Bracketology Thread 2018-19

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

LOL at Wisconsin being a 4 seed. Not a chance after the last 2 games.

That's not how S-Curve's typically work. Losing games you are supposed to lose don't tend to move you down. Now, combining those losses with LSU's win over Kentucky and Texas Tech winning two road games and Wisconsin has probably dropped down to a 5 seed.

[BM1090]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

No significant updates, although Wisconsin has indeed moved down to a 5 seed

[Galway Eagle]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

No significant updates, although Wisconsin has indeed moved down to a 5 seed

Kentucky still has Tennessee twice and an potentially tough game against Ole Miss. I could them falling hard. Same with Michigan St vs Michigan. We continue to take care of business and could find ourselves sitting as a 2 seed

[wadesworld]

If we lose only 2 more games we're either a 2 or 3.  If we lose only 1 more game we're a 2.  Win out and we might be a 1.

I expect a 3.

[Galway Eagle]

If we lose only 2 more games we're either a 2 or 3.  If we lose only 1 more game we're a 2.  Win out and we might be a 1.

I expect a 3.

I don't see a path to a 1. Maybe if MSU and UM split, UT and UK split, duke and unc split, then maybe zags lose? Just seems like the issue is that the 1s cant be caught right now and if the 2s and high 3s beat them we'd remain stuck where we are.

[BM1090]

I don't see a path to a 1. Maybe if MSU and UM split, UT and UK split, duke and unc split, then maybe zags lose? Just seems like the issue is that the 1s cant be caught right now and if the 2s and high 3s beat them we'd remain stuck where we are.

Winning out would put us at 30-4 and we'd pick up about 5 more Q1 wins. I think we'd be a 1. The chances we win out are obviously very slim.

I think a 3-4 is a safe bet.

[willie warrior]

Winning out would put us at 30-4 and we'd pick up about 5 more Q1 wins. I think we'd be a 1. The chances we win out are obviously very slim.

I think a 3-4 is a safe bet.

30-4 gives us a 1. But 30-4 is likely a pipe dream.

[IrwinFletcher]

Ohio st loses at home to Illinois and they don’t move down. The bubble is awful.

[Galway Eagle]

Winning out would put us at 30-4 and we'd pick up about 5 more Q1 wins. I think we'd be a 1. The chances we win out are obviously very slim.

I think a 3-4 is a safe bet.

Right but as always it's about what the teams ahead of you do. If we win out but Mich, Duke, UT, and Zags do as well who do you expect we jump to get there? That'd put us as at least the 2nd 2 if I'm thinking about this right.  my point was that It's not only about what we do now, it's about what we do relative to what the teams ahead of do.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Too bad this wasn't the bubble last year...

[Benny B]

Right but as always it's about what the teams ahead of you do. If we win out but Mich, Duke, UT, and Zags do as well who do you expect we jump to get there? That'd put us as at least the 2nd 2 if I'm thinking about this right.  my point was that It's not only about what we do now, it's about what we do relative to what the teams ahead of do.

Not always.  You're confusing the methodology of the AP voters (and to a lesser extent, the graduate assistant voters) with that of the Selection Committee.  The AP voting is hugely biased at the top such that you're absolutely correct that your performance, specifically your wins and losses, must be better on a relative basis in order to move up, with rare exceptions made for quality of win/loss (e.g. when #1 wins, #2 beats #3, and #2 moves up to #1 on Monday).  In short, the process for most AP voters at this point in the season is to look at last week's ballot, and starting at the top, looking at the results for each team from 1 to 25 and adjusting accordingly.  That said, there's also an ego component involved here... when you have a team ranked in the top 10 after plowing through a weak OOC and proceeds to lose their first three or four conference games, they'll stay in the Top 25 for a couple weeks before voters drop them completely because the voters don't like to admit they were wrong about a team (which is what would be implied if they dropped them out after the first conference loss).  In short, consideration for the teams in each week's poll is heavily biased by the previous week's position, and this bias can carry over - and compound - every week that goes by.

However, while "inertia" can play a role with the Committee, the Committee's process is fundamentally different in that they may not put together the first s-curve until Selection Friday or Saturday, i.e. until after 99.5% of the season has already been played.  So they are looking at 68 individual, mostly completed resumes and comparing them to one another, not compared to what those teams did the week prior, or the week prior, and so forth.  Now, teams will move up and down the S-curve according to how they play on Selection Weekend, and so at this point, your movement up and down the S-curve can be relative to how teams in front of you perform, but your initial position is based on where you compared to other teams a day or two ago without any regard for how you compared 3-4 weeks (or months) ago.

"But Benny... what about the Top 16 that's been released by the committee?  They've already placed these teams into an S-Curve."

