MUScoop

Posted this on Cracked Sidewalks, it doesn't seem to want to cross, and I'm too lazy to try to get it to transition, so here it is:

(http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff102/brewcity77/SCurve0226.jpg)

First Four Out: UCF, South Florida, Washington, Illinois
Next Four Out: LSU, Minnesota, Miami, VCU

Red Text indicates teams that have are in as automatic qualifiers.
Purple Highlight indicates teams that are protected seeds.
Green Highlight indicates teams that will participate in at-large bid play-in games
Orange Highlight indicates teams that will participate in automatic bid play-in games

The biggest changes...

• Marquette and Georgetown move ahead of Michigan to become the top two 3-seeds
  
• Connecticut actually moves up 1 spot after their loss to Syracuse, largely because so many teams in that tier lost yesterday
  
• West Virginia is still solidly in the field, though Cincy's loss to USF slid them down a couple spots
  
• USF is probably one win away from joining the field
  
• St. Joe's made the biggest move up, going from being in the "Next Four Out" to being in the field, thanks to their top-20 RPI win over Temple
  
• VCU is in the mix...but they don't deserve a bid, and probably won't unless they win the CAA tourney. The highest number of top-50 wins they can finish with is 1 (USF) and that's a team barely holding on in the top-50. Honestly, Iowa might be more deserving.

Brew, this is great.  Is there a numerical rating associated with your S-curve, or is it more of a 'power ranking' approach?  Just curious as to how big the gap between MU as the top 3 seed and someone like Missouri or North Carolina is. 

I saw Crashing the Dance had us as a 2 seed today, but it was over Missouri by a hundredth of a point.

Was the USF win today counted. Would really like to see them in the "dance."

Quote from: mugrad2006 on February 26, 2012, 01:52:25 PMBrew, this is great.  Is there a numerical rating associated with your S-curve, or is it more of a 'power ranking' approach?  Just curious as to how big the gap between MU as the top 3 seed and someone like Missouri or North Carolina is. 

I saw Crashing the Dance had us as a 2 seed today, but it was over Missouri by a hundredth of a point.

More of a power ranking approach.

The big difference right now between Marquette and the 2-seeds are top-50 wins, not just quantity, but quality. All of the teams have similar records. Here are the main separating points with the bottom 3 2-seeds.:

• Ohio State: 7-4 v top-50, 4 top-20 wins, 0 bad losses
  
• North Carolina: 7-4 v top-50, 3 top-30 wins, 0 bad losses
  
• Missouri: 6-3 v top-50, 3 top-10 wins, 1 bad loss
  
• Marquette: 6-4 v top-50, 0 top-20 wins (3 top-30 wins), 0 bad losses

.
The biggest difference is the top-end wins. The other three teams all have at least one top-10 win. Here's how I would see Marquette passing them (assuming we win out, including the BE Tourney):

Ohio State looks nearly impervious. Even if they lose at MSU, it'd take another loss, probably to a team outside the top-25, while Marquette beats GT and Syracuse, and probably another top-30 team (Louisville, UConn, or GT again would all count). Coming in as the hot team would also help, but we probably need to win out and beat Syracuse in the process.

UNC is still vulnerable, if Marquette can end up with more total top-50 wins, but bear in mind they have zero losses outside the RPI top-20 (Marquette has 2). Too bad they didn't lose to UVa yesterday, I still think UNC would have been ahead of us, but it would have closed the gap. To pass them, I think we need them to lose two more times (Duke and again in the ACC tourney) and beat Syracuse and GT. UNC doesn't have the quantity of top-end wins that tOSU does, so the gap is smaller.

Mizzou I think we are very close to. Their three top-10 wins are huge, but so is the fact that they are the only team I'm mentioning with a sub-100 loss. They also have 3 sub-25 losses, which is on par with us. Our main hope is that they don't make the Big 12 final. Their non-con was very weak, nearly Cincinnati-type bad. If we have the "hot team" edge over them and can get a couple wins that are close to on par with their wins over KU and Baylor, we can pass them.

Great work Brew City. I fully agree with your last post. That's why in another thread I said that moving up to a 2 seed involved more than just winning out. In order for us to bump up to a 2 seed without the other teams suffering bad losses, is to beat Syracuse in the finals. I could also see it if we would beat ND and Georgetown.

However, if there are some upsets of the double byes like we've seen, and we win out but beat a Cincy and then Louisville for the Championship, then I don't think we move up.

Granted, winning the BET is going to be hard enough, so I won't be too picky about who we beat if we would win it.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 26, 2012, 01:59:49 PMWas the USF win today counted. Would really like to see them in the "dance."

