Creme Bracketology 3/4

[maccca3232]

I have read posters mention that the Committee values 'quality' wins over 'bad' losses but a problem with that ethos, while understandable, is the fact that not all teams get the same amount of opportunities to achieve 'quality' wins. Obviously that them favors bubble teams in P5 conferences.

I created a file analyzing the performances of teams based on the teams they actually played against the expected performance for each game based on ratings from RPI (Real Time RPI), Her Hoops Stats Rating and Massey and then created an average rating.

Notes:
The results were taken from Her Hoops Data and include only Division I games.
If you beat the lowest ranked team you get no benefit similarity if you lose to the best team you get no penalty.
It is easy to add additional ratings if requested.

I found it interesting that Tennessee was only the fifth worst rated At-Large bid (worst was Buffalo. Results Rank 53rd).

Does anyone believe that Tennessee (Results Rank 43rd) is more worthy of an At-Large bid then say Ohio (Results Rank 39th).

If you exclude Tennessee's losses to Top 25 RPI (0-6) and compare:

Ohio is 7-4 vs RPI Top 100 and 16-0 vs Non RPI Top 100 (23-4 combined)
Best Wins:
Central Mich. (26)
Buffalo (32)
Lamar University (52)
American (78)
Purdue (87)
Kent St. (89) x 2
Losses:
H Central Mich. (26)
H Buffalo (32)
H Miami OH (46)
A Toledo (83)

Tennessee is 7-3 vs Top 100 and 11-2 vs Non RPI Top 100 (18-5 combined)
Best Wins:
Texas (27)
Missouri (28)
Auburn (48) x 2
Clemson (55)
Belmont (58)
LSU (70)
Losses:
H Missouri (28)
H Arkansas (96)
A Georgia (100)
A Alabama (153)
H Vanderbilt (197)

Are Tennessee's wins that much better that they override their much worse losses?

Revised: Edited report to adjust the weight of losses, so that a 'good' loss adds small benefit and a 'bad' win subtracts small benefit.

 

[Alydar]

It seems obvious to me what Creme has been doing. He has been using justifications like this to include certain teams and keep numbers up from specific conferences. Why should a couple of slots opening up automatically go to Tenn or the SEC?

I mentioned long ago when he reduced the Pac 12's numbers to 6 while increasing the SEC to 8 that he was cherry picking to set up a scenario to justify more teams from the SEC. The whole idea is to discern the strength of a conference before league play begins to get an objective view of what their games mean against each other. Except in a case like Tenn where they just do a complete nose dive. The Pac 12 and the ACC started with equal number of bids as dictated by their out of conference rankings as the strongest leagues. Well now the Pac 12 has equal number of bids to the formally considered weak Big 10, while the SEC has jumped them with 7. Did these leagues get stronger based on playing themselves?

When the teams in the Pac 12 started beating each other and acquiring losses he punished them far more them equally if not far more than the loses teams acquired playing in obviously weaker conferences. He certainly didn't replace the teams that lost in the Pac 12 with the better teams in the Pac 12, but instead chose to replace them with teams from weaker conferences that the teams he favored were in.

I remember that I wrote a post long ago in respect to a pattern he displaced geared to justifying his long term term agenda . It is akin to heating the water of a pot slowly so that the frog does not recognize he is being boiled and jump out to save himself. Fortunately Creme does not pick the actual brackets. Still he is given the job of doing so by ESPN and should come up with a far more objective product. He is being paid to do so by a major News outlet and more should be expected from him than someone just posting on a site. In that context the guy is a hack period.

Good post. Creme may not pick the actual brackets but IMO he has become the point man for the NCAA committee. Until a couple of years ago his brackets were a joke. Then he wrote about how he attended a mock selection session and suddenly his brackets and the committee's were nearly identical and his rational was identical to the committee's.

Is it just a coincidence that Creme hypes the SEC and that ESPN owns the SEC network while the PAC12 Network owns the rights that conferences games? No. That would be dishonest and journalistically unethical. Charlie would never compromise his integrity like that, right?

 

[Plebe]

I have read posters mention that the Committee values 'quality' wins over 'bad' losses but a problem with that ethos, while understandable, is the fact that not all teams get the same amount of opportunities to achieve 'quality' wins. Obviously that them favors bubble teams in P5 conferences.

I created a file analyzing the performances of teams based on the teams they actually played against the expected performance for each game based on ratings from RPI (Real Time RPI), Her Hoops Stats Rating and Massey and then created an average rating.

