Bubble Watch / Bracketology

[GoBearcats31]

It is time.

The NCAA First Four games begin seven weeks from today in Dayton, so we are less than 50 days from the start of the NCAA Tournament.

As of this morning, the Bearcats are very much on the bubble -- some bracketologists might have them slightly in, but most probably have them just barely out. There are plenty of resume wins available, but they need to seize the opportunities and try to avoid the few bad losses available.

Positives:
- Good metrics (31 KenPom, 32 NET among others)
- No bad losses (11-0 in Q3/Q4 games)
- Currently 2 Q1 wins (at BYU, home versus TCU*)
- Good record: 14-6 and a respectable 3-4 in the best league

Negatives:
- Poor non-conference strength of schedule (0-2 versus Dayton, Xavier - the only true quality opponents faced)
- 3-6 Q1/Q2 record (need more quality wins)
- Several close losses/missed chances
- There are 11 NCAA Tournament contenders in the Big 12 and UC may be at the bottom of that list

* TCU is #30 in the NET and would drop to a Q2 win if they slide to 31 or below

Traps
- Two games versus West Virginia, #151 in the NET as of today (road game would be Q2 if top 135; home game would be Q4 if WVU slips below 160)
- Home game versus #139 Oklahoma State (Q3)

Opportunities:
- Other remaining games: at Texas Tech (26 NET), Houston (1), Iowa State (10), at UCF (71), at TCU (30), at Houston (1), Kansas State (73), at Oklahoma (33) -- as of today, 7 Q1 games + Kansas State is a Q2 if KSU stays at 75 or above.
- Big 12 Tournament -- any game will be Q1 or Q2 except, as of today, WVU and OSU


** Of course, the NET is just one metric and not the end all be all.

[sedz]

bracketmatrix has compiled their rankings for this year.

Dave Ommen at Bracketville was the best performer of the most well known bracketologists, finishing #5 out of 216 with 45 teams seeded correctly and only 27 missed by multiple seed lines. Perennial high achiever 131sports also did well, finishing in the top quartile at #54. Glazewskitology finished in the top 3 for the second in year in a row, their only two years submitting brackets.

Lunardi again came in below average, ranking #166. He only had 38 out of 68 teams seeded correctly and missed 29 teams by multiple seed lines. Jerry Palm of CBS ranked #213 out of 226, and several of the brackets worse than his are just algorithms. Palm had 35 out of 68 teams seeded correctly and missed 33 teams by multiple seed lines. I have no idea how that guy keeps his job. He's not even a good communicator like Lunardi is.

Torvik's algorithm did very well, seeding 43 teams correctly and missing 28 by multiple seed lines for a top third ranking at #69. That's a computer model that updates in real time outperforming most bracketologists including Lunardi.

[sedz]

And blowing that double digit lead against OK last week.

We only had 7 quality wins. Even if we eliminate both bad losses and win the OK game, we're still a couple wins short of Virginia for the last spot. We'd also need to pull out say the early January Texas and Baylor games. We weren't close.

This year had probably the strongest bubble ever because of all the bid steals. There are 10 seeds playing in Dayton.

[sedz]

I realize that the committee members watch a lot of games. What did they see about South Carolina, which finished #51 NET and #49 KenPom, that led them to assume that the Gamecocks not only deserved a bid, but a #6 seed? Their OOC schedule was ranked #337 by KenPom. I can only assume that there were copius servings of wine during the committee's periods of sequester.

6-5 in Q1 and 5-0 in Q2 is a very impressive resume even with a couple bad losses. 8 quality wins away from home. Even their two bad losses were to top 100 teams. I'd say that's right in line with other 6 seeds, who each had 10 or 11 quality wins but also 10 or 11 losses.

Much of their poor metrics is the result of losing to Auburn by a combined 71 points over 2 games. They have the 11th best strength of record in the country though.

[swilsonsp4]

I realize that the committee members watch a lot of games. What did they see about South Carolina, which finished #51 NET and #49 KenPom, that led them to assume that the Gamecocks not only deserved a bid, but a #6 seed? Their OOC schedule was ranked #337 by KenPom. I can only assume that there were copius servings of wine during the committee's periods of sequester.

[bearcatbret]

The losses to West Virginia and OK State killed us.

