http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch)
The other 10 teams are a lock.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 09, 2011, 11:45:28 AM
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch)
The other 10 teams are a lock.
In theory, I think they are right. Lock means 100% in. What if, tonight MU lost by 30 points? My guess is if MU wins tonight, lock. If MU loses tonight but is competitive....in. If MU loses tonight by say 10 to 15...still in. If MU gets destroyed tonight, by 25+...probably still in but these are the things you don't want to give a bunch of people in a room to think about.
I believe it's accurate that they label us "team that should be in"
As good as we looked last night, it's Providence. It's a "taking care of business" game and we took care of business.
I expect on Sunday our name is on the board, but in the true definition of a LOCK, I think they are right. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what any of us here on a MU message board think, it's about a few folks in a room that decide.
It seems Lunardi would beg to differ.
As of this morning, he has MU as a 10 seed, with at least nine at-large teams below. With most of the smaller conference tournaments out of the way at this point, it's hard to imagine what could happen to plummet MU 10 spots. A neutral court loss to a top 20 team wouldn't seem to do it.
I think we are lock. Too many teams are behind us to fall out.
I still feel very confident, just anxious for Sunday to see our seed. I'll watch the game tonight with little to no stress. Pretty tough with 13 losses to be a "lock."
Quote from: Pakuni on March 09, 2011, 11:51:17 AM
A neutral court loss to a top 20 team wouldn't seem to do it.
Agree, unless it was an absolute butt stomping...that might change some opinions. Sometimes it's not that you lose, but how you lose.
I have every reason to believe MU is in, but I don't disparage ESPN for saying we're not a Lock but rather "should be in"...that seems about as accurate to me as one can get considering we could get annihilated, a bunch of NIT type teams from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, PAC Ten crash the party. Likely? Nope. Possible? Yes. And thus that makes it a "should be in" but not an absolute lock.
Im guessing we won't win the BET so 14 losses.
Lunardi has us off the bubble. 39 on his S curve in Green.
Green means 85% chance or more of making the tourny.
Quote from: MuMark on March 09, 2011, 11:56:24 AM
Lunardi has us off the bubble. 39 on his S curve in Green.
Green means 85% chance or more of making the tourny.
Which begs the question...isn't a "lock" supposed to be 100%? ;)
We are in 77 of 82 predicted brackets.
That is a lot of wrong people if we miss.
http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm (http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm)
Marquette should feel pretty comfortable. The main reason, they're not a "lock" is because there could be some crazy upsets in conference tournaments allowing teams to "steal" MU's spot. For example, Butler was likely in already, but had UWM won last night, they would have taken a spot from one of the bubble teams.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 09, 2011, 12:06:01 PM
Marquette should feel pretty comfortable. The main reason, they're not a "lock" is because there could be some crazy upsets in conference tournaments allowing teams to "steal" MU's spot. For example, Butler was likely in already, but had UWM won last night, they would have taken a spot from one of the bubble teams.
Most of the smaller conference tournaments are done aren't they?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2011, 11:57:38 AM
Which begs the question...isn't a "lock" supposed to be 100%? ;)
Fair enough. MU is not a 100 percent lock.
But it would take an almost unthinkable sequence of events (say, like, losing an 18-point lead with less than six minutes to play) to Marquette to somehow be left out of the dance.
Agree?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 09, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
We are in 77 of 82 predicted brackets.
That is a lot of wrong people if we miss.
http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm (http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm)
Yup...but they've been wrong on their final picks in the past. In 2006, the Bracketproject had 91.3% of their compilation pick Missouri State...they were wrong. In 2006, 90% picked Cincinnati in...they were wrong. 57% picked Hofstra in...they were wrong.
In 2007, 96.7% of the Bracketproject said Syracuse was in...they were wrong. 53.3% said Drexel was in...they weren't.
In 2008, 62.3% said Illinois State was in....nope.
In 2009, 46% said San Diego State....no soup for the Aztecs.
