Bubble Watch 2018

[brewcity77]

One other thing that gives me solace is having Bruce Rasmussen as the chair. There's no team in the country that owes Marquette as much as Creighton. Without MU, Creighton would not be in the Big East. No way, no how, full stop.

If anyone has reason to look out for our best interests, it's Rasmussen. Not only because it benefits the league, but because we are the reason his own school is where it is today.

[Galway Eagle]

One other thing that gives me solace is having Bruce Rasmussen as the chair. There's no team in the country that owes Marquette as much as Creighton. Without MU, Creighton would not be in the Big East. No way, no how, full stop.

If anyone has reason to look out for our best interests, it's Rasmussen. Not only because it benefits the league, but because we are the reason his own school is where it is today.

My understanding is he cannot say anything other than answer direct questions regarding teams in his league

[Nukem2]

One other thing that gives me solace is having Bruce Rasmussen as the chair. There's no team in the country that owes Marquette as much as Creighton. Without MU, Creighton would not be in the Big East. No way, no how, full stop.

If anyone has reason to look out for our best interests, it's Rasmussen. Not only because it benefits the league, but because we are the reason his own school is where it is today.

But, he needs to recuse himself re BE teams?

[Benny B]

If the committee values what they always trumpet as their key criteria, St. Mary’s should be out. Outside of @Gonzaga, which is a very nice win, their top wins are BYU(2x), New Mexico State, Harvard and UNC Asheville. At it gets really ugly really fast.

They didn’t play anybody. Didn’t play outside of Cali in noncon. Lost to both high majors they played, one decent team and one bad team. Their resume just isn’t good at all. That said, if I had to bet, I say they’re still in.

This.  At least in the past two years, the Committee chair has come right out and said that they want to reward those schools who challenge themselves, and that applies to majors and mid-majors.  Regarding Syracuse's snub last year, Hollis' made it a point to say "their non-conference schedule wasn't that difficult."

Incidentally, Hollis also cited - with regards to Syracuse - the Committee consideration of "how did [teams] do against teams in the tournament, and how did [teams] do against teams on the road."

Assuming last year's philosophies carry over, SMC has a small, but solid record, against the projected field.  But two of those games were against Gonzaga, and the other two are against auto-qualifiers.  MU, on the other hand, doesn't look so hot in a head-to-head comparison....

SMC vs. Projected 68: 3-1
MU vs. Projected 68: 6-9

But here's the kicker (which hopefully the committee catches).... four of MU's losses against the projected field are to #1 seeds.  In other words, excluding X and Nova (who most teams lose to) MU is 6-5 against the projected field.  Of those 13 bubble teams I mentioned earlier, nobody else played projected #1 seeds four times (except Providence, who went 2-2). 

So at the risk of sounding like a broken record, how closely the committee adheres to the general philosophy of the quotes by Hollis above are MU's best hope for getting an at-large (outside of beating Nova in NYC, of course).

[Silkk the Shaka]

Not what we wanted to hear, but can't say i disagree with him. As much as i would enjoy making the NCAA this year, I also wonder if the NIT would be a better option for this young/inconsistent team.

'twould not be

NCAA > NIT 100% of the time

[Silkk the Shaka]

My understanding is he cannot say anything other than answer direct questions regarding teams in his league

But could he trash teams like SMC & 'Cuse pointing out where they're flawed in areas that MU shines?

[Benny B]

My understanding is he cannot say anything other than answer direct questions regarding teams in his league

Perhaps, but he can certainly influence what metrics the committee is going to focus upon when discussing other teams.  This is not to say that he's only going to talk up metrics that are favorable to MU in the hopes of setting the stage for when MU comes up for discussion, but if - along the lines of my previous post - Rasmussen wants to steer the discussion to R/N records and SOS for every other team, this would - in theory - indirectly benefit MU when it's their turn for discussion.

[rocket surgeon]

With that information there is no way St. Mary's deserves a bid.  I hope the committee is aware.

