[Cracked Sidewalks] What MTE Titles Mean in March

[brewcity77]

Is it too early to think about what tonight's Charleston Classic final between Marquette and St. Bonaventure will mean to the two teams' Selection Sunday aspirations? Cracked Sidewalks breaks down 85 MTE brackets over a 5-year span to see if there's any importance to the results of these games, and history indicates there's a more on the line than just a shiny trophy to bring back to the Al.

https://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2021/11/what-mte-titles-mean-in-march.html

[Shooter McGavin]

Brew,

I appreciate the work you put in to these.  Thank you.  Some interesting data. 

[fjm]

Great info.

Looks like if you win Maui you're almost a lock for a top NCAA seed.

Let's go to Maui next year and win please!

[brewcity77]

Great info.

Looks like if you win Maui you're almost a lock for a top NCAA seed.

Let's go to Maui next year and win please!

2023 we're in Maui with Duke and Gonzaga.

If you take out the two mostly mid-major MTEs (Gulf Coast and Diamond Head) the odds of champs making the tournament goes up to 77.3% while the odds of runners up increases meagerly to 46.7%. That's more than 30% improvement in tourney odds for today's winner.

[MU82]

Great stuff, brewski.

I wasn't sure I wanted Marquette to win tonight, but now I am. 

[The Equalizer]

This seems at best to be stating the obvious and at worst confusing correlation and causation.

Stating the obvious is that good teams win. That doesn't strike me as any great revelation.  Good teams more frequently win their MTE, but they also frequently win a majority of their non-conference games, their conference regular-season championship, do well in their conference tournament.   

For example, Virginia wasn't a good team in 2019 because they won the Battle 4 Atlantis. They won the Battle 4 Atlantis because they were a good team, consistent with their 35-3 overall record and 16-2 record in ACC play.

Second, the analysis seems to put outsized importance on the championship game in said tournaments, to the exclusion of all other factors. I would argue that it's more important to a) do well in conference play if not win the championship outright and b) win defining games in non-conference regardless of whether they're in an MTE or not.

For example, if we lose to St. Bonaventure, but win the rest of our non-conference games (giving us signature wins over Illinois, Ole Miss, UCLA, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kansas State), then go on to go 16-4 in the Big East, we're getting in the tournament with a very high seed regardless of the loss to St. Bonaventure.  In this scenario, the loss to St. Bonaventure would likely have zero impact on our NCAA resume, because the rest of our body of work defines us as a team.

Similarly, if we beat St. Bonaventure, but then go on to lose to Kansas State, Wisconsin and UCLA, finish 7-13 in the Big East, and fail to win the BET, we're not making the NCAA tournament, even though we won our MTE and have a handful of good wins (Illinois, Ole Miss, West Virginia).

Finally, the game is probably more important to St. Bonaventure than to us, given that St. Bonaventure has fewer opportunities for defining non-conference wins.   But again, if St. Bonaventure wins--the value isn't "winning the MTE championship" so much as a defining win over Marquette (assuming we continue on a path to an NCAA bid).

I'd much rather we win than lose, but winning doesn't make us a tournament lock, nor does losing push us out of the tourney.

[PGsHeroes32]

This seems at best to be stating the obvious and at worst confusing correlation and causation.

Stating the obvious is that good teams win. That doesn't strike me as any great revelation.  Good teams more frequently win their MTE, but they also frequently win a majority of their non-conference games, their conference regular-season championship, do well in their conference tournament.   

For example, Virginia wasn't a good team in 2019 because they won the Battle 4 Atlantis. They won the Battle 4 Atlantis because they were a good team, consistent with their 35-3 overall record and 16-2 record in ACC play.

Second, the analysis seems to put outsized importance on the championship game in said tournaments, to the exclusion of all other factors. I would argue that it's more important to a) do well in conference play if not win the championship outright and b) win defining games in non-conference regardless of whether they're in an MTE or not.

For example, if we lose to St. Bonaventure, but win the rest of our non-conference games (giving us signature wins over Illinois, Ole Miss, UCLA, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kansas State), then go on to go 16-4 in the Big East, we're getting in the tournament with a very high seed regardless of the loss to St. Bonaventure.  In this scenario, the loss to St. Bonaventure would likely have zero impact on our NCAA resume, because the rest of our body of work defines us as a team.

Similarly, if we beat St. Bonaventure, but then go on to lose to Kansas State, Wisconsin and UCLA, finish 7-13 in the Big East, and fail to win the BET, we're not making the NCAA tournament, even though we won our MTE and have a handful of good wins (Illinois, Ole Miss, West Virginia).

Finally, the game is probably more important to St. Bonaventure than to us, given that St. Bonaventure has fewer opportunities for defining non-conference wins.   But again, if St. Bonaventure wins--the value isn't "winning the MTE championship" so much as a defining win over Marquette (assuming we continue on a path to an NCAA bid).

I'd much rather we win than lose, but winning doesn't make us a tournament lock, nor does losing push us out of the tourney.

Well yeah,

He said winning it is 77% odds. So obviously not a lock.