Last year, 39% missed on Mississippi State. Another 36% missed on Va Tech. 33% missed on Illinois
Win, we're in. Lose, were' very likely in...unless we get destroyed and a lot of other crazy stuff happens this week....pretty much what ESPN.com said.
Marquette's not a lock because ESPN wants people to tune into the game that otherwise wouldn't have any interest in watching it. ESPN plugging their programming...I think so. Regardless lets get a win tonight and make it a lock.
But a lot, if not all, of those teams were near the last four out. We have 10 or more teams behind us right now.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2011, 12:10:35 PM
Yup...but they've been wrong on their final picks in the past. In 2006, the Bracketproject had 91.3% of their compilation pick Missouri State...they were wrong. In 2006, 90% picked Cincinnati in...they were wrong. 57% picked Hofstra in...they were wrong.
In 2007, 96.7% of the Bracketproject said Syracuse was in...they were wrong. 53.3% said Drexel was in...they weren't.
In 2008, 62.3% said Illinois State was in....nope.
In 2009, 46% said San Diego State....no soup for the Aztecs.
Last year, 39% missed on Mississippi State. Another 36% missed on Va Tech. 33% missed on Illinois
Win, we're in. Lose, were' very likely in...unless we get destroyed and a lot of other crazy stuff happens this week....pretty much what ESPN.com said.
Thank you again for being a voice of concern for the prospects of MU. How about this: If MU loses tonight and we don't make the NCAA..I will delete my Scoop account and never post here again. However, if MU loses tonight and still makes the tourney - You agree to delete your account and never post here again? Deal?
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 09, 2011, 12:07:36 PM
Most of the smaller conference tournaments are done aren't they?
Yes, but what if Someone other than Temple, Xavier or Richmond wins the A-10?? What if NC State wins the ACC?? What if Auburn wins the SEC tourney?? What if Iowa State wins the Big XII tourney?? What if Rutgers wins the Big East Tourney?? What if Penn State wins the Big Televen tourney??
There are still plenty of wacko things that can happen this week. there's a better chance of me winning the lottery than seeing all the above teams winning their tournaments, but you get the picture.
If everyone was a lock, what would ESPN talk about for the next 5 days?
I do not believe Villanova is a lock. They have a five game losing streak that would be longer is they had not beat DePaul in overtime.
Quote from: muguru on March 09, 2011, 12:14:47 PM
Yes, but what if Someone other than Temple, Xavier or Richmond wins the A-10?? What if NC State wins the ACC?? What if Auburn wins the SEC tourney?? What if Iowa State wins the Big XII tourney?? What if Rutgers wins the Big East Tourney?? What if Penn State wins the Big Televen tourney??
There are still plenty of wacko things that can happen this week. there's a betetr chance of me winning teh lottery than seeing all the above teams winning their tournaments, but you get the picture.
Even if all of these things happen, we have 5 teams if not more behind us.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2011, 11:50:25 AM
In theory, I think they are right. Lock means 100% in. What if, tonight MU lost by 30 points? My guess is if MU wins tonight, lock. If MU loses tonight but is competitive....in. If MU loses tonight by say 10 to 15...still in. If MU gets destroyed tonight, by 25+...probably still in but these are the things you don't want to give a bunch of people in a room to think about.
I believe it's accurate that they label us "team that should be in"
As good as we looked last night, it's Providence. It's a "taking care of business" game and we took care of business.
I expect on Sunday our name is on the board, but in the true definition of a LOCK, I think they are right. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what any of us here on a MU message board think, it's about a few folks in a room that decide.
+1
Also... not 100% sold on Nova. I kinda feel that if they get to be a lock, we get to be a lock. S
We are in.
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 12:14:39 PM
Thank you again for being a voice of concern for the prospects of MU. How about this: If MU loses tonight and we don't make the NCAA..I will delete my Scoop account and never post here again. However, if MU loses tonight and still makes the tourney - You agree to delete your account and never post here again? Deal?
