. They are looking for evidence to help them determine who those 36 teams are who can best compete against the other top teams assembled in the tournament.

They have plenty of evidence on the teams from the top conferences regardless of their OOC schedules. But a team that goes 28-3 via weak conference and OOC schedule doesn't give them a lot to work with. Teams from 2nd and 3rd tier conferences who schedule competitively OOC give them a lot more to go on.

I know that there are teams who complain every year. There always will be when you draw a line somewhere. But do you have any examples of teams who truly got dinged just because of their OOC schedule when they truly deserved to be in?

[hoyahooligan]

I actually agree with Stever, major conference teams with weak OOC schedules get dinged by the comittee every year. The committee wants to see teams test temselves OOC. If you don't have a good OOC SOS you can get burned. Overall SOS is always going to be high for high majors so isn't as big of a factor because it unfairly punishes midmajors who are stuck in their conferences.

The charge to the committee isn't to punish anyone. It's to get the best field they can, specifically the best 36 at-large teams they can find. They are looking for evidence to help them determine who those 36 teams are who can best compete against the other top teams assembled in the tournament.

They have plenty of evidence on the teams from the top conferences regardless of their OOC schedules. But a team that goes 28-3 via weak conference and OOC schedule doesn't give them a lot to work with. Teams from 2nd and 3rd tier conferences who schedule competitively OOC give them a lot more to go on.

I know that there are teams who complain every year. There always will be when you draw a line somewhere. But do you have any examples of teams who truly got dinged just because of their OOC schedule when they truly deserved to be in?

I just know anecdoteally during the selection show they've repeatedly said such and such team didn't get in because of their poor OOC schedule. Now I doubt that stands up to empirical testing.

Went to Kenpom and looked at teams that had kenpom's higher than the last at large team

2016: St. Mary's 27-5 Kenpom 34 OOC SOS 203 total SOS 136; Florida 19-14 Kenpom 35 OOC sos 4 total SOS 25; Creighton 18-14 kenpom 40 OOC SOS 229 total SOS 68; Valpraiso 26-6 Kenpom 42 OOC 76 total 135; Clemson 17-14 Kenpom 45 OOC 305 total 63; San Diego St 25-9 Kenpom 47 OOC 9 total 87; Florida St 19-13 Kenpom 48 OOC 173 total 31; GT 19-14 Kenpom 51 OOC 90 total 13; GW 23-10 Kenpom 52 OOC 174 total 90; BYU 23-10 Kenpom 53 OOC 89 total 114; South Carolina 24-8 Kenpom 58 OOC 184 total 77; Houston 22-9 Kenpom 61 OOC 333 total 117; VT 19-14 kenpom 63 OOC 314 total 28; Washington 18-14 Kenpom 66 OOC 97 total 48.

So there are exceptions like Florida and San Diego St, but of the 14 bubble teams 8 had OOC SOS worse than 100 and 2 others were in the 90s.

Now look at those last few bubble teams who made it:

Tulsa: 80; Oregon St 78; Dayton 23; Colorado 171; Texas Tech 50; Michigan 154; USC 107; Pitt 244; Cinci 133; VCU 61; Vanderbilt 26; Syracuse 100; Wichita St 10

So out of 13 half (6) had bad OOC SOS. So no a bad OOC SOS won't on it's own keep you out and a good one won't put you in, but it probably isn't a good thing. Now these are Kenpom SOS so maybe the RPI SOS are different but I'm not going to bother looking that up. Definitely anecdotal evidence but they have stated it in the past on selection sunday that OOC SOS hurt such and such team, but the point is there are no hard and fast rules or cut offs.

[XUFan09]

Two things that Stever is right about:

1) Non-conference SOS does matter and major conference teams don't get a pass on that. A team doesn't necessarily need to have a top 50 non-conference SOS, but having one of the weaker non-conference schedules in all of D1 is a serious blemish on a tournament resume. It could prove to be the difference if Marquette ends up on the bubble.

2) 18 wins is a very likely outcome for Marquette. In fact, 18 or 19 wins are by far the most likely outcomes for Sagarin, each with a 27% chance of occurring. Kenpom projects 18 wins as most likely, with just looking at individual game probabilities, it's clear than 19 is just about as likely. Then, 17 and 20 wins are about equally likely after that (18% and 16%, respectively), and any other outcome is really unlikely.

