tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88245046505757691292024-03-12T20:52:50.967-07:00BracketballAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.comBlogger1740125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-20003422038507462762022-03-13T11:43:00.001-07:002022-03-13T11:45:00.019-07:00Retirement<p> It's time to call it.</p><p><br /></p><p>My short post from the preseason still pretty much applies. I just don't have the time to do this anymore, at least at the high level required. My jobs basically require me to be absent for days at a time, at in a sport like this, you really can't take a day off of following the sport. The data analysis required to do this is simply beyond my capability.</p><p>I tried and stopped a few times in January and February to catch up. The thing is, you just can't catch up here or there. It needs to be everywhere. Because projections have to account for everyone. One team's standing is always influence by every other team around it. Because of this, I just don't have to time to fully catch up at any point. And I can't follow the sport day-by-day right now.</p><p>I'm glad bracketology has evolved to the point where the work needed to do it properly is beyond my capability. That shows that people actually care about this, and care about proper data analysis in general. I leave this hobby to the professionals and the aspiring professionals, as this no longer belongs to the amateurs.</p><p>I won't rule out un-retirement, but it'll take a wildly different life circumstance than what I'm facing right now, and I don't want to imagine what that change would actually look like.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>So go forth all aspiring bracketologists. Keep fighting the good fight.</p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-37116106827893986052021-11-14T10:13:00.003-08:002021-11-14T10:13:57.835-08:00Recaps 11/9 - 11/12Recaps will be every few days.<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Tuesday 11/9</div><div><br /></div><div>Kansas 87, Michigan St 74</div><div>Duke 79, Kentucky 71 - my take remains the same on these games year in and year out - they don't have as big an impact on seeding as you'd think at first. All these teams will pile up plenty of signature win chances this season. The one exception may be Duke, as the ACC might be down. So this could be a useful resume win</div><div><br /></div><div>Most of the rest of the results fit the general category of catastrophic loss, or near-disaster miss. I really won't get into the near-losses, like Houston or Ohio St barely holding on....in the end we've seen the committee treat wins as wins and that's that.</div><div><br /></div><div>disasters:</div><div>Navy 66, @Virginia 58<br />UC San Diego 80, @Cal 67</div><div>Citadel 78, @Pitt 63</div><div>Miami(OH) 72, @Georgia Tech 69</div><div>Nicholls St 62, @Northern Iowa 58 - Nicholls might be good, but still</div><div>SEMO 99, @Missouri St 94 - this was a dumb opening night for the MVC</div><div>Western Illinois 75, @Nebraska 74<br />@Chicago St 77, St Thomas 72 (OT) - yes, your first D1 game ever, and you lose on the road in overtime, and it counts as a disaster</div><div>Northern Illinois 71, @Washington 64</div><div><br /></div><div>The question: Do any of these teams that pull off early upsets have bubble hopes? We've seen year after year, a couple mid-majors gain traction in the bubble discussion, but it almost always wears off by March. Many of the teams that get upset early end up being actually not good, which kills the at-large resume of the mid-major. And the mid-major itself will inevitably take a couple dumb losses. We'll see if anyone in this list matters in March, but I'm not hopeful.</div><div><br /></div><div>interesting games:<br />@Ohio 92, Belmont 80 - two teams that oughta be pretty good. Belmont has history with flirting with the bubble, so they know their chances for quality wins are very rare. This as a road win would've been one</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Wednesday 11/10</div><div><br /></div><div>What nerds play the 2nd day instead of the 1st? I see no actionable results here.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Thursday 11/11</div><div><br /></div><div>Vermont 71, @Northern Iowa 57 - given how bad AEast usually is, this might be worth a seed line (16 to 15)</div><div>UC Riverside 66, @Arizona St 65 - the bottom of the Pac-12 might be bad again</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Friday 11/12</div><div><br /></div><div>@UCLA 86, Villanova 77 (OT) - see my comment about the big matchup on opening night. I don't see myself changing outlook for either of these teams. But maybe if the Pac-12 bottom is going to be trash, then this might help UCLA's seed by a line or so</div><div>Virginia Tech 77, @Navy 57 - worth noting because Navy picked off Virginia, and this was a true road game for VT</div><div>@BYU 66, San Diego St 60 - really important game for both teams' at large hopes. Quality win chances aren't very frequent in their conferences</div><div><br /></div><div>disasters:</div><div>Utah St 85, @Richmond 74 - a bit surprised here, even more so because USU punted a home game to UC-Davis earlier in the week. Bad look for the A-10</div><div>Furman 80, @Louisville 72 - here comes the SoCon again. Strong conference the past couple of years, and this is the type of road win you hope you can build an at-large resume around. Of all the early upsets, Furman's the one team that I'd project to matter in March</div><div>Oakland 56, @Oklahoma St 55</div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-91486068440724369242021-11-09T17:43:00.003-08:002021-11-09T17:43:55.851-08:00SEED LIST preseason<br /><br /> The 1 line: Gonzaga, Michigan, Kansas, UCLA<br />The 2 line: Purdue, Texas, Duke, Kentucky<br />The 3 line: Illinois, Baylor, Villanova, Alabama<br />The 4 line: Ohio St, North Carolina, Memphis, Arkansas<br />The 5 line: Houston, Oregon, Florida St, UConn<br />The 6 line: St Bonaventure, Tennessee, Auburn, Michigan St<br />The 7 line: Maryland, Virginia, San Diego St, USC<br />The 8 line: Virginia Tech, Indiana, Texas Tech, Loyola<br />The 9 line: Xavier, Louisville, Richmond, Colorado<br />The 10 line: Iowa, Syracuse, LSU, Florida<br />The 11 line: Colorado St, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Creighton<br />The 12 line: Buffalo, Belmont, Drake, Arizona, Ohio, Liberty<br />The 13 line: New Mexico St, South Dakota St, UAB, UCSB<br />The 14 line: Georgia St, Furman, Northeastern, Winthrop<br />The 15 line: Yale, Wright St, Colgate, Iona<br />The 16 line: Weber St, Vermont, Bryant, Nicholls St, Morgan St, Texas Southern<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Last 4 in:<br />Creighton<br />Drake<br />Arizona<br />Ohio<br /><br />Last 4 out:<br />Nevada<br />Notre Dame<br />Washington St<br />BYU<br /><br />Next 4 out:<br />Oklahoma<br />St John's<br />Seton Hall<br />Mississippi St<br /><br /><br /><br />Break it down!:<br />B1G 9<br />ACC 7<br />SEC 7<br />Big 12 5<br />Pac-12 5<br />Big East 4<br />MWC 2<br />AAC 2<br />A-10 2<br />MVC 2<br />MAC 2Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-77649696970918237092021-11-08T05:47:00.003-08:002021-11-08T05:47:40.378-08:00Bracketology is a young man's game<p>Welcome to another college basketball season. A preseason bracket should be up today, although we all know the drill by now with those. The main purpose of it is to try and project how strong conferences are, more than to project any single team. Pay more attention to the range of seeds from conferences, rather than where individual teams are seeded, or which teams are actually included.</p><p>We'll have brief daily updates, god willing, again this year, but we're not going to have the depth of analysis most bracketologists will have. Fact is, I'm approaching two decades of bracketology, and the young kids have caught up. When I started, this was a niche field with not many people providing serious analysis. I saw my role as filling a void of analysis.</p><p>Today, that role is very well filled. Hundreds of solid amateur bracketologists have spouted up across the country, and they can simply do better than what I can provide with my free time and schedule at this point. It's just a fact. I don't have the resources to scientifically measure and analyze the teams in the way that they do. (A lot of this is that this isn't my job - hey, pay me full time to do this and I'd be back to the top).</p><p>So it's time to reset expectations for this particular blog. We're not going to try and compete with the top dogs anymore. My prime is over. This is now going to be about trying to find the blind spots that everyone else has, and filling in the gaps best I can. There's still gonna be bad takes, and bad analysis, and it's my job to help you all not get fooled by it.</p><p>Bracket coming before the start of the year. Expect my traditional multi-bid MAC and all the other preseason bracket bells and whistles you know and love from me.</p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-66701200456191495142021-03-14T14:42:00.001-07:002021-03-14T14:42:03.751-07:00BRACKET FINAL<div style="text-align: left;">First and last bracket of the year.