Updated Metrics (2/26/23)

[Fishy]

Iowa State all of a sudden is in a precarious spot. If they lose their last two and their first game in the Big 12 tournament, they would be 17-14. Very possibly would be out entirely.

They have eight quad one wins…they are fine.

 

[shizzle787]

They have eight quad one wins…they are fine.

Losses matter.

 

[housekeys]

NET: 8
KenPom: 5 (moved up a spot yesterday)
ESPN BPI: 5
Sagarin: 6

As for the AP rankings, the following ranked teams lost this week:

#5 Purdue
#6 Virginia (2x)
#7 Arizona
#8 Texas
#9 Baylor
#11 Tennessee
#13 Miami
#15 St. Mary's
#16 Xavier
#17 Indiana
#19 Creighton (2x)
#20 Providence (also plays Sunday on the road)
#21 Northwestern (also plays Sunday on the road)
#23 Iowa State (2x)
#24 TCU

I bolded the teams that were ahead of us last Saturday in the projection show. They include Virginia (seed #10), Arizona (#6), Texas (#5), Baylor (#7), Tennessee (#9), Xavier (#16), Indiana (#13), and Iowa State (#11).

Based on what's happened in the last 8 days, I'd like to think we are ahead of:

Iowa State (lost 3 in a row)
Indiana
Xavier (yes, they beat us twice, but our metrics are superior to them)
Virginia (who lost to 2 bad teams this week).

I think we are on the 4 line as of today, and possibly the last 3. Which would add up. The other teams they mentioned with us (Creighton lost twice this week), St. Mary's (lost last night) and Miami (lost yesterday) should be behind us.

Thoughts?

Another metric, perhaps our best, is we pass the eye test. National CBS audience helps, as will BE tourney wins. Even in our losses, it was easy to see, we were pretty good, but needed work, We were always the hunted, in every one of our games.

 

[OkaForPrez]

Losses matter.

their AD is on the comittee

CHRIS REYNOLDS (2023) – Bradley Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics (Chairman)

BERNADETTE MCGLADE (2023) – Atlantic 10 Commissioner

CHARLES MCCLELLAND (2024) – SWAC Commissioner (Vice-Chairman)

JAMIE POLLARD (2024) – Iowa State Athletic Director

BUBBA CUNNINGHAM (2025) – North Carolina Athletic Director

MARK COYLE (2026) – Minnesota Athletic Director

DAVE HEEKE (2026) – Arizona Athletic Director

GREG BYRNE (2026) – Alabama Athletic Director

KEITH GILL (2026) – Sun Belt Commissioner

BARRY COLLIER (2026) – Butler Athletic Director

MARTIN NEWTON (2027) – Samford Athletic Director

TOM WISTRCILL (2027) – Big Sky Commisisoner

 

[OkaForPrez]

Bracket Matrix (wisdom of the crowd) has us 2nd on the 4 seed line behind Virginia as of 2/25. Not all of the inputting sites update daily so there could be a lagging effect to capture the impact of this weekends games.

 

[gtcam]

Things are so vanilla in college basketball that I wouldn't be surprised at anyone's eventual ranking. I think this year more than any other, the committee will be hard pressed to have a definitive top 12 or 16 until all conference tournaments are completed on selection Sunday.
UConn needs to win out the last 2 games and appear in the NBE final, in my opinion, to get above the 3 line. The January cave in was that devastating.

 

[auror]

Against teams that actually matter, they would be 11-14.

Losses matter.

They're 24 and 27 in the two resume metrics right now (KPI and SOR). Those are the primary selection metrics for the bubble (more important than KenPom/NET). 3 more losses - 1 at Baylor, 1 home to West Virginia (who is still top 30 in the NET so it's quad 1), and a neutral site B12 game (which by default is quad 1) means 3 quad 1 losses. That's dropping them 10 points max in resume metrics. They'd still be top 35-40 for resume and likely the same or higher in predictive with 8 quad 1 wins. They'd be fine.

They'd be going up against like UNC with metrics in the mid 40s and something like 3-9 in quad 1. That's what the bubble is.

 

[Fishy]

Losses matter.

Lol…..eight quad one wins.

Look at the bubble and report back on the number of teams there with more quad one wins.

 

[SubbaBub]

Will be a 4. The committee has 2 weeks and a slew of big tournament games to get everyone where they need to be.



If they put us higher and we lay an egg in the next two weeks they will have to explain us staying or dropping too far when our net ranking didn't move all that much.

 

[HooperScooper]

Losses matter.

