The Bubble | Page 4 | The Boneyard

The Bubble


1583517001112.png


If I'm reading this right bracketmatrix has us as 10th out. There'll probably be some bid stealers so I'd say @Slasher is pretty on the money with his 13th out analysis. I am now thinking it's not impossible for us to get an at-large. Just extremely unlikely.
 
Palatine said:
Let's see Seton Hall's record with our travel schedule. Travel in the BE is equivalent to Syracuse's December schedule. It's still a Providence centric conference that was created to protect the Friar basketball program. It's HQ is still in Rhode Island. I don't give a darn about the ZBE. It's a worse baseball, soccer, non football league with good basketball that we helped create. Hurray for Crate and Barrel.
Expand ...

...so a league with worse travel, which makes teams comparatively worse, is better in your mind?

Wow - you're even more wrong than i ever imagined on this...
 
king conn said:
Memphis is one spot ahead of us in NET, 9 spots behind us in BPI, and 11 spots behind us in kenpom
Yet you have us 9 spots behind them in your system
Can you explain?
Expand ...

Sure -- my bracketology is formula driven, it takes pretty much every input you can think off and calculates the result and has been refined over the years based on actual results (how the NCAA seeded teams.) Right now, what's hurting UConn is just 2 Q2 wins. UConn is 5-11 in Q1 and Q2. The last at-large bids tend to be around .500 in that category. Memphis is 8-6 in Q1/Q2. So in two fewer games they have three more wins. That's really the main difference. Both have a blemishes (3 Q3 losses for Memphis and 1 Q4 loss for UConn) that more or less even out.
 
tzznandrew said:
Oh, you mean posting the main metric that the NCAA uses was irrelevant to which conference was better? Or the fact that I was compiling a list that shows that, by KenPom, 6 AAC teams are worse than the worst BE team--two are twice as bad--and, after Houston (who KenPom does have as higher than the highest BE team, though I'm skeptical, whatever) it takes 5 BE schools before you get to the next AAC school. And the team leading the AAC has a worse KenPom score than every single BE school but DePaul.
Expand ...
Good lord. All this crap is a self licking ice cone. How the model is first instantiated, seeded and weighted drives the outcomes. If you start BE and B1G teams high in the rankings, then that distortion remains and ripples through the entire model. The BE is a better basketball conference. By how much is not at all that clear.
 
.-.
Slasher said:
Sure -- my bracketology is formula driven, it takes pretty much every input you can think off and calculates the result and has been refined over the years based on actual results (how the NCAA seeded teams.) Right now, what's hurting UConn is just 2 Q2 wins. UConn is 5-11 in Q1 and Q2. The last at-large bids tend to be around .500 in that category. Memphis is 8-6 in Q1/Q2. So in two fewer games they have three more wins. That's really the main difference. Both have a blemishes (3 Q3 losses for Memphis and 1 Q4 loss for UConn) that more or less even out.
Expand ...

Yeah with those 2 games moving to Q1, we're now 2-6 in Q2. Which is bad. Very bad. It's the reason we're 84th in Wins Above Bubble and 80s in other strength of record metrics.
 
Waterbury said:

View attachment 51650

If I'm reading this right bracketmatrix has us as 10th out. There'll probably be some bid stealers so I'd say @Slasher is pretty on the money with his 13th out analysis. I am now thinking it's not impossible for us to get an at-large. Just extremely unlikely.
Expand ...

What this actually means is that someone actually put us in the field(!) as an at-large. That's a consensus aggregation website. Once you get past Arkansas in that, the order is pretty random.

This is the site that did, but once you go there, we're not in the bracket. Must have been an input error by them or the matrix.
 
There is not enough track record with the new selection system to determine how the Committee will go. In the old days (like 5 years ago), the Committee basically took the RPI rankings and tweaked it a little.

Now, who knows? Will NET be the starting point like RPI used to be, or will the Committee be much more subjective. Will the Committee leave a 35 NET team out and take a 60 NET teams? I have no idea.

Honestly, I think subjective helps more than hurts us, because our NET, Kenpom and BPI are not going to get where they need to be if we lose again.
 
BlueDogs said:
Good lord. All this crap is a self licking ice cone. How the model is first instantiated, seeded and weighted drives the outcomes. If you start BE and B1G teams high in the rankings, then that distortion remains and ripples through the entire model. The BE is a better basketball conference. By how much is not at all that clear.
Expand ...
The NET is not seeded at all. So I'm not sure where you are coming up with this. KenPom is seeded until January or so, but by now it's 100% driven only by results from this year.
 
.-.
I think if we beat Tulane and make it to the final of the conference tournament, we'll at least get a look at an at-large bid. That'll put us at 22-13 with 13 wins out of our final 16 games. If we're the 7 seed and make it to the conference tournament final, that'll mean we beat the #2 and #3 seed of the conference.
 
Dream Jobbed 2.0 said:
Can’t hold SJU against us. No Bouknight
Expand ...
They can. They will. They should.

It's inexcusable to lose to a team like that, and a good team, even sans one player, wouldn't do that. We're obviously much better now than then, but it was a really really bad loss without compensating great wins.

For comparison, our bonehead bad loss in the 2002 season everyone was up in arms about was St. Bonaventure, and they were a Top 100 Kenpom team that year, and it was Neutral, rather than Home.
 
tzznandrew said:
They can. They will. They should.

It's inexcusable to lose to a team like that, and a good team, even sans one player, wouldn't do that. We're obviously much better now than then, but it was a really really bad loss without compensating great wins.

For comparison, our bonehead bad loss in the 2002 season everyone was up in arms about was St. Bonaventure, and they were a Top 100 Kenpom team that year, and it was Neutral, rather than Home.
Expand ...
That game was definitely at the XL center.
 
