Bracketology '17

[Bill Marsh]

Put another way, if you were ranking those teams in the order that you would want to play them to advance, I would want Minny first, Maryland second, then Wisconsin the team I'd least want my team to play. And that's the opposite order of their seeding.

I am going to do a 360 and actually think the committee did our conference a huge favor. Xavier gets very beatable #6 seed, Butler's 2nd round opponent stinks, and it matters little who gets fed to Nova in the 2nd round.

I have one more where the committee did the Big East a solid - probably without even knowing it.

The unfortunate torn ACL for Oregon's Chris Boucher opens up a path for Creighton to the Sweet 16. This is a terrible break for a good kid with a challenging history, whose story was featured in SI several months ago. Boucher was the Ducks' leading shot blocker, #2 rebounder, and #3 scorer, a 6-10 forward who could step outside and pop 3's as well as blocking shots and shooting 63% on 2's. He will definitely be missed. His absence makes this a winnable game for the Jays and one they should now be favored in.

[GumbyDamnit!]

I guess my biggest gripe with looking at OOC SOS as part of a RPI # is that numbers can get easily skewed by outlier type games. When MN plays a team with an RPI of 200, it is so much better than UW playing a team with an RPI of 300. On the court they are both cupcakes. You can't tell me that MD challenged itself more OOC when it stayed on its home court for its toughest 5 games and UW went out and played tough teams in tough places. Those games are all but negated by whether MD played teams in the high 100 & 200's and UW sprinkled in a few games in the 300's. I still contend they challenged themselves more than MD did. And UW performed better than both MD and MN in conference and the BTT. And yet the committee sees them as 9/12 spots worse than MN and 5/8 worse than MD. If that is mostly because UW played one or two more games vs the teams in the 300's then it was a disservice to UW, VT and Nova.

But should you get rewarded by just scheduling those tough road/neutral games?

Also a few sub 300 games would be 2 or 3. 5 of them is 38% of the OOC schedule. You know when you schedule Central Arkansas, Chicago St, Prairie View, Idaho St, and Florida A&M that you are getting dregs.

I think part of your problem with it is the name of the team. It's because of Wisconsin's reputation. If the names were switched, I don't think you would have had anywhere near the problem with the matchups.

What I think you are missing is that when MN schedules teams like Mt St Mary's and GA Southern at home (both in the mid 100's; won both by 25+ points) is that any different than the teams in the 300's? None of those games are ever in doubt for a good P6 team. But the RPI impact is significant. So you end up getting a deflated view of the quality of one team an inflated one of another even though both games are basically cupcake games. It's not unlike when the MWC took advantage of the RPI system to land multiple teams in the tourney a few years back. Every team has 5/6 quality OOC games; the rest are mostly garbage with the result never in doubt. MN played 1 Top 100 team on the road and 1 on a neutral court and 2 others at home. EVERY other OOC was at home where they were favored. To put it in perspective Nova played 4 Top 100 teams on the road or on neutral courts. They played another 2 at home and then went on the road 3 more times OOC. Yet the #s say that MN had a better OOC SOS than Nova. Go back and look at who and where each team played and tell me with a straight face that you believe MN had a more challenging OOC than Nova.

UW, like MN also faced 4 Top 100 teams OOC but only 1 was at home. Another game they played was vs a team right outside the top 100 on a neutral court. Again, a more challenging OOC schedule IMO. But it seems there are ways to manipulate the #s and it seems that MN did just that this year OOC.

And yes the name does matter. UW is an experienced tourney team and Minny is not and MD has a bunch of inexperienced freshmen. If you don't think that matters then you haven't been watching college hoops in March.

[stever20]

I look at the way the NCAA calculates their SOS as a total joke- because they look at just win loss record. NCAA thinks Wichita St at 29-4 is better than Kansas at 28-4. Ignorant.

looking at Nova vs Minnesota-
NCAA way- #60 vs 29
way normally accounted where opponents record is 2/3 and opponents opponents record is 1/3- 41 vs 27

you take into account all games-
NCAA way- 26 vs 21
normal way- 25 vs 23

when it's that close, I just think of them as equal....

Nova- 4 top 50 OOC games, 6 top 100 games, 8 top 150 games, 5 sub 150 games.
Min- 4 top 50 OOC games, 4 top 100 games, 10 top 150 games, 3 sub 150 games.

Wisconsin's problem is that they had 2 top 50 games, and they lost them both OOC. And a lot of what Wisconsin was counting on preseason OOC totally fell apart. End of the day- THAT's the story I feel.

[GumbyDamnit!]