Yes but does the committee take into consideration woulda coulda shoulda’s? 

[brewcity77]

But, he needs to recuse himself re BE teams?

Only has to recuse himself regarding Creighton, and as others have noted, there are ways to give credit to a team without mentioning them directly. Speaking specifically about things like playing a challenging schedule, having Q1/2 wins, proving you can win away from home, those are all things he could stress that would make us shine without having to even mention our program.

[cheese ball chaser]

Lunardi just came out with "Behind the Bracket: What each bubble team needs to do." http://es.pn/2HdkpvF
Says we need to beat DePaul and Nova. Anything less than that won't be enough.

[cheebs09]

Lunardi just came out with "Behind the Bracket: What each bubble team needs to do." http://es.pn/2HdkpvF
Says we need to beat DePaul and Nova. Anything less than that won't be enough.

I wonder how many spots he’s allocating for those teams. Almost all of them are out unless they pull an upset.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

I wonder how many spots he’s allocating for those teams. Almost all of them are out unless they pull an upset.

Yah...they gotta fill the field.  If all of Lunardi's stuff held true, I think they'd be more than a handful short of teams.  I think the point is what each team needs to feel their bid is secured regardless of what else happens around championship week.   

Marquette needs to beat Depaul and Villanova to get into the dance with 100% certainty. We all know this. MU needs to beat Depaul to have a chance, but it may require some help elsewhere....perhaps a coin flip, perhaps a little better odds than a coinflip.   A loss to Depaul and they're going to be out in all likelihood.

Its really that simple.

[Benny B]

I wonder how many spots he’s allocating for those teams. Almost all of them are out unless they pull an upset.

According to his own bracketology, Florida State, Oklahoma, Kansas State, ASU, Baylor, Texas, Providence, USC, UCLA, and Alabama are all in.

In other words, Lunardi has listed the 19 teams battling for 10 remaining spots.  MTSU is a potential buster, however... so if they lose the conference final, it's likely only 9 remaining spots.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

According to his own bracketology, Florida State, Oklahoma, Kansas State, ASU, Baylor, Texas, Providence, USC, UCLA, and Alabama are all in.

In other words, Lunardi has listed the 19 teams battling for 10 remaining spots.  MTSU is a potential buster, however... so if they lose the conference final, it's likely only 9 remaining spots.

I count 12/20. 

Plus he's not including St. Mary's, who is done, but could be left out adding another open spot.  He's also not including Penn State and Nebraska as possible teams, but realistically, those teams aren't getting a bid.

That list included all 6 of his 11 seeds, 3/4 10 seeds (no St. Mary's), two 9 seeds (OK and FL State - both probably safe), and one 12 seed AQ (MTSU).

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

1) Lunardi is not a committee member.  He historically performs middle of the pack among bracketologists.  He's only well know because ESPN gave him a platform before anyone else.

2) Most bracket predictors, including Lunardi, are biased towards homeostatsis.  St. Mary's won 12 games in a row before winning at Gonzaga, then won 6 more before losing to Gonzaga.  Two were against BYU, the rest sub-125 rpi.  But people made up their mind after the Gonzaga win that, barring total collapse, St. Mary's was a tourney team barring a total collapse.  A loss to Gonzaga and a road loss to San Fran weren't enough to change their mind.

3) The committee, however, is largely starting from scratch.  Other than the top 16, they have no bias towards who was in and who was out.  They don't have to change their mind and admit they were wrong, so they will analyze teams differently than someone doing a running bracket.

4)  Other teams considered "in" by Bracketmatrix, like Arizona State and Alabama, are also benefitting from this bias.  Arizona St has been mediocre in the Pac 12 and Alabama has lost 5 in a row tourney and bubble teams.  But people have a hard time changing their mind.  They may or may not make it, but I think they're are some overrated teams in the BM field.

