Updated S-Curve Feb 26

[brewcity77]

Posted this on Cracked Sidewalks, it doesn't seem to want to cross, and I'm too lazy to try to get it to transition, so here it is:



First Four Out: UCF, South Florida, Washington, Illinois
Next Four Out: LSU, Minnesota, Miami, VCU

Red Text indicates teams that have are in as automatic qualifiers.
Purple Highlight indicates teams that are protected seeds.
Green Highlight indicates teams that will participate in at-large bid play-in games
Orange Highlight indicates teams that will participate in automatic bid play-in games

The biggest changes...

• Marquette and Georgetown move ahead of Michigan to become the top two 3-seeds
  
• Connecticut actually moves up 1 spot after their loss to Syracuse, largely because so many teams in that tier lost yesterday
  
• West Virginia is still solidly in the field, though Cincy's loss to USF slid them down a couple spots
  
• USF is probably one win away from joining the field
  
• St. Joe's made the biggest move up, going from being in the "Next Four Out" to being in the field, thanks to their top-20 RPI win over Temple
  
• VCU is in the mix...but they don't deserve a bid, and probably won't unless they win the CAA tourney. The highest number of top-50 wins they can finish with is 1 (USF) and that's a team barely holding on in the top-50. Honestly, Iowa might be more deserving.

[mugrad2006]

Brew, this is great.  Is there a numerical rating associated with your S-curve, or is it more of a 'power ranking' approach?  Just curious as to how big the gap between MU as the top 3 seed and someone like Missouri or North Carolina is. 

I saw Crashing the Dance had us as a 2 seed today, but it was over Missouri by a hundredth of a point.

[muwarrior69]

Was the USF win today counted. Would really like to see them in the "dance."

[brewcity77]

Brew, this is great.  Is there a numerical rating associated with your S-curve, or is it more of a 'power ranking' approach?  Just curious as to how big the gap between MU as the top 3 seed and someone like Missouri or North Carolina is. 

I saw Crashing the Dance had us as a 2 seed today, but it was over Missouri by a hundredth of a point.

More of a power ranking approach.

The big difference right now between Marquette and the 2-seeds are top-50 wins, not just quantity, but quality. All of the teams have similar records. Here are the main separating points with the bottom 3 2-seeds.:

• Ohio State: 7-4 v top-50, 4 top-20 wins, 0 bad losses
  
• North Carolina: 7-4 v top-50, 3 top-30 wins, 0 bad losses
  
• Missouri: 6-3 v top-50, 3 top-10 wins, 1 bad loss
  
• Marquette: 6-4 v top-50, 0 top-20 wins (3 top-30 wins), 0 bad losses

.
The biggest difference is the top-end wins. The other three teams all have at least one top-10 win. Here's how I would see Marquette passing them (assuming we win out, including the BE Tourney):

Ohio State looks nearly impervious. Even if they lose at MSU, it'd take another loss, probably to a team outside the top-25, while Marquette beats GT and Syracuse, and probably another top-30 team (Louisville, UConn, or GT again would all count). Coming in as the hot team would also help, but we probably need to win out and beat Syracuse in the process.

UNC is still vulnerable, if Marquette can end up with more total top-50 wins, but bear in mind they have zero losses outside the RPI top-20 (Marquette has 2). Too bad they didn't lose to UVa yesterday, I still think UNC would have been ahead of us, but it would have closed the gap. To pass them, I think we need them to lose two more times (Duke and again in the ACC tourney) and beat Syracuse and GT. UNC doesn't have the quantity of top-end wins that tOSU does, so the gap is smaller.

Mizzou I think we are very close to. Their three top-10 wins are huge, but so is the fact that they are the only team I'm mentioning with a sub-100 loss. They also have 3 sub-25 losses, which is on par with us. Our main hope is that they don't make the Big 12 final. Their non-con was very weak, nearly Cincinnati-type bad. If we have the "hot team" edge over them and can get a couple wins that are close to on par with their wins over KU and Baylor, we can pass them.

