Tough Choices for the Selection Committee

[1990Warrior]

One of the interesting things they did during the GT game last night was to show blinded resumes of two teams and ask which would you rate ahead of each other.  I pulled some real resumes of bubble teams.  Lunardi has two of these going.  You could easily find out who these are but do so after you vote.  I will reveal them at the end of the day or tomorrow.

[1990Warrior]

Sorry, I attached a pdf so the columns would look nice.  Is there a way to get the pdf to show in the post so that people do not have to up load it?

[spiral97]

no.. but you could use a table:

		A		B		C
W-L		17-11		17-11		21-7
RPI		49		50		51
SOS		9		31		113
W-L vs Top 50		2-7		1-9		1-5
Last Ten		4-6		5-5		6-4
Road-Neutral		4-7		5-8		6-5

[Gwaki]

team A is my vote because of SOS and has a better top 50 record but I doubt the selection committee would care....

[denverMU]

Obviously Syc. should get in before Ohio St. How about the following teams that are in according to Lunardi:                                                                                                                                                                      A                 B                   C

W-L                        21-7           17-11             17-8
RPI                          51               69                  44
SOS                        128              19                  90
W-L TOP 50              1-5              1-5                2-3
LAST TEN                 6-4              6-4                7-3
ROAD-NEUTRAL          6-5             4-6                10-6

[esotericmindguy]

None should get in, I'd rather take an unproven mid major over a major who has done sh*t against the top 50.  These bubble teams can whine all they want, but if you're on the fence like all 3 of these teams likely are, you shouldn't complain if you don't get in.  They have had numerous chances to distinguish themselves while the A10, CUSA, and MAC teams get left out each year because of their limited opportunities.

[ChicosBailBonds]

no.. but you could use a table:

		A		B		C
W-L		17-11		17-11		21-7
RPI		49		50		51
SOS		9		31		113
W-L vs Top 50		2-7		1-9		1-5
Last Ten		4-6		5-5		6-4
Road-Neutral		4-7		5-8		6-5

Team A....best RPI, toughest SOS, more top 50 wins

[ChicosBailBonds]

None should get in, I'd rather take an unproven mid major over a major who has done sh*t against the top 50.  These bubble teams can whine all they want, but if you're on the fence like all 3 of these teams likely are, you shouldn't complain if you don't get in.  They have had numerous chances to distinguish themselves while the A10, CUSA, and MAC teams get left out each year because of their limited opportunities.

Reason again to expand the field....almost 350 DI teams now, plenty of good ones being left out, and expansion would get more of those mid majors you want that haven't proven a damn thing except that they have nice records.

[1990Warrior]

Team A = Syracuse
Team B = Ohio State
Team C = Florida

Looks like everyone liked Syracuse who Lunardi has out.  He has Ohio State in and Florida as an 11.

[AlumKCof93]

Team A = Syracuse
Team B = Ohio State
Team C = Florida

Looks like everyone liked Syracuse who Lunardi has out.  He has Ohio State in and Florida as an 11.

If Lunardo has Syracuse out and the others in, it has to be due to the fact that the BE should only have so many teams in the tournament.  Based on the numbers provided here, no way should OSU be under consideration.  1-9 against the top 50, come on!  I don't think any of these teams deserve it and if they do get in, I think its another reason to keep the field at 64.

[denverMU]

He also has Maryland and St. Joe in, which are B and C in my table.  I don't think either should be in. Cinci will never make it but look at their RPI=78 and SOS=5 they deserve a long look.

[1990Warrior]

I looked at our resume when I was setting this up and our 3-6 vs top 50 stood out big time compared to the top teams.

[spiral97]

yeah.. stood out to me too.. we're the only team (ranked at 15) in the kenpom top 20 RPI teams that has fewer wins than losses vs 1-50... wow.

[wadesworld]

None should get in, I'd rather take an unproven mid major over a major who has done sh*t against the top 50.  These bubble teams can whine all they want, but if you're on the fence like all 3 of these teams likely are, you shouldn't complain if you don't get in.  They have had numerous chances to distinguish themselves while the A10, CUSA, and MAC teams get left out each year because of their limited opportunities.

Reason again to expand the field....almost 350 DI teams now, plenty of good ones being left out, and expansion would get more of those mid majors you want that haven't proven a damn thing except that they have nice records.

I don't think they should expand the field.  I feel it's good as it is.  I think it'd be too big if you add more teams, and then the debate will just continue on, because now instead of deciding who's the 40th or so best team (taking into account that each conference gets an automatic bid), it'd be deciding who is the 60th, 80th, or whatever best team is...there will always be debates about who should get in and who should be left out no matter how many teams there are.  Has there ever been a year where it seemed like a team that got left out could win the National Championship?  I think they have it right as it is now.  College football, however, is a different story...

[Ready2Fly]

yeah.. stood out to me too.. we're the only team (ranked at 15) in the kenpom top 20 RPI teams that has fewer wins than losses vs 1-50... wow.

Out of curiosity, what's our record vs. top 100?  It seems like we beat a ton of teams in the 50-80 range.

Also, what better way to better that top 50 record than with a nice home win this Saturday?

