MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: The Lens on March 12, 2018, 08:51:46 AM
-
What did Joe know that Jerry didn't?
Lunardi's models had MU next four out all weekend. Palm had us in until Davidson won. In the end Lunardi looked correct.
Has anyone figured out the common metric that put in certain teams and held out others?
-
IMHO, it's the lack of a signature win. Our biggest win @PC (31 RPI) was nice, but nothing like ASU's wins over X (3 RPI) and KU (5 RPI), Oklahoma's win over KU, or Cuse's win vs Clemson (10 RPI).
Most other metrics had us equal to or better than all three, and yet they're in, and we weren't even close.
-
I haven't clawed through it all yet, but one thing I noticed that the snubs had in common was not getting significant non-con results. Not just teams like USC and St Mary's that didn't play anyone, but teams like MTSU, Louisville, and Marquette that played good teams but didn't win those games.
That would also explain why Arizona State, St Bonaventure, Syracuse, and UCLA got in and why Notre Dame, Baylor, and USC were next up. Some of those teams only beat AQs, so it does make me wonder if Vermont winning might have got us closer.
Honestly, the games that cost us the most may have been Purdue and Wichita State.
-
Yep, a headline win, even if it was in November, seemed to be very important. If you put Arizona State, Oklahoma, St. Bonaventure and Syracuse up against USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma State and St. Mary's right now I'd take the latter group. We had our chances but that's the difference between us getting in last year and not making it this year.
-
Palm is not a good bracketologist. I know people here were convincing themselves he was a good one to follow because he had MU in the field longer than most, but he's actually one of the worst ones out there.
-
looks like top 15 RPI wins.
So confusing cause in the past they have said road and neutral court wins are a key item. This year it was knocking off top teams or for that matter a top 15 team as in the case of Nevada, St Bonnie, Cuse.
Just like last 10 games always was a huge thing now that is not a big deal see OK and ASU.
There should be criteria clear cut that they are looking at every year
-
I haven't clawed through it all yet, but one thing I noticed that the snubs had in common was not getting significant non-con results. Not just teams like USC and St Mary's that didn't play anyone, but teams like MTSU, Louisville, and Marquette that played good teams but didn't win those games.
That would also explain why Arizona State, St Bonaventure, Syracuse, and UCLA got in and why Notre Dame, Baylor, and USC were next up. Some of those teams only beat AQs, so it does make me wonder if Vermont winning might have got us closer.
Honestly, the games that cost us the most may have been Purdue and Wichita State.
I wouldn’t limit it to Non-Conference. I think most of those teams only shot for a marquee win was non-conference. Gonzaga and Arizona are nice wins, but we still a 4 and 5 seed I believe. If we took down Xavier or Villanova, it would be the same impact of Purdue and WSU.
I think this year it’s clear the committee doesn’t look at conference standings or anything like that. It reinforces that they look at each team as “How did they do in the 30 games they played.”
-
When we beat Seton Hall I was confident that would be enough of a signature win for us. They were #13 at the time and we pounded them from the opening tip. Their mid-season collapse is one of the main reasons we fell off bracketologies mid February even though we were winning IMHO
-
A 3rd place Maui win over Michigan would've been a lot better than beating LSU.
Big East had a big drop from the top two. Two 1 seeds but the rest of the BE tournament teams were 8s and 9s. (Providence and Butler both dropped a line due to bracketing rules.)
A 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 spread might have helped MU more. Fewer chances at great wins but more chances at very good wins.
-
looks like top 15 RPI wins.
So confusing cause in the past they have said road and neutral court wins are a key item. This year it was knocking off top teams or for that matter a top 15 team as in the case of Nevada, St Bonnie, Cuse.
Just like last 10 games always was a huge thing now that is not a big deal see OK and ASU.
There should be criteria clear cut that they are looking at every year
Yep.
https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55925.0
-
Palm is not a good bracketologist. I know people here were convincing themselves he was a good one to follow because he had MU in the field longer than most, but he's actually one of the worst ones out there.
It was posted here this weekend that Palm was 3rd best in last 4 years. Whereas Lunardi was 43rd best.
A 3rd place Maui win over Michigan would've been a lot better than beating LSU.
Big East had a big drop from the top two. Two 1 seeds but the rest of the BE tournament teams were 8s and 9s. (Providence and Butler both dropped a line due to bracketing rules.)
A 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 spread might have helped MU more. Fewer chances at great wins but more chances at very good wins.
That Michigan loss scared me at the time. I always felt playing LSU was a bad option. Agree on drop off in the Big East. If you use football analogies, it had two 14-2 teams and a bunch of 9-7 teams. As TAMU said, SHU falling off really hurt us.
