11/13 recap

Another day where there's very little impact.  All of the big teams are taking this weekend off ahead of big games in the next couple of weeks, or are playing cupcakes with success.

Not many game-changers out there in terms of impact wins.

@Colorado St 64, New Mexico St 61 - interesting to me only because NMSU is trapped in the WAC, so these losses matter more to them than it does to other teams
Yale 98, @Washington 90 - here's one mild upset.  I'm not sure Washington is any good, but this is good news for the Ivy League as a whole
@Wichita St 92, Long Beach St 55 - good God, Monson, schedule down every once in awhile
@North Carolina 97, Chattanooga 57 - no big deal for Chattanooga, they got a split in their first two roadies which is perfectly fine

There's a slew of big name schools that held serve...pretty quiet day overall.

11/12 recap

I'm having trouble coming up with a post because I see a few teams who held serve as big favorites....and basically no game-changing results.

So carry on with your day then.

11/11 recap

It's the return of the daily recaps.  A reminder as to what these posts include:

- These will be short, we're looking just for quick-hitting thoughts
- I'm not listing out scores where top teams play cupcakes.  Duke beating Marist by eleventy billion doesn't change anything for us, so we'll just ignore it
- We pay attention to who gets quality wins, who blew their chances at one, and who suffered losses that will look bad in March

Let's Go:

Indiana 103, Kansas 99 - usually, analysis for this kind of game is useless in November.  We'll see where both teams are in March and see how much value this win/loss holds.
@Xavier 84, Lehigh 81 - notable only in the margin of victory; we'll keep Lehigh in the back of our minds as the non-con season marches forward to see if there's something here
Arizona 65, Michigan St 63 - see Indiana/Kansas comment
@St Mary's 81, Nevada 63 - Nevada's pretty good, so this was a non-trivial hold by St Mary's.
Wagner 67, @UConn 58 - and there's your catastrophic loss of the day.  Wagner might win the NEC, but UConn has to handle any NEC team with ease
Marquette 95, Vanderbilt 71
Chattanooga 82, @Tennessee 69 - there's your SoCon favorites with a quality road win early
Albany 87, @Penn St 81 - again, quality mid-majors getting early quality road wins
@Clemson 74, Georgia 64 - this is the type of game bubble teams have to win....two bubble teams here
@Arkansas 92, Fort Wayne 83 - proof that not all quality mid-majors got a quality road win last night
@Stanford 80, Harvard 70

11/11 S-CURVE

A new season begins, and your first S-Curve of the season is below.  This is mostly the same as the offseason bracket, with a few tweaks here and there.

In the preseason bracket, I would argue it's more important to look at my conference breakdown rather than the individual teams.  Sure, of course teams get bids and not conferences, but for preseason projections, I like to look at the relative strength of each conference.  The strength will be an indicator of how many quality wins will be available in each conference, which will influence the likelihood of increased bids in the conference.  I would look at the conference breakdown as a rough guide of how good I expect each conference to be, and how easy it'll be for them to get more bids.

More specifically:
- ACC will be strong.  I have 8/15 getting in, that could easily be more than 8.
- I expect a mild rebound from the Mountain West, getting a 2nd team back in, and I expect the WCC Top 2 to keep clear of the bubble.
- The top of the SEC will be a bit stronger, but they only have 4 bids.  I see very little depth.  This won't hurt Kentucky, but it will hurt all of the bubble teams needing quality wins.  My Auburn call is a bit of a hunch, though.
- The other power conferences lurk around the 50% mark in getting at-large bids, give or take a team.  This is pretty standard.
- I'm probably selling the American conference short with only 3 teams, but I can't figure out who that 4th team will be.  I'll wait and see there.

Individual team calls I'm leaning on:
- Monmouth will get their vengeance this year.
- Marquette/VT/Auburn is a trio of teams on my 9 line that are my bolder calls.  There's room for each team in their conference to settle into the middle of the pack.
- I'm not completely sold on New Mexico being that 2nd MWC team, or Davidson being that 4th A-10 team, but I like the odds of those conferences posting a 2nd team and 4th team, respectively.
- I feel like the odds are the MVC gets 2 teams in, but I just didn't find room in this initial bracket.
- One note after the fact:  some have 10 or 11 ACC teams in their bracket.  It's not impossible, but let's slow your collective roll until we see evidence they should get that many.  If you're wondering why Syracuse is off the board....I had to take a couple ACC teams off the board for balance...made my call with them over others.

