Wednesday, February 28, 2007

W-1.5 BP65

1. NORTH CAROLINA (ACC)
1. UCLA (PAC 10)
1. OHIO ST. (BIG 10)
1. FLORIDA (SEC)

2. Wisconsin
2. KANSAS (BIG 12)
2. GEORGETOWN (BIG EAST)
2. Texas A&M

3. Pittsburgh
3. MEMPHIS (CONFERENCE USA)
3. SOUTHERN ILLINOIS (MVC)
3. Washington State

4. Texas
4. NEVADA (WAC)
4. Tennessee
4. Virginia Tech

5. Duke
5. Kentucky
5. Marquette
5. Maryland

6. Oregon
6. BYU (MWC)
6. Villanova
6. Louisville

7. UNLV
7. Virginia
7. Arizona
7. USC

8. BUTLER (HORIZON)
8. Air Force
8. Michigan state
8. Boston College

9. Creighton
9. Indiana
9. XAVIER (ATLANTIC 10)
9. Vanderbilt

10. Syracuse
10. Illinois
10. Notre Dame
10. Alabama

11. Missouri State
11. OLD DOMINION (COLONIAL)
11. GONZAGA (WCC)
11. West Virginia

12. Texas Tech
12. WINTHROP (BIG SOUTH)
12. Stanford
12. VCU

13. Florida State
13. APPALACHIAN STATE (SOUTHERN)
13. AKRON (MAC)
13. SOUTH ALABAMA (SUN BELT)

14. MARIST (MAAC)
14. VERMONT (AMERICA EAST)
14. TEXAS A&M-CORPUS CHRISTI (SOUTHLAND)
14. ORAL ROBERTS (MID-CON)

15. PENN (IVY)
15. BUCKNELL (PATRIOT)
15. WEBER STATE (BIG SKY)
15. EAST TENNESSEE STATE (ATLANTIC SUN)

16. DELAWARE ST (MEAC)
16. LONG BEACH STATE (BIG WEST)
16. AUSTIN PEAY (OHIO VALLEY)
16. JACKSON STATE (SWAC)
16. CENTRAL CONNECTICUT STATE (NORTHEAST)

And now the best of the rest, separated into different groups. Keep in mind that within each group, teams are not ranked. Rather, they are just put in conference alphabetical order (ACC teams before Big East teams, etc.):

Teams that might be in some brackets, but just miss the cut:
Georgia Tech
Oklahoma State
Drexel
Bradley
Georgia

Good resumes, but need a little bit more:
Purdue
Arkansas
Mississippi

Plausible bubble teams, but need a big turnaround:
Massachusetts
Clemson
Providence
Michigan
Kansas State
San Diego State
Mississippi State

Still alive, but pretty much need a miracle:
Missouri
Hofstra
Washington
Davidson

4 comments:

DMoore said...

Let's try some blind comparisons here and see what we come up with. I've picked these based on gut feel for teams that seem low or high, without looking at any real data ahead of time. I described each team with a small RPI range rather than a specific number to hide their identity. All rankings (of neutral teams beaten, etc.) listed here are current RPI. The projected finish is based on the Pomeroy ratings, and includes the expected pairings in the conference tourneys.

Four of these are currently in these projections, and two are out. Which would you eliminate?

Team A:
RPI 31-35
Top 25 2-6
Top 50 2-3 (4-9)
Top 100 2-0 (6-9)
Bad Losses -- Worst loss is 50.
Road Record 2-0 neut, 3-6 road
Neutral Wins 42, 79
Road Wins 160, 163, 177, 191
Projected finish 23-9
(1-0 Top 50, 1-0 Top 100)

Team B:
RPI 35-40
Top 25 1-2
Top 50 1-2 (2-4)
Top 100 7-3 (9-7)
Bad Losses 101 (twice)
Road Record 4-0 neut, 2-7 road
Neutral Wins 33, 89, 128, 171
Road Wins 98, 112
Projected finish 20-11
(0-2 Top 50)

Team C:
RPI 41-45 1-0
Top 25 1-0
Top 50 2-2 (3-2)
Top 100 4-3 (7-5)
Bad Losses 185, 188
Road Record 13-4 road, no neut
Neutral Wins -- None
Road Wins 19, 30, 49, 65, 76, 88, 164, 179, 241, 260, 299, 301
Projected finish 22-8
(0-1 Top 100, 1-0 Top 200)

