After the under 12 timeout of the the wich. St. - Houston game they should the conf. Bid breakdown as per Palm.
Had the big east with 7 teams in. So unless g'town STJ or Dep jumped us, Palm thinks we are dancin
Palm?
Yes Jerry Palm of CBS
He's in a small minority that has MU as one of the last teams in.
Quote from: wisblue on March 10, 2018, 04:28:35 PM
He's in a small minority that has MU as one of the last teams in.
This. We are out of most brackets. Ugh
Quote from: Daniel on March 10, 2018, 04:32:14 PM
This. We are out of most brackets. Ugh
So are ND, and Louisville, and cuse and many others. It's a crapshoot at this point.
Quote from: fjm on March 10, 2018, 04:37:49 PM
So are ND, and Louisville, and cuse and many others. It's a crapshoot at this point.
In the Bracket Matrix MU is only in 9 of 91 brackets which is fewer than all of the realistic bubble teams except ND.
Quote from: wisblue on March 10, 2018, 04:49:05 PM
In the Bracket Matrix MU is only in 9 of 91 brackets which is fewer than all of the realistic bubble teams except ND.
Which means absolutely nothing. At this point the only thing that matters is the bracket we see tomorrow. MU may be in, they may be out. Well know soon.
Quote from: wisblue on March 10, 2018, 04:49:05 PM
In the Bracket Matrix MU is only in 9 of 91 brackets which is fewer than all of the realistic bubble teams except ND.
But...the computer models seem to like MU quite a bit actually..so it's all going to depend on what the committee values most.
Yes Palm (CBS) has us in over USC, ASU, MTSU, and Louisville as a play-in 11 seed
Not sure how accurate he's been over the years
Quote from: Floor Slaps on March 10, 2018, 05:16:39 PM
Yes Palm (CBS) has us in over USC, ASU, MTSU, and Louisville as a play-in 11 seed
Not sure how accurate he's been over the years
He ranks like 82 out of 114 on bracket matrix over the last 5 years so not very. Lunardi ranks 40th for comparison.
Quote from: wisblue on March 10, 2018, 04:49:05 PM
In the Bracket Matrix MU is only in 9 of 91 brackets which is fewer than all of the realistic bubble teams except ND.
9 our of 91. We're all biased and use our blue and gold glasses to judge this team. Apperntly the rest of the country doesn't see what we see.
Quote from: peterpan on March 10, 2018, 05:18:06 PM
He ranks like 82 out of 114 on bracket matrix over the last 5 years so not very. Lunardi ranks 40th for comparison.
Who is #1? Do they have MU in?
Quote from: Floor Slaps on March 10, 2018, 05:59:50 PM
Who is #1? Do they have MU in?
Bracketville. They do not. 2nd team out.
Quote from: peterpan on March 10, 2018, 06:06:36 PM
Bracketville. They do not. 2nd team out.
The most accurate computer model out there does however. Very last team in.
Quote from: muguru on March 10, 2018, 06:08:49 PM
The most accurate computer model out there does however. Very last team in.
The 3 most accurate computer
Models all have MU in.
ESPN's RESUME builder actually has MU in by a safe margin and they claim to be the
Most accurate.
Quote from: fjm on March 10, 2018, 06:15:13 PM
The 3 most accurate computer
Models all have MU in.
ESPN's RESUME builder actually has MU in by a safe margin and they claim to be the
Most accurate.
What are the 3 computer models? Dance card, strength of resume, and?
Quote from: MUeagle1090 on March 10, 2018, 06:36:24 PM
What are the 3 computer models? Dance card, strength of resume, and?
The Scoop resident experts who have been saying for weeks that 9-9 in the BE makes MU a "stone cold lock".
I spent a great deal of time with Palm's daughter Rosie during my four years at Marquette.
Quote from: WarriorDad on March 10, 2018, 04:43:21 PM
He must love someone at Marquette.
You pick up his lunch tab again, Cheeks?