Notes:
The results were taken from Her Hoops Data and include only Division I games.
If you beat the lowest ranked team you get no benefit similarity if you lose to the best team you get no penalty.
It is easy to add additional ratings if requested.

I found it interesting that Tennessee was only the second worst rated At-Large bid (worst was North Carolina. Results Rank 68th).

Does anyone believe that Tennessee (Results Rank 64th) is more worthy of an At-Large bid then say Ohio (Results Rank 24th).

View attachment 40608

If you exclude Tennessee's losses to Top 25 RPI (0-6) and compare:

Ohio is 7-4 vs RPI Top 100 and 16-0 vs Non RPI Top 100 (23-4 combined)
Best Wins:
Central Mich. (26)
Buffalo (32)
Lamar University (52)
American (78)
Purdue (87)
Kent St. (89) x 2
Losses:
H Central Mich. (26)
H Buffalo (32)
H Miami OH (46)
A Toledo (83)

Tennessee is 7-3 vs Top 100 and 11-2 vs Non RPI Top 100 (18-5 combined)
Best Wins:
Texas (27)
Missouri (28)
Auburn (48) x 2
Clemson (55)
Belmont (58)
LSU (70)
Losses:
H Missouri (28)
H Arkansas (96)
A Georgia (100)
A Alabama (153)
H Vanderbilt (197)

Are Tennessee's wins that much better that they override the much worse losses?

Tennessee's wins *are* better than Ohio's. How much better? Well...

There are of course infinite ways to slice the analysis, but the committee is likely to see it as Tennessee having 2 wins over teams in the 6 to 7 seed range, compared to one for Ohio in the same seed range (over Central Michigan), and having an additional 4 wins over fellow bubble teams (Clemson, Auburn x2, LSU), compared to 2 for Ohio (Buffalo and Miami OH). (If we're generous with our definition of "bubble team" we could include Ohio's win over Lamar, but then we'd have to also add Tennessee's win over Belmont.)

I would say this gap is not negligible but of course not huge either, and yes, not as substantial as the difference in bad losses. The losses to Alabama and especially Vanderbilt are damaging. But again, the committee has consistently shown that quality wins matter more than bad losses. Just how much more? The million-dollar question.

You mention that the "quality win" emphasis favors the P5 teams, and this could well be true. But you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins, and that's a glaring weakness in Ohio's resume. The committee will not look favorably on Ohio's dismal nonconference SOS ranking of #266, compared to Tennessee's #55, and that is a huge difference that could break the comparison Tennessee's way. But regardless, no doubt it's a close call.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Good post. Creme may not pick the actual brackets but IMO he has become the point man for the NCAA committee. Until a couple of years ago his brackets were a joke. Then he wrote about how he attended a mock selection session and suddenly his brackets and the committee's were nearly identical and his rational was identical to the committee's.

Is it just a coincidence that Creme hypes the SEC and that ESPN owns the SEC network while the PAC12 Network owns the rights that conferences games? No. That would be dishonest and journalistically unethical. Charlie would never compromise his integrity like that, right?

Good post. Creme may not pick the actual brackets but IMO he has become the point man for the NCAA committee. Until a couple of years ago his brackets were a joke. Then he wrote about how he attended a mock selection session and suddenly his brackets and the committee's were nearly identical and his rational was identical to the committee's.

Is it just a coincidence that Creme hypes the SEC and that ESPN owns the SEC network while the PAC12 Network owns the rights that conferences games? No. That would be dishonest and journalistically unethical. Charlie would never compromise his integrity like that, right?

You've made a conspiracy out of a guy doing his job.

he decides to put out projections as part of his WBB coverage. According to you he is bad at it.

He embeds with the Committee to understand the process better and gets better at it once he understands their criteria.

He informs the public about what the criteria is. Maybe he has contacts within the committee who help make his projections more accurate.

Literally, that's just someone doing their job well.

IF you don't like the way the Committee seeds the tournament then your problem is with the tournament. It's absurd to blame Creme for being mostly correct in his projections that aren't especially important in any way besides providing WBB content.

 

[Vowelguy]

You've made a conspiracy out of a guy doing his job..

Thank you.
Though sad that we now have to rely on visitors to call BS on BS posts.

 

[Alydar]

But you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins,

Actually it's almost impossible for a non-P5 team. The P5 teams don'y like to play good mid-major teams in the stronger mid major conferences, and if they do it's only in their own arena. Most P-5's know the RPI/SOS game and avoid teams that can beat them OOC. P-5 teams aren't exactly lining up to play teams like Buffalo, FGC, Green Bay et al. They are avoided like the plague.

