Bracketology and SEC 7-9ers

[DobbsRover2]

I have no clue as to what Charlie Creme will cook up for tomorrow's bracketology, but now one troublesome fact is staring him squat in the face as he tries to put together something that the BY will not rip him apart on Monday morn. Last update many days back, he projected 8 SEC teams in the NCAA tourney. Let's face it, the SEC is not very good this year and their teams are more adept at TOs than FGs, but still, as of last week, they warranted 8 teams among Cheerful Charlie's picks in the tourney.

The problem is, only 4 of them ended up with winning conference record, plus Florida stumbled to an 8-8, which does guarantee them an NCAA selection. But there are five SEC teams with losing conference records, some of whom had atrocious OOC schedules, and Creme must now mull over the issue of whether Georgia, Vanderbilt, LSU, Auburn or Alabama who are the SEC 7-9ers deserve to be in his picks. The last two will of course be axed, but I'm guessing he'll stick with the other three, who may kindly be termed as losers.

True, the ACC might also have a 7-9 team in the Creme picks come Monday with FSU, which has gone 5-9 in the last 14, but you can at least say the Seminoles have racked up a few nice wins along with some atrocious losses. But yeah, Vandy and LSU beat UTenn which beat USCar, and GA is GA, so I guess it's 8 teams for the SEC.

 

[Icebear]

Charlie's attitude will likely be they are all so good they are beating up on each other.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Or that it's really too bad that they're all beating up on each other.

 

[UConnCat]

LSU ended the season losing 7 of its last 8, including today's trouncing at the hands of Alabama (78-60). If LSU loses in the first round of the SEC tournament will it still make the NCAAs?

 

[Icebear]

I doubt it, Cat.

 

[Alydar]

Charlie will no doubt rationalize it with RPI, which teams are able to manipulate through scheduling since who you play is more important than whether you win or lose. My cynicism makes me believe that the ACC will be the favored conference for Charlie. It's an ESPN conference while the SEC is Fox. I expect to see 8 or 9 ACC teams.

The S curve positions that will be interesting are 3-12. Seems like a lot of teams work their way from 15th to 6th and then lose a couple and slide back down the rankings. Both Kentucky and Duke have been 1 seeds in early brackets but both need to do something to even get a 2 right now. Duke was considered to have equal talent to UConn but the loss of both outstanding guards has exposed them. Not sure what happened to Kentucky but Stallworth is back scoring. They need a good SEC tournament.

Tenn, Ken, Baylor, WV, PSU, MD, UNC. Who will come alive?

 

[DobbsRover2]

That is indeed what the conference tournaments are for, and many changes could happen with a first-game bow-out. But as with the preseason polls, there are certain perceptions that can foul up the process, and as with LSU's recent losing spate versus a UTenn win and its past history, what will really matter when the selections are made?

 

[UcMiami]

LSU ended the season losing 7 of its last 8, including today's trouncing at the hands of Alabama (78-60). If LSU loses in the first round of the SEC tournament will it still make the NCAAs?

Worse than that - they have a 6 game losing streak with 3 of the six against unranked teams. It used to be that a 20 win season was considered a pretty solid indicator and any team that didn't get to 20 was at best on the bubble. LSU, Vanderbilt and Florida all need to win two in the tournament to get to 20 wins and that is a tall ask - Georgia only needs to win one because they did a rogues gallery of no names in OOC (and still managed to lose one to Rutgers.) Personally - I would love to see the committee hammer teams like Georgia and Florida State for playing bogus OOC schedules. It would be nice to see a few more of the mid major teams get in rather than rewarding some pretty miserable major conference teams. I also think it is time the NCAA did away with the RPI and went with something that isn't quite so brain dead.

 

[hussybulldog]

Why would one care about his bracketology? I stopped reading it years ago.