Quote from: MUeagle1090 on March 10, 2018, 06:36:24 PM
What are the 3 computer models? Dance card, strength of resume, and?
http://hoopshd.com/nitty-gritty-rankings/
Last year the JNG was the most accurate published "rating" at predicting the Committee. It got all 68 teams correct and all but 9 teams within 4 spots of the official seed list released by the Committee (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2017-03-12/march-madness-bracket-every-seed-ranked-68-1). Among protected seeds, only Louisville (8th vs 14th) was missed. Otherwise, it was perfect through not only the top 4 seeds but the top 6 seed lines.
The ratings have a strong history of picking dismissed outliers. When nobody thought UCLA should even get close to a bid in 2015, the ratings revealed that they actually were in the thick of the discussion (further proof the ratings are meant to mimic the Committee, NOT evaluate merit in a manner that should be adopted). The big surprise by the committee in 2016 was the inclusion of the Tulsa Golden Hurricane and, once again, the JNG called it. Last year the biggest surprise was not an inclusion but the seeding of Vanderbilt. Many did not even have the Commodores in the field, but the Committee gave them a 9 seed and 33rd overall mimicking the JNG's 9 seed and 34th overall. We know of few other "formulas" that have the ability to accomplish this task.
Quote from: Jables1604 on March 10, 2018, 06:41:29 PM
I spent a great deal of time with Palm's daughter Rosie during my four years at Marquette.
Bet Rosie had 5 friends two, hey?
Quote from: fjm on March 10, 2018, 06:15:13 PM
The 3 most accurate computer
Models all have MU in.
ESPN's RESUME builder actually has MU in by a safe margin and they claim to be the
Most accurate.
I'm glad ESPN claims that their own models are the most accurate.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 10, 2018, 06:40:53 PM
The Scoop resident experts who have been saying for weeks that 9-9 in the BE makes MU a "stone cold lock".
I'm too lazy to run the scenarios myself but I'd imagine anyone that was talking about 9-9 being lock status didn't figure losing @ DePaul was in the 9-9 road map
Quote from: g0lden3agle on March 10, 2018, 07:22:48 PM
I'm too lazy to run the scenarios myself but I'd imagine anyone that was talking about 9-9 being lock status didn't figure losing @ DePaul was in the 9-9 road map
Actually a 9-9 record with a road loss to DePaul is better than a 9-9 record than a home loss to Creighton.
Of course 10-8 would have been better.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on March 10, 2018, 07:22:48 PM
I'm too lazy to run the scenarios myself but I'd imagine anyone that was talking about 9-9 being lock status didn't figure losing @ DePaul was in the 9-9 road map
Which means we got a better win somewhere along the way.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on March 10, 2018, 07:22:48 PM
I'm too lazy to run the scenarios myself but I'd imagine anyone that was talking about 9-9 being lock status didn't figure losing @ DePaul was in the 9-9 road map
This. And it still will be close.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on March 10, 2018, 07:27:27 PM
Which means we got a better win somewhere along the way.
Perhaps a win like @Providence or @Creighton....
Quote from: wisblue on March 10, 2018, 04:28:35 PM
He's in a small minority that has MU as one of the last teams in.
Yep, 8 in 102 now per Bracket Matrix. No need for anyone to kid themselves. Get ready for a home game in a few days and a tournament we can win if we're up to the challenge.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 10, 2018, 07:09:53 PM
Bet Rosie had 5 friends two, hey?
Shoot, sorry 4ever. Shoulda known you beat men to it. Low hangin fruit though🤪
Quote from: rocket surgeon on March 10, 2018, 08:20:48 PM
Shoot, sorry 4ever. Shoulda known you beat men to it. Low hangin fruit though🤪
You dentists need to get out more, aina?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 10, 2018, 08:24:23 PM
You dentists need to get out more, aina?
Good thing auto correct didn't add an"a" to it🤓
Quote from: chapman on March 10, 2018, 08:11:25 PM
Yep, 8 in 102 now per Bracket Matrix. No need for anyone to kid themselves. Get ready for a home game in a few days and a tournament we can win if we're up to the challenge.