[cheebs09]

Great work Brew City. I fully agree with your last post. That's why in another thread I said that moving up to a 2 seed involved more than just winning out. In order for us to bump up to a 2 seed without the other teams suffering bad losses, is to beat Syracuse in the finals. I could also see it if we would beat ND and Georgetown.

However, if there are some upsets of the double byes like we've seen, and we win out but beat a Cincy and then Louisville for the Championship, then I don't think we move up.

Granted, winning the BET is going to be hard enough, so I won't be too picky about who we beat if we would win it.

[brewcity77]

Was the USF win today counted. Would really like to see them in the "dance."

Yes, it was, and it moved them from 8 teams away to 2 teams away. They have a great Big East record, but only 1 top-50 win (Seton Hall) and 3 sub-100 losses. Being hot is helping their case, but beating Cincy today was really just what they needed to do to stay on the radar. If they beat Louisville or West Virginia, they will probably move to the inside, but to feel secure, they need to win one of those and win at least 2 in the Big East tourney.

Even then, they'll probably be just on the right side of the bubble. To truly secure their way in, they need not just to win 2 in MSG, but the right two. Beating UConn or WVU in their first game, and then beating one of the top-4 teams (preferably Georgetown, Syracuse, or Marquette) would lock it in.

[Hoopaloop]

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

My only objections would be Iowa State is too low.  More like a 9 seed.  Purdue is too high, more like a 10 seed.  Northwestern, in my opinion, I would push down to last four in or first four out.

[Lennys Tap]

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

My only objections would be Iowa State is too low.  More like a 9 seed.  Purdue is too high, more like a 10 seed.  Northwestern, in my opinion, I would push down to last four in or first four out.

So the Big1? deserves 6 with a coin flip for 7. Sounds fair. What happened to a sure 8, possible 9

[bamamarquettefan]

Great stuff Brew City.  My only question is if we had the choice, would we rather be the #9 instead of the #8 on the s-curve for potential sites?

I know they say higher seeds get preference for location, but how does that work?

If Kentucky is #1, do they give Kentucky the South and we end up there too either as a #8 or #9 because we become the #2 or #3 seed in their regional?

But if we are #9 are we getting our best opening weekend city because we are the first of the #9 through #12 to be put in a city?

I realize there are problems if we have 9 Big East teams again, but just didn't know how that all worked.

Thanks.

[brewcity77]

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

My only objections would be Iowa State is too low.  More like a 9 seed.  Purdue is too high, more like a 10 seed.  Northwestern, in my opinion, I would push down to last four in or first four out.

I feel Iowa State is being wildly overseeded. For the most part, their entire resume is the win over Kansas. Other than that, they have no other top-40 wins and only 2 more in the top-50. They also have a losing record against 51-100, and just look at their record against sub-100 teams: 17-2. First of all, 17 is way too many junk wins when you only have 21 total, and their two bad losses pretty much kill all the goodwill they get for the KU win. I'm not at all a fan of teams that stake pretty much their entire resume on 1 game, which is why I have Miami on the outside looking in.

Purdue is the exact opposite. They have the same number of top-50 wins as Marquette, Missouri, Indiana, and Louisville with 6. Purdue is one of two teams in the country (UConn the other) that has 6 top-50 wins and isn't seeded on the top-4 lines. They also have a winning record (9-8) against the top-100, and only 10 of their wins come against teams outside the top-100, so they've played some very tough competition. Purdue might look high, but they moved up 5 spots from the UM win, going from the first 10-seed to the last 8.

[mugrad2006]

More of a power ranking approach.

The big difference right now between Marquette and the 2-seeds are top-50 wins, not just quantity, but quality. All of the teams have similar records. Here are the main separating points with the bottom 3 2-seeds.:

• Ohio State: 7-4 v top-50, 4 top-20 wins, 0 bad losses
  
• North Carolina: 7-4 v top-50, 3 top-30 wins, 0 bad losses
  
• Missouri: 6-3 v top-50, 3 top-10 wins, 1 bad loss
  
• Marquette: 6-4 v top-50, 0 top-20 wins (3 top-30 wins), 0 bad losses

.
The biggest difference is the top-end wins. The other three teams all have at least one top-10 win. Here's how I would see Marquette passing them (assuming we win out, including the BE Tourney):

Ohio State looks nearly impervious. Even if they lose at MSU, it'd take another loss, probably to a team outside the top-25, while Marquette beats GT and Syracuse, and probably another top-30 team (Louisville, UConn, or GT again would all count). Coming in as the hot team would also help, but we probably need to win out and beat Syracuse in the process.