 

[UConnCat]

Worse than that - they have a 6 game losing streak with 3 of the six against unranked teams. It used to be that a 20 win season was considered a pretty solid indicator and any team that didn't get to 20 was at best on the bubble. LSU, Vanderbilt and Florida all need to win two in the tournament to get to 20 wins and that is a tall ask - Georgia only needs to win one because they did a rogues gallery of no names in OOC (and still managed to lose one to Rutgers.) Personally - I would love to see the committee hammer teams like Georgia and Florida State for playing bogus OOC schedules. It would be nice to see a few more of the mid major teams get in rather than rewarding some pretty miserable major conference teams. I also think it is time the NCAA did away with the RPI and went with something that isn't quite so brain dead.

Like Jay Bilas, I believe in asking: Who did you play? Who did you beat? I also think that teams that end the season as poorly as LSU has ended its season (so far) should not be rewarded with a NCAA bid.

 

[DobbsRover2]

With LSU, you have to remember that sometimes the selections get all giddety-up based on how a team does in a conference tournament. Despite 6 straight losses and 7 0f last 8, LSU has 18 wins with an OOC schedule that is not that rotten bad. So they get a chance to beat Alabama in the first SECT game and then have a far more taller order of beating Texas A&M in the second game to get to 20 wins and maybe a selection for the tourney. Unlikely, but in the crazy world where SEC is seen as deserving 8 picks, who knows?

And I love the ESPN video headline, "Volunteers Talk Win Over South Carolina." If you can talk the talk, who needs to walk the walk? And where is a proofreader when you need one?

 

[Phil]

Why would one care about his bracketology? I stopped reading it years ago.

Two reasons:

1. It's interesting
2. His track record is decent

YMMV

 

[Phil]

As the selection committee thinks about how many SEC and ACC teams to select, I hope they remember who have been at the top of the heap for the last five years:

Final Four participants over last five years

• 10 Big East
• 5 Pac 12
• 5 Big 12

Of course, the conference re-alignment messes this up, so one of the BE teams is now in the ACC and two are in the AAC, but it is interesting that the B1G, ACC and SEC have not sent a single team to the Final Four over the last five years.

 

[NickyNewark]

Charlie will no doubt rationalize it with RPI, which teams are able to manipulate through scheduling since who you play is more important than whether you win or lose. My cynicism makes me believe that the ACC will be the favored conference for Charlie. It's an ESPN conference while the SEC is Fox. I expect to see 8 or 9 ACC teams.

The S curve positions that will be interesting are 3-12. Seems like a lot of teams work their way from 15th to 6th and then lose a couple and slide back down the rankings. Both Kentucky and Duke have been 1 seeds in early brackets but both need to do something to even get a 2 right now. Duke was considered to have equal talent to UConn but the loss of both outstanding guards has exposed them. Not sure what happened to Kentucky but Stallworth is back scoring. They need a good SEC tournament.

Tenn, Ken, Baylor, WV, PSU, MD, UNC. Who will come alive?

WVU is moving up there. PSU hasn't impressed me.

 

[NickyNewark]

Like Jay Bilas, I believe in asking: Who did you play? Who did you beat? I also think that teams that end the season as poorly as LSU has ended its season (so far) should not be rewarded with a NCAA bid.

Whats the shame in losing to RU? LSU edged them early in the season on there HC but doubt they'd beat them now? Funny how short peoples memories can be.

 

[UConnCat]

Of course, the conference re-alignment messes this up, so one of the BE teams is now in the ACC and two are in the AAC, but it is interesting that the B1G, ACC and SEC have not sent a single team to the Final Four over the last five years.

After watching the best of the SEC on TV yesterday there's a good chance it'll be 6 years.

 

[UConnCat]

Whats the shame in losing to RU? LSU edged them early in the season on there HC but doubt they'd beat them now? Funny how short peoples memories can be.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I said nothing about RU. My only point specific to LSU is how it is ending the season which could hardly be worse. I'll be curious to see how the committee handles that. If it were the men's side, LSU would be on the outside looking in. I think LSU makes the women's tournament.

 

[NickyNewark]

I'm not sure I understand your point. I said nothing about RU. My only point specific to LSU is how it is ending the season which could hardly be worse. I'll be curious to see how the committee handles that. If it were the men's side, LSU would be on the outside looking in. I think LSU makes the women's tournament.

