The Bubble

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

TAMU, I know your feelings on this matter are similar to mine, mainly because the two of us have actually followed the teams close to the bubble rather than just saying MU SUX!, NIT BOUND!, etc, etc.

But the bottom line is, the bubble is oh so very soft.  Just last night Clemson, St. Johns, Dayton, and Missouri all went down in a night where not a ton of basketball was played.  All of thsoe teams were directly in front of MU.    

Obviously MU has to take care of their own business, but if they do, they'll be in solid shape headed into the BE Tournament.  Even at 2-2, not all hope is lost.  I have a feeling there will be at least 5 dancing with 13 or more losses.  

[NavinRJohnson]

TAMU, I know your feelings on this matter are similar to mine, mainly because the two of us have actually followed the teams close to the bubble rather than just saying MU SUX!, NIT BOUND!, etc, etc.

But the bottom line is, the bubble is oh so very soft.  Just last night Clemson, St. Johns, Dayton, and Missouri all went down in a night where not a ton of basketball was played.  All of thsoe teams were directly in front of MU.    

Obviously MU has to take care of their own business, but if they do, they'll be in solid shape headed into the BE Tournament.  Even at 2-2, not all hope is lost.  I have a feeling there will be at least 5 dancing with 13 or more losses.  

Yep. All 68 lines must be filled.

[79Warrior]

TAMU, I know your feelings on this matter are similar to mine, mainly because the two of us have actually followed the teams close to the bubble rather than just saying MU SUX!, NIT BOUND!, etc, etc.

But the bottom line is, the bubble is oh so very soft.  Just last night Clemson, St. Johns, Dayton, and Missouri all went down in a night where not a ton of basketball was played.  All of thsoe teams were directly in front of MU.    

Obviously MU has to take care of their own business, but if they do, they'll be in solid shape headed into the BE Tournament.  Even at 2-2, not all hope is lost.  I have a feeling there will be at least 5 dancing with 13 or more losses.  

What are the SOS and RPI of the teams you think get in with 13 or more losses? IMO, those two criteria do not help Marquette. We go 2-2 then MU better get to BE final. Otherwise, maybe TC returns to the Bradley Center.

[bilsu]

Does the NCAA commitee even use the RPI. I think they look more at your record against the top 25, top 50, etc. Why should one team get picked over another team, because they played a couple teams ranked 275 vs a couple of teams ranked 325. MU's probelm is not having enough quality wins. MU's schedule was strong enough, so I do not buy the arguement our schedule is weak. It is the lack of results that is the problem.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

What are the SOS and RPI of the teams you think get in with 13 or more losses? IMO, those two criteria do not help Marquette. We go 2-2 then MU better get to BE final. Otherwise, maybe TC returns to the Bradley Center.

The committee uses RPI and SOS, but they also know how those systems can be gamed.  According to ESPN, Marquette is currently 73rd in RPI and 72nd in SOS.  Marquette's non-conference SOS was 171.  Does anyone with any kind of knowledge actually think Marquette played the 171st toughest OOC schedule in the country? No f'ing way.  Marquette has played 14 teams in the top 100 in the RPI.  Marquette did not lose a non-conference game to a team with an RPI above 32.  They did beat a team with an RPI of 28.  Marquette's losses are to teams with the following RPI's: 4,5,7,7,18,21,22,32,51,63 and 146.  That Butler loss looks worse and worse every day, but every single team on the Bubble has a bad loss, many of them multiple bad losses to worse teams, and not on the road.

What is killing MU's RPI and SOS is Grambling State (349), New Hampshire (337), IUPUI (314), Ball State (301) and Samford (309).  If those games were replaced with teams that had an RPI in the 150-250 range, MU's RPI and SOS numbers would not be a detriment.  The committee is not stupid, and they will realize this.