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>REGION 1 33</div><div><br /></div><div>1) Gonzaga vs. 16) Mt St Mary's/Norfolk St</div><div>8) Florida vs. 9) North Carolina</div><div><br /></div><div>4) Florida St vs. 13) Colgate</div><div>5) Villanova vs. 12) Winthrop</div><div><br /></div><div>3) Texas vs. 14) Grand Canyon</div><div>6) LSU vs. 11) VCU</div><div><br /></div><div>2) Iowa vs. 15) Drexel</div><div>7) BYU vs. 10) UConn</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>REGION 2 34</div><div><br /></div><div>1) Michigan vs. 16) Oral Roberts</div><div>8) Clemson vs. 9) St Bonaventure</div><div><br /></div><div>4) West Virginia vs. 13) UC Santa Barbara</div><div>5) Missouri vs. 12) Georgetown</div><div><br /></div><div>3) Kansas vs. 14) Abilene Christian</div><div>6) Colorado vs. 11) Utah St/Syracuse</div><div><br /></div><div>2) Alabama vs. 15) Iona</div><div>7) Oregon vs. 10) Michigan St</div><div><br /></div><div>REGION 3 36</div><div><br /></div><div>1) Illinois vs. 16) Appalachian St</div><div>8) Oklahoma vs. 9) Georgia Tech</div><div><br /></div><div>4) Virginia vs. 13) UNC Greensboro</div><div>5) Creighton vs. 12) Oregon St</div><div><br /></div><div>3) Oklahoma St vs. 14) Morehead St</div><div>6) USC vs. 11) Louisville</div><div><br /></div><div>2) Houston vs. 15) Eastern Washington</div><div>7) Wisconsin vs. 10) Virginia Tech</div><div><br /></div><div>REGION 4 33</div><div><br /></div><div>1) Baylor vs. 16) Hartford/Texas Southern</div><div>8) Loyola vs. 9) Rutgers</div><div><br /></div><div>4) Purdue vs. 13) Ohio</div><div>5) Tennessee vs. 12) North Texas</div><div><br /></div><div>3) Arkansas vs. 14) Liberty</div><div>6) Texas Tech vs. 11) UCLA/Wichita St</div><div><br /></div><div>2) Ohio St vs. 15) Cleveland St</div><div>7) San Diego St vs. 10) Maryland</div></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-31029203661032685102021-03-14T14:26:00.002-07:002021-03-14T14:26:59.818-07:00SEED LIST FINAL<div style="text-align: left;">I've made one course correction in favor of the ACC schools - I think I've been low-rating them based on the fact several conference wins were teetering on the Q1/Q2 cutoff - I've given modest bumps to everyone to account for this.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Where I'm gonna be wrong:</div><div style="text-align: left;">- The 2 line. Houston over Texas. Playing the hunch the committee just takes the higher ranked team instead of more loaded resume</div><div style="text-align: left;">- The 4-6 lines. Biggest jumble of the entire grid to me. I think both Nova and Tennessee have excellent arguments for the 4 line. Just believe the ACC schools, with my correction, go there.</div><div style="text-align: left;">- The bubble. Starting to hate Wichita's resume the more I look at it, but as far as I can see, their weaknesses aren't weak enough to lose out to Drake and the MWC schools. That Houston win is everything right now.</div><div style="text-align: left;">- The mid-major champs. I don't feel confident at all about Loyola, SDSU, and Bonaventure's seed.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The 1 line: Gonzaga, Baylor, Illinois, Michigan</div><div>The 2 line: Alabama, Ohio St, Iowa, Houston</div><div>The 3 line: Texas, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Kansas</div><div>The 4 line: West Virginia, Purdue, Virginia, Florida St</div><div>The 5 line: Villanova, Tennessee, Creighton, Missouri</div><div>The 6 line: Colorado, Texas Tech, USC, LSU</div><div>The 7 line: Oregon, San Diego St, BYU, Wisconsin</div><div>The 8 line: Florida, Loyola, Oklahoma, Clemson</div><div>The 9 line: Georgia Tech, St Bonaventure, Rutgers, North Carolina</div><div>The 10 line: UConn, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Michigan St</div><div>The 11 line: VCU, Louisville, UCLA, Utah St, Syracuse, Wichita St</div><div>The 12 line: Georgetown, Oregon St, North Texas, Winthrop</div><div>The 13 line: Colgate, UNC Greensboro, Ohio, UC Santa Barbara</div><div>The 14 line: Abilene Christian, Liberty, Morehead St, Grand Canyon</div><div>The 15 line: Eastern Washington, Drexel, Cleveland St, Iona</div><div>The 16 line: Oral Roberts, Appalachian St, Hartford, Mt St Mary's, Norfolk St, Texas Southern</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 in:</div><div>UCLA</div><div>Utah St</div><div>Syracuse</div><div>Wichita St</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 out:</div><div>Drake</div><div>Colorado St</div><div>Ole Miss</div><div>Boise St</div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-9391751811788646462021-03-14T05:54:00.000-07:002021-03-14T05:54:07.818-07:00SEED LIST 3/14 am<div style="text-align: left;">I'm already annoyed at myself for putting in Syracuse. Here's a hunch that the committee devalues the road records of everyone, which is a dagger to Drake's resume.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm really, really not sold on Louisville or UCLA making this tournament, but I'm guessing the squeeze happens to the Mountain West schools instead.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The 1 line: Gonzaga, Baylor, Illinois, Michigan</div><div>The 2 line: Alabama, Ohio St, Iowa, Houston</div><div>The 3 line: Texas, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Kansas</div><div>The 4 line: West Virginia, Purdue, Villanova, Virginia</div><div>The 5 line: Tennessee, Florida St, Creighton, Colorado</div><div>The 6 line: Missouri, Texas Tech, Wisconsin, USC</div><div>The 7 line: LSU, Oregon, San Diego St, BYU</div><div>The 8 line: Florida, Loyola, Oklahoma, Clemson</div><div>The 9 line: Georgia Tech, St Bonaventure, Rutgers, UConn</div><div>The 10 line: Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, VCU</div><div>The 11 line: Michigan St, Louisville, Wichita St, UCLA, Utah St, Syracuse</div><div>The 12 line: Georgetown, Oregon St, North Texas, Winthrop</div><div>The 13 line: Colgate, UNC Greensboro, Ohio, UC Santa Barbara</div><div>The 14 line: Abilene Christian, Liberty, Morehead St, Grand Canyon</div><div>The 15 line: Eastern Washington, Drexel, Cleveland St, Iona</div><div>The 16 line: Oral Roberts, Appalachian St, Hartford, Mt St Mary's, Norfolk St, Texas Southern</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 in:</div><div>Wichita St</div><div>UCLA</div><div>Utah St</div><div>Syracuse</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 out:</div><div>Drake</div><div>Colorado St</div><div>Ole Miss</div><div>Boise St</div><div><br /></div><div>Next 4 out:</div><div>Duke</div><div>St Louis</div><div>Xavier</div><div>Western Kentucky</div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-87514297629876329542021-03-13T08:33:00.002-08:002021-03-13T08:33:12.062-08:00SEED LIST 3/13 am<div style="text-align: left;"><div>It doesn't feel like the MWC should get 4 teams in, but right now, their resumes are just simply better than the resumes of the last 4 out. I don't think I can justify any flips yet. As I've said earlier, expect continuous seed scrubbing throughout the next 24 hours.</div><div><br /></div><div>The 1 line: Gonzaga, Baylor, Illinois, Michigan</div><div>The 2 line: Alabama, Iowa, Ohio St, Houston</div><div>The 3 line: Oklahoma St, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kansas</div><div>The 4 line: Villanova, Purdue, Texas, Virginia</div><div>The 5 line: Florida St, Tennessee, Missouri, Colorado</div><div>The 6 line: USC, Creighton, Texas Tech, Florida</div><div>The 7 line: Oregon, Wisconsin, BYU, San Diego St</div><div>The 8 line: Clemson, Loyola, LSU, Oklahoma</div><div>The 9 line: St Bonaventure, Rutgers, Virginia Tech, UConn</div><div>The 10 line: Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, VCU</div><div>The 11 line: Michigan St, Wichita St, Drake, UCLA</div><div>The 12 line: Utah St, Colorado St, Louisville, Boise St, Western Kentucky, Buffalo</div><div>The 13 line: UNCG, Winthrop, Liberty, UCSB</div><div>The 14 line: Colgate, Eastern Washington, Morehead St, Grand Canyon</div><div>The 15 line: Drexel, Cleveland St, Hartford, Iona</div><div>The 16 line: Oral Roberts, Mount St Mary's, Nicholls St, Appalachian St, Prairie View A&M, Norfolk St</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 in:</div><div>Utah St</div><div>Colorado St</div><div>Louisville</div><div>Boise St</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 out:</div><div>Ole Miss</div><div>St Louis</div><div>Xavier</div><div>Syracuse</div></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-13999324533319049622021-03-11T22:10:00.001-08:002021-03-11T22:10:08.303-08:00SEED LIST 3/12<div style="text-align: left;">Good Lord this bubble is bad.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I continue to scrub. SEC teams are better than I thought. Ole Miss is not dead, just because everyone else is dying. I want to drop Boise out, but I can't find a team to replace them yet. Are we seriously considering Syracuse here?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">UCLA and Louisville would be dead in so many other years.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'll continue to scrub. I need to take a closer look at the bottom 4 lines, admittedly.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The 1 line: Gonzaga, Baylor, Illinois, Michigan</div><div>The 2 line: Alabama, Iowa, Ohio St, Houston</div><div>The 3 line: Arkansas, West Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma St</div><div>The 4 line: Villanova, Purdue, Texas, Virginia</div><div>The 5 line: USC, Florida St, Missouri, Tennessee</div><div>The 6 line: Colorado, Creighton, Oregon, Texas Tech</div><div>The 7 line: Florida, Wisconsin, BYU, San Diego St</div><div>The 8 line: Clemson, Loyola, LSU, Oklahoma</div><div>The 9 line: St Bonaventure, Rutgers, Virginia Tech, UConn</div><div>The 10 line: Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, VCU</div><div>The 11 line: Michigan St, Colorado St, Wichita St, Drake</div><div>The 12 line: UCLA, Louisville, Boise St, Utah St, Western Kentucky, Toledo</div><div>The 13 line: UNCG, Winthrop, Liberty, UCSB</div><div>The 14 line: Colgate, Southern Utah, Morehead St, Grand Canyon</div><div>The 15 line: Drexel, Cleveland St, Hartford, St Peter's</div><div>The 16 line: Oral Roberts, Mount St Mary's, Nicholls St, Appalachian St, Prairie View A&M, Coppin St</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 in:</div><div>UCLA</div><div>Louisville</div><div>Boise St</div><div>Utah St</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 out:</div><div>St Louis</div><div>Ole Miss</div><div>Xavier</div><div>Syracuse</div><div><br /></div><div>Next 4 out:</div><div>Seton Hall</div><div>St John's</div><div>Memphis</div><div>Duke</div></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-85569632126357384292021-03-11T08:53:00.007-08:002021-03-11T08:53:48.381-08:00SEED LIST 3/11<div style="text-align: left;"> A modest amount of scrubbing today.