Speaking of which, St Mary's is an odd one too. They come in at 8 on the NET, but with a quad 1/2 record of 8-4, and a quad 3/4 record of 16-2.
2022-2023 MBB computer projections thread
- Thread starter Sigmapolis
- Start date
St. Mary's and Florida Atlantic as well who is #15 in NET. They only have 2 Q1 wins.
Up to the last 5 seed on the partial March 6th Bracket Matrix update. I enjoy Jerry Palm's prediction being highlighted red indicating it is an outlier.
We should have a clearer picture of where the consensus is by checking the matrix on say, Wednesday. It generally takes a couple days for changes to be accurately reflected.
I'd say we're a close to a 5 seed now. A win Thursday guarantees that with some opportunity to further improve our seed. The absolute floor is a 6 seed.
We should have a clearer picture of where the consensus is by checking the matrix on say, Wednesday. It generally takes a couple days for changes to be accurately reflected.
I'd say we're a close to a 5 seed now. A win Thursday guarantees that with some opportunity to further improve our seed. The absolute floor is a 6 seed.
Another odd NET rating is Ohio St. as compared to Oklahoma.
People do this every year, but I think it's been shown there is not that much volatility in your seeding unless you win the tournament, which can bump you up a seed. MAYBE 2 lines depending what happens elsewhere.
The whole win 1 you get this, win 2 you get this and win 3 you get this is just not a thing based on history.
Agree with the general premise. Good wins can improve seeding (definitely isn't a detriment, and of course better than a "bad" loss), but it can vary so much depending on circumstance (such as how close you are to a seed line; profile of opponent) and as you said action involving other teams.
Seems to be a common misconception that the conference tournament games hold more weight than regular season. At this stage, after having played 30-ish games, it's hard for individual game to affect the overall profile all that much.
NET is only a data point. Very important, but the overall team sheet is the end all. IMO, our team sheet is at least a seed better..
More Q1a wins
More Q1 wins
No losses outside Q2 - UK has two Q3 losses and a Q4 loss
I imagine a lot of that misconception goes back to when last 10 games used to be on the team sheets. When that was on the criteria of course 3 wins against quality teams immediately before selection Sunday would have an impact on that criteria
Agree, I think the committee will also move teams up or down a seed out of necessity to avoid intra-conference matchups in the first two rounds.
That probably had an effect and lots of people still have the misconception that last-10/last-12 is still in use, even though quite a bit of time has past since that period.
Also, I'm not even sure how much impact that element actually had, compared to any of the other elements.
Yep this is more of a thing. Some teams don't get the seed they actually should because of bracketing principles.
Id also guess it matters more at the top and at the bottom of the range.
The bubble is always a mess. Everyone says every year 'the bubble is bad', but it just always is. Teams are on the bubble because they have plenty of flaws and just enough (maybe) wins to offset those. You can make cases for lots of teams and at that point in the year getting some key wins in march is something that helps draw a difference. Similarly at the top, usually there are several teams that have made good cases for themselves, winning or not winning their conference tournament can also be a differentiator among those top seeds. Everyone else the games just get added to the existing 30 game pile and don't have a ton of effect
I don't disagree. But these "bracket experts" all have their own bias's on what they deem important.
Spot-on!
I've thought of compiling a "common misconceptions" thread as we approach tournament time, a roundup of stuff I see over and over, years on end. "This year's bubble is really weak" would be on that list, as would impact of conference tournament results for seeding, as discussed earlier.
That isn't to say I dislike bubble arguments and blind-resume comparisons, that's part of the fun if you're a college basketball/NCAAT fan.
My bracket projection after the end of the regular season as we head into major conference tournaments week. In the regression model I built to project the final seed list which can be seen on the Resumes tab in this link, Iowa State is currently the #22 overall team, which would be the 2nd highest 6-seed. When I ran the model on Friday before the weekend's games, ISU was the #30 overall team, so that win obviously really helped the resume.
I originally had Iowa State in the South as the 3-seed but moved them to the Midwest. It'll be interesting to see how Iowa State is handled if placing them in Des Moines in Marquette's pod is an option OR placing them as the 6-seed in the Midwest is an option. I assume they'll pick the latter, but there's no real way to predict that.