Calm down. Chico's is simply pointing out that it would take an embarassing blowout and a few upsets for MU to possibly not be in. I think most people would agree with that.
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 12:14:39 PM
Thank you again for being a voice of concern for the prospects of MU. How about this: If MU loses tonight and we don't make the NCAA..I will delete my Scoop account and never post here again. However, if MU loses tonight and still makes the tourney - You agree to delete your account and never post here again? Deal?
Sheesh, all the guy did was point out what happened in the past and how it shows that regardless of what the bracketologists say, the only real bracket that matters is the one that comes out on Sunday. Was this comment really necessary?
Quote from: MuMark on March 09, 2011, 11:56:24 AM
Lunardi has us off the bubble. 39 on his S curve in Green.
Green means 85% chance or more of making the tourny.
Yeah, I prefer the %age to either "should be in" or "lock". We have a VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE chance of being in. VERY HIGH.
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 12:14:39 PM
Thank you again for being a voice of concern for the prospects of MU. How about this: If MU loses tonight and we don't make the NCAA..I will delete my Scoop account and never post here again. However, if MU loses tonight and still makes the tourney - You agree to delete your account and never post here again? Deal?
You are one weird dude. I'm a fan...why would I delete my account and miss talking about MU. Maybe you should write a bunch of hate letters to ESPN for having the crazed rationale to say MU "should be in" (same as I said, but is not a 100% lock. How dare they say that. ::)
I'd go so far as to say 98% chance we are in...hell, Lunardi is only saying 85%...what a anti-MU guy Lunardi must be. What a negative Nancy he must be. Why, I'll bet he hates Marquette and Buzz Williams especially. We need to get him off the tv and the internets immediately.
They have 24, non-big east, locks/auto bids listed. A total of only 34 teams. Gives us a lot of room to get in.
Quote from: Muhoops85 on March 09, 2011, 12:21:48 PM
Sheesh, all the guy did was point out what happened in the past and how it shows that regardless of what the bracketologists say, the only real bracket that matters is the one that comes out on Sunday. Was this comment really necessary?
Not what is said, but who said it.
Just shown on ESPN that MU (10 seed) has moved above 'Nova (11).
Quote from: 21Jumpstreet on March 09, 2011, 12:48:54 PM
Just shown on ESPN that MU (10 seed) has moved above 'Nova (11).
That makes pretty good sense after last night. Nova got beat, MU came and took care of business.
This is going to result in another thread that Ners/Chicos'll get locked up. Let the pissing begin...
Serves further to show it's a big man's game.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 09, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
We are in 77 of 82 predicted brackets.
That is a lot of wrong people if we miss.
http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm (http://bracketproject.50webs.com/matrix.htm)
and that page was not updated after MU smoked PC last night. Last update was around 8pm last night.
With nova and now apparently further down the line then they were yesterday the committee would have to limit it to 8 big east teams at this point for us not to get in
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 09, 2011, 12:13:41 PM
But a lot, if not all, of those teams were near the last four out. We have 10 or more teams behind us right now.
In theory, there are 10+ teams behind MU but as Chicos pointed out, what outsider believe is not always what the committee believes. Though they claim that conference affiliation doesn't come into play, if it's decided that 11 teams from one conference is too many in the minds of some committee members, MU could be the odd man out.
For the record, I do think that MU is going to get in. I've just seen too many odd things happen in this process to call them a lock.
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 12:14:39 PM
Thank you again for being a voice of concern for the prospects of MU. How about this: If MU loses tonight and we don't make the NCAA..I will delete my Scoop account and never post here again. However, if MU loses tonight and still makes the tourney - You agree to delete your account and never post here again? Deal?
