Updated S-Curve Feb 26

[muwarrior69]

In 69, Madison hosted what today would be the the sweet 16 round, it was essentially a home court for MU. Beat Kentucky, then lost to Rick Mount and Purdue. It was a great time, UW was quite supportive. Perhaps the best chance to get a "home" game for MU would be Madison.

[mwbauer7]

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

Well done!

[Hoopaloop]

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

Sure 8?  Never said.   "Should get 8" is what I said.   Lunardi has 7 from B1G.  Illinois' blew it for me or my 8 would look pretty good right now. 

[bamamarquettefan]

Yes, great work Brew.

One thing that caught my eye was the Cincinnati vs. Dayton opening round.  I guess there is no way around Dayton hosting the game, but I hate that Cincy has this much incentive to beat us to either get out of a potential opening game on the road, or to potentially keep from falling out of the tournament completely.

[jsglow]

Yes, great work Brew.

One thing that caught my eye was the Cincinnati vs. Dayton opening round.  I guess there is no way around Dayton hosting the game, but I hate that Cincy has this much incentive to beat us to either get out of a potential opening game on the road, or to potentially keep from falling out of the tournament completely.

WVU was motivated and we beat them with 'half our team tied behind our back'.  I want total effort from the other side; keeps us sharp.  MU wants this badly too.  No days off anymore.

Hey Brew.  Just looked at "crashingthedance".  While I generally respect their work their computer program must be nuts as GT now sits above MU on the S-curve.  Ummm, no.  Thoughts?

[mu_eyeballs]

Living in Columbus I am keeping my fingers crossed for C-bus...as to the Buckeyes...Louisville is only 20 miles further than Pittsburgh, so either site is in play for tOSU.

[Lennys Tap]

Sure 8?  Never said.   "Should get 8" is what I said.   Lunardi has 7 from B1G.  Illinois' blew it for me or my 8 would look pretty good right now. 

You said the Big 1? "should get 8, might get 9". You also said the Big 1? would get more bids than the Big East.

[Hoopaloop]

You said the Big 1? "should get 8, might get 9". You also said the Big 1? would get more bids than the Big East.

As a percentage, that is correct.  I believe I explained that.  B1G will likely get 58% in and the Big East 50% or maybe 56%.  Will UCONN get in?  Will Northwestern?  Will WVU?  Those are the outstanding questions right now.

[jmayer1]

Sure 8?  Never said.   "Should get 8" is what I said.   Lunardi has 7 from B1G.  Illinois' blew it for me or my 8 would look pretty good right now. 

But they did blow it, so you were wrong. That's fine, lot's of people are wrong, that's part of the fun of making predictions like this. I just find it comical you have a tough time just coming out and flat-out saying it, much like your mentor (tourney going to 96 still a sure thing?).

Also, since you love Lunardi so much, his current bracket:
BE - 10/16 = 62.5%
B?? - 7/12 = 58.3%

Personally, I think 8 and 6 make it from those conferences respectively.

[brewcity77]

Hey Brew.  Just looked at "crashingthedance".  While I generally respect their work their computer program must be nuts as GT now sits above MU on the S-curve.  Ummm, no.  Thoughts?

I would disagree, but it isn't completely crazy. There are a couple edges for Georgetown. First, they have more top-50 wins than we currently do (8 to 5), including a top-10 win (over us) and of course, beat us head to head.

In our favor is a better overall RPI, more top-100 wins, and playing much better of late -- we're 12-1 since Jan 9, they are 9-4 -- which is often a consideration at this time of year.

What we could really use are WVU winning Saturday, then taking 2 in the Big East tournament (would raise their RPI into the top-50, giving us another top-50 win and GT another top-50 loss) and Washington winning out and winning at least 1-2 in the Pac-12 tourney (also getting them into the top-50).

Of course, what would be most decisive is simply to beat them on Saturday. If we win out, there's no doubt we are ahead of them on the S-Curve.

[MUMac]

I would disagree, but it isn't completely crazy. There are a couple edges for Georgetown. First, they have more top-50 wins than we currently do (8 to 5), including a top-10 win (over us) and of course, beat us head to head.

In our favor is a better overall RPI, more top-100 wins, and playing much better of late -- we're 12-1 since Jan 9, they are 9-4 -- which is often a consideration at this time of year.

What we could really use are WVU winning Saturday, then taking 2 in the Big East tournament (would raise their RPI into the top-50, giving us another top-50 win and GT another top-50 loss) and Washington winning out and winning at least 1-2 in the Pac-12 tourney (also getting them into the top-50).

