daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,364
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 12, 2019 21:58:29 GMT -5
At this point I think there’s a team out there who thinks they’re safely in who may be sorely disappointed. I’d be terrified if I’m a St Johns fan right now. At least for us I’m assuming nothing unless we win it all. These last two weeks the bubble results just weren’t there for a team like us to sneak in.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Mar 12, 2019 22:00:21 GMT -5
I'm fully expecting at least another bid steal. A-10, Pac-12, MWC and the MAC very well could have another bid stolen. Will need some good fortune and a win Thursday at the least.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 12, 2019 22:24:33 GMT -5
Latest matrix update has Saint Mary's with the auto-bid. Texas is the odd team out as a result of the stolen bid.
I don't think we quite need to win 3 in NYC just yet but we're going to need a lot more help the next 2 days to make up for that, as well as no more stolen bids.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,002
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 12, 2019 23:39:51 GMT -5
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,364
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 13, 2019 6:47:53 GMT -5
I think the article on ESPN this morning sums it up well. After St Mary’s bid theft, there are 8 spots for 18 teams.
Let’s assume the winners of Clemson/NC St and Indiana/Ohio St get in because both would add an additional Q1 win and then get another opportunity for at worst a “good” loss. Now you’re down to 4 spots.
Assuming NO bid thefts, it’s still quite a hill to climb as you’d need at pretty much most of Florida, Arizona St, Alabama, TCU, Texas, Temple, St Johns, or Creighton (all teams ahead of us by most accounts) to all get bounced in their opening game. If any of them win just one more game I think they probably at worst stay above us, and at best for the better ranked teams, get very close to locking in a bid in cases where a first round game is a quality win. And even if they all lost, do we leapfrog them all with a win or two, or does Belmont, UNCG, Furman move in?
No sense worrying about it until we win two games at least, and by that point we’ll know the fate of the others. That being said I don’t think there should be any delusions that only one win would be good enough, as at this point I’m not sure I even see a path where two wins is good enough given we are chasing so many teams all of whom will have the potential for quality wins just as we are hoping for. Sure we could move up from 6th out to 2nd out, but at that point out is still out.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 13, 2019 7:00:11 GMT -5
I think the article on ESPN this morning sums it up well. After St Mary’s bid theft, there are 8 spots for 18 teams. Let’s assume the winners of Clemson/NC St and Indiana/Ohio St get in because both would add an additional Q1 win and then get another opportunity for at worst a “good” loss. Now you’re down to 4 spots. Assuming NO bid thefts, it’s still quite a hill to climb as you’d need at pretty much most of Florida, Arizona St, Alabama, TCU, Texas, Temple, St Johns, or Creighton (all teams ahead of us by most accounts) to all get bounced in their opening game. If any of them win just one more game I think they probably at worst stay above us, and at best for the better ranked teams, get very close to locking in a bid in cases where a first round game is a quality win. And even if they all lost, do we leapfrog them all with a win or two, or does Belmont, UNCG, Furman move in? No sense worrying about it until we win two games at least, and by that point we’ll know the fate of the others. That being said I don’t think there should be any delusions that only one win would be good enough, as at this point I’m not sure I even see a path where two wins is good enough given we are chasing so many teams all of whom will have the potential for quality wins just as we are hoping for. Sure we could move up from 6th out to 2nd out, but at that point out is still out. If the winners of those two "double bubble" games get in, that leaves six spots (not four). But I wouldn't be so quick to put the winner in. If they get one decent win and then lose, we may well jump them with one decent win, one good win, and a good loss. Maybe not, but there's a decent (north of one in three) chance. Regardless, though, I agree with your general theme. A lot still has to go right. I've assumed that not everything would go perfectly for us: there'd be a bubble theft, or one of the other bubble teams would (or will) go on somewhat of a run. Happens every year. And that's the fallacy of looking at the "first four out" and "next four out" projections last week and this week. So, I remain where I was several days ago: One win and we're in the mix but I think we'd need virtually everything to go right to get in -- maybe at this point we'd need literally everything to go right given St. Mary's win. That could happen, but history says it's unlikely. Two wins and we're balanced right on the top of the bubble...all would depend on minute differences in results around the country and the Committee's emphases, which are unknowable at this stage. Keep rooting for the favorites. And, uh, let's win tomorrow and at least keep things entertaining for the rest of the week!