+1,000 - hate to say, but this team is not dancin in the NCAA
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 10, 2018, 06:40:53 PM
The Scoop resident experts who have been saying for weeks that 9-9 in the BE makes MU a "stone cold lock".
IIRC, 10-8 was the stone cold lock. 9-9 was should be in
Quote from: peterpan on March 10, 2018, 05:18:06 PM
He ranks like 82 out of 114 on bracket matrix over the last 5 years so not very. Lunardi ranks 40th for comparison.
82nd out of 114? No wonder he's Chico's go to guy!
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 10, 2018, 09:49:14 PM
IIRC, 10-8 was the stone cold lock. 9-9 was should be in
We finished 4-1 as you said and got one in the BET. That put MU 9-9. I also heard no team with our standing has been left out in 10 years. Let's see tomorrow.
You don't seem confident now. Btw, I am not busting your chops and I do appreciate all the expert guys here who do these recaps. It just seems MU hasn't quite done enough to get over the hump. And, this is an anomaly year unfortunately.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55606.msg989519#msg989519
I found a site that ranks all the predictors. Appears it is based on three criteria: http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html
1) Picking the teams correctly that are given a bid
2) Accurately picking the teams seed
3) Accurately picking the seed +/- 1 seed
Add up the points and they rank them.
The one I care about is number 1, did they pick the teams correctly.
Let's hope this Palm guy is as good as he was last few years.
Last year he had a perfect score on picking bid earners. 68 out of 68. Tied for best among all predictors http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2017.html
In 2016, he had 66 of 68. Only one bracketologist did better with 67. http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2016.html
In 2015, he had 67 of 68, tied for second spot among all pickers. One person had all 68. http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2015.html
In 2014, he had 67 of 68, tied for the top spot among all pickers. http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2014.html
In 2013, he had 67 of 68, though that year a number of pickers had all 68. http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2013.html
Based on his record of picking the teams that make it (not their seedings), he appears to have done well missing 5 total teams in five years, or 335 of 340 (98.5%).
Yeah this is an odd year. No elite teams but lots of teams right around the bubble. Our resume would have definitely been considered at least "should be in" in any other year since the field expanded. Computers love us, people don't seem to. Will be interesting to see how tomorrow goes.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 10, 2018, 10:42:53 PM
Yeah this is an odd year. No elite teams but lots of teams right around the bubble. Our resume would have definitely been considered at least "should be in" in any other year since the field expanded. Computers love us, people don't seem to. Will be interesting to see how tomorrow goes.
Well people are stupid so...
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 10, 2018, 10:42:53 PM
Yeah this is an odd year. No elite teams but lots of teams right around the bubble. Our resume would have definitely been considered at least "should be in" in any other year since the field expanded. Computers love us, people don't seem to. Will be interesting to see how tomorrow goes.
Speaking of computers...I have long thought that computers should actually pick the field..let the numbers tell the story, rather than a committee of humans, that have biases, agenda's etc. It would be a much more "pure" field of truly deserving teams. You simply write a program that highlights the metrics/#'s you want to use(RPI, kenpom, sagarin, BPI etc) and let the computer spit out the most deserving at large teams. That way, no one could really complain about anything..the computers decided, it was cut and dry. Not Lobbied for and swayed by a committee member.
Further, if they do insist on having a committee, I'd like to see it made up of people that actually know basketball...former coaches/ members of the media etc. if nothing else, let them be in the room, and if a few teams are close, ask them for their input..they know a good basketball team when they see one...the "eye" test.
Quote from: muguru on March 10, 2018, 11:02:10 PM
Speaking of computers...I have long thought that computers should actually pick the field..let the numbers tell the story, rather than a committee of humans, that have biases, agenda's etc. It would be a much more "pure" field of truly deserving teams. You simply write a program that highlights the metrics/#'s you want to use(RPI, kenpom, sagarin, BPI etc) and let the computer spit out the most deserving at large teams. That way, no one could really complain about anything..the computers decided, it was cut and dry. Not Lobbied for and swayed by a committee member.