Of course, what would be most decisive is simply to beat them on Saturday. If we win out, there's no doubt we are ahead of them on the S-Curve.

What I don't think you have taken into account, and I don't believe many others have as well, is the injury impact.  For MU, how do they treat the first few losses after losing Otule?  The ND loss shortly after losing Gardner?  The same can be said for USF's non-conference.  They were without several players for many of those losses.  That may be the difference in some of these decisions.  If MU beats Georgetown on Saturday, I don't see them jumping MU in the seeding.

[brewcity77]

What I don't think you have taken into account, and I don't believe many others have as well, is the injury impact.  For MU, how do they treat the first few losses after losing Otule?  The ND loss shortly after losing Gardner?  The same can be said for USF's non-conference.  They were without several players for many of those losses.  That may be the difference in some of these decisions.  If MU beats Georgetown on Saturday, I don't see them jumping MU in the seeding.

The only way is if GT got us back in the BET. I think when we're up this high, the loss of Otule will just be considered part and parcel of our season. Let's be honest, you can really see that we adjusted to not having Otule around the second week of January. But if you discount the games from his injury til then, you are judging us with a 20-1 record. No way they will judge us that highly.

Where it might help us is if there's a close call between seed lines. If we only lose once more, we could get nudged up to the 2-line even still because of adjusting to not having him. If we win out, who knows...maybe it could get us up to the 1. Still not optimistic of that, however.

[MUMac]

The only way is if GT got us back in the BET. I think when we're up this high, the loss of Otule will just be considered part and parcel of our season. Let's be honest, you can really see that we adjusted to not having Otule around the second week of January. But if you discount the games from his injury til then, you are judging us with a 20-1 record. No way they will judge us that highly.

Where it might help us is if there's a close call between seed lines. If we only lose once more, we could get nudged up to the 2-line even still because of adjusting to not having him. If we win out, who knows...maybe it could get us up to the 1. Still not optimistic of that, however.

I don't believe the games that it took to adjust would be entirely discounted.  My point is, it could be the difference in a few spots on the S curve or, in USF's case, get someone in the tourney and off the bubble.

[brewcity77]

I could see that. Just put up a new S-Curve on Cracked Sidewalks, should be crossing to this site within a few minutes. Though at this point, not much has changed. Mostly the same teams just shuffling around seeds.

[Benny B]

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.

In the top 4 seeds, the s-curve is a myth.  #1 isn't automatically placed in the same regional as #8 and #9 overall.  The top 16 teams on the "s-curve" are divided into their natural seeds (i.e. 1-4 are 1-seeds, 5-8 are 2-seeds, etc.).  Then, using the principles of bracketing (geographic preference), the #1 seeds are placed into regions in order of their natural seed, i.e. #1 overall is placed in the region closest to their "area of natural interest," #2 overall is placed in the closest of the remaining regions, etc.  Then the regions are arranged so that #1 overall is on the same side of the bracket as #4.

When it comes to #5 overall (the top 2-seed), they do NOT have to be placed in the same region as #4 overall.  Instead, the process above is repeated, i.e. #5 is placed into the region closest to their natural interest, then #6 is placed in the closest of the remaining three regions, etc.  Of course, there are other principles that come into play here which doesn't always make it that simple, but that's the basic principle of bracketing the top 16 teams.  After the top 16 teams are all placed into regions, the committee will look for imbalance and perhaps adjust if the sum total of natural seeds in any region differs by 5 or more from the rest.

But the bottom line is that there is a distinct advantage to being #9 rather than #8 overall... you stand the best chance of being placed into your natural region as the #9, but as #8, you'll likely be stuck with whatever region remains after the other 2-seeds are placed.

EDITED TO ADD: As far as sub-regional sites, once everyone has been placed into pods, assignments into sub-regional sites is dependent upon the natural seed of the 1-4 in that pod.  #1 overall goes to the closest to natural interest, then #2, then #3, etc.  In theory, it is then more advantageous for purposes of sub-regional site to be #8 rather than #9.  Of course, there are more principles governing sub-regional placement, namely that a 1-5 seed should not be placed at a sub-regional site that would give a home-crowd disadvantage, so you could end up being #4 overall and placed in a sub-regional far, far away because a)  the sub-regional closest to you was already filled and b) the next closest sub-regional site happens to be in the 8-seed's backyard.

[Benny B]

In 69, Madison hosted what today would be the the sweet 16 round, it was essentially a home court for MU. Beat Kentucky, then lost to Rick Mount and Purdue. It was a great time, UW was quite supportive. Perhaps the best chance to get a "home" game for MU would be Madison.