Team D:
RPI 46-50
Top 25 3-1
Top 50 1-6 (4-7)
Top 100 4-2 (8-9)
Bad Losses 107, 149
Road Record 0-2 neut, 6-6 road
Neutral Wins -- None
Road Wins 15, 57, 60, 195, 202, 203
Projected finish 20-12
(0-1 Top 100, 1-0 Top 150)

Team E:
RPI 51-55
Top 25 2-3
Top 50 0-2 (2-5)
Top 100 1-2 (3-7)
Bad Losses 167
Road Record 3-1 neut, 3-6 road
Neutral Wins 141, 174, 219
Road Wins 143, 210, 215
Projected finish 22-9
(0-1 Top25, 1-0 Top100, 1-0 Top150)

Team F:
RPI 51-55
Top 25 2-6
Top 50 5-3 (7-9)
Top 100 1-0 (8-9)
Bad Losses 130, 155
Road Record 2-1 neut, 1-8 away
Neutral Wins 7, 43
Road Wins 48
Projected finish 20-12
(1-2 Top25, 1-0 Top50)

Anonymous said...

Team A and E should be left home since their recorda against the top 100 Indicates that they have consistently shown an inability to beat teams that have tourney like resume. The fact that they are teams from BCS conferences will probably help them though.

DMoore said...

Well, one of these profiles is already out of date. Team F was Georgia Tech, and their big win tonight over UNC should help their profile significantly. They would now look like this (RPI not yet updated):
Team F (Georgia Tech):
RPI 51-55
Top 25 3-6
Top 50 5-3 (8-9)
Top 100 1-0 (9-9)
Bad Losses 130, 155
Road Record 2-1 neut, 1-8 away
Neutral Wins 7, 43
Road Wins 48
Projected finish 21-11
(1-1 Top25, 1-0 Top150)

Although this team has shown zero ability to win road games, I think the solid neutral wins help keep that from being overwhelmingly butt ugly. This record does look like a solid top 50 team, so I'd project them in the field at this point.

I agree, Team A and Team E have shown they won't win much against top 50 teams. They also have no road wins of consequence. I'd leave them out.

Team B looks pretty mediocre to me. I can see them being included, but I'd sure be looking for someone better to replace them with.

Team D looks a little shaky, but I think the nice road wins help shore it up. Team C looks solid.

DMoore said...

When I look at these rankings, I would rank them in this order:
C -- Winning record or even against top 25, top 50 & top 100. Unbelievably sick number of road games (17 away and 11 home?!) and winning percentage. Two bad losses (C & D also had 2, E had 1, A had none).

D -- 3 top 25 wins. 6-6 road record, including 3 top 60 wins. 4-7 against top 50. Two bad losses.

F (Georgia Tech) -- 3 top 25 wins. 7-9 against top 50. Two top 50 neutral wins. Only 1-8 road record, and 2 bad losses.

B -- 2-4 against top 50. Poor road record (2-7). Not much notable at all here (good or bad).

A -- No bad losses. Only 4-9 against top 50. 4-6 road record (listed incorrectly in previous comment), but none of them even top 150. Just doesn't look like they can beat anybody.

E -- Only 3-7 against top 100, and fewest top 100 games of anyone listed. One bad loss. Only 3-6 on the road, and no wins higher than 143. Doesn't look like they can beat anyone, and didn't play too many people either.

So here's who they are:
C -- Drexel. Why are these guys even on the bubble? Lots of tourney teams have a couple of bad games, and nobody else had as many road games where teams often lose.

D -- Texas Tech. These guys look solid.

F -- Georgia Tech. Coming on strong.

B -- Alabama. These guys ooze mediocrity. They're above some of the last bubble teams, but they look very vulnerable to lose their spot to a team on a roll or to bubble slots disappearing to surprise tourney winners making the field.

A -- Illinois. Very, very unimpressive. They take care of business against the teams they should beat, but their only good wins are home/home splits with Indiana and Michigan State. Their top 50 wins are against Michigan and Bradley, which won't make the field. You don't get to play at home in the NCAAs.

E -- West Virginia. Looking at this record, I would have assumed they were a mid-major. They've played relatively few good teams, and haven't done well against those they have played. Only 3 top 100 wins, and all were at home. The only thing in their favor is the win over UCLA, and after looking at the rest of their record, it looks likely UCLA just had a bad game without a key player.