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,364
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 13, 2019 7:20:39 GMT -5
I think the article on ESPN this morning sums it up well. After St Mary’s bid theft, there are 8 spots for 18 teams. Let’s assume the winners of Clemson/NC St and Indiana/Ohio St get in because both would add an additional Q1 win and then get another opportunity for at worst a “good” loss. Now you’re down to 4 spots. Assuming NO bid thefts, it’s still quite a hill to climb as you’d need at pretty much most of Florida, Arizona St, Alabama, TCU, Texas, Temple, St Johns, or Creighton (all teams ahead of us by most accounts) to all get bounced in their opening game. If any of them win just one more game I think they probably at worst stay above us, and at best for the better ranked teams, get very close to locking in a bid in cases where a first round game is a quality win. And even if they all lost, do we leapfrog them all with a win or two, or does Belmont, UNCG, Furman move in? No sense worrying about it until we win two games at least, and by that point we’ll know the fate of the others. That being said I don’t think there should be any delusions that only one win would be good enough, as at this point I’m not sure I even see a path where two wins is good enough given we are chasing so many teams all of whom will have the potential for quality wins just as we are hoping for. Sure we could move up from 6th out to 2nd out, but at that point out is still out. If the winners of those two "double bubble" games get in, that leaves six spots (not four). But I wouldn't be so quick to put the winner in. If they get one decent win and then lose, we may well jump them with one decent win, one good win, and a good loss. Maybe not, but there's a decent (north of one in three) chance. Regardless, though, I agree with your general theme. A lot still has to go right. I've assumed that not everything would go perfectly for us: there'd be a bubble theft, or one of the other bubble teams would (or will) go on somewhat of a run. Happens every year. And that's the fallacy of looking at the "first four out" and "next four out" projections last week and this week. So, I remain where I was several days ago: One win and we're in the mix but I think we'd need virtually everything to go right to get in -- maybe at this point we'd need literally everything to go right given St. Mary's win. That could happen, but history says it's unlikely. Two wins and we're balanced right on the top of the bubble...all would depend on minute differences in results around the country and the Committee's emphases, which are unknowable at this stage. Keep rooting for the favorites. And, uh, let's win tomorrow and at least keep things entertaining for the rest of the week! You’re right. I meant 6 above. That being said as much as I disagree with the premise, is beating Seton Hall will be viewed as an inferior win compared to a potential Indiana or NC state win. Coupled with the fact that the winners of those games get a crack at Mich St and Virgina respectively, and if nothing else boosting their SOS. If both those teams get a Q1 win and then a Q1 loss, they may not be a lock, but I don’t think us getting a Q2 win and a Q1 win is enough to leap over either and their superior NET. In some ways it’s unlucky 2 of those teams are guranteed a Q1 win.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 13, 2019 7:27:52 GMT -5
If the winners of those two "double bubble" games get in, that leaves six spots (not four). But I wouldn't be so quick to put the winner in. If they get one decent win and then lose, we may well jump them with one decent win, one good win, and a good loss. Maybe not, but there's a decent (north of one in three) chance. Regardless, though, I agree with your general theme. A lot still has to go right. I've assumed that not everything would go perfectly for us: there'd be a bubble theft, or one of the other bubble teams would (or will) go on somewhat of a run. Happens every year. And that's the fallacy of looking at the "first four out" and "next four out" projections last week and this week. So, I remain where I was several days ago: One win and we're in the mix but I think we'd need virtually everything to go right to get in -- maybe at this point we'd need literally everything to go right given St. Mary's win. That could happen, but history says it's unlikely. Two wins and we're balanced right on the top of the bubble...all would depend on minute differences in results around the country and the Committee's emphases, which are unknowable at this stage. Keep rooting for the favorites. And, uh, let's win tomorrow and at least keep things entertaining for the rest of the week! You’re right. I meant 6 above. That being said as much as I disagree with the premise, is beating Seton Hall will be viewed as an inferior win compared to a potential Indiana or NC state win. Coupled with the fact that the winners of those games get a crack at Mich St and Virgina respectively, and if nothing else boosting their SOS. If both those teams get a Q1 win and then a Q1 loss, they may not be a lock, but I don’t think us getting a Q2 win and a Q1 win is enough to leap over either and their superior NET. In some ways it’s unlucky 2 of those teams are guranteed a Q1 win. Indiana/Ohio St. winner won't be a Q1 win...it will be a Q2 win just like our putative win over the Hall. You may well be right on the ACC winner...but it's not guaranteed. We'd still have more Q1 wins than whoever wins that game and more Q1+Q2 wins. Heck, we might even have more Q1+2+3 wins. That may not carry the day...but it well may. We'd just have to hope that was the metric that most of the committee focused on. I also think it's human nature to let the last thing a team did affect you disproportionately. So...I think we'd get a disproportionate bump by beating two tourney teams and playing on Saturday night for the title. For the same reason, I think the way in which we win (and lose) is important (as unfair as that may be). At some point, when three metrics say "go with A" and three others say "go with B," you look at the TV in front of you and let that be the tiebreaker.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,364
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 13, 2019 7:35:45 GMT -5
Isnt Top 50 neutral site Q1?
