Sunday, January 25, 2015

W-7 BP68

We're firmly in the thick of conference play now, and there was quite a bit of movement in the bracket this week.

The bubble is starting to shrink and clear up. We now have a pretty good idea of the 10-15 teams that we'll be debating in early March. And for this new bracket projection, I have flipped four of them. Indiana and Davidson move into the bracket, while Pittsburgh and Minnesota drop out. Also, this isn't a change to the membership of the Field of 68, but Kansas is the new Big 12 favorite, replacing Texas.

All of the teams in the "Seriously Considered" category out of the bracket have, by definition, been considered for one of those last few at-large spots. But if you're curious, it's Georgia that is the "first team out". They'd be an at-large team if the season ended now, but I just have some suspicions about them regressing at this point. Another good week and they might be in, though.

As for the Full Bubble, we're still in the early stages of eliminating mid-majors. This week, seven teams were eliminated from at-large contention: Ball State, Charlotte, High Point, Eastern Michigan, Lafayette, Missouri State and Northern Illinois. That leaves 78 teams currently out of the bracket that still have a chance for an at-large bid.

Remember, this is a projection of what the bracket will look like on Selection Sunday, and not a measure of where teams would be if the season ended now.

For now, here's how I see things ending up on Selection Sunday:

1. KENTUCKY (SEC)
1. WISCONSIN (BIG TEN)
1. DUKE (ACC)
1. ARIZONA (PAC-12)

2. Virginia
2. VILLANOVA (BIG EAST)
2. GONZAGA (WCC)
2. KANSAS (BIG 12)

3. Texas
3. North Carolina
3. Louisville
3. Utah

4. WICHITA STATE (MISSOURI VALLEY)
4. Iowa State
4. VCU (ATLANTIC TEN)
4. Oklahoma

5. West Virginia
5. Notre Dame
5. Maryland
5. Georgetown

6. SMU
6. Ohio State
6. Oklahoma State
6. Baylor

7. UCONN (AAC)
7. Northern Iowa
7. SAN DIEGO STATE (MOUNTAIN WEST)
7. Stanford

8. Arkansas
8. Butler
8. Michigan State
8. Cincinnati

9. Providence
9. Xavier
9. Dayton
9. Miami-Florida

10. Iowa
10. Colorado State
10. St. John's
10. Seton Hall

11. Florida
11. Syracuse
11. NC State
11. Illinois
11. Indiana

12. HARVARD (IVY)
12. BYU
12. Davidson
12. LOUISIANA TECH (CONFERENCE USA)
12. GREEN BAY (HORIZON)

13. TOLEDO (MAC)
13. IONA (MAAC)
13. UC SANTA BARBARA (BIG WEST)
13. GEORGIA STATE (SUN BELT)

14. MURRAY STATE (OVC)
14. STEPHEN F. AUSTIN (SOUTHLAND)
14. HOFSTRA (COLONIAL)
14. EASTERN WASHINGTON (BIG SKY)

15. FLORIDA GULF COAST (ATLANTIC SUN)
15. SOUTH DAKOTA STATE (SUMMIT)
15. NEW MEXICO STATE (WAC)
15. WOFFORD (SOCON)

16. STONY BROOK (AMERICA EAST)
16. NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL (MEAC)
16. COASTAL CAROLINA (BIG SOUTH)
16. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY (PATRIOT)
16. TEXAS SOUTHERN (SWAC)
16. ST. FRANCIS-PA (NEC)

Teams seriously considered that just missed the cut:
Tulsa, Pittsburgh, George Washington, Minnesota, Washington, Georgia, LSU, Mississippi

Decent resumes, but not good enough:
Temple, Michigan, Kansas State, TCU, Old Dominion, Wyoming, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Saint Mary's

Long shots, but still in the at-large discussion:
Memphis, Clemson, Rhode Island, Richmond, Marquette, Nebraska, Purdue, UTEP, Western Kentucky, Valparaiso, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Central Michigan, Evansville, Illinois State,  New Mexico, Arizona State, Colorado, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Still alive, but pretty much need a miracle:
Tulane, Boston College, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, George Mason, La Salle, St. Bonaventure, St. Joseph's, Creighton, DePaul, Northwestern, Penn State, Rutgers, Texas Tech, UC Davis, Long Beach St, Northeastern, William & Mary, Yale, Akron, Kent St, Western Michigan, Indiana St, Loyola-Chicago, Boise St, UNLV, Utah St, California, USC, Washington State, Auburn, Mississippi State, Missouri, Sam Houston St, Pepperdine,

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is it about Florida that you like? The 3 game skid and sitting 1 game above .500 is a strong indication that they are way outside the bubble and unless they win out. I guess I dont see why they are being considered right now.

Jeff said...

Florida's obviously been a lot better than their resume. They've had awful luck in close games. And it's a roster that really hasn't had much time together with injuries and suspensions. So if there's a team that turns it on late and goes on a winning streak, I think it's them. And I think that if they get to 12-6 in SEC play that they'll get in.