-
When we beat Seton Hall I was confident that would be enough of a signature win for us. They were #13 at the time and we pounded them from the opening tip. Their mid-season collapse is one of the main reasons we fell off bracketologies mid February even though we were winning IMHO
Seton Hall lost three games to tournament teams by one point. Villanova, Rhode Island, and Butler. If they get those, probably a good chance we're in. C'est la vie.
-
What did Joe know that Jerry didn't?
Lunardi's models had MU next four out all weekend. Palm had us in until Davidson won. In the end Lunardi looked correct.
Has anyone figured out the common metric that put in certain teams and held out others?
Common sense. Lose games to DePaul & St. John's and anyone should be able to see we were not an NCAA team.
-
Have a cage match.
-
Common sense. Lose games to DePaul & St. John's and anyone should be able to see we were not an NCAA team.
So duke and nova?
-
Having MU's position differing by 4 spots on the Bubble doesn't mean much. In these types of scenarios often the difference is whether you have a strong advocate (and loud mouth) fighting for you in the committee.
The person best positioned to be our advocate would have been the committee chair, but he likely did not fight hard for the BE out of fear of bias (hence the BE being seeded poorly; and Xavier getting some oddly and unfair bracket placements and matchups).
Also, I wonder how much of an influence ESPN has on the committee by generating story lines. Notre Dame shouldn't have been close, but ESPN pushed that story line hard for the two weeks leading up to the selection...they ended up first team out. Similarly, Syracuse had a number of story lines pushed at ESPN leading up to the selection (last team in). MU and the BE did not get story lines, hence we were actually at a disadvantage.
-
End of the day, we did it to ourselves.
Purdue, we were beaten from almost the outset.
Wichita State, Villanova, Xavier -- Wins over any one of those probably would have made the difference.
St. John's/DePaul -- Win 'em both and we're at 11-7 and probably in as a 9 or 10 seed.
Providence (second game) -- Win this with St. John's and DePaul and we're 12-6 and a lock, I don't care if we had our final record against Wichita State, Villanova, Xavier and Purdue.
What we fail to realize is that we did not take care of business. Even a good team loses games it should win every year (ask Villanova about St. John's and Butler!) but it wins games it should lose as well. We didn't do enough of either, so it's our fault we didn't make it.
-
I doubt it mattered at the end of the day but I can't imagine it helped us to have barely survived against DePaul and then get thoroughly dominated by Villanova in the BE tournament.
-
Maybe the committee chair, who is the Creighton athletic director, didn't fight for us because we beat his team twice!
Just saying?
-
Maybe the committee chair, who is the Creighton athletic director, didn't fight for us because we beat his team twice!
Just saying?
Actually, he would have fought for us because of the tourney revenue to the conference. And, his boss sits on the MU BOT and Creighton owes its inclusion in the Big East to MU.
MU just wasn't good enough.
-
FWIW, Seth Burn's Wins Above Bubble Metric had us as the last team in.
https://sethburn.wordpress.com
I like how top 15 RPI wins are used to determine who's in and who isn't. Providence might be a little better than us. Over two games, we basically played even. We had a better non-conference. They beat us by a game in conference and won two OT games in the conference tournament. But the committee thinks there are at least 13 teams that were better than Marquette, but worse than Providence. That is crazy.
-
I haven't clawed through it all yet, but one thing I noticed that the snubs had in common was not getting significant non-con results. Not just teams like USC and St Mary's that didn't play anyone, but teams like MTSU, Louisville, and Marquette that played good teams but didn't win those games.
That would also explain why Arizona State, St Bonaventure, Syracuse, and UCLA got in and why Notre Dame, Baylor, and USC were next up. Some of those teams only beat AQs, so it does make me wonder if Vermont winning might have got us closer.
Honestly, the games that cost us the most may have been Purdue and Wichita State.
I made this same point in another thread. Those non conference wins carry great weight with the committee.
-
So duke and nova?
You do not understand that and means both teams. I did not say "or".
-
Yep, a headline win, even if it was in November, seemed to be very important. If you put Arizona State, Oklahoma, St. Bonaventure and Syracuse up against USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma State and St. Mary's right now I'd take the latter group. We had our chances but that's the difference between us getting in last year and not making it this year.
I said it even at the time.....Because you could tell Georgia was not that good......
That game was the biggest reason we did not make the NCAA's.....
Terrible non-conference loss at home.......
Either a win in that game or the fiasco against DePaul and we are in.....1 game......that is how close it was.....
-
What did Joe know that Jerry didn't?