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The 1 line: Gonzaga, Baylor, Illinois, Michigan</div><div>The 2 line: Alabama, Iowa, Ohio St, Houston</div><div>The 3 line: West Virginia, Arkansas, Villanova, Kansas</div><div>The 4 line: Purdue, Texas, Oklahoma St, Virginia</div><div>The 5 line: USC, Florida St, Colorado, Missouri</div><div>The 6 line: Tennessee, Creighton, Oregon, Texas Tech</div><div>The 7 line: Florida, Wisconsin, BYU, San Diego St</div><div>The 8 line: Clemson, Loyola, LSU, Oklahoma</div><div>The 9 line: Virginia Tech, St Bonaventure, Rutgers, UConn</div><div>The 10 line: Maryland, UCLA, Georgia Tech, VCU</div><div>The 11 line: Michigan St, North Carolina, Colorado St, Boise St</div><div>The 12 line: Wichita St, Louisville, Drake, Utah St, UNCG, Toledo</div><div>The 13 line: UCSB, Western Kentucky, Winthrop, Liberty</div><div>The 14 line: Colgate, Southern Utah, Morehead St, Grand Canyon</div><div>The 15 line: Drexel, Cleveland St, Hartford, St Peter's</div><div>The 16 line: Oral Roberts, Mount St Mary's, Nicholls St, Appalachian St, North Carolina A&T, Prairie View A&M</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 in:</div><div>Wichita St</div><div>Louisville</div><div>Drake</div><div>Utah St</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 out:</div><div>St Louis</div><div>Ole Miss</div><div>Xavier</div><div>Syracuse</div><div><br /></div><div>Next 4 out:</div><div>St John's</div><div>Seton Hall</div><div>Memphis</div><div>Duke</div><div><br /></div></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-9489197390804749482021-03-10T09:21:00.001-08:002021-03-10T09:21:52.565-08:00SEED LIST 3/10<div style="text-align: left;">Well, I didn't even ask for it, but we're live on Bracket Matrix. We're in it now, guys.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A reminder to new visitors: I have been inactive this season due to health-related reasons and only started projections yesterday. Haven't had a chance to follow the season, so my analysis is strictly resume-based. I am operating on less knowledge.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Because of this, it's possible I'm missed some things in my first couple pass-throughs. But we're continuing on as some sort of experiment. See, I want to know how projections compare when the only information you have is the nitty gritty sheets.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Observations that I had while scrubbing yesterday:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">- The Big 12 is an awkward conference to evaluate as a whole. Tons of Q1 games in conference play were available, and their numbers seem to dwarf the numbers of all the teams around them. I'm having a tough time guessing what the committee will do, comparing mid-pick Big 12 teams with ACC and Pac-12 champions, for example.</div><div style="text-align: left;">- If I were to guess where I'm wrong, it's the 5-6-7 lines. Not much separating teams in my view.</div><div style="text-align: left;">- I have no good idea what's going to happen to mid-majors. We just don't have the non-con data like we had in years past. I just don't have a good sense on SDSU, Loyola, and Bonaventure yet.</div><div style="text-align: left;">- I'm not in love with 3 MWC teams inside the bubble right at the end, but I'm having trouble filling out the field. Many of the teams I had right on the outside yesterday...sheesh there's some flawed resumes. I did move up Xavier, but they're still out. Road/neutral records still matter, I think. So for today at least, Utah St gets the nod.</div><div style="text-align: left;">- A good example of scrubbing: I decided to dock Clemson for having just 2 true road wins this year, then had to double take as I saw everyone else project them much higher than I did. Naturally, those 2 signature wins they have were neutral site wins, not home wins. I've adjusted them accordingly.</div><div style="text-align: left;">- I can tell you Houston is a 2 seed right now, but if anyone other than Baylor wins the Big 12 tourney, they're headed to the 2 line in their place.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The 1 line: Gonzaga, Baylor, Illinois, Michigan</div><div>The 2 line: Alabama, Iowa, Ohio St, Houston</div><div>The 3 line: West Virginia, Arkansas, Villanova, Kansas</div><div>The 4 line: Purdue, Texas, Oklahoma St, Virginia</div><div>The 5 line: USC, Florida St, Colorado, Missouri</div><div>The 6 line: Tennessee, Creighton, Oregon, Texas Tech</div><div>The 7 line: Florida, Wisconsin, BYU, Clemson</div><div>The 8 line: San Diego St, Loyola, LSU, Oklahoma, </div><div>The 9 line: Virginia Tech, St Bonaventure, Rutgers, UConn</div><div>The 10 line: Maryland, UCLA, Georgia Tech, VCU</div><div>The 11 line: Louisville, Michigan St, North Carolina, Colorado St</div><div>The 12 line: Wichita St, Boise St, Drake, Utah St, UNCG, Toledo</div><div>The 13 line: UCSB, Western Kentucky, Winthrop, Liberty</div><div>The 14 line: Colgate, Southern Utah, Siena, Morehead St</div><div>The 15 line: Grand Canyon, Drexel, Cleveland St, Hartford</div><div>The 16 line: Oral Roberts, Mount St Mary's, Nicholls St, Appalachian St, North Carolina A&T, Prairie View A&M</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 in:</div><div>Wichita St</div><div>Boise St</div><div>Drake</div><div>Utah St</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 out:</div><div>Xavier</div><div>Ole Miss</div><div>St Louis</div><div>St John's</div><div><br /></div><div>Next 4 out:</div><div>Syracuse</div><div>Seton Hall</div><div>Memphis</div><div>SMU</div><div><br /></div></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-6459720318429682612021-03-08T21:18:00.002-08:002021-03-08T21:18:14.774-08:00SEED LIST 3/9<div style="text-align: left;">Welcome to the Great Bracketology Experiment. How do projections end up when you end up having to unfollow the entire college basketball season? Let's find out.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I've finally got some time to look through this. Not having a job all of a sudden helps with this. Before March my life was pretty well full, with every moment not working spent dealing with one crisis or another. So at least the gods picked the right month for me to lose my job. Now I can hone in (hopefully) for a full week.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This is my first pass-through for seeding teams this year. We're starting with 7 to go. Given the amount of information I'm trying to absorb, I'm absolutely certain I'm going to miss some things. Expect me to refine this list each day as I get closer to something I like on Sunday.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Some observations:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">- To me, there's a clear top 4. It doesn't seem like the race for the 1 line is all that tight this year?</div><div style="text-align: left;">- I like to think of this list in tiers. To me, the top 17 is a tier. Oklahoma St is much closer to the 3 line than they are to Colorado.</div><div style="text-align: left;">- Another guess I'm making is that the committee gets aggressive in seeding mid-majors. I tempered my seed of SDSU and Loyola and Bonaventure...for now.</div><div style="text-align: left;">- I did take a peek at Bracket Matrix and breathed a sigh of relief. I think I'm a couple seed lines off the consensus in a couple places, but I think I avoided doing something stupid on my first pass.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The 1 line: Gonzaga, Baylor, Illinois, Michigan</div><div>The 2 line: Alabama, Iowa, Ohio St, Houston</div><div>The 3 line: West Virginia, Arkansas, Villanova, Kansas</div><div>The 4 line: Purdue, Virginia, USC, Texas</div><div>The 5 line: Oklahoma St, Colorado, Florida St, Creighton</div><div>The 6 line: Tennessee, Oregon, Texas Tech, Missouri</div><div>The 7 line: Florida, Wisconsin, BYU, San Diego St</div><div>The 8 line: Loyola, LSU, St Bonaventure, Rutgers</div><div>The 9 line: Virginia Tech, UConn, Clemson, Oklahoma</div><div>The 10 line: Maryland, UCLA, Louisville, VCU</div><div>The 11 line: Georgia Tech, Michigan St, North Carolina, Wichita St</div><div>The 12 line: Colorado St, St John's, Boise St, Drake, UNCG, Toledo</div><div>The 13 line: UCSB, Western Kentucky, Siena, Liberty</div><div>The 14 line: Colgate, Southern Utah, Winthrop, Morehead St</div><div>The 15 line: Cleveland St, Bryant, Grand Canyon, North Dakota St</div><div>The 16 line: Hartford, Appalachian St, Nicholls St, North Carolina A&T, Prairie View A&M, Drexel</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 in:</div><div>Colorado St</div><div>St John's</div><div>Boise St</div><div>Drake</div><div><br /></div><div>Last 4 out:</div><div>Utah St</div><div>Syracuse</div><div>Seton Hall</div><div>Memphis</div><div><br /></div><div>Next 4 out:</div><div>Xavier</div><div>St Louis</div><div>SMU</div><div>Ole Miss</div></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-67107400808630363712021-02-28T17:54:00.000-08:002021-02-28T17:54:01.649-08:00Bubble Watch: leftovers<div style="text-align: left;">Less leftovers than I thought.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Loyola (19-4) (16-2) NET 16 SoS 164</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 1-2 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2, 8-4 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @Drake, swept MSU?