MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: HowardsWorld on February 04, 2019, 11:37:36 AM
-
Put this in the bacteriology thread but figured it could use its own thread since there will be discussion after Saturday moving forward to selection Sunday.
On Saturday (12:30 p.m. ET on CBS), the men's basketball committee will release its top 16 teams (through Friday's games) on the 3rd annual Bracket Preview Show.
This reveal will be very interesting compared to the past two years since Net Ranking will be the new tool to help evaluate teams. I fully expect Marquette to be on the 4 line but if not we can gauge how much Net Rankings truly mean. Will also be interesting from to see what a team like Nevada will be since their resume isn't that of a top 4 seed. Lots of questions will get answered on Saturday.
-
This is a really nice pregame event for the National Marquette Day festivities, and will be even better if we win tomorrow.
Plenty of drinking games can be had. I, for one, look forward to making the most of this. Also, someone should let the committee know that it’s NMD so they can give MU the little boost that they deserve on such a day!
-
Agree that this should help answer some questions about what NET will show and how the committee will use it.
Excited to win tomorrow, see where we stand Saturday early afternoon and then build on it by whuppin' Nova on NMD!
-
Normally I scoff at this production, but with Marquette possibly being listed I'm actually a little excited this year.
-
Normally I scoff at this production, but with Marquette possibly being listed I'm actually a little excited this year.
Would be quite the travesty if we aren’t listed
Beat St John’s and I’ll be pretty ticked if we are not at least a 3
-
Would be quite the travesty if we aren’t listed
Beat St John’s and I’ll be pretty ticked if we are not at least a 3
I actually wrote the original post as a 3 seed and changed it to a 4 based on where they are in Net Ranking. I do believe they are a 3 seed right now but if you got strictly on net ranking order they are 5 seed. We know based on RPI that they never rank the S curve strictly by RPI position which is why I bumped it up to a 4 but who really knows. If you look at T-Rank they are 32 so its possible we don't even see them on the Saturday. But thankfully all the questions i posed will be answered.
-
Every metric also has our rival to the west ahead of us by a decent margin. 6 in Net Ranking and 17 in T-Rank. They also have 3 more losses than us and lost the head to head match up. Would not be surprised to see them on the 4 line. If that is true it will show how our conference is viewed as a whole and probably not in a good way.
-
I actually wrote the original post as a 3 seed and changed it to a 4 based on where they are in Net Ranking. I do believe they are a 3 seed right now but if you got strictly on net ranking order they are 5 seed. We know based on RPI that they never rank the S curve strictly by RPI position which is why I bumped it up to a 4 but who really knows. If you look at T-Rank they are 32 so its possible we don't even see them on the Saturday. But thankfully all the questions i posed will be answered.
Yup we definitely could be a 4, I don’t thinj we should be with a SJU win but we could be. Would be nuts if we are not a top 4 tho.
We got a quality resume. Lots of wins. Very few losses. And we’d have that top 10 ranking too(doesn’t mean anything for seeding but puts us more in the eyes of discussion)
-
Would be quite the travesty if we aren’t listed
Beat St John’s and I’ll be pretty ticked if we are not at least a 3
I should've said strong possibility. I think MU is a 3 with a win against St. John's and a 4 with a loss.
But with the NET, I am not sure what the committee will value most. Maybe the committee only has Marquette as 4 right now. So a loss to St. John's could make Marquette drop from a 4 to a 5.
I would be absolutely stunned to see Marquette as a 2 seed. MU doesn't have enough Q1A wins.
-
Every metric also has our rival to the west ahead of us by a decent margin. 6 in Net Ranking and 17 in T-Rank. They also have 3 more losses than us and lost the head to head match up. Would not be surprised to see them on the 4 line. If that is true it will show how our conference is viewed as a whole and probably not in a good way.
Predictive metrics favor Wisconsin but Marquette is higher in resumè based metrics KPI and SOR.
-
I wonder if the loss puts us on the border of making this show?
-
I wonder if the loss puts us on the border of making this show?
I'm guessing 3 seed still. Could be 4. Would be very surprised if we were left off. The resumes of projected 5 seeds really don't compare.
-
The resumes of projected 5 seeds really don't compare.
That's a good point. There is a decent gap behind us.
-
That's a good point. There is a decent gap behind us.
Soft Top 16 show bubble, aina?
-
I wanted that 2 seed more than anything but if we don't get the two, it makes no difference to me if we get a 3,4,5,6 seed. The first game while never a given as a 3,4,5,6 should be a mid major that we should beat. The round of 32 is when the real match ups happen. playing a 3-6 seed are all about the same to me. This team can still outscore anyone imo. Last night was just one of those nights.
-
Wouldn't the drop in NET rankings affect the Top 4 seeds projection?
-
Wouldn't the drop in NET rankings affect the Top 4 seeds projection?
No one knows how much stock the committee are going to place on Net Rankings. If they go strictly on net ranking MU is a 9 seed so I really doubt they go 100% on net.