I agree LSU makes it too but conference affiliation in a lot of cases makes teams "perception eligible" IMO and other lesser brand names are left out too often by "popular opinion".I think my reply was misplaced?I think UcMiami was who my reply was intended....sorry if my post was misplaced UConnCat..no harm done.

 

[NickyNewark]

Like Jay Bilas, I believe in asking: Who did you play? Who did you beat? I also think that teams that end the season as poorly as LSU has ended its season (so far) should not be rewarded with a NCAA bid.

Yes it was misplaced.....Im very sorry UConnCat it was in the box in you're reply to UcMiami.Do you want me to delete?

 

[UConnCat]

Yes it was misplaced.....Im very sorry UConnCat it was in the box in you're reply to UcMiami.Do you want me to delete?

No need. I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.

 

[Icebear]

I think LSU must win 20 to make it. Given the last month I am not sure they have that in them.

 

[Phil]

Yes, I agree there's a perception problem. The SEC was strong a decade ago. They fancy themselves as the strongest conference in the country, they aren't even the strongest conference in the south east. The ranking voters and the selection committee need to look at the body of work, which isn't that impressive, and stop giving credit when mediocre teams beat up on mediocre teams.

 

[Phil]

Where are the quality wins by the SEC?

• If I read correctly, the conference champion has one win over a ranked teams other than in conference.
• The number two team in the conference caught a freshman dominated UNC team in the second game of the season, before they jelled.
• The number three team in the conference, TAMU has zero wins against ranked teams out of conference.
• The number four team in the conference, Kentucky, actually won a legitimate game against a decent team.
• The number five team in the conference, Florida, has zero wins against ranked teams out of conference.

Why do some think the SEC is still an elite conference?

Shouldn't an elite conference manage more than three wins against ranked teams? UConn alone has as many wins before Thanksgiving against non-conference ranked teams as the entire SEC in their entire non-conference season.

The entire resume of the entire conference consists of one overtime win, a decent win by KY over Louisville and another win against a young team in their second game.

(edit oops, forgot the KY Louisville game, have edited)

 

[Icebear]

Amen, Phil, Amen.

 

[DobbsRover2]

There are two contradictory stats for LSU, one of which says they almost surely cannot make the NCAAs, and the other says they have already clinched their spot.

Why the Tigers almost surely won't get a bid
There has been only one team that had even as bad as a 3-7 record in the Last 10 stat and still made it to the NCAAs during the 2000s as an at-large bid. LSU is currently at 3-7 for the L10, but if it goes 1-1 in the SECT by picking up a win against an Alabama team that just crushed it, the Tigers would be at 2-8 for the L10. So even even beating Texas A&M would still only get it the 3-7 status of a 2001-02 Wisconsin team that really shouldn't have been in the tourney.

The Badgers were ranked #5 that year before the wheels fell off and the season skewed horribly badly at the end. After winning their first 7 B10 games, they lost 9 of their final 10 regular season games (one OOC against Texas Tech) to still finish 8-8 in the B10. Even with a #31 RPI value, to get a tourney bid they needed to win 2 games in the B10T before bowing out in the semis. Somehow they got a #8 seed but lost in the first round.

Why the Tigers have a bid locked up
Despite their terrible play recently, the Tigers are #12 in the brain-dead RPI. That rank might change a tiny bit in the next few days, but the best RPI ranking for a team in the 2000s that did not make the tourney was #17. But that was not a major conference team (Western KY), and the highest RPI team from a major conference that did not make the tourney was #22 for a 13 loss Florida team back in 2000. By brain-dead RPI, LSU is in the tourney even if they lose the first-round SECT game to Bama.

 

[EricSD]

How can LSU be #12 in the RPI? Doesn't it give a much higher weight to wins? That's crazy and the RPI seems like it's becoming irrelevant, or at least lacking any common sense...

 

[Phil]

One-quarter of the RPI weight is wins. Three questers is who you play and who they play.