Things have gone from bad to worse to horrific in Ames with No. 23 Iowa State falling twice this week to OU and to Texas by a combined 29 points. The Cyclones are still comfortably in the NCAA Tournament field but look destined to go one-and-done with the way they're playing of late.

College basketball rankings, grades: Another 'A+' for Kentucky; Michigan earns a 'B+' and Virginia gets 'F'

The Wolverines needed Hunter Dickinson's 3-pointer at end of regulation to earn an OT win vs. Wisconsin

www.cbssports.com

Btw, what's with Boone's comment about UConn's defense? I was not happy about the way they couldn't stop St. John's from getting to the rim yesterday but besides that game I think they've been pretty good lately. I think he's been on the Boneyard. Lol. They've Slipped to #23 in defense on KenPom so maybe that's what he's referring to?

 

[7774]

Losses matter.

You just really don’t have a grasp of how all this works. Basically everything you post illustrates that.

 

[shizzle787]

You just really don’t have a grasp of how all this works. Basically everything you post illustrates that.

I have a better understanding than most. Look up how many teams have gotten in with a 17-14 record in history (regardless of SOS).

 

[shizzle787]

Kansas State (17-14: 1990), Villanova (16-14: 1991), Georgia (16-14: 2001), Michigan (17-14, 2022). That's the list of at-large teams since 1985 that have gotten in less than 3 games over .500. There were two teams in 2021 that met that criteria but that was the COVID season so everything was off.

 

[7774]

I have a better understanding than most. Look up how many teams have gotten in with a 17-14 record in history (regardless of SOS).

In the 68 team era the bubble is total pile of hot garbage every single year. Every single year. The chances that a 17-14 team with 8 Q1 wins doesn’t at least make the play in game is 0%.

 

[shizzle787]

In the 68 team era the bubble is total pile of hot garbage every single year. Every single year. The chances that a 17-14 team with 8 Q1 wins doesn’t at least make the play in game is 0%.

The 68-team era having a worse bubble would make sense if there wasn't consolidation among the top 10 leagues in the last decade, but there has been. The major leagues are bigger (and thus more major conference teams have suspect records) and we still have only seen Michigan (last year) get in with a record this bad. (I don't count the two 2021 teams as OOC schedules were all over the place.) In the 26 seasons between 1985 and 2010, three suspect teams got in. So about 11% of the time, one of these teams got in. Between 2011 and 2022 (10 seasons-not counting 20 or 21), only one suspect team got in (9% of the time). For all the talk of the bubble getting worse, statistically it is actually harder to get in only three games over .500.

Also, Iowa State has eight Q1 wins right now, but you are forgetting some of those may turn into Q2 before Selection Sunday, and they will pick up at least one more Q2 loss along the way if they lose out.

Two of the Quad 1 wins (UNC: 47 and Oklahoma: 65) are on life support. That is a problem. If those two stink up the joint, Iowa State would likely finish 6-11 in Quad 1.

It gets better: they are 2-8 on the road this year.

 

[willie99]

their AD is on the comittee

CHRIS REYNOLDS (2023) – Bradley Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics (Chairman)

BERNADETTE MCGLADE (2023) – Atlantic 10 Commissioner

CHARLES MCCLELLAND (2024) – SWAC Commissioner (Vice-Chairman)

JAMIE POLLARD (2024) – Iowa State Athletic Director

BUBBA CUNNINGHAM (2025) – North Carolina Athletic Director

MARK COYLE (2026) – Minnesota Athletic Director

DAVE HEEKE (2026) – Arizona Athletic Director

GREG BYRNE (2026) – Alabama Athletic Director

KEITH GILL (2026) – Sun Belt Commissioner

BARRY COLLIER (2026) – Butler Athletic Director

MARTIN NEWTON (2027) – Samford Athletic Director

TOM WISTRCILL (2027) – Big Sky Commisisoner

The most important variable. George Mason should not have been selected in 2006. In their own conference, Hofstra finished higher, had a better RPI, beat them twice and eliminated them in the conference tournament. But Mason's AD was on the committee and Mason got the at large, not Hofstra

 

[uconngb]

The 68-team era having a worse bubble would make sense if there wasn't consolidation among the top 10 leagues in the last decade, but there has been. The major leagues are bigger (and thus more major conference teams have suspect records) and we still have only seen Michigan (last year) get in with a record this bad. (I don't count the two 2021 teams as OOC schedules were all over the place.) In the 26 seasons between 1985 and 2010, three suspect teams got in. So about 11% of the time, one of these teams got in. Between 2011 and 2022 (10 seasons-not counting 20 or 21), only one suspect team got in (9% of the time). For all the talk of the bubble getting worse, statistically it is actually harder to get in only three games over .500.

