Sunday, January 29, 2012

W-6 BP68

So is everybody ready to spend hours and hours tomorrow discussing Texas?

Okay... that was a joke. I actually wrote a long post about Texas right after their game against Baylor to try to avoid that. There are more than 100 teams listed below, and I won't allow myself to get bogged down in another Texas discussion.

Of more interest this week was that the fact that the bubble got weaker. Saturday was a brutal day for the bubble - nearly every team on it lost. I really struggled to fill in the final spots in the field. I decided to drop Arizona this week, the team that had previously been my pick to win the Pac-12. But with Kevin Parrom getting hurt and now out for the season, I've switched my Pac-12 pick to California. Even before Parrom got hurt I didn't think Arizona had a good chance at an at-large bid, so they're out of the Field of 68 altogether. I put in NC State in their place, but don't feel good about that pick. Honestly, I don't like having Northwestern or Dayton in my bracket either. I just couldn't think of a better option. Yes, I know that Minnesota's resume right now is better than Northwestern's, but look at those teams and look at their remaining schedules and you'll see why I think that Northwestern will be in better shape than Minnesota on Selection Sunday.

Among the auto bids I made two changes. In the America East, as promised, I switched out Vermont for Stony Brook. In the SWAC I switched out Alabama State in favor of Mississippi Valley State.

As far as the Full Bubble, four teams were eliminated from at-large contention this week: Ball State, Boston College, George Washington and Texas Tech. With those four out, that leaves 75 teams not in my current bracket that still have a chance at an at-large bid.

I don't think there were any other major changes from my last bracket, so let me get to my disclaimers:

If I projected your favorite team below where you think it deserves to be, it's because I hate your favorite team. If I projected a team above where you think it deserves to be, it's because I secretly love them and have an incredibly blind bias in their favor.

On a more serious note, this is a projection of the final bracket on Selection Sunday, and not a listing of how I think teams would be seeded if the season ended now. There's a difference.

Here we go:


1. KENTUCKY (SEC)
1. SYRACUSE (BIG EAST)
1. OHIO STATE (BIG TEN)
1. NORTH CAROLINA (ACC)

2. KANSAS (BIG 12)
2. Duke
2. Florida
2. Georgetown

3. UNLV (MWC)
3. Missouri
3. Michigan State
3. Baylor

4. Texas
4. Marquette
4. Vanderbilt
4. Wisconsin

5. TEMPLE (ATLANTIC TEN)
5. Virginia
5. Indiana
5. UConn

6. San Diego State
6. ST. MARY'S (WCC)
6. Michigan
6. Louisville

7. CREIGHTON (MVC)
7. Alabama
7. West Virginia
7. Illinois

8. Gonzaga
8. Saint Louis
8. Florida State
8. Purdue

9. Southern Miss
9. Kansas State
9. Wichita State
9. MURRAY STATE (OVC)

10. New Mexico
10. BYU
10. Xavier
10. CALIFORNIA (PAC-12)

11. Cincinnati
11. Mississippi State
11. Iowa State
11. HARVARD (IVY)

12. Seton Hall
12. Stanford
12. Northwestern
12. MEMPHIS (CONFERENCE USA)
12. LONG BEACH STATE (BIG WEST)

13. NC State
13. Dayton
13. IONA (MAAC)
13. BELMONT (ATLANTIC SUN)
13. MIDDLE TENNESSEE ST (SUN BELT)

14. ORAL ROBERTS (SUMMIT)
14. OHIO (MAC)
14. GEORGE MASON (COLONIAL)
14. DAVIDSON (SOUTHERN)

15. BUTLER (HORIZON)
15. NEW MEXICO STATE (WAC)
15. BUCKNELL (PATRIOT)
15. ROBERT MORRIS (NEC)

16. MONTANA (BIG SKY)
16. COASTAL CAROLINA (BIG SOUTH)
16. NORFOLK STATE (MEAC)
16. STONY BROOK (AMERICA EAST)
16. TEXAS-ARLINGTON (SOUTHLAND)
16. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STATE (SWAC)

Teams seriously considered that just missed the cut:
Virginia Tech, Minnesota, VCU, Marshall, Cleveland State, Arizona