I look at the way the NCAA calculates their SOS as a total joke- because they look at just win loss record. NCAA thinks Wichita St at 29-4 is better than Kansas at 28-4. Ignorant.

looking at Nova vs Minnesota-
NCAA way- #60 vs 29
way normally accounted where opponents record is 2/3 and opponents opponents record is 1/3- 41 vs 27

you take into account all games-
NCAA way- 26 vs 21
normal way- 25 vs 23

when it's that close, I just think of them as equal....

Nova- 4 top 50 OOC games, 6 top 100 games, 8 top 150 games, 5 sub 150 games.
Min- 4 top 50 OOC games, 4 top 100 games, 10 top 150 games, 3 sub 150 games.

Wisconsin's problem is that they had 2 top 50 games, and they lost them both OOC. And a lot of what Wisconsin was counting on preseason OOC totally fell apart. End of the day- THAT's the story I feel.

I think you want to agree with me but for the sake of debate simply will not. You are not even mentioning where these games are being played. I brought up Nova to make a point. You can debate if MN and UW had a more challenging OOC, but you can't debate if MN had a better OOC schedule than Nova. Yet the data you are pushing makes that very clear. We both know that's simply not the case.

OOC:

Nova - 18(H), @20, 23(n), 58(H), 70(n); @135; 174(n); @197
MN - @13, 25(H); 38(n); 45(H); no other OOC games away from home; 6 home games vs team ranked between 120-149 (avg margin of victory = 16 pts.)
UW - 5(n); @26; @61; 83(n); 84(H)

Honestly do you really think MN was challenged more OOC? The #'s you are citing do. But do you Stever as a college hoops fan REALLY believe that MN had a more difficult OOC than Nova or even UW? Answer that honestly and then tell me that the OOC SOS metric, as currently constructed, is a valid indicator of how a team challenged itself OOC. I just don't see it. But we've beaten this horse dead enough... You can respond with more senseless unrelated data if you wish.

And for the record name me the teams outside the top 10 who have any chance of beating UNC on a neutral floor and Creighton (w/ Watson) in Omaha. So why penalize them for that? Do you think beating Arkansas and UT Arlington at home as your signature wins is a big accomplishment?

[stever20]

here's the thing though. Why should Wisconsin get credit for just scheduling games? Minnesota beat 2 teams better than Wisconsin did OOC, with 1 of them neutral.

When you combine with their conference play-
vs top 50 teams..... road neutral.
Wisconsin 1-6
Minnesota 4-4

That's a pretty huge difference, wouldn't you say? That metric to me is just huge. vs the top 50 teams away from home.

And yes, I do feel like scheduling 5 of the worst 50 teams like Wisconsin did deserves getting punished. And yes, there is a difference between playing a 140 team and playing a 340 team.

You still want to reward Wisconsin for scheduling Oklahoma, even though Oklahoma was 11-20. Sorry, I don't. The intent is fine, but reality is Oklahoma wasn't a good team this year, and Wisconsin should be given credit for playing a bad team. Minnesota deserves more credit for beating St John's than Wisconsin does beating Oklahoma.

[kayako]

The unfortunate torn ACL for Oregon's Chris Boucher opens up a path for Creighton to the Sweet 16. This is a terrible break for a good kid with a challenging history, whose story was featured in SI several months ago. Boucher was the Ducks' leading shot blocker, #2 rebounder, and #3 scorer, a 6-10 forward who could step outside and pop 3's as well as blocking shots and shooting 63% on 2's. He will definitely be missed. His absence makes this a winnable game for the Jays and one they should now be favored in.

I was just thinking of how the illogical B1G ranking affects our teams, but yeah Oregon may not even make it to the 2nd round. Do you think Boucher's absence hurts Oregon more than Watson's absence? Both teams still have talented players, but man, Creighton's a toothless tiger without Watson.

[GumbyDamnit!]

Just some

here's the thing though. Why should Wisconsin get credit for just scheduling games? Minnesota beat 2 teams better than Wisconsin did OOC, with 1 of them neutral.

When you combine with their conference play-
vs top 50 teams..... road neutral.
Wisconsin 1-6
Minnesota 4-4

That's a pretty huge difference, wouldn't you say? That metric to me is just huge. vs the top 50 teams away from home.

UW's record on the road/neutral vs the Top 50 is 2-5, not 1-6. Their record vs the Top 100 is 7-7. MN is 4-4 vs Top 50 and 6-5 vs Top 100. So UW played 3 more games away vs the Top 100 and still finished with a better record than MN. And I'm not even arguing that UW should be the 5 seed and MN the 8. I think they are both probably 6/7's. It's just that UW is way underseeded and MN way overseeded which is my point.

Comment on the following (if you don't mind)...

Pomeroy Rank:
UW - 23
MN - 33
MD - 45
Is that a good metric in looking at seeding in your opinion? Why? Why not?