Mr. Palm correctly picked 67 out of 68 this year in the tournament. http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
Mr. Lunardi correctly picked 66 out of 68.
Last year where Mr. Palm was perfect, Mr. Lunardi missed one. In 2016, Lunardi missed 3. He needs to pick up his game.
-
Mr. Palm correctly picked 67 out of 68 this year in the tournament. http://www.bracketmatrix.com/
Mr. Lunardi correctly picked 66 out of 68.
Last year where Mr. Palm was perfect, Mr. Lunardi missed one. In 2016, Lunardi missed 3. He needs to pick up his game.
About 64/68 every year are no contest, obvious, beyond debate. So the real metric is how many you get wrong out of about 4. Palm got 1/4 wrong, Lunardi got 2/4. Neither very good.
#stiffbubble
-
I said it even at the time.....Because you could tell Georgia was not that good......
That game was the biggest reason we did not make the NCAA's.....
Terrible non-conference loss at home.......
Either a win in that game or the fiasco against DePaul and we are in.....1 game......that is how close it was.....
I don’t think it was that close. Frankly, if we win both I don’t know if that does it. It would probably improve our RPI enough that we wouldn’t be left out.
To me the committee spoke pretty clearly. You need a marquee win. It doesn’t matter if it’s November or February. A marquee win is needed for a bubble team.
-
About 64/68 every year are no contest, obvious, beyond debate. So the real metric is how many you get wrong out of about 4. Palm got 1/4 wrong, Lunardi got 2/4. Neither very good.
#stiffbubble
The name of the game is not picking the first loser, but to pick who made it into the tournament.
Over the last three years, Mr. Lunardi scored 97.1%, Mr. Palm scored 98.5% in that most important metric.
If I want to know who is going to get in, my odds are better currently to listen to Mr. Palm vs Mr. Lunardi.
Mr. Palm now ranks 2nd over the last 5 years picking who makes it. The number one guy, by a hair, is this gentleman who also picked 67 out of 68 correctly (missed USC), but missed one less over the last five years.
http://bracketball.blogspot.com/
-
IMHO, it's the lack of a signature win. Our biggest win @PC (31 RPI) was nice, but nothing like ASU's wins over X (3 RPI) and KU (5 RPI), Oklahoma's win over KU, or Cuse's win vs Clemson (10 RPI).
Most other metrics had us equal to or better than all three, and yet they're in, and we weren't even close.
Agree, and I can't complain. We had 7 shots at a top 10 win and went 0-7. If we'd had just a 14% chance in each of those games then the expectation is that we would have won one of them.
We certainly showed we were good enough to potentially win a game as an 11-seed against a 6-seed, but not that we could go out and beat a 1- through 3-seed in a second game.
I'm excited about the nit at this point, particularly if we win two and get to go in for a road game against Notre Dame - who www.valueaddbasketball.com ranks as the 15th best team in the country with Colson back in the bracket prediction pieces I did on www.pudnersports.com.
I know those are in my signature line, but just a reference for how excited I'd be to have one more shot at a great upset if we get to South bend and win.
And yes, I hate to admit Notre Dame was the one team I thought got screwed, but USC looked like a potential deep run as well.
-
The name of the game is not picking the first loser, but to pick who made it into the tournament.
Over the last three years, Mr. Lunardi scored 97.1%, Mr. Palm scored 98.5% in that most important metric.
If I want to know who is going to get in, my odds are better currently to listen to Mr. Palm vs Mr. Lunardi.
Mr. Palm now ranks 2nd over the last 5 years picking who makes it. The number one guy, by a hair, is this gentleman who also picked 67 out of 68 correctly (missed USC), but missed one less over the last five years.
http://bracketball.blogspot.com/
Chicos, you're either misunderstanding, or being intentionally obtuse to fluff your boy. The only bids anywhere close to in doubt on selection Sunday are the last 4 in. I don't need anyone to tell me that Duke, Xavier, UNC, Michigan St., etc. are getting an at-large bid. Not to mention all the conference auto-bid winners. Including those teams as "right answers" is just inflating the denominator. This year the last four was St. Bonaventure, Syracuse, UCLA, and ASU. And I don't think many people had Bonaventure or UCLA being left out. So your boy got 3/4 right if I'm being generous. Wow. Pay that man.
Not to mention he's dreadful at seeding.
-
Chicos, you're either misunderstanding, or being intentionally obtuse to fluff your boy. The only bids anywhere close to in doubt on selection Sunday are the last 4 in. I don't need anyone to tell me that Duke, Xavier, UNC, Michigan St., etc. are getting an at-large bid. Not to mention all the conference auto-bid winners. Including those teams as "right answers" is just inflating the denominator. This year the last four was St. Bonaventure, Syracuse, UCLA, and ASU. And I don't think many people had Bonaventure or UCLA being left out. So your boy got 3/4 right if I'm being generous. Wow. Pay that man.