Miller Park has been researched as a possible tournament site, but I think that fizzled a long time ago.  If you could get UWM or Horizon to host, then MU could get a "home" game in the tournament.

[brewcity77]

Miller Park has been researched as a possible tournament site, but I think that fizzled a long time ago.  If you could get UWM or Horizon to host, then MU could get a "home" game in the tournament.

The problem is they would have to play a home game there during the regular season. I can't see UW-M playing a home game at the BC, unless maybe they got UNC to come (with Tokoto headed there, maybe), and there's no way I see the Horizon getting a game into Miller Park, just no way you'd fill it. The Cell just isn't big enough to be a host site, even for the first weekend.

[Benny B]

The problem is they would have to play a home game there during the regular season. I can't see UW-M playing a home game at the BC, unless maybe they got UNC to come (with Tokoto headed there, maybe), and there's no way I see the Horizon getting a game into Miller Park, just no way you'd fill it. The Cell just isn't big enough to be a host site, even for the first weekend.

Do you have to play a home game at a site to be the host??  I think you may just have to have one game at a new site - a dress rehearsal if you will - and that game can be played by anyone... MU, UW, etc.  Heck, play the UW/MU game there once, and then let UWM be the host for any future tournament games.

In any event I'm sure if the NCAA wanted to use Miller Park, they would find a way for it to happen, but since you can only heat the place 30 degrees above ambient (not to mention the occasional roof leaks), I'm sure they won't be looking at that site anytime soon.

Weber said the radar is always on, trying to pick out future opponents who might fit into Illinois' United Center plans.  "Kentucky in Louisville would be a possibility," he said. "We've had conversations with Marquette, Florida, a variety of teams. Georgia in Atlanta is a possibility. We have to find a team that is a good fit.... The Marquette matchup has been discussed before, and it's an intriguing concept. Marquette would play in the United Center, then Illinois would return the game by playing at Miller Park in Milwaukee, home of the Milwaukee Brewers. There has never been a basketball game played in that domed baseball stadium, but local officials need to stage one as a dress rehearsal if they are going to bid to become a future NCAA tournament site. "I think since Michigan State played Kentucky at Ford Field in Detroit, that's been brought up," Weber said. "Marquette would be a natural match if we can find a venue. It's something we'd look at down the road.

http://www.herald-review.com/sports/illini/annual-trip-north-an-idea-that-works/article_4d44b367-7d22-5340-8cc4-ebcbed37af8e.html#ixzz1nnVDAHbE

[Sir Lawrence]

In any event I'm sure if the NCAA wanted to use Miller Park, they would find a way for it to happen, but since you can only heat the place 30 degrees above ambient (not to mention the occasional roof leaks), I'm sure they won't be looking at that site anytime soon.



Doesn't that accurately describe the conditions in the Humphrey/Metro Dome?

[dwaderoy2004]

In any event I'm sure if the NCAA wanted to use Miller Park, they would find a way for it to happen, but since you can only heat the place 30 degrees above ambient (not to mention the occasional roof leaks), I'm sure they won't be looking at that site anytime soon.

Does that include the ambient heat produced by 50,000 warm bodies?

[mu_hilltopper]

Doesn't that accurately describe the conditions in the Humphrey/Metro Dome?

The Metrodome is heated to 65f for sporting events, regardless of outdoor temp.

[Sir Lawrence]

The Metrodome is heated to 65f for sporting events, regardless of outdoor temp.

Typical homer response.  Braggart.

Is the new roof on?

[Benny B]

The Metrodome is heated to 65f for sporting events, regardless of outdoor temp.

Keep in mind, the Humptydump is an airtight bubble (relatively speaking) whereas Miller Park has all sorts of seams and holes.  From a climate control standpoint, Miller Park is basically a picnic pavilion outfitted with tarp walls & space heaters... you might make a small difference, but not even a thousand NFL-style heat cannons are going to get that place above 60 degrees on a 10 degree day.

[mu_hilltopper]

Typical homer response.  Braggart.

Is the new roof on?

No idea on the roof.  I'm also pretty sure the Vikings moved to Los Angeles, so the Dome is empty now.

[Hoopaloop]

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.

Add a win for ISU over #10 Baylor today.  Christopherson with 23 points.  With their inside outside game, this is a team I don't want to face in the tournament. 

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=320630066

But they did blow it, so you were wrong. That's fine, lot's of people are wrong, that's part of the fun of making predictions like this.

The bids come out next Sunday, right?  Until then, no one is right or wrong.

I'll be heading down to Bloomington tomorrow for the Purdue - IU game.  If Purdue wins, then I would agree we deserve an 8.  Right now I still think we're a 10.