Further, if they do insist on having a committee, I'd like to see it made up of people that actually know basketball...former coaches/ members of the media etc. if nothing else, let them be in the room, and if a few teams are close, ask them for their input..they know a good basketball team when they see one...the "eye" test.
They tried it with the BCS in football and people still complained. Different sport I know, and I actually think that your proposal would work relatively well, although I don't know how any algorithm would work, but saying that leaving it up to computers will stop people from complaining vastly underestimates how much people like to complain.
The problem with computers are that computers are biased based on the program they are running. What are they going to use to judge a season?
Quote from: #bansultan on March 11, 2018, 07:56:48 AM
The problem with computers are that computers are biased based on the program they are running. What are they going to use to judge a season?
what?
LOL, yeah I didn't say that well.
A computer program written to select the teams in the NCAA tournament will have biases toward certain inputs based on the creator of the program.
Quote from: #bansultan on March 11, 2018, 08:16:16 AM
LOL, yeah I didn't say that well.
A computer program written to select the teams in the NCAA tournament will have biases toward certain inputs based on the creator of the program.
yup, got it
I thought 10-8 would be a lock but the way things have played out, and the way the bubble has shaped up, I'm not sure it would be.
Change the DePaul game from a loss to a win and MU would not have had the 7 seed and would have played a team like Providence in the BET. If they had lost that one their resume wouldn't look very different than it does now, except for removing the bad loss that the Committee says it doesn't care that much about. 10-8 with a loss to DePaul but a home win over Villanova or Xavier or Providence (games that were closer than the DePaul loss) would look better.
But, it's all a moot point that we'll never know the answer to.
Quote from: wisblue on March 11, 2018, 08:35:26 AM
I thought 10-8 would be a lock but the way things have played out, and the way the bubble has shaped up, I'm not sure it would be.
Change the DePaul game from a loss to a win and MU would not have had the 7 seed and would have played a team like Providence in the BET. If they had lost that one their resume wouldn't look very different than it does now, except for removing the bad loss that the Committee says it doesn't care that much about. 10-8 with a loss to DePaul but a home win over Villanova or Xavier or Providence (games that were closer than the DePaul loss) would look better.
But, it's all a moot point that we'll never know the answer to.
Totally agree with this. The lack of signature win is what I think would keep us out.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 10, 2018, 10:42:53 PM
Yeah this is an odd year. No elite teams but lots of teams right around the bubble. Our resume would have definitely been considered at least "should be in" in any other year since the field expanded. Computers love us, people don't seem to. Will be interesting to see how tomorrow goes.
What computers love use?
Does the committee use KenPom yet? If they are using that data, it probably spells trouble for MU. We are ranked 53rd on KenPom which is lower than most of the bubble teams we're going up against like St Marys, Notre Dame, Baylor, Texas, USC, Arizona St, Oklahoma, Louisvile, Bama, MTSU..
Then there are teams who aren't really discussed as on the bubble ranked higher too- Penn St (who's 29th!), Davidson, Maryland, San Diego St. Based on KenPom rankings, I don't see computer numbers helping.
Quote from: cheebs09 on March 11, 2018, 08:37:40 AM
Totally agree with this. The lack of signature win is what I think would keep us out.
If a lack of signature win is the barrier to us being in the tourney, especially if we went 10-8 and finished 3rd in the conference, then there are going to be a lot of undeserving teams in the tournament this year
Quote from: GrimmReaper33 on March 11, 2018, 09:00:37 AM
What computers love use?
Does the committee use KenPom yet? If they are using that data, it probably spells trouble for MU. We are ranked 53rd on KenPom which is lower than most of the bubble teams we're going up against like St Marys, Notre Dame, Baylor, Texas, USC, Arizona St, Oklahoma, Louisvile, Bama, MTSU..
Then there are teams who aren't really discussed as on the bubble ranked higher too- Penn St (who's 29th!), Davidson, Maryland, San Diego St. Based on KenPom rankings, I don't see computer numbers helping.
Kenpom is on the team sheets, along with several other metrics.