I've partially defended the RPI in the past. Given the constraint that it has to ignore useful information (MOV) it did OK.

The nature of the way it is constructed, it can be quite horrible in the early part of the season. It gets better and better throughout the season, and one hopes, since it is designed for end of season selection, that it might be OK by the end of the season.

That used to be sort of true, but now I'm having reservations.

It may have been UCMiami, but someone pointed out a corollary to something I had observed - I knew the formula was deliberately designed to ignore MOV, on the theory that they did not want the formula to reward blowouts. So the metric is not just a measurement, it intends to adjust behavior.

However, it doesn't just affect game behavior, it affects scheduling. That was deliberate, with an encouragement to schedule strong teams. However, I think teams have realized how to game the system. The weighting for schedule strength is atrocious, as has been discussed in the past. Clever teams will learn to schedule a number of teams 20-50 spots below them in the rankings, plus couple way above them, and avoid teams more than 100 spots below them. The ones way above them give them losses, but make up for it in schedule strength. The ones a few spots below them give them wins, without giving up schedule strength. The ones 100 spots below them hurt the schedule strength, and don't add more to the win count than a team 30 spots below them.

LSU is a perfect example of someone who has achieved (whether deliberately or not I cannot be sure) a favorable RPI SOS. They are number one as measured by RPI, but Massey who uses a sensible measure, rates their SOS as 14th. That's quite a difference.

According to RPI, UConn schedule strength is 37th. Do you need any more information to show it is flawed?

LSU gets most of their inflated RPI rating from their clever scheduling.

A better measure, such as Massey, would have their schedule strength at 14, and their overall rating as 35th. Still good enough to make the tournament if you look at raw numbers and ignore the "what have you done lately", but far below the inflated RPI value.

 

[Phil]

There are two contradictory stats for LSU, one of which says they almost surely cannot make the NCAAs, and the other says they have already clinched their spot.



Why the Tigers have a bid locked up
Despite their terrible play recently, the Tigers are #12 in the brain-dead RPI. That rank might change a tiny bit in the next few days, but the best RPI ranking for a team in the 2000s that did not make the tourney was #17. But that was not a major conference team (Western KY), and the highest RPI team from a major conference that did not make the tourney was #22 for a 13 loss Florida team back in 2000. By brain-dead RPI, LSU is in the tourney even if they lose the first-round SECT game to Bama.

Another reason why they are a lock? They are a host. That's not a guarantee—I think there have been situations where a host didn't qualify, but when it is a close call, they'll be in.

 

[UConnCat]

Another reason why they are a lock? They are a host. That's not a guarantee—I think there have been situations where a host didn't qualify, but when it is a close call, they'll be in.

Didn't know that. Forget everything I've said. LSU is in regardless of what happens in the SEC tournament.

 

[DobbsRover2]

How can LSU be #12 in the RPI? Doesn't it give a much higher weight to wins? That's crazy and the RPI seems like it's becoming irrelevant, or at least lacking any common sense...

In addition to all the other gaming techniques Phil noted for making the most RPI from your schedule is to adjust your games for home and away bonus\penalty advantage. For tourney type teams, a home loss hurts more than a road win helps, so you should try to schedule a lot of home games with teams near your level or a little below you and save your OOC road games (if you even have any nowadays) for the tough teams you need for sprucing up your resume plus a few of those more mediocre local teams that you know you can beat on the road. And you do not schedule teams rated above 200th at all, maybe even 150th.

This year LSU got those nice wins at home versus Rutgers, Michigan, and St. Joes that might have been losses on the road, and teams like Louisville and NC State might well have been losses at home anyway, so losing to them on the road didn't hurt that much.

RPI is just a stupid system that unfortunately is used to group teams together as a starting assessment tool even though it is badly flawed. Yet if you point out how screwed up the system is with simple easily understandable examples with a couple of teams playing each other, RPI proponents will say your examples are unreal and therefore trivial, a tactic which I've noticed that fans of flawed systems fall back upon. And unfortunately RPI is the often the fallback measure that a committee member can point to for any poor decision.