3/12 Metrics

[RuffRuff]

ToolGood for you, man, checkin' those seed lines on the toilet. Multitasking!

 

[ctbro1999]

Baylor just slipped back into top 30 NET, so we have 6 quad 1 wins again.

Bumped us down to #31, so other teams lost a Q1 win (for now). lol

 

[Matt1010]

Based on eye test, talent, coaching, Vegas and tradition. Metrics are a tool, they're meant to be a tool, it's not gospel like metric geeks think

We're 4-2 against teams ranked above us in the very metrics you cite. Beating 3 out of 4 teams

Teams ranked ahead of us that we're better than and we'd be favored

Gonzaga
Marquette
Baylor

We beat those 3 teams

Then

GA
OR
VCU
MI
UCLA
Louisville
St Mary's
Clemson
IL

and others

Your metrics didn't have us winning in 2023, 2014 or 2011 either.

Act like you've been there before. UConn fans should understand this stuff more so than any other fanbase in the country

You clearly have zero understanding of how Vegas odds work.

 

[jpeakin]

Win a couple games in the BET and we’re a 7 seed lock it in. We will get a bump to protect the 1 seeds from having to play us in the 2nd round. It will have zero to do about preference for UConn or the BE vs not wanting to screw over the 1 seeds from the other conferences. No one will want to play us.

I like the way you think

 

[HuskyHawk]

UConn:
NET: 30; KenPom: 34; BPI: 17
22:9; 14-6 in the BE; Road/Neutral: 8-7
Quad 1: 5-5; Quad 2: 7-3; Quad 3: 4-1 Quad 4: 6-0

Missouri
NET: 20; KenPom: 20; BPI: 30
21-10; 10-8 in SEC: Road/Neutral: 3-8
Quad 1: 6-10; Quad 2: 3-0; Quad 3: 4-0; Quad 4: 8-0

BYU:
NET: 26; KenPom 24; BPI: 24
23-8; 14-6 in B12; Road/Neutral 8-6
Quad 1: 6-6; Quad 2: 7-2; Quad 3: 4-0; Quad 4: 6-0

Marquette:
NET: 25; KenPom: 26; BPI: 19
22-9; 13-7 in the BE; Road/Neutral: 8-6
Quad 1: 5-8; Quad 2: 7-1; Quad 3: 5-0; Quad 4: 5-0

Kansas:
NET: 18; KenPom: 21; BPI: 12
20-11; 11-9 in B12; Road/Neutal: 6-8
Quad 1: 6-10; Quad 2: 6-1; Quad 3: 5-0; Quad 4: 3-0

Memphis:
NET: 49: KenPom: 48; BPI: 42
26-5; 16-2 in American; Road/Neutral: 12-3
Quad 1: 6-1; Quad 2: 5-1; Quad 3: 9-3; Quad 4: 6-0

Miss St.
NET: 34; KenPom: 32; BPI: 37
20-11; 8-10 in SEC; Road/Neutral: 10-6
Quad 1: 7-9; Quad 2: 5-2; Quad 3: 2-0; Quad 4: 6-0

Gonzaga:
NET: 8; KenPom: 9; BPI: 9
25-8; 14-4 in WCC; Road/Neutral: 12-6
Quad 1: 4-6; Quad 2: 6-2; Quad 3: 5-0; Quad 4: 10-0

Creighton:
NET: 38; KenPom: 36; BPI: 25
22-9; 15-5 in BE; Road/Neutral: 7-6
Quad 1: 5-6; Quad 2: 6-3; Quad 3: 6-0; Quad 4: 5-0

New Mexico:
NET: 41; KenPom: 41; BPI: 47
24-6; 17-3 in MW: Road/Neutral: 9-5
Quad 1: 3-3; Quad 2: 8-1; Quad 3: 3-2; Quad 4: 10-0

Georgia:
NET: 31; KenPom: 33; BPI: 38
20-11; 8-10 in SEC: Road/Neutral: 5-8
Quad 1: 4-10; Quad 2: 5-1; Quad 3: 3-0; Quad 4: 8-0

West Virginia:
NET: 47; KenPom: 51; BPI: 48
19-12; 10-10 in B12: Road/Neutral: 6-8
Quad 1: 6-10; Quad 2: 4-2; Quad 3: 4-0; Quad 4: 5-0

This is why I hate some of the metrics.

Look at Mizzou. 6-10 in Q1 is worse than 5-5. We were better in Q2. Better road/neutral. That team is way overrated.

Marquette should be seeded below UConn based on this.

Memphis has decent numbers. Might be underrated.

Miss State has better numbers than Mizzou.

Georgia flat out stinks and shouldn't get in. WVU should be a bubble team.

 

[NJHusky]

This is why I hate some of the metrics.

Look at Mizzou. 6-10 in Q1 is worse than 5-5. We were better in Q2. Better road/neutral. That team is way overrated.

Marquette should be seeded below UConn based on this.