Totally agree about recent results having more weight though.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 13, 2019 7:40:40 GMT -5
Isnt Top 50 neutral site Q1? Yup. Ohio State is 55. Indiana is 51. The loser almost surely won't be top 50 after the game is played. St. John's is going to be somewhere between 50 and 75, so if we were to end up playing them it would be another Q1 game since it would count as a road game.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 13, 2019 7:50:10 GMT -5
Really need Providence to take care of Butler tonight to maintain that 5th Q1 win for us. Fair or not, I think that metric is our best shot at building our case to be slotted ahead of other bubble teams.
Are we certain a potential 3rd SJU game would count as a road game? Either way, we still probably need Marquette in the semis to get another win over a surefire tourney team.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 13, 2019 8:01:34 GMT -5
If the winners of those two "double bubble" games get in, that leaves six spots (not four). But I wouldn't be so quick to put the winner in. If they get one decent win and then lose, we may well jump them with one decent win, one good win, and a good loss. Maybe not, but there's a decent (north of one in three) chance. Regardless, though, I agree with your general theme. A lot still has to go right. I've assumed that not everything would go perfectly for us: there'd be a bubble theft, or one of the other bubble teams would (or will) go on somewhat of a run. Happens every year. And that's the fallacy of looking at the "first four out" and "next four out" projections last week and this week. So, I remain where I was several days ago: One win and we're in the mix but I think we'd need virtually everything to go right to get in -- maybe at this point we'd need literally everything to go right given St. Mary's win. That could happen, but history says it's unlikely. Two wins and we're balanced right on the top of the bubble...all would depend on minute differences in results around the country and the Committee's emphases, which are unknowable at this stage. Keep rooting for the favorites. And, uh, let's win tomorrow and at least keep things entertaining for the rest of the week! You’re right. I meant 6 above. That being said as much as I disagree with the premise, is beating Seton Hall will be viewed as an inferior win compared to a potential Indiana or NC state win. Coupled with the fact that the winners of those games get a crack at Mich St and Virgina respectively, and if nothing else boosting their SOS. If both those teams get a Q1 win and then a Q1 loss, they may not be a lock, but I don’t think us getting a Q2 win and a Q1 win is enough to leap over either and their superior NET. In some ways it’s unlucky 2 of those teams are guranteed a Q1 win. You are way overthinking this. Beating Seton Hall would be an inferior win because the winner of other games get to play and likely lose to MSU and VA? Come on. Seton Hall is probably the best game we could have at this point. Let's not over think it. It's a tourney lock team and it's one we can and have beat. If we win, we will play a team we can and have beat. That's all we could hope for. I, for one, am glad we dont have to play Virginia on Friday night.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on Mar 13, 2019 8:28:31 GMT -5
Georgetown down from 76 to 77 in NET today. Hoyas got jumped by Vermont (went from NET 81 to 73 overnight) who had a home win against NET 325 Binghamton with a score of 84-51. Just shows how much margin of victory/net efficiency affect the NET rankings when a 33 point Q4 home win moved Vermont up 8 spots while Georgetown's 2 point Q1 road win moved the Hoyas up 2 spots. Hopefully Georgetown doesn't regret not blowing out those non-conference opponents or giving up late game garbage points.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 13, 2019 8:52:14 GMT -5
Georgetown down from 76 to 77 in NET today. Hoyas got jumped by Vermont (went from NET 81 to 73 overnight) who had a home win against NET 325 Binghamton with a score of 84-51. Just shows how much margin of victory/net efficiency affect the NET rankings when a 33 point Q4 home win moved Vermont up 8 spots while Georgetown's 2 point Q1 road win moved the Hoyas up 2 spots. Hopefully Georgetown doesn't regret not blowing out those non-conference opponents or giving up late game garbage points. Again, I know Im being a malcontent on this, but if Georgetown doesnt make the tournament in part because we didnt beat Ark Little Rock by 20 points, that is the stupidest thing in the world. If pure NET is used to field a tournament, the NCAA is going to have a huge problem on its hands. I suppose we'll see. Not shooting the messenger. I hear where you are coming from.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyjackson21 on Mar 13, 2019 8:59:28 GMT -5
I agree, very stupid. Almost as stupid as a win over NC State counting as a quad 1 win.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 13, 2019 9:07:28 GMT -5