You've made a conspiracy out of a guy doing his job.

he decides to put out projections as part of his WBB coverage. According to you he is bad at it.

He embeds with the Committee to understand the process better and gets better at it once he understands their criteria.

He informs the public about what the criteria is. Maybe he has contacts within the committee who help make his projections more accurate.

Literally, that's just someone doing their job well.

IF you don't like the way the Committee seeds the tournament then your problem is with the tournament. It's absurd to blame Creme for being mostly correct in his projections that aren't especially important in any way besides providing WBB content.

Who's BLAMING anyone? And for what? I'm just giving my opinion based on what I have read over the last 10 years or so. The only thing you have correct is that I don't like the way the NCAA runs it's tournament. But that is a topic for another thread.
It's no secret that most sports writers are in a symbiotic relationship with the game they cover. Some are merely hucksters, paid to promote the sport, not to report the sport. Some are insightful analysts. But they are all selling the game.
Now I admit that without ESPN wcbb wouldn't have hardly any exposure at all. But let's not pretend that they are some unbiased news source. Those people courtside and in the studio are there primarily to promote wcbb and criticizing the organization that runs it is not on their agenda.

 

[Plebe]

Actually it's almost impossible for a non-P5 team. The P5 teams don'y like to play good mid-major teams in the stronger mid major conferences, and if they do it's only in their own arena. Most P-5's know the RPI/SOS game and avoid teams that can beat them OOC. P-5 teams aren't exactly lining up to play teams like Buffalo, FGC, Green Bay et al. They are avoided like the plague.

Games this season between P5 teams and strong mid-majors (top 75 of RPI).

On the home court of the mid-major:​

Stanford @ Gonzaga​

Louisville @ Central Michigan​

Iowa @ Drake​

Stanford @ Buffalo​

Oregon @ South Dakota State​

Iowa State @ South Dakota​

Cal @ BYU​

Purdue @ Ohio​

Auburn @ New Mexico​

Oklahoma @ New Mexico​

Louisville @ Boise State​

Oregon @ St. Mary's​

Cal @ St. Mary's​

Duke @ Maine
Mississippi St @ Little Rock​

Texas A&M @ Little Rock​

Kansas State @ Little Rock​

Northwestern @ Green Bay​

Wisconsin @ Green Bay​

On a neutral court:​

Rutgers vs. Gonzaga​

Notre Dame vs. Gonzaga​

Rutgers vs. Drake​

Notre Dame vs. Drake​

Baylor vs. South Dakota State​

North Carolina vs. Rice​

TCU vs. BYU​

Indiana vs. South Dakota​

Texas vs. Quinnipiac​

Missouri vs. Quinnipiac​

Stanford vs. Florida Gulf Coast​

So no, it's not "nearly impossible." The vast majority of the top mid-major teams managed to play at least one game against a P5 team either at home or on a neutral court.

There were also quite a few games played on the P5 team's home court that are part of home-and-home series.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Stanford @ Gonzaga
Louisville @ Central Michigan
Iowa @ Drake
Stanford @ Buffalo
Oregon @ South Dakota State
Iowa State @ South Dakota
Cal @ BYU
Purdue @ Ohio
Auburn @ New Mexico
Oklahoma @ New Mexico
Louisville @ Boise State
Oregon @ St. Mary's
Cal @ St. Mary's
Duke @ Maine
Mississippi St @ Little Rock
Texas A&M @ Little Rock
Kansas State @ Little Rock
Northwestern @ Green Bay
Wisconsin @ Green Bay

It's striking that close to a third of that entire list is comprised of just three PAC-12 schools: Stanford, Oregon, and Cal (6/19). (And add in Louisville and almost half the list (8/19) is just 4 P5 schools).

All things considered, your list actually seems to prove Alydar's point. Out of 65 P5 schools, only 15 scheduled an away game at a mid-major. That's less than 1/4th of P5 schools. Even if you assume all of those are home and aways, and you double it to count the P5 home games this year that either were a mid-major home game last year or will be next year, that's still less than half of the P5's scheduling an away game at a mid-major over a two-year cycle.

And of all mid-majors, only a total of 13 mid-majors got to host a P5 school, because a number of them (mostly the notable ones) got two or three home games.

(Neutral sites are almost always multi-team tournaments, so those don't really count for the purposes of measuring the willingness of a P5 school to play away games at a mid-major. Schools commit to those tournaments often without knowing the full lineup, and almost always without knowing which schools they'll end up playing.