One tradition has died this year.  The traditional MAC at-large bid I give out in my first bracket of the year has been eliminated.  RIP.

The 1 line: Duke, Villanova, Kansas, Oregon
The 2 line: Kentucky, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan St
The 3 line: Virginia, Xavier, Arizona, Iowa St
The 4 line: Louisville, Indiana, UCLA, UConn
The 5 line: Dayton, Purdue, Gonzaga, Texas A&M
The 6 line: Baylor, California, Creighton, Rhode Island
The 7 line: West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Miami
The 8 line: Wichita St, Maryland, Cincinnati, Colorado
The 9 line: Marquette, Virginia Tech, Auburn, St Mary's
The 10 line: Monmouth, Texas, Notre Dame, VCU
The 11 line: San Diego St, Florida St, USC, Seton Hall
The 12 line: Oklahoma, Davidson, New Mexico, SMU, Valparaiso, Harvard
The 13 line: Akron, Towson, Long Beach St, North Dakota St
The 14 line: Chattanooga, Texas-Arlington, Belmont, UAB
The 15 line: Weber St, Lehigh, Vermont, North Florida
The 16 line: Winthrop, Sam Houston St, Fairleigh Dickinson, New Mexico St, South Carolina St, Texas Southern

Next 4 in:
VCU
Florida St
USC
Seton Hall

Last 4 in:
Oklahoma
Davidson
New Mexico
SMU

Last 4 out:
Illinois St
Northwestern
Georgia
Northern Iowa

Next 4 out:
Pittsburgh
Ohio St
Alabama
Utah

Break it down!
ACC 8
Big 12 6
Big 10 6
Pac-12 6
Big East 5
SEC 4
A-10 4
AAC 3
WCC 2
MWC 2

11/11 BRACKET

I haven't completely checked previous years matchups and some other obscure bracket rules for now....this is preseason, dammit.  I'll worry about that as the picture clears.

EAST
@Greenville
1) Duke vs. 16) New Mexico St/Texas Southern
8) Maryland vs. 9) Auburn
@Sacramento
4) UCLA vs. 13) Long Beach St
5) Gonzaga vs. 12) Davidson/New Mexico
@Milwaukee
3) Xavier vs. 14) Chattanooga
6) Rhode Island vs. 11) USC
@Indianapolis
2) Michigan St vs. 15) Lehigh
7) West Virginia vs. 10) Monmouth

WEST
@Sacramento
1) Oregon vs. 16) Winthrop
8) Cincinnati vs. 9) St Mary's
@Orlando
4) Indiana vs. 13) Akron
5) Texas A&M vs. 12) Valparaiso
@Tulsa
3) Iowa St vs. 14) Texas-Arlington
6) California vs. 11) Florida St
@Greenville
2) North Carolina vs. 15) North Florida
7) Florida vs. 10) VCU

MIDWEST
@Tulsa
1) Kansas vs. 16) Sam Houston St
8) Colorado vs. 9) Marquette
@Orlando
4) Louisville vs. 13) Towson
5) Dayton vs. 12) Oklahoma/SMU
@Salt Lake City
3) Arizona vs. 14) UAB
6) Baylor vs. 11) Seton Hall
@Milwaukee
2) Wisconsin vs. 15) Weber St
7) Miami vs. 10) Texas

SOUTH
@Buffalo
1) Villanova vs. 16) Fairleigh Dickinson/South Carolina St
8) Wichita St vs. 9) Virginia Tech
@Salt Lake City
4) UConn vs. 13) North Dakota St
5) Purdue vs. 12) Harvard
@Buffalo
3) Virginia vs. 14) Belmont
6) Creighton vs. 11) San Diego St
@Indianapolis
2) Kentucky vs. 15) Vermont
7) Michigan vs. 10) Notre Dame

