Results since NCAA reveal

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU.   I know you have a much better grasp of the numbers that are used.  However, I think there are still humans involved in the process, and I think the latest results will affect their decisions.   

So your telling me that if Marquette had lost to creighton they would not have dropped a seed?  Creighton is similar to TCU. 

Texas has lost twice since the reveal.  Thinking they drop one seed is not a big move or unreasonable.

Yes,  I'm telling you that we wouldn't have dropped if we lost to Creighton. We wouldn't have moved up but we wouldn't have lost ground either, especially if we kept it close.

Thinking Texas drops from the top 2 seed to the second or third 2 seed is not a big move or unreasonable.  Thinking they dropped an entire seed line is. Teams don't move that much this late in the season, unless they are winning Q1 games or losing Q3/Q4 games.

[cheebs09]

3 of the 4 B12 teams gave one more L coming. Also an L coming for UCLA or AZ - if we win out we are a mortal lock for a 2 otherwise they might as well just disband the committee and seed directly from NET

I think some are overestimating the impact of single games at this point in the season.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

3 of the 4 B12 teams gave one more L coming. Also an L coming for UCLA or AZ - if we win out we are a mortal lock for a 2 otherwise they might as well just disband the committee and seed directly from NET

NET has little to do with it.  Texas is only three spots above us and would be a three seed if they seeded directly by NET. What does have to do with it is them having double the Q1 wins, quadruple the road Q1 wins, a much stronger SOS, a much stronger Noncon SOS, and their worst loss being a neutral court loss to #36 Illinois while we have two losses worse than that.

Humans make the decision. Humans can be effected by optics. But optics can't make up for their resume beating ours in almost every major category. Maybe Q1 wins added in the BET would be enough to convince them but historically they've mostly disregarded the BET

[Uncle Rico]

I think some are overestimating the impact of single games at this point in the season.

On scoop?  After TAMU and Brew have exhaustively explained how this stuff works?  🤔

[brewcity77]

Texas isn't dropping off the 2-line. They were the 5 overall at the reveal. They still have 10 Q1 wins and zero losses outside Q1. We cannot catch them, even if they lose to Kansas.

I think there's a divide between UCLA, Baylor, Texas, and the rest of the 2/3 seeds. Here's the problem with the idea of Marquette passing each of them:

• UCLA: The Bruins don't have the top end wins, but they have a Resume Average of 7, Predictive Average of 3.3, and zero losses outside the top two quadrants. For comparison, Marquette has a 14 average in both. The question for UCLA is more if they can beat Arizona and pass Purdue for the last 1-seed than if anyone passes them.
  
• Baylor: Resume average of 5, Predictive Average of 10, and an absurd 11 Q1 wins with a 15-8 Q1+2 record. Just too much quantity of quality to pass them. It's not close enough for head-to-head to be a consideration.
  
• Texas: Resume average of 7, Predictive Average of 8.7, 10 Q1 wins, 13-7 Q1+2. They are a bit behind the two above, but Marquette likely can't match any of their metrics nor their high end win totals. The BET doesn't matter that much.

That leaves Arizona. I currently have the Wildcats as the last 2, and feel there's a case to be made for 4 teams to get that spot. K-State, Marquette, and Gonzaga can make a claim. I know Tennessee has the metrics, but without Zakai Zeigler and with just a 2-2 record since the Selection Show, I think they're more likely to drop to a 4 than climb back to a 2. So here's each team's case:

• Arizona: 11.5 resume average, 11.0 predictive. 4-0 vs Q1A is their calling card. 13-4 in Quads 1+2 but they do have a Q3 loss. For those watching the minutia, if Colorado falls from 74 to 76, Arizona loses a Q2 win, dropping their Q1+2 record to 12-4 with a Q3 loss.
  
• Kansas State: 9 resume average, 20.7 predictive. 9 Quadrant 1 wins is the most of any team in this mix with 9-6 Q1 and 13-7 Q1+2, no bad losses. The real drawback to their claim is the predictive numbers, but that didn't keep them from being on the 3-line at the reveal. They've done nothing but win since the reveal and road wins at Texas and Baylor are huge. If they beat WVU this weekend, I think they cement their case ahead of Marquette.
  
• Gonzaga: 9 resume average, 9 predictive. Only 3-4 in Q1A, but 10-4 against the first three quadrants with one Q3 loss. Own the best single win of this group on a neutral court over Alabama, though if Gonzaga's game against Kentucky was classfied as a home game, Alabama's game in Birmingham should've been the same. Best road record as well, though that's partially WCC competition. This committee seems to prefer results to numbers, so I think the quantity of good results for the other three has Gonzaga last, but they do have the best computer numbers.
  