5)  Conversely, teams considered "out" also suffer from this bias.  When MU was 4-7 after the Providence loss, the masses made up their mind that MU was "out" and it would take drastic new info to change their mind.  While a sweep of Creighton and win at Seton Hall were nice, they weren't Earth shattering to those who had already made up their mind.  Marquette might be in far better shape than we think.

6)  I'm also working on an RPI post that will have to wait.  If you look at raw RPI and compare it to RPI rank, there are some interesting observations to be made.  Hoping to get that up later tonight.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

1) Lunardi is not a committee member.  He historically performs middle of the pack among bracketologists.  He's only well know because ESPN gave him a platform before anyone else.

2) Most bracket predictors, including Lunardi, are biased towards homeostatsis.  St. Mary's won 12 games in a row before winning at Gonzaga, then won 6 more before losing to Gonzaga.  Two were against BYU, the rest sub-125 rpi.  But people made up their mind after the Gonzaga win that, barring total collapse, St. Mary's was a tourney team barring a total collapse.  A loss to Gonzaga and a road loss to San Fran weren't enough to change their mind.

3) The committee, however, is largely starting from scratch.  Other than the top 16, they have no bias towards who was in and who was out.  They don't have to change their mind and admit they were wrong, so they will analyze teams differently than someone doing a running bracket.

4)  Other teams considered "in" by Bracketmatrix, like Arizona State and Alabama, are also benefitting from this bias.  Arizona St has been mediocre in the Pac 12 and Alabama has lost 5 in a row tourney and bubble teams.  But people have a hard time changing their mind.  They may or may not make it, but I think they're are some overrated teams in the BM field.

5)  Conversely, teams considered "out" also suffer from this bias.  When MU was 4-7 after the Providence loss, the masses made up their mind that MU was "out" and it would take drastic new info to change their mind.  While a sweep of Creighton and win at Seton Hall were nice, they weren't Earth shattering to those who had already made up their mind.  Marquette might be in far better shape than we think.

6)  I'm also working on an RPI post that will have to wait.  If you look at raw RPI and compare it to RPI rank, there are some interesting observations to be made.  Hoping to get that up later tonight.

This is a very good post and is very important to remember.

[Fred Garvin]

Where does the big East rank among conferences?

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Where does the big East rank among conferences?

It is 2nd in RPI, just behind B12, and just ahead of ACC and SEC. 

[cheebs09]

1) Lunardi is not a committee member.  He historically performs middle of the pack among bracketologists.  He's only well know because ESPN gave him a platform before anyone else.

2) Most bracket predictors, including Lunardi, are biased towards homeostatsis.  St. Mary's won 12 games in a row before winning at Gonzaga, then won 6 more before losing to Gonzaga.  Two were against BYU, the rest sub-125 rpi.  But people made up their mind after the Gonzaga win that, barring total collapse, St. Mary's was a tourney team barring a total collapse.  A loss to Gonzaga and a road loss to San Fran weren't enough to change their mind.

3) The committee, however, is largely starting from scratch.  Other than the top 16, they have no bias towards who was in and who was out.  They don't have to change their mind and admit they were wrong, so they will analyze teams differently than someone doing a running bracket.

4)  Other teams considered "in" by Bracketmatrix, like Arizona State and Alabama, are also benefitting from this bias.  Arizona St has been mediocre in the Pac 12 and Alabama has lost 5 in a row tourney and bubble teams.  But people have a hard time changing their mind.  They may or may not make it, but I think they're are some overrated teams in the BM field.

5)  Conversely, teams considered "out" also suffer from this bias.  When MU was 4-7 after the Providence loss, the masses made up their mind that MU was "out" and it would take drastic new info to change their mind.  While a sweep of Creighton and win at Seton Hall were nice, they weren't Earth shattering to those who had already made up their mind.  Marquette might be in far better shape than we think.

6)  I'm also working on an RPI post that will have to wait.  If you look at raw RPI and compare it to RPI rank, there are some interesting observations to be made.  Hoping to get that up later tonight.

