Softest bubble in a decade?

[ChicosBailBonds]

MU not one of top 10 Big East teams in Palm's preseason bracket.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12492320/projecting-the-field-preseason-edition/rss

Lunardi pegs MU as # 9 in Big East
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4265973

I don't think Pomeroy, who actually doesn't predict the bracket btw, does a preseason prediction (I couldn't find one) since his site is almost entirely derived on stats and uses predictive analysis based on previous results.

I'm sure I could find a ton more preseason predictions, done by people other than the coaches, that had MU pegged pretty low.  So, the "experts" were wrong on MU's finish in the Big East (prior to losing 3 expected contributors) but now that one guy (Palm) has said this year is a soft bubble (maybe there's been more, I don't know, feel free to post other articles to support your claim), I'm supposed to just agree with them and take their word as stone?  He may be right, he may be wrong.  I don't know, but it is definitely not an open and shut case like you have tried to state.  That's why it's an opinion, and not a fact, as you continually insinuate.  But, now I'm tired of debating this topic.  You have your opinion and I have mine, agree to disagree.

It's a lot different to pick what 64 teams out of 347 are going to the NCAA tournament in October to pick a bracket (Lunardi and Palm) vs judging what 16 teams are going to do in the same conference (Big East preseason poll).  Apples and oranges in my opinion.

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I think it's one of the softest bubbles in years as so Pomeroy, Lunardi and Palm, among others. 

[Pakuni]

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I think it's one of the softest bubbles in years as so Pomeroy, Lunardi and Palm, among others. 

Other than your recitation of your chat with Palm, could you provide some evidence/linkage to support this?
Where/when have Lunardi and Pomeroy, for example, said anything about a soft bubble?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

WHAT THE HELL IS A SOFT BUBBLE?!?!?!

And, for that matter, what would a "hard" bubble be?

This is idiotic.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's because you don't have the courage to admit that it was a shot at Buzz.  Your anti Buzz stuff alwyas comes in through the side door. 

Abe never admitted he was a Badger fan either.

Good grief, stop. 

It's like Pakuni said the other day.  If I deny it, then "you doth protest too much".  If I don't say anything, then I get the "see, he's not even denying it". 

I hate this mind reading BS, and that's exactly what it is BS.  There are enough people on here that I keep in touch with privately (where you would think my "real feelings would be known") and they can vouch for me that I am not anti-Buzz at all.  But you guys continue to believe what you want and read into anything and everything, it's become sport now.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni, I gave you actual seeds from last year not projected seeds in the third week of February for this year....big difference. 

So, using projected seeds less than a month before the tourney as a measure of various teams' quality is way off base ... but it's reasonable to state with certainty what a past team would do if it were magically transported into the present time? Or give a game-by-game recitation of how a team would perform under a different coach?
Hmmm.

[ChicosBailBonds]

WHAT THE HELL IS A SOFT BUBBLE?!?!?!

And, for that matter, what would a "hard" bubble be?

This is idiotic.

A soft bubble, as defined by the bracketology folks, is a group of teams that in other years would not make the NCAA tournament.  In other words, there won't be any "snubs" this year.  There aren't a slew of teams that are in the running that will prevent others from getting in.  There aren't a ton of "locks" is another way to put it and that's mostly because the ACC, Pac Ten are down.  The Big Ten didn't live up to expectations, etc, etc.

In years where there are teams that get left out because there are just too many good teams to choose from. 

You may remember the head of the committee a few years ago, the George Mason AD, who did not like the term "soft bubble" that the talking heads were using.  The term has been around for awhile.

That's where the reference comes from. 

Some examples below from this year and years past describing the soft bubble


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bubblewatch?id=21   

http://www.lvrj.com/sports/41278672.html

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/348848-ncaa-tournament-bracket-prediction-and-the-stealth-bubble-team

http://www.sbnation.com/2010/2/22/1322027/ncaa-bubble-watch-monday-02-22-uconn-west-virginia

http://mgoblog.com/diaries/bubble-news-big-10-game-year

Etc, etc

[ChicosBailBonds]

Other than your recitation of your chat with Palm, could you provide some evidence/linkage to support this?
Where/when have Lunardi and Pomeroy, for example, said anything about a soft bubble?

Lunardi has said it on multiple shows on ESPN.  Maybe it's on YouTube. 

