[Cracked Sidewalks] Marquette Quadrant Watch

[brewcity77]

We're about a month away from Selection Sunday, which means the Selection Committee will be digging into Marquette's resume. There are almost always a number of games on the team sheets that are on the border of one quadrant or another, and those teams falling on the right side of those quadrants will ultimately determine where teams end up seeded in the final NCAA bracket. Let's take a look at where some of those close-to-the-cut teams are on Marquette's resume:

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2020/02/marquette-quadrant-watch.html

[rocket surgeon]

maybe a stupid question, but do they take close losses to quad 1 A teams into account as opposed to being blown out? 

how does one figure a win or a loss to an ohio state team that was ranked #1 albeit briefly, then falling completely out of the top 25, but were evidently worthy at one point in time

beat a team that once sucked, but rose to prominence after that loss.  are they weighted at the time they were played or where they end up when the selection process is under way?

[Cfollow]

maybe a stupid question, but do they take close losses to quad 1 A teams into account as opposed to being blown out? 

how does one figure a win or a loss to an ohio state team that was ranked #1 albeit briefly, then falling completely out of the top 25, but were evidently worthy at one point in time

beat a team that once sucked, but rose to prominence after that loss.  are they weighted at the time they were played or where they end up when the selection process is under way?

There is a margin of victory baked into the NET rankings. I believe it is capped at 10 points. Yes, a close loss to a quad 1 team looks better than being blown out by 25.
When you hear about a specific teams quad 1 wins it is calculated in the current moment.
The final team sheets that calculate all quad 1 wins take into account the final NET rankings after all games have been played. The bottom line is unless you are competing for a bubble spot with a team you have already played I would root for them to blow out every team that they play so as to raise their NET ranking and your own NET ranking.

[We R Final Four]

Good questions Rocket.
Additionally, if team A beats #1 and team B beats #24 is that reflected in the Net or are they both just 1-0 Quad 1 wins?

[Cfollow]

Good questions Rocket.
Additionally, if team A beats #1 and team B beats #24 is that reflected in the Net or are they both just 1-0 Quad 1 wins?

That would be reflected in the Strength of Schedule/ Strength of win metric baked into the NET rankings. Yes, team A would certainly have a higher NET ranking than team B.

[We R Final Four]

Gotcha—thanks

[Cfollow]

I can’t tell you I know every metric that is baked into the NET but I understand the basics. As it stands right now there are some teams with high NET rankings that make no sense. Arizona and Texas Tech and even Michigan State would be three to name a few. Arizona specifically has TWO quad 1 wins and  FIVE quad one losses and is ranked 9th in the NET. They are 17-7 overall with losses to St. John’s and UCLA. Their profile screams bubble team not 3 seed.

[brewcity77]

maybe a stupid question, but do they take close losses to quad 1 A teams into account as opposed to being blown out? 

how does one figure a win or a loss to an ohio state team that was ranked #1 albeit briefly, then falling completely out of the top 25, but were evidently worthy at one point in time

beat a team that once sucked, but rose to prominence after that loss.  are they weighted at the time they were played or where they end up when the selection process is under way?

While it's one question, there are two answers, much of which was addressed here, but I'll add a bit on. Sorry if I'm repeating what others have said.

So as far as what column the game goes in, it's strictly on criteria "in the now". So a loss to OSU loss continues to look worse. That's because OSU was up there in large part because of wins over Cincinnati, UNC, and Kentucky that look less impressive than at the time. Come Selection Sunday, that loss will be wherever it is on Selection Sunday because the reason for OSU's fall is that much of what propped them up in the first place were paper tiger results.

Next, as far as the margins, the 10-point cap exists, but it's artificial and should be viewed more as a 10-point bonus. Looking at big NET swings (like when Marquette crushed Central Arkansas) those huge victory margins matter because it pushes out the efficiency margin. Basically, your offensive performance is widely outpacing your defensive performance regardless of what the actual margin is. Because of that the 10-point cap isn't really a cap. The efficiency margin pretty clearly seems to be the first thing they factor in. So if that's first, the 10-point cap actually adds a bonus to the winning team. Minimal bonus for a 1-point win or overtime, maximal bonus for anything 10 points or bigger.

Good questions Rocket.
Additionally, if team A beats #1 and team B beats #24 is that reflected in the Net or are they both just 1-0 Quad 1 wins?

It depends on where they happen, but if both of those are on a neutral court, they are both Quad 1A wins. The way the Selection Committee works, they do ballots to sort teams into groups. So when they are picking a seed line, they will all submit ballots listing the 8 most worthy teams to be in there, ranked in order, then sort them based on those ballots and discuss further.

When you look at a resume, what will stand out are the record by Quadrant. So at a glance, that if the win over #1 and #24 are in the same Quadrant, they will likely be initially viewed the same to group the teams, but the voters will then dig in deeper when they actually cast the ballot. This is why I want to see Marquette earn as many Q1A and Q1+2 wins as possible. Gaudy numbers in those categories will get you sorted into groups with the best teams. Now you might not be at the top of those sortings, but the more big wins you have, the sooner you get recognized and likely the sooner you get seeded as the voters keep seeing you moving higher and higher in terms of quantity of high quadrant wins.

