Bubble Watch 2018

[Mr. Sand-Knit]

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

This is what annoys me,  that despite the BE having a higher conference RPI people are stating teams with sub .500 conference records from lesser RPI conferences should get in.  What??
Additionally, the BE needs to come up with a metric that shows hiw much more difficult it us to play each team in your conference twice, versus pkaying 75% of the teams in your conference only once.

[GGGG]

This is what annoys me,  that despite the BE having a higher conference RPI people are stating teams with sub .500 conference records from lesser RPI conferences should get in.  What??
Additionally, the BE needs to come up with a metric that shows hiw much more difficult it us to play each team in your conference twice, versus pkaying 75% of the teams in your conference only once.

Because conference record doesn't matter.

[BM1090]

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

Honestly, this looks about right to me. I'd sub Arizona State for Alabama at this point. But other than that I think it looks about how I'd put it.

[BM1090]

Because conference record doesn't matter.

I understand why it doesn't, and I know it won't change. But I kind of think it should. In a double round robin conference, if non-con is equal, a 10-8 team should be ahead of a 9-9 in the pecking order. It shouldn't matter how the wins or losses come.

[skianth16]

This is what annoys me,  that despite the BE having a higher conference RPI people are stating teams with sub .500 conference records from lesser RPI conferences should get in.  What??
Additionally, the BE needs to come up with a metric that shows hiw much more difficult it us to play each team in your conference twice, versus pkaying 75% of the teams in your conference only once.

Is this proven out anywhere? In a conference like the old Big East where we only played select teams twice per year, some years the schedule is harder than others, but isn't that just reflected in SOS? I'm not sure there needs to be any other stat included.

[mu03eng]

I understand why it doesn't, and I know it won't change. But I kind of think it should. In a double round robin conference, if non-con is equal, a 10-8 team should be ahead of a 9-9 in the pecking order. It shouldn't matter how the wins or losses come.

It doesn't matter because of $. Giving a conference advantage for a balanced conference schedule hurts the football conferences and at the end of the day football matters.

It's an interesting argument on conference strength. You could argue the top of the Big East is the best in the country, but that the bottom 2/3 teams are among the worst in the country. So do you reward a conference that is average/mediorce through out (looking at you B10 and SEC) or do reward the conferences with the tougher schedules. Biggest issue I will have with this committee is if they put teams with losing conference records in over MU, I just don't know how you do the mind math on that. If we lost @Providence and @Seton Hall but own @Villanova would we be in consideration versus where we are now?

[mu03eng]

Is this proven out anywhere? In a conference like the old Big East where we only played select teams twice per year, some years the schedule is harder than others, but isn't that just reflected in SOS? I'm not sure there needs to be any other stat included.

It's not a thing....it just means some teams player harder schedules in conference than other teams where as in the Big East all of our schedules are equally hard.

[MU82]

This all is interesting stuff. Thanks, folks, for the discussion.

I'm having a difficult time believing they'll leave St. Mary's out. It's the kind of small-school team many whine gets the shaft, and it has history. I know they have to go with metrics, but if it comes down to a "mental coin flip," I think they get extra points.

I'd love to be wrong!

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

It's an interesting argument on conference strength. You could argue the top of the Big East is the best in the country, but that the bottom 2/3 teams are among the worst in the country.

By what metric?  There isn't much out there that will tell you Depaul, St. Johns and Georgetown are "among the worst in the country", even out of just the P6 schools.  Every BE team is in the Kenpom top 100. No other conference can say that. 

[mu03eng]

By what metric?  There isn't much out there that will tell you Depaul, St. Johns and Georgetown are "among the worst in the country", even out of just the P6 schools.  Every BE team is in the Kenpom top 100. No other conference can say that.

Yeah I suppose familiarity breeds contempt. It's really hard to argue that being 7th in the Big East is easier than being 4th or 5th in the B10 or SEC. I mean those conference have so many teams and a fair number of garbage ones it's probably easier to be 5th in the B10 then 7th in the Big East.

[GGGG]

I understand why it doesn't, and I know it won't change. But I kind of think it should. In a double round robin conference, if non-con is equal, a 10-8 team should be ahead of a 9-9 in the pecking order. It shouldn't matter how the wins or losses come.

Actually I don't think it should.  I am leery about incorporating any conference-based metric into the equation. 

[Nukem2]

Actually I don't think it should.  I am leery about incorporating any conference-based metric into the equation.

Especially with the unbalanced conferences which have no round robin schedule.

[brewcity77]

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 great post. Very well articulated. Explains a lot of why I'm more bullish on our chances. I have done regular brackets in the past and think sometimes doing a regular bracket gets the bracketologists to the point where they are so in the weeds they don't see stuff that's pretty clear when you step back and look at it.

People scoff at our Seton Hall, Providence, and Creighton wins, but how many of our fellow bubble teams have 5 better wins? Those supposedly don't move the dial but we're supposed to be impressed by teams like MTSU, St Mary's, Louisville, Texas, K-State?

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Here's a quirky stat. Out of the 4 B1G teams considered NCAA locks (Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Purdue) only Purdue & Michigan played twice in the regular season.

That means those teams combined to play 7 conference games against each other. Add Michigan's games vs MSU & Purdue, that is 9 total.

Now, look at the Big East. Anywhere from 5-7 bids are possible. With the double round robin format, each BE tournament team plays between 8-12 conference games against tournament teams.