And even if you include the neutral court games, note that that only adds Rice, Quinnipiac and FGC to the list of mid-majors that got non-away games at P5 schools. So 16 total teams this year.)

 

[Plebe]

It's striking that close to a third of that entire list is comprised of just three PAC-12 schools: Stanford, Oregon, and Cal (6/19). (And add in Louisville and almost half the list (8/19) is just 4 P5 schools).

All things considered, your list actually seems to prove Alydar's point. Out of 65 P5 schools, only 15 scheduled an away game at a mid-major. That's less than 1/4th of P5 schools. Even if you assume all of those are home and aways, and you double it to count the P5 home games this year that either were a mid-major home game last year or will be next year, that's still less than half of the P5's scheduling an away game at a mid-major over a two-year cycle.

And of all mid-majors, only a total of 13 mid-majors got to host a P5 school, because a number of them (mostly the notable ones) got two or three home games.

(Neutral sites are almost always multi-team tournaments, so those don't really count for the purposes of measuring the willingness of a P5 school to play away games at a mid-major. Schools commit to those tournaments often without knowing the full lineup, and almost always without knowing which schools they'll end up playing.

And even if you include the neutral court games, note that that only adds Rice, Quinnipiac and FGC to the list of mid-majors that got non-away games at P5 schools. So 16 total teams this year.)

Before we run the risk of straying from the relevant point, my original statement which Alydar was countering was: "But you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins."

So let's not conflate "scheduling up" with "scheduling power-5 teams on your home court." It didn't do Ball State's resume any favors to host Vanderbilt this year, for example, nor did it help Louisiana Tech to host Ole Miss, nor did it help Mercer or UNLV to host Florida.

And many mid-majors are successful in scheduling up in their nonconference:

• Drake: nonconference SOS #4, with 8 top-50 opponents
• Green Bay: NC SOS #5, with 5 top-50 opponents
• South Dakota State: NC SOS #6, with 6 top-50 opponents
• Lamar: NC SOS #9, with 4 top-50 opponents
• Quinnipiac: NS SOS #15, with 5 top-50 (and 8 top-100) opponents
• Western Kentucky: NC SOS #21, with 6 top-50 opponents
• Central Michigan: NC SOS #66, including 5 top-50 opponents

So to say it's "nearly impossible" to schedule up is demonstrably false.

 

[Rocket009]

Games this season between P5 teams and strong mid-majors (top 75 of RPI).

On the home court of the mid-major:​

Stanford @ Gonzaga​

Louisville @ Central Michigan​

Iowa @ Drake​

Stanford @ Buffalo​

Oregon @ South Dakota State​

Iowa State @ South Dakota​

Cal @ BYU​

Purdue @ Ohio​

Auburn @ New Mexico​

Oklahoma @ New Mexico​

Louisville @ Boise State​

Oregon @ St. Mary's​

Cal @ St. Mary's​

Duke @ Maine​

Mississippi St @ Little Rock​

Texas A&M @ Little Rock​

Kansas State @ Little Rock​

Northwestern @ Green Bay​

Wisconsin @ Green Bay​

On a neutral court:​

Rutgers vs. Gonzaga​

Notre Dame vs. Gonzaga​

Rutgers vs. Drake​

Notre Dame vs. Drake​

Baylor vs. South Dakota State​

North Carolina vs. Rice​

TCU vs. BYU​

Indiana vs. South Dakota​

Texas vs. Quinnipiac​

Missouri vs. Quinnipiac​

Stanford vs. Florida Gulf Coast​

So no, it's not "nearly impossible." The vast majority of the top mid-major teams managed to play at least one game against a P5 team either at home or on a neutral court.

There were also quite a few games played on the P5 team's home court that are part of home-and-home series.

There you go using facts to back your position in the face of wild conjecture and straw men.

 

[Alydar]

Games this season between P5 teams and strong mid-majors (top 75 of RPI).