Yes, it was, and it moved them from 8 teams away to 2 teams away. They have a great Big East record, but only 1 top-50 win (Seton Hall) and 3 sub-100 losses. Being hot is helping their case, but beating Cincy today was really just what they needed to do to stay on the radar. If they beat Louisville or West Virginia, they will probably move to the inside, but to feel secure, they need to win one of those and win at least 2 in the Big East tourney.

Even then, they'll probably be just on the right side of the bubble. To truly secure their way in, they need not just to win 2 in MSG, but the right two. Beating UConn or WVU in their first game, and then beating one of the top-4 teams (preferably Georgetown, Syracuse, or Marquette) would lock it in.

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

My only objections would be Iowa State is too low.  More like a 9 seed.  Purdue is too high, more like a 10 seed.  Northwestern, in my opinion, I would push down to last four in or first four out.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 26, 2012, 02:22:16 PM
Thank you for taking the time to do this.

My only objections would be Iowa State is too low.  More like a 9 seed.  Purdue is too high, more like a 10 seed.  Northwestern, in my opinion, I would push down to last four in or first four out.

So the Big1? deserves 6 with a coin flip for 7. Sounds fair. What happened to a sure 8, possible 9 :)

Great stuff Brew City.  My only question is if we had the choice, would we rather be the #9 instead of the #8 on the s-curve for potential sites?

I know they say higher seeds get preference for location, but how does that work?

If Kentucky is #1, do they give Kentucky the South and we end up there too either as a #8 or #9 because we become the #2 or #3 seed in their regional?

But if we are #9 are we getting our best opening weekend city because we are the first of the #9 through #12 to be put in a city?

I realize there are problems if we have 9 Big East teams again, but just didn't know how that all worked.

Thanks.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 26, 2012, 02:22:16 PMThank you for taking the time to do this.

My only objections would be Iowa State is too low.  More like a 9 seed.  Purdue is too high, more like a 10 seed.  Northwestern, in my opinion, I would push down to last four in or first four out.

I feel Iowa State is being wildly overseeded. For the most part, their entire resume is the win over Kansas. Other than that, they have no other top-40 wins and only 2 more in the top-50. They also have a losing record against 51-100, and just look at their record against sub-100 teams: 17-2. First of all, 17 is way too many junk wins when you only have 21 total, and their two bad losses pretty much kill all the goodwill they get for the KU win. I'm not at all a fan of teams that stake pretty much their entire resume on 1 game, which is why I have Miami on the outside looking in.

Purdue is the exact opposite. They have the same number of top-50 wins as Marquette, Missouri, Indiana, and Louisville with 6. Purdue is one of two teams in the country (UConn the other) that has 6 top-50 wins and isn't seeded on the top-4 lines. They also have a winning record (9-8) against the top-100, and only 10 of their wins come against teams outside the top-100, so they've played some very tough competition. Purdue might look high, but they moved up 5 spots from the UM win, going from the first 10-seed to the last 8.

Quote from: brewcity77 on February 26, 2012, 02:15:38 PM
More of a power ranking approach.

The big difference right now between Marquette and the 2-seeds are top-50 wins, not just quantity, but quality. All of the teams have similar records. Here are the main separating points with the bottom 3 2-seeds.:

• Ohio State: 7-4 v top-50, 4 top-20 wins, 0 bad losses
  
• North Carolina: 7-4 v top-50, 3 top-30 wins, 0 bad losses
  
• Missouri: 6-3 v top-50, 3 top-10 wins, 1 bad loss
  
• Marquette: 6-4 v top-50, 0 top-20 wins (3 top-30 wins), 0 bad losses

.
The biggest difference is the top-end wins. The other three teams all have at least one top-10 win. Here's how I would see Marquette passing them (assuming we win out, including the BE Tourney):

Ohio State looks nearly impervious. Even if they lose at MSU, it'd take another loss, probably to a team outside the top-25, while Marquette beats GT and Syracuse, and probably another top-30 team (Louisville, UConn, or GT again would all count). Coming in as the hot team would also help, but we probably need to win out and beat Syracuse in the process.

UNC is still vulnerable, if Marquette can end up with more total top-50 wins, but bear in mind they have zero losses outside the RPI top-20 (Marquette has 2). Too bad they didn't lose to UVa yesterday, I still think UNC would have been ahead of us, but it would have closed the gap. To pass them, I think we need them to lose two more times (Duke and again in the ACC tourney) and beat Syracuse and GT. UNC doesn't have the quantity of top-end wins that tOSU does, so the gap is smaller.

Mizzou I think we are very close to. Their three top-10 wins are huge, but so is the fact that they are the only team I'm mentioning with a sub-100 loss. They also have 3 sub-25 losses, which is on par with us. Our main hope is that they don't make the Big 12 final. Their non-con was very weak, nearly Cincinnati-type bad. If we have the "hot team" edge over them and can get a couple wins that are close to on par with their wins over KU and Baylor, we can pass them.