[1990Warrior]

yeah.. stood out to me too.. we're the only team (ranked at 15) in the kenpom top 20 RPI teams that has fewer wins than losses vs 1-50... wow.

Out of curiosity, what's our record vs. top 100?  It seems like we beat a ton of teams in the 50-80 range.

Also, what better way to better that top 50 record than with a nice home win this Saturday?

We are 6-0 vs teams 51-100.

[mu_hilltopper]

Here's a good site to see the breakdown wins/losses versus quartiles:

http://teamrankings.com/ncb/mqtpower.php3?q=Marquette+Basketball

Record: 20-6
Power Rating: 90.2
Ranking: 12

2-5v #1-25
1-1v #26-50
7-0v #51-100
6-0v #101-200
4-0v #201-341

So .. 3-6 versus top 50 (not so good).  10-6 versus top 100.

I'd be curious .. only 4 games over RPI 200.  That might be a record low number of galactically bad teams played from an historical MU perspective.

[BrewCity83]

Here's another one:

http://kenpom.com/rpi.php

[spiral97]

Here's a good site to see the breakdown wins/losses versus quartiles:

http://teamrankings.com/ncb/mqtpower.php3?q=Marquette+Basketball

nice site.. the comparative table is at http://teamrankings.com/ncb/

on this site MU is listed #12..
one of only two teams in the top 12 that have a losing record versus the top 25.. guess who the other team is..  yep.. the badgers at #8 with a 3-4 record (the deciding loss thanks to us  ).

Also interesting that there are only 2 teams in the top 25 with a losing record vs teams 26-50... Gonzaga (at #25) is one.. the other.. drum roll please.. #3 Duke at 2-3.  A few less foul calls and we coulda had them at 1-4.. *sigh*

[ChicosBailBonds]

I looked at our resume when I was setting this up and our 3-6 vs top 50 stood out big time compared to the top teams.

Yeah, but they actually look at the top 100, not just top 50.  We come out a bit better in the top 100.  9-6 against top 100

[chapman]

Before I look, I'm going with team C.  The SOS is nice, but when it comes down to it you need to win the games against good teams if you schedule them or they're in your conference.  Would you think we were more deserving of a bid if we scheduled UNC, Kansas, and Vanderbilt instead of Coppin State, Savannah State, and IPFW but went 0-3 instead of 3-0?  Arguably it would be better to go 1-2, and it would definitely be better to go 2-1 against those good teams.  But 1-9 against the top 50?  Eventually Team B needs to prove it can play with good teams.  Team C is only 1-5, but it is four games better than the others, can hold its own on the road unlike A and B, and is playing slightly better in its conference than the others.  I would rank their resumes in this order: C, A, B, without looking at specific opponents they've beaten.

After looking, I guess I'm in the slght minority by putting Florida ahead of Syracuse.  But I'll stick to my first impressions.  Looking at the actual schedules, I would probably put Syracuse just in the field, and keep Florida and OSU out.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Before I look, I'm going with team C.  The SOS is nice, but when it comes down to it you need to win the games against good teams if you schedule them or they're in your conference.  Would you think we were more deserving of a bid if we scheduled UNC, Kansas, and Vanderbilt instead of Coppin State, Savannah State, and IPFW but went 0-3 instead of 3-0?  Arguably it would be better to go 1-2, and it would definitely be better to go 2-1 against those good teams.  But 1-9 against the top 50?  Eventually Team B needs to prove it can play with good teams.  Team C is only 1-5, but it is four games better than the others, can hold its own on the road unlike A and B, and is playing slightly better in its conference than the others.  I would rank their resumes in this order: C, A, B, without looking at specific opponents they've beaten.

After looking, I guess I'm in the slght minority by putting Florida ahead of Syracuse.  But I'll stick to my first impressions.  Looking at the actual schedules, I would probably put Syracuse just in the field, and keep Florida and OSU out.

Yes, but against those top teams...team C went 1-5.  Team A went 2-7.

[NavinRJohnson]

Before I look, I'm going with team C.  The SOS is nice, but when it comes down to it you need to win the games against good teams if you schedule them or they're in your conference.  Would you think we were more deserving of a bid if we scheduled UNC, Kansas, and Vanderbilt instead of Coppin State, Savannah State, and IPFW but went 0-3 instead of 3-0?  Arguably it would be better to go 1-2, and it would definitely be better to go 2-1 against those good teams.  But 1-9 against the top 50?  Eventually Team B needs to prove it can play with good teams.  Team C is only 1-5, but it is four games better than the others, can hold its own on the road unlike A and B, and is playing slightly better in its conference than the others.  I would rank their resumes in this order: C, A, B, without looking at specific opponents they've beaten.

After looking, I guess I'm in the slght minority by putting Florida ahead of Syracuse.  But I'll stick to my first impressions.  Looking at the actual schedules, I would probably put Syracuse just in the field, and keep Florida and OSU out.

The committee has made no secret of the fact that SOS is a point of emphasis this year. They want a team to prove they can go play tough teams, especially on the road, and win a few of them. If you don't beat any of those top teams, SOS isn't gonna matter, but in the examples given, record vs. Top 100, Rd/Nt are similar so SOS is going to be where the advantage comes in.