Not to mention he's dreadful at seeding.
Chicos, he isn't my boy. Never even heard of him until something listed here a few weeks ago. Did I do the Chicos thing correctly? It seems when fans here don't agree with someone that's what they are called. I've seen 3 or 4 different fans here called that, but if I am incorrect let me know.
If picking teams was so easy, as you imply, why did only one of the bracketoligists this year get all 68 correct? Who cares about seeding, you have to get into the tournament first, that's what should be priority one. This Palm guy is second best at doing that picking in the last five years based on that site. Apparently he is dreadful at seeding, so he loses brownie points.
-
Chicos, he isn't my boy. Never even heard of him until something listed here a few weeks ago. Did I do the Chicos thing correctly? It seems when fans here don't agree with someone that's what they are called. I've seen 3 or 4 different fans here called that, but if I am incorrect let me know.
If picking teams was so easy, as you imply, why did only one of the bracketoligists this year get all 68 correct? Who cares about seeding, you have to get into the tournament first, that's what should be priority one. This Palm guy is second best at doing that picking in the last five years based on that site. Apparently he is dreadful at seeding, so he loses brownie points.
LOLLLLLLLLL Chicos, this is hysterical. The jig is up. No one has ever stanned for Palm this hard, outside of yourself. Get a life my man.
-
Chicos, he isn't my boy. Never even heard of him until something listed here a few weeks ago. Did I do the Chicos thing correctly? It seems when fans here don't agree with someone that's what they are called. I've seen 3 or 4 different fans here called that, but if I am incorrect let me know.
If picking teams was so easy, as you imply, why did only one of the bracketoligists this year get all 68 correct? Who cares about seeding, you have to get into the tournament first, that's what should be priority one. This Palm guy is second best at doing that picking in the last five years based on that site. Apparently he is dreadful at seeding, so he loses brownie points.
And the tournament's a crapshoot based on guards, aina?
-
LOLLLLLLLLL Chicos, this is hysterical. The jig is up. No one has ever stanned for Palm this hard, outside of yourself. Get a life my man.
Chicos, what does stanning mean? I'm an old guy, help me out. Mr. Palm was brought up here not by me and because he had us in the tournament going into the last day yet some fans were bashing him, otherwise didn't know who he was.
Now, the guy that is most impressive in picks is this one, bball
http://bracketball.blogspot.com/
He has accurately predicted who is picked for the tournament better than anyone who participated in each of the last five years. His name is Andrew assuming the name at the bottom of that blog corresponds with the bracketologist, but he wasn't brought up here in any messages. He even did a NIT projection and had us playing Harvard, but in the wrong bracket. This is the guy we should be stanning for, Andrew from Bracketball. http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html
-
Chicos, what does stanning mean? I'm an old guy, help me out. Mr. Palm was brought up here not by me and because he had us in the tournament going into the last day yet some fans were bashing him, otherwise didn't know who he was.
Now, the guy that is most impressive in picks is this one, bball
http://bracketball.blogspot.com/
He has accurately predicted who is picked for the tournament better than anyone who participated in each of the last five years. His name is Andrew assuming the name at the bottom of that blog corresponds with the bracketologist, but he wasn't brought up here in any messages. He even did a NIT projection and had us playing Harvard, but in the wrong bracket. This is the guy we should be stanning for, Andrew from Bracketball. http://bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOMhN-hfMtY
You Are Stan. Palm is Eminem.
How's California? Or have you made the move to your libertarian utopia Montana yet?
-
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/138
very early but worth noting
-
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/138
very early but worth noting
Just a note. That was updated before the UW game.
-
Lunardi tweeted his seed list an hour ago. Marquette at 25, Purdue at 26 and UW behind both of them in the 30s.
-
Lunardi tweeted his seed list an hour ago. Marquette at 25, Purdue at 26 and UW behind both of them in the 30s.
Fanbases tend to overreact to one data point. Wisconsin was unquestionably the better team yesterday. It was also Marquette's first road game of the season, in game number 3 of the season. Stinks to lose, certainly some red flags, but it could be just a blip, or it could be who we are.
-
Fanbases tend to overreact to one data point. Wisconsin was unquestionably the better team yesterday. It was also Marquette's first road game of the season, in game number 3 of the season. Stinks to lose, certainly some red flags, but it could be just a blip, or it could be
who we are.
I AGREE WITH THIS ANALYSIS.