Sorry Ners, but I think Chicos is right on this one. We'll have 14 losses when they announce the pairings. I think we should be in, but I won't celebrate until I hear our name called.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2011, 11:50:25 AM
In theory, I think they are right. Lock means 100% in. What if, tonight MU lost by 30 points? My guess is if MU wins tonight, lock. If MU loses tonight but is competitive....in. If MU loses tonight by say 10 to 15...still in. If MU gets destroyed tonight, by 25+...probably still in but these are the things you don't want to give a bunch of people in a room to think about.
I don't think the margin of the loss, if we do indeed lose today matters. We are not a lock because what if all of the favorites lose, all the bubble teams around us win a few and someone who has no business making the tourny all of sudden gets hot and wins an auto bid. The chances of all of that happening are slim but still possible. The "we are probably in" is appropriate.
Lets just hope the South Florida/Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Minnesota, Washington State and Baylors of the world don't go winning conference tournaments with Virginia Tech, Colorado, Michigan, Michigan State and Nebraksa teams making long conference tourny runs.
Quote from: 21Jumpstreet on March 09, 2011, 12:48:54 PM
Just shown on ESPN that MU (10 seed) has moved above 'Nova (11).
In some ways, I'd prefer the 11 seed.
Definately prefer the 11 seed.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2011, 01:44:25 PM
In some ways, I'd prefer the 11 seed.
I agree Chicos. Mainly I hope we get a chance to matchup against BYU in the second round no matter what seed we get. Although we obviously have to take care of that first round matchup, but I don't know how much of a difference there is between a 5 and a 6 seed this year. With a 2 seed we may be going against a Purdue or Texas.
Does anyone think we may be put into an 8/9 game with all the good but not great Big East teams? I think if Pitt or ND win the BET they have a good shot at the one seed, but I think we have more in the 2-4 area (granted about two weeks ago I would have included Nova in that category).
I will say, if we win today I think we have an outside shot at the 7 seed. Call me crazy, but I think we will be pleasantly surprised about our seed this year, much like last year.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2011, 01:44:25 PM
In some ways, I'd prefer the 11 seed.
I tend to agree...except that you said it, which makes me not agree. ;)
Do you guys think our seed can swing from an 11 to possibly a 7? How about these scenerios...(I'll lay it out so it's easy to "quote")
MU loses to WVU by 2. We get a 10 or 11 seed?
MU beats WVU by 5-10 and loses to Louisville by 4. We get a 8,9,10 seed?
MU beats WVU by 5-10, then goes on to beat Louisville by 5-10. Would we move up to a 7 seed? Or do you think we would have to win on Saturday (against ND I believe) in order to get past an 8 seed. (as you can tell, i REALLY don't want an 8-9 seed!)
If you want to feel good about our chances, check out our 30 ranking on kenpom.com and see how many teams have more top 25 wins with no bad losses.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2011, 12:25:46 PM
You are one weird dude. I'm a fan...why would I delete my account and miss talking about MU. Maybe you should write a bunch of hate letters to ESPN for having the crazed rationale to say MU "should be in" (same as I said, but is not a 100% lock. How dare they say that. ::)
I'd go so far as to say 98% chance we are in...hell, Lunardi is only saying 85%...what a anti-MU guy Lunardi must be. What a negative Nancy he must be. Why, I'll bet he hates Marquette and Buzz Williams especially. We need to get him off the tv and the internets immediately.
Thank you for providing the cautionary tale. I'm glad you felt the need to post such even with a 98% confidence that MU is in regardless of what it does against WVU. Not surprised you wouldn't take the bet.
Quote from: The Man in Gold on March 09, 2011, 12:15:21 PM
If everyone was a lock, what would ESPN talk about for the next 5 days?
This is as good a reason as any I've ever heard to expand the tournament to 96 teams or everybody. (only half-teal.)
Let's remember many last year thought MU would be a 10 or 11 and were very surprised by the 6....if I recall correctly our RPI last year was somewhere in the ballpark of 50-60. However, our Pomroy and Saragin were in the 25-30 range.