That's what I thought re:power rankings.  I've been trying to come up with a scenario where MU can jump up to a 2 seed and it just seems like a huge longshot.  The non-con losses (particularly LSU) after Otule went down are just too tough to overcome.  Unfortunately UNC and OSU losses are unlikely to come against weak teams, so I guess we'll just have to cheer against Mizzou for the next couple of weeks.  

I was really hoping for a Kansas loss yesterday,  as I thought it was our best chance at a 2 seed with their losses to Davidson and ISU.  

Quote from: bamamarquettefan on February 26, 2012, 02:32:33 PMGreat stuff Brew City.  My only question is if we had the choice, would we rather be the #9 instead of the #8 on the s-curve for potential sites?

I know they say higher seeds get preference for location, but how does that work?

If Kentucky is #1, do they give Kentucky the South and we end up there too either as a #8 or #9 because we become the #2 or #3 seed in their regional?

But if we are #9 are we getting our best opening weekend city because we are the first of the #9 through #12 to be put in a city?

I realize there are problems if we have 9 Big East teams again, but just didn't know how that all worked.

Thanks.

Priority will be given based on seed, but the first weekend has very little to do with which region a team is in. Teams will largely be given first weekend priority simply based on where they fall on the S-Curve. Looking at the protected seeds, here's where I'd guess they'll fall as of right now, as well as the region, though it's rarely this simple:

1) Syracuse would play in Pittsburgh
2) Kentucky would play in Louisville
3) Kansas would play in Omaha
4) Michigan State would play in Columbus
5) Duke would play in Greensboro
6) Ohio State would play in Columbus
7) North Carolina would play in Greensboro
8) Missouri would play in Omaha
9) Marquette would play in Louisville
10) Georgetown would play in Pittsburgh
11) Michigan would play in Nashville
12) Baylor would play in Albuquerque
13) Indiana would play in Nashville
14) Louisville would play in Albuquerque
15) Murray State would play in Portland
16) Notre Dame would play in Portland

Right now, moving up wouldn't help us, as Louisville is the closest site to Milwaukee. Protected seeds should be kept as close to home as possible, with higher seeds getting the highest priority. If I were seeding by region, here's where I'd go at this point:

EAST: 1-Syracuse, 2-Ohio State, 3-Baylor, 4-Murray State
SOUTHEAST: 1-Kentucky, 2-Duke, 3-Michigan, 4-Indiana
MIDWEST: 1-Kansas, 2-North Carolina, 3-Marquette, 4-Louisville
WEST: 1-Michigan State, 2-Missouri, 3-Georgetown, 4-Notre Dame

This is strictly my guesses, and I'm not a fan of having teams from the same league among the top-4 lines in the same bracket, but attempted to keep Michigan/Indiana, Marquette/Louisville, and Georgetown/Notre Dame away from each other by ensuring they wouldn't meet until the Elite 8.

Ohio State can't play in Columbus, they are the host at that site.

Quote from: cheebs09 on February 26, 2012, 03:02:53 PM
Ohio State can't play in Columbus, they are the host at that site.

I think they can play in Columbus. The games are at Nationwide, not Value City.  Just like Villanova a couple of years ago.

OSU can't play in Columbus because they are the hosts, at least according to these articles.  
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/092109aaa.html
http://www.foxsportsohio.com/02/09/12/Geography-key-as-NCAA-tourney-approaches/landing.html?blockID=663016

Nova was an interesting case because they actually weren't the Philly host that year, St Joes was.  In that case, Nova just had to avoid playing too many games at the Wachovia Center so that it didn't end up qualifying as a home arena for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament

Quote from: MUDPT on February 26, 2012, 03:11:33 PMI think they can play in Columbus. The games are at Nationwide, not Value City.  Just like Villanova a couple of years ago.

This will be interesting. According to the NCAA, a team must play 3 or fewer games at a given site for it to be considered a "home site". In 2006, 'Nova had played 3 games at the Wachovia, thus it didn't qualify. Ohio State only played one game (v Miami, OH) at Nationwide, so it's not actually considered a home site. But they are the host...I've seen varying reports on this, so I can't say I'm 100% sure either way.

If tOSU can't play there, it probably won't affect Marquette. Ohio State would likely be the second team in Pittsburgh, which would send Georgetown to Columbus. The rest should stay the same.

There should be a rule that Duke and UNC can't play in North Carolina more than once every 5 Years. They always get home court advantage. Oh wait! With Cuse joining the ACC I'll take that rule back.

