|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Mar 12, 2019 10:18:27 GMT -5
Just as an example, this is the 2nd ranked bracket on the Matrix the last 5 years: bracketville.wordpress.com/bracketology/Think this illustrates our current situation pretty well. Would think that we have a stronger profile than the high ranking mid majors who didn't win out (Furman, UNCG, Belmont). Florida and Texas have too many overall losses relative to wins to garner consideration unless they go on a better run than we do. Creighton probably ahead of us at the moment due to sweeping us and a much stronger SOS. St. John's pretty close to the cut line due to their recent dive... and maybe close enough to fall out entirely with a bad Q3 loss to Depaul tomorrow. Clemson and NC St. are the last 2 teams in and the loser almost definitely falls out tomorrow. Ditto for Indiana-Ohio St. (4th and 5th to last teams in). There will be a spot for us to grab if we win the next 2 provided teams like Gonzaga, Buffalo and VCU can take care of business in their conference tournaments. This is my reading of the situation exactly. With guaranteed losses by Clemson/NC State and IU/OSU, we can potentially jump 2 teams with a Hall win (our Q1+Q2 record would then be 12-10 - almost no teams on the bubble can compete with that). I personally would love the chance to play SJU on Friday - would be such a compelling game (Mullin v. Ewing in the Garden), and a win there I think makes it impossible to deny the Hoyas a bid. We also root hard against Creighton every game they play (hopefully only 1 game and a loss on Thursday) And you are spot on about Gonzaga, Buffalo, and VCU. We are rooting for those teams almost as much as our beloved Hoyas.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyjackson21 on Mar 12, 2019 11:01:54 GMT -5
TribeninerHoya, you beat me to it. My exact sentiments. I was about to write up something similar comparing NC State and Clemson vs Georgetown. By traditional measures it is not close. Both their resumes are garbage and the only thing they have on us (and admittedly it's big) is an excellent NET ranking. NC State is 32, Clemson 35 and Georgetown 76. NC State is 4-8 vs top 100 rpi teams with 3 top 50 wins. Clemson is 4-11 vs the top 100 with 2 top 50 wins. We are 9-9 vs top 100 with 3 top 50. The ACC is very top heavy and that's raised the NET for all the bottom feeding ACC teams, Syracuse included.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,364
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 12, 2019 11:55:28 GMT -5
Just as an example, this is the 2nd ranked bracket on the Matrix the last 5 years: bracketville.wordpress.com/bracketology/Think this illustrates our current situation pretty well. Would think that we have a stronger profile than the high ranking mid majors who didn't win out (Furman, UNCG, Belmont). Florida and Texas have too many overall losses relative to wins to garner consideration unless they go on a better run than we do. Creighton probably ahead of us at the moment due to sweeping us and a much stronger SOS. St. John's pretty close to the cut line due to their recent dive... and maybe close enough to fall out entirely with a bad Q3 loss to Depaul tomorrow. Clemson and NC St. are the last 2 teams in and the loser almost definitely falls out tomorrow. Ditto for Indiana-Ohio St. (4th and 5th to last teams in). There will be a spot for us to grab if we win the next 2 provided teams like Gonzaga, Buffalo and VCU can take care of business in their conference tournaments. This is my reading of the situation exactly. With guaranteed losses by Clemson/NC State and IU/OSU, we can potentially jump 2 teams with a Hall win (our Q1+Q2 record would then be 12-10 - almost no teams on the bubble can compete with that). I personally would love the chance to play SJU on Friday - would be such a compelling game (Mullin v. Ewing in the Garden), and a win there I think makes it impossible to deny the Hoyas a bid. We also root hard against Creighton every game they play (hopefully only 1 game and a loss on Thursday) And you are spot on about Gonzaga, Buffalo, and VCU. We are rooting for those teams almost as much as our beloved Hoyas. I’d add rooting for Washington too.