Not exactly.  And quit whining.  What happened last week (prior to the first release) is that the committee did a quick exercise and run-through of the selection process, except instead of doing it for 68 teams, they did it for 16.  While it makes for great media, a little known fact: the NCAA is doing this not to get a jump-start on the selection process, but to get the ten committee members into the selection mindset, make sure they can work out any kinks in the process, and make sure that everyone knows their role BEFORE they convene in Indianapolis so that they can work efficiently through the selection process when the time comes.  Call it an orientation exercise, or better yet, we're talking about practice, here.  So all of the ballots, seeding lists, placements into the bracket.... after the announcement on Saturday was made, this along with the notes, paperwork, power point presentations, etc. are all thrown in the trash, and the committee will start all over again in a few weeks when the real selection process begins.

tl;dr --- When it comes to seeding in the tournament, it doesn't matter how MU performs relative to teams ahead of them over the next 3-4 weeks, it matters how MU has performed relative to the teams in 3-4 weeks.

[Its DJOver]

You guys are both right.  The committee makes the bracket from scratch, not just moving teams up and down on an existing bracket like the bracketologists do, but at the same time, even if we win out, I don't think our resume will match up to the current consensus #1 seeds unless they drop a couple of games.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You guys are both right.  The committee makes the bracket from scratch, not just moving teams up and down on an existing bracket like the bracketologists do, but at the same time, even if we win out, I don't think our resume will match up to the current consensus #1 seeds unless they drop a couple of games.

This. Winning out would certainly give us a resume worthy of a 1 seed in most seasons. But if all the current 1 seeds win out as well then we will be SOL.

[Galway Eagle]

Benny your last two paragraphs are more relevant. I understand the poll does not have anything to do with seeding I was going off the released 16 and the future schedules of the teams ahead of us

[Benny B]

This. Winning out would certainly give us a resume worthy of a 1 seed in most seasons. But if all the current 1 seeds win out as well then we will be SOL.

Possibly.  But it could work the other way around.

Look at it this way.... everyone came into the year expecting Duke to be good and Marquette to be a team hovering in and out of the Top 25 all season.  At this point in the season, one might look at Duke and Marquette and say, Duke is doing exactly what they were going to do, but although Marquette is doing much better, but I still don't think they're better than Duke.  If both teams win out, then one might say "Well, I was right that Duke is good, but you know, I really underestimated Marquette... they may be just as good as Duke" [even if they actually aren't].

It's something along the lines of a reverse-biased overvaluation... the longer you underestimate something from the beginning, the greater the tendency to overcompensate in the end. 

I don't know if there's a term for it, so let's just call it the "Gonzaga Lamborghini" principle.

[Galway Eagle]

Possibly.  But it could work the other way around.

Look at it this way.... everyone came into the year expecting Duke to be good and Marquette to be a team hovering in and out of the Top 25 all season.  At this point in the season, one might look at Duke and Marquette and say, Duke is doing exactly what they were going to do, but although Marquette is doing much better, but I still don't think they're better than Duke.  If both teams win out, then one might say "Well, I was right that Duke is good, but you know, I really underestimated Marquette... they may be just as good as Duke" [even if they actually aren't].

It's something along the lines of a reverse-biased overvaluation... the longer you underestimate something from the beginning, the greater the tendency to overcompensate in the end. 

I don't know if there's a term for it, so let's just call it the "Gonzaga Lamborghini" principle.

So wait please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like your argument that MU could overtake a team like duke (that has a better resume) is that we finish hot and the committee says "they were better than we expected whereas duke we expected"?

[Benny B]

So wait please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like your argument that MU could overtake a team like duke (that has a better resume) is that we finish hot and the committee says "they were better than we expected whereas duke we expected"?

Not an argument.  Merely presenting the principle of the Gonzaga Lamborghini.  It could affect anyone, not just Marquette; which it has, hence the namesake.

If it makes you feel better, go with the following:

Possibly.  But it could work the other way around.

Look at it this way.... everyone came into the year expecting Duke to be good and Marquette to be a team hovering in and out of the Top 25 all season.  At this point in the season, one might look at Duke and Houston and say, Duke is doing exactly what they were going to do, but although Houston is doing much better, I still don't think they're better than Duke.  If both teams win out, then one might say "Well, I was right that Duke is good, but you know, I really underestimated Houston... they may be just as good as Duke" [even if they actually aren't].

(I did fix the double-but just in case)

[Mr. Nielsen]

Updated FOX Bracket
https://twitter.com/CBBonFOX/status/1096503140260540416

[BM1090]

Updated FOX Bracket
https://twitter.com/CBBonFOX/status/1096503140260540416

Howie is just terrible. Pretty sure every poster here could do a better job than that.

[muguru]

Kentucky still has Tennessee twice and an potentially tough game against Ole Miss. I could them falling hard. Same with Michigan St vs Michigan. We continue to take care of business and could find ourselves sitting as a 2 seed

I want to believe this is true..but honestly, given who the two seeds are, it almost seems like it doesn't matter who they lose to, they aren't moving down. Take Michigan State for example...I kinda thought losing at home to IU, and then losing to Illinois would move them off the two line...but it didn't. So who would they have to lose to to drop?? Michigan just lost to Penn State, I'd bet almost anything that didn't drop them off the two line. Now, the one thing that MAYBE could happen is Purdue losing to Maryland, MAY have dropped them down the 3 line and MU up..But I REALLY want a #2 seed, just given the results to this point, it sure doesn't seem like it's possible. If you lose to Illinois and Penn State respectively, and it has ZERO effect on you, then what exactly has to happen??