Decent resumes, but not good enough:
Miami (Fl), Notre Dame, La Salle, UMass, St. Joseph's, South Florida, Oklahoma, Drexel, Central Florida, Missouri State, Northern Iowa, Colorado State, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Nevada

Long shots, but still in the at-large discussion:
Clemson, Maryland, Richmond, St. Bonaventure, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Villanova, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Akron, Drake, Illinois State, UCLA, Oregon State

Still alive, but pretty much need a miracle:
Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Charlotte, Duquesne, Fordham, DePaul, Providence, St. John's, Weber State, Penn State, Georgia State, Old Dominion, UTEP, Tulane, Tulsa, Valparaiso, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Loyola-Maryland, Buffalo, Kent State, Indiana State, Air Force, Boise State, TCU, Wagner, Washington State, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, South Dakota State, Denver, Utah State

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

To be nice, I'm not going to ask about Texas in the first comment ;).

IF Murray State runs the table, how high a seed can they get? I've heard some analysts (like Greg Anthony) say a 2 seed is possible, but I really don't buy that. Personally, I think that a 4 seed is most likely if they enter Selection Sunday with a 32-0 record.

Jeff said...

Thanks, haha.

As long as Murray State goes undefeated, they're going to get a ton of hype. If they lose a single game? Everybody will forget about them. So there will be a HUGE difference between going 32-0 and 31-1. If they go 32-0 then I'm not sure a 2 seed is possible, but certainly a 4 seed is. And depending on the strength of other teams around them, even a 3 seed.

But if Murray State loses a single game? They immediately drop to a 7 or 8 seed. The reason that I have them where I do is because I think that their chances of losing 2 games are greater than their chances of going undefeated. The pressure is building every day, and they've had some close games... the odds are that they're going to lose a game or two.

CSURamsfan said...

Thanks for all the Mountain West commentary recently, it is much appreciated.

Question: If the Pac-12 does not get 2 bids, do you think it is more likely to get 3 or 1?

Also, is the university my mom attended, Binghamton, the worst D-1 program in an auto-bid league in recent memory? I cannot recall witnessing anything worse recently, other than perhaps Towson, but even they have a win now.

Jeff said...

Well, a couple of weeks ago I would have said that the Pac-12 had a much better chance at 3 teams than 1... Cal and Stanford looked safe, and you had to figure that there was a pretty good chance that another team (such as Arizona) would earn the auto bid.

But Stanford has had a bad couple of weeks and would probably be NIT-bound if the season ended now. If Cal earns the auto bid, it's at best 50-50 that another team gets in. And with Kevin Parrom going down, the odds of a third team getting in or even lower.

So right now I think I'd say that a 1-bid Pac-12, while not likely, is more probable than a 3-bid Pac-12.



And as for "worst team" in years... that's hard to say. There have been some pretty awful teams in the SWAC the past few years, and I'm not exactly sure how we can compare them to this year's Binghamton squad. But Binghamton is truly awful. That Kevin Broadus scandal has destroyed that program.

It's hard to see Binghamton turning around anytime soon, either. If you were a high school player, why would you go there?

Chris said...

Now that Notre Dame won over UConn, it seems they've got a reasonable path to 10-8 in the Big East... home games against DePaul, Rutgers, and Providence, plus a win over maybe St John's or Villanova. Basically I could see them finishing the season stronger than, say, Northwestern (sadly for my Wildcats).

Does their win today adjust where you'd place them in this latest prediction? Or not so much?

Jeff said...

Notre Dame definitely has a great chance to get to 10-8. In fact, 11-7 is a very realistic possibility. The problem is, USF is 6-3 in the Big East also. The conference is down this year. On top of that, the Irish had a terrible non-conference performance (2 bad losses, 0 good wins).

Let's say Notre Dame goes 10-8 in conference play and loses their first Big East tournament game. That would put them 18-14 overall and something like 11-14 against the RPI Top 200. No chance does that get in.

I think Notre Dame needs to get to 11-7 in Big East play and then needs to win at least one game in the Big East tournament to get in.

I might move Notre Dame up a category to "seriously considered" after this win, but I'm not putting them in the field yet.

DMoore said...