Quote from: brewcity77 on February 26, 2012, 02:32:55 PM
I feel Iowa State is being wildly overseeded. For the most part, their entire resume is the win over Kansas. Other than that, they have no other top-40 wins and only 2 more in the top-50. They also have a losing record against 51-100, and just look at their record against sub-100 teams: 17-2. First of all, 17 is way too many junk wins when you only have 21 total, and their two bad losses pretty much kill all the goodwill they get for the KU win. I'm not at all a fan of teams that stake pretty much their entire resume on 1 game, which is why I have Miami on the outside looking in.

Purdue is the exact opposite. They have the same number of top-50 wins as Marquette, Missouri, Indiana, and Louisville with 6. Purdue is one of two teams in the country (UConn the other) that has 6 top-50 wins and isn't seeded on the top-4 lines. They also have a winning record (9-8) against the top-100, and only 10 of their wins come against teams outside the top-100, so they've played some very tough competition. Purdue might look high, but they moved up 5 spots from the UM win, going from the first 10-seed to the last 8.

Maybe it is because I've seen nearly every Purdue game except 2 (I think) so as a fan we punish our own team and reward them to much in both directions. 

Iowa State beat K-State twice, those are two good wins plus beating Kansas.  They have a better RPI than Purdue which is why I would have them higher in the S-Curve than you do, 31 vs a 40.  ISU 4-5 against top 50 while Purdue is 5-8 against top 50. I don't see the 6 that you mention ( http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Purdue.html )   Top 100, Purdue wins at 10-9 vs ISU at 5-7.  Both teams have two losses to 100+ teams. 

Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 26, 2012, 05:00:14 PM
Maybe it is because I've seen nearly every Purdue game except 2 (I think) so as a fan we punish our own team and reward them to much in both directions.  

Iowa State beat K-State twice, those are two good wins plus beating Kansas.  They have a better RPI than Purdue which is why I would have them higher in the S-Curve than you do, 31 vs a 40.  ISU 4-5 against top 50 while Purdue is 5-8 against top 50. I don't see the 6 that you mention ( http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Purdue.html )   Top 100, Purdue wins at 10-9 vs ISU at 5-7.  Both teams have two losses to 100+ teams.  

Any particular reason you're spending a lot of energy discussing the seeding of Iowa State and Purdue on an MU message board when they don't have any effect on MU's seeding?  I could spend a lot of time talking about how UNLV is probably high at 5 given their recent losses but frankly, I don't know that anyone here cares.

Quote from: mugrad2006 on February 26, 2012, 05:03:12 PM
Any particular reason you're arguing the seeding of Iowa State and Purdue on an MU message board when they don't have any effect on MU's seeding? 

Arguing?  It was a pleasant discussion as he did a fine job with this.  My question was about some of the seedings.  All of it could impact Marquette since we will have a great seed and may play one of these teams in the 2nd or 3rd round.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 26, 2012, 05:06:38 PM
Arguing?  It was a pleasant discussion as he did a fine job with this.  My question was about some of the seedings.  All of it could impact Marquette since we will have a great seed and may play one of these teams in the 2nd or 3rd round.

I didn't mean arguing in that sense, it was just more a question of the focus on two schools that I wouldn't have focused on since MU likely won't play them early and they don't really affect MU's seeding.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 26, 2012, 05:00:14 PMMaybe it is because I've seen nearly every Purdue game except 2 (I think) so as a fan we punish our own team and reward them to much in both directions. 

Iowa State beat K-State twice, those are two good wins plus beating Kansas.  They have a better RPI than Purdue which is why I would have them higher in the S-Curve than you do, 31 vs a 40.  ISU 4-5 against top 50 while Purdue is 5-8 against top 50. I don't see the 6 that you mention ( http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Purdue.html )   Top 100, Purdue wins at 10-9 vs ISU at 5-7.  Both teams have two losses to 100+ teams.

Indeed we do. Here's my look at their resumes:

Purdue
Record: 19-10 (9-7)
RPI: 41
SOS: 18
Non-Con SOS: 165

v Top 50: 5-7
v 51-100: 4-1
v <100: 10-2

Quality Wins: 13 Michigan, 15 Temple, 37 Iona, 43 Northwestern, 43 Northwestern (I had Miami at 50, but their RPI slipped to 53 yesterday)
Bad losses: 120 Butler, 152 Penn State

-----

Iowa State
Record: 21-8 (11-5)
RPI: 31
SOS: 58
Non-con SOS: 176

v Top-50: 3-4
v 51-100: 1-2
v <100: 17-2

Quality Wins: 6 Kansas, 45 KSU, 45 KSU
Bad Losses: 112 Oklahoma State, 131 Drake

-----

The biggest difference for me are the top-50 win quantity and quality. KSU is fine, but Purdue has 5 wins that are better than ISU's second best win. They also have a winning record against the top-100 (9-8 vs 4-6). ISU just hsan't played enough or won enough against good teams, something that Purdue has done constantly.