Georgetown down from 76 to 77 in NET today. Hoyas got jumped by Vermont (went from NET 81 to 73 overnight) who had a home win against NET 325 Binghamton with a score of 84-51. Just shows how much margin of victory/net efficiency affect the NET rankings when a 33 point Q4 home win moved Vermont up 8 spots while Georgetown's 2 point Q1 road win moved the Hoyas up 2 spots. Hopefully Georgetown doesn't regret not blowing out those non-conference opponents or giving up late game garbage points. Again, I know Im being a malcontent on this, but if Georgetown doesnt make the tournament in part because we didnt beat Ark Little Rock by 20 points, that is the stupidest thing in the world. If pure NET is used to field a tournament, the NCAA is going to have a huge problem on its hands. I suppose we'll see. Not shooting the messenger. I hear where you are coming from. There's two problems: First, they have to release the formula. It's absurd that there's something in place and no one knows how it works (except in the vaguest terms). Maybe they are waiting for a full year of data and then they're going to tweak it (and ultimately release it). But that doesn't make a lot of sense because they could easily have plugged as many prior years of data into the formula as they wanted to test it. If margin of victory is going to make a big difference even against crappy teams, everyone should at lest know it and be able to act differently if they choose to. Second, I agree with you that there really shouldn't be an advantage in terms of selection to beating a really bad team at home by 35 points versus beating them by 25 points. But...I do think margin of victory is instructive generally speaking in other contexts. A team that plays Seton Hall three times and goes 2-1, losing by one point and winning the other two games by 20 each game seems to me to be "better" than a team that has the same record against them, but gets blown out in the one loss and gets their two wins against them in overtime. Under the old RPI, those two teams are exactly the same. To me, there ought to be a way to not necessarily "cap" margin of victory but to provide diminishing returns and value as the margin increases. And also should be a way to (as I did above) to value it higher when you're playing a team that is close to you in ranking and valuing the margin lower when you're playing teams that are wildly worse.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Mar 13, 2019 9:14:10 GMT -5
Georgetown down from 76 to 77 in NET today. Hoyas got jumped by Vermont (went from NET 81 to 73 overnight) who had a home win against NET 325 Binghamton with a score of 84-51. Just shows how much margin of victory/net efficiency affect the NET rankings when a 33 point Q4 home win moved Vermont up 8 spots while Georgetown's 2 point Q1 road win moved the Hoyas up 2 spots. Hopefully Georgetown doesn't regret not blowing out those non-conference opponents or giving up late game garbage points. Perhaps this will be a reason NET is not used as strictly as I originally thought. They obviously cannot make changes during the season, but they had to know there would be unintended consequences with certain measures. I mean having an efficient win against one of the worst teams in college basketball, at home no less, should have very minimal effect on your NET rating. Anyway, as I noted a few days ago, I feel like our most realistic path to the NCAAT is winning the BET. I have no confidence we can jump so many bubble teams. Remember, we are starting behind these other teams, not trying to stay in front. Also, all our other metrics, RPI, kenpom, etc are actually worse than our NET. We need to win the BET. Regardless, I am just happy the season will not end in the BET. That is a welcomed development versus the last several years.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 13, 2019 9:35:50 GMT -5
Again, I know Im being a malcontent on this, but if Georgetown doesnt make the tournament in part because we didnt beat Ark Little Rock by 20 points, that is the stupidest thing in the world. If pure NET is used to field a tournament, the NCAA is going to have a huge problem on its hands. I suppose we'll see. Not shooting the messenger. I hear where you are coming from. There's two problems: First, they have to release the formula. It's absurd that there's something in place and no one knows how it works (except in the vaguest terms). Maybe they are waiting for a full year of data and then they're going to tweak it (and ultimately release it). But that doesn't make a lot of sense because they could easily have plugged as many prior years of data into the formula as they wanted to test it. If margin of victory is going to make a big difference even against crappy teams, everyone should at lest know it and be able to act differently if they choose to. Second, I agree with you that there really shouldn't be an advantage in terms of selection to beating a really bad team at home by 35 points versus beating them by 25 points. But...I do think margin of victory is instructive generally speaking in other contexts. A team that plays Seton Hall three times and goes 2-1, losing by one point and winning the other two games by 20 each game seems to me to be "better" than a team that has the same record against them, but gets blown out in the one loss and gets their two wins against them in