Quote from: #bansultan on March 11, 2018, 08:16:16 AM
LOL, yeah I didn't say that well.
A computer program written to select the teams in the NCAA tournament will have biases toward certain inputs based on the creator of the program.
Let the Coaches decide what metrics should be used...that way there is ZERO debate about what a team will need to do during the season.
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 11, 2018, 09:02:43 AM
If a lack of signature win is the barrier to us being in the tourney, especially if we went 10-8 and finished 3rd in the conference, then there are going to be a lot of undeserving teams in the tournament this year
Exactly this...if you look at good wins amongst the bubble teams, MU's are better then everyone else's because they were road wins, so no signature wins for MU is correct, but compared to others(who also have no signature wins), MU's wins are overall, better. I found a nice chart that demonstrates this, but I don't know how to post a picture here to show it for everyone to see.
Quote from: muguru on March 11, 2018, 09:09:08 AM
Let the Coaches decide what metrics should be used...that way there is ZERO debate about what a team will need to do during the season.
But coaches are going to have biases too. Mid-major coaches will have different ideas than coaches from the BE and the ACC.
I don't think the current system is broken anyway. The only real debate is over the last few at-large teams, and all of them could have done more throughout the season. If Marquette misses out for instance, it has no one but itself to blame.
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 11, 2018, 09:02:43 AM
If a lack of signature win is the barrier to us being in the tourney, especially if we went 10-8 and finished 3rd in the conference, then there are going to be a lot of undeserving teams in the tournament this year
Definitely. I think MU should be in. I'm biased, but think our resume stacks up well. I think MU could be that team that most miss on, but the committee chair highlights the criteria he's already talked about.
I think it would be a no doubter if we knocked off Xavier or Villanova once. Even if we took a loss at Georgetown instead.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 10, 2018, 09:49:14 PM
IIRC, 10-8 was the stone cold lock. 9-9 was should be in
That being said .. I think Brew said 9-9 was in .. and I asked him: If the 9 wins are against the bottom half of the BE, are we in? Answer: Yes.
You'd think 5 wins against the top half would be a huge plus.
Quote from: muguru on March 11, 2018, 09:12:08 AM
Exactly this...if you look at good wins amongst the bubble teams, MU's are better then everyone else's because they were road wins, so no signature wins for MU is correct, but compared to others(who also have no signature wins), MU's wins are overall, better. I found a nice chart that demonstrates this, but I don't know how to post a picture here to show it for everyone to see.
Link to the website?
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 11, 2018, 10:30:39 AM
Link to the website?
It's on the Syracuse board, via one of their posters, I will see if I can find it again
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 11, 2018, 09:47:38 AM
That being said .. I think Brew said 9-9 was in .. and I asked him: If the 9 wins are against the bottom half of the BE, are we in? Answer: Yes.
You'd think 5 wins against the top half would be a huge plus.
Any other year it would've been. This year we had the late surge we needed, but other teams on the bubble kept winning too. I still think we have a chance, but there's so many teams crammed on a bubble with less certain criteria, I'm far less optimistic than I was.
Palm just said that MU was the last team in unless Davidson steals their bid.
Quote from: Danny Noonan on March 11, 2018, 11:15:19 AM
Palm just said that MU was the last team in unless Davidson steals their bid.
GD. "McKillop's Revenge"
Quote from: Danny Noonan on March 11, 2018, 11:15:19 AM
Palm just said that MU was the last team in unless Davidson steals their bid.
Yep .. was watching an update .. Palm now has us first team out.
Someone that everyone assumes is in, will be out, and someone most didn't think would get in, will...it happens every year.
Hurley Brother knock-out? Let's hope...
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/might-danny-hurleys-loss-knocked-brother-bobby-ncaa-tournament-194109532.html
I think St Mary's or St Bonneventure will be out
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 11, 2018, 03:07:46 PM
Yep .. was watching an update .. Palm now has us first team out.
Davidson just won by one point. Ugh
Palm now says Marquette is out since Rhode Island lost.