Memphis has decent numbers. Might be underrated.

Miss State has better numbers than Mizzou.

Georgia flat out stinks and shouldn't get in. WVU should be a bubble team.

I get it but GA lost to exactly 1 unranked team…Arkansas. How many losses do we have to unranked teams??

 

[Dutch Boyd]

If we win tonight - we are off the 8 line. That’s crazy. I dont care what the metrics or Lunardi think. No way in this down year there are 30 teams better than us. Actually, I think we got off the 8 line after the Marquette win last week. Tonight will solidify it. I think with every game we win this weekend we move up a seed line. 8,7,6 etc

Hope so

 

[ctbro1999]

Gonna be crazy to see a team that went 6-12 in league play (Oklahoma) make the NCAAT.

 

[JB75]

I mean, maybe there’s a chance that the committee doesn’t look soley at “the numbers” and the following factors/intangibles:
-back to back champs (slight credit for that?)
-no mcneeley for a month and those close losses?
-won’t penalize a 1 seed in second round by having to face us (especially the darling dookies)
-seton hall first game débâcle (otherwise we’d be a 6 seed right now )
- coming in hot on a 5-6 game win streak
**** does all this “buy” us 1 seed line higher? Maybe

 

[RuffRuff]

Gonna be crazy to see a team that went 6-12 in league play (Oklahoma) make the NCAAT.

OU 12 losses below
(9)
@ 2 Florida
@1 Auburn
@21 Missouri
4 Tennessee
@ 13 Texas A&M
@ 5 Alabama
17 Kentucky
10 Texas A&M
@Ole Miss

How many of their losses would we win? Before we flex, let's realize our only wins against a ranked team this year is Marquette (and they are debateable).

(3)
@Georgia - not terrible
Texas - bad loss
LSU - awful loss (we had two as bad)

Their less than stellar losses, 2 of which are potentially tourney teams.

Then they have wins against:
Arizona
Louisville
Michigan
Arkansas
Vandy
Miss St
Missouri

You can throw shade at the overall record, but when you have to play nothing but top 10-20 teams all year, it's a lot harder to win. Meanwhile, you beat top teams in other conferences (ACC 2nd place, B10 2nd place, B12 3rd place).

If only we had OOC wins that good.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I get it but GA lost to exactly 1 unranked team…Arkansas. How many losses do we have to unranked teams??

Who cares. They played a lot of good teams and lost to almost all of them. That doesn't impress me. At the end of the day you have to win more than you lose against those teams to get my respect. If you're under .500 against quad 1-2, you aren't that good.

 

[ctbro1999]

OU 12 losses below
(9)
@ 2 Florida
@1 Auburn
@21 Missouri
4 Tennessee
@ 13 Texas A&M
@ 5 Alabama
17 Kentucky
10 Texas A&M
@Ole Miss

How many of their losses would we win? Before we flex, let's realize our only wins against a ranked team this year is Marquette (and they are debateable).

(3)
@Georgia - not terrible
Texas - bad loss
LSU - awful loss (we had two as bad)

Their less than stellar losses, 2 of which are potentially tourney teams.

Then they have wins against:
Arizona
Louisville
Michigan
Arkansas
Vandy
Miss St
Missouri

You can throw shade at the overall record, but when you have to play nothing but top 10-20 teams all year, it's a lot harder to win. Meanwhile, you beat top teams in other conferences (ACC 2nd place, B10 2nd place, B12 3rd place).

If only we had OOC wins that good.

Ohio State is an even more interesting case. 6 Q1 wins (3 Q1A), no "bad" losses (worst lost to NET #62 Pitt), 11 Q1 L's (7 Q1A). But they are only 17-15, and no team finishing only 2 games over .500 has ever gained an at-large berth. Also 9-11 in conference FWIW.

 

[RuffRuff]

Who cares. They played a lot of good teams and lost to almost all of them. That doesn't impress me. At the end of the day you have to win more than you lose against those teams to get my respect. If you're under .500 against quad 1-2, you aren't that good.

Florida & St Johns wins, not so shabby.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Florida & St Johns wins, not so shabby.

I'm a contrarian in some ways. I don't care about bad losses vs good losses. There are just losses. If I did a deep dive, I do care about the margin of those losses. If you lose by double digits on too many occasions, you stink. Winning percentage in challenging games and margin in those games. That's what I care about.

The ability to beat St. Johns by 3 means nothing if you lose to:
Marquette by 11
Ole Miss by 12
Tennessee by 18
Florida by 30
A&M by 13
Missouri by 13
Auburn by 12
OU by 6 (yesterday)

That is not a good basketball team. That's a team that can get hot a beat a good team when they have a bad day.

Marquette has two double digit losses. @ Iowa State and @ Villanova
UConn also has two. Our stinker vs Dayton and @ St. Johns.

 

[JohnFSilver]

What do y think our record would be in SEC this year??

UConn q3 loss isn’t helping

Be around The same. Talent wins out. UConn has better talent than those sec teams imo. I think they are 5th, 6th in sec this year.