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @Indiana St</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A pretty classic beat-who-you're-supposed-to resume. An alarming 11 Q4 wins, so it's a pretty light resume. Is the NET ranking reliable in this instance? I lean yes. There's still a strong, strong road/neutral record to lean on. This is a resume that certainly could miss the tournament, but this year causing problems with cutting the non-con short might save them.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Drake (22-3) (15-3) NET 41 SoS 261</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 1-1 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2, 10-2 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Loyola, swept MSU?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @Bradley and Valpo</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Kinda in the same boat as LU, but without the NET boost and with horrendous SoS numbers. That said, I lump them in the same bucket. If they meet in the MVC finals, I reluctantly would put both in, but I'm not excited about either.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There's not much else to look at for at-large bids. Things that caught my eye:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The SoCon had another good year overall it seems, but this time they don't have the at-large resumes to contend for multiple bids.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Colgate has a NET of 10. lol. Only because there's basically no non-conference games in the Patriot this year. Navy and Colgate have separated in the league, and Navy did win at Georgetown. No at-large bid for either, but a good solid seed should await for the winner.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't think anyone else is in play on the bubble. Committee will use the shortened non-con as a shield, say no one from a mid-major conference has a resume good enough for an at-large bid, forgetting that no one had a chance to build up a resume good enough.</div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-52133311124714896742021-02-28T08:27:00.003-08:002021-02-28T08:27:50.298-08:00Bubble Watch: everyone else, part 1<div style="text-align: left;"><b>Houston (18-3) (13-3) NET 4 SoS 60</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-1 vs. Q1, 4-1 vs. Q2, 6-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: N-TTU, @SMU, Boise</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @ECU</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Such is life in the AAC. A lack of top-end wins will lock them out of the top 2 lines, I think. And I don't see a way out of avoiding this fate.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Wichita St (11-4) (9-2) NET 66 SoS 24</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-2 vs. Q1, 2-2 vs. Q2, 4-2 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Houston, @Ole Miss, and um</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: none really...@Memphis?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">They're one Houston win away from being a non-factor on the bubble. I'm not a fan of those types of resumes that require a strong lean on one single result. Two home losses to probable tourney teams (Ok St and Mizzou) are killers, because they haven't gotten many other quality win chances. I don't know if this resume can hold on without another significant result. They really need to find a way to get their SMU series played. Badly.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>SMU (11-4) (7-4) NET 46 SoS 107</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 0-3 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2, 5-2 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @Dayton, Memphis....oof</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: Cincy</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">No wins over probable tourney teams, right? Can't put them in. They really badly need their two games with Wichita rescheduled. That could cost BOTH teams a tournament spot.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Memphis (13-6) (9-3) NET 61 SoS 132</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 0-2 vs. Q1, 3-3 vs. Q2, 3-5 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: lolno</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: Tulsa, N-WKU, @Tulsa</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Only mentioned because they have a home game with Houston in hand. We'll see if they win that one.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Gonzaga (24-0) (15-0) NET 1 SoS 81</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 7-0 vs. Q1, 5-0 vs. Q2, 12-0 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: N-Iowa, N-Kansas, N-WVU, N-Virginia, swept BYU</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A hilariously strong collection of neutral site wins. #1 overall seed, and can probably even survive 2 losses and still hold onto it.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>BYU (18-5) (10-3) NET 20 SoS 18</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 3-3 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2, 9-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @SDSU, @Utah St, @St Mary's</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @Pepperdine</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Pretty safely in. Pretty strong resume, and a good job in the non-con to get a couple road/neutral wins that will carry weight.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>St Bonaventure (13-3) (11-3) NET 28 SoS 75</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-2 vs. Q1, 2-1 vs. Q2, 5-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @Richmond? @Davidson? VCU</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @Rhody?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Only two non-con games, so their entire resume is basically conference play. Does winning the A-10 get them in? A-10 is more or less the #9 conference in the country. Conference champions of a top 10 conference in years past usually, but not always, are good enough to get at-large bids. With 2 cupcake-ish games remaining, I highly recommend winning both of them. 13-3 looks a lit better than 12-4.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>VCU (17-6) (10-4) NET 38 SoS 32</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-4 vs. Q1, 6-0 vs. Q2, 7-4 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Bonaventure, N-USU, St Louis?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: Rhody, Mason</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This isn't the greatest resume in the world. The SoS numbers feel deceptive to me. I think I'd put them in, but I'm not feeling strong about that prediction.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>St Louis (12-5) (5-4) NET 49 SoS 230</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-2 vs. Q1, 1-1 vs. Q2, 1-4 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Bonaventure, LSU, Richmond</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: Dayton, @LaSalle</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">1 road win, in Q4. Unplayable resume.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Richmond (12-6) (6-4) NET 53 SoS 39</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 3-4 vs. Q1, 2-0 vs. Q2, 7-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: N-Loyola, @Kentucky, @Davidson?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: LaSalle</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A playable resume here though. Road acumen, a couple signature wins, but a couple really, really dumb losses ruining everything. This resume will be down to the wire.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>San Diego St (18-4) (13-3) NET 18 SoS 25</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 0-3 vs. Q1, 6-1 vs. Q2, 6-2 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Boise, UCLA, Colorado St</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: none</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The good news is no bad losses. The bad news is no Q1 wins. This means the seed upside is very, very limited. I think the NET rating will help in their case.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Boise St (17-6) (14-5) NET 35 SoS 43</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-4 vs. Q1, 2-2 vs. Q2, 7-6 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @BYU, @CSU, swept USU</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: swept at Nevada</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The lack of truly bad losses, plus juuust enough success on the road could be enough for them. Worth noting 3 road losses were SDSU 2x and Houston, so they're better off than you think. They're gonna need something more of value to add to the resume to make sure they make it, I fear.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Colorado St (14-4) (12-3) NET 45 SoS 73</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-3 vs. Q1, 1-1 vs. Q2, 7-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @SDSU, @Utah St, Boise</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: Boise</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Heh, their worst loss doubles as their 3rd best win. I think I like this resume slightly more than Boise's while acknowledging both are in the same situation.