So, how is the bubble defined for the Tournament

[DefenseBB]

I am an analyst by trade, so I am operating under the understanding that the NCAAT Committee uses RPI with some minor leeway on their assessments (teams need to be over .500; SoS, good Q1 wins-Quadrant 1 is defined as the top 50 RPI schools; schools playing better lately vs. schools stinking lately-tOSU vs. WVU). I need to reach out to my peers here to correct any flaws my hypothesis I am about to postulate on.

• There are 32 conferences with automatic bids.
• 16 of the those conferences have teams within the top 48-50 RPI ratings.
• That means 16 conferences are outside the 48-50 range that will get a bid.
• 64 teams in the NCAAT minus 16 teams outside means the top 48 schools to vie for the remaining slots (16 automatic bids and the 32 at-large bids).
• So, in theory, if your team is ranked 49 or higher in RPI, you are on the outside looking in with only a handful of regular season conference games to go to move your RPI.
• That's my understanding. What am I missing?

Now having said that, I am dumbfounded then that #54 Tennessee at 17-8, with a Quadrant 1 record of 1-8 with the 1 win over #28 LSU could be a) Ranked by any voter (6 freakin votes this week) b) or even considered on the bubble with 4 straight losses, 5-5 last 10 record.

What hasn't been mentioned is UCF is at #41 RPI with a 1-4 Q1 (#17 Central Mich) yet I haven't heard them mentioned in or even as a bubble team, why? UCF SoS is #42 while Tenn is #75, UCF OOC is #20 while Tenn is #258. UCF has 4 straight wins, 6-4 in their last 10. Seriously, Tenn does not deserve to be in the NCAAT.

There was some debate on Nebraska who is 16-10 but whose RPI is #86, SoS is #53, OOC is #264. Their Q1 is 3-9: their wins are #10 Iowa, #31 Duke, #35 Mich while they have 2 bad losses of Mich St #92, #71 Minn . The last good win came on Jan 19th, a month ago. They are 3-9 in their last 12. Why are they even a discussion at #86??? Next...

What say you my knowledgeable colleagues because clearly I am confused.

 

[meyers7]

What say you my knowledgeable colleagues because clearly I am confused.

Pretty simple. SEC always gets at least 7, sometimes 8 teams in the tourney (like 9 out of the last 10 years). Tenn is presently 17-8 (7-5 in SEC - 7th place). They will probably end up 21-10 (10-6 in SEC 7th place). They'll get in.

 

[maccca3232]

What hasn't been mentioned is UCF is at #41 RPI with a 1-4 Q1 (#17 Central Mich) yet I haven't heard them mentioned in or even as a bubble team, why? UCF SoS is #42 while Tenn is #75, UCF OOC is #20 while Tenn is #258. UCF has 4 straight wins, 6-4 in their last 10. Seriously, Tenn does not deserve to be in the NCAAT.

Creme has UCF as 12 seed in his latest Bracketology (18 Feb) and as 'First 4 Out' the week before (11 Feb).

There was some debate on Nebraska who is 16-10 but whose RPI is #86, SoS is #53, OOC is #264. Their Q1 is 3-9: their wins are #10 Iowa, #31 Duke, #35 Mich while they have 2 bad losses of Mich St #92, #71 Minn . The last good win came on Jan 19th, a month ago. They are 3-9 in their last 12. Why are they even a discussion at #86??? Next...

Creme hasn't had Nebraska in his Bracketology since 3 weeks ago (03 Feb). The week after (10 Feb) they were 'Next 4 Out' and have not been mentioned at all the last 2 weeks.

 

[Plebe]

All of this bracketology stuff is a bit like reaching into freezing water with one bare hand while blindfolded and trying to catch minnows. It's based on historical patterns of how committees have **tended** to interpret their own vaguely stated criteria for selecting and seeding teams. But the science is inexact, of course, and committee decisions from year to year are inherently unpredictable to some degree.

RPI is just a starting point before the real analysis begins. The committee loves to see quality wins -- which for bubble teams generally means wins over teams in the the RPI top 50 -- but they also look at "bad losses," which is less clearly defined, but certainly any loss to a team outside the top 100 is a bad loss.