For sake of argument, let's compare MU with the 19-10 BYU Cougars, who many consider in the tournament, and Lunardi had as his last bye as of Monday.  BYU has an RPI of 35 and a SOS of 21.  Yes, BYU has 3 wins over top 50 RPI (Stanford (42), Texas (24) and Gonzaga (29).  But they also have loses to Utah (89), Pepperdine (127), Pacific (125), Loyola Marymont (179) and Portland (161).  They have also only played 1 teams with an RPI worse than 225. 

The RPI and SOS numbers take care of themselves if you win, but they can also easily be gamed, or in the case of MU this year, they can game a team.  MU would still be 16-10 if they had traded out Grambling, New Hampshire, IUPUI, Ball State and Samford with teams in the 200's in RPI, and MU would likely have an RPI and SOS in the high 40's or low 50's, and their schedule really wouldn't have been any harder.  Computer numbers can only tell you so much. 

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

  MU would still be 16-10 if they had traded out Grambling, New Hampshire, IUPUI, Ball State and Samford with teams in the 200's in RPI, and MU would likely have an RPI and SOS in the high 40's or low 50's, and their schedule really wouldn't have been any harder.  Computer numbers can only tell you so much. 

To reinforce this idea, I was playing with RPIforecast.com, and if you were to just "drop" the five games against Grambling, New Hampshire, IUPUI, Ball State and Samford, MU would be 12-10, with an RPI of 32 and a SOS of 2.  Obviously every team play buy games and cupcakes, but if you replace those five with teams in the 175-225 range, our RPI and SOS would be a strength when compared to the other bubble teams.  Obviously winning a couple non-conference games would have made this all moot, but the point is, our cupcake scheduling absolutely killed our computer numbers this year.

I am thinking and hoping that the committee is smart enough to see through this.  Our record would be the same in this case, but our computer numbers would be much, much more appealing.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Does the NCAA commitee even use the RPI. I think they look more at your record against the top 25, top 50, etc. Why should one team get picked over another team, because they played a couple teams ranked 275 vs a couple of teams ranked 325. MU's probelm is not having enough quality wins. MU's schedule was strong enough, so I do not buy the arguement our schedule is weak. It is the lack of results that is the problem.

Yes and some members use it a lot.

[ChicosBailBonds]

TAMU, I know your feelings on this matter are similar to mine, mainly because the two of us have actually followed the teams close to the bubble rather than just saying MU SUX!, NIT BOUND!, etc, etc.

But the bottom line is, the bubble is oh so very soft.  Just last night Clemson, St. Johns, Dayton, and Missouri all went down in a night where not a ton of basketball was played.  All of thsoe teams were directly in front of MU.    

Obviously MU has to take care of their own business, but if they do, they'll be in solid shape headed into the BE Tournament.  Even at 2-2, not all hope is lost.  I have a feeling there will be at least 5 dancing with 13 or more losses.  

I appreciate your input on this, but couldn't someone say that people who put their reputations on the line (Lunardi, Palm, etc) for a job and also have us pretty far back are also watching all these other games, too?

You're right, those teams lost last night, but MU also barely beat a pathetic DePaul team.  In the RPI, won't matter.  In the eye test, it just might.  Seems to me these things move around so much in terms of who is playing well, who isn't, what teams were beat, etc that a lot of them cancel each other out.  

In complete agreement with you that not all is lost and a chance exists.  3-1 might do it, though I'm skeptical.  4-0 much better.  Question is where we think this team can go 4-0.  If not, winning the Big East tournament is a cakewalk compared to the last 8 years.

[Eldon]

With the inevitability of some teams stealing a bid via winning the conference tournament, am I the only one who thinks that 4-0 is still not enough?

[MU Buff]

How is the Big East tournament a cake walk compared to past years. MU will most likely need to beat a top 50 (kenpom, top 60 rpi) team in the quarterfinals and then a top 10 team in both the semifinals and championship. Seems about the same to me.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How is the Big East tournament a cake walk compared to past years. MU will most likely need to beat a top 50 (kenpom, top 60 rpi) team in the quarterfinals and then a top 10 team in both the semifinals and championship. Seems about the same to me.