|
|
lda05816
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 606
|
Post by lda05816 on Mar 12, 2019 12:07:39 GMT -5
TribeninerHoya, you beat me to it. My exact sentiments. I was about to write up something similar comparing NC State and Clemson vs Georgetown. By traditional measures it is not close. Both their resumes are garbage and the only thing they have on us (and admittedly it's big) is an excellent NET ranking. NC State is 32, Clemson 35 and Georgetown 76. NC State is 4-8 vs top 100 rpi teams with 3 top 50 wins. Clemson is 4-11 vs the top 100 with 2 top 50 wins. We are 9-9 vs top 100 with 3 top 50. The ACC is very top heavy and that's raised the NET for all the bottom feeding ACC teams, Syracuse included. This is what I'm most interested to find out from the chairman on Sunday. How much weight will they put into the NET during it's first year? Our metrics have been hurt by a few complete no show performances and general inconsistencies. I also think this is where our non-conf SOS really hurts us. Not sure about the NET but KenPom is adjusting our efficiency metrics down because we played such poor competition. Combine that with the fact we were integrating 3 freshman into the starting lineup, it put us into a huge hole and is a big reason our NET/KenPom rankings are so low. If the committee goes full blown metrics driven, I think it's going to be tough for us to get in. But if they do actually breakdown the resumes, I think we'll be close (given we win at least 1 this week and preferable 2).
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Mar 12, 2019 12:26:00 GMT -5
This is my reading of the situation exactly. With guaranteed losses by Clemson/NC State and IU/OSU, we can potentially jump 2 teams with a Hall win (our Q1+Q2 record would then be 12-10 - almost no teams on the bubble can compete with that). I personally would love the chance to play SJU on Friday - would be such a compelling game (Mullin v. Ewing in the Garden), and a win there I think makes it impossible to deny the Hoyas a bid. We also root hard against Creighton every game they play (hopefully only 1 game and a loss on Thursday) And you are spot on about Gonzaga, Buffalo, and VCU. We are rooting for those teams almost as much as our beloved Hoyas. I’d add rooting for Washington too. While we’re at it, first round SEC losses by Alabama and Florida would be reeeeeeal nice.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyjackson21 on Mar 12, 2019 12:34:10 GMT -5
Ida, that's the big question. How much weight will they put on NET? Full blown metrics and the bubble is probably closer to what Daveg023 envisions. No offense Dave but I hope you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Mar 12, 2019 12:38:51 GMT -5
Bracket Matrix now has Georgetown listed as “in” in 11 brackets. A move up from yesterday. We are now the 5th team out with Indiana, Belmont, Creighton, and Alabama the four teams above us.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 12, 2019 12:46:43 GMT -5
Bracket Matrix now has Georgetown listed as “in” in 11 brackets. A move up from yesterday. We are now the 5th team out with Indiana, Belmont, Creighton, and Alabama the four teams above us. Interesting that if you re-order the bubble teams just based on # of brackets (total: 138) instead of seed average, it looks like this: 10. Utah St. (137) 10. Minnesota (136) 10. Seton Hall (135) 10. TCU (132) 11. Temple (128) 11. Ohio St. (117) 11. St. John's (114) 11. Florida (108) 12. Clemson (105) 12. Arizona St. (103) 12. NC St. (94) 12. Texas (90) Out. Indiana (77) Out. Belmont (59) Out. Creighton (57) Out. Alabama (18) Out. Georgetown (11)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 13:03:55 GMT -5
Quick question - is there an official SOS number they'll use? Or a non-conf SOS number?
Note on that...
Strange that Furman has 9 D-1 non-conf opponents whose KenPom ranking averages 195 - and has the 236th best non-conf SOS. (They also have 3 non-D1 opponents)
And GU has 13 opponents whose average ranking is 180 - and we have an overall non-conf SOS of 295.
I realize the math doesn't exactly work that way (averages), but on a quick glance that seems really off. And yes... this is only KenPom - but still.