I think of it as a sort of ledger system of credits and debits, where "quality wins" bolster a team's position and bad losses undercut it. Just exactly how much one helps and the other hurts is one of the more slippery parts of the analysis, but this is where the bid is either won or lost.

The other thing to remember is that it's always a comparison game. People always try to look at one team in a vacuum, cherry-pick a couple of data points for said team, and then claim "they should be out" or "they should be in" based on the cherry-picked data points, without much thought for how they compare to other teams.

As for Tennessee, they currently have one quality win over LSU, and just as importantly, they have zero losses to teams outside the top 50. It's a pretty mediocre resume, to be sure, but when you compare it to others in the "bubble" vicinity, other resumes have bigger holes. Here are just some of the teams that are hovering in the bubble area:

• Oklahoma State currently has zero wins over the RPI top 50 and a bad loss to #147 Texas Tech. Clearly their resume is behind Tennessee's.
• West Virginia has better quality wins but has been tanking lately with 8 losses in their last 10 games, including a bad loss to Kansas State. Clearly behind Tennessee.
• James Madison's only top 50 win is over UCF, and they also have a bad loss to #168 Towson. Clearly behind Tennessee.
• Bradley has a top 50 win over Drake but also has losses to #106 Liberty and a #82 Southern Illinois. Due to these two losses, their resume would have to be behind Tennessee's.
• Western Kentucky has a quality win over Central Michigan but losses to #250 North Texas, #155 St. Mary's and #83 Rice. Again, clearly inferior to Tennessee's resume.
• UCF also has a win over Central Michigan but losses to #156 Tulane as well as 3 losses to teams in the 51-100 range. Also behind Tennessee.

Long story short: When it gets down to the nitty gritty, there wouldn't be 32 at-large teams with better resumes than what Tennessee currently has. As of now Tennessee is probably an 8 or 9 seed.

 

[DefenseBB]

I want to hit like to @Plebe reply but he has Tenn in and that is not what I want to hear, therefore I cannot "Like" his reply!

So RPI considers Tenn at #54 and James Madison at #43. Tenn has played Cupcake U in scheduling OOC at #257 while JMU has an OOC of #79. Each have one Top 50 win. While JMU did lose to Towson back on Jan 12 (by a point) they have played the harder schedule and thus were challenged night in, night out. A slip up over a month ago should not be held against them. Meanwhile Tenn has lost 4 IN A ROW (soon to be 5!) and then plays the 3 cupcakes of the SEC in Vandy, Ole Miss and Auburn. How this resume is better than JMU is beyond me but I do believe him that the committee will see it that way! Aaaaarrrrgggghhh.

My initial inclusion of UCF and Nebraska had more to do with game thread comments than Charlie Crème statements. Similar to those that think Colorado, Utah, WSU, Oklahoma, Texas Tech all deserve consideration due their "eye test" in those posters eyes.

RPI is supposed to be the strong starting point, with latest trend and then good wins lately vs. bad losses lately. What defines "lately"? We have 2+ weeks to go with the Conference Tournaments but I am already irritated over what I definitely perceive to be a lack of logic by the committee. Really, who want to see the 6th or 7th team from the ACC, Big 12 or SEC in the dance from a quality perspective over a plucky JMU, Creighton or Ohio team? Only those who graduated from those schools! "All we are saying, is give the underdog a chance"...

 

[LETTERL]

I am already irritated over what I definitely perceive to be a lack of logic by the committee.

Hmm...do you have some inside knowledge of what at-large bids the Committee is considering that the rest of us aren't privy to? Please share!

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

There are numerous good points raised by all of you.

Defense - yes, in the end, there are some outliers. While it is a clear bubble if your RPI is over say 45 that's when all the comparison stuff can come into play. BeKnighted on the Rutgers board covers this really well right around selection time.

Also, one thing I'm pretty sure of, they actually switched to a "modified" RPI a couple years ago, but they have never revealed exactly how it is "massaged", but most likely there is some factor for home and away. It is not as adjusted as the Men's side.