The other big thing is the 17 sub-100 wins for ISU as opposed to 10 for Purdue. 81% of ISU's victories were against crap opponents, whereas Purdue only got 53% of their wins against crap opponents. Bottom line, Purdue has built their resume on a much, much tougher base of opponents. I'm confident the Selection Committee will reward them for that.

Quote from: brewcity77 on February 26, 2012, 02:58:56 PM
Right now, moving up wouldn't help us, as Louisville is the closest site to Milwaukee.

Columbus is actually closer to Milwaukee as the crow flies (334 vs. 352 miles), but Louisville is closer in terms of driving distance (386 v. 446 mi).  

Does anyone know which metric the Committee uses in determining which site is "closer"?  That would likely determine whether we end up in Columbus or Louisville.

Quote from: mugrad2006 on February 26, 2012, 03:19:19 PM
OSU can't play in Columbus because they are the hosts, at least according to these articles. 
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/092109aaa.html
http://www.foxsportsohio.com/02/09/12/Geography-key-as-NCAA-tourney-approaches/landing.html?blockID=663016

Nova was an interesting case because they actually weren't the Philly host that year, St Joes was.  In that case, Nova just had to avoid playing too many games at the Wachovia Center so that it didn't end up qualifying as a home arena for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament

I stand corrected.

Quote from: MUDPT on February 26, 2012, 05:50:24 PM
I stand corrected.

It was a great question.  I had to do a little research to figure out the answer, but it's good to know going forward.  Maybe we can get UWM to host the tourney and have a site at the Cell some day (wishful thinking given that the Cell is probably too small to host and there's no way MU would ever not play at the BC just to get a home site in Milwaukee for the tourney.)

In 69, Madison hosted what today would be the the sweet 16 round, it was essentially a home court for MU. Beat Kentucky, then lost to Rick Mount and Purdue. It was a great time, UW was quite supportive. Perhaps the best chance to get a "home" game for MU would be Madison.

Quote from: mugrad2006 on February 26, 2012, 03:19:19 PM
OSU can't play in Columbus because they are the hosts, at least according to these articles. 
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/092109aaa.html
http://www.foxsportsohio.com/02/09/12/Geography-key-as-NCAA-tourney-approaches/landing.html?blockID=663016

Nova was an interesting case because they actually weren't the Philly host that year, St Joes was.  In that case, Nova just had to avoid playing too many games at the Wachovia Center so that it didn't end up qualifying as a home arena for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament

Well done!

Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 26, 2012, 02:31:35 PM
So the Big1? deserves 6 with a coin flip for 7. Sounds fair. What happened to a sure 8, possible 9 :)

Sure 8?  Never said.   "Should get 8" is what I said.   Lunardi has 7 from B1G.  Illinois' blew it for me or my 8 would look pretty good right now. 

Yes, great work Brew.

One thing that caught my eye was the Cincinnati vs. Dayton opening round.  I guess there is no way around Dayton hosting the game, but I hate that Cincy has this much incentive to beat us to either get out of a potential opening game on the road, or to potentially keep from falling out of the tournament completely.

Quote from: bamamarquettefan on February 28, 2012, 06:41:04 PM
Yes, great work Brew.

One thing that caught my eye was the Cincinnati vs. Dayton opening round.  I guess there is no way around Dayton hosting the game, but I hate that Cincy has this much incentive to beat us to either get out of a potential opening game on the road, or to potentially keep from falling out of the tournament completely.

WVU was motivated and we beat them with 'half our team tied behind our back'.  I want total effort from the other side; keeps us sharp.  MU wants this badly too.  No days off anymore.

Hey Brew.  Just looked at "crashingthedance".  While I generally respect their work their computer program must be nuts as GT now sits above MU on the S-curve.  Ummm, no.  Thoughts?

Living in Columbus I am keeping my fingers crossed for C-bus...as to the Buckeyes...Louisville is only 20 miles further than Pittsburgh, so either site is in play for tOSU.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 28, 2012, 04:54:11 PM
Sure 8?  Never said.   "Should get 8" is what I said.   Lunardi has 7 from B1G.  Illinois' blew it for me or my 8 would look pretty good right now. 

You said the Big 1? "should get 8, might get 9". You also said the Big 1? would get more bids than the Big East.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 28, 2012, 07:10:40 PM
You said the Big 1? "should get 8, might get 9". You also said the Big 1? would get more bids than the Big East.

As a percentage, that is correct.  I believe I explained that.  B1G will likely get 58% in and the Big East 50% or maybe 56%.  Will UCONN get in?  Will Northwestern?  Will WVU?  Those are the outstanding questions right now.