Though the committee does not REQUIRE the use of Saragin and Pomroy data, they do have it as a supplement. Considering we are 30 in today's Pomroy...just don't see ANY WAY POSSIBLE we miss the tourney. Think we may surprise again and get a higher seed than expected. Win tonight and I could see us getting a 6 or 7. Lose..probably an 8-10.
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 02:49:48 PM
Let's remember many last year thought MU would be a 10 or 11 and were very surprised by the 6....if I recall correctly our RPI last year was somewhere in the ballpark of 50-60. However, our Pomroy and Saragin were in the 25-30 range.
Though the committee does not REQUIRE the use of Saragin and Pomroy data, they do have it as a supplement. Considering we are 30 in today's Pomroy...just don't see ANY WAY POSSIBLE we miss the tourney. Think we may surprise again and get a higher seed than expected. Win tonight and I could see us getting a 6 or 7. Lose..probably an 8-10.
+1
spot on.
Count me in the group that thinks MU isn't quite a lock but is probably going to get in.
The only thing that concerns me is that there is a ton of subjectivity that goes into this process, perhaps more than we realize. Sure they have a bunch of numbers in front of them, and most of those (except for RPI and number of losses) would seem to indicate that Marquette is about as close to a lock as you can be without being an actual lock.
But it seems that the committee changes its mind on what it values from year to year. I remember one year they were all about teams winning away from home. Another year it was schedule strength. Another year, it was how teams finished. Now they say they take the whole body of work into account.
My biggest fear is that you are going to have two or three committee members who will look at Marquette's 19-14 record (if they lose tonight) and say that a team like Missouri State, which won its conference in the regular season and didn't have the same opportunities Marquette did to rack up top 50 victories. Then a team like Minnesota or Penn State wins the Big 10 tournament, Colorado makes it to the Big 12 tournament final, Duquesne wins the A10, USC wins the Pac 10, someone other than Utah State wins the WAC, New Mexico wins the MWC and so on.
Unlikely? Of course. But still possible. That's why I don't think Marquette is an absolute lock.
If this team has taught us anything over the past two years, it's not to assume victory when victory looks likely. As long as there's time on the clock, there are many things that can happen, both good and bad.
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 02:49:48 PM
Let's remember many last year thought MU would be a 10 or 11 and were very surprised by the 6....if I recall correctly our RPI last year was somewhere in the ballpark of 50-60. However, our Pomroy and Saragin were in the 25-30 range.
Though the committee does not REQUIRE the use of Saragin and Pomroy data, they do have it as a supplement. Considering we are 30 in today's Pomroy...just don't see ANY WAY POSSIBLE we miss the tourney. Think we may surprise again and get a higher seed than expected. Win tonight and I could see us getting a 6 or 7. Lose..probably an 8-10.
I think the surprise last year was partly do to the pod system and the fact we could not play another Big East team in the first two rounds. This year will be even more complicated with 11 teams, but unlike last year we will not be a recipient of a favorable seeding because we are likely the last or second to last Big East team in.
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 02:49:48 PM
Let's remember many last year thought MU would be a 10 or 11 and were very surprised by the 6....if I recall correctly our RPI last year was somewhere in the ballpark of 50-60. However, our Pomroy and Saragin were in the 25-30 range.
Though the committee does not REQUIRE the use of Saragin and Pomroy data, they do have it as a supplement. Considering we are 30 in today's Pomroy...just don't see ANY WAY POSSIBLE we miss the tourney. Think we may surprise again and get a higher seed than expected. Win tonight and I could see us getting a 6 or 7. Lose..probably an 8-10.
Last year's RPI was 50 , KenPom/Sagarin was about 29/30 on Selection Sunday. We win tonight, our KenPom/Sagarin #'s take a slight bump into the high 20's and the RPI moves to the low 50's. Clearly, we have regressed as a program. 11th seed in the Big East tournament proves it! Context be damned!
Best seed if not in the top 4? 5,6,11,12,7,10 in that order. Worst seed other than 14,15 and 16 is 8 or 9. 13 is about the same as being an 8 or 9 - you'll more likely lose your first but if you do win there's a much better chance you'll win your second.