|
|
|
Post by tribeninerhoya on Mar 12, 2019 13:12:18 GMT -5
Quick question - is there an official SOS number they'll use? Or a non-conf SOS number? Note on that... Strange that Furman has 9 D-1 non-conf opponents whose KenPom ranking averages 195 - and has the 236th best non-conf SOS. (They also have 3 non-D1 opponents) And GU has 13 opponents whose average ranking is 180 - and we have an overall non-conf SOS of 295. I realize the math doesn't exactly work that way (averages), but on a quick glance that seems really off. And yes... this is only KenPom - but still. Home and away accounts for some of it, I'm sure. FWIW, Warren Nolan puts Furman's overall SOS at 180, but their NCSOS at 262 (with ours at 77 and 248 respectively).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 13:36:10 GMT -5
Quick question - is there an official SOS number they'll use? Or a non-conf SOS number? Note on that... Strange that Furman has 9 D-1 non-conf opponents whose KenPom ranking averages 195 - and has the 236th best non-conf SOS. (They also have 3 non-D1 opponents) And GU has 13 opponents whose average ranking is 180 - and we have an overall non-conf SOS of 295. I realize the math doesn't exactly work that way (averages), but on a quick glance that seems really off. And yes... this is only KenPom - but still. Home and away accounts for some of it, I'm sure. FWIW, Warren Nolan puts Furman's overall SOS at 180, but their NCSOS at 262 (with ours at 77 and 248 respectively). I guess that could be it. Their 3 toughest games were on the road. But 2 of our top 3 wre also on the road and only 2 of our top 6 were at home. So it seems like we're getting docked for playing a couple of 200-level home games more than them. Not much to investigate really. Just thought it looked funny.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 12, 2019 13:47:59 GMT -5
Quick question - is there an official SOS number they'll use? Or a non-conf SOS number? Note on that... Strange that Furman has 9 D-1 non-conf opponents whose KenPom ranking averages 195 - and has the 236th best non-conf SOS. (They also have 3 non-D1 opponents) And GU has 13 opponents whose average ranking is 180 - and we have an overall non-conf SOS of 295. I realize the math doesn't exactly work that way (averages), but on a quick glance that seems really off. And yes... this is only KenPom - but still. Our opponents were ranked: 38, 63, 78, 112, 117, 135, 185, 202, 204, 225, 308, 321, 353. Furman's were ranked: 16, 26, 128, 162, 169, 272, 305, 335, 347 (they played 3 non-D1 games that don't count). Since the non-conference strength of schedule on KenPom is based on the efficiency, the big difference seems to be that Furman played the 16 and 26 ranked teams. If you look at the raw numbers, there's a bigger dropoff between 1 and 25, than there is from 25 to 50, etc. (it does accelerate again once you get to the very bottom). Thus, even though we played 38, 63, etc., playing those top 25ish teams matters more because those teams are so much better. I have no idea if that's right or not, but it's the only explanation I can see. The official numbers used by the NCAA say Georgetown's non-conference SoS is 251, and Furman's is 272. Bottom line: neither team played a good out of conference schedule.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Mar 12, 2019 14:45:49 GMT -5
Quick question - is there an official SOS number they'll use? Or a non-conf SOS number? Note on that... Strange that Furman has 9 D-1 non-conf opponents whose KenPom ranking averages 195 - and has the 236th best non-conf SOS. (They also have 3 non-D1 opponents) And GU has 13 opponents whose average ranking is 180 - and we have an overall non-conf SOS of 295. I realize the math doesn't exactly work that way (averages), but on a quick glance that seems really off. And yes... this is only KenPom - but still. Here is the link to the official NCAA rankings. If you click on the latest team sheets they are sorted by NET and you'll see the complete team sheets for each team. The nitty gritty is also useful to see a summary of things like SOS and non conference SOS. extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/SitePages/Home.aspx
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Mar 12, 2019 14:48:14 GMT -5
I think that one puts us right on the bubble and with bid stealers may put us out. Two I think would lock us in barring that second game being against DePaul. I still think we'd be in if it was DePaul, but not a lock. If the committee doesn't use NET as much as we think they will, then this team is more than likely tourney bound with 1 win. Palm, granted is known to be overrated, keeps talking about how the NET won't be used to directly rate teams but more so to signify who you beat. If that's the case, then this team is looking very good. Still, in an ideal world, the NET goes up with two good performances in MSG. Hall is a must-win unless the committee doesn't put our NET on our team sheet. This team reminds me a lot of last years Oklahoma State team who missed the tourney despite having many good wins. The bubble is much weaker this year than it was last year and hopefully, that benefits us. But being so similar to that Oklahoma State team scares me as they didn't make it despite me fully believing they should have.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 12, 2019 14:53:16 GMT -5