Quote from: Hoopaloop on February 28, 2012, 04:54:11 PM
Sure 8?  Never said.   "Should get 8" is what I said.   Lunardi has 7 from B1G.  Illinois' blew it for me or my 8 would look pretty good right now. 

But they did blow it, so you were wrong. That's fine, lot's of people are wrong, that's part of the fun of making predictions like this. I just find it comical you have a tough time just coming out and flat-out saying it, much like your mentor (tourney going to 96 still a sure thing?).

Also, since you love Lunardi so much, his current bracket:
BE - 10/16 = 62.5%
B?? - 7/12 = 58.3%

Personally, I think 8 and 6 make it from those conferences respectively.

Quote from: jsglow on February 28, 2012, 06:54:26 PMHey Brew.  Just looked at "crashingthedance".  While I generally respect their work their computer program must be nuts as GT now sits above MU on the S-curve.  Ummm, no.  Thoughts?

I would disagree, but it isn't completely crazy. There are a couple edges for Georgetown. First, they have more top-50 wins than we currently do (8 to 5), including a top-10 win (over us) and of course, beat us head to head.

In our favor is a better overall RPI, more top-100 wins, and playing much better of late -- we're 12-1 since Jan 9, they are 9-4 -- which is often a consideration at this time of year.

What we could really use are WVU winning Saturday, then taking 2 in the Big East tournament (would raise their RPI into the top-50, giving us another top-50 win and GT another top-50 loss) and Washington winning out and winning at least 1-2 in the Pac-12 tourney (also getting them into the top-50).

Of course, what would be most decisive is simply to beat them on Saturday. If we win out, there's no doubt we are ahead of them on the S-Curve.

Quote from: brewcity77 on February 29, 2012, 09:06:16 AM
I would disagree, but it isn't completely crazy. There are a couple edges for Georgetown. First, they have more top-50 wins than we currently do (8 to 5), including a top-10 win (over us) and of course, beat us head to head.

In our favor is a better overall RPI, more top-100 wins, and playing much better of late -- we're 12-1 since Jan 9, they are 9-4 -- which is often a consideration at this time of year.

What we could really use are WVU winning Saturday, then taking 2 in the Big East tournament (would raise their RPI into the top-50, giving us another top-50 win and GT another top-50 loss) and Washington winning out and winning at least 1-2 in the Pac-12 tourney (also getting them into the top-50).

Of course, what would be most decisive is simply to beat them on Saturday. If we win out, there's no doubt we are ahead of them on the S-Curve.

What I don't think you have taken into account, and I don't believe many others have as well, is the injury impact.  For MU, how do they treat the first few losses after losing Otule?  The ND loss shortly after losing Gardner?  The same can be said for USF's non-conference.  They were without several players for many of those losses.  That may be the difference in some of these decisions.  If MU beats Georgetown on Saturday, I don't see them jumping MU in the seeding.

Quote from: MUMac on February 29, 2012, 10:48:12 AMWhat I don't think you have taken into account, and I don't believe many others have as well, is the injury impact.  For MU, how do they treat the first few losses after losing Otule?  The ND loss shortly after losing Gardner?  The same can be said for USF's non-conference.  They were without several players for many of those losses.  That may be the difference in some of these decisions.  If MU beats Georgetown on Saturday, I don't see them jumping MU in the seeding.

The only way is if GT got us back in the BET. I think when we're up this high, the loss of Otule will just be considered part and parcel of our season. Let's be honest, you can really see that we adjusted to not having Otule around the second week of January. But if you discount the games from his injury til then, you are judging us with a 20-1 record. No way they will judge us that highly.

Where it might help us is if there's a close call between seed lines. If we only lose once more, we could get nudged up to the 2-line even still because of adjusting to not having him. If we win out, who knows...maybe it could get us up to the 1. Still not optimistic of that, however.

Quote from: brewcity77 on February 29, 2012, 10:54:41 AM
The only way is if GT got us back in the BET. I think when we're up this high, the loss of Otule will just be considered part and parcel of our season. Let's be honest, you can really see that we adjusted to not having Otule around the second week of January. But if you discount the games from his injury til then, you are judging us with a 20-1 record. No way they will judge us that highly.

Where it might help us is if there's a close call between seed lines. If we only lose once more, we could get nudged up to the 2-line even still because of adjusting to not having him. If we win out, who knows...maybe it could get us up to the 1. Still not optimistic of that, however.

I don't believe the games that it took to adjust would be entirely discounted.  My point is, it could be the difference in a few spots on the S curve or, in USF's case, get someone in the tourney and off the bubble.

I could see that. Just put up a new S-Curve on Cracked Sidewalks, should be crossing to this site within a few minutes. Though at this point, not much has changed. Mostly the same teams just shuffling around seeds.

Quote from: bamamarquettefan on February 26, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
Great stuff Brew City.  My only question is if we had the choice, would we rather be the #9 instead of the #8 on the s-curve for potential sites?

I know they say higher seeds get preference for location, but how does that work?

If Kentucky is #1, do they give Kentucky the South and we end up there too either as a #8 or #9 because we become the #2 or #3 seed in their regional?

But if we are #9 are we getting our best opening weekend city because we are the first of the #9 through #12 to be put in a city?

I realize there are problems if we have 9 Big East teams again, but just didn't know how that all worked.

Thanks.

In the top 4 seeds, the s-curve is a myth.  #1 isn't automatically placed in the same regional as #8 and #9 overall.  The top 16 teams on the "s-curve" are divided into their natural seeds (i.e. 1-4 are 1-seeds, 5-8 are 2-seeds, etc.).  Then, using the principles of bracketing (geographic preference), the #1 seeds are placed into regions in order of their natural seed, i.e. #1 overall is placed in the region closest to their "area of natural interest," #2 overall is placed in the closest of the remaining regions, etc.  Then the regions are arranged so that #1 overall is on the same side of the bracket as #4.

When it comes to #5 overall (the top 2-seed), they do NOT have to be placed in the same region as #4 overall.  Instead, the process above is repeated, i.e. #5 is placed into the region closest to their natural interest, then #6 is placed in the closest of the remaining three regions, etc.  Of course, there are other principles that come into play here which doesn't always make it that simple, but that's the basic principle of bracketing the top 16 teams.  After the top 16 teams are all placed into regions, the committee will look for imbalance and perhaps adjust if the sum total of natural seeds in any region differs by 5 or more from the rest.

But the bottom line is that there is a distinct advantage to being #9 rather than #8 overall... you stand the best chance of being placed into your natural region as the #9, but as #8, you'll likely be stuck with whatever region remains after the other 2-seeds are placed.

EDITED TO ADD: As far as sub-regional sites, once everyone has been placed into pods, assignments into sub-regional sites is dependent upon the natural seed of the 1-4 in that pod.  #1 overall goes to the closest to natural interest, then #2, then #3, etc.  In theory, it is then more advantageous for purposes of sub-regional site to be #8 rather than #9.  Of course, there are more principles governing sub-regional placement, namely that a 1-5 seed should not be placed at a sub-regional site that would give a home-crowd disadvantage, so you could end up being #4 overall and placed in a sub-regional far, far away because a)  the sub-regional closest to you was already filled and b) the next closest sub-regional site happens to be in the 8-seed's backyard.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 26, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
In 69, Madison hosted what today would be the the sweet 16 round, it was essentially a home court for MU. Beat Kentucky, then lost to Rick Mount and Purdue. It was a great time, UW was quite supportive. Perhaps the best chance to get a "home" game for MU would be Madison.

Miller Park has been researched as a possible tournament site, but I think that fizzled a long time ago.  If you could get UWM or Horizon to host, then MU could get a "home" game in the tournament.

Quote from: Benny B on February 29, 2012, 11:41:39 AMMiller Park has been researched as a possible tournament site, but I think that fizzled a long time ago.  If you could get UWM or Horizon to host, then MU could get a "home" game in the tournament.

The problem is they would have to play a home game there during the regular season. I can't see UW-M playing a home game at the BC, unless maybe they got UNC to come (with Tokoto headed there, maybe), and there's no way I see the Horizon getting a game into Miller Park, just no way you'd fill it. The Cell just isn't big enough to be a host site, even for the first weekend.

Quote from: brewcity77 on February 29, 2012, 11:45:48 AM
The problem is they would have to play a home game there during the regular season. I can't see UW-M playing a home game at the BC, unless maybe they got UNC to come (with Tokoto headed there, maybe), and there's no way I see the Horizon getting a game into Miller Park, just no way you'd fill it. The Cell just isn't big enough to be a host site, even for the first weekend.

Do you have to play a home game at a site to be the host??  I think you may just have to have one game at a new site - a dress rehearsal if you will - and that game can be played by anyone... MU, UW, etc.  Heck, play the UW/MU game there once, and then let UWM be the host for any future tournament games.

In any event I'm sure if the NCAA wanted to use Miller Park, they would find a way for it to happen, but since you can only heat the place 30 degrees above ambient (not to mention the occasional roof leaks), I'm sure they won't be looking at that site anytime soon.