overtime. Under the old RPI, those two teams are exactly the same. To me, there ought to be a way to not necessarily "cap" margin of victory but to provide diminishing returns and value as the margin increases. And also should be a way to (as I did above) to value it higher when you're playing a team that is close to you in ranking and valuing the margin lower when you're playing teams that are wildly worse. I hear you, but I dont think margin of victory should matter at all in basketball. It's one thing in football where scoring against Alabama is pretty much impossible for East Tennessee St. But, if we are beating even Seton Hall by 15 points with 3 minutes to go, no part of Ewing's calculation should be to run up or keep the score up. I think that's bad for the sport, his players and other teams. MOV is also not indicative of games a lot in basketball. A 2 point lead with a minute left could easily become a 10 point win just by virtue of fouls made and shots missed.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,364
|
Post by daveg023 on Mar 13, 2019 9:50:08 GMT -5
I think the NET needs tweaking, but in most cases it’s not radically different than RPI or KenPom metrics for teams. It’ll be interesting to see how much the committee uses it and teams like Belmont, Texas, and Indiana become initial case studies.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Mar 13, 2019 9:54:49 GMT -5
There's two problems: First, they have to release the formula. It's absurd that there's something in place and no one knows how it works (except in the vaguest terms). Maybe they are waiting for a full year of data and then they're going to tweak it (and ultimately release it). But that doesn't make a lot of sense because they could easily have plugged as many prior years of data into the formula as they wanted to test it. If margin of victory is going to make a big difference even against crappy teams, everyone should at lest know it and be able to act differently if they choose to. Second, I agree with you that there really shouldn't be an advantage in terms of selection to beating a really bad team at home by 35 points versus beating them by 25 points. But...I do think margin of victory is instructive generally speaking in other contexts. A team that plays Seton Hall three times and goes 2-1, losing by one point and winning the other two games by 20 each game seems to me to be "better" than a team that has the same record against them, but gets blown out in the one loss and gets their two wins against them in overtime. Under the old RPI, those two teams are exactly the same. To me, there ought to be a way to not necessarily "cap" margin of victory but to provide diminishing returns and value as the margin increases. And also should be a way to (as I did above) to value it higher when you're playing a team that is close to you in ranking and valuing the margin lower when you're playing teams that are wildly worse. I hear you, but I dont think margin of victory should matter at all in basketball. It's one thing in football where scoring against Alabama is pretty much impossible for East Tennessee St. But, if we are beating even Seton Hall by 15 points with 3 minutes to go, no part of Ewing's calculation should be to run up or keep the score up. I think that's bad for the sport, his players and other teams. MOV is also not indicative of games a lot in basketball. A 2 point lead with a minute left could easily become a 10 point win just by virtue of fouls made and shots missed. I largely agree with you. There shouldn't be any benefit to running up the score in a game that is out of reach. Or in not playing your subs because doing so may cost you a few points. Or, for that matter, in deciding to actually try in that final possession of the game where you're already up eight and your opponent has stopped defending. And I agree that fouls at the end of the games or whether that final meaningless (and undefended) three-pointer goes in at the buzzer shouldn't play a role. And maybe all that means there's no way to make MOV count at all. I just think that there's probably a way to do something in the aggregate that does provide some insight into relative strength and weakness. If bubble team X goes to Duke and loses by seven points, to me that's something that should count in some small way in their favor when compared to bubble team Y that goes to Duke and loses by 47. Obviously, that's an extreme example and maybe at smaller margins any benefit is unfair. Don't know. (One easy answer is to not include it in the NET rating but just include things like KenPom ratings on the evaluation sheets the committee gets...they've done that in recent years and I believe do that again this year. Then, you at least have that sort of data available to you but it's not part of the formula that provides the primary sorting mechanism for everything else. The whole system is pretty silly. We take "strength of schedule" into account in like eighteen different ways within the formula....and then we use it independently as a separate way to judge. Our NET rating is so low in part because our NCSOS was fairly bad....why should someone ALSO use NCSOS as some sort of separate tie-breaker.)
|
|