If the choice was between having that neutral court win over #1 and three Q1A wins over #15 at home, #20 on a neutral, and #35 on the road, I'll take the 3 over the 1 all day long. After all, no one is talking about Washington right now despite them having arguably the best win in the country on a neutral court over Baylor.

I can’t tell you I know every metric that is baked into the NET but I understand the basics. As it stands right now there are some teams with high NET rankings that make no sense. Arizona and Texas Tech and even Michigan State would be three to name a few. Arizona specifically has TWO quad 1 wins and  FIVE quad one losses and is ranked 9th in the NET. They are 17-7 overall with losses to St. John’s and UCLA. Their profile screams bubble team not 3 seed.

Arizona is the opposite of last year's Marquette team (and to an extent, this year's Marquette team). They have mostly close losses with some big blowout wins that overinflate their NET. Those three teams have 23 combined losses, but 15 are by single digits. None of the three have more than 3 double-digit losses, but they have 13 combined double-digit wins in Q1+2 (MSU has SIX such wins) that ramp up the efficiency margins. It's also worth noting that these teams stomped on cupcakes. Arizona has a 43.5 ppg average margin of victory in Q4 games, MSU has a 42.0 ppg average margin in Q4, and while Texas Tech only has a 20.6 ppg margin over Q4, they have a 33.0 ppg average margin over Q3. Running up the score matters.

[IrwinFletcher]

I can’t tell you I know every metric that is baked into the NET but I understand the basics. As it stands right now there are some teams with high NET rankings that make no sense. Arizona and Texas Tech and even Michigan State would be three to name a few. Arizona specifically has TWO quad 1 wins and  FIVE quad one losses and is ranked 9th in the NET. They are 17-7 overall with losses to St. John’s and UCLA. Their profile screams bubble team not 3 seed.

I think its important to remember that these computer rankings aren't looking at who you beat and where.  They are looking at how efficient you are on offense and on defense.  Brew City mentions above about Marquette making a huge jump after beating Central Ark by 50, well, we didn't jump because we won by 50, we jumped because our offense and defense were sooooo efficient in that game, it created huge improvements in those numbers, thus the jump.

So the committee will for sure look at the NET numbers, but will then ask, who did you beat and where did you beat them.  And to their credit, Arizona and Tech were not included in their Top 16 reveal for the reasons you stated above.

[Cfollow]

Great stuff men! I would love to see some tweaks to the formula regarding Q3 and Q4 wins in regards to margin of victory. I would hate to see a 40 pt win over some directional garbage school as opposed to a 19 point win over an equivalent garbage school affecting the final NET numbers and thus a teams seeding. I guess it would be asking for a cap on those offensive and defensive efficiency numbers in those Q3 and Q4 games as well.

[brewcity77]

Great stuff men! I would love to see some tweaks to the formula regarding Q3 and Q4 wins in regards to margin of victory. I would hate to see a 40 pt win over some directional garbage school as opposed to a 19 point win over an equivalent garbage school affecting the final NET numbers and thus a teams seeding. I guess it would be asking for a cap on those offensive and defensive efficiency numbers in those Q3 and Q4 games as well.

Agree. I'd like them to add a regressive efficiency model once the margin gets over say 20. Arizona & MSU really show the need for that type of tweak.

[Cfollow]

Thanks for proving how overrated you are Texas Tech! #badloss

[We R Final Four]

Thanks Brew.

[bilsu]

The Georgetown games worries me, because everyone thinks we should beat them. The players they have left are players that know how to scratch and claw to a win. They will beat MU, if we do not show  up ready to fight for every possession.

Not currently reflected in the Net, but I think Creighton is the best team in the conference. Now that I have said this, they will probably lose to DePaul tonight.

[rocket surgeon]

thanks guys-now if i learned anything, i'm can geek myself up with the following:

        todays butler loss at home helped us(in the standings) but hurt us from the standpoint of net ranking of an opponent-butler's diminishing ranking due to the loss to a georgetown in other words

       depaul beating creighton(fat chance) on the road would be more than sweet, but then we would be facing an extra motivated if not pissed off creighton team come tuesday.  either way, we need to approach this next game like we did vs 'nova and just win baby.

       if depaul were to have a "come to Jesus" moment, it would jack their net ranking and wins against them would count for more

[brewcity77]

Georgetown jumped up from 55 to 46 in the NET after winning at Butler. Like Xavier, they have the potential to become a Quadrant 1A win for Marquette.

In a perfect world, get Seton Hall, Creighton, and Villanova top-15, Butler to stay top-30, Xavier and Georgetown top-40, and Providence, DePaul, and St. John's to all stick in the top-75 by the end of the year.