Rather than complain about Texas getting a four seed, I'd rather complain about UConn getting a 5 seed and Louisville getting a 6 seed. There's no way those teams are that good, and I don't see them getting much better. Except -- I CAN'T complain. I can't find a team below them that isn't worse.

Seriously. SDSU -- not a great week. Alabama -- hasn't looked good lately. West Virginia, Illinois, Purdue -- all very vulnerable.

It looks to me like it's not just the bubble that's weak, it's all through the bracket. Am I nuts, or is this the weakest field we've seen in a long time?

Jeff said...

I feel the same way you do about UConn and Louisville. If you follow me on twitter you'll see that I've been hammering the pollsters for about 2 weeks for keeping Louisville ranked.... but I couldn't drop them below a 7 seed and moved them up to a 6 now (although part of that has to do with the fact that I think the Selection Committee will have the same Big East/Pitino bias that the pollsters have).

It feels like the field is weak, but then... we feel this way every year. It's the nature of the 68 team bracket, I think.

Ken Miller said...

Since I am writing this from Austin, I am tempted to defend Texas and unleash that whole horrible hornet's nest, but I won't. Instead, I will talk about everyone's favorite conference, the Horizon League.

Sticking with Butler is understandable given their performance over the past several years, but this looks like a year where it is just not going to come together for them. The Bulldogs have five conference losses and the hardest road games still coming up. Milwaukee, Valpo, and Cleveland State all look like viable conference tournament winners. Among those three, I'll give it to CSU based mostly on their sudden ability to score within 20 feet for the first time since 2009. Another odd wrinkle to be aware of is that Milwaukee cannot host the second and third rounds of the conference tournament due to a scheduling conflict with their arena. Valpo and CSU essentially have two paths to home court advantage instead of just one.

Do you see a Milwaukee/Valpo/CSU conference winner as a 15 seed? I expect anyone out of the Horizon tournament at 13, not down at 15 where you have them.

Jeff said...

That's an interesting point about Milwaukee not being able to host. Didn't realize that.

The seed the Horizon gets is going to depend on who wins. Cleveland State is a bubble team - if they win the auto bid then they'll be a 12 or 13 seed. I could see Milwaukee getting a 13 or 14. Right now Butler looks like a 14 or 15, though I can see the Selection Committee not wanting to have them as a 15 seed.

Besides, remember that there are going to be some shockers during Championship Week. A few upset wins in mid-major leagues will shift all the other conference winners up a line or two. Happens every year.

Anonymous said...

Don't look now, but all of a sudden Pittsburgh appears to have righted the ship. They only have 4 road games left (Seton Hall, South Florida, Louisville, UConn), and don't have to play Syracuse, Marquette, or Georgetown again. It's conceivable they could get all the way back to 9-9 in big east play.

Are they now a bubble team again?

CSURamsfan said...

Hey Jeff,

Could you refer me to any old posts where you explain how the computer ratings are derived?

I think I understand generally how the different ratings factor things, but I am still a little confused as to just how wide the gulf is in the ranking of my Rams.

I will start will my eyeballs ... my eye test says my Rams should be a 1 or 2 seed in the NIT. Close to tournament worthy, but not quite over the hump. The ELO Chess, which seems to be one of your favorite indicators, seems to agree with my eyes, having us at 50, which I believe is your cutline.

The RPI has us at an absurdly high 18th. There is no way we are anything resembling a top twenty team in the country. I assume RPI is rating us too highly because we generally only lose to good teams on the road, and as such have a really strong strength of schedule.

Meanwhile Sagarin has us at 91 and the predictor has us at 96. I cannot envision any way in which we are quite this poor. The teams nearest to us in Sagarin rating are Buffalo, Colorado, Mercer, and Texas Arlington. We already beat one of these and am confident we could win a sizable majority of games against these teams on a neutral court. Are we being punished by the Sagarin rating for losing big, such as the massive margin in the loss at New Mexico?

Pomeroy has us even lower, at 107. Even if we pull off the highly improbable and win at UNLV, Pomeroy would not put us anywhere near the bubble even though most humans would put us in the field at that point. What in particular in the Pomeroy system would rate us such a poor team?

Sorry for the length of the post. Hopefully you can shed some light on these mysterious computer numbers.

Jeff said...