Another thing to consider are these bracketing principle of the NCAA:
For people wondering about if Iowa State could get placed in Des Moines, based on the below principle laid out by the NCAA here, I read it that they value a school's distance to a region and 2nd weekend location (Kansas City) in more importance than the distance to a 1st weekend location (Des Moines), which I why I placed Iowa State in the Midwest in my bracket projection above.
I originally had Iowa State in the South as the 3-seed but moved them to the Midwest. It'll be interesting to see how Iowa State is handled if placing them in Des Moines in Marquette's pod is an option OR placing them as the 6-seed in the Midwest is an option. I assume they'll pick the latter, but there's no real way to predict that.
Another thing to consider are these bracketing principle of the NCAA:
- Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.
- Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.
- Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the second round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.
For people wondering about if Iowa State could get placed in Des Moines, based on the below principle laid out by the NCAA here, I read it that they value a school's distance to a region and 2nd weekend location (Kansas City) in more importance than the distance to a 1st weekend location (Des Moines), which I why I placed Iowa State in the Midwest in my bracket projection above.
- Teams will remain in or as close to their areas of natural interest as possible, as determined by mileage from campus to the venue. A team moved out of its natural area will be placed in the next closest region to the extent possible. If two teams from the same natural region are in contention for the same bracket position, the team ranked higher in the seed list shall remain in its natural region.
I'm still absolutely of the belief that what you do in the conference tournament shouldn't matter for at large purposes. You shouldn't be able to play yourself into the field because you win 2 games in your league tournament. You had all year and plenty of opportunities as a P6 school to secure the wins you needed. Let's face it, even the upper mid leagues (A10, Valley, MW, etc) aren't getting anywhere near the same access they had 10 or 15 years ago. Example, no one thinks Wisconsin or North Carolina are tournament teams but they can be if they get 2 more wins against one awful team and one team that you've already had at least one shot at makes you one? C'mon.
The field should be set as of the end of the regular season and the only thing the committee should be doing during Champ Week is dropping teams out as the result of bid stealers and putting together the best bracket they can. Guys that have been on the committee have said they spend less than 4 hours some years actually putting the bracket together and that actively hurts the tournament, IMO....
The field should be set as of the end of the regular season and the only thing the committee should be doing during Champ Week is dropping teams out as the result of bid stealers and putting together the best bracket they can. Guys that have been on the committee have said they spend less than 4 hours some years actually putting the bracket together and that actively hurts the tournament, IMO....
I think it’s different this year for ISUs situation based on where they are. I think a case can be made that ISU is currently barely a 5. A loss isn’t going to move ISU much in the metrics, but even a drop of 1-2 spots could push them to the 6. Conversely, the potential upward movement is pretty uncommon. Neutral floor wins against 12, 7 and 10 in NET will make a move.
But if you look at what I’m saying, it’s basically going in as a 5 with a plus or minus of 1 spot.
I’d say the downward movement is maybe 0, 1 max. Upward movement may only be 1 line, with an outside chance at 2 lines.
If ISU was sitting at a 6-10 right now, there’s probably no downward movement with a loss. There may not be now, but odds are if ISU is a 5 now, a loss might push them to a 6. No more than that.
Unlike a typical conference tourney, winning likely means 3 quad 1a wins. The difference between 0-1 and 3-0 Q1a is absolutely a seed line, maybe 2.
The committee has continually said that most of the seeding is done by Friday and Saturday when they meet. So my guess is the first round tournament games hold more weight than semis and finals.
That's a good point. The video I watched said they had 12 alternate brackets. By the way, the spreadsheet they use for bracketing looks awesome.
I agree with the general premise; namely conference tournaments only help bubble teams and the winners of the tournament.
However, I think ISU is currently pegged at their floor due to the lackluster play prior to Bayor.
For every top ten team ISU beats this weekend I can see upward movement. Maybe not a full seed but at least a peg or two in the overall rankings. From there, the committee will play the shell game to avoid conference clashes "before their time".