JimHurley said:
I think if we beat Tulane and make it to the final of the conference tournament, we'll at least get a look at an at-large bid. That'll put us at 22-13 with 13 wins out of our final 16 games. If we're the 7 seed and make it to the conference tournament final, that'll mean we beat the #2 and #3 seed of the conference.
Expand ...
This is a path to the tournament as I see it
 
.-.
Bad losses are really overrated anyways. The committee cares much more about quality wins than bad losses. Providence has four and is going to get in. Cincy has four and is probably roughly 50/50 to get in.
 
Dream Jobbed 2.0 said:
That game was definitely at the XL center.
Expand ...
Ha. Weird. College basketball reference marks the game as at a neutral site, but when I clicked into it, it said it was at the Civic Center. Strange.

www.sports-reference.com

2001-02 UConn Huskies Men's Schedule and Results | College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com

Check out the detailed 2001-02 UConn Huskies Schedule and Results for College Basketball at Sports-Reference.com
www.sports-reference.com www.sports-reference.com

Point still stands: St. Bonaventure was not nearly as bad a team as St. Joseph's.
 
Slasher said:
Bad losses are really overrated anyways. The committee cares much more about quality wins than bad losses. Providence has four and is going to get in. Cincy has four and is probably roughly 50/50 to get in.
Expand ...
They're easily overlooked when you have big wins. UConn really doesn't. Two home wins against teams that will be seeded 6-9 isn't going to coax them to forget their home loss to a 6-win team.
 
Slasher said:
The NET is not seeded at all. So I'm not sure where you are coming up with this. KenPom is seeded until January or so, but by now it's 100% driven only by results from this year.
Expand ...

If you translate his rant into English, I think his point was that the NET was designed to favor teams in power conferences playing a conference schedule of teams in power conferences. Which many have argued.

FWIW.
 
businesslawyer said:
If you translate his rant into English, I think his point was that the NET was designed to favor teams in power conferences playing a conference schedule of teams in power conferences. Which many have argued.

FWIW.
Expand ...
Which might be more compelling if 4 out of the top 10 in NET weren't from outside the P5, and 9 of the Top 20,

2. Gonzaga
3. Dayton
4. San Diego State
9. BYU
12. Creighton
13. Villanova
14. Seton Hall
17. Butler
20. Houston

There are 3 WCC teams (Gonzaga, BYU, St. Mary's) that, beating them at home, would give you Quad 1 wins. That's 3 times more than the AAC!
 
.-.
Dooooooomed said:
Our NET only went up 2 spots to #61 after beating the #20 NET Houston. We'll actually have a bigger jump by beating #171 NET Tulane because it's on the road. This metric is super wonky.
Expand ...

Yeah. Memphis went from 65 to 60 this week beating Tulane on the road by 7 and Wichita St at home by 8.
 
businesslawyer said:
I don't understand the "either, or" nature of this discussion. It is not the case that the AAC has to be either as good as the Big East or the worst conference in the history of basketball. It is allowed to be what it is -- year in and year out the 7th best conference in the country, which normally is closer to the bottom of the Big 6 than the best of everyone else.
Expand ...
The problem here is that you can't let you lawyerly self go here. Your statement is true in actual fact (**pushes glasses up to nose** "Well, technically there are 29 conferences, and the AAC is the 7th best, so in definition...).

But the reality is that the AAC is in a tier of conferences that have so many crappy teams that there aren't many opportunities to build your resume in conference. Because of that you cannot slip up much OOC, and if you don't schedule incredibly well, you're essentially doomed going into the conference season. See, for instance, Tulsa, who will have part of the conference crown but be left out. That doesn't happen in a conference that matters.

Or, to put it better, a conference that is not "below average" in the spirit of that statement, if not the letter.
 
Slasher said:
The NET is not seeded at all. So I'm not sure where you are coming up with this. KenPom is seeded until January or so, but by now it's 100% driven only by results from this year.
Expand ...
Seeded meaning initial data inputs into the model and underlying weighting. Not seeding as in basketball seeding. "NET, relies on game results, strength of schedule, game location, scoring margin, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses." These require an initial state assumption for the model. I know of no model that starts without any assumptions or relations even back-propagation models require an initial state and quantitative adjustments that dictate the rate of topological change.
 
tzznandrew said:
The problem here is that you can't let you lawyerly self go here. Your statement is true in actual fact (**pushes glasses up to nose** "Well, technically there are 29 conferences, and the AAC is the 7th best, so in definition...).

But the reality is that the AAC is in a tier of conferences that have so many crappy teams that there aren't many opportunities to build your resume in conference. Because of that you cannot slip up much OOC, and if you don't schedule incredibly well, you're essentially doomed going into the conference season. See, for instance, Tulsa, who will have part of the conference crown but be left out. That doesn't happen in a conference that matters.

Or, to put it better, a conference that is not "below average" in the spirit of that statement, if not the letter.
Expand ...

I hear you, but it's more than being lawyerly about it. My point was, is, and remains, that the AAC is somewhere between an important basketball conference and not an important basketball conference in a world where the line between "power conferences" and everyone else is not as clear as it is in football. Most years, half the AAC would be competitive in the Pac Ten, and many years in the SEC as well. Is it as consistent top to bottom -- no, it isn't, or it would be as good as them. But in any given year, the AAC is just as likely to be closer in top to bottom quality to the Pac Ten than it is to Mountain West or the A-Ten. It remains in between, and it remains a multi-bid conference (even though some years that doesn't happen).
 
A slot may have just opened. Northern Iowa just lost in MVC quarters...likely still an at-large but they’re at risk.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,221
Messages
4,557,879
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom