MUScoop

Barring winning the Big East tournament, my vote is Yes.

It doesn't matter how we get to 10 as long as we get to 10.
Its significantly harder if we don't win, but still do-able

absolutely and unequivocally they are not. We don't even have to win one of the two this week. It would certainly be very nice and going 0-2 puts us behind the eight ball but under no circumstances are they both must win....it's just silly to think they are.

In the context that winning them makes it easier to get to 10, it sure would be helpful.    A path exists even if MU loses both, so not actually.   

6-3 or better: Lock
5-4: should be in,  but no guarantee
4-5: Highly unlikely but theoretically possible with a run to the BET Championship
3-6 or worse: Need to win the BET


I'm really not lying or making things up. Everything above is true. Not an opinion,  it's math (assuming the committee doesnt make us the biggest snub in NCAA history).


So no. Winning these two games is not a requirement of making the dance. We could lose both (and two more after that) and still make the dance.

All they being said,  let's just win them both and give ourselves some breathing room

Quote from: mu03eng on January 29, 2018, 03:27:54 PM
absolutely and unequivocally they are not. We don't even have to win one of the two this week. It would certainly be very nice and going 0-2 puts us behind the eight ball but under no circumstances are they both must win....it's just silly to think they are.

Hope we don't have to find out if you are right.  Personally feel it is absurd to say we don't need to even win 1 to make the NCAA.  Lose both and our resume is pretty weak.  Chances of us beating Hall and Creighton or road are forecast at less than 35% probability.  55% chance of beating Creighton at home.  Furthermore, expect Creighton's RPI/Pomeroy ranking will take a hit after they likely rack up 3 losses against Nova and Xavier.

Way I see it, we won't have any wins over Top 25 RPI teams, and best case we could hope for would be 4 wins over Top 50 RPI (Hall twice and Creighton twice). 

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 29, 2018, 03:34:47 PM
6-3 or better: Lock
5-4: should be in,  but no guarantee
4-5: Highly unlikely but theoretically possible with a run to the BET Championship
3-6 or worse: Need to win the BET


I'm really not lying or making things up. Everything above is true. Not an opinion,  it's math (assuming the committee doesnt make us the biggest snub in NCAA history).


So no. Winning these two games is not a requirement of making the dance. We could lose both (and two more after that) and still make the dance.

All they being said,  let's just win them both and give ourselves some breathing room

/ end thread.  Pin to top of scoop.

Quote from: Floorslapper on January 29, 2018, 03:38:43 PM
Hope we don't have to find out if you are right.  Personally feel it is absurd to say we don't need to even win 1 to make the NCAA.  Lose both and our resume is pretty weak.  Chances of us beating Hall and Creighton or road are forecast at less than 35% probability.  55% chance of beating Creighton at home.  Furthermore, expect Creighton's RPI/Pomeroy ranking will take a hit after they likely rack up 3 losses against Nova and Xavier.

Way I see it, we won't have any wins over Top 25 RPI teams, and best case we could hope for would be 4 wins over Top 50 RPI (Hall twice and Creighton twice).

Except we do.  Seton Hall is 19 in.

And regarding the bolded, team's RPI generally don't drop much by losing to top 3 RPI teams, which both Nova and X are. 

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 29, 2018, 03:34:47 PM
6-3 or better: Lock
5-4: should be in,  but no guarantee
4-5: Highly unlikely but theoretically possible with a run to the BET Championship
3-6 or worse: Need to win the BET


I'm really not lying or making things up. Everything above is true. Not an opinion,  it's math (assuming the committee doesnt make us the biggest snub in NCAA history).


So no. Winning these two games is not a requirement of making the dance. We could lose both (and two more after that) and still make the dance.

All they being said,  let's just win them both and give ourselves some breathing room

If we lose to both Butler and Providence (AT HOME much less), to be a lock in your scenario, we would have to finish out the Year 6-1, or 5-2 (should be in).  Personally, I don't feel very confident that MU is much of a lock to finish out the year 5-2, after the Butler and Prov game.

Quote from: Floorslapper on January 29, 2018, 03:46:55 PM
If we lose to both Butler and Providence (AT HOME much less), to be a lock in your scenario, we would have to finish out the Year 7-1, or 6-2 (should be in).  Personally, I don't feel very confident that MU is much of a lock to finish out the year 6-2, after the Butler and Prov game.

Sure.  But must win games mean they are must win.  Games won't be must win until MU has 9 BE losses.

Not winning these next two games makes the road much more difficult, no doubt.

We technically will have no must wins at least until we get to the Big East Tournament, but I don't love our chances if we don't win the next two. 

Lose the next two and I don't think we'll make it, partially because it means we're just not that good. 

Split the next two, and we have to have one of the remaining three against Creighton and Seton Hall and not slip up against SJU, Georgetown or DePaul.

Win the next two and we have some significant breathing room, plus the likelihood that we're pretty good.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 29, 2018, 03:34:47 PM
6-3 or better: Lock
5-4: should be in,  but no guarantee
4-5: Highly unlikely but theoretically possible with a run to the BET Championship
3-6 or worse: Need to win the BET


I'm really not lying or making things up. Everything above is true. Not an opinion,  it's math (assuming the committee doesnt make us the biggest snub in NCAA history).


So no. Winning these two games is not a requirement of making the dance. We could lose both (and two more after that) and still make the dance.

All they being said,  let's just win them both and give ourselves some breathing room

This is absolutely correct. If I were putting numbers on it, I'd say...

6-3: 100%
5-4: 90%
4-5: 25%
3-6: Only with BET

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on January 29, 2018, 03:47:53 PM
Sure.  But must win games mean they are must win.  Games won't be must win until MU has 9 BE losses.

Not winning these next two games makes the road much more difficult, no doubt.

Fair enough.  Not must wins in the literal sense.  Yet I sure don't like our chances of making it if we can't beat just one of Butler or Providence on our home court.

Quote from: Floorslapper on January 29, 2018, 04:14:20 PM
Fair enough.  Not must wins in the literal sense.  Yet I sure don't like our chances of making it if we can't beat just one of Butler or Providence on our home court.

I agree. 0-2 this would would be brutal and we'd be in bad shape.  But 5-2 or better in the last 7 would get it done.

2-0 or even 1-1 this week gives us quite a bit more room for error.

Quote from: Floorslapper on January 29, 2018, 03:46:55 PM
If we lose to both Butler and Providence (AT HOME much less), to be a lock in your scenario, we would have to finish out the Year 6-1, or 5-2 (should be in).  Personally, I don't feel very confident that MU is much of a lock to finish out the year 5-2, after the Butler and Prov game.

I agree with this argument. If we get swept this week, I won't feel very confident in our chances. 5-2 during any stretch of the Big East is a tall ask and losing to Providence and Butler at home would be two more data points that say we aren't that good of a team. However, if I were to rank our remaining games from hardest to easiest, I would say:

@Seton Hall
Providence
@Creighton (I think Krampelj injury really hurts them, we'll see)
Butler
@Georgetown
Creighton
@Saint John's
@DePaul
St. John's

IMHO, our next three games are 3 out of the 4 toughest left on our schedule. If we lost our next 3 (I don't expect to), I wouldn't be terribly surprised if we went 5-1 (or 6-0) in our final 6.

I'm expecting 6-3 the rest of the way. I think 8-1 is possible (though I would be shocked) and I think worst case scenario is 4-5.

If we go 2-0 this week, my expectation will shift to 7-2.

We could go 0-9 and then run the table at the BET.

So our first must-win game will be the first game of the BET, unless we have secured an at-large bid first.  If we have already secured an at-large bid, then we simply won't have any single must-win game.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 29, 2018, 03:34:47 PM
6-3 or better: Lock
5-4: should be in,  but no guarantee
4-5: Highly unlikely but theoretically possible with a run to the BET Championship
3-6 or worse: Need to win the BET


I'm really not lying or making things up. Everything above is true. Not an opinion,  it's math (assuming the committee doesnt make us the biggest snub in NCAA history).


So no. Winning these two games is not a requirement of making the dance. We could lose both (and two more after that) and still make the dance.

All they being said,  let's just win them both and give ourselves some breathing room

We won 20 in '16 and we were out, but wining 18 this year and we are in. Please explain.

I voted no. I also think we have a good chance of losing both games. We need to split with Creighton, beat an overrated Seton Hall and not screw up against DePaul, Georgetown and St John's to get to 10 wins. It would not surprise me as much to sweep Creighton as it would to win one of the next two games.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 29, 2018, 05:27:43 PM
We won 20 in '16 and we were out, but wining 18 this year and we are in. Please explain.

I don't know TAMU's reason, but it might have something to do with a much stronger non conference SOS.  Per Realtime RPI, our current SOS is 13.  I can't remember when it was anywhere near that high.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 29, 2018, 05:27:43 PM
We won 20 in '16 and we were out, but wining 18 this year and we are in. Please explain.

Same reason we won 19 last year and were  pretty comfortably in. Better SOS and computer numbers.

In the sense that having a realistic shot at going I'd see we need to win 1

Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 29, 2018, 05:27:43 PM
We won 20 in '16 and we were out, but wining 18 this year and we are in. Please explain.

We won 20 against the softest schedule not found on a rich persons toilet paper dispenser. We had zero quality wins, this year we have 3 on the books with the chance at 5 more. Two years ago the Big East wasn't great this year it's very good.

Ultimately though it's cause of SoS is great. I did a whole run down two years ago and if we had played 3 buy games that we're at least 250 or better we would have been dancing...and/or not lost to f'ing DePaul

Quote from: mu03eng on January 29, 2018, 06:46:49 PM
We won 20 against the softest schedule not found on a rich persons toilet paper dispenser. We had zero quality wins, this year we have 3 on the books with the chance at 5 more. Two years ago the Big East wasn't great this year it's very good.

Ultimately though it's cause of SoS is great. I did a whole run down two years ago and if we had played 3 buy games that we're at least 250 or better we would have been dancing...and/or not lost to f'ing DePaul

While i do agree with most of this, @ PC with Dunn and Bentil was most certainly a quality win. Butler and PC at home were solid wins too.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 29, 2018, 05:27:43 PM
We won 20 in '16 and we were out, but wining 18 this year and we are in. Please explain.

Short answer, we played a much tougher schedule this season.

To illustrate how much tougher:

In 15-16, our non-conference opponents went a total of 162-240 (.403) against D1 competition

So far this season our non-conference opponents have gone 118-112 (.513) against D1 competition. That number should get better as our cupcakes get to play weaker teams in conference play and some of our better teams (Purdue and Wichita State) are ripping through their conferences. (But the Vadgers may drag us down a bit!)

Not only that but the Big East is stronger too.

In 15-16, our Big East opponents went a total of 86-27 (.761) against non-conference D1 opponents

So far this season (SJU still has to play Duke), our Big East opponents have gone a total of 91-20 (.820) against non-conference D1 opponents

We're currently counting the @SJ game as a stone cold lock but it's basically a coin flip with probably (53% chance we win). They have been in every game.

Also, the @GT game is being counted as a lock but, not like we really blew them out at home either.

I'm just saying, if we lose both of these upcoming games we still have a tough slate of games on the road. If we lose both, then the two games I mentioned above must be absolute locks plus a quality win against Creighton or Seton Hall.

Quote from: yetipro on January 29, 2018, 08:49:14 PM
We're currently counting the @SJ game as a stone cold lock but it's basically a coin flip with probably (53% chance we win). They have been in every game.

Also, the @GT game is being counted as a lock but, not like we really blew them out at home either.

I'm just saying, if we lose both of these upcoming games we still have a tough slate of games on the road. If we lose both, then the two games I mentioned above must be absolute locks plus a quality win against Creighton or Seton Hall.

I don't think anyone is counting those games as locks. No game in the Big East is a lock.

Also, the prediction model you are using is useful but flawed. Sagarin's predictor uses data from the entire the season....including when SJU had Marcus LoVett in the lineup. I think that formula gave Marquette a 18% chance of beating Wisconsin the day off.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 29, 2018, 07:34:35 PM
Short answer, we played a much tougher schedule this season.

To illustrate how much tougher:

In 15-16, our non-conference opponents went a total of 162-240 (.403) against D1 competition

So far this season our non-conference opponents have gone 118-112 (.513) against D1 competition. That number should get better as our cupcakes get to play weaker teams in conference play and some of our better teams (Purdue and Wichita State) are ripping through their conferences. (But the Vadgers may drag us down a bit!)

Not only that but the Big East is stronger too.

In 15-16, our Big East opponents went a total of 86-27 (.761) against non-conference D1 opponents

So far this season (SJU still has to play Duke), our Big East opponents have gone a total of 91-20 (.820) against non-conference D1 opponents

thanks

Quote from: MUeagle1090 on January 29, 2018, 06:56:26 PM
While i do agree with most of this, @ PC with Dunn and Bentil was most certainly a quality win. Butler and PC at home were solid wins too.

My exact thought.

We also won at Wisconsin that season.

We simply played too soft a non-con schedule that season. Our Brooklyn wins turned out to be nothing special because our opponents went on to have crappy seasons, so aside from Wisconsin, we had no quality NC wins. And we had 2 really bad losses - DePaul and Belmont.

If we beat St. John's twice and also win our remaining games with DePaul and Georgetown, but lose all the others, the closest we'll have to a bad loss is Georgia.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on January 29, 2018, 05:27:43 PM
We won 20 in '16 and we were out, but wining 18 this year and we are in. Please explain.

Metrics are no longer amount of games won that is from way back when we were young.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 29, 2018, 09:05:55 PM
I don't think anyone is counting those games as locks. No game in the Big East is a lock.

Also, the prediction model you are using is useful but flawed. Sagarin's predictor uses data from the entire the season....including when SJU had Marcus LoVett in the lineup. I think that formula gave Marquette a 18% chance of beating Wisconsin the day off.

You don't think anyone is counting those games as locks? Lol.

We will see, they are favored to win the upcoming two games and if they lose both, probably have to pull off something incredible (though possible!) to have a reasonable shot. I'd rather see MU win one or both and start working their way completely off the bubble.

Quote from: yetipro on January 29, 2018, 09:39:51 PM
You don't think anyone is counting those games as locks? Lol.

We will see, they are favored to win the upcoming two games and if they lose both, probably have to pull off something incredible (though possible!) to have a reasonable shot. I'd rather see MU win one or both and start working their way completely off the bubble.

So ... what you're saying is that you'd prefer victories by your favorite team?

Hmmm ... interesting!

I see us going 7-2 the second half of the conference season. So from that perspective we need to win both of these games.  If we don't then we have to win Creighton and Seton Hall on the Road. 

Quote from: Herman Cain on January 29, 2018, 11:11:56 PM
I see us going 7-2 the second half of the conference season. So from that perspective we need to win both of these games.  If we don't then we have to win Creighton and Seton Hall on the Road.

Got it: They are must-win if the Warriors are to meet some artificial standard of excellence placed upon them by some anonymous interwebs guy.

Quote from: MU82 on January 29, 2018, 11:14:23 PM
Got it: They are must-win if the Warriors are to meet some artificial standard of excellence placed upon them by some anonymous interwebs guy.

Just looking for a way to say Wojo didn't meet expectations and Stan should be the coach, even thou Wojo has a better neck.

Quote from: MU82 on January 29, 2018, 09:42:21 PM
So ... what you're saying is that you'd prefer victories by your favorite team?

Hmmm ... interesting!

Big, if true!

Quote from: Herman Cain on January 29, 2018, 11:11:56 PM
I see us going 7-2 the second half of the conference season. So from that perspective we need to win both of these games.  If we don't then we have to win Creighton and Seton Hall on the Road. 

You forgot to say top three in the Big East and second weekend in the tournament.

Quote from: Its DJOver on January 30, 2018, 07:59:23 AM
You forgot to say top three in the Big East and second weekend in the tournament.

Yes reaffirming that prediction.

Every game going into the stretch is very important. They cannot afford slip ups like they had post 'Nova last year. At some point they need to move from bubble like thought process to being a sure fire NCAA team. Granted this year is still a possible bubble team, but having the sure fire mentality should start now.

Wojo has been a winner his entire career and I hope that mentality transfers offer to this group. If they fail this year, makes the transition to the next level more difficult next year. Winning really is an everyday thing and I hope Wojo & Co show the toughness over the next 4-5 weeks. Truthfully, they are entering the more favorable part of their schedule and there should be no excuses.

So far my BE game predictions in that thread a long time ago have been correct. I'm sure I'll remind y'all if I continue. Having said that I have MU winning these next two and going 7-2 the rest of the way.

But it's not a question of can we make the tournament, if we lose these two. But it goes to the core quality of our program. WE SHOULD BEAT BOTH THESE TEAMS AT HOME. If we can't do that, there are deeper issues than making the tourney.

I want a team where we don't even think about making the tourney...but more what seed are we and can we win the BE or BET. If we can't say that's where we're going, we have big problems. Lose these next two at home and we have big problems.

I fully expect we win both.

Quote from: MUeagle1090 on January 29, 2018, 05:47:21 PM
Same reason we won 19 last year and were  pretty comfortably in. Better SOS and computer numbers.

I think I'm getting a better understanding of how the RPI and computer numbers work, but it seems like a misalignment of incentives if a team can lose more games (albeit to better opponents) and have better numbers. I get that there needs to be a balance between getting 26 wins over 26 sub-100 RPI teams and getting 19 wins with a tough schedule, but the reward for losing to good teams seems too high to me. I'm happy it benefits us this year, but I don't think I buy the concept.

NCAA should really have a strength of wins component, too. RPI somewhat does it but also rewards good losses.

The team sheets give a snap shot of this as well but doesn't boil it down to a single number.

Overall, I like the concept of rewarding teams that play a tough schedule.  Otherwise there is no incentive to challenge yourself, just schedule as many cupcakes as possible.

Quote from: Lazar's Headband on January 30, 2018, 10:38:47 AM
NCAA should really have a strength of wins component, too. RPI somewhat does it but also rewards good losses.

The team sheets give a snap shot of this as well but doesn't boil it down to a single number.

Overall, I like the concept of rewarding teams that play a tough schedule.  Otherwise there is no incentive to challenge yourself, just schedule as many cupcakes as possible.

Is there a way to understand how a 25 point win over some direction state school with an RPI of 200 impacts overall RPI and rankings compared to a 12 point loss to 15 point loss to a top 10 RPI team? I assume if you have a model set up you could just swap one of those games out for the other to see what the change in RPI is, right?

Quote from: skianth16 on January 30, 2018, 10:29:23 AM
I think I'm getting a better understanding of how the RPI and computer numbers work, but it seems like a misalignment of incentives if a team can lose more games (albeit to better opponents) and have better numbers. I get that there needs to be a balance between getting 26 wins over 26 sub-100 RPI teams and getting 19 wins with a tough schedule, but the reward for losing to good teams seems too high to me. I'm happy it benefits us this year, but I don't think I buy the concept.

You aren't wrong. That's why there's been so much push back against RPI in recent years. I personally like KenPom because it takes margin of victory into account. Us needing OT to beat EIU should not be treated the same as Belmont beating EIU by 12....but RPI dues just that.

The push back against KP (or any metric that uses margin of victory)  is that it theoretically encourages teams to play weaker schedules. It also encourages teams to run up the score in blowouts. Personally,  running up the score has never bothered me and there are ways to reward teams for playing tough schedules

Quote from: skianth16 on January 30, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Is there a way to understand how a 25 point win over some direction state school with an RPI of 200 impacts overall RPI and rankings compared to a 12 point loss to 15 point loss to a top 10 RPI team? I assume if you have a model set up you could just swap one of those games out for the other to see what the change in RPI is, right?

RPI doesn't take margin of victory into account, just strength of team you beat/lost to and whether it was home or away. So a 1 point loss at Kentucky is the same as a 25 point lost to Kentucky.

KenPom does, which is why it is going to be used this year in evaluating. It's also why MU's ranking per KenPom went up after a loss to Nova....it accounts for how tough you play opponents.

Quote from: mu03eng on January 30, 2018, 11:15:22 AM
RPI doesn't take margin of victory into account, just strength of team you beat/lost to and whether it was home or away. So a 1 point loss at Kentucky is the same as a 25 point lost to Kentucky.

KenPom does, which is why it is going to be used this year in evaluating. It's also why MU's ranking per KenPom went up after a loss to Nova....it accounts for how tough you play opponents.

The NCAA made some modifications to the team sheets this year. Some benefit to winning road games.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/ncaa-tournament-committee-to-emphasize-road-results-in-new-bracket-process/

Quote from: skianth16 on January 30, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Is there a way to understand how a 25 point win over some direction state school with an RPI of 200 impacts overall RPI and rankings compared to a 12 point loss to 15 point loss to a top 10 RPI team? I assume if you have a model set up you could just swap one of those games out for the other to see what the change in RPI is, right?

Use RPI Forcast's RPI Wizard.  Just google RPI wizard.  Can trade games out with others and see the result.  Fun tool. 

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on January 30, 2018, 11:57:04 AM
Use RPI Forcast's RPI Wizard.  Just google RPI wizard.  Can trade games out with others and see the result.  Fun tool.

I'm not sure if I'm happy I know this exists now, or if I'm upset know this will consume an excessive amount of my free time in the next several weeks. This thing is pretty awesome.

Someone from Twitter found a site that lists all of our wins and what "group"
They fit into since the NCAA is now basing it off of these a bit more.

Props to whoever found it if they are here on Scoop.

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2018/schedule/Marquette

Annoyingly UW Madison (#141) is the 1 win in the 3rd grouping it looks like. If they could move up to #135 it would be a 2nd grouping win.

Quote from: skianth16 on January 30, 2018, 01:31:39 PM
I'm not sure if I'm happy I know this exists now, or if I'm upset know this will consume an excessive amount of my free time in the next several weeks. This thing is pretty awesome.

For what it's worth, I did an experiment on the accuracy of the Wizard. Generally, it's accurate to about +/-10. Admittedly, it was a low sample size. Here's the thread on its accuracy, if you're interested:

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=50140.msg812498;topicseen#msg812498

I'd say these 2 games are less "must wins" than Game 4 of the 2016 World Series was for the Cubbies.

Quote from: skianth16 on January 30, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Is there a way to understand how a 25 point win over some direction state school with an RPI of 200 impacts overall RPI and rankings compared to a 12 point loss to 15 point loss to a top 10 RPI team? I assume if you have a model set up you could just swap one of those games out for the other to see what the change in RPI is, right?

No. Margin of victory doesn't impact RPI. In addition, the RPI of your opponent doesn't impact your RPI.

There are plenty of models to estimate the impact... but a good part of it depends on the anticipated win-loss (ex games against you) record of your opponent. So, playing a RPI team of 200 can actually be better for your RPI than playing one with an RPI of, say, 125. Specifics matter greatly.

(Should also note, where you're playing impacts RPI as well... strangely, it doesn't impact your "strength of schedule", but does impact the 25% component of your adjusted win / loss record [1.4 / 1.0 / 0.6]

Quote from: yetipro on January 29, 2018, 08:49:14 PM
We're currently counting the @SJ game as a stone cold lock but it's basically a coin flip with probably (53% chance we win). They have been in every game.

Marquette plays Butler tonight. Their most recent game was vs. St. John's. Butler won 70-45, holding the Redmen to 0.68ppp. Butler's lowest win probability of the game was over 80%, and under 2 minutes into the game when the score was 0-0.

#EveryGame

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on January 29, 2018, 03:34:47 PM
6-3 or better: Lock
5-4: should be in,  but no guarantee
4-5: Highly unlikely but theoretically possible with a run to the BET Championship
3-6 or worse: Need to win the BET


I'm really not lying or making things up. Everything above is true. Not an opinion,  it's math (assuming the committee doesnt make us the biggest snub in NCAA history).


So no. Winning these two games is not a requirement of making the dance. We could lose both (and two more after that) and still make the dance.

All they being said,  let's just win them both and give ourselves some breathing room

So, you're saying that one win against Creighton will be enough provided we take care of business against St. John's, DePaul and Georgetown.  Makes sense, but winning at least one of these two (or a sweep of Creighton) is needed for to make the NCAA a lock.

Quote from: 4everCrean on January 31, 2018, 12:43:28 PM
So, you're saying that one win against Creighton will be enough provided we take care of business against St. John's, DePaul and Georgetown.  Makes sense, but winning at least one of these two (or a sweep of Creighton) is needed for to make the NCAA a lock.

What I still have a hard time getting my head around is the fact that these models don't account for changes outside of the MU schedule. I get that building in that kind of complexity would be incredibly difficult, but if we finish the season 6-3 and so do all the other schools within +/- 5 spots of us in the RPI rankings, will we really be improving, or will just stay neutral? Some of that has to depend on who the other teams are playing, but if SoS is not too terribly different than ours, wouldn't we all kind of stay in the same place we are today?

I guess all I'm saying is that even though there are prediction tools and models, given the uncertainties with their calculations, I'm still going to be awfully nervous if we go 5-4, especially if we drop one to SJU or DePaul.

Quote from: skianth16 on January 31, 2018, 12:57:12 PM
What I still have a hard time getting my head around is the fact that these models don't account for changes outside of the MU schedule. I get that building in that kind of complexity would be incredibly difficult, but if we finish the season 6-3 and so do all the other schools within +/- 5 spots of us in the RPI rankings, will we really be improving, or will just stay neutral? Some of that has to depend on who the other teams are playing, but if SoS is not too terribly different than ours, wouldn't we all kind of stay in the same place we are today?

I guess all I'm saying is that even though there are prediction tools and models, given the uncertainties with their calculations, I'm still going to be awfully nervous if we go 5-4, especially if we drop one to SJU or DePaul.

The good thing about the BE is there aren't a bunch of RPI killers.  Sure Depaul and Gtown are sub 150 (barely) but most conferences have far bigger drains. We only play 2 games the rest of the year against teams with an RPI above 103.

The predictive models reflect what the others games are projected to do.  Obviously they're not going to nail it, but its going to be right far more than wrong and generally should end up in a similar spot. But you're right, its not perfect. 

Incredible the poll sits at 73-72.  So, we have a dividend country and MU Scoop.  Stop the madness. 

Quote from: Jay Bee on January 31, 2018, 07:28:22 AM
Marquette plays Butler tonight. Their most recent game was vs. St. John's. Butler won 70-45, holding the Redmen to 0.68ppp. Butler's lowest win probability of the game was over 80%, and under 2 minutes into the game when the score was 0-0.

#EveryGame

The end of that SJU-X game tells you everyhting you need to know about the Johnnies. Horrendous execution (and I suspect coaching). A disjointed team that doesn't quite grasp what it takes to win in the BE (literally).

Ran the numbers on T-Rank.  Right now we have a 66% chance of making the tournament.  Lose the next two and it goes down to 18%.  I wouldn't say they are must win, but definitely makes it harder.

Quote from: MUDPT on January 31, 2018, 01:23:49 PM
Ran the numbers on T-Rank.  Right now we have a 66% chance of making the tournament.  Lose the next two and it goes down to 18%.  I wouldn't say they are must win, but definitely makes it harder.

Ran the numbers where we lose tonight and beat Providence. That gives us a 53.8% chance. Lose to Providence and win tonight and it's 59.7%.

So clearly not both must wins. Could definitely argue that winning 1 of 2 is necessary.

Brian Regan speaks for me on this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcZOaOG0YOk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcZOaOG0YOk)

OK, so now we pretty much have a must-win against PC on Saturday. Let's say we win that, and get 4 more wins in the remaining games. Math says we're probably in. But the committee only uses computer numbers for part of their consideration, right? Does a blowout like last night hurt us in the eyes of the committee? I have a hard time thinking it doesn't, but maybe it's too far out from Selection Sunday to matter.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 01, 2018, 11:48:33 AM
OK, so now we pretty much have a must-win against PC on Saturday. Let's say we win that, and get 4 more wins in the remaining games. Math says we're probably in. But the committee only uses computer numbers for part of their consideration, right? Does a blowout like last night hurt us in the eyes of the committee? I have a hard time thinking it doesn't, but maybe it's too far out from Selection Sunday to matter.

It might. But I don't think it hurts us any more than the Seton Hall blowout helped us.

6-2: Lock
5-3: Should be in
4-4: Almost certainly out but theoretically possible with a run in the BET
3-5: Need to win the BET

Last night didn't change the above

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 01, 2018, 01:07:24 PM
6-2: Lock
5-3: Should be in
4-4: Almost certainly out but theoretically possible with a run in the BET
3-5: Need to win the BET

Last night didn't change the above

Yep. Added pressure to the game on Saturday for sure but I voted No and I'm sticking with it.

Sorry but a loss Saturday is the end of season

Quote from: Warrior1969 on February 02, 2018, 08:06:07 AM
Sorry but a loss Saturday is the end of season

This is a really bad take Skip Bayless.

Quote from: Warrior1969 on February 02, 2018, 08:06:07 AM
Sorry but a loss Saturday is the end of season

Sigh

6-2: Lock
5-3: Should be in
4-4: Almost certainly out but theoretically possible with a run in the BET
3-5: Need to win the BET

I'm really not lying.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 02, 2018, 08:29:24 AM
Sigh

6-2: Lock
5-3: Should be in
4-4: Almost certainly out but theoretically possible with a run in the BET
3-5: Need to win the BET

I'm really not lying.

I think the subjectivity of "should" is what has some scoopers, myself included, worried. There are snubs every year, and if our only wins are against the bottom 3-4 teams in the conference in the last half of our schedule, that could easily weigh as a negative for the committee. There's a real possibility that we end up going 3-11 against top 50 RPI teams this year. That's not real inspiring.

I also wonder if there will be a stronger pushback against RPI this year with some teams having good RPI numbers but ugly records. Let's call it the Temple Effect this year. Temple is currently 41 in the RPI rankings on ESPN with a 12-10 record overall and a 4-6 record in the AAC, good enough for 10th out of 12 right now. Every year there are analysts commenting on the flaws of RPI and computer-based rankings, and there are some teams in the top 50 now that sure seem like headscratchers to me.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 02, 2018, 09:14:28 AM
I think the subjectivity of "should" is what has some scoopers, myself included, worried. There are snubs every year, and if our only wins are against the bottom 3-4 teams in the conference in the last half of our schedule, that could easily weigh as a negative for the committee. There's a real possibility that we end up going 3-11 against top 50 RPI teams this year. That's not real inspiring.

I also wonder if there will be a stronger pushback against RPI this year with some teams having good RPI numbers but ugly records. Let's call it the Temple Effect this year. Temple is currently 41 in the RPI rankings on ESPN with a 12-10 record overall and a 4-6 record in the AAC, good enough for 10th out of 12 right now. Every year there are analysts commenting on the flaws of RPI and computer-based rankings, and there are some teams in the top 50 now that sure seem like headscratchers to me.

RPI is already being de-emphasized by the committee this year so that concern is baked into the pie so to speak. Our numbers will be good to decent in RPI, KenPom, etc in the 5-3 scenario....plus it's not a vacuum, other teams would have to earn their way to be more "worthy" than us and there's not a lot of that going on right now.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 02, 2018, 09:14:28 AM
I think the subjectivity of "should" is what has some scoopers, myself included, worried. There are snubs every year, and if our only wins are against the bottom 3-4 teams in the conference in the last half of our schedule, that could easily weigh as a negative for the committee. There's a real possibility that we end up going 3-11 against top 50 RPI teams this year. That's not real inspiring.

I also wonder if there will be a stronger pushback against RPI this year with some teams having good RPI numbers but ugly records. Let's call it the Temple Effect this year. Temple is currently 41 in the RPI rankings on ESPN with a 12-10 record overall and a 4-6 record in the AAC, good enough for 10th out of 12 right now. Every year there are analysts commenting on the flaws of RPI and computer-based rankings, and there are some teams in the top 50 now that sure seem like headscratchers to me.

RPI is flawed.  Everyone knows that.  Temple's RPI is so high despite being 2 games over .500 is because their non-con schedule was a murderous.  Go look at it.  They are still 4 in SOS while playing in a very mediocre league.  The committee has put more focus on the quadrants, kenpom, and other analytic rankings in recent years; but the good news is, MU is in good shape in those metrics as well. 

Look, you and others can keep doubting what the numbers say.  Those that have spent a great deal of time analyzing this stuff over the past several seasons since the field was expanded to 68 have a pretty good pulse on it. It would be an unprecedented snub based on where MU's computer numbers will be for them to get left out at 9-9.  Its really that simple.  The field needs to be filled, and when you compare MU's complete resume at 9-9 to others teams that will be vying for the last 6-8 bids, it becomes much more clear.  You have to remember that the other teams around the bubble will be racking up losses over the next 40 days as well. It is not just what MU does that matters.

Tomorrow is a big game.  No doubt.  A loss would put MU on the ropes, but not all hope would be lost.  A 5-2 or better finish would still have them in the dance.  MU's computer numbers will be better this year at 9-9 than last season at 10-8, and they were at least 6 teams inside the cutline.  IIRC, it was stated that MU was the highest 10 rated seed last season, which would mean they were 10 teams inside the cutline.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 02, 2018, 09:14:28 AM
I think the subjectivity of "should" is what has some scoopers, myself included, worried. There are snubs every year, and if our only wins are against the bottom 3-4 teams in the conference in the last half of our schedule, that could easily weigh as a negative for the committee. There's a real possibility that we end up going 3-11 against top 50 RPI teams this year. That's not real inspiring.

I also wonder if there will be a stronger pushback against RPI this year with some teams having good RPI numbers but ugly records. Let's call it the Temple Effect this year. Temple is currently 41 in the RPI rankings on ESPN with a 12-10 record overall and a 4-6 record in the AAC, good enough for 10th out of 12 right now. Every year there are analysts commenting on the flaws of RPI and computer-based rankings, and there are some teams in the top 50 now that sure seem like headscratchers to me.

The reason why 5-3 is "should be in" and not "lock" is to allow for the possibility of us getting the 7 seed, losing to St. John's/DePaul, and there being a significant number of bracketbusters. If one of those three things don't happen, we will be in with a 5-3 finish.

Look at the resumes of the teams who have played in Dayton since the field expanded to 68. They aren't worldbeaters. A 5-3 finish will give us better resumes than most if not all of them. Us being left out after a 5-3 finish (assuming the three previously mentioned criteria don't all happen) would be a historic snub.