Also, Iowa State has eight Q1 wins right now, but you are forgetting some of those may turn into Q2 before Selection Sunday, and they will pick up at least one more Q2 loss along the way if they lose out.

You need to read up on the theory of holes…..when you are in one, you should stop digging.

 

[7774]

The 68-team era having a worse bubble would make sense if there wasn't consolidation among the top 10 leagues in the last decade, but there has been. The major leagues are bigger (and thus more major conference teams have suspect records) and we still have only seen Michigan (last year) get in with a record this bad. (I don't count the two 2021 teams as OOC schedules were all over the place.) In the 26 seasons between 1985 and 2010, three suspect teams got in. So about 11% of the time, one of these teams got in. Between 2011 and 2022 (10 seasons-not counting 20 or 21), only one suspect team got in (9% of the time). For all the talk of the bubble getting worse, statistically it is actually harder to get in only three games over .500.

Also, Iowa State has eight Q1 wins right now, but you are forgetting some of those may turn into Q2 before Selection Sunday, and they will pick up at least one more Q2 loss along the way if they lose out.

GL with your analysis.

 

[MDHuskFan]

Why do people still debate w/ Shizzle ? Insanity

 

[ucp990411]

Who cares? We are going to win 14 straight

 

[caw]

Losses matter.

ISU (11-11 Q1/Q2) 17-11, no bad losses, only WVU and Baylor remain on schedule. Both Q1 games. They will not be outside looking in come the dance. They could fall pretty far but look at the last eight teams in. There isn't a single one with a better resume, even if you give ISU three losses.

ESPN last four BYES:
Pitt(7-7), 21-8, one bad loss
Nevada (9-7), 21-7, no bad losses
WVU (9-13), 16-13, no bad losses
Memphis (9-6), 21-7, one bad loss

ESPN last four in:

USC, PAC12 version (10-6 Q1/Q2) 21-8 overall, 2 bad losses
Wisconsin (10-9 Q1/Q2) 16-11 overall, 2 bad losses
Mississippi state (8-9 Q1/Q2) 19-10, 1 bad loss
Oklahoma state (8-12 Q1/Q2) 16-13, 1 bad loss

ESPN last four out:
PSU (7-11) 17-11, no bad losses
UNC (6-11) 18-11, no bad losses
Utah State (6-5) 22-7, 2 bad losses
Charleston (2-1) 28-3, 2 bad losses

Next four out:
Texas Tech (5-13), 16-13, no bad losses
Michigan (8-11), 16-12, 1 bad loss
New Mexico (6-5) 20-9, 4 bad losses
Clemson (7-4) 21-8, 4 bad losses

 

[shizzle787]

ISU (11-11 Q1/Q2) 17-11, no bad losses, only WVU and Baylor remain on schedule. Both Q1 games. They will not be outside looking in come the dance. They could fall pretty far but look at the last eight teams in. There isn't a single one with a better resume, even if you give ISU three losses.

ESPN last four BYES:
Pitt(7-7), 21-8, one bad loss
Nevada (9-7), 21-7, no bad losses
WVU (9-13), 16-13, no bad losses
Memphis (9-6), 21-7, one bad loss

ESPN last four in:

USC, PAC12 version (10-6 Q1/Q2) 21-8 overall, 2 bad losses
Wisconsin (10-9 Q1/Q2) 16-11 overall, 2 bad losses
Mississippi state (8-9 Q1/Q2) 19-10, 1 bad loss
Oklahoma state (8-12 Q1/Q2) 16-13, 1 bad loss

ESPN last four out:
PSU (7-11) 17-11, no bad losses
UNC (6-11) 18-11, no bad losses
Utah State (6-5) 22-7, 2 bad losses
Charleston (2-1) 28-3, 2 bad losses

Next four out:
Texas Tech (5-13), 16-13, no bad losses
Michigan (8-11), 16-12, 1 bad loss
New Mexico (6-5) 20-9, 4 bad losses
Clemson (7-4) 21-8, 4 bad losses

You're forgetting something: bid thieves. A few teams will come out of nowhere and snatch bids shrinking the bubble so you have to move about four spots down the pecking order for everyone. Iowa State is also 2-8 on the road. The committee values road wins possibly more than anything else.

WVU is Q1 for now, but if they beat Iowa State and lose their other two, falling from 27 to 31 is very possible. Also, if Iowa State loses out, they will likely play Oklahoma in the first round of the Big 12 tournament (that would be a Quad 2 loss).

I highlighted the ones that IMO would have a better resume than Iowa State if it loses out.