Anonymous said...

I dont think losing or winning close things has anything to do with luck. Good teams find a way to win those games.

You have used "luck" to describe a few on here. You give the benifit of the doubt to those that lose close games based on "luck" and dock teams that win close games based on "luck".

Stewart said...

I am a big Illinois fan, but how can you still think that they will make the Tournament?

oldchaos said...

Hey Jeff,

I am curious again! You see the Big Ten teams playing out quite a bit different than their current standings in regards to Indiana, and MSU. I know Indiana's defense is lacking, but MSU being ahead of them by 3 spots at the end of year in the bracket? MSU has exactly 0 OOC good wins to hang their hat on while Indiana has at least 2 (SMU & Butler). I know MSU beat IU, but IU owns the more impressive wins over OSU and Maryland. Even if they both project out to close to a 20-11 or 21-10 (teamrankings), wouldn't IU hold a huge upper hand and be a higher seed? I know IU has the loss against E.Wash, but right now, that is a top 100 loss. It would seem to me MSU would have to finish 2 games better in the regular season and at least a round if not 2 better in the tournament to have the kind of delta between them.

Love the site and commentary.

Jeff said...

Anonymous, it's only a media trope that good teams can will their way to getting a key block/charge call or to convince the opponent to miss a wide open three in the final 30 seconds. Statistics show that past performance in close games is a poor predictor of future performance in close games.

Stewart, the answer is that I don't think Illinois will make the Tournament. I'd put their odds below 50%. I've just got their odds slightly better than all the teams below them right now.

oldchaos, the answer is that non-conference play ends up not mattering much on Selection Sunday, unless there's a huge gap between two teams, which there isn't for Indiana and Michigan State. To me, it comes down to how they're going to play down the stretch, and I think Michigan State is going to play better and will have a better chance of reaching 11-7 or 12-6 than the Hoosiers.

Anonymous said...

I understand your reasoning about close games. However, you cant dock somebody for winning them and reward another for losing them.

Lets look at Florida and IU Since IU was brought up earlier and they are both an 11 seed in your bracket. IU you have relegated to an 11 seed based on close wins. While you have rewarded Florida for losing them.

Florida - 10-9 and 0-7 vs top 50. #82 RPI, #36 Pmroy, #45 Sagarin. Best win is against Yale.

Indiana - 15-5 and 4-4 vs Top 50, #31 RPI, #41 Pomroy, #34 Sagarin

I guess im not seeing Florida overcoming the hole they are in to reach the tourney while you have Indiana seeded below them with a more impressive resume at the time and needing to do less work to maintain a spot in the field.

Both bubble teams in your projections at this point. I feel like neither are bubble teams. Indiana has the ability to win games on the road and hold their spot above the bubble. Florida has not shown the ability to win crucial game at all this season and will continue to be below the bubble.

Then Illinois like somebody mentioned above. They lost Rice which was their leading scorer. Indiana also beat them at their place and you still have them ranked above them.

Other than your eye test im curious what other methods you use to determine possible seeds.

Jeff said...

I'm not "docking" teams or "rewarding" teams for anything. Every team's resume up to this point is their resume up to this point. It won't change.

As for "ability to win on the road", that's tv analyst drivel. Florida somehow doesn't have the magical "know how to win on the road" gene because Jarvis Summers hit a difficult long jumper against them? Please.

Every team has, within a point or so, the identical home/road advantage over a large enough sample size. Florida will have no less difficult of a time winning on the road against a team they have a 30% chance of beating as Indiana.

As for Illinois, I'm assuming that Rayvonte Rice and Aaron Cosby come back soon, but even with them back I think their odds are approximately the same as Indiana. Both teams have serious flaws.

Anonymous said...

Also an Illinois fan and you are my "only hope" left at this point. Those who don't understand the role of luck in close games don't understand the game very well. A lot of commentary is based on limited data sets and what people are able to see, and how it "seems to them". Clutch players may exist but clutch teams are a myth. (and clutch players probably too, but I would just define those as players with higher than average confidence to get late game opportunities which makes them succeed more and seem "clutch") I would love to see data on home court vs. perceived clutch teams in close games. How it "seems" to me is that home teams have a significant advantage in close games whereas teams that "just know how to win" is just made up media drivel.

Jeff said...

My view on clutch play is the consistent with the one generally held in the analytical community, which is that clutch play probably exists but we don't have any good way of measuring it.

If some guy does something great in a really famous moment, they're known as "clutch" forever, even if they've failed dozens of other times in clutch situations. We remember what we choose to remember, and assign the title "clutch" arbitrarily.

Over a sample size of 5 or 6 close college basketball games, trying to judge how clutch they are by their winning percentage in those games is dumb. You can be the most clutch team on the planet and still end up 1-5 in clutch games just due to random chance.