 

[NJHusky]

Be around The same. Talent wins out. UConn has better talent than those sec teams imo. I think they are 5th, 6th in sec this year.

Georgia lost to 1 unranked team….Arkansas

Mizzou beat Ku ( when 1), Ala and Fla.

And they are 9 & 6 in SEC.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Georgia lost to 1 unranked team….Arkansas

Mizzou beat Ku ( when 1), Ala and Fla.

And they are 9 & 6 in SEC.

"Ranked" is irrelevant. Many "ranked" teams are later not ranked. Utterly unimportant. They got blown out 7 times. There's too much weight on OOC that carries forward far too long. Once your league does well, then all your losses and wins are "good". If your league (the ACC) craps the bed in OOC then all your losses and wins are "bad". The reality is that teams evolve a lot and OOC is a measuring stick that happens way to early. I'm pretty confident that SMU is better than Georgia.

 

[bendm]

Texas over A&M in double OT continuing a great week for our resume so far. Colorado with 2 wins. Baylor going for their second win tonight. Gonzaga winning the WCC by beating St Mary’s.

 

[NJHusky]

I'm a contrarian in some ways. I don't care about bad losses vs good losses. There are just losses.

So a loss to St John’s is equal to a loss to seton hall??? In what world?

 

[JohnFSilver]

So a loss to St John’s is equal to a loss to seton hall??? In what world?

I think the bad loss thing is splitting hairs. Like, if you are on bubble and a team doesn’t have any horrible losses, and you do, and they have a better schedule, and the eye test says about even. I give it to the team with better schedule.

When you factor in the McNeeley injury, and some abnormally weird games and circumstances, I think you give more validity to the eye test.

You get more chances when you have a tough schedule, but you can’t reward a team for losing games. They have to have shown an ability to win games as well. 6-10 in quad 1, meh. I think that’s an 8/9 seed.

The fact that there are bracketoligists is dumb. And, the formulas need to be tweaked with these super leagues. If the SEC didn’t dominate the ACC in that challenge, the. Are they as great as everyone thinks? Kentucky beat Duke for crying out loud.

I think it is an incredibly deep league. They deserve a ton of teams. It what does eye test tell you? I don’t find the teams outside of the top 4 especially incredible.

 

[businesslawyer]

"Ranked" is irrelevant. Many "ranked" teams are later not ranked. Utterly unimportant. They got blown out 7 times. There's too much weight on OOC that carries forward far too long. Once your league does well, then all your losses and wins are "good". If your league (the ACC) craps the bed in OOC then all your losses and wins are "bad". The reality is that teams evolve a lot and OOC is a measuring stick that happens way to early. I'm pretty confident that SMU is better than Georgia.

Absolutely true that OOC results in November don’t necessarily correlate to how good teams are in February. But as there is no objective way to measure whether conferences as a whole have been improving more or less than the average, the question becomes how much you want to empower subjective eye tests of the committee rather than data.

 

[navery12]

Baylor drops 1 spot so that win is now a Q2 win. Need to root for Purdue to beat Michigan today and drop back below Baylor

 

[HuskyHawk]

So a loss to St John’s is equal to a loss to seton hall??? In what world?

If you just have one, yes that matters. But a team with lots of losses to good teams isn't showing me anything. You don't get a pass for that. Especially when the measure of how "good" those teams are (in the case of the SEC this year) is inflated by some strong OOC play.

To @businesslawyer's valid point, I understand they have to try to be objective. But if you're really picking a bracket, I think all of us long time basketball watchers know that sometimes teams are more or less than they seem. Injuries, problems that have since been fixed (like 2022-23 UConn) or a style of play/matchup situation. Were all your losses by 2-4 points? Or did you, like Georgia, get blown out regularly.

 

[upstater]

Looking at ESPN's BPI, UConn is 11-6 against the top 50, ranked #15, and also 4-2 against the top 20.

Despite some rumblings about the schedule this year (further exacerbated by the Maui flameout), the fact is that UConn played 17 games against the top 50 of the BPI. That's a good schedule.

 

[7774]

If you just have one, yes that matters. But a team with lots of losses to good teams isn't showing me anything. You don't get a pass for that. Especially when the measure of how "good" those teams are (in the case of the SEC this year) is inflated by some strong OOC play.

To @businesslawyer's valid point, I understand they have to try to be objective. But if you're really picking a bracket, I think all of us long time basketball watchers know that sometimes teams are more or less than they seem. Injuries, problems that have since been fixed (like 2022-23 UConn) or a style of play/matchup situation. Were all your losses by 2-4 points? Or did you, like Georgia, get blown out regularly.

You've spent years claiming Samson could/should be shooting 3s. One time last year you even said you thought Hurley was holding him back from shooting 3s, and was going to unleash him on teams later in the season. We should just probably go with the metrics over your brain. And that goes for the rest of the morons here who believe their "eye test" is better.