Quote
Weber said the radar is always on, trying to pick out future opponents who might fit into Illinois' United Center plans.  "Kentucky in Louisville would be a possibility," he said. "We've had conversations with Marquette, Florida, a variety of teams. Georgia in Atlanta is a possibility. We have to find a team that is a good fit.... The Marquette matchup has been discussed before, and it's an intriguing concept. Marquette would play in the United Center, then Illinois would return the game by playing at Miller Park in Milwaukee, home of the Milwaukee Brewers. There has never been a basketball game played in that domed baseball stadium, but local officials need to stage one as a dress rehearsal if they are going to bid to become a future NCAA tournament site. "I think since Michigan State played Kentucky at Ford Field in Detroit, that's been brought up," Weber said. "Marquette would be a natural match if we can find a venue. It's something we'd look at down the road.

http://www.herald-review.com/sports/illini/annual-trip-north-an-idea-that-works/article_4d44b367-7d22-5340-8cc4-ebcbed37af8e.html#ixzz1nnVDAHbE

In any event I'm sure if the NCAA wanted to use Miller Park, they would find a way for it to happen, but since you can only heat the place 30 degrees above ambient (not to mention the occasional roof leaks), I'm sure they won't be looking at that site anytime soon.



Doesn't that accurately describe the conditions in the Humphrey/Metro Dome?

Quote from: Benny B on February 29, 2012, 12:38:13 PM
In any event I'm sure if the NCAA wanted to use Miller Park, they would find a way for it to happen, but since you can only heat the place 30 degrees above ambient (not to mention the occasional roof leaks), I'm sure they won't be looking at that site anytime soon.

Does that include the ambient heat produced by 50,000 warm bodies?

Quote from: Sir Lawrence on February 29, 2012, 12:47:44 PM
Doesn't that accurately describe the conditions in the Humphrey/Metro Dome?

The Metrodome is heated to 65f for sporting events, regardless of outdoor temp.

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 29, 2012, 01:10:44 PM
The Metrodome is heated to 65f for sporting events, regardless of outdoor temp.

Typical homer response.  Braggart.

Is the new roof on?

Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 29, 2012, 01:10:44 PM
The Metrodome is heated to 65f for sporting events, regardless of outdoor temp.

Keep in mind, the Humptydump is an airtight bubble (relatively speaking) whereas Miller Park has all sorts of seams and holes.  From a climate control standpoint, Miller Park is basically a picnic pavilion outfitted with tarp walls & space heaters... you might make a small difference, but not even a thousand NFL-style heat cannons are going to get that place above 60 degrees on a 10 degree day.

Quote from: Sir Lawrence on February 29, 2012, 02:20:14 PM
Typical homer response.  Braggart.

Is the new roof on?

No idea on the roof.  I'm also pretty sure the Vikings moved to Los Angeles, so the Dome is empty now.

Quote from: brewcity77 on February 26, 2012, 05:29:30 PM
Indeed we do. Here's my look at their resumes:

Purdue
Record: 19-10 (9-7)
RPI: 41
SOS: 18
Non-Con SOS: 165

v Top 50: 5-7
v 51-100: 4-1
v <100: 10-2

Quality Wins: 13 Michigan, 15 Temple, 37 Iona, 43 Northwestern, 43 Northwestern (I had Miami at 50, but their RPI slipped to 53 yesterday)
Bad losses: 120 Butler, 152 Penn State

-----

Iowa State
Record: 21-8 (11-5)
RPI: 31
SOS: 58
Non-con SOS: 176

v Top-50: 3-4
v 51-100: 1-2
v <100: 17-2

Quality Wins: 6 Kansas, 45 KSU, 45 KSU
Bad Losses: 112 Oklahoma State, 131 Drake

-----

The biggest difference for me are the top-50 win quantity and quality. KSU is fine, but Purdue has 5 wins that are better than ISU's second best win. They also have a winning record against the top-100 (9-8 vs 4-6). ISU just hsan't played enough or won enough against good teams, something that Purdue has done constantly.

The other big thing is the 17 sub-100 wins for ISU as opposed to 10 for Purdue. 81% of ISU's victories were against crap opponents, whereas Purdue only got 53% of their wins against crap opponents. Bottom line, Purdue has built their resume on a much, much tougher base of opponents. I'm confident the Selection Committee will reward them for that.

Add a win for ISU over #10 Baylor today.  Christopherson with 23 points.  With their inside outside game, this is a team I don't want to face in the tournament. 

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=320630066

Quote from: jmayer1 on February 28, 2012, 11:57:27 PM
But they did blow it, so you were wrong. That's fine, lot's of people are wrong, that's part of the fun of making predictions like this.

The bids come out next Sunday, right?  Until then, no one is right or wrong.

I'll be heading down to Bloomington tomorrow for the Purdue - IU game.  If Purdue wins, then I would agree we deserve an 8.  Right now I still think we're a 10.