I think that one puts us right on the bubble and with bid stealers may put us out. Two I think would lock us in barring that second game being against DePaul. I still think we'd be in if it was DePaul, but not a lock. If the committee doesn't use NET as much as we think they will, then this team is more than likely tourney bound with 1 win. Palm, granted is known to be overrated, keeps talking about how the NET won't be used to directly rate teams but more so to signify who you beat. If that's the case, then this team is looking very good. Still, in an ideal world, the NET goes up with two good performances in MSG. Hall is a must-win unless the committee doesn't put our NET on our team sheet. This team reminds me a lot of last years Oklahoma State team who missed the tourney despite having many good wins. The bubble is much weaker this year than it was last year and hopefully, that benefits us. But being so similar to that Oklahoma State team scares me as they didn't make it despite me fully believing they should have. I guess my big question is, why do so many of you feel like we are so close to the bubble with an NET so low? As I had indicated yesterday, the lowest RPI ever to make it (as an at large) was 67. Right now, our NET isn't close to that, and I doubt a win over Seton Hall would get it that high, alone. And even if you look at old RPI, we are still far way. I could see getting close to that area with 2 wins in the BET, I am just having trouble seeing it with one win and one loss.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 12, 2019 14:58:42 GMT -5
I think that one puts us right on the bubble and with bid stealers may put us out. Two I think would lock us in barring that second game being against DePaul. I still think we'd be in if it was DePaul, but not a lock. If the committee doesn't use NET as much as we think they will, then this team is more than likely tourney bound with 1 win. Palm, granted is known to be overrated, keeps talking about how the NET won't be used to directly rate teams but more so to signify who you beat. If that's the case, then this team is looking very good. Still, in an ideal world, the NET goes up with two good performances in MSG. Hall is a must-win unless the committee doesn't put our NET on our team sheet. This team reminds me a lot of last years Oklahoma State team who missed the tourney despite having many good wins. The bubble is much weaker this year than it was last year and hopefully, that benefits us. But being so similar to that Oklahoma State team scares me as they didn't make it despite me fully believing they should have. I guess my big question is, why do so many of you feel like we are so close to the bubble with an NET so low? As I had indicated yesterday, the lowest RPI ever to make it (as an at large) was 67. Right now, our NET isn't close to that, and I doubt a win over Seton Hall would get it that high, alone. And even if you look at old RPI, we are still far way. I could see getting close to that area with 2 wins in the BET, I am just having trouble seeing it with one win and one loss. I responded to this yesterday Look at the RPIs of the teams in contention. Just go up to the teams Rockaway listed above and start clicking through. There are some very ugly RPI numbers. I would agree that neither RPI or NET are good for us, but the rich are getting richer in CBB, and the mediocre are getting way more mediocre. Right now, Lunardi has OSU-NCST in the play in. That has to be the worst 2 at larges I have ever seen. OSU is 8-12 in the Big Ten!
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 12, 2019 15:05:05 GMT -5
I responded to this yesterday Look at the RPIs of the teams in contention. Just go up to the teams Rockaway listed above and start clicking through. There are some very ugly RPI numbers. I would agree that neither RPI or NET are good for us, but the rich are getting richer in CBB, and the mediocre are getting way more mediocre. Right now, Lunardi has OSU-NCST in the play in. That has to be the worst 2 at larges I have ever seen. OSU is 8-12 in the Big Ten! Thanks for the response. That makes sense. When I have more time I'll take a deeper look at the teams close to us. It is true that in the era of the big conferences (especially the ACC moving to 20 games next year, and the Big 10 already there), the better conferences will have better arguments for an 8-12 team that there may have been years ago. This is actually a great example of why tournament expansion any further would be silly. The bottom at-large's are not good teams - expanding it any further would make the tournament a mockery to some extent, and it'd essentially become filled with all the high major teams except the truly awful ones.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Mar 12, 2019 15:05:36 GMT -5