-
I wanted that 2 seed more than anything but if we don't get the two, it makes no difference to me if we get a 3,4,5,6 seed. The first game while never a given as a 3,4,5,6 should be a mid major that we should beat. The round of 32 is when the real match ups happen. playing a 3-6 seed are all about the same to me. This team can still outscore anyone imo. Last night was just one of those nights.
I like the 3 more than the 4 or 5 because I usually want to put off facing the 1 as long as possible. Heck, one could argue that the 6 is better than the 5 or even 4 if one thinks one's team has a legit chance at making a run.
As for the seeding reveal, it will be even more interesting now to see if we're a top-4.
-
No one knows how much stock the committee are going to place on Net Rankings. If they go strictly on net ranking MU is a 9 seed so I really doubt they go 100% on net.
I assume you meant 6 seed as we are currently 21. That translates to #6.
-
I like the 3 more than the 4 or 5 because I usually want to put off facing the 1 as long as possible. Heck, one could argue that the 6 is better than the 5 or even 4 if one thinks one's team has a legit chance at making a run.
As for the seeding reveal, it will be even more interesting now to see if we're a top-4.
If we had won last night I would have bet my life that we were on the list as a 2, 3, or 4. Now I don't have a clue. I am hopeful and they surely deserve to be based on resume and only 4 losses but stranger things have happened.
-
I assume you meant 6 seed as we are currently 21. That translates to #6.
I meant 9 but I used t-rank not net ranking. Clicked on the wrong site.
-
I still think Marquette is right in the 10-15 range overall, so a 3 or 4 seed right now.
We will have to see how the committee values NET vs quadrant wins. Marquette has 4 Q1B wins, and a couple Q1A.
The NET might drag us down a bit but our quality wins should be enough to be a 4 seed at this point.
-
I still think Marquette is right in the 10-15 range overall, so a 3 or 4 seed right now.
We will have to see how the committee values NET vs quadrant wins. Marquette has 4 Q1B wins, and a couple Q1A.
The NET might drag us down a bit but our quality wins should be enough to be a 4 seed at this point.
This is why the loss last night stings so much..had they won that and theb eat Nova Saturday, combined with MSU's struggles, MU very well might have been a two seed fairly easily. They could still get a #2 I suppose, but the margin for error is much thinner now and probably involves winning out(including BE tourney). At face value, sure it's one loss, but when you really break it down and think about the potential future ramifications(NCAA seeding), it's a devastating loss.
-
I'd be willing to bet that if we lost one more game and won out (including the BET) we would be a 2 seed. May even be in conversations for a 1 seed. Hell I think we could lose 2 more games (including BET) and still earn a 2 seed. We aren't the only team at the top that is going to lose games the rest of the way.
-
I'd be willing to bet that if we lost one more game and won out (including the BET) we would be a 2 seed. May even be in conversations for a 1 seed. Hell I think we could lose 2 more games (including BET) and still earn a 2 seed. We aren't the only team at the top that is going to lose games the rest of the way.
Maybe a 2, I dont see road to a 1 seed this year. The big east is really weak outside of the top 3.
-
I'd be willing to bet that if we lost one more game and won out (including the BET) we would be a 2 seed. May even be in conversations for a 1 seed. Hell I think we could lose 2 more games (including BET) and still earn a 2 seed. We aren't the only team at the top that is going to lose games the rest of the way.
I think a 4 seed is now our ceiling after that SJU loss, we need to put together some wire to wire games and have thus far not really done that in conference,
-
This is why the loss last night stings so much..had they won that and theb eat Nova Saturday, combined with MSU's struggles, MU very well might have been a two seed fairly easily. They could still get a #2 I suppose, but the margin for error is much thinner now and probably involves winning out(including BE tourney). At face value, sure it's one loss, but when you really break it down and think about the potential future ramifications(NCAA seeding), it's a devastating loss.
I totally agree , the loss hurt so bad and put much more pressure on all remaining games, I could live with taking 1 of 2 from nova if we took the game last night, that really may have changed the season significantly, the ceiling has for sure been lowered.
-
I think a 4 seed is now our ceiling after that SJU loss, we need to put together some wire to wire games and have thus far not really done that in conference,
Hope you don't mean literally. If we win out, we are a 2 seed...easy.
-
winning out plus the BEAST tourney, id love it but id say about zero chance for that with the way we cant seem to play a complete game and we have to face nova twice and barely survived a few of the other mediocre teams in the league, we should be smashing some of these teams as a top 10 team.
-
winning out plus the BEAST tourney, id love it but id say about zero chance for that with the way we cant seem to play a complete game and we have to face nova twice and barely survived a few of the other mediocre teams in the league, we should be smashing some of these teams as a top 10 team.
You mean like the way #7 MSU smashed the Illini?
-
You mean like the way #7 MSU smashed the Illini?
And Indiana.
-
Doesn’t take much to get the crazies back out of the woodwork. 2 losses since Thanksgiving yet here we are...
-
And Indiana.
