2022-23 NCAA Men's Basketball Thread

[Ellenson Guerrero]

An Oklahoma team that has 6 Q1 wins including spanking #2 Alabama.  Their worst loss was to #70 Villanova in Philly by 4 points.  Their next worst to #59 Sam Houston State.

BE bottom is nowhere near the B12 bottom.

The fact that people still don't understand how this works is amazing to me.  Last 5, 8 or 10 games don't matter anymore so you can do away with recent records or what have you.

Marquette is locked into a 3 seed and maybe would should be thrilled with that.

But why are Baylor's quadrant numbers better than MUs? They've just played way more games. Their 11-9 in Q1; were 6-5. They're 4-0 in Q2; we're 5-0. Just plying more games shouldn't really matter if you end up losing significantly more games too, especially after we waxed them in our head to head. The losses count too.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

My seeding tier list:

One seed locks
Houston
Alabama
Kansas

One or two seed
Purdue
UCLA

Two seed or best three seed
Texas
Baylor
Arizona
Kansas State

Three seeds
Marquette
Tennessee
Gonzaga

Four seeds
UConn
Indiana
Xavier
Iowa State

The gap from 9 to 10 on the S-Curve is bigger than gap from 10 to 14.  Marquette has to win the BET to even get considered for a 2 seed.

[The Sultan]

But why are Baylor's quadrant numbers better than MUs? They've just played way more games. Their 11-9 in Q1; were 6-5. They're 4-0 in Q2; we're 5-0. Just plying more games shouldn't really matter if you end up losing significantly more games too, especially after we waxed them in our head to head. The losses count too.

Of course playing and winning more Q1 games should matter.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

But why are Baylor's quadrant numbers better than MUs? They've just played way more games. Their 11-9 in Q1; were 6-5. They're 4-0 in Q2; we're 5-0. Just plying more games shouldn't really matter if you end up losing significantly more games too, especially after we waxed them in our head to head. The losses count too.

They're better because they have 5 more Q1 wins and 1 less Q3 loss. This isn't rocket science

[MU82]

Our team has built a solid resume. We'd have done even better by not losing to bubblicious Madison and Miss St teams at home and on a neutral site, respectively, or by winning one of our close BEast losses. But every team can point to a couple they "could have" won (while always conveniently ignoring a few they "could have" lost), so it's a silly exercise.

The difference between being one of the first two 3-seeds and being the last 2-seed is negligible IMHO, so being bothered by it just isn't worth it to me. Really looking forward to an exciting next 4 weeks of MU hoops!

We Are Marquette!

[WhiteTrash]

Our team has built a solid resume. We'd have done even better by not losing to bubblicious Madison and Miss St teams at home and on a neutral site, respectively, or by winning one of our close BEast losses. But every team can point to a couple they "could have" won (while always conveniently ignoring a few they "could have" lost), so it's a silly exercise.

The difference between being one of the first two 3-seeds and being the last 2-seed is negligible IMHO, so being bothered by it just isn't worth it to me. Really looking forward to an exciting next 4 weeks of MU hoops!

We Are Marquette!

Agreed. Well said.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

They're better because they have 5 more Q1 wins and 1 less Q3 loss. This isn't rocket science

11/20 is .55%; 6/11 = .545. You're right the math isn't hard.

The UW overtime loss sucks, but I think smoking Baylor itself by 20+ more than covers that. There also is a good chance Baylor is a first round exit in the Big 12 tourney.

[HowardsWorld]

Of course playing and winning more Q1 games should matter.

By this logic Gonzaga and Houston should never sniff a top 4 seed. They play in two of the weakest conferences in the country. Each conference has legit 1 team that could beat Gonzaga in St. Marys and maybe Temple/Cincinatti.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

11/20 is .55%; 6/11 = .545. You're right the math isn't hard.

The UW overtime loss sucks, but I think smoking Baylor itself by 20+ more than covers that. There also is a good chance Baylor is a first round exit in the Big 12 tourney.