Let that sink in.  One BE tournament team plays more conference games vs tournament teams than all 4 B1G tournament teams combined.

[TallTitan34]

Here's a quirky stat. Out of the 4 B1G teams considered NCAA locks (Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Purdue) only Purdue & Michigan played twice in the regular season.

That means those teams combined to play 7 conference games against each other. Add Michigan's games vs MSU & Purdue, that is 9 total.

Now, look at the Big East. Anywhere from 5-7 bids are possible. With the double round robin format, each BE tournament team plays between 8-12 conference games against tournament teams.

Let that sink in.  One BE tournament team plays more conference games vs tournament teams than all 4 B1G tournament teams combined.

Nicely done.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

PITT is so bad.  You almost feel bad for those guys.

[wisblue]

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).

I'm nitpicking, but I'm  trying to narrow down the bubble for myself by not including teams whose chances seem really slim, like Nebraska, Penn State, Washington, LSU, and Mississippi State. I'm also not including teams that Lunardi and most others think are probably in even if they lose their first round tournament games like Kansas State, Florida State, and Oklahoma.

When I do that I get a 15 team bubble of St. Mary's, St. Bonaventure, Providence, Texas, Baylor, USC, UCLA, Arizona State, Alabama, Middle Tennessee, Louisville, Marquette, Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, and Syracuse, and 9 available spots. One more spot would open up for the remaining 14 teams if Middle Tennessee would remove itself from the at large pool by winning the CUSA tournament. I will add and delete teams from my lists as they play their way out or other teams play themselves into the picture with runs in the conference tournaments.

The problem with Lunardi's statements about what a team needs to get in are (1) they are just his opinions and not necessarily reflective of the Committee's thinking, and (2) it falls apart if all or most of the teams do what he says they have to do or a high percentage of them fail. There aren' t that many early head to head bubble matchups that would make this impossible.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

I'm nitpicking, but I'm  trying to narrow down the bubble for myself by not including teams whose chances seem really slim, like Nebraska, Penn State, Washington, LSU, and Mississippi State. I'm also not including teams that Lunardi and most others think are probably in even if they lose their first round tournament games like Kansas State, Florida State, and Oklahoma.

When I do that I get a 15 team bubble of St. Mary's, St. Bonaventure, Providence, Texas, Baylor, USC, UCLA, Arizona State, Alabama, Middle Tennessee, Louisville, Marquette, Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, and Syracuse, and 9 available spots. One more spot would open up for the remaining 14 teams if Middle Tennessee would remove itself from the at large pool by winning the CUSA tournament. I will add and delete teams from my lists as they play their way out or other teams play themselves into the picture with runs in the conference tournaments.

The problem with Lunardi's statements about what a team needs to get in are (1) they are just his opinions and not necessarily reflective of the Committee's thinking, and (2) it falls apart if all or most of the teams do what he says they have to do or a high percentage of them fail. There aren' t that many early head to head bubble matchups that would make this impossible.

Yep, sounds about right.

[Its DJOver]

Pitt down 12 at half to ND.  Looks like their bubble will live at least another day.  Lets pop it tomorrow

[Litehouse]

Here's a quirky stat. Out of the 4 B1G teams considered NCAA locks (Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Purdue) only Purdue & Michigan played twice in the regular season.

That means those teams combined to play 7 conference games against each other. Add Michigan's games vs MSU & Purdue, that is 9 total.

Now, look at the Big East. Anywhere from 5-7 bids are possible. With the double round robin format, each BE tournament team plays between 8-12 conference games against tournament teams.

Let that sink in.  One BE tournament team plays more conference games vs tournament teams than all 4 B1G tournament teams combined.

This stat is amazing.  The Big East needs to publicize stuff like this to lobby for our teams.

[wisblue]

Here's a quirky stat. Out of the 4 B1G teams considered NCAA locks (Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Purdue) only Purdue & Michigan played twice in the regular season.

That means those teams combined to play 7 conference games against each other. Add Michigan's games vs MSU & Purdue, that is 9 total.

Now, look at the Big East. Anywhere from 5-7 bids are possible. With the double round robin format, each BE tournament team plays between 8-12 conference games against tournament teams.

Let that sink in.  One BE tournament team plays more conference games vs tournament teams than all 4 B1G tournament teams combined.

Michigan played Ohio State twice too. One of the games was in early December as part of the B10's goofy schedule designed to finish early to play in NYC. So, including the conference tournament, Michigan played 7 games against the top 3 in the conference, winning 4 of them. With their conference tournament win over Nebraska, they defeated every one of the other 13 teams in the conference, which isn't easy to do with that kind of imbalanced schedule.

Here's another quirky Michigan in the BET fact. In the last 3 years Michigan has been seeded no higher than 5th (this year) but they have knocked off the number 1 seed every year.

[rocket surgeon]

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.

Ok, the prognosticators, but let’s hope the guys who actually make the final decisions can make a better overall assessment as opposed to having certain moments stuck in their heads

[PGsHeroes32]

ND in the tourney would be a travesty

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Thanks, I missed that Ohio St vs Michigan December tilt.  So change the numbers to 8 & 10.

[mu03eng]

ND in the tourney would be a travesty

From the "we hate ND" perspective yes, from the committee perspective I totally disagree. With Bonzie back I think they have a clear cut case for inclusion.