Updated Metrics (2/26/23) | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Updated Metrics (2/26/23)

BFieldHusky said:
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?
Expand ...
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.
 
shizzle787 said:
Losses matter.
Expand ...
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
.-.
shizzle787 said:
Against teams that actually matter, they would be 11-14.
Expand ...
shizzle787 said:
Losses matter.
Expand ...
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.
 
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.
 
shizzle787 said:
Losses matter.
Expand ...
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.

www.cbssports.com

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 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 said:
You just really don’t have a grasp of how all this works. Basically everything you post illustrates that.
Expand ...
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).
 
.-.
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.
 
Last edited:
OkaForPrez said:
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
Expand ...

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
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
You need to read up on the theory of holes…..when you are in one, you should stop digging.
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
GL with your analysis.
 
.-.
shizzle787 said:
Losses matter.
Expand ...

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
 
caw said:
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
Expand ...
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.
 
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
Oklahoma is top 50 NET, so on neutral it would be Q1.
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...
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).
 
August_West said:
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
Expand ...
A loss to a revitalized nova may not be the distance as they are probably on or near the bubble
 
Q
shizzle787 said:
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.
Expand ...

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:

shizzle787 said:
Losses matter.
Expand ...

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.
 
.-.
caw said:
Q


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:



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.
Expand ...
Another thing you are forgetting is that some of these bubble teams will win three or four more games. Teams play themselves off the bubble, but they also play themselves in. About half will play themselves in and you have bid-thieves.

Take Pitt. They have 21 wins. They will likely win one or two more. Even in a down year for the ACC, a 23-win Pitt is getting in.

One thing that you are also not taking into account is the human element on the board (and I type this as I realize that the Iowa State AD is on the committee). The ACC representative is not going to stand for a 17-win Iowa State getting in over a 23-win Clemson. Not going to happen.

Anyway: I have 25 teams as pure mathematical locks as of today.

I have 9 more teams that will likely play their way in (one or two more wins): Kentucky, USC, Missouri, Texas A&M, USC, Arizona State, Illinois, Pitt, Clemson.

That is 34 teams that should be in. They play in the major six leagues, the MW, WCC, and AAC.

Let's assume there are three bid thieves among those nine leagues: 34 teams that should be minus six auto bids = 28 at-larges already accounted for.

Let's assume one of Charleston or FAU lose in their conference final (and VCU wins the A-10): another bid thief.

This gives us eight spots to fight for.

The contenders (my bubble-predicted regular season records in second parentheses):
Iowa State (17-11: not on the bubble yet but if they lose all three I think they are out) (17-14)
North Carolina (18-11) (20-11)
Oklahoma State (16-13) (17-14)
Wake Forest (18-11) (19-12)
West Virginia (16-13) (17-14)
Texas Tech (16-13) (16-15)
Michigan (17-12) (17-14)
Iowa (18-11) (19-12)
Michigan State (17-11) (19-11)
Rutgers (18-11) (20-11)
Wisconsin (16-12) (17-13)
Boise State (22-7) (23-8)
Utah State (22-7) (24-7)
Nevada (22-7) (24-7)
New Mexico (20-9) (22-9)
Auburn (19-10) (19-12)
Arkansas (19-10) (19-12)
Mississippi State (19-10) (21-10)
Charleston (28-3: assuming losing in CAA final) (30-4)

If Iowa State is to make the field, they have to be one of the top eight here; to make the field without a bye, one of the top four.

I don't know who will do what, but I will predict a little (only regular season-conference tourneys would take too long).

I based my projections on realistic results: you are probably not going to win on the road against the #8 team in the country, etc.


The eight teams I highlighted will be the eight teams I think get in.

My reasoning:
The MW will get three teams in. SDSU + 2 others. That is two bids.
Mississippi State has a favorable schedule. I see them going 2-0 this week to get to 21 wins. Probably win one more in the SEC tournament to get to 22. Don't see a 22-11 SEC team with a win over Marquette being left out.
Auburn and Arkansas I have both losing their last two regular season games to good teams, but I think one will win at least one game in the SEC tournament (probably Auburn). If you get to 20 wins in the SEC, you will get in (unless you're Texas A&M who likes to schedule a ton of cupcakes). One more bids.
UNC is going to get on a little heater here. I think they beat Duke at home and win a game or two in the ACC tournament. One more bid.
Michigan State and Rutgers have favorable schedules and will probably be in even if they lose in their first respective games in the B1G tournament as long as they go 2-0 this week. Two more bids.
Finally, Charleston. I think there is a good chance they get to the final of the CAA tournament and lose to Hofstra. Politically, I don't see a 30-4 team from a middle of the pack D-1 league missing the tournament, especially in a year with few mid-majors in the field otherwise. One more bid.

My projected last four byes:
Michigan State
Rutgers
Boise State
UNC

My projected last four in:
Utah State
Auburn
Charleston
Mississippi State

My projected first four out:
Arkansas
Utah State
Iowa
Oklahoma State

My projected next four out:
Iowa State
Michigan
New Mexico
West Virginia

Iowa State will be the fifth team out according to my projections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,567
Messages
4,528,281
Members
10,403
Latest member
jerm10


Top Bottom