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 02:49:48 PM
Let's remember many last year thought MU would be a 10 or 11 and were very surprised by the 6....if I recall correctly our RPI last year was somewhere in the ballpark of 50-60. However, our Pomroy and Saragin were in the 25-30 range.
Though the committee does not REQUIRE the use of Saragin and Pomroy data, they do have it as a supplement. Considering we are 30 in today's Pomroy...just don't see ANY WAY POSSIBLE we miss the tourney. Think we may surprise again and get a higher seed than expected. Win tonight and I could see us getting a 6 or 7. Lose..probably an 8-10.
Question for you...using your data (Ken Pom)
Last year MU was 33 in the Ken Pom ratings and got a 6 seed
Old Dominion at 34...did they get a 6 seed? How about a 7 seed? A 5 seed? No, they got an 11 seed.
Vanderbilt...35 in Ken Pom...that's worse than the 33 MU had, so certainly they got a worse seed than MU....wait...they were seeded 4th, 2 lines above Marquette
Virginia Tech was a 36 Ken Pom...they were seeded....wait...they were left out of the tournament (despite 37 through 45 making it)
Missouri...19th in the Ken Pom...significantly better than MU. Must have been a 5 seed or a 4 seed...certainly. Nope...a 10 seed.
Richmond...Ken Pom of 48....seeded 12th? Nope. Seeded 13th? Nope. Seeded 7th...one line below MU.
My point....be weary of using any of these for seeding purposes or comparing to last year or any other year. You're bound to be scratching your head if you do, more likely than not.
Quote from: muarmy81 on March 09, 2011, 02:59:15 PM
+1
spot on.
-1 Most definitely not spot on with many examples provided showing that isn't the case..see post above.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 09, 2011, 03:26:40 PM
-1 Most definitely not spot on with many examples provided showing that isn't the case..see post above.
Guess we'll see how it plays out this year. I'm sure it is hard for you to fathom that MU could be anywhere from a 6-10 seed, considering you still have been floating we aren't a lock, and that if we get blown out by WVU we could be in trouble. From most of your post content pertaining to this tourney, it seems you are suggesting MU will get an 11 or 12 seed. Correct?
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
Guess we'll see how it plays out this year. I'm sure it is hard for you to fathom that MU could be anywhere from a 6-10 seed, considering you still have been floating we aren't a lock, and that if we get blown out by WVU we could be in trouble. From most of your post content pertaining to this tourney, it seems you are suggesting MU will get an 11 or 12 seed. Correct?
Incorrect. First of all, I'm not the only one floating that we aren't a lock...Lunardi, ESPN, etc, etc are saying the same thing. It's all how you define a lock. I believe my expectations are not out of line at all...I fully expect a bid and we should be in. Saying 98% is pretty darn close to lock.
On seeding...incorrect. I have no idea where the committee will put us. I used your data source and showed that the committee was all over the damn place using that data source. Teams ranked right around us were significantly lower or higher than us in seedings. Teams ranked much better than us in Pomeroy had much worse seedings. Teams with much worse Pomeroy ratings had nearly identical seedings as us. Wherever the committee puts us they will put us, but using Pomeroy or any of these other services as some kind of proof of seeding has been fully destroyed...IMO. No seeding would surprise me. Getting a seed of 6-10 would NOT surprise me....especially with that wide a range.
Am I wrong to think you were saying we should get around a 6 because last year we got a 6 and had a WORSE KenPom rating? That sure seemed to be what you were saying....now you're saying 6 to 10? Which is it? Personally, I think we'll get a 9 to 11 depending on what happens tonight but I believe we could move all the way up to a 6 based on how the committee has shown no rhyme or reason on this stuff....certainly nothing correlating to the Ken Pom data.