UNC is still vulnerable, if Marquette can end up with more total top-50 wins, but bear in mind they have zero losses outside the RPI top-20 (Marquette has 2). Too bad they didn't lose to UVa yesterday, I still think UNC would have been ahead of us, but it would have closed the gap. To pass them, I think we need them to lose two more times (Duke and again in the ACC tourney) and beat Syracuse and GT. UNC doesn't have the quantity of top-end wins that tOSU does, so the gap is smaller.

Mizzou I think we are very close to. Their three top-10 wins are huge, but so is the fact that they are the only team I'm mentioning with a sub-100 loss. They also have 3 sub-25 losses, which is on par with us. Our main hope is that they don't make the Big 12 final. Their non-con was very weak, nearly Cincinnati-type bad. If we have the "hot team" edge over them and can get a couple wins that are close to on par with their wins over KU and Baylor, we can pass them.

That's what I thought re:power rankings.  I've been trying to come up with a scenario where MU can jump up to a 2 seed and it just seems like a huge longshot.  The non-con losses (particularly LSU) after Otule went down are just too tough to overcome.  Unfortunately UNC and OSU losses are unlikely to come against weak teams, so I guess we'll just have to cheer against Mizzou for the next couple of weeks.  

I was really hoping for a Kansas loss yesterday,  as I thought it was our best chance at a 2 seed with their losses to Davidson and ISU.  

[brewcity77]

Great stuff Brew City.  My only question is if we had the choice, would we rather be the #9 instead of the #8 on the s-curve for potential sites?

I know they say higher seeds get preference for location, but how does that work?

If Kentucky is #1, do they give Kentucky the South and we end up there too either as a #8 or #9 because we become the #2 or #3 seed in their regional?

But if we are #9 are we getting our best opening weekend city because we are the first of the #9 through #12 to be put in a city?

I realize there are problems if we have 9 Big East teams again, but just didn't know how that all worked.

Thanks.

Priority will be given based on seed, but the first weekend has very little to do with which region a team is in. Teams will largely be given first weekend priority simply based on where they fall on the S-Curve. Looking at the protected seeds, here's where I'd guess they'll fall as of right now, as well as the region, though it's rarely this simple:

1) Syracuse would play in Pittsburgh
2) Kentucky would play in Louisville
3) Kansas would play in Omaha
4) Michigan State would play in Columbus
5) Duke would play in Greensboro
6) Ohio State would play in Columbus
7) North Carolina would play in Greensboro
8) Missouri would play in Omaha
9) Marquette would play in Louisville
10) Georgetown would play in Pittsburgh
11) Michigan would play in Nashville
12) Baylor would play in Albuquerque
13) Indiana would play in Nashville
14) Louisville would play in Albuquerque
15) Murray State would play in Portland
16) Notre Dame would play in Portland

Right now, moving up wouldn't help us, as Louisville is the closest site to Milwaukee. Protected seeds should be kept as close to home as possible, with higher seeds getting the highest priority. If I were seeding by region, here's where I'd go at this point:

EAST: 1-Syracuse, 2-Ohio State, 3-Baylor, 4-Murray State
SOUTHEAST: 1-Kentucky, 2-Duke, 3-Michigan, 4-Indiana
MIDWEST: 1-Kansas, 2-North Carolina, 3-Marquette, 4-Louisville
WEST: 1-Michigan State, 2-Missouri, 3-Georgetown, 4-Notre Dame

This is strictly my guesses, and I'm not a fan of having teams from the same league among the top-4 lines in the same bracket, but attempted to keep Michigan/Indiana, Marquette/Louisville, and Georgetown/Notre Dame away from each other by ensuring they wouldn't meet until the Elite 8.

