2017-2018 Bracketology

[Fafhrd Mouser]

Is a 2 seed possible if WSU wins out?

[WuShock16]

There is differing opinion on that. I personally think it is possible but that help is needed. If Duke loses to Carolina this weekend and then doesn't have a great ACC Tournament, I think it is possible to pass them.

Same with Michigan State. The Big Ten regular season is finished. If Izzo's crew gets bumped early in the conference tournament (c'mon Turg...help us out with that...), it is possible there too.

[FadedCrown]

https://goo.gl/bAVevu

[pogo]

Unfortunately I have seen the Twerps play several times this year and they were very underwhelming.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Lots of talk about “next time I see a mid-major get screwed with a poor seed despite a resume like MSU’s...”

Question: Can anyone find an example of a midmajor with...
-Only 3 losses, all vs top 15 teams
-Multiple wins vs top 10 teams
-7 top 100 wins
-Top 100 SOS

MSU has all these things. Maybe you can’t find an exactly similar resume from a mid-major, but can anyone find anything even close? I’d be interested to take a look should such a resume exist.

[MadaboutWu]

Well a way you could compare it is looking at non-power 5s (or power 6 or 7) with a comparable record of a power 5 team on a different seedline and see if the non-power 5 team is disadvantaged.

Also a lot of the problem starts to arise because of so many factors are considered (which makes exactly similar resumes unlikely). They are always comparing apples and oranges, but it seems their preferences shift depending who they are looking at and from year to year. More factors is theoretically makes the process better but that depends on the committee fighting hard against any biases. I would prefer some weighting of 3-4 objective measures (say rpi, Kenpom, and poll rankings--of course the last one is not objective) because I think the process is rather biased.

[ShockCrazy]

Lots of talk about “next time I see a mid-major get screwed with a poor seed despite a resume like MSU’s...”

Question: Can anyone find an example of a midmajor with...
-Only 3 losses, all vs top 15 teams
-Multiple wins vs top 10 teams
-7 top 100 wins
-Top 100 SOS

MSU has all these things. Maybe you can’t find an exactly similar resume from a mid-major, but can anyone find anything even close? I’d be interested to take a look should such a resume exist.

It's impossible to find extremely close resumes just because of the nature that most mid-majors aren't going to get 5+ games against top 15 teams. But there are interesting teams to compare MSU to, aforementioned 2015 WSU, but also UNI. 2011 BYU is alsot similar and ended up with a 3, but 2011 MWC was much more like the current AAC than a true mid-major.

Perhaps the best comparison is 2014 SDSU, they received a 4 seed. They did have one bad loss @141 Wyoming though. But other losses are H2 Arizona, @12 New Mexico, and N New Mexico. Wins are N10 Creighton, @3 Kansas, H12 New Mexico. SOS 91, 6-3 Top 100. Very very similar.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Thanks for digging up 2014 SDSU, ShockCrazy .

Without getting into crazy detail, I agree they are similar to 2018 MSU because of the 3 really good wins, and a ton of mediocre/easy wins. That one loss to #135 Wyoming really hurt them. Should MSU lose to Wisconsin in the Big 10 Tourney opener, I bet they get a 3 seed. At that point, we are looking at two teams, separated by 4 years, with similar resumes, who were separated by a mere 1 seed line, with the significantly higher ranked KenPom team getting the 1 seed line advantage. In that case, I don't see much room for complaining about favoritism or inconsistent application of criteria.

[ShockCrazy]

I think it's going to be really hard to learn much this year. I think they will end up a 2 even with a loss to open the Big 10 tourney. Now the committee will certainly say it's because of the predictive metrics, but is that because of a tiny bit more emphasis on them this year? Or is it bias who knows. The real test will come in sometime in the few years when predictive metrics are supposed to matter more, and if there is a genuine predictive metric darling that rpi/resume devalues. Gonzaga's seed line and SMC are interesting trial balloons, but I'm not sure they really represent the case we are looking for since Gonzaga probably has some favorable bias as well, and SMC even predictive metrics would have around 6-7.

[ShockdaWorld]

So we should add two Top 10 games and get rid of all of the other top 100 games for games against 110-311. I like it.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Ask yourself. If WSU would so easily go 11-1 vs a pair of top 10 teams and 6 more of the remaining games against 100-175 level competition, then why weren't they able to do better than 6-3 vs a bunch of NIT quality opponents?

We always want to assume the best about what WSU *would do* in a given hypothetical scenario, but if you truly step back and look at all the data available to us, the 11-1 is a more impressive feat than the 6-3, and it is wrong to just assume WSU would have matched the 11-1 if they swapped places.

[Cdizzle]

I find it interesting that all the screaming and yelling about WSU's quality KenPom rating the past 5 years has now been replaced with "I think #17 and #5 are pretty much equal on paper."

Screaming and yelling about WSU's quality kenPom didn't get WSU quality seeds. Why should it help MSU?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I made a long post defending MSU using RPI only. I mentioned KenPom so that those who found my RPI argument unpersuasive could know that Ken actually agrees that 2018 MSU is far ahead of 2018 WSU.

I'm not arguing that the Committee has ever shown KenPom to impact their decisions significantly. I'm talking to those on this board who themselves have touted KenPom regularly, only to suddenly dismiss Ken when he no longer favors the WSU side of the argument.

If you want to complain of inconsistency from the Committee, first make sure you are being consistent yourself.