I think that one puts us right on the bubble and with bid stealers may put us out. Two I think would lock us in barring that second game being against DePaul. I still think we'd be in if it was DePaul, but not a lock. If the committee doesn't use NET as much as we think they will, then this team is more than likely tourney bound with 1 win. Palm, granted is known to be overrated, keeps talking about how the NET won't be used to directly rate teams but more so to signify who you beat. If that's the case, then this team is looking very good. Still, in an ideal world, the NET goes up with two good performances in MSG. Hall is a must-win unless the committee doesn't put our NET on our team sheet. This team reminds me a lot of last years Oklahoma State team who missed the tourney despite having many good wins. The bubble is much weaker this year than it was last year and hopefully, that benefits us. But being so similar to that Oklahoma State team scares me as they didn't make it despite me fully believing they should have. I guess my big question is, why do so many of you feel like we are so close to the bubble with an NET so low? As I had indicated yesterday, the lowest RPI ever to make it (as an at large) was 67. Right now, our NET isn't close to that, and I doubt a win over Seton Hall would get it that high, alone. And even if you look at old RPI, we are still far way. I could see getting close to that area with 2 wins in the BET, I am just having trouble seeing it with one win and one loss. Here's how I look at teams. I always emphasize key wins, you should have to beat tournament teams to make the tournament as an at-large. That's why I hate Washington as of now. I also think that this years bubble is historically weak, some teams have no business getting in. Florida would have the worst winning percentage of an at-large if they get in and Texas would have the most losses as an at-large if they get in and both are in, in a lot of places. I don't know how much the committee will use the NET, but I keep hearing, mainly from the aforementioned Palm, that it will not be used to rank teams. If that's the case, our key wins will help a lot, especially beating some good teams in their house. Also, NC State would have an RPI of like 100+ and is considered for an at large with a good NET. With the good mid-majors likely to not get an at-large and teams like NC State, Clemson, Ohio State, and Indiana essentially playing elimination games, it fits well for us. Seton Hall could end up being our sixth q1 win if that's a win and that's as many as Indiana expect we aren't 2-5 vs q2 but we are 6-4 as of now. That's a drastic difference and for the NET to only be 25 apart it might warrant a Georgetown over Indiana, even though they have no bad losses. I've always been one of the more optimistic people n the sense that the tournament was always possible. Georgetown has beaten 4 guaranteed tournament teams and St. John's would make that a fifth. That's huge for a bubble team. A win for us would push us ahead of all of the mid-major teams vying for a spot and the losers of Indiana-Ohio State (I've Got Indiana in that one) and Clemson-NC State (I've got Clemson). Add in Alabama, Florida and Texas looking for never before seen record bids and there's a legitimate shot in my opinion.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 12, 2019 15:10:24 GMT -5
I responded to this yesterday Look at the RPIs of the teams in contention. Just go up to the teams Rockaway listed above and start clicking through. There are some very ugly RPI numbers. I would agree that neither RPI or NET are good for us, but the rich are getting richer in CBB, and the mediocre are getting way more mediocre. Right now, Lunardi has OSU-NCST in the play in. That has to be the worst 2 at larges I have ever seen. OSU is 8-12 in the Big Ten! Thanks for the response. That makes sense. When I have more time I'll take a deeper look at the teams close to us. It is true that in the era of the big conferences (especially the ACC moving to 20 games next year, and the Big 10 already there), the better conferences will have better arguments for an 8-12 team that there may have been years ago. This is actually a great example of why tournament expansion any further would be silly. The bottom at-large's are not good teams - expanding it any further would make the tournament a mockery to some extent, and it'd essentially become filled with all the high major teams except the truly awful ones. I think it's clear that the system is gamed, too. When the smaller schools started to realize that RPI mattered, they tried to game it accordingly, and then the NCAA changed it again. Like others pointed out, NC State is pretty ridiculous. Just by virtue of playing in the ACC and winning 2 decent games, they are on the bubble. Dont know what the answer is unless the Committee makes a bold call and just goes with Furman, UNCG, Belmont for the play-ins. Unless it affects us, I would be fine with that.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 12, 2019 15:15:22 GMT -5
I assume the big difference is that RPI used strength of schedule more strongly? Because NC State has the worst non-conference strength of schedule according to KenPom and by the NCAA metric. If NET benefits blowing out horrible teams, it's a horrible metric. NC State started against 322, 353, 347, 336, and 317. Ridiculous.
I realize Georgetown likely would not have gone 9-9 in the ACC, but if we did, basically we'd be a likely tournament team since our metrics would look a lot better.
|
|