[cheebs09]

Ohio State can't play in Columbus, they are the host at that site.

[MUDPT]

Ohio State can't play in Columbus, they are the host at that site.

I think they can play in Columbus. The games are at Nationwide, not Value City.  Just like Villanova a couple of years ago.

[mugrad2006]

OSU can't play in Columbus because they are the hosts, at least according to these articles.  
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/092109aaa.html
http://www.foxsportsohio.com/02/09/12/Geography-key-as-NCAA-tourney-approaches/landing.html?blockID=663016

Nova was an interesting case because they actually weren't the Philly host that year, St Joes was.  In that case, Nova just had to avoid playing too many games at the Wachovia Center so that it didn't end up qualifying as a home arena for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament

[brewcity77]

I think they can play in Columbus. The games are at Nationwide, not Value City.  Just like Villanova a couple of years ago.

This will be interesting. According to the NCAA, a team must play 3 or fewer games at a given site for it to be considered a "home site". In 2006, 'Nova had played 3 games at the Wachovia, thus it didn't qualify. Ohio State only played one game (v Miami, OH) at Nationwide, so it's not actually considered a home site. But they are the host...I've seen varying reports on this, so I can't say I'm 100% sure either way.

If tOSU can't play there, it probably won't affect Marquette. Ohio State would likely be the second team in Pittsburgh, which would send Georgetown to Columbus. The rest should stay the same.

[muwarrior69]

There should be a rule that Duke and UNC can't play in North Carolina more than once every 5 Years. They always get home court advantage. Oh wait! With Cuse joining the ACC I'll take that rule back.

[Hoopaloop]

I feel Iowa State is being wildly overseeded. For the most part, their entire resume is the win over Kansas. Other than that, they have no other top-40 wins and only 2 more in the top-50. They also have a losing record against 51-100, and just look at their record against sub-100 teams: 17-2. First of all, 17 is way too many junk wins when you only have 21 total, and their two bad losses pretty much kill all the goodwill they get for the KU win. I'm not at all a fan of teams that stake pretty much their entire resume on 1 game, which is why I have Miami on the outside looking in.

Purdue is the exact opposite. They have the same number of top-50 wins as Marquette, Missouri, Indiana, and Louisville with 6. Purdue is one of two teams in the country (UConn the other) that has 6 top-50 wins and isn't seeded on the top-4 lines. They also have a winning record (9-8) against the top-100, and only 10 of their wins come against teams outside the top-100, so they've played some very tough competition. Purdue might look high, but they moved up 5 spots from the UM win, going from the first 10-seed to the last 8.

Maybe it is because I've seen nearly every Purdue game except 2 (I think) so as a fan we punish our own team and reward them to much in both directions. 

Iowa State beat K-State twice, those are two good wins plus beating Kansas.  They have a better RPI than Purdue which is why I would have them higher in the S-Curve than you do, 31 vs a 40.  ISU 4-5 against top 50 while Purdue is 5-8 against top 50. I don't see the 6 that you mention ( http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Purdue.html )   Top 100, Purdue wins at 10-9 vs ISU at 5-7.  Both teams have two losses to 100+ teams. 

[mugrad2006]

Maybe it is because I've seen nearly every Purdue game except 2 (I think) so as a fan we punish our own team and reward them to much in both directions.  

Iowa State beat K-State twice, those are two good wins plus beating Kansas.  They have a better RPI than Purdue which is why I would have them higher in the S-Curve than you do, 31 vs a 40.  ISU 4-5 against top 50 while Purdue is 5-8 against top 50. I don't see the 6 that you mention ( http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Purdue.html )   Top 100, Purdue wins at 10-9 vs ISU at 5-7.  Both teams have two losses to 100+ teams.  

Any particular reason you're spending a lot of energy discussing the seeding of Iowa State and Purdue on an MU message board when they don't have any effect on MU's seeding?  I could spend a lot of time talking about how UNLV is probably high at 5 given their recent losses but frankly, I don't know that anyone here cares.