Yep. When I think of a top ten team who always seemed to blow everyone out I think of Nick Van Exel’s final year at Cincy. They had such so much swagger that they almost expeced lopsided wins. Just to fact-check myself I googled that 1992-93 game-by-game season. I was surprised to find out that even the teams that are “supposed to smash everyone” stumble. Their only losses other than to ranked Indiana and ranked Arizona were to Memphis and, drumroll......UAB, who handled them twice!! #15 Marquette gave them all they could handle at home, as they clipped our Warriors by 2 in a game I attended at the Shoe.
-
We could well slip to the 4 line in this, but I can't imagine us being left out of the top-16. When you get to resumes like Iowa State, Iowa, & LSU I think we have an edge.
-
Doesn’t take much to get the crazies back out of the woodwork. 2 losses since Thanksgiving yet here we are...
Haven't you heard, wades? In all his time at Marquette, Wojo has yet to put together a 9-game winning streak in the BEast!
-
Haven't you heard, wades? In all his time at Marquette, Wojo has yet to put together a 9-game winning streak in the BEast!
Troll complaint list:
"Wojo Has Never Beaten A Ranked Team"
"Wojo Has Never Won A Tournament Game"
"Wojo Can't Coach Defense"
"Wojo Has Never Won Three Big East Games In A Row"
"Wojo Has Never Won A NCAA Game"
"Wojo Has Never Gone Deep In The NCAAs"
"Wojo Has Never Gone Deep In The NCAAs Without Markus Howard".
-
Troll complaint list:
"Wojo Has Never Beaten A Ranked Team"
"Wojo Has Never Won A Tournament Game"
"Wojo Can't Coach Defense"
"Wojo Has Never Won Three Big East Games In A Row"
"Wojo Has Never Won A NCAA Game"
"Wojo Has Never Gone Deep In The NCAAs"
"Wojo Has Never Gone Deep In The NCAAs Without Markus Howard".
"Wojo has never won a national championship."
"Wojo has never won back to back national championships."
"Wojo has never won back to back national championships without Markus Howard."
-
"Wojo has never won a national championship."
"Wojo has never won back to back national championships."
"Wojo has never won back to back national championships without Markus Howard."
"Wojo has never won a national championship." - 2019
"Wojo has never won back to back national championships." - 2020
"Wojo has never won back to back national championships without Markus Howard." - 2022 @Duke :o ::)
-
I'd be willing to bet that if we lost one more game and won out (including the BET) we would be a 2 seed. May even be in conversations for a 1 seed. Hell I think we could lose 2 more games (including BET) and still earn a 2 seed. We aren't the only team at the top that is going to lose games the rest of the way.
But this is it exactly Tamu, and why the loss to SJU hurts so much..now to get a #2(realistically) they HAVE to win out and that includes the BE tournament. I think prior to the SJU loss, they could have afforded a split with Nova and a trip to the BE Final and still gotten a #2 seed...now all that margin has been erased.
-
We could well slip to the 4 line in this, but I can't imagine us being left out of the top-16. When you get to resumes like Iowa State, Iowa, & LSU I think we have an edge.
You wanna see guru flip a gasket, literally?? If I see UW ahead of MU in this bracket reveal, my trust for the committee (and I had very little to begin with) will be totally and completely gone if that happens. Period.
-
But this is it exactly Tamu, and why the loss to SJU hurts so much..now to get a #2(realistically) they HAVE to win out and that includes the BE tournament. I think prior to the SJU loss, they could have afforded a split with Nova and a trip to the BE Final and still gotten a #2 seed...now all that margin has been erased.
You misread my post. I was saying that we don't need to win out to get a 2 seed. Without knowing what's going to happen, I think we could lose two more games and still get a 2 seed. It's possible that won't be enough but I think it will be.
The SJU loss didn't hurt more than any other loss except Kansas. In fact, it hurt less than either the Indiana or away St. John's loss did.
-
You misread my post. I was saying that we don't need to win out to get a 2 seed. Without knowing what's going to happen, I think we could lose two more games and still get a 2 seed. It's possible that won't be enough but I think it will be.
The SJU loss didn't hurt more than any other loss except Kansas. In fact, it hurt less than either the Indiana or away St. John's loss did.
I didn't misread...I knew what you were saying, I just don't think there is any way in hell MU could lose two more games and still get a two seed...just no way. Prior to the SJU loss, I would have agreed with you..Now, I feel like in order for it to even be possible, they can lose once more..To Nova...any other loss to anyone and forget it.
-
You wanna see guru flip a gasket, literally?? If I see UW ahead of MU in this bracket reveal, my trust for the committee (and I had very little to begin with) will be totally and completely gone if that happens. Period.
It's possible. The resumes are close. UW has better computer numbers and the better win (Michigan). MU has more Q1 wins & the better losses. I spent a lot of time comparing those resumes the past couple days.
-
It's possible. The resumes are close. UW has better computer numbers and the better win (Michigan). MU has more Q1 wins & the better losses. I spent a lot of time comparing those resumes the past couple days.