Didn't need that long winded tangent to tell us that.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Hmmm.  The name of our tournament next year isn't even listed.

[MU82]

For example, if we lose to St. Bonaventure, but win the rest of our non-conference games (giving us signature wins over Illinois, Ole Miss, UCLA, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Kansas State), then go on to go 16-4 in the Big East, we're getting in the tournament with a very high seed regardless of the loss to St. Bonaventure.  In this scenario, the loss to St. Bonaventure would likely have zero impact on our NCAA resume, because the rest of our body of work defines us as a team.

Similarly, if we beat St. Bonaventure, but then go on to lose to Kansas State, Wisconsin and UCLA, finish 7-13 in the Big East, and fail to win the BET, we're not making the NCAA tournament, even though we won our MTE and have a handful of good wins (Illinois, Ole Miss, West Virginia).

Isn't there something in between?

Like, if we lose to the Bonnies, split Wisconsin and UCLA and go 9-11 in the BEast, maybe the loss to the Bonnies is what kept us out of the NCAAT or made us play in Dayton.

Or if we beat the Bonnies but otherwise have the same outcome as the above scenario, maybe winning this event is what will have put us in the NCAAT or moves us up a seed line or two.

brew never claimed he was stating some kind of exact science. It was just one interesting look at what the results of these tournaments can mean for teams.

But yes, you made some decent points, too.

[brewcity77]

Hmmm.  The name of our tournament next year isn't even listed.

I only included tournaments that fed to the NCAAs from 2015-2019, and Fort Myers started in 2018.

[Dish]

Maybe I missed it, where are we going next year for an MTE?

[brewcity77]

Maybe I missed it, where are we going next year for an MTE?

Fort Myers.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Fort Myers.

Link?

[brewcity77]

Link?

This is the best I've got.

[GoldenWarrior11]

This is the best I've got.

So that's not official. I can't find anything official on next year's lineup.

[Skatastrophy]

Wild ass guess: We are/were holding out for a PK85 tourney invite.

Edit: Looks like a tentative team list was announced and we weren't on it. I blame Wojo for the scheduling problem

Edit2: Already talked about it here - https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=62141.0

[brewcity77]

So that's not official. I can't find anything official on next year's lineup.

From people in and close to the program, I've been told Fort Myers on multiple occasions. Take that for what it's worth.

[GoldenWarrior11]

From people in and close to the program, I've been told Fort Myers on multiple occasions. Take that for what it's worth.

Got it. Very cool.

[rocky_warrior]

So what's the stats on MTE runners up?

Edit: just read the article and realize you covered that. "Runners-up went to the NCAA just 44.7% of the time"

[brewcity77]

So what's the stats on MTE runners up?

Edit: just read the article and realize you covered that. "Runners-up went to the NCAA just 44.7% of the time"

Which is better than we expected two weeks ago, at least.

[rocky_warrior]

Which is better than we expected two weeks ago, at least.

Agreed.  I'll take a 45% chance.  Just not gonna hold my breath.

[warriorchick]

From people in and close to the program, I've been told Fort Myers on multiple occasions. Take that for what it's worth.

One of my friends who was in Charleston heard it directly from Bill Scholl.

[Billy Hoyle]

Wild ass guess: We are/were holding out for a PK85 tourney invite.

Edit: Looks like a tentative team list was announced and we weren't on it. I blame Wojo for the scheduling problem

Edit2: Already talked about it here - https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=62141.0

If we were holding out for PK85 we were foolish. The contracts were signed a while ago, that's why the BE has three right now. UConn signed when they were still in the AAC. One BE team will have to be removed.

[brewcity77]

If we were holding out for PK85 we were foolish. The contracts were signed a while ago, that's why the BE has three right now. UConn signed when they were still in the AAC. One BE team will have to be removed.

No, they won't. Because UConn signed when they were in the AAC, they will make it work and just put two of them on opposite sides of a bracket. The reason they held out is because Georgetown was removed and Marquette was hoping for that spot which ultimately went to Xavier, even though all parties knew when Xavier was added that UConn was already there.

It's similar to Atlantis in 2014. Contracts were signed when Butler was in the A-10 and Georgetown was in the Big East, but both played in the 2014 Battle for Atlantis. Organizers threw them on opposite sides of the bracket but they still ended up meeting in a non-conference game to close the tournament even though both teams were in the same conference.

[The Equalizer]

Isn't there something in between?

Like, if we lose to the Bonnies, split Wisconsin and UCLA and go 9-11 in the BEast, maybe the loss to the Bonnies is what kept us out of the NCAAT or made us play in Dayton.

Or if we beat the Bonnies but otherwise have the same outcome as the above scenario, maybe winning this event is what will have put us in the NCAAT or moves us up a seed line or two.

True enough.  However, I note that you're framing this in terms of playing the Bonnies, not winning a tournament championship. 

My point is that there is nothing special about winning the championship of one of these tournaments with respect to making the NCAA tournament or your seed. 

Consider it this way:  the impact is neither more nor less than it would be had we faced the same team as an ordinary non-conference game.