Palm has us in as of now

[GGGG]

I'm too lazy to run the scenarios myself but I'd imagine anyone that was talking about 9-9 being lock status didn't figure losing @ DePaul was in the 9-9 road map

Actually a 9-9 record with a road loss to DePaul is better than a 9-9 record than a home loss to Creighton.

Of course 10-8 would have been better.

[TallTitan34]

I'm too lazy to run the scenarios myself but I'd imagine anyone that was talking about 9-9 being lock status didn't figure losing @ DePaul was in the 9-9 road map

Which means we got a better win somewhere along the way.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

I'm too lazy to run the scenarios myself but I'd imagine anyone that was talking about 9-9 being lock status didn't figure losing @ DePaul was in the 9-9 road map

This. And it still will be close.

[GooooMarquette]

Which means we got a better win somewhere along the way.

Perhaps a win like @Providence or @Creighton....

[chapman]

He’s in a small minority that has MU as one of the last teams in.

Yep, 8 in 102 now per Bracket Matrix.  No need for anyone to kid themselves.  Get ready for a home game in a few days and a tournament we can win if we're up to the challenge.

[rocket surgeon]

Palm?

Close cousin of Rosie, enn’a enn’a🤷🏼‍♂️

[rocket surgeon]

Bet Rosie had 5 friends two, hey?

Shoot, sorry 4ever. Shoulda known you beat men to it. Low hangin fruit though🤪

[Dr. Blackheart]

Shoot, sorry 4ever. Shoulda known you beat men to it. Low hangin fruit though🤪

You dentists need to get out more, aina?

[rocket surgeon]

You dentists need to get out more, aina?

Good thing auto correct didn’t add an”a” to it🤓

[goldeneagle91114]

Yep, 8 in 102 now per Bracket Matrix.  No need for anyone to kid themselves.  Get ready for a home game in a few days and a tournament we can win if we're up to the challenge.

+1,000 - hate to say, but this team is not dancin in the NCAA

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The Scoop resident experts who have been saying for weeks that 9-9 in the BE makes MU a "stone cold lock".

IIRC,  10-8 was the stone cold lock. 9-9 was should be in

[Lennys Tap]

He ranks like 82 out of 114 on bracket matrix over the last 5 years so not very. Lunardi ranks 40th for comparison.

82nd out of 114? No wonder he's Chico's go to guy!

[Dr. Blackheart]

IIRC,  10-8 was the stone cold lock. 9-9 was should be in

We finished 4-1 as you said and got one in the BET. That put MU 9-9. I also heard no team with our standing has been left out in 10 years.  Let's see tomorrow. 

You don't seem confident now. Btw, I am not busting your chops and I do appreciate all the expert guys here who do these recaps.  It just seems MU hasn't quite done enough to get over the hump. And, this is an anomaly year unfortunately.

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=55606.msg989519#msg989519

[WarriorDad]

I found a site that ranks all the predictors.  Appears it is based on three criteria:  http://www.bracketmatrix.com/rankings.html

1) Picking the teams correctly that are given a bid
2) Accurately picking the teams seed
3) Accurately picking the seed +/- 1 seed

Add up the points and they rank them.

The one I care about is number 1, did they pick the teams correctly.

Let's hope this Palm guy is as good as he was last few years.

Last year he had a perfect score on picking bid earners.  68 out of 68.  Tied for best among all predictors   http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2017.html

In 2016, he had 66 of 68.  Only one bracketologist did better with 67.  http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2016.html

In 2015, he had 67 of 68, tied for second spot among all pickers.  One person had all 68. http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2015.html

In 2014, he had 67 of 68, tied for the top spot among all pickers.  http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2014.html

In 2013, he had 67 of 68, though that year a number of pickers had all 68.  http://bracketmatrix.com/matrix_2013.html

Based on his record of picking the teams that make it (not their seedings), he appears to have done well missing 5 total teams in five years, or 335 of 340 (98.5%). 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yeah this is an odd year. No elite teams but lots of teams right around the bubble. Our resume would have definitely been considered at least "should be in" in any other year since the field expanded. Computers love us,  people don't seem to. Will be interesting to see how tomorrow goes.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Yeah this is an odd year. No elite teams but lots of teams right around the bubble. Our resume would have definitely been considered at least "should be in" in any other year since the field expanded. Computers love us,  people don't seem to. Will be interesting to see how tomorrow goes.

Well people are stupid so...