Winning percentage by quadrant doesn't matter. The committee rewards teams for playing a harder schedule it doesn't punish them

[The Sultan]

11/20 is .55%; 6/11 = .545. You're right the math isn't hard.

Ummm.... Q1 wins count more for you than Q1 losses count against you. Otherwise where is the incentive to play a difficult schedule?

[StillAWarrior]

Marquette is locked into a 3 seed and maybe [we] should be thrilled with that.

That's where I'm at. I simply don't understand all the gnashing of teeth about whether we can get to a 2-seed or how Baylor can possibly be ahead of us. We're a freaking 3 seed. I am absolutely thrilled. In the unlikely even that all the planets align and we end up a 2 seed...well, that would be gravy.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Ummm.... Q1 wins count more for you than Q1 losses count against you. Otherwise where is the incentive to play a difficult schedule?

So do you have Iowa State ahead of MU? They're 9-10 in Q1; that's three more Ws.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

By this logic Gonzaga and Houston should never sniff a top 4 seed. They play in two of the weakest conferences in the country. Each conference has legit 1 team that could beat Gonzaga in St. Marys and maybe Temple/Cincinatti.

Well Gonzaga has 5 Q1 wins which is respectable and they are behind us.

I actually agree with you about Houston this year, I've never bought them as a top overall seed. But they have been so dominant in most of their games that their computer numbers make up for their lack of Q1 wins. Plus, the overall record is so good that it's hard to ignore.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

So do you have Iowa State ahead of MU? They're 9-10 in Q1; that's three more Ws.

And Oklahoma should also be on the 3 line with MU. They're 6-12 in Q1.

[wadesworld]

Arizona and Baylor are both still ahead of us. What happens if they win the P12 and B12 tournaments? What if Tennessee wins the SEC tournament? What if K-State wins the B12 tournament and Baylor is the runner up? Still think beating Butler or St. John's is going to seal it?

You can't just look at what we do. You have to pay attention to what the other teams do. We don't control our own destiny for a 2 seed.

Part of why we were a 2 if we won 2 more games is because teams above us will also take some losses. Sure, if everything goes as poorly as it could we would be a 3. But I'm banking on that not happening. It rarely does.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So do you have Iowa State ahead of MU? They're 9-10 in Q1; that's three more Ws.

They also have worse computer numbers, 12 losses, and 2 Q2 losses.

No one said that Q1 wins is the only thing that matters.  Just one of the most important.

And Oklahoma should also be on the 3 line with MU. They're 6-12 in Q1.

Now you're just being willfully ignorant

[Galway Eagle]

Plus, the overall record is so good that it's hard to ignore.

Isn't this the point you've been saying doesn't matter? At what point should overall record matter vs not matter?

[withoutbias]

Didn't the committee used to give credit for regular season conference champions? Do they still consider that?

[The Sultan]

So do you have Iowa State ahead of MU? They're 9-10 in Q1; that's three more Ws.

I didn't say Q1 losses are meaningless. Stop being hyperbolic.

[The Sultan]

Didn't the committee used to give credit for regular season conference champions? Do they still consider that?

Maybe and no. They don't do that.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Isn't this the point you've been saying doesn't matter? At what point should overall record matter vs not matter?

I don't think they have a point aside from defending the condescending argument that MU has no claim to a 2 seed.

[WhiteTrash]

Out of curiosity has any one ever said "Team X would have won the NC if they got a 2 seed instead of a 3 seed"?

[YoungMUFan4]

A metric like Wins Above Bubble is helpful for comparing teams in these situations. MU and Baylor are pretty much neck and neck.

[The Sultan]

I don't think they have a point aside from defending the condescending argument that MU has no claim to a 2 seed.

I think the point has been made repeatedly as to why they may not get a two seed and either you don't understand it or are simply refusing to believe it.

Either way not a great look.

[WhiteTrash]

I don't think they have a point aside from defending the condescending argument that MU has no claim to a 2 seed.

So true when the argument is based upon NET and it's Quads, since there is data that shows the NET is not very relevant.