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Utah St (14-7) (12-4) NET 50 SOS 100</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-4 vs. Q1, 1-1 vs. Q2, 7-5 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: swept SDSU, CSU</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: N-S Dakota St, @UNLV</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Unlike the other teams above, USU took a couple dumb losses and it leaves them a half-step behind. Will the committee take 4 MWC teams? As much as it shouldn't matter, you know the committee will look at that sideways. I'm worried.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-36638666711978845632021-02-27T16:59:00.002-08:002021-02-27T16:59:25.330-08:00Bubble Watch: Big East<div style="text-align: left;">Job hunting is time-intensive, I've learned.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Creighton (17-6) (13-5) NET 18 SoS 142</b><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 4-2 vs. Q1, 7-1 vs. Q2, 7-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Nova, @UConn, @SHU</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: 3 Q3 losses at home to decent-ish teams</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The non-con SoS is above 300. I guessing it won't mean as much this year as in years past, but it does put a cap on this resume. Actually some good, solid road wins on this resume help balance out the home losses, so a protected seed is a reasonable outcome for this resume.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Villanova (15-3) (10-2) NET 8 SoS 81</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-2 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2, 7-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @Texas, @SHU, UConn?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: none</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't think there's enough impact wins to be a viable candidate for a 1 seed, or even 2 seed. I think the low number of losses is a stat that might be overrated by bracketologists. Given what I've seen so far elsewhere, I think this is one of the 8 best resumes in the country, but they might need to beat Creighton at home to hold it.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>UConn (12-6) (9-6) NET 42 SoS 79</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-3 vs. Q1, 3-3 vs. Q2, 6-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: N-USC, @Xavier?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: I suppose @Provi and St John's, kinda</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">They don't have much volume on the resume, which makes this tricky. They've shown competence on the road, though, which I think helps more than the other stats hurt. That said, it feels like USC is carrying their entire resume, and they really really could use one more signature win, or at least a small string of decent wins to beef up the resume. They're one dumb loss away from ruining everything.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Xavier (13-5) (6-5) NET 57 SoS 55</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-2 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2, 2-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Creighton, Oklahoma, uh...Toledo?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: none below Q2A</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Another case where the volume is lacking. Two great home, albeit at home, and not much working for them on the resume beyond that. The lack of dumb losses does help though. This does feel like a resume the committee will acquiesce to if they can keep the dumb losses off the resume. It looks like they're going to miss Villanova on the schedule this year....that's a really, really bad break. A loss wouldn't hurt this resume at all, and we know what a signature win would do.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Seton Hall (13-10) (10-7) NET 54 SoS 50</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 3-6 vs. Q1, 3-3 vs. Q2, 6-7 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @UConn, @PSU, @Xavier?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: Providence, @Butler?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A token mention. Swept by CU and Nova means they better beat one of them in a conference tournament.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>St John's (14-10) (8-9) NET 75 SoS 123</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-6 vs. Q1, 3-2 vs. Q2, 5-7 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Nova, @UConn, @Provi?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: DePaul at home oh no</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The one win over Nova gets them listed, for now. Not much else going on here.</div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-45825756759497327442021-02-24T20:41:00.001-08:002021-02-24T20:41:09.395-08:00Bubble Watch: Pac-12<div style="text-align: left;"> Seems like the same old problem for the conference. One elite team this time, but no depth whatsoever in this conference just kills all the bubble resumes in here.<br /><br /><b>USC (19-4) (13-3) NET 14 SoS 54</b><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 3-2 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2, 7-2 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins; N-BYU, @Arizona, @Stanford?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @Oregon St</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A very good road/neutral record will mask a lot of other problems. I think winning a conference might matter a bit more this year, so I give them a reasonable chance of a top 4 seed, but without high-end impact wins, it's a tough sell when comparing them to other teams. Seems like the Pac-12 is stuck where they've been the past few years.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Colorado (17-7) (11-6) NET 22 SoS 85</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-4 vs. Q1, 6-0 vs. Q2, 9-6 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @USC, @Stanford, Arizona?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: 3 Q3 losses, yeesh</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">If you took away the NET and looked at the rest....I mean they'd be in, but it wouldn't be pretty. That road win at USC is getting so much mileage right now. They actually have 6 road/neutral games in Q3/4 (going 4-2 in those), so I'm not going too crazy over 9 R/N wins right now. Signature win chances remain though. A chance to enhance the profile...or ruin it completely. Not safe yet.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>UCLA (16-5) (12-3) NET 41 SoS 109</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-3 vs. Q1, 2-2 vs. Q2, 5-5 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Colorado, swept Arizona?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @Wazzu?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Looks like a classic "beat the teams you're supposed to beat" resume, with a sweep over Arizona and a couple Q2A losses serving as the swing games. They'll make the tournament but I'm not excited about this resume. Quality win chances do remain, though.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Oregon (14-5) (9-4) NET 49 SoS 123</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-3 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2, 5-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Colorado, @Arizona, N-SHU?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: Oregon St, Wazzu</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Q3 losses mixed in with middling computer numbers isn't a good recipe. Not the greatest collection of quality wins. Pretty empty profile. Not sure I see a single-digit seed here. This team will probably be the difference between 3 bids and 4 bids for the conference.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Arizona (15-8) (9-8) NET 43 SoS 52</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-3 vs. Q1, 3-5 vs. Q2, 5-4 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @USC, Colorado, uh</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: Stanford, @Utah, etc</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Without the USC win, they're probably off the board. As is, I'll give them a shout for the moment.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Stanford (14-9) (10-7) NET 58 SoS 63</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 4-5 vs. Q1, 2-4 vs. Q2, 12-7 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: N-Alabama, N-UCLA, swept Arizona</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @ASU, @Wazzu, @Utah?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Only 4 home games on the season, which leads to this interesting breakdown. Don't automatically get swept up by 12 road/neutral wins. That said, 12-7 in road games is a clip well over .500, and the committee could fall in love with it. They have the one high-end win against Bama. Crazier things have happened. I'm paying attention here.</div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-72514541381267812332021-02-21T08:32:00.003-08:002021-02-21T08:32:46.835-08:00Bubble watch: SEC<div style="text-align: left;">Yes, this is moving slower than anticipated. First bracket will come sometime next week.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">SEC seems to be the easiest conference in the world to project. 6 teams in good shape and everyone else in terrible shape. That said, I'm surprised the top 6 haven't separated in the conference standings more than they have already. I think the unbalanced schedule has created a bit of a mess here. But I'm disappointed that Missouri and Florida and Tennessee in particular haven't separated from the bottom half of the conference more clearly.