Also, this is Lunardi's predictions. He is notoriously average on BracketMatrix so I would pick someone else out to do an analysis on.

 

[auror]

You're forgetting something: bid thieves. A few teams will come out of nowhere and snatch bids shrinking the bubble so you have to move about four spots down the pecking order for everyone. Iowa State is also 2-8 on the road. The committee values road wins possibly more than anything else.

WVU is Q1 for now, but if they beat Iowa State and lose their other two, falling from 27 to 31 is very possible. Also, if Iowa State loses out, they will likely play Oklahoma in the first round of the Big 12 tournament (that would be a Quad 2 loss).

I highlighted the ones that IMO would have a better resume than Iowa State if it loses out.

Also, this is Lunardi's predictions. He is notoriously average on BracketMatrix so I would pick someone else out to do an analysis on.

Oklahoma is top 50 NET, so on neutral it would be Q1.

Michigan (17-14, 2022). That's the list of at-large teams since 1985 that have gotten in less than 3 games over .500. There were two teams in 2021 that met that criteria but that was the COVID season so everything was off.

They'd have a better profile than Michigan 2022, just last year, who was NET 34, KenPom 33, SOR 44, 5-10 in Q1, 3-3 Q2, with a strong SoS and a Q3 loss. 6-10 road/neutral.

Iowa St. would be similarly ranked analytically. They're 22, 24, and 27 right now, but with 3 somewhat close loses will drop to around 34, 33, 44. They'd be 8-12 in Q1 (substantially better), 2-2 Q2 (similar), and undefeated in Q3+Q4 (better). 4-10 in road/neutral (slightly worse).

 

[AdamaNation]

We can really right a lot of January wrongs by winning both this week and at least 2 in BET .
Win out and the BET and the worse we would be is a 2 with a punchers chance at a 1.( lot of variables) If we go 1-1 this week and lose game one of BET we are a 5 probably maybe 6. We are in charge of our destiny now again. Let’s take advantage

A loss to a revitalized nova may not be the distance as they are probably on or near the bubble

 

[caw]

Q

You're forgetting something: bid thieves. A few teams will come out of nowhere and snatch bids shrinking the bubble so you have to move about four spots down the pecking order for everyone. Iowa State is also 2-8 on the road. The committee values road wins possibly more than anything else.

WVU is Q1 for now, but if they beat Iowa State and lose their other two, falling from 27 to 31 is very possible. Also, if Iowa State loses out, they will likely play Oklahoma in the first round of the Big 12 tournament (that would be a Quad 2 loss).

I highlighted the ones that IMO would have a better resume than Iowa State if it loses out.

Also, this is Lunardi's predictions. He is notoriously average on BracketMatrix so I would pick someone else out to do an analysis on.

Nope, I didn't forget "bid thieves" thus why I included the last four to have byes. The only thing shown by the sixteen released is that they value that for seeding, but they obviously also value whatever ISU had before considering they were in the 16.

The difference in WVU moving to Q2 is negligible as a loss. It remains a game which can not become a bad loss.

Great, your opinion based on what? What metric do you think they have that is better. Not Q1/Q2 wins. And in regards to the ones you highlighted, aside from Nevada let me quote someone here:

Losses matter.

More importantly bad losses matter, those being Q3/Q4 losses. Overall record, that seems flawed and counters everything the NCAA committee has said they look at. Q1 road wins? Sure, let's do that:

ISU 2-8 Q1A

Pitt 3-2 Q1A
Nevada 1-4 Q1A
Memphis 0-3 Q1A
Wisconsin 4-4 Q1A
USC 3-4 Q1A
Utah St 0-3 Q1A

So of the six teams you highlighted, only three have more Q1A wins than ISU, and again all three have bad losses. Pitt may have the best argument of the six at 3-2. Not exactly running away with it here are they. Wisconsin at 4-4, but again 2 bad bad losses to ISU's zero and ISU isn't the team making up distance.


Yes, it is Lunardi, but it doesn't really matter how good he is or isn't at bracketology. Unless you are arguing those 16 teams are not around the bubble? Are you arguing that? Be clear here then, give your bubble. Maybe all 16 are in or maybe there are eight other teams in instead of the eight he has out right now. Maybe there are eight in instead that he has 9-16 on the outside looking in. Doesn't really matter. That is very realistic sample of teams on/around the bubble. If you disagree with that statement give your sample. Give you numbers.

I'm done arguing with someone who doesn't bring anything to the argument but "dude my opinion is different".

Want to continue. Give your bubble teams, give your reasoning, give your data.