They did look mighty impressive today. The problem is that the Selection Committee picks the 37 best resumes instead of the 37 best teams (except for USC last year, the one exception to the rule, which was just a screw-up by the Committee).

Right now I'd project an 8-10 or 9-9 record for Pitt. The problem is, even if they somehow get to 9-9, they'll still enter the Big East tournament needing to win at least a pair of games to earn an at-large bid.

So no, they're not a bubble team yet. But they're not out of it either. Arguably, if they did make the Tournament, it would be the most remarkable comeback to an at-large bid in recent memory. I would put it ahead of the 2007-08 Kentucky team, because that Kentucky team righted the ship by early January.

Jeff said...

Well, I can't give the exact computer formulae, because I don't know them. Sagarin is secretive about his exact formula. But the basics of the polls are pretty straightforward:

The RPI, in theory, is a measure of resume strength. In reality, it's fairly garbage and not taken nearly as seriously by the Selection Committee as tv analysts. RPI rates CSU's schedule 9th, because of things like rating Southern Miss 11th overall. That's just junk.

The Sagarin ELO_CHESS is the best rating of resume strength. So it's the best objective metric of NCAA Tournament seed. And yes, 50th was the cutoff when we had the 65 team field. There would rarely ever be more than one team out of the Top 50 getting an at-large bid, and none worse than around 57th. That's changed a little bit with the expanded field - I'd expect three or four teams outside the Top 50 to get in. Colorado State would be very close to the bubble now because of that rating.

The Sagarin ELO_CHESS and Pomeroy ratings are measures of team quality. And both of them say Colorado State has been lucky. And the have been. They're 5-0 in games decided by five points or less or in overtime. But what I'll say in their defense is that they're playing a lot better now than they were in November/December. Right now they're not the 100th best team in the country. They're better than that.

Will that translate to a Tournament bid? Probably not. But if their luck keeps up and they keep winning close games? They could definitely be in the mix on Selection Sunday. For me to put them in the Tournament, I probably need to see them get to 9-5 in conference play, plus a decent performance in the MWC tournament.

CSURamsfan said...

Thanks for the comment, and I think you make an interesting point in saying they have been playing better recently. I was not able to see/get audio to too many of the non-conf games since, as you noted, the Mountain West has terrible TV deals. The games I have seen have mostly been in the past few weeks, and as such, I have, with the exception of the UNM game, mostly seen the good Rams rather than the early season version.

Hopefully the MWC will get a decent TV deal sometime. It is a shame that the conference, particularly this season with five solid teams, is largely invisible on a national level.

Tom said...

Would winning at Cal put Arizona back in the bubble conversation?

Jeff said...

It would put them "in the conversation" in that some analysts would talk about their bubble chances, but they'd still definitely be NIT-bound.

Their Sagarin ELO_CHESS would still be in the 70s, which is too high for any ordinary bubble team to have a chance to get in.

If they somehow knocked off both Cal and Stanford on the road this weekend? Then you'd have a much better case. Wouldn't bet on it, though.

Unless Arizona gets to 12-6 in Pac-12 play, they're going to enter the Pac-12 tournament with a lot of work left to do.

Tom said...

It looks like Crabbe might not be playing. If Arizona beats Cal without him, does it count just the same to the committee as if he had been playing? I'm sure you've covered this topic many times but I seem to find different explanations for it everywhere..

Jeff said...

The Selection Committee does not care who plays. Teams don't get a pass because their best player missed two weeks, and they don't get punished because the team they beat was missing a player.

I always chuckle every time I hear some announcer talk about how a loss a team suffered the previous week won't matter because a player was missing, as if anybody is going to remember or care two months in the future that a player missed a certain game.

Tom said...

Jeff,

You knew I was going to ask (because your take is one of the few I really value/enjoy): if the Cats beat Stanford tomorrow, what kind of shape are we in? Sagarin predicts us to finish the season 6-2 (losses at Stanford and at Washington). Steal one tomorrow and we're suddenly in decent shape, right?

Jeff said...

I just published a post about the Arizona/Cal game, actually (I know, I got a couple days behind on those recaps). And yes, Arizona needs to get to 12-6 and then needs to win a game or two in the Pac-12 tournament. Winning at Stanford would make 12-6 a much easier task.