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Lockbox</h2><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Alabama (18-5) (13-1) NET 8 SoS 22</b><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 7-3 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2, 7-4 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @Tennessee, @LSU, Arkansas, etc etc</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: WKU, if that counts</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That one Q3 loss is probably juuuuust enough to keep them off the 1 line. Everything about the resume is pretty rock-solid. No other home losses, enough quality road wins, great metrics across the board.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Arkansas (17-5) (9-4) NET 25 SoS 61</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 4-4 vs. Q1, 4-1 vs. Q2, 4-4 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @Missouri, Florida, @Kentucky?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: none realy</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This seems like the classic resume of a team that beats everyone they should, but loses to everyone they should too. They've missed most their chances at the biggest signature wins, which will limit their seed upside to maybe the 4 or 5 line. Safely in, though, obviously.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>LSU (14-6) (9-4) NET 27 SoS 19</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 3-6 vs. Q1, 3-0 vs. Q2, 4-4 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Tennessee, Arkansas, @Ole Miss?</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @Kentucky I suppose</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">No losses outside of Q1, solid SoS numbers, and a generally inoffensive resume means they're a tournament lock. However, with the lack of quality road wins, it's tough to argue they belong anywhere around a protected seed. 8 line is where they're at, and it sounds about right.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Tennessee (15-6) (8-6) NET 17 SoS 117</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 5-4 vs. Q1, 1-2 vs. Q2, 3-3 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @Missouri, Kansas, Colorado</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: Kentucky</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">At least with this team, they're some non-con results that give them extra support. There's some good home wins...and a couple dumb home losses. With the SoS numbers being a bit low, I kind of put them in the same bucket as Arkansas and LSU; maybe slightly higher because of NET. 4 line seems aggressive for them, unless the eye test is getting thrown in.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Missouri (14-6) (7-6) NET 37 SoS 14</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 6-4 vs. Q1, 3-2 vs. Q2, 6-4 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Illinois, Alabama, @Tennessee</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: @Georgia and MSU?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">lol what. They're 4-0 vs. Q1A. That's hilarious. and 6 losses outside of Q1A. What in the world is this resume. Beat Tennessee and Arkansas on the road....lost to them at home. Such a weird resume. Ultimately.....bad NET, but great SoS, high end wins...I dunno. Too many losses to be a 1 or 2 seed perhaps, but no reason they can't be a protected seed - IF they win the games they're supposed to. They don't need quality wins right now for the resume, they just need steady results.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Bubble</h2><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Florida (11-6) (7-5) NET 30 SoS 50</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 3-3 vs. Q1, 3-2 vs. Q2, 5-4 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: @WVU, Tennessee, LSU</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: S Carolina, Kentucky, @MSU</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What's mostly different here is the dumb losses are a little more dumb than the teams above them. Their quality win chances down the stretch appear to be limited, so I'm a bit nervous about this resume if they do something stupid. It seems like they're down on games played compared to everyone else; this is a resume that kind of really needs volume. They need to make up some games; I think it'll have a direct impact on their resume.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Is it just me or does the conference fall off a cliff after Florida?<br /><br /><b>Ole Miss (12-9) (7-7) NET 60 SoS 78</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Vital signs: 2-4 vs. Q1, 4-3 vs. Q2, 4-5 R/N</div><div style="text-align: left;">Signature wins: Tennessee, @Auburn? Missouri</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bad losses: MSU, Georgia</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The entire resume is basically a home win over Tennessee. I give them half a chance if they pick off Missouri on the road.</div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-22660020355500887962021-02-18T16:31:00.000-08:002021-02-18T16:31:03.956-08:00Bubble watch: Big 12<div style="text-align: left;">The thing that strikes me here is the top-heavy nature of the conference. How do you get a conference that sends 7 of 10 teams to the tournament? The biggest step is making sure the other 3 teams are terrible (and they are).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The next step is relatively strong SoS numbers, which they seem to have done. And outside of Baylor, they're distributing wins pretty evenly in conference play. All the good teams are failing to separate from each other in the middle of this conference, which just means everyone has a pile of quality wins. I feel pretty confident that they'll have 5 teams in the top 16 on the S-Curve at least (and easily could get to 6). It's just that I don't think we'll know which ones, and in what order, until the conference tournament.</div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><br /></h2><h2 style="text-align: left;">Lockbox</h2><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Baylor (17-0) (9-0) NET 2 SoS 163</b></div><div>Vital signs: 6-0 vs. Q1, 2-0 vs. Q1, 9-0 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: N-Illinois, @Texas Tech, @Texas</div><div><br /></div><div>The SoS number isn't great. That's really the only issue. Non-con cupcakes are kinda killing it. That said, in this environment, I don't think it's as big a deal this year.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Kansas (15-7) (10-5) NET 21 SoS 43</b></div><div>Vital signs: 4-7 vs. Q1, 3-0 vs. Q2, 6-6 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: @TTU, WVU, Oklahoma</div><div>Bad losses: not even close to one</div><div><br /></div><div>Their usual SoS numbers are down; no big deal. Their resume features a lot of quality win chances....and more misses than hits. They're not going to enjoy their usual lofty seed, but they're safely in the field...and they still have signature win chances on the board. This looks like the type of team that goes 19-10 and ends up on the 4 line.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Oklahoma (13-5) (8-4) NET 18 SoS 20</b></div><div>Vital signs: 5-5 vs. Q1, 1-0 vs. Q2, 3-4 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: Alabama, swept WVU</div><div>Bad losses: @Xavier, but that probably doesn't even count as one</div><div><br /></div><div>Polarizing resume with just 2 games in Q2/Q3. .500 is a fine enough record in Q1 games. A resume with no major holes, but also no starring feature that gives them a chance at the 2 line, at least for now. And I don't see signature win chances coming, so this seed may be lower than people think in March.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Texas (13-5) (7-4) NET 22 SoS 5</b></div><div>Vital signs: 3-5 vs. Q1, 3-0 vs. Q2, 6-1 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: @WVU, @Kansas, N-Indiana?</div><div>Bad losses: none</div><div><br /></div><div>Strong SoS numbers and a VERY strong road/neutral record means they're in a very good position for a protected seed. Home losses against elite competition is forgivable. With more quality win chances coming, a sleeper candidate to move up to the top 2 lines.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Texas Tech (14-6) (6-5) NET 15 SoS 40</b></div><div>Vital signs: 4-5 vs. Q1, 1-1 vs. Q2, 6-2 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: @Oklahoma, @Texas, @LSU</div><div>Bad losses: I suppose home to OSU technically has to be listed here?</div><div><br /></div><div>Another sterling road/neutral record, and again, a couple home losses against elite competition. Just like Texas, a sleeper candidate to move up to the top 2 lines.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>West Virginia (14-6) (7-4) NET 17 SoS 7</b></div><div>Vital signs: 5-6 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2, 8-3 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: swept TTU, @OSU</div><div>Bad losses: nah</div><div><br /></div><div>Strong SoS numbers, and another team with massive road/neutral splits. The schedule isn't as accodomating for quality win chances like the other teams above them, so they may be out of reach of the 2 line.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Bubble</h2><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Oklahoma St (14-6) (7-6) NET 39 SoS 75</b></div><div>Vital signs: 4-4 Q1, 2-1 vs. Q2, 6-3 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: @TTU, Kansas, Texas</div><div>Bad losses: swept by TCU?!</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That bad sweep keeps them out of the lockbox for now. It's the only resume flaw, really. </div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-58012835575414251362021-02-14T14:03:00.002-08:002021-02-14T14:03:23.396-08:00Bubble watch - ACC<div style="text-align: left;">Is it just me, or is this conference a bit of a tire fire this year? There's a lot of mediocrity, and a lot of teams pooling around .500 overall. The distribution of wins in conference play really aren't seeming to help anyone. And it means signature win chances within conference play goes away. It's a perfect storm to ensure you get the minimum amount of bids.