This is where my optimism comes in. In the eyes of the prognosticators, it’s been an uphill climb to get back in the tourney. For the committee, they will more or less see the resume as a whole.

[fjm]

Dance card, which has over the last two years become my go-to because of a lack of "mind changing bias", currently has us as the 3rd to last team in with a 100% chance of making LAST years field with our current resume.

http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm

[Hubert Davis]

We need the Warriors to beat DePaul. If we would've just taken care of business in Chicago we wouldn't have to be worrying. Beat the demons tomorrow and give ourselves a chance. Beat Nova and we ought to be a lock. But it all comes down to tomorrow. Beat DePaul and we will have a fighting chance come selection sunday.

Beat DePaul. Just win, baby!

[muguru]

I know they are likely safely in, but boy, there just isn't a lot on Butler's resume that screams "tourney team". That 3-7 road record sticks out like a sore thumb..as does their 3-10 record vs. Q1 teams. Louisville's record is the same against Q1, road record very similar...heck all the numbers are similar between those 2..Louisville is thought of as a bubble team, and Butler is considered safely in..the ONLY thing in Butler's favor is their win against Nova. If they lose to Creighton Thursday night, I'm just not sure I see where Butler deserves to be in ahead of some other teams on the bubble.

[rocket surgeon]

1) Lunardi is not a committee member.  He historically performs middle of the pack among bracketologists.  He's only well know because ESPN gave him a platform before anyone else.

2) Most bracket predictors, including Lunardi, are biased towards homeostatsis.  St. Mary's won 12 games in a row before winning at Gonzaga, then won 6 more before losing to Gonzaga.  Two were against BYU, the rest sub-125 rpi.  But people made up their mind after the Gonzaga win that, barring total collapse, St. Mary's was a tourney team barring a total collapse.  A loss to Gonzaga and a road loss to San Fran weren't enough to change their mind.

3) The committee, however, is largely starting from scratch.  Other than the top 16, they have no bias towards who was in and who was out.  They don't have to change their mind and admit they were wrong, so they will analyze teams differently than someone doing a running bracket.

4)  Other teams considered "in" by Bracketmatrix, like Arizona State and Alabama, are also benefitting from this bias.  Arizona St has been mediocre in the Pac 12 and Alabama has lost 5 in a row tourney and bubble teams.  But people have a hard time changing their mind.  They may or may not make it, but I think they're are some overrated teams in the BM field.

5)  Conversely, teams considered "out" also suffer from this bias.  When MU was 4-7 after the Providence loss, the masses made up their mind that MU was "out" and it would take drastic new info to change their mind.  While a sweep of Creighton and win at Seton Hall were nice, they weren't Earth shattering to those who had already made up their mind.  Marquette might be in far better shape than we think.

6)  I'm also working on an RPI post that will have to wait.  If you look at raw RPI and compare it to RPI rank, there are some interesting observations to be made.  Hoping to get that up later tonight.

Excellent observations and analysis,but point 5 seems a little confusing to me-...weren’t earth shattering to those who already made up their mind, but then we aren’t in as bad a shape as we think?  I was hoping the we aren’t in as bad a shape as we think but the previous statement to that seems to undermine that.  Not trying to be over critical, just a clarification cuz I like your points👍

[TallTitan34]

The difference between the last eight in and first eight out is very tight.

[GGGG]

Excellent observations and analysis,but point 5 seems a little confusing to me-...weren’t earth shattering to those who already made up their mind, but then we aren’t in as bad a shape as we think?  I was hoping the we aren’t in as bad a shape as we think but the previous statement to that seems to undermine that.  Not trying to be over critical, just a clarification cuz I like your points👍

I think all he is saying is that the bracket prognosticators don't change their mind easily.  That the barriers for one team to enter and another to exit are higher than the committee, which doesn't put together a bracket weekly like the bracketologists do.

I think the real question is what data the Committee weighs more heavily to make its decisions.  Because TallTitan is correct, there is a case to be made for a bunch of teams objectively, and someone is going to feel screwed in the end.