Back in January he said on ESPN Insider that "we can agree the bubble is rather soft"...link below

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/insider/news/story?id=4856247&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncb%2finsider%2fnews%2fstory%3fid%3d4856247

Since then, on camera, as more and more bubble teams continue to lose, he's made statements that the bubble is extremely soft and things like (I'm paraphrasing)  'who wants to go to the NCAA tournament, very few teams are stepping up'


In 2008 he made similar comments in January but then reversed himself when teams started to step up and play their way in.  He has not said that this year as bubble teams keep losing and losing (we are one of the few exceptions)  Link below

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/mens_basketball/articles/2008/03/14/sunday_will_be_a_field_day/

Etc, etc.  Plenty from Andy Glockner, from ESPN, on this as well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, using projected seeds less than a month before the tourney as a measure of various teams' quality is way off base ... but it's reasonable to state with certainty what a past team would do if it were magically transported into the present time? Or give a game-by-game recitation of how a team would perform under a different coach?
Hmmm.

Do you think last year's MU team was better than this year's MU team (both were coached by Buzz, by the way, and both coached very well).  I'm just asking.

Do you think last year's Providence team was better than this year's?

In both cases, do you think either or both of those two teams would do BETTER in this year's version of the Big East or not?  That's the question.  I've given you my answer.  PC would be better than 10-8 that they got last year with this year's Big East.  MU would likely win this year's Big East with last year's MU team.

That's my opinion, you're free to disagree.

[IAmMarquette]

A soft bubble, as defined by the bracketology folks, is a group of teams that in other years would not make the NCAA tournament.  In other words, there won't be any "snubs" this year.  There aren't a slew of teams that are in the running that will prevent others from getting in.  There aren't a ton of "locks" is another way to put it and that's mostly because the ACC, Pac Ten are down.  The Big Ten didn't live up to expectations, etc, etc.

And yet you're in favor of expansion? Can't wait to see all those undeserving teams in the tournament.

[MU83]

Just wondering if Jerry Palm ever picked up a friggin basketball.  I understand that the RPI is used (unfortunately) as a tool to assess the strength of teams, but I always thought the way to become an expert at something was to actually do it, watch it, teach it or something actually related to the thing you're trying to become an expert at.  What we have now is a bunch of computer geeks dumping endless amounts of data into computers that than supposedly tell us who the best teams are.  I've got an idea; how about watching the teams play? How about putting basketball people on the selection committee?  Jerry Palm has done a great job of marketing himself and the RPI and making money for himself, and while I support his right to do so, I find it laughable that the RPI or any of these mathematical models is relied so heavily on to rate teams.  I understand, it must be so because "the computer says".......  What a joke.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And yet you're in favor of expansion? Can't wait to see all those undeserving teams in the tournament.

I am in favor of it because I think mid-majors mostly get hosed.  Is a 13-3 mid-major worse than a 8-8 high major team?  I'd like to see it on the court, but all too often that 13-3 club is left out.

Utah State, last year, had 30 wins and if they didn't win their tournament there was a lot of talk about them not getting into the NCAAs.  I think that's criminal. As they showed us by losing by 1 point to us, they belonged on the court.  Many other teams fit that mold.

[IAmMarquette]

I am in favor of it because I think mid-majors mostly get hosed.  Is a 13-3 mid-major worse than a 8-8 high major team?  I'd like to see it on the court, but all too often that 13-3 club is left out.

Utah State, last year, had 30 wins and if they didn't win their tournament there was a lot of talk about them not getting into the NCAAs.  I think that's criminal. As they showed us by losing by 1 point to us, they belonged on the court.  Many other teams fit that mold.

That doesn't get solved by expansion. Expansion simply results in "hosing" of worse teams. I agree that Utah State deserved a berth last year, but the fact that they wouldn't have made it without winning their conference tournament reflects a needed change in the selection process, not the size of the pool.



EDIT: Spelling

[The Pickle]

WHAT THE HELL IS A SOFT BUBBLE?!?!?!

And, for that matter, what would a "hard" bubble be?

This is idiotic.

Thanks for saying what I was thinking...

[NersEllenson]

This whole soft bubble debate comes down to one thing, that hopefully isn't going away in College Hoop  or the NFL:  Parity.  There is so little that seperates teams in the BCS conferences - games are generally usually very competitive, and close.  What that leads to is a lot of PERCEIVED mediocrity - see the Big East this year.  Is Cincinnati (the 10th place Big East team) really that bad - if it can beat Maryland and Vandy (2nd place teams in ACC and SEC)?  Yet Cincy isn't even on the "soft bubble."  Then you have the Atlantic 10 that may get 6 teams in, yet MU (likely 6th place finisher in Big East beats Xavier tied for 1st in A-10)

Point being, there are a lot of good teams in BCS leagues, that fall victim to getting beat up within their own league, to ultimately give them a marginal record and RPI.  This is why the system is fair for Mid-Majors, they get plenty of opportunity to get tourney bids, just based on the BCS schools beating up on each other and marginalizing their RPI's.