Now, I don't share Stever's level of pessimism about all of this. It may seem arbitrary, but Marquette likely needs to get 19 wins (or better, obviously) rather than 18 wins in order to have a reasonable shot. Still, that is a very likely outcome and if they hit 20, they're probably good. Just don't go on the road and lose to DePaul.

[Bill Marsh]

I actually agree with Stever, major conference teams with weak OOC schedules get dinged by the comittee every year. The committee wants to see teams test temselves OOC. If you don't have a good OOC SOS you can get burned. Overall SOS is always going to be high for high majors so isn't as big of a factor because it unfairly punishes midmajors who are stuck in their conferences.

The charge to the committee isn't to punish anyone. It's to get the best field they can, specifically the best 36 at-large teams they can find. They are looking for evidence to help them determine who those 36 teams are who can best compete against the other top teams assembled in the tournament.

They have plenty of evidence on the teams from the top conferences regardless of their OOC schedules. But a team that goes 28-3 via weak conference and OOC schedule doesn't give them a lot to work with. Teams from 2nd and 3rd tier conferences who schedule competitively OOC give them a lot more to go on.

I know that there are teams who complain every year. There always will be when you draw a line somewhere. But do you have any examples of teams who truly got dinged just because of their OOC schedule when they truly deserved to be in?

I just know anecdoteally during the selection show they've repeatedly said such and such team didn't get in because of their poor OOC schedule. Now I doubt that stands up to empirical testing.

Went to Kenpom and looked at teams that had kenpom's higher than the last at large team

2016: St. Mary's 27-5 Kenpom 34 OOC SOS 203 total SOS 136; Florida 19-14 Kenpom 35 OOC sos 4 total SOS 25; Creighton 18-14 kenpom 40 OOC SOS 229 total SOS 68; Valpraiso 26-6 Kenpom 42 OOC 76 total 135; Clemson 17-14 Kenpom 45 OOC 305 total 63; San Diego St 25-9 Kenpom 47 OOC 9 total 87; Florida St 19-13 Kenpom 48 OOC 173 total 31; GT 19-14 Kenpom 51 OOC 90 total 13; GW 23-10 Kenpom 52 OOC 174 total 90; BYU 23-10 Kenpom 53 OOC 89 total 114; South Carolina 24-8 Kenpom 58 OOC 184 total 77; Houston 22-9 Kenpom 61 OOC 333 total 117; VT 19-14 kenpom 63 OOC 314 total 28; Washington 18-14 Kenpom 66 OOC 97 total 48.

So there are exceptions like Florida and San Diego St, but of the 14 bubble teams 8 had OOC SOS worse than 100 and 2 others were in the 90s.

Now look at those last few bubble teams who made it:

Tulsa: 80; Oregon St 78; Dayton 23; Colorado 171; Texas Tech 50; Michigan 154; USC 107; Pitt 244; Cinci 133; VCU 61; Vanderbilt 26; Syracuse 100; Wichita St 10

So out of 13 half (6) had bad OOC SOS. So no a bad OOC SOS won't on it's own keep you out and a good one won't put you in, but it probably isn't a good thing. Now these are Kenpom SOS so maybe the RPI SOS are different but I'm not going to bother looking that up. Definitely anecdotal evidence but they have stated it in the past on selection sunday that OOC SOS hurt such and such team, but the point is there are no hard and fast rules or cut offs.

That's a lot of research! Very impressive.

I think the committee looks beyond simply strong or weak OOC. First, did they suffer bad losses? Playing a weak OOC exposes team to being shown up by a lesser opponent.

Second, did the weak OOC schedule deprive the team of opportunities for good wins. The fewer top opponents a team plays, the fewer chances to strengthen their resume with good wins.

Third, a weak OOC will drag down the overall SOS unless a team is in a really elite conference like the Big East.

Specifically with regard to the case of Marquette, half of their OOC games were in the top 100 or just outside it. That gave them the opportunity to pick up some good wins, which they did. The other half of their OOC schedule was really weak. A loss to one of those teams could be a bid killer for a bubble team. But they didn't lose to any of those. No harm, no foul.. The double round robin in the Big East is so strong that OOC didn't hurt their overall SOS. I don't see the problem.