On the home court of the mid-major:​

Stanford @ Gonzaga​

Louisville @ Central Michigan​

Iowa @ Drake​

Stanford @ Buffalo​

Oregon @ South Dakota State​

Iowa State @ South Dakota​

Cal @ BYU​

Purdue @ Ohio​

Auburn @ New Mexico​

Oklahoma @ New Mexico​

Louisville @ Boise State​

Oregon @ St. Mary's​

Cal @ St. Mary's​

Duke @ Maine​

Mississippi St @ Little Rock​

Texas A&M @ Little Rock​

Kansas State @ Little Rock​

Northwestern @ Green Bay​

Wisconsin @ Green Bay​

On a neutral court:​

Rutgers vs. Gonzaga​

Notre Dame vs. Gonzaga​

Rutgers vs. Drake​

Notre Dame vs. Drake​

Baylor vs. South Dakota State​

North Carolina vs. Rice​

TCU vs. BYU​

Indiana vs. South Dakota​

Texas vs. Quinnipiac​

Missouri vs. Quinnipiac​

Stanford vs. Florida Gulf Coast​

So no, it's not "nearly impossible." The vast majority of the top mid-major teams managed to play at least one game against a P5 team either at home or on a neutral court.

There were also quite a few games played on the P5 team's home court that are part of home-and-home series.

One game doesn't produce much of an RPI or SOS. The Celtics could play in wcbb and go undefeated, winning by an average of 75 pts. but if they are in a sucky conference they won't ever get much better than a 6 seed because of their RPI and SOS.

 

[Plebe]

Out of 65 P5 schools, only 15 scheduled an away game at a mid-major. That's less than 1/4th of P5 schools. Even if you assume all of those are home and aways, and you double it to count the P5 home games this year that either were a mid-major home game last year or will be next year, that's still less than half of the P5's scheduling an away game at a mid-major over a two-year cycle.

And of all mid-majors, only a total of 13 mid-majors got to host a P5 school, because a number of them (mostly the notable ones) got two or three home games.

Also, the way you’ve stated this is not at all true. I expressly limited my analysis only to mid-majors in the RPI top 75, since the argument was made that the P5 teams won’t play the *top* mid-majors anywhere other than their home floor.

If we expand the analysis to all non-P5 schools other than UConn, then we see that 56 of 65 P5 teams played a true road game at such a school, and most of those 56 played multiple such road games.

(I would argue that the implications of going on the road to play a Villanova or St. John’s or SMU are similar to visiting a mid-major, even if the BE and AAC are not technically deemed mid-majors. But even if we exclude teams from those two conferences, we have 51 of 65 P5 teams playing true road games at “true” (?) mid-majors.)

 

[Plebe]

 

[Plebe]

One game doesn't produce much of an RPI or SOS. The Celtics could play in wcbb and go undefeated, winning by an average of 75 pts. but if they are in a sucky conference they won't ever get much better than a 6 seed because of their RPI and SOS.

But it does disprove your assertion that P5 teams are unwilling to play road or neutral-court games against good mid-major teams.

Green Bay, Drake and South Dakota State, among others, have managed year in and year out to play an excellent nonconference schedule that includes multiple P5 opponents. Again, this proves my original point, which is that "you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins."

 

[Alydar]

But it does disprove your assertion that P5 teams are unwilling to play road or neutral-court games against good mid-major teams.

Green Bay, Drake and South Dakota State, among others, have managed year in and year out to play an excellent nonconference schedule that includes multiple P5 opponents. Again, this proves my original point, which is that "you don't have to be a P5 team to schedule up in the nonconference to seek out some quality wins."

I never mentioned neutral games. Those holiday tournaments aren't scheduled by the P5 teams. You listed 19 road games vs good midmajors. That's spread over 65 teams. So about 30% of the P5 plays those games.

You make good points. My disagreement is with those who say "if they want a better RPI they need to schedule more top 50 teams, like it's just a matter of making a call or 2 because there are loads of P5 teams lining up to schedule these games. That simply isn't true.

 

[Plebe]

You make good points. My disagreement is with those who say "if they want a better RPI they need to schedule more top 50 teams, like it's just a matter of making a call or 2 because there are loads of P5 teams lining up to schedule these games. That simply isn't true.

But again, it's a fallacy to conflate "top 50" with "power 5." Only about half of the P5 teams are in the top 50, and a team can "schedule up" by playing quality teams from non-P5 conferences.

 

[bennyskid]

What really disadvantages the mid-major powers is not that they can't get enough top-50 or top-100 games (although that is a legitimate frustration). It is that the RPI punishes teams way too hard when they play sub-200 or sub-300 teams. When evaluating tournament teams, the difference between beating #120, #220, or #320 is trivial - a tournament team should win all three games easily. But playing the #320 team absolutely destroys your RPI.

Is this right? Team A and Team B play identical schedules with identical results, and are on the bubble going into their conference tourneys. Then Team A plays three games, beating a 1-30 team, a 3-28 team, and the defending nation champion 30-1 team in the finals. Team B beats three 12-19 teams. Which will have the higher RPI? Team B.