[muguru]

Yeah this is an odd year. No elite teams but lots of teams right around the bubble. Our resume would have definitely been considered at least "should be in" in any other year since the field expanded. Computers love us,  people don't seem to. Will be interesting to see how tomorrow goes.

Speaking of computers...I have long thought that computers should actually pick the field..let the numbers tell the story, rather than a committee of humans, that have biases, agenda's etc. It would be a much more "pure" field of truly deserving teams. You simply write a program that highlights the metrics/#'s you want to use(RPI, kenpom, sagarin, BPI etc) and let the computer spit out the most deserving at large teams. That way, no one could really complain about anything..the computers decided, it was cut and dry. Not Lobbied for and swayed by a committee member.

Further, if they do insist on having a committee, I'd like to see it made up of people that actually know basketball...former coaches/ members of the media etc. if nothing else, let them be in the room, and if a few teams are close, ask them for their input..they know a good basketball team when they see one...the "eye" test.

[Its DJOver]

Speaking of computers...I have long thought that computers should actually pick the field..let the numbers tell the story, rather than a committee of humans, that have biases, agenda's etc. It would be a much more "pure" field of truly deserving teams. You simply write a program that highlights the metrics/#'s you want to use(RPI, kenpom, sagarin, BPI etc) and let the computer spit out the most deserving at large teams. That way, no one could really complain about anything..the computers decided, it was cut and dry. Not Lobbied for and swayed by a committee member.

Further, if they do insist on having a committee, I'd like to see it made up of people that actually know basketball...former coaches/ members of the media etc. if nothing else, let them be in the room, and if a few teams are close, ask them for their input..they know a good basketball team when they see one...the "eye" test.

They tried it with the BCS in football and people still complained.  Different sport I know,  and I actually think that your proposal would work relatively well, although I don't know how any algorithm would work, but saying that leaving it up to computers will stop people from complaining vastly underestimates how much people like to complain.

[GGGG]

The problem with computers are that computers are biased based on the program they are running.  What are they going to use to judge a season?

[hairy worthen]

The problem with computers are that computers are biased based on the program they are running.  What are they going to use to judge a season?

what? 

[GGGG]

LOL, yeah I didn't say that well.

A computer program written to select the teams in the NCAA tournament will have biases toward certain inputs based on the creator of the program.

[hairy worthen]

LOL, yeah I didn't say that well.

A computer program written to select the teams in the NCAA tournament will have biases toward certain inputs based on the creator of the program.

yup, got it

[wisblue]

I thought 10-8 would be a lock but the way things have played out, and the way the bubble has shaped up, I’m not sure it would be.

Change the DePaul game from a loss to a win and MU would not have had the 7 seed and would have played a team like Providence in the BET. If they had lost that one their resume wouldn’t look very different than it does now, except for removing the bad loss that the Committee says it doesn’t care that much about. 10-8 with a loss to DePaul but a home win over Villanova or Xavier or Providence (games that were closer than the DePaul loss) would look better.

But, it’s all a moot point that we’ll never know the answer to.

[cheebs09]

I thought 10-8 would be a lock but the way things have played out, and the way the bubble has shaped up, I’m not sure it would be.

Change the DePaul game from a loss to a win and MU would not have had the 7 seed and would have played a team like Providence in the BET. If they had lost that one their resume wouldn’t look very different than it does now, except for removing the bad loss that the Committee says it doesn’t care that much about. 10-8 with a loss to DePaul but a home win over Villanova or Xavier or Providence (games that were closer than the DePaul loss) would look better.

But, it’s all a moot point that we’ll never know the answer to.

Totally agree with this. The lack of signature win is what I think would keep us out.

[GrimmReaper33]

Yeah this is an odd year. No elite teams but lots of teams right around the bubble. Our resume would have definitely been considered at least "should be in" in any other year since the field expanded. Computers love us,  people don't seem to. Will be interesting to see how tomorrow goes.

What computers love use?

Does the committee use KenPom yet?  If they are using that data, it probably spells trouble for MU.  We are ranked 53rd on KenPom which is lower than most of the bubble teams we're going up against like St Marys, Notre Dame, Baylor, Texas, USC, Arizona St, Oklahoma, Louisvile, Bama, MTSU..

Then there are teams who aren't really discussed as on the bubble ranked higher too- Penn St (who's 29th!), Davidson, Maryland, San Diego St.  Based on KenPom rankings, I don't see computer numbers helping.