Figuring out seeding is definitely an inexact science. I think that it's the one place where you can really say that recent form makes a big difference. I also think conference comes into place heavily in regards to seeding. Last year we got a 6 when most people had us as an 8 at the highest. But we won 9 of our last 11 Big East games and made it to the tourney semis. So while our numbers might have figured to around 8, the SC boosted us up because we had played well of late and did so in a brutal conference.
Then look at ODU. They finished 6-3 in their final 9 conference games, and only one of those wins was against a kenpom top 100 team. They also play in the comparatively lowly CAA. Two strikes against them.
So why was Vandy higher than us? I think the difference is that we largely played ourselves out of contention when we fell to 11-8. Vandy was consistently good in a major conference. They weren't fighting for position at the end, so they didn't have to bust ass to increase their seed. In addition, their RPI was 28 spots ahead of ours. I do think kenpom matters, but it's not the only thing that matters.
Looking at Missouri, I don't get that. Their 43 RPI and 18 kenpom rating indicates they probably should have been in the 5-6 range. They did have more bad losses than we did, and that Nebraska loss easily could have dropped them a full seed line, how do they go from 6 to 10? I have no idea...sometimes the SC just throws you a curveball.
Richmond, well, they were lower in kenpom, but had the highest RPI of any of these teams at 26. They also came in having won 12 of 14, with their only losses in that stretch to eventual 5-seed Temple and 6-seed Xavier.
At the end of the day, it's an inexact science. I think it's a combination of how worthy you are, which determines your initial seed. That can be moved up or down by both RPI and the computer rankings. If you are playing hot, you'll move up. If you're barely staying above water (think 'Nova right now) then expect your seed to drop. And the bigger your conference, the better the odds you'll be seeded higher.
So where do we come in this year? I'd say that when you account our record, quality wins, and bad losses, we deserve to be on the 10-11 lines. Our RPI might drop us a line, but our kenpom could move us up 2 lines. I'd probably call us a 8/9 right now (and let's be honest, between those, does it matter?). If we beat WVU, we probably become a solid 8. Beat Louisville, we become a 7. Win the Big East tourney, we're a 6. And all that said, it's guesswork.
Quote from: Ners on March 09, 2011, 03:43:52 PM
Guess we'll see how it plays out this year. I'm sure it is hard for you to fathom that MU could be anywhere from a 6-10 seed, considering you still have been floating we aren't a lock, and that if we get blown out by WVU we could be in trouble. From most of your post content pertaining to this tourney, it seems you are suggesting MU will get an 11 or 12 seed. Correct?
That's correct....how'd I do? ;D
Dance Card got 92%...missed 3 http://www.unf.edu/~jcoleman/dance.htm
I think Palm missed 2 but need to double check....
Lunardi missed 3...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 13, 2011, 05:28:54 PM
That's correct....how'd I do? ;D
You were right..I was wrong. That said, I have no doubt the Big 10 got preferntial treatment due to OSU president overseeing the operation. No justification for MIchigan being an 8. Either way, I'm very pleased with the draw of Xavier..and it is better to be a 10 or 11 than an 8 or 9.
Quote from: Ners on March 13, 2011, 07:08:25 PM
You were right..I was wrong. That said, I have no doubt the Big 10 got preferntial treatment due to OSU president overseeing the operation. No justification for MIchigan being an 8. Either way, I'm very pleased with the draw of Xavier..and it is better to be a 10 or 11 than an 8 or 9.
You think the Ohio State AD wants to benefit the Michigan Wolverines?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 13, 2011, 07:10:56 PM
You think the Ohio State AD wants to benefit the Michigan Wolverines?
I don't necessarily think there was a conspiracy either, but don't conferences get to split up money based on "win shares" or something? So more Big 10 teams equals more potential money to split?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 13, 2011, 07:10:56 PM
You think the Ohio State AD wants to benefit the Michigan Wolverines?
I understand the OSU - Michigan rivalry, yet also don't doubt for a second that conference pride/association allows for some bias to creep into these selections/seedings..
As I said..you were right, I was wrong in this example. Take comfort in that.