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The unbalanced schedule really stands out in a conference like this, when your access to a signature win chance is so limited. Most years, there's enough strong teams at the top that bubble teams get enough chances. This year, with no high-end resumes, everyone suffers downballot.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I think there's a strong chance someone not listed on this page goes on a run and makes the tournament, though. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Lockbox</h2><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Virginia (15-3) (11-1) NET 6 SoS 53</b></div><div>Vital signs: 3-2 vs. Q1, 5-0 vs. Q2, 6-3 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: @Clemson, Ga Tech, and Notre Dame? meh</div><div>Bad losses: N-San Francisco</div><div><br /></div><div>Not nearly enough resume heft given what you'd normally expect from an ACC leader. 3 line based on name and reputation seems about right here.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Virginia Tech (14-4) (8-3) NET 33 SoS 63</b></div><div>Vital signs: 3-2 vs. Q1, 4-2 vs. Q2, 5-3 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: Virginia, N-Nova, @Notre Dame?</div><div>Bad losses: @Pitt and PSU?</div><div><br /></div><div>With a couple of truly signature wins, they're in decent position. Really, outside of NET ranking, isn't this resume better than Virginia's? Maybe a couple more dumb losses, but some good wins to balance it out. I would like to see more depth of quality wins, though.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Should be in</h2><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Florida St (11-3) (7-2) NET 25 SoS 84</b></div><div>Vital signs: 2-2 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2, 1-2 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: @Louisville, Florida, Clemson?</div><div>Bad losses: UCF</div><div><br /></div><div>Not a lot going on as far as road games on this resume. I'd like to see them shore that up before calling them a lock. Still, all the other metrics are generally good enough to make the field, but I'm pretty whelmed by the overall resume. I'm starting to catch a trend here where the entire ACC is a bit poor this year.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Louisville (11-4) (6-3) NET 34 SoS 42</b></div><div>Vital signs: 0-3 vs. Q1, 7-0 vs. Q2, 3-3 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: Va Tech? Seton Hall? @Pitt?</div><div>Bad losses: @Miami</div><div><br /></div><div>The classic beat-who-you're-supposed-to-beat resume. I can't imagine making the field without a Q1 win, but if they keep their nose clean, they just might.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Clemson (13-5) (7-5) NET 45 SoS 17</b></div><div>Vital signs: 3-5 vs. Q1, 6-0 vs. Q2, 4-4 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: N-Alabama, FSU, N-Purdue</div><div>Bad losses: @Duke and GT?</div><div><br /></div><div>Probably fine. No real bad losses, won enough quality win chances, piled up some neutral site wins to buttress that part of the resume. They've got very winnable road games coming up, which can make the difference between the 4 line and the 9 line.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Bubble</h2><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>North Carolina (12-7) (7-5) NET 56 SoS 65</b></div><div>Vital signs: 1-6 vs. Q1, 5-1 vs. Q2, 6-7 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: @Duke, Syracuse, N-Stanford?</div><div>Bad losses: @NC State</div><div><br /></div><div>I have no idea what to do here. They simply must have better quality wins to make the tournament, period. But 6 road/neutral wins already can't miss, right? I feel like any analysis is pointless given their upcoming schedule, it will form a significant portion of their overall resume.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Syracuse (12-6) (6-5) NET 52 SoS 111</b></div><div>Vital signs: 0-4 vs. Q1, 2-1 vs. Q2, 2-5 R/N</div><div>Signature wins: VT, @NC State, and uh...</div><div>Bad losses: Pitt</div><div><br /></div><div>Practically a courtesy listing. There's nothing here. And everything behind them in the conference isn't much better. This is not a deep ACC bubble.</div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-30947054681955701422021-02-14T10:25:00.000-08:002021-02-14T10:25:27.568-08:00Bubble watch - Big 10<div style="text-align: left;">Let's see how good this analysis holds up.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />First impression: conference is strong in the computers. I see 5 high seeds coming, and some bubble teams getting dragged along kicking and screaming into the field. I have 9 teams listed below...it really does feel like all 9 would make it, but I think the chances of Minnesota or Indiana missing would be reasonable.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><h2 style="text-align: left;">Lockbox</h2><br /><b>Ohio St (17-4) (11-4) NET 7 SoS 52</b><br />Vital signs: 8-3 vs. Q1, 2-1 vs. Q2, 7-3 R/N<br />Signature wins: @Illinois, @iowa, @Wisconsin<br />Bad losses: I suppose @Northwestern, maybe<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">5-1 record vs. Q1A. All of those games were road games. I think road wins, any road wins, will carry increased value this year. You can forgive a couple road losses, when you can hide them behind other signature road wins. A pretty obvious resume for the 1 line, and they can probably even absorb a couple blows and still be there.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Illinois (14-5) (10-3) NET 4 SoS 48</b><br />Vital signs: 6-4 vs. Q1, 4-1 vs. Q2, 5-3 R/N<br />Signature wins: Iowa, @Penn St, Wisconsin<br />Bad losses: not really</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Merely 2-4 vs. Q1A means their seed upside may be limited. Can they be a 1 seed? I'm not sure there's enough top-end results to get home (it appears they have two late chances on the schedule to fix this). Signature road win at Duke has faded to dust, it appears. No real bad losses. I see them projected as the top 2 seed right now. That feels aggressive, but it appears it's part of a larger trend of aggressive seeding of B1G teams right now. Or the rest of the country sucks right now.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Michigan (13-1) (8-1) NET 3 SoS 122</b><br />Vital signs: 3-1 vs. Q1, 4-0 vs. Q2, 3-1 R/N<br />Signature wins: @Purdue, @Maryland, Wisconsin<br />Bad losses: none</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />They're behind in games played, and this seems like a resume from which quantity of good results is lacking. I expect some swings in valuation of this profile down the stretch despite the gaudy record. I guess this depends on what the rest of the country is doing, but I see a lot of projected 1 seeds for them right now and I'm not sure I feel that aggressively about their resume yet to put them there. That has to be an eye test play.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Iowa (15-6) (9-5) NET 8 SoS 85</b><br />Vital signs: 4-5 vs. Q1, 4-1 vs. Q2, 4-4 R/N<br />Signature wins: @Rutgers, @Maryland, Purdue<br />Bad losses: home to Indiana?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />4-3 in true road games in conference play, and the NET, puts them higher than the record would first suggest. Much like Illinois, they lack the juice to get to the top line at the moment. With 3 signature road win chances though, this could change. On one end, they could be this year's 10-loss team that ends up on the 3 line....or would win at Wisky/OSU/Michigan and get to the 1 line.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Wisconsin (15-6) (9-5) NET 16 SoS 136</b><br />Vital signs: 3-4 vs. Q1, 5-2 vs. Q2, 4-4 R/N<br />Signature wins: Loyola, @Rutgers, @Maryland<br />Bad losses: @Marquette?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />I don't have much to say. Obvious tournament team, borderline protected seed territory, some chances to improve the profile down the stretch. Your stock 4 seed.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Should be in</h2><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Purdue (13-8) (8-6) NET 26 SoS 23</b><br />Vital signs: 3-7 vs. Q1, 6-0 vs. Q2, 5-7 R/N<br />Signature wins: swept Ohio St (wait, what), @Indiana<br />Bad losses: @Miami</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />They've beaten a probable 1 seed twice...and have lost their next 7 toughest games. Ugh. One of these profiles. The SoS and NET numbers can very well save them, but the polarization in this resume makes me nervous. What really, really makes me nervous is that they're just about out of quality win chances already based on the schedule. I highly recommend beating Wisconsin at home here.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Rutgers (12-7) (8-7) NET 29 SoS 25</b><br />Vital signs: 4-6 vs. Q1, 3-1 vs. Q2, 3-4 R/N<br />Signature wins: Illinois, @Maryland, Purdue<br />Bad losses: @Michigan St?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />This is the type of bubble team that ends up on something like the 7 or 8 line because their conference is so strong. They've done juuuuust enough against opponents juuuust good enough to safely be in the field. But this is a team that can't afford to be just, say, 4 games over .500 at the end of the year.