It is possible for sure, but I think it would indicate the committee made a mistake. I think there's a decent gap between the 2 resumes. Only a few teams should separate MU and UW at this point, but to me there is a big gap between the top 13-14 teams and 15-25. I'd place MU in the backend of that first group and UW towards the top of the second group.
-
It is possible for sure, but I think it would indicate the committee made a mistake. I think there's a decent gap between the 2 resumes. Only a few teams should separate MU and UW at this point, but to me there is a big gap between the top 13-14 teams and 15-25. I'd place MU in the backend of that first group and UW towards the top of the second group.
I'd place that gap at 7. The top-7 are clear cut, then there's about 15-20 teams that you can make a case for from 8-16.
-
I'd place that gap at 7. The top-7 are clear cut, then there's about 15-20 teams that you can make a case for from 8-16.
I should have been more clear. Top 7 are their own class. Then 8-13 I think is relatively clear cut. Just my opinion.
-
It is possible for sure, but I think it would indicate the committee made a mistake. I think there's a decent gap between the 2 resumes. Only a few teams should separate MU and UW at this point, but to me there is a big gap between the top 13-14 teams and 15-25. I'd place MU in the backend of that first group and UW towards the top of the second group.
Not just a mistake, a HUGE mistake...UW has more overall losses, a head to head loss vs MU, and exactly ZERO non conference good wins(not impressed by NC State). If UW is ahead of MU it will be obvious the committee is strictly looking at numbers and not using any eye test at all. Because if you use the eye test and watch games like the committee claims to, there is NO possible way you can say watching the two teams that UW is a better team then MU. None whatsoever.
-
Yep. When I think of a top ten team who always seemed to blow everyone out I think of Nick Van Exel’s final year at Cincy. They had such so much swagger that they almost expeced lopsided wins. Just to fact-check myself I googled that 1992-93 game-by-game season. I was surprised to find out that even the teams that are “supposed to smash everyone” stumble. Their only losses other than to ranked Indiana and ranked Arizona were to Memphis and, drumroll......UAB, who handled them twice!! #15 Marquette gave them all they could handle at home, as they clipped our Warriors by 2 in a game I attended at the Shoe.
Man, I hated the Cincy teams of that era. "Thugs" really was an apt description. They would foul continuously and dare the refs to call half of them.
-
Not just a mistake, a HUGE mistake...UW has more overall losses, a head to head loss vs MU, and exactly ZERO non conference good wins(not impressed by NC State). If UW is ahead of MU it will be obvious the committee is strictly looking at numbers and not using any eye test at all. Because if you use the eye test and watch games like the committee claims to, there is NO possible way you can say watching the two teams that UW is a better team then MU. None whatsoever.
UW also has the better NET ranking, better kenpom ranking, best overall win (Michigan), more Q1A wins, more Q1+Q2 wins, and have done it against a tougher SOS.
You can make a case for either resume. Both have strong resumes.
-
UW also has the better NET ranking, better kenpom ranking, best overall win (Michigan), more Q1A wins, more Q1+Q2 wins, and have done it against a tougher SOS.
You can make a case for either resume. Both have strong resumes.
There resume yes, is probably better then MU's, but in no way shape or form are they better using the eye test..numbers can and do lie, always trust the eyes.
-
There resume yes, is probably better then MU's, but in no way shape or form are they better using the eye test..numbers can and do lie, always trust the eyes.
The opposite is actually true. The eyes are far more likely to lie. Especially when you had blue & gold LASIK surgery.
-
The opposite is actually true. The eyes are far more likely to lie. Especially when you had blue & gold LASIK surgery.
So you don't think MU is a better basketball team then UW?? C'mon man, you know your ball.
-
So you don't think MU is a better basketball team then UW?? C'mon man, you know your ball.
I have MU ahead of UW-M. I think we have the better resume. But if the top-16 comes out and they are a 3 and we're a 4, I'll understand. It just depends on which aspects of the resume the Selection Committee puts emphasis on.
I try to be as objective as possible, which is admittedly tough when I'm paying attention to Marquette basketball literally every day of the year. I have a high opinion of our team, but how much of that is based on watching every minute of Marquette basketball (I can't say the same for any other team) and having a partisan bias?
-
Anyone looking it objectively would know that MU and UW are very close. Computer numbers mostly favor UW.....they played head to head and MU won but it was in OT on our court. UW has the best win and the worst loss.
Cases can easily be made for both teams being on the same seed line or one slightly ahead of the other.
-
You wanna see guru flip a gasket, literally??
That literally would be literally fun.
-
So you don't think MU is a better basketball team then UW?? C'mon man, you know your ball.
I think these teams are about as equal as you can get. If i had to actually put money down i would say Marquette and Wisconsin will both be on the 4 line come saturdays release.