And blowing that double digit lead against OK last week.

[longtimefan]

Indiana St out with a top 30 NET. Oklahoma and Providence out with 9 quality wins and no bad losses. St Johns out with 10 quality wins and one bad loss. Virginia the last team in with 10 quality wins and no bad losses.

We were nowhere close to the bubble after all those bid steals.

The losses to West Virginia and OK State killed us.

[sedz]

Indiana St out with a top 30 NET. Oklahoma and Providence out with 9 quality wins and no bad losses. St Johns out with 10 quality wins and one bad loss. Virginia the last team in with 10 quality wins and no bad losses.

We were nowhere close to the bubble after all those bid steals.

[leeraymond]

If I am not wrong, I believe that all of the Power 6 basketball teams that were seeded number 1 going into their conference tournaments all lost except UCONN. Does that make UCONN the favorite going into the NCAAs? Also, check out what Temple is doing in the American. This has been a very weird Post-Season so far. It makes me think that there are going to be a slew of outcomes that nobody is going to see coming in the NCAAs. I am assuming that UC is NIT bound. Is that a good assumption? Any predictions on UC's seeding possibilities?

[Carthage World]

Happy Selection Sunday. I think we've all come to the conclusion that UC is not getting in. I also think we understand that the NET ranking are not the only thing in play here. If they were, we'd be in. When you look at the ranking there are two teams in our own conference (OU, TCU) that are presumed in but behind us in the NET. We moved up to 37 after yesterdays action. Leaving out a team at 37 would be a a new record for the committee. I haven't sat down and really analyzed what the commitee's other options are vs. UC but we might sneak into the field at the last minute here.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basket...l-net-rankings

The bubble shrank significantly over the past few days with the slew of upsets we've seen in the conference tournaments.

I wouldn't be surprised if 2-3 teams with higher NET rankings than UC were left out.

[Lobot]

Happy Selection Sunday. I think we've all come to the conclusion that UC is not getting in. I also think we understand that the NET ranking are not the only thing in play here. If they were, we'd be in. When you look at the ranking there are two teams in our own conference (OU, TCU) that are presumed in but behind us in the NET. We moved up to 37 after yesterdays action. Leaving out a team at 37 would be a a new record for the committee. I haven't sat down and really analyzed what the commitee's other options are vs. UC but we might sneak into the field at the last minute here.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basket...l-net-rankings

[sedz]

How the committee treats top 30 teams with lackluster results (New Mexico, Colorado, Indiana St) against sub 50 teams with lots of quality wins (Providence, Seton Hall, Kansas St) will be a good test for how much efficiency metrics matter. In my opinion, results should be much more important. Wins and losses have to matter, not just aggregate scores over the whole season. Obviously I like to use metrics as a tool to scout and evaluate teams, but postseason qualification should be based almost exclusively on results imo.

I don't know how anyone can evaluate Texas A&M. They have 12 quality wins (more than Duke, Alabama, and Auburn) but 5 bad losses (same as DePaul). Their NET ranking is 46, middle of the pack for bubble teams. What do you do with that?

Michigan St is in good shape even without great metrics. They have 9 quality wins and no bad losses.

[GoBearcats31]

MSU has nearly the same record as UC but they also have some bad losses. However, MSU will get in and UC will not.

Michigan State (assuming you do not mean Mississippi State) does not have an impressive resume, but the metrics are strong.

MSU 24 NET, UC 38 as of today / Ken Pom 19 vs. 39

Some key differences:
- MSU 9-13 in Quads 1/2, while UC is 7-12
- MSU 10-0 in Quads 3/4, while UC is 13-2 (two Quad 3 losses plus five more Quad 4 games)
- Significantly better non-conference strength of schedule, including a 24-point win over Baylor (neutral) which seems to be a big factor in their metrics

I would have been on this train more if UC had won last night, but I can see the separation a bit better today. But I bet there are several other teams ahead of UC in the committee's eyes with even flimsier resumes.

UC looks/feels like a tournament team and can compete with the best. But they cost themselves with a few blown games.

[bearcatbret]

MSU has nearly the same record as UC but they also have some bad losses. However, MSU will get in and UC will not.

[GoBearcats31]

RIP this thread -- it was a good run