Mid-major conferences invariably have more sub-200 teams than the power conferences. Drake can't get enough good wins to compensate for playing Valpo and Evansville. Even if they played nothing but top-100, Power 5 teams in November and December, they would still struggle to get their RPI into the top 16. And UConn has zero margin for error if a Top 4 RPI is a goal. Fortunately, the committee looks very hard at the top seeds and the fact that UConn is only #6 right now won't cost them a 1-seed. But when it comes to deciding who gets the last 4-seed (and hosting), I don't think teams like Gonzaga and Drake get a fair shake. And when you get to the last bubble teams, it's obvious that the mid-majors are at a huge disadvantage.

There are simple fixes. The most obvious is to simply calculate an "adjusted RPI" that ignores victories against teams below a reasonable threshold - say, #176 (the median school). (Losses would stay in the calculation, of course.) That would make the RPI a little less obviously bad.

 

[Plebe]

What really disadvantages the mid-major powers is not that they can't get enough top-50 or top-100 games (although that is a legitimate frustration). It is that the RPI punishes teams way too hard when they play sub-200 or sub-300 teams.

This is, at best, an oversimplification.

Let's look at the case of Rice. C-USA is a weak conference: 8 of its 14 teams are outside the RPI top 150, including 3 sub-300 teams. Despite this, Rice's RPI has risen from about #100 at the start of C-USA play to #34 now.

Let's look at Quinnipiac, a decent team in an *extremely* weak conference, ranked 26th out of 32 D-I conferences in the RPI. Eight of the MAAC's 11 teams are outside the RPI top 200. But Quinnipiac's RPI, like Rice's, has *improved* since the start of conference play, from the mid-60s to #44 right now.

There is certainly a difference between playing the #120 team and playing #320. Just from a statistical standpoint, top-50 teams lose to teams in the 101-200 range far more often than they lose to sub-300 teams. The following projected at-large or bubble teams have losses in the RPI 101-200 range: Marquette, Syracuse, Rutgers, DePaul, Central Michigan, Kansas State, UCLA, Buffalo, South Dakota, North Carolina, Michigan State, Indiana, Clemson, TCU, Tennessee, West Virginia. But of the teams currently projected as at-large or bubble teams, only BYU has a loss to the bottom 100 of the RPI. (Miami of Ohio, a fringe bubble team, also has a loss in this range.)

 

[Tonyc]

Gotta see what happens in the bracketology. Is Tenn in or out?

 

[JordyG]

No offense, but I don't care. Lou's back still hurts.

 

[DefenseBB]

Gotta see what happens in the bracketology. Is Tenn in or out?

Hopefully Phil Fullmer realizes Holly and the girls gave all they had against a far superior MSU team and rewards her and the BY faithful with a further extension of her contract, NCAAT or not!

 

[oldude]

I think it comes down to how many SEC teams get to the Big Dance. If it’s 6-7, TN may be out. If it’s 8, TN is likely in.

The number of SEC teams in the Big Dance can be affected by upsets in the conference tournaments. For instance, let’s say Depaul upsets Marquette in the Big East. Depaul gets the AQ, but Marquette is nationally ranked, so they will still go, and maybe that means one less SEC team.

 

[Centerstream]

TN is in, Charlie Creme said so yesterday.


PS. I am not a drinker of Charlie Creme Koolaid.

 

[DefenseBB]

I think it comes down to how many SEC teams get to the Big Dance. If it’s 6-7, TN may be out. If it’s 8, TN is likely in.

The number of SEC teams in the Big Dance can be affected by upsets in the conference tournaments. For instance, let’s say Depaul upsets Marquette in the Big East. Depaul gets the AQ, but Marquette is nationally ranked, so they will still go, and maybe that means one less SEC team.

As usual, your logic is spot on and this despite the dreaded SEC being the WORST of the P5 conferences and they still will get 6 possibly 7 teams in. Boy do I want upsets! Locks from the SEC are MSU, SC, KY, Mizzou, Auburn, Texas A&M. Bubble is Georgia RPI-113 Massey-61, LSU RPI-75/M-57 and Tenn RPI-59/M-47

The Tenn peripherals are better than both LSU and Georgia but the RPI doesn't warrant NCAA inclusion. Unfortunately, the committee will do all it can to keep Tenn in, IMHO. What am I missing?

 

[PoppaBear]

In