Offseason bracketology 16-17

The 1 line: Duke, Kansas, Villanova, Oregon
The 2 line: Kentucky, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Virginia
The 3 line: Xavier, Michigan St, Arizona, Iowa St
The 4 line: Louisville, Indiana, California, Dayton
The 5 line: Purdue, UConn, Texas A&M, West Virginia
The 6 line: Baylor, Rhode Island, Marquette, Virginia Tech
The 7 line: Gonzaga, UCLA, Florida, Creighton
The 8 line: Michigan, Miami, Wichita St, Maryland
The 9 line: Colorado, Auburn, Cincinnati, Monmouth
The 10 line: Texas, St Mary's, Notre Dame, VCU
The 11 line: Florida St, USC, Seton Hall, Oklahoma, Davidson
The 12 line: New Mexico, Illinois St, Valparaiso, Harvard, San Diego St
The 13 line: Akron, Towson, Long Beach St, North Dakota St
The 14 line: Chattanooga, Texas-Arlington, Belmont, UAB
The 15 line: Weber St, Lehigh, Vermont, North Florida
The 16 line: Winthrop, Sam Houston St, Fairleigh Dickinson, New Mexico St, South Carolina St, Texas Southern

Next 4 in:
VCU
Florida St
USC
Seton Hall

Last 4 in:
Oklahoma
Davidson
New Mexico
Illinois St

Last 4 out:
Northwestern
SMU
Georgia
Northern Iowa

Next 4 out:
Pittsburgh
Ohio St
Alabama
Utah

Break it down!
ACC 8
Big 12 6
Big 10 6
Pac-12 6
Big East 5
SEC 4
A-10 4
WCC 2
MVC 2
AAC 2
MWC 2

The RPI sucks

It's time for another rant against the RPI.  I've said the things I'm about to say before.  In fact, I encourage you to go back to last April's archives and find the RPI/SoS post there.  I won't reprise the mathematics here, but I'll refer to the end lesson.  The lesson is this:  in building a schedule, the current system emphasizes bad team avoidance more than playing good teams.  It rewards teams more for simply playing below-average teams instead of the bottom of D1, instead of rewarding teams who actually play good teams.

It's fair to say the overall system is biased against mid-majors.  Note that you have to be careful in what you mean about bias, though.  It's not that very few mid-majors get at-large bids.  It's that the system is set up in a way to make earning an at-large bid impossible for mid-majors.  The current system, based on how the RPI is calculated, favors teams who have bad team avoidance, which is something by definition that the mid-majors cannot do.  There is no recourse for a mid-major to prevent this fatal flaw from ruining their resume.

Knowing this, let's brainstorm a new version of the RPI.  This new version should still punish teams who willingly schedule many cupcakes, but it should reward teams who schedule up and attempt to get quality wins, without erasing those gains unfairly.  There's two main ways to do this:

1) Throwing out outliers.  You know in some judging competitions, how the high score and low score get thrown out when there are many judges?  Let's introduce that to the RPI.  For the SoS calculation, throw out the best team and worst team, and then calculate the SoS.  Or even just throw out teams on one end.  Throw out the worst 3 records in a team's non-conference schedule before calculating the non-con SoS.  In fact, this is my favorite solution.

What does this do?  By throwing out the bottom 3 teams on a team's schedule when calculating non-con SoS, you allow everyone a couple of free cupcakes without hurting their computer numbers, which is okay.  You keep the truly horrendous teams from causing extra damage to a good team's profile.  If a team still has several other cupcakes on the schedule, now they're still going to be punished, even more severely when compared to teams with just a couple of cupcakes.  And finally, with less teams factoring into the SoS calculation, the excellent teams will stand out more clearly.

2) Artificial scaling.  For the SoS calculation, put in a floor.  If an opponent has less than a .250 record...bump it up to .250 for the SoS calculation.  Or .300.  Or .200.  Or any number you want.  This would require some research that I don't have time for, but I'm sure an optimal number is out there.  Or you can introduce a sliding scale, where all below .500 records receive a proportional bump in value.  A .200 record becomes .300, a .400 record becomes .450, you get the idea.

What does this do?  It softens the blow that a truly terrible team has on the SoS.  It mitigates the bad team avoidance issue by helping prevent a single bad team from having excessive influence on the SoS.

I'd like to see someone figure out a system incorporating one or both of these ideas.  We need something to lessen the impact of cupcake games on the SoS.