BPI:
UW - 21
MN - 40
MD - 50
Is it an acceptable metric? If not, why? BPI takes things like major injuries into account. Shouldn't Nova's win at Creighton with a healthy Watson count for more than Xavier's when Watson was out?

[Bill Marsh]

The unfortunate torn ACL for Oregon's Chris Boucher opens up a path for Creighton to the Sweet 16. This is a terrible break for a good kid with a challenging history, whose story was featured in SI several months ago. Boucher was the Ducks' leading shot blocker, #2 rebounder, and #3 scorer, a 6-10 forward who could step outside and pop 3's as well as blocking shots and shooting 63% on 2's. He will definitely be missed. His absence makes this a winnable game for the Jays and one they should now be favored in.

I was just thinking of how the illogical B1G ranking affects our teams, but yeah Oregon may not even make it to the 2nd round. Do you think Boucher's absence hurts Oregon more than Watson's absence? Both teams still have talented players, but man, Creighton's a toothless tiger without Watson.

TBH, I expected Creighton to fall apart after they lost Watson. In fact, they struggled for a few games and then righted the ship. Except for their 2 losses to Villanova, their 4 losses in the 2nd half of the Big East season were by an average of 4.5 points. They just finished runner up in the Big East tournament. I think they're looking good going into the NCAA tournament.

Creighton was lost at first without Watson, getting blown out first by Marquette by 18 and then by 20 by Georgetown. Boucher is very iimportant to what Oregon does, especially on defense and especially with the way he could run the floor. Not as important as Watson was to Creighton, but important. I expect to see Oregon also go through an adjustment playing without him. The problem is that there is no time to make that adjustment.

Sagarin's predictive power ratings project Oregon as a 3 point favorite over Creighton. Would Boucher's presence be worth 3-5 points? His 2-3 blocks per game alone are worth that much. They may be able to replace his points and rebounds but I don't know how they replace his defense.

[BEXU]

https://twitter.com/BIGEASTMBB/status/8 ... 0404500480

[stever20]

Just some

here's the thing though. Why should Wisconsin get credit for just scheduling games? Minnesota beat 2 teams better than Wisconsin did OOC, with 1 of them neutral.

When you combine with their conference play-
vs top 50 teams..... road neutral.
Wisconsin 1-6
Minnesota 4-4

That's a pretty huge difference, wouldn't you say? That metric to me is just huge. vs the top 50 teams away from home.

UW's record on the road/neutral vs the Top 50 is 2-5, not 1-6. Their record vs the Top 100 is 7-7. MN is 4-4 vs Top 50 and 6-5 vs Top 100. So UW played 3 more games away vs the Top 100 and still finished with a better record than MN. And I'm not even arguing that UW should be the 5 seed and MN the 8. I think they are both probably 6/7's. It's just that UW is way underseeded and MN way overseeded which is my point.

Comment on the following (if you don't mind)...

Pomeroy Rank:
UW - 23
MN - 33
MD - 45
Is that a good metric in looking at seeding in your opinion? Why? Why not?

BPI:
UW - 21
MN - 40
MD - 50
Is it an acceptable metric? If not, why? BPI takes things like major injuries into account. Shouldn't Nova's win at Creighton with a healthy Watson count for more than Xavier's when Watson was out?

Wisconsin was 1-4 away vs top 50- win @ Minnesota, but losses at Purdue, Michigan, Creighton, and Michigan St. Then 0-2 neutral vs top 50- losses to UNC and Michigan. so that's 1-6.
Minnesota was 2-3 away vs top 50- wins @ Purdue and Maryland, but losses at Florida St, Wisconsin, and Michigan. St. Then 2-1 neutral vs top 50- wins over Vandy and Mich St, loss to Michigan. That's 4-4

That's a pretty significant difference there.

Only Louisville, Oregon, Cincy, SMU, St Mary's, VCU(with 0), UNCW(with 0), Nevada(with 0), Dayton, Wichita St, Illinois St(with 0), Mid Tennessee, Wake Forest, USC(with 0), Miami, South Carolina(with 0), UT Arlington, Vermont(with 0), Princeton(with 0), and Monmouth(with 0) had 0 or 1 road/neutral wins vs top 50 teams besides Wisconsin. Meanwhile- Minnesota with 4 was topped by only 7 teams and matched by only 5 teams.

Ken Pom is a good metric- but still end of the day, who you beat and where you beat them means a lot. Wisconsin only has 3 wins away from home vs NCAA either top 60 auto or at large teams. Minnesota has 5.

To your point about the seeds. Wisconsin was the top 8 seed, so within 1 slot of going to a 7 seed. Minnesota was the 3rd 5 seed, so within 2 slots of going to a 6 seed. To me, the tourney needs to go fast to a straight S-Curve, where the top 8 seed would not see the top 1 seed.