-
This is why my hope is one day the committee is made up of "basketball" people. Guys that know the game, can look at a team and make an accurate judgement of their abilities and how good they really are. Then, and ONLY then do i think we would get proper seeds, the correct teams in the tournament etc. Computers only tell you so much..the system can be gamed, and we have seen it plenty. UW for example, Pomeroy himself has said that they are always rated higher in his system then they should be. I honestly think most of their always seemingly good computer #'s are because they play so slow...for things like that, that matters a lot..If you study these things, slow paced teams are always seemingly high in Pomeroy's system.
Houston is a great example of computers not telling the whole story...look at their computer #'s...they all are pretty good, and that is mostly because they have only one loss...but they haven't played anyone. This is a perfect case of why basketball people should be on the committee...they would see through Houston's computer #'s and trust their eyes. The computers tell one story about them, but anyone that watches them knows, although a good team, definitely not a great team, or one worthy of a high seed.
-
This is why my hope is one day the committee is made up of "basketball" people. Guys that know the game, can look at a team and make an accurate judgement of their abilities and how good they really are. Then, and ONLY then do i think we would get proper seeds, the correct teams in the tournament etc. Computers only tell you so much..the system can be gamed, and we have seen it plenty. UW for example, Pomeroy himself has said that they are always rated higher in his system then they should be. I honestly think most of their always seemingly good computer #'s are because they play so slow...for things like that, that matters a lot..If you study these things, slow paced teams are always seemingly high in Pomeroy's system.
Houston is a great example of computers not telling the whole story...look at their computer #'s...they all are pretty good, and that is mostly because they have only one loss...but they haven't played anyone. This is a perfect case of why basketball people should be on the committee...they would see through Houston's computer #'s and trust their eyes. The computers tell one story about them, but anyone that watches them knows, although a good team, definitely not a great team, or one worthy of a high seed.
I know its a given that Wisconsin is the example used because 1) they are our biggest rival and 2) they fit perfectly into the kenpom narrative but honestly when was the last time that Wisconsin was actually overseeded as you are suggesting they are with Kenpom. If anything I would argue they are underseeded each year, prime example was when they were given a 8 seed a few years back and knocked off Villanova.
I get what you are saying with the computer part but that is why there is a human element to the selection as well and its not just striaght net ranking = seeds on a S curve.
-
Numbers only lie if you take them at face value and don't look at why the numbers are the way they are.
-
This is why my hope is one day the committee is made up of "basketball" people. Guys that know the game, can look at a team and make an accurate judgement of their abilities and how good they really are. Then, and ONLY then do i think we would get proper seeds, the correct teams in the tournament etc. Computers only tell you so much..the system can be gamed, and we have seen it plenty. UW for example, Pomeroy himself has said that they are always rated higher in his system then they should be. I honestly think most of their always seemingly good computer #'s are because they play so slow...for things like that, that matters a lot..If you study these things, slow paced teams are always seemingly high in Pomeroy's system.
Houston is a great example of computers not telling the whole story...look at their computer #'s...they all are pretty good, and that is mostly because they have only one loss...but they haven't played anyone. This is a perfect case of why basketball people should be on the committee...they would see through Houston's computer #'s and trust their eyes. The computers tell one story about them, but anyone that watches them knows, although a good team, definitely not a great team, or one worthy of a high seed.
The committee is made up of ADs and conference commissioners. The Big East got screwed this year with no rep.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/mens-basketball-selections-101-committee
-
Released before or after our game against nova?
-
Before. 11:30 am central, 5:30 pm Galway time.
-
Just remember all...that the show tomorrow has been proven to be a VERY accurate predictor of where these teams are seeded on Selection Sunday..yes, there are exceptions, but I read somewhere(I will look for it), that what you see tomm, is what you have usually gotten on SS as well.
-
Just remember all...that the show tomorrow has been proven to be a VERY accurate predictor of where these teams are seeded on Selection Sunday..yes, there are exceptions, but I read somewhere(I will look for it), that what you see tomm, is what you have usually gotten on SS as well.
Haven't they only done this show once?
-
Haven't they only done this show once?
This is the 3rd time they will be doing this.
-
Ah thanks.
-
Last year for the top 4 reveal the had the seeds as followed;
South (Atlanta): (1) Virginia, (2) Cincinnati, (3) Michigan St., (4) Tennessee
East (Boston): (1) Villanova, (2) Duke, (3) Texas Tech, (4) Ohio State
Midwest (Omaha): (1) Xavier, (2) Auburn, (3) Clemson, (4) Oklahoma
West (Los Angeles): (1) Purdue, (2) Kansas, (3) North Carolina, (4) Arizona
Final seeding was :
1 Seeds: Virginia Villanova Kansas Xavier
2 Seeds: North Carolina Duke Purdue Cincinnati
3 Seeds:Michigan State Tennessee Michigan Texas Tech
4 Seeds:Auburn Wichita State Gonzaga Arizona
Green = Nailed exact seed
Blue = Overseeded
Red = Mistake
Orange = Underseeded.
Clemson and Ohio St fell to a 5 seed in the final selections
-
double post....
-
If you look at the thing I put together above they almost hit it 100% accurate with the exception of Oklahoma which as some may remember lost like 8 of there last 9 or something crazy. Ohio St, Clemson, Purdue and Auburn. were all 1 seed below what the initial release said.