• Marquette: 14 resume, 14 predictive. 4 Q1A wins is tied for most, but 5-5 in Q1 and 10-6 in Q1+2 is the worst mark of this group.It would really help for Colorado to drop, because it would likely move Villanova (76) into the top-75 of the net, change Marquette's Q1 record to 6-5 and their Q1+2 to 11-6, which coupled with Arizona going to 12-4 looks a lot closer. I'll be honest, I don't think Marquette can get to the 2-line. I think either Arizona or K-State will stay ahead of them. But if they smash the piss out of St. John's (30-40 point win), and the Selection Committee focuses on a conference tourney run at least making it to Saturday) then maybe they get to a 2-seed. But I'm really skeptical.

[1SE]

You guys are the experts, but it feels we've entered into a cult of Q1(A). The committee really talks about these teams - moving from NET 74 to 76 doesn't qualitatively change anything - and the committee knows that. We've had a lot of good wins - and since December 20th we've very much looked the part of a two seed.

At the end of the day, if MU wins out they will be 27-6, having won 9 straight, 14 of 15 and will have been 21-2 since December 20th and are likely top-5 in both polls. They'll have picked up 2 more high quality wins in the BET.

I just don't see how they lose out to a non-BIG12 Tourney winning K-State or Baylor (with 9 losses that went 5-3 over their last 8 (and that we curb stomped head to head!)) or whoever loses the UCLA-AZ game. If we win out - I think the PAC-12 title game will be for a 2 seed. And that's assuming none of those teams stumble earlier.

Or course for us winning out is no given either - but it we do I don't think anyone would begrudge us a 2.

[cheebs09]

You guys are the experts, but it feels we've entered into a cult of Q1(A). The committee really talks about these teams - moving from NET 74 to 76 doesn't qualitatively change anything - and the committee knows that. We've had a lot of good wins - and since December 20th we've very much looked the part of a two seed.

At the end of the day, if MU wins out they will be 27-6, having won 9 straight, 14 of 15 and will have been 21-2 since December 20th and are likely top-5 in both polls. They'll have picked up 2 more high quality wins in the BET.

I just don't see how they lose out to a non-BIG12 Tourney winning K-State or Baylor (with 9 losses that went 5-3 over their last 8 (and that we curb stomped head to head!)) or whoever loses the UCLA-AZ game. If we win out - I think the PAC-12 title game will be for a 2 seed. And that's assuming none of those teams stumble earlier.

Or course for us winning out is no given either - but it we do I don't think anyone would begrudge us a 2.

I think you are valuing things the committee doesn’t. The last 10 games don’t really matter much anymore. Overall record is less important than who that is against.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

At the end of the day, if MU wins out they will be 27-6, having won 9 straight, 14 of 15 and will have been 21-2 since December 20th and are likely top-5 in both polls. They'll have picked up 2 more high quality wins in the BET.

Winning 9 straight, 14 out of 15 and their rankings don't matter.

The problem continues to be an uninspiring non-conference performance and a crappy bottom of the BE.

[1SE]

Well - I hope we get the chance to find out!

FWIW - how cool is it that the biggest debate on Scoop in early March is if we have a shot at a 2 seed.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Exactly. And again, I don't think there is much of a difference between the bottom of the 2 line and the top of the 3 line. They were a 3 in 2003 and again in 2013 - they beat the 2 seeds each time in the S16. They can do it a third time.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

While I agree the 2 seed is incredibly improbable, if not impossible at the stage.

It is kinda bothersome that the outright winner of the second or third best conference in the country can’t get on the two line.

Especially if they win the BET.

[Galway Eagle]

Exactly. And again, I don't think there is much of a difference between the bottom of the 2 line and the top of the 3 line. They were a 3 in 2003 and again in 2013 - they beat the 2 seeds each time in the S16. They can do it a third time.

I'd call it a big a difference in the early rounds. 19 times a 3s been upset by a 14, 9 times a 2s been upset by a 15. That's a glaring difference

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I'd call it a big a difference in the early rounds. 19 times a 3s been upset by a 14, 9 times a 2s been upset by a 15. That's a glaring difference

That's because two seeds are usually better than three seeds.  But again, I said "top of the three, bottom of the 2."  I don't think playing the best 15th seed or the worst 14th seed is significantly different.

[Galway Eagle]

That's because two seeds are usually better than three seeds.

Or is it that 14s can end up with a good team like Davidson that can scare the crap out of you while 15s are usually (not always) improbably bid thiefs

[MU82]

Will the committee do another reveal? (There was a second women's reveal.)