[Hoopaloop]

Any particular reason you're arguing the seeding of Iowa State and Purdue on an MU message board when they don't have any effect on MU's seeding? 

Arguing?  It was a pleasant discussion as he did a fine job with this.  My question was about some of the seedings.  All of it could impact Marquette since we will have a great seed and may play one of these teams in the 2nd or 3rd round.

[mugrad2006]

Arguing?  It was a pleasant discussion as he did a fine job with this.  My question was about some of the seedings.  All of it could impact Marquette since we will have a great seed and may play one of these teams in the 2nd or 3rd round.

I didn't mean arguing in that sense, it was just more a question of the focus on two schools that I wouldn't have focused on since MU likely won't play them early and they don't really affect MU's seeding.

[brewcity77]

Maybe it is because I've seen nearly every Purdue game except 2 (I think) so as a fan we punish our own team and reward them to much in both directions. 

Iowa State beat K-State twice, those are two good wins plus beating Kansas.  They have a better RPI than Purdue which is why I would have them higher in the S-Curve than you do, 31 vs a 40.  ISU 4-5 against top 50 while Purdue is 5-8 against top 50. I don't see the 6 that you mention ( http://www.rpiforecast.com/teams/Purdue.html )   Top 100, Purdue wins at 10-9 vs ISU at 5-7.  Both teams have two losses to 100+ teams.

Indeed we do. Here's my look at their resumes:

Purdue
Record: 19-10 (9-7)
RPI: 41
SOS: 18
Non-Con SOS: 165

v Top 50: 5-7
v 51-100: 4-1
v <100: 10-2

Quality Wins: 13 Michigan, 15 Temple, 37 Iona, 43 Northwestern, 43 Northwestern (I had Miami at 50, but their RPI slipped to 53 yesterday)
Bad losses: 120 Butler, 152 Penn State

-----

Iowa State
Record: 21-8 (11-5)
RPI: 31
SOS: 58
Non-con SOS: 176

v Top-50: 3-4
v 51-100: 1-2
v <100: 17-2

Quality Wins: 6 Kansas, 45 KSU, 45 KSU
Bad Losses: 112 Oklahoma State, 131 Drake

-----

The biggest difference for me are the top-50 win quantity and quality. KSU is fine, but Purdue has 5 wins that are better than ISU's second best win. They also have a winning record against the top-100 (9-8 vs 4-6). ISU just hsan't played enough or won enough against good teams, something that Purdue has done constantly.

The other big thing is the 17 sub-100 wins for ISU as opposed to 10 for Purdue. 81% of ISU's victories were against crap opponents, whereas Purdue only got 53% of their wins against crap opponents. Bottom line, Purdue has built their resume on a much, much tougher base of opponents. I'm confident the Selection Committee will reward them for that.

[MUMountin]

Right now, moving up wouldn't help us, as Louisville is the closest site to Milwaukee.

Columbus is actually closer to Milwaukee as the crow flies (334 vs. 352 miles), but Louisville is closer in terms of driving distance (386 v. 446 mi).  

Does anyone know which metric the Committee uses in determining which site is "closer"?  That would likely determine whether we end up in Columbus or Louisville.

[MUDPT]

OSU can't play in Columbus because they are the hosts, at least according to these articles. 
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/092109aaa.html
http://www.foxsportsohio.com/02/09/12/Geography-key-as-NCAA-tourney-approaches/landing.html?blockID=663016

Nova was an interesting case because they actually weren't the Philly host that year, St Joes was.  In that case, Nova just had to avoid playing too many games at the Wachovia Center so that it didn't end up qualifying as a home arena for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament

I stand corrected.

[mugrad2006]

I stand corrected.

It was a great question.  I had to do a little research to figure out the answer, but it's good to know going forward.  Maybe we can get UWM to host the tourney and have a site at the Cell some day (wishful thinking given that the Cell is probably too small to host and there's no way MU would ever not play at the BC just to get a home site in Milwaukee for the tourney.)