-
Just remember all...that the show tomorrow has been proven to be a VERY accurate predictor of where these teams are seeded on Selection Sunday..yes, there are exceptions, but I read somewhere(I will look for it), that what you see tomm, is what you have usually gotten on SS as well.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2019-02-06/ncaa-top-16-time-tv-channel-and-what-you-need-know
-
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2019-02-06/ncaa-top-16-time-tv-channel-and-what-you-need-know
Thanks mark! That's exactly what i had read...what they reveal tomorrow is usually very close to actual seeds come selection Sunday...so...let's hope MU is a 3!
-
12. Last 3 seed. Below Purdue, Kansas. Ahead of Louisville, Wisconsin
-
Does that include Tuesday’s L? If so, I’d say that’s a pretty decent spot to be in.
-
Does that include Tuesday’s L? If so, I’d say that’s a pretty decent spot to be in.
Yes. Through all games prior to today
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dy-1nzFWoAActXX?format=jpg&name=large)
-
Nice. And ready to move up.
So what insight to we get from this?
By NET, MU was like what, a 5-seed? So we see that to the committee NET isn't the be-all and end-all, just part (a big part) of the equation, right?
-
If the season ended today does this mean we'd be in the East Region?
Hello Hartford.
-
The West region would be awesome to be in with that draw. Key players missing for MSU and Kansas, Louisville solid but not great, and Gonzaga the worst 1 seed.
-
Love the 3 seed, but...what perplexed me as MU as a 3 seed is in the East, and UW as a 4 gets the Midwest?? Total BS. That being said, I only care more about whether or not they will be in Des Moines the 1st and 2nd round then what region they are in.
-
Love the 3 seed, but...what perplexed me as MU as a 3 seed is in the East, and UW as a 4 gets the Midwest?? Total BS. That being said, I only care more about whether or not they will be in Des Moines the 1st and 2nd round then what region they are in.
I would definitely rather go to KC than DC. MUCH shorter drive for those of us in MN, and also shorter from both MKE and CHI.
-
Love the 3 seed, but...what perplexed me as MU as a 3 seed is in the East, and UW as a 4 gets the Midwest?? Total BS. That being said, I only care more about whether or not they will be in Des Moines the 1st and 2nd round then what region they are in.
It's seeding rules. Purdue gets placed first and can't go to the East or West because the Michigan schools are there, so they go closest to Louisville. They won't put Kansas in KC, so they go West and Houston gets the closest spot, which is that KC location. That leaves us in the East. Then Wisconsin has to go to the Midwest because none of the Big 10 schools are there.
-
It's seeding rules. Purdue gets placed first and can't go to the East or West because the Michigan schools are there, so they go closest to Louisville. They won't put Kansas in KC, so they go West and Houston gets the closest spot, which is that KC location. That leaves us in the East. Then Wisconsin has to go to the Midwest because none of the Big 10 schools are there.
So is it safe to assume if Houston loses tomorrow and theoretically switched spots with MU, then MU as #11 would go to the Midwest and Houston the East??
-
So is it safe to assume if Houston loses tomorrow and theoretically switched spots with MU, then MU as #11 would go to the Midwest and Houston the East??
Most likely yes.
-
Seeing Michigan State, Kansas, and Purdue where they were, I think Q1 wins still a big factor.
-
I am delighted we are going to make the tournament and ecstatic that we are in the discussion for top seeding. In the meantime I just want to soak in each game of our regular season success . Really happy for the young men on this team and the coaching staff.
-
I am delighted we are going to make the tournament and ecstatic that we are in the discussion for top seeding. In the meantime I just want to soak in each game of our regular season success . Really happy for the young men on this team and the coaching staff.
You and I agree on this, 9-9-9. I've been trying real hard to enjoy the journey and not get too worked up about the possible destination.
During halftime of our NMD event yesterday, I got into a discussion about next year's team with a couple of alums. I said, "I think we'll be great next season, but we're already pretty great this season."
-
Less concerned about where we go. Brother Herm is right, this season is special. Just enjoy the ride.
We will all find our way to watch our Warriors. Airplanes leave Milwaukee every day bound for our destination. Ditto for Chicago, MSP, and gen MCO!
-
I've been trying real hard to enjoy the journey
One of my favorite side effects of a great MU season happened twice last night. Random MU fans talking about a game in random locations. Out to dinner in Waukesha last night with an MU jacket on and a woman stops on ther way out to say "Did you watch the game"? Of course my answer was "I watch all the games"
Later I saw a guy getting into his car with an MU jacket so I had to say "great game today!". It only took 2-3 seconds for the look on his face to go from "go away freak" to "oh, yeah, great game". Good times.