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: left;">Bubble</h2><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Minnesota (13-7) (6-7) NET 46 SoS 15</b><br />Vital signs: 4-6 vs. Q1, 1-1 vs. Q2, 0-6 R/N<br />Signature wins: Michigan, Ohio St, Iowa<br />Bad losses: Maryland</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />The flaw in this resume is obvious. Get a road win, literally any road win. 3 signature home wins. They need to do something on the road. Literally anything. Only 2 chances left though. I don't care who they beat at home, they're out without probably 2 road/neutral wins.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><b>Indiana (11-9) (6-7) NET 51 SoS 65</b><br />Vital signs: 2-8 vs. Q1, 5-0 vs. Q2, 6-5 R/N<br />Signature wins: swept Iowa, Penn St<br />Bad losses: Northwestern</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />So admittedly I don't know what to do here. Bad overall record, not good enough against Q1. The one thing saving them is all those road/neutral wins, but 5 of those fell in Q2 and Q3 against struggling power conference teams. What do you do with that? I would imagine road wins of any kind would be overvalued this year. That plus the conference affiliation might save them. Will likely be heavily debated by everyone down the stretch.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />Somehow Penn St and Maryland are top 40 NET teams despite being below .500. They can probably be safely ignored. So can Michigan St with a NET of 91; I see that ranking being used aggressively as a filter by the selection committee.</div>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-27181696368900805102021-02-11T23:07:00.001-08:002021-02-11T23:07:44.053-08:00Another administrative note<p> As you may have guessed, my plans have had a modest change to them this season. A sequence of real-life emergencies (yes, plural) have more or less taken me away from all free time (which includes even following the sport on a day-to-day basis). As it turns out, family health and employment end up being more important than college basketball, although it's debatable. I thought I could fake my way through November and then pick up steam in the blog in December; real life decided naaaaaaah.</p><p><br /></p><p>I've more or less had to abandon sports consumption, and only now can start playing catch-up. Literally as I look right now, Kentucky is 5-13? The hell happened there? Duke is under .500? Why is there a toothpaste ranked #13 in NET? This is the level of knowledge I am currently operating at.</p><p><br /></p><p>It's fully my intention to publish the annual bracket prediction on Selection Sunday (a personal streak dating back to 1997 and a blog streak of 2014). But I'm going to be coming from a very sideways angle this time around. This is going to have to be much more haphazard. It might make an interesting social project, to see if intense knowledge of the sport is required for Bracketology.</p><p><br /></p><p>I dunno if there'll be daily recaps. Although it'd be hilarious to go back to November, with February eyes. Might be some intrinsic value there. I'm probably going to try and start with conference deep dives, and compare the eyes of a person who has just the numbers with the eyes of people who've seen the season play out.</p><p><br /></p><p>God willing, I can carve out some time this weekend to do this.</p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-33126208245671005862020-11-25T09:58:00.001-08:002020-11-25T09:58:21.643-08:00Administrative note<p> There will be no preseason bracket, as a combination of uncertainty about the season plus my own schedule prevents me from really being able to assemble a coherent prediction.</p><p><br /></p><p>We'll fire off daily recaps but it's unlikely this blog will have any additional bells or whistles for a month or two.</p>Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-90474479056077293632020-03-13T17:34:00.001-07:002020-03-13T17:34:47.480-07:00Final BRACKETRIP.<br />
<br />
One last screw you from BYU as they force a B1G rematch in round 2 over in the west regional.<br />
<br />
<br />
MIDWEST 34<br />
@Omaha<br />
1) Kansas vs. 16) Northern Kentucky<br />
8) Houston vs. 9) Marquette<br />
@Sacramento<br />
4) Wisconsin vs. 13) New Mexico St<br />
5) Auburn vs. 12) Yale<br />
@St Louis<br />
3) Creighton vs. 14) Belmont<br />
6) BYU vs. 11) Indiana<br />
@Greensboro<br />
2) Duke vs. 15) Winthrop<br />
7) Illinois vs. 10) East Tennessee St<br />
<br />
EAST 36<br />
@Cleveland<br />
1) Dayton vs. 16) Prairie View A&M/North Carolina Central<br />
8) Providence vs. 9) Florida<br />
@Tampa<br />
4) Louisville vs. 13) Akron<br />
5) West Virginia vs. 12) Stephen F Austin<br />
@St Louis<br />
3) Kentucky vs. 14) Bradley<br />
6) Michigan vs. 11) Richmond/North Carolina St<br />
@Albany<br />
2) Villanova vs. 15) North Dakota St<br />
7) Virginia vs. 10) Utah St<br />
<br />
WEST 34<br />
@Spokane<br />
1) Gonzaga vs. 16) Robert Morris/Siena<br />
8) USC vs. 9) Oklahoma<br />
@Spokane<br />
4) Oregon vs. 13) North Texas<br />
5) Ohio St vs. 12) Vermont<br />
@Cleveland<br />
3) Michigan St vs. 14) UC-Irvine<br />
6) Iowa vs. 11) Northern Iowa/Wichita St<br />
@Sacramento<br />
2) San Diego St vs. 15) Eastern Washington<br />
7) Colorado vs. 10) Rutgers<br />
<br />
SOUTH 32<br />
@Omaha<br />
1) Baylor vs. 16) Boston U<br />
8) LSU vs. 9) Arizona<br />
@Greensboro<br />
4) Maryland vs. 13) Liberty<br />
5) Butler vs. 12) Cincinnati<br />
@Albany<br />
3) Seton Hall vs. 14) Hofstra<br />
6) Penn St vs. 11) Texas Tech<br />
@Tampa<br />
2) Florida St vs. 15) UALR<br />
7) St Mary's vs. 10) Arizona StAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-44551596505784096512020-03-13T17:18:00.001-07:002020-03-13T17:18:36.181-07:00Final SEED LISTThis officially goes unchanged after one final seed scrub from me.<br />
<br />
Weird : Stanford dropped out with a loss in a tournament that ended up cancelled. Makes you wonder, in a hypothetical world where the NCAA tournament was back on, if those conference tournaments would actually count. I could actually see the NCAA throwing out all conference tourney results for all teams, inviting all regular season champions and proceeding. If the NCAA does end up releasing a seed list, I'd like to see them go that route.<br />
<br />
In that scenario, I'd change:<br />
- SDSU gets their 1 seed back, Dayton back to a 2<br />
- Utah St drops out of the field, replaced by UCLA (the SDSU win served as rocket fuel for its resume)<br />
- UNI probably leaps a seed line or so. UNI getting the autobid back actually bumps Stanford back in the field as a result.<br />
- St Mary's probably loses a seed line to Houston by having their BYU win erased<br />
- the obvious changes at the bottom with the likes of Winthrop, Boston U, etc replaced<br />
- Colorado gets a seed back (PSU drops one amid their horrid non-con SoS)<br />
<br />
As is, the previous seed list gets frozen in place.<br />
<br />
The 1 line: Kansas, Baylor, Gonzaga, Dayton<br />
The 2 line: San Diego St, Villanova, Florida St, Duke<br />
The 3 line: Creighton, Seton Hall, Kentucky, Michigan St<br />
The 4 line: Maryland, Oregon, Louisville, Wisconsin<br />
The 5 line: Butler, West Virginia, Ohio St, Auburn<br />
The 6 line: Michigan, BYU, Iowa, Penn St<br />
The 7 line: Virginia, Colorado, Illinois, St Mary's<br />
The 8 line: Houston, Providence, LSU, USC<br />
The 9 line: Arizona, Florida, Marquette, Oklahoma<br />
The 10 line: East Tennessee St, Arizona St, Utah St, Rutgers<br />
The 11 line: Texas Tech, Indiana, Richmond, North Carolina St, Northern Iowa, Wichita St<br />
The 12 line: Cincinnati, Stephen F Austin, Yale, Vermont<br />
The 13 line: Liberty, Akron, New Mexico St, North Texas<br />
The 14 line: Belmont, Bradley, Hofstra, UC-Irvine<br />
The 15 line: Winthrop, Eastern Washington, North Dakota St, Arkansas-Little Rock<br />
The 16 line: Boston U, Northern Kentucky, Siena, Robert Morris, Prairie View A&M, North Carolina Central<br />
<br />
Last 4 in:<br />
Richmond<br />
North Carolina St<br />
Northern Iowa<br />
Wichita St<br />
<br />
Last 4 out:<br />
UCLA<br />
*Cincinnati<br />
Stanford<br />
Xavier<br />
Purdue<br />
<br />
Next 4 out:<br />
Mississippi St<br />
*Stephen F Austin<br />
Texas<br />
Memphis<br />
ArkansasAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8824504650575769129.post-76663086083076332372020-03-12T05:28:00.001-07:002020-03-12T05:28:24.487-07:003/12 SEED LISTThe 1 line: Kansas, Baylor, Gonzaga, Dayton<br />
The 2 line: San Diego St, Villanova, Florida St, Duke<br />
The 3 line: Creighton, Seton Hall, Kentucky, Michigan St<br />
The 4 line: Maryland, Oregon, Louisville, Wisconsin<br />
The 5 line: Butler, West Virginia, Ohio St, Auburn<br />
The 6 line: Michigan, BYU, Iowa, Penn St<br />
The 7 line: Virginia, Colorado, Illinois, St Mary's<br />
The 8 line: Houston, Providence, LSU, USC<br />
The 9 line: Arizona, Florida, Marquette, Oklahoma<br />
The 10 line: East Tennessee St, Arizona St, Utah St, Rutgers<br />
The 11 line: Texas Tech, Indiana, Richmond, North Carolina St, Northern Iowa, Wichita St<br />
The 12 line: Cincinnati, Stephen F Austin, Yale, Vermont<br />
The 13 line: Liberty, Akron, New Mexico St, North Texas<br />
The 14 line: Belmont, Bradley, Hofstra, UC-Irvine<br />
The 15 line: Winthrop, Eastern Washington, North Dakota St, Arkansas-Little Rock<br />
The 16 line: Boston U, Northern Kentucky, Siena, Robert Morris, Prairie View A&M, North Carolina Central<br />
<br />
Last 4 in:<br />
Richmond<br />
North Carolina St<br />
Northern Iowa<br />
Wichita St<br />
<br />
Last 4 out:<br />
UCLA<br />
*Cincinnati<br />
Stanford<br />
Xavier<br />
Purdue<br />
<br />
Next 4 out:<br />
Mississippi St<br />
*Stephen F Austin<br />
Texas<br />
Memphis<br />
ArkansasAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07633238389653909775noreply@blogger.com4