1) Fans.....the old Big East had tons of fans from the area.  Playing Nova, G'Town, Cuse, Pitt, Notre Dame meant a hostile environment.  It won't be for Creighton, Butler, etc.  For St. John's, Nova, and G'Town...yes, but you had a lot more opportunities to run into the others.

2) Depth of quality.  When you're your own tournament of 16 teams and 11 of those teams make the NCAA tournament....well, I don't think I need to say anymore

3) National champion contenders....the old Big East with Cuse, Louisville, Pitt, Nova....these were Final Four type teams.   I would be stunned if a team out of our conference this year makes the Final Four, but it's a crapshoot so who knows.

4) Less games.  Finishing 3rd or 4th n this year's Big East would translate to what in previous years?  Could mean an extra game to play as a result...4 instead of 3.  Easier.

[Windyplayer]

How is the Big East tournament a cake walk compared to past years. MU will most likely need to beat a top 50 (kenpom, top 60 rpi) team in the quarterfinals and then a top 10 team in both the semifinals and championship. Seems about the same to me.

Good point. It's often overlooked how tippy top heavy this league is with the rest of the league scrapping away. A team other than Nova and Creighton will likely have to go through both to take the crown. Tall order.

[forgetful]

I appreciate your input on this, but couldn't someone say that people who put their reputations on the line (Lunardi, Palm, etc) for a job and also have us pretty far back are also watching all these other games, too?

You're right, those teams lost last night, but MU also barely beat a pathetic DePaul team.  In the RPI, won't matter.  In the eye test, it must might.  Seems to me these things move around so much in terms of who is playing well, who isn't, what teams were beat, etc that a lot of them cancel each other out.   

In complete agreement with you that not all is lost and a chance exists.  3-1 might do it, though I'm skeptical.  4-0 much better.  Question is where we think this team can go 4-0.  If not, winning the Big East tournament is a cakewalk compared to the last 8 years.

They put there reputation on the line based on predicting what a group of others will decide, not what they actually think themselves.

If you ask me to answer 20 math questions based on what answer is right, and then ask me to answer those same questions based on what I think a group of 20 people would answer, the two sets of answers would not be the same.  

[Windyplayer]

They put there reputation on the line based on predicting what a group of others will decide, not what they actually think themselves.

If you ask me to answer 20 math questions based on what answer is right, and then ask me to answer those same questions based on what I think a group of 20 people would answer, the two sets of answers would not be the same.  

This is really splitting hairs. In fact, I'm not sure I buy it.

[MU Buff]

Chicos, I do agree it's easier because the depth of good teams is not there and one less game. I guess I just didn't like the use of the word cakewalk, seemed too strong to me.

For the record, I think Creighton and Villanova are capable of making the final four. Hopefully they play well and get some good luck in the tournament for the Big East's sake.

[Lennys Tap]

With the inevitability of some teams stealing a bid via winning the conference tournament, am I the only one who thinks that 4-0 is still not enough?

Yes

[LAZER]

With the inevitability of some teams stealing a bid via winning the conference tournament, am I the only one who thinks that 4-0 is still not enough?

If MU wins the next 4 they won't have to worry very much on Selection Sunday (assuming they don't screw up in the BET)

[Windyplayer]

If MU wins the next 4 they won't have to worry very much on Selection Sunday (assuming they don't screw up in the BET)

The parenthetical statement should be anywhere but in parentheses. The statement indicates that a loss in our first game in the BE tourney to a team hovering around 50 RPI would be a screw-up and possibly keep us out. I don't think that's true. 

[The Equalizer]

Yes, BYU has 3 wins over top 50 RPI (Stanford (42), Texas (24) and Gonzaga (29). 

As you said, the committee is not stupid.