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I want to believe this is true..but honestly, given who the two seeds are, it almost seems like it doesn't matter who they lose to, they aren't moving down. Take Michigan State for example...I kinda thought losing at home to IU, and then losing to Illinois would move them off the two line...but it didn't. So who would they have to lose to to drop?? Michigan just lost to Penn State, I'd bet almost anything that didn't drop them off the two line. Now, the one thing that MAYBE could happen is Purdue losing to Maryland, MAY have dropped them down the 3 line and MU up..But I REALLY want a #2 seed, just given the results to this point, it sure doesn't seem like it's possible. If you lose to Illinois and Penn State respectively, and it has ZERO effect on you, then what exactly has to happen??

Couple of things with this.

1. You talk about Michigan State not getting knocked off the 2 seed line by those two losses. We don't know where they were before those two losses, but I would guess that it was either the last 1 seed or first 2 seed. So the two losses did knock them down to the very last 2 seed. Movement is absolutely possible.
2. You also have to keep Michigan State's good wins in mind. At the time of the bracket reveal they had more Q1 victories than any other team in the country. Having that many big wins negates damage from bad losses
3. We don't know how much Michigan moved, but you are probably right that they are still on the 2-seed line. But that's partially because 2/3 of the teams right behind them lost this week as well. If I had to guess, they are probably the last 2 seed at this point.
4. There aren't equal gaps between each position on the s-curve. Meaning the distance between #6 Michigan and #7 North Carolina is not going to be the same as the distance between #12 Marquette and #13 Iowa State. So you are right, it is harder for those teams to move down because they likely have built some pretty big cushions between them and the lower seeds, but that doesn't mean those losses aren't closing the gap a bit.

If we want a 2 seed, we likely have to be 2 wins better than 1 of the current 2 seeds, and 1 win better than the 3 3 seeds in front of us. (Yes Benny, I know that's not how the selection committee actually works. I am just making a guess on a possible scenario that could get us a 2 seed)

[brewcity77]

I just don't know what bubble teams want to keep playing in March. Creighton and Butler? Guess not. Auburn or Alabama? Doesn't look like it. Indiana, Ohio State, or Nebraska? Not so much. Syracuse or NC State? At least one of them got a win since they played each other. Either Arizona school? We all know the Pac-12 isn't interested in the NCAAs. Maybe a mid major like UNCG or Lipscomb? They'll pass too.

Does anyone actually want to play in the NCAA tournament?

[MuMark]

Worst bubble that I can remember.........pretty damn strong 1-2 seed lines.....

This is like the NBA this year.......lol. Bubble teams playing like they have a shot at Zion in the draft!

[cheebs09]

Couple of things with this.

1. You talk about Michigan State not getting knocked off the 2 seed line by those two losses. We don't know where they were before those two losses, but I would guess that it was either the last 1 seed or first 2 seed. So the two losses did knock them down to the very last 2 seed. Movement is absolutely possible.
2. You also have to keep Michigan State's good wins in mind. At the time of the bracket reveal they had more Q1 victories than any other team in the country. Having that many big wins negates damage from bad losses
3. We don't know how much Michigan moved, but you are probably right that they are still on the 2-seed line. But that's partially because 2/3 of the teams right behind them lost this week as well. If I had to guess, they are probably the last 2 seed at this point.
4. There aren't equal gaps between each position on the s-curve. Meaning the distance between #6 Michigan and #7 North Carolina is not going to be the same as the distance between #12 Marquette and #13 Iowa State. So you are right, it is harder for those teams to move down because they likely have built some pretty big cushions between them and the lower seeds, but that doesn't mean those losses aren't closing the gap a bit.

If we want a 2 seed, we likely have to be 2 wins better than 1 of the current 2 seeds, and 1 win better than the 3 3 seeds in front of us. (Yes Benny, I know that's not how the selection committee actually works. I am just making a guess on a possible scenario that could get us a 2 seed)

If the committee is anything like last year, a big win will have a much bigger impact than a bad loss.

[wisblue]

Maybe it’s because I’m not watching it closely this year because MU isn’t close to the bubble. But it looks like the bubble is not only weak, but there are fewer teams even competing for the last spots. Whenever I think some of these teams with conference records well below .500 have to be playing themselves out of the field, I see that they are still in and understand why the first 4 or 8 out aren’t ahead of them. I guess the problem is that some of the mid major conferences that used to have 2 or 3 or 4 teams in bubble contention now have almost no chance to get more than one bid.

I would support eliminating the First Four games as completely superfluous.