[MUBurrow]

heres another example:

If the last place team in every conference wins its conference tournament, the bubble becomes a "harder" or "tougher" bubble.  Because all of a sudden, a few top of the heap at large teams would get in.

If you can agree that such a scenario would impact the quality of team let in as at large bids, I fail to see how you can argue that there are not soft or hard bubbles.

Normally, the Pac 10 would send 3 at large locks, because the teams would be good enough to deserve them.  But, since they arent, that opens up bids for lesser conferences and lesser teams. = soft bubble

[MUBurrow]

I understand that the RPI is used (unfortunately) as a tool to assess the strength of teams, but I always thought the way to become an expert at something was to actually do it, watch it, teach it or something actually related to the thing you're trying to become an expert at.  What we have now is a bunch of computer geeks dumping endless amounts of data into computers that than supposedly tell us who the best teams are.  

John Clayton and Billy Beane would beg to differ.

[NersEllenson]

heres another example:

If the last place team in every conference wins its conference tournament, the bubble becomes a "harder" or "tougher" bubble.  Because all of a sudden, a few top of the heap at large teams would get in.

If you can agree that such a scenario would impact the quality of team let in as at large bids, I fail to see how you can argue that there are not soft or hard bubbles.

Normally, the Pac 10 would send 3 at large locks, because the teams would be good enough to deserve them.  But, since they arent, that opens up bids for lesser conferences and lesser teams. = soft bubble

Agree with your analysis above, other than the red portion.  I don't think that if a BCS league is weak one year, that those bids automatically go to lesser teams in lesser conferences - they very likely can get distributed within other BCS conferences - maybe this year the Big East ends up getting 8 teams as a result of the Pac 10 being down.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just wondering if Jerry Palm ever picked up a friggin basketball.  I understand that the RPI is used (unfortunately) as a tool to assess the strength of teams, but I always thought the way to become an expert at something was to actually do it, watch it, teach it or something actually related to the thing you're trying to become an expert at.  What we have now is a bunch of computer geeks dumping endless amounts of data into computers that than supposedly tell us who the best teams are.  I've got an idea; how about watching the teams play? How about putting basketball people on the selection committee?  Jerry Palm has done a great job of marketing himself and the RPI and making money for himself, and while I support his right to do so, I find it laughable that the RPI or any of these mathematical models is relied so heavily on to rate teams.  I understand, it must be so because "the computer says".......  What a joke.

He didn't develop the RPI, he just mimics it.  Whether he has ever picked up a basketball I don't think matters.  Our last few Marquette head coaches never played college basketball, but did ok. 

The reason why these models are used is simple....how on earth can 8 people, that have day jobs, track 28 games X 347 teams over 4 months?  That's almost 10,000 games.  The other reason is that the computers never forget.  In other words, the computer retains what happened in November and December, where most human beings can only remember what happened recently and don't have the ability to understand what you did against opponent X and what opponent X then did against everyone else.  It's asking too much.

That's why they are used, as an aid.  Quite frankly, I'd rather have the impartiality of the computers involved then the committee members pulling all the political stuff that used to be pulled in the past.  The RPI and these other formulas give the media and fans another gauge which can serve as a check and balance against the committee.  It's especially good for the mid majors in that regard because it allows them to be noticed when normally they can't get noticed.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Agree with your analysis above, other than the red portion.  I don't think that if a BCS league is weak one year, that those bids automatically go to lesser teams in lesser conferences - they very likely can get distributed within other BCS conferences - maybe this year the Big East ends up getting 8 teams as a result of the Pac 10 being down.

Disagree, at least as it extends to the red remarks..  If we believe the teams that go to the NIT are the next best teams, the last few years more of those bids have been from non-BCS leagues.  This, despite the NIT needing a larger gate (i.e. bigger school and alums to go to the games).  If you eliminated the gate part of the NIT, even more non-BCS teams would get invited.