[WhiteTrash]

I think some are overestimating the impact of single games at this point in the season.

Saint Marys, UCONN and Wisconsin think some are overestimating the impact of NET.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

While I agree the 2 seed is incredibly improbable, if not impossible at the stage.

It is kinda bothersome that the outright winner of the second or third best conference in the country can’t get on the two line.

Especially if they win the BET.

Unfortunately, the Big East is probably the 4th best conference this year.

Big 12 is 1st by a lot.  Top end quality combined with depth.  No weak teams.

Big 10 is deeper than the BE and the SEC is better at the top.  The bottom of the Big East is really bad and drags the conference down a bit.

Not that seeding matters a ton this year.  There is a lot of parity in college basketball.  Any team could be knocked out as early as the 2nd round. Survive and advance will be the mantra of this tournament.

[brewcity77]

moving from NET 74 to 76 doesn't qualitatively change anything - and the committee knows that.

This is categorically incorrect. When the committee comes in next week, they are starting from scratch. As they scrub those lines, they are doing so with the most recent data. And particularly in a league like the Big East with a double round robin, turning a Q3 win into a Q1 win matters. As does it going the other way.

It's why I'd love to see not just a Villanova win Saturday, but Seton Hall to win at Providence. If the Pirates could pull a Clemson over NC State type result, unlikely as that is, MU could turn two Q3 wins into Q1 wins. When you stack resumes up, 2 additional Q1 wins stands out.

[1SE]

This is categorically incorrect. When the committee comes in next week, they are starting from scratch. As they scrub those lines, they are doing so with the most recent data. And particularly in a league like the Big East with a double round robin, turning a Q3 win into a Q1 win matters. As does it going the other way.

It's why I'd love to see not just a Villanova win Saturday, but Seton Hall to win at Providence. If the Pirates could pull a Clemson over NC State type result, unlikely as that is, MU could turn two Q3 wins into Q1 wins. When you stack resumes up, 2 additional Q1 wins stands out.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative.

Quantitatively absolutely is matters - changing from 76 to 74 changes the Q.

Qualitatively - I doubt this more - this is why the committee gets paid the big bucks. Do you really think, when digging down into the Ws and Ls of each team - they see the Nova win and think (well, that's kind of a crappy win since Nova's net is 76, but it would have been a nice win if Nova's net had been 74)? I mean - maybe - this is why there's a whole investigatory method of discontinuity designs - but I'd hope the committee members realize that a win over the 74 team is qualitatively the same as a win over a 76 team.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Unfortunately, the Big East is probably the 4th best conference this year.

Big 12 is 1st by a lot.  Top end quality combined with depth.  No weak teams.

Big 10 is deeper than the BE and the SEC is better at the top.  The bottom of the Big East is really bad and drags the conference down a bit.

Not that seeding matters a ton this year.  There is a lot of parity in college basketball.  Any team could be knocked out as early as the 2nd round. Survive and advance will be the mantra of this tournament.

The Big Ten is terrible this year. Michigan is second in conference and they’re on the wrong side of the bubble.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The Big Ten is terrible this year. Michigan is second in conference and they’re on the wrong side of the bubble.

The problem with statements about conference strength is that we usually only look at the top teams.  The Big Ten isn't "terrible." They just have a bunch of mediocre teams that are going to fill out the 6-9 seeds in the bracket but only have one or two that step out.

The Big East has a TERRIBLE bottom.  That's what is dragging the conference down.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

The Big Ten is terrible this year. Michigan is second in conference and they’re on the wrong side of the bubble.

The Big Ten has a large volume of mediocre tourney teams.  I think the Big East tourney teams are much more dangerous.

But Marquette needed to be a little better in nonconference play to contend for a 2 seed.  Beat Purdue and a 2 seed is much more attainable. Or if Marquette had beaten Wisconsin, Mississippi State, and Utah (instead of Georgia Tech), a 2 seed is much more attainable.

The BE didn't provide enough Q1 and Q2 games to overcome our nonconference performance.  It is what it is at this point.

[StillAWarrior]

The Big Ten is terrible this year. Michigan is second in conference and they’re on the wrong side of the bubble.

The Big East this year is probably one of strongest conferences ever. The conference's fifth place team is seventh in the NET.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

The Big East this year is probably one of strongest conferences ever. The conference's fifth place team is seventh in the NET.

You are conflating 5th place with 5th best.

[StillAWarrior]

You are conflating 5th place with 5th best.

I'm aware. And the person I was responding to was conflating 2nd place with 2nd best. That was the point I was trying to make.