-
I have to seriously question Purdue at #9..my question is...why?? They beat exactly NO one in non conference..The good/decent teams they played, they lost to : Va Tech, Florida St, Texas, Notre Dame. Their best non conference win is against #62(Kenpom) Belmont at home. I know all the B10 teams Kenpom #'s look really good...but the reality is...Purdue's resume is built on beating Mich St(home), lost to them on the road. Beat UW @ UW, And they have beaten Iowa and Maryland at home. Big deal. As I said, though the B10 #'s all look good, I think this is a perfect example where you can't trust(or go strictly by the #'s), and have to know basketball and watch games to know what is really up...this is where I think the committee is lacking, the true eye ball test. Regardless of what the computer #'s say...here is who Purdue has beaten in the B10, BESIDES the above mentioned UW, MSU, Iowa and Maryland games.
Rutgers(home)
Indiana(home)
@ Ohio St
@ Penn St
Minn(home)
Nebraska(home)
No one on that list is really that good...watching them play will tell you that.
-
I have to seriously question Purdue at #9..my question is...why?? They beat exactly NO one in non conference..The good/decent teams they played, they lost to : Va Tech, Florida St, Texas, Notre Dame. Their best non conference win is against #62(Kenpom) Belmont at home. I know all the B10 teams Kenpom #'s look really good...but the reality is...Purdue's resume is built on beating Mich St(home), lost to them on the road. Beat UW @ UW, And they have beaten Iowa and Maryland at home. Big deal. As I said, though the B10 #'s all look good, I think this is a perfect example where you can't trust(or go strictly by the #'s), and have to know basketball and watch games to know what is really up...this is where I think the committee is lacking, the true eye ball test. Regardless of what the computer #'s say...here is who Purdue has beaten in the B10, BESIDES the above mentioned UW, MSU, Iowa and Maryland games.
Rutgers(home)
Indiana(home)
@ Ohio St
@ Penn St
Minn(home)
Nebraska(home)
No one on that list is really that good...watching them play will tell you that.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. So my question back is that Marquette clearly has superior out of conference wins that continue to look better. Getting the win yesterday was huge. But couldn't people say the same about many of our other conference wins? Granted, there are more really bad teams in the Big 10 than the Big East.
-
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you. So my question back is that Marquette clearly has superior out of conference wins that continue to look better. Getting the win yesterday was huge. But couldn't people say the same about many of our other conference wins? Granted, there are more really bad teams in the Big 10 than the Big East.
Vander, yes, the case could be made that MU hasn't really beaten anyone in the BE either..That being said, one of the most talked about things we hear every year as it gets closer to tourney time is who did you beat in the non conference...the portion of the schedule that you control(unless it's a tourney or something). Your conference schedule, is your conference schedule, you can't control that. For me, MU fan or not..It's always been who have you beaten in the non conference?? Show me something...anything..the bottom line is, Purdue hasn't. They beat no one in the non conference. Not too mention they have six overall losses, which is too many to be a three seed, let alone the TOP 3 seed.
This guy from the USA today thinks so too : 2. Purdue (No. 3) was over-seeded. The Boilermakers have too many losses (six) to be the top No. 3 seed -- even if that seeding line is correct.
-
I think one thing to look further into is what exactly did the Committee like in Marquette that gave them the difference of a 3 seed vs Net ranking of 6 seed (21 Net Ranking) vs Virgina Tech who was not seeded most likely a 5 seed but had a Net Ranking of 10 prior to the loss Saturday which would have been a 3 seed. Almost everything else was chalk when looking at NR vs seed. Of the top 16 VT was left out of the top 4 seeding as was Texas Tech and Kansas the only one outside of the top 16 @ 18 that received a top 4 seed other than Marquette.
As many recall there were some members here saying there numbers were heavily inflated by killing non conference opponents.
Texas Tech NR= 16 , Not Seeded
Kansas NR = 19 Seeded 3
Virgina Text NR = 10, Not Seeded
Marqutte NR = 21, Seeded 3
-
One of my favorite side effects of a great MU season happened twice last night. Random MU fans talking about a game in random locations. Out to dinner in Waukesha last night with an MU jacket on and a woman stops on ther way out to say "Did you watch the game"? Of course my answer was "I watch all the games"
Later I saw a guy getting into his car with an MU jacket so I had to say "great game today!". It only took 2-3 seconds for the look on his face to go from "go away freak" to "oh, yeah, great game". Good times.
Agree 100%, MUE.
I am always proud to be a Warrior and I wear gear even when our team struggles. But I must admit that my chest is puffed out a little more during seasons like this, and I look for any excuse to spread the word.
For example, I will be wearing a Marquette shirt at my high school team's practice today, and a few people (either players or fellow coaches) will ask: "Did y'all win again, Coach?" And I'll love saying, "Why yes we did! Just beat the defending national champs on national TV!!"
-
Agree 100%, MUE.
I am always proud to be a Warrior and I wear gear even when our team struggles. But I must admit that my chest is puffed out a little more during seasons like this, and I look for any excuse to spread the word.
For example, I will be wearing a Marquette shirt at my high school team's practice today, and a few people (either players or fellow coaches) will ask: "Did y'all win again, Coach?" And I'll love saying, "Why yes we did! Just beat the defending national champs on national TV!!"