[Big Papi]

This whole soft bubble debate comes down to one thing, that hopefully isn't going away in College Hoop  or the NFL:  Parity.  There is so little that seperates teams in the BCS conferences - games are generally usually very competitive, and close.  What that leads to is a lot of PERCEIVED mediocrity - see the Big East this year. 
Point being, there are a lot of good teams in BCS leagues, that fall victim to getting beat up within their own league, to ultimately give them a marginal record and RPI.  This is why the system is fair for Mid-Majors, they get plenty of opportunity to get tourney bids, just based on the BCS schools beating up on each other and marginalizing their RPI's.

Ding. Ding. Ding.  This soft bubble talk is a joke and it has nothing to do with the fact that Chicos brought it up.  Its been talked about on ESPN and online ever since there was talk that the tourny should expand.  The difference between this year and last is mainly due to the fact that there are not as many dominant teams this year.  That leads to more teams being on the bubble because you can't differentiate between them and since it is too hard to differentiate between them (too many factors too look at: RPI, SOS, good losses, bad losses, good conferences, bad conferences, who's hot, who's not, road wins, etc.)then the logical conclusion for some is that they should not be included in the tourny because they don't stand out.  IMO, its a stupid discussion point by the so called experts.  As far as Chicos getting ripped on this thread, I don't think he started this post to rip on Buzz.  The ripping stems from the perception of Chico's past posts that tended to slant in a negative manner towards MU and Buzz compared to his prior posts when TC was around where he defended TC 100%.  Right or wrong, too many are reading too much into his post.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Ding. Ding. Ding.  This soft bubble talk is a joke and it has nothing to do with the fact that Chicos brought it up.  Its been talked about on ESPN and online ever since there was talk that the tourny should expand.  The difference between this year and last is mainly due to the fact that there are not as many dominant teams this year.  That leads to more teams being on the bubble because you can't differentiate between them and since it is too hard to differentiate between them (too many factors too look at: RPI, SOS, good losses, bad losses, good conferences, bad conferences, who's hot, who's not, road wins, etc.)then the logical conclusion for some is that they should not be included in the tourny because they don't stand out.  IMO, its a stupid discussion point by the so called experts.  As far as Chicos getting ripped on this thread, I don't think he started this post to rip on Buzz.  The ripping stems from the perception of Chico's past posts that tended to slant in a negative manner towards MU and Buzz compared to his prior posts when TC was around where he defended TC 100%.  Right or wrong, too many are reading too much into his post.

Thanks...I think.  For the record, I never defended TC 100% of the time.  Never should have scheduled UWM.  His out of bound plays were awful, couldn't get solid bigs, etc, etc.  I just love that we went to a place we haven't been in decades.

[MU83]

He didn't develop the RPI, he just mimics it.  Whether he has ever picked up a basketball I don't think matters.  Our last few Marquette head coaches never played college basketball, but did ok. 

The reason why these models are used is simple....how on earth can 8 people, that have day jobs, track 28 games X 347 teams over 4 months?  That's almost 10,000 games.  The other reason is that the computers never forget.  In other words, the computer retains what happened in November and December, where most human beings can only remember what happened recently and don't have the ability to understand what you did against opponent X and what opponent X then did against everyone else.  It's asking too much.

That's why they are used, as an aid.  Quite frankly, I'd rather have the impartiality of the computers involved then the committee members pulling all the political stuff that used to be pulled in the past.  The RPI and these other formulas give the media and fans another gauge which can serve as a check and balance against the committee.  It's especially good for the mid majors in that regard because it allows them to be noticed when normally they can't get noticed.

You point out exactly why the system is flawed.  With the hundreds of millions of dollars involved, why can't the selection committee be made up of basketball people who actually watch games throughout the season.  It's really not that difficult, if you know basketball, to watch a team and determine whether they are good or not.  Certainly numerical data could be used to help in the final selection, but I'd rather have knowledgeable basketball people determine my fate than I would guys who have never played the game and their computers do it.

[rocky_warrior]

MU83 - did you just quote chicos post and then reply verbatim, or do I have reading comprehension issues ???

Heh - no prob, I just thought I was slow and missing some subtle point in there 

[MU83]

My fault, having a tough start this morning. I think it's fixed.

[MarquetteVol]

Mile Kelley just said during the Cincy/WVU game that he agrees with Jay Bilas that it's a weak bubble.

Cincy is having a nice first half. If they pull it off, we'd have a chance to to tie the Mountaineers in the standings with a win tomorrow. If we win the next three, I think we'd be a lock for a top 4 finish and a double bye.