Yet somehow, you think that the committee would suddenly ignore BYU's wins over Stanford, Texas and Gonzaga and find us a superior team because we have wins over the likes of  #175 Bowling Green or #200 UT Arlington.

I don't see it.  Our problem this year isn't cupcakes.  It was going through non-conference with zero signature non-conference wins coupled with a borderline .500 conference record and zero wins aginst the league's only two sure-fire tournament teams.

[79Warrior]

As you said, the committee is not stupid.

Yet somehow, you think that the committee would suddenly ignore BYU's wins over Stanford, Texas and Gonzaga and find us a superior team because we have wins over the likes of  #175 Bowling Green or #200 UT Arlington.

I don't see it.  Our problem this year isn't cupcakes.  It was going through non-conference with zero signature non-conference wins coupled with a borderline .500 conference record and zero wins aginst the league's only two sure-fire tournament teams.

Bingo!

[Windyplayer]

As you said, the committee is not stupid.

Yet somehow, you think that the committee would suddenly ignore BYU's wins over Stanford, Texas and Gonzaga and find us a superior team because we have wins over the likes of  #175 Bowling Green or #200 UT Arlington.

I don't see it.  Our problem this year isn't cupcakes.  It was going through non-conference with zero signature non-conference wins coupled with a borderline .500 conference record and zero wins aginst the league's only two sure-fire tournament teams.

We lost five non-conference games with the worst loss being @ ASU--a stone-cold lock for the tourney at #34 RPI. The rest...UW #5, OSU #18, New Mexico #20, and SDSU #21. I get that we have no good non-conference wins--safe for GWU (a 16-point throttling, I may add)--but we were also playing the cream of the crop in hindsight.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

As you said, the committee is not stupid.

Yet somehow, you think that the committee would suddenly ignore BYU's wins over Stanford, Texas and Gonzaga and find us a superior team because we have wins over the likes of  #175 Bowling Green or #200 UT Arlington.

I don't see it.  Our problem this year isn't cupcakes.  It was going through non-conference with zero signature non-conference wins coupled with a borderline .500 conference record and zero wins aginst the league's only two sure-fire tournament teams.

I said that.  It would all be moot if we had won one or two of big OOC matchups, but we didn't.  Computer-number wise, if we played the likes of Bowling Green, UT Arlington, and 3 other teams in the 200's versus the horsedung cupcakes we did play, our RPI and SOS numbers would be much, much better.  That matters.  Now, I don't think the committee is anywhere near as in love with those numbers as some here think, especially when there are much better metrics out there (KenPom, for example, which has MU 55, above most of the bubble teams).  Other than Butler, MU has lost to good teams.  No other bubble teams can say that.  Which is why if we take care of business, we will climb the ladder rather quickly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They put there reputation on the line based on predicting what a group of others will decide, not what they actually think themselves.

If you ask me to answer 20 math questions based on what answer is right, and then ask me to answer those same questions based on what I think a group of 20 people would answer, the two sets of answers would not be the same.  

Of course, but they get hammered one way or another in the final tally if they "miss" their prediction.  Now, if they show that what they predicted should have happened because the committee just didn't do a good job, that's one thing.  The assumption here is the committee generally gets it right and they predicting what the committee will do, thus paying attention to these games impacting teams that may or may not get in. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, I do agree it's easier because the depth of good teams is not there and one less game. I guess I just didn't like the use of the word cakewalk, seemed too strong to me.

For the record, I think Creighton and Villanova are capable of making the final four. Hopefully they play well and get some good luck in the tournament for the Big East's sake.

Fair enough, though I wasn't saying it is a cakewalk, saying it is a cakewalk compared to the old Big East tournament, which in my mind was the toughest tournament to win.

Whomever wins the Big East tournament will have done something special, its just decidedly less difficult (IMO) than years past.

[LAZER]

Whomever wins the Big East tournament will have done something special, its just decidedly less difficult (IMO) than years past.

Agreed.