My coworkers can almost always tell if Marquette is playing/won or lost depending on my productivity and mood.
-
Am I correct in thinking its seriously improbable we end up in California region? Only if the others on the same line (2 or 3 or 4) violated matchup rules and we're the low man on our seed line.
-
I didn't realize this until today, but while we may not have moved up on Saturday, the gap behind us certainly got bigger.
12. Marquette beat Villanova at home
13. Iowa State loses at home to TCU
14. Nevada beat New Mexico at home
15. Louisville loses at Florida State
16. Wisconsin loses at Michigan
17. Villanova loses at Marquette
18-20. Virginia Tech loses at Clemson
18-20. LSU beat Auburn at home
18-20. Texas Tech beat Oklahoma on the road
So Marquette gets a big win and 4/5 of the teams right behind them lose with the team right behind them taking the worst loss of the group. The 5th team gets a meaningless Q4 win at home. Virginia Tech also one of the considered teams loses a game they were favored to win.
-
Am I correct in thinking its seriously improbable we end up in California region? Only if the others on the same line (2 or 3 or 4) violated matchup rules and we're the low man on our seed line.
Hard to say right now, but generally yes.
Also need to consider that the committee is not beyond taking someone who would be a 3 or 4 in the East and shipping them to the West as a 2.
Nevertheless, with only two natural top 4 seeds physically in the West right now, at least two of the remaining 14 are getting shipped, likely a 2 and a 3. Ideally (geographically), Kansas and Houston would round out the West, but not sure the committee would show those kind of KU-friendly optics.
IOW, right or wrong, I don’t think - of the top 16 - we’ll see the three non-P6 teams together with a single blue blood.
-
I think one thing to look further into is what exactly did the Committee like in Marquette that gave them the difference of a 3 seed vs Net ranking of 6 seed (21 Net Ranking) vs Virgina Tech who was not seeded most likely a 5 seed but had a Net Ranking of 10 prior to the loss Saturday which would have been a 3 seed. Almost everything else was chalk when looking at NR vs seed. Of the top 16 VT was left out of the top 4 seeding as was Texas Tech and Kansas the only one outside of the top 16 @ 18 that received a top 4 seed other than Marquette.
As many recall there were some members here saying there numbers were heavily inflated by killing non conference opponents.
Texas Tech NR= 16 , Not Seeded
Kansas NR = 19 Seeded 3
Virgina Text NR = 10, Not Seeded
Marqutte NR = 21, Seeded 3
This is a good point. One thing I noted while evaluating the teams that made the top-16, no one had a sub-200 non-conference SOS and only Nevada had a sub-100 overall SOS. Teams like Va Tech and Texas Tech that really had weak non-cons were punished despite the beatdowns they put on buy game opponents that artificially inflated their NET rankings.
Nevada's overall SOS was notable at 108, but I think the committee gave them a little leeway because of the Pac-12. They did play ASU on a neutral and road games at Utah and USC. Their NCSOS was 43 (7th best on the top-16) , so they tried to play tough teams, but the Pac-12 sucking so bad dragged them down. BYU and Loyola Chicago didn't help them out either; both games that looked better in October than February.
-
Marquette women also a 3-seed in today's release. They're the first #3 though, so they might be able to move up to the 2 line
-
This is a good point. One thing I noted while evaluating the teams that made the top-16, no one had a sub-200 non-conference SOS and only Nevada had a sub-100 overall SOS. Teams like Va Tech and Texas Tech that really had weak non-cons were punished despite the beatdowns they put on buy game opponents that artificially inflated their NET rankings.
Nevada's overall SOS was notable at 108, but I think the committee gave them a little leeway because of the Pac-12. They did play ASU on a neutral and road games at Utah and USC. Their NCSOS was 43 (7th best on the top-16) , so they tried to play tough teams, but the Pac-12 sucking so bad dragged them down. BYU and Loyola Chicago didn't help them out either; both games that looked better in October than February.
The Nevada note is interesting. Really what that means to me is that if they lose 1 more game they will drop off the 4 line and that the committee is not valuing them as a top team due to there schedule. I would also say that Houston although on the 3 line is not that secure either. 1 loss could drop them down as well to a 4 or even further.
-
The Nevada note is interesting. Really what that means to me is that if they lose 1 more game they will drop off the 4 line and that the committee is not valuing them as a top team due to there schedule. I would also say that Houston although on the 3 line is not that secure either. 1 loss could drop them down as well to a 4 or even further.
Nevada was the team I feel was most overseeded, followed by Purdue. Until (if?) they win at Utah State, they don't have any Q1 wins. I get that the P12 sucking killed their best chances at good wins, but ultimately the resume just doesn't match up & the 5/6 lines seem more appropriate.
-
. . .
IOW, right or wrong, I don’t think - of the top 16 - we’ll see the three non-P6 teams together with a single blue blood.
Interesting take. Thanks.
I ask about location because I would really, really like to go to a regional but probably can't make west coast. I'm assuming of course we are sweet-16. ;D