[Cdizzle]

WSU vs Michigan State - Resume Comparison

Let's start with all the wins and losses that are virtually identical. Below are the RPI numbers (losses identified in parenthesis) that can be considered equal and therefore eliminated from both resumes for comparison purposes.

Home (WSU / MSU)
34 / 25 (Losses)
52 / 58
69 / 65
71 / 68
76 / 84
117 / 121
155 / 168
206 / 206
229 / 226
295 / 276
308 / 336

Neutral
221 / 179

Road
21 / 18 (Losses)
63 / 65
102 / 110
117 / 121
274 / 212

I think there are also two games that can be paired despite not being similar in home/neutral/away status.

Mixed
@11 / N5
H148 / N176

Note, I tried to be as fair as possible. Home wins vs 229 / 226 are basically a dead match. I think if you look closely, you will see that I actually favored WSU in this part of the analysis. MSU's loss to 25 is probably a step up from WSU's to 34. The neutral 221 / 170 and road 274 / 212 are both somewhat stretching the concept of equality, both in WSU's favor. Yes, home 52 / 58 gives MSU equal credit for an ever so slightly less impressive win, but I would hope everyone can agree that in total, this is a fair attempt to eliminate similar outcomes and that WSU is given generous treatment.

Before I move on to remaining games on the resumes, what can we learn so far? Both teams are 17-2 in similar games, with many vs good or even great competition. Looking at *only* these similar games, I would call both teams elite. If we were 19 games into the season, and these were the two resumes, we would probably be looking at two top 5 teams. Let's use that as a starting point, shall we? So... what's left after we eliminate these 19 "equal" games?

WSU 6-3		.	MSU 11-1
Wins	Losses	.	Wins	Losses
21	@40	.	9	4
40	N68	.	110
N66	H98	.	N117
@76		.	@152
@94		.	@158
@98		.	@165
		.	@168
		.	201
		.	212
		.	222
		.	311

Conclusion:
Remember, we said both these teams look elite based on their 19 similar games, and that if anything, I gave WSU the tiniest level of favoritism in order to call those 19 games "equal". So what do the 9 WSU and 12 MSU games that we are left with tell us? For MSU, I see a split with 2 elite teams, and then undefeated vs mediocre and bad teams. This is fully in line with expectations for an elite team. These 12 games don't prove elite status. That part is the previous 19 games. These just continue to fall in line with it.

For WSU, 6-3 is a bit underwhelming vs mostly NIT level competition. If we are starting from the perspective of elite status, These last 9 games give us a little reason to doubt. None of the losses are to likely nation title contenders, and if played chronologically after the other 19 games, I'm sure WSU fans would go from "wow, these guys are headed to the Final Four" to "hmmm, I see some flaws".

No, WSU and MSU aren't worlds apart. That's not my point. My point is that there is no conceivable way, IMO, that WSU can be considered MSU's equal on paper thus far. When the Bracket Matrix has MSU at 2.25 and WSU at 3.87 for seeding, and then I truly look at their resumes, I feel like the separation of 1.5 seed lines is about right.

This leaves out some very important data that the committee is supposed to take into account.

For example, WSU only actually has 3 losses. Losses without McDuffie don't count.

Also, WSU lost to a Top 20 Notre Dame team on a neutral court (without McDuffie, mind you) and an SMU team with Shake Milton. Pretending that was "NIT level competition" is disingenuous. I'm told the committee factors all these things in for all teams.

I'm not sure I'd call @11 and N5 particularly equal, but I'll agree some other numbers favor WSU, so... wash. I will definitely not agree that @ full strength #5 with longest home win streak in the country is the same as N11 without 3rd leading scorer.

Outside of the direct comparisons, MSU played 2 "real" games, both were at home, and they split. WSU played 9 Top 100 teams, 6 away from home.

The more I look at this, the less I think WSU and MSU are equal, and the more I think WSU has the clear edge.

[Cdizzle]

Modest is your projection.

I doubt Marshall considers McDuffie's availability modest.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Pick whatever term you want. He ain't Kenyan Martin, Maurice Watson, or Fred VanVleet. The team hasn't played significantly better or worse with him in/out of the lineup. Ignoring losses to ND and OU would be acting inconsistently with past committee actions. It would be the exact opposite of the consistency that you are demanding.

[Cdizzle]

It shouldn't matter if he's any of those players. Picking and choosing the 3 players they know about is EXACTLY the problem. I disagree that ignoring losses would be "acting inconsistently."

[AndShock]

This doesn't affect WSU but I put together these blind resumes for the AAC board, figured I'd post it here.

A
Q1: 5-6
Q2: 6-5
Q3 and Q4 losses: 1
SOS: 7

B
Q1: 1-2
Q2: 2-1
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 156

C
Q1: 1-1
Q2: 2-1
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 162

D
Q1: 4-2
Q2: 4-2
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 87

E
Q1: 3-3
Q2: 1-1
Q3 and Q4 losses: 1
SOS: 94

F
Q1: 3-8
Q2: 5-0
Q3 and Q4 losses: 4
SOS: 9

G
Q1: 1-1
Q2: 2-2
Q3 and Q4 losses: 2
SOS: 128

[shoxtop]

I’d be interested to see a breakdown of st Mary’s vs Loyola. Smc is firmly on the bubble, 10 seed on bracket matrix and “should be in” according to espns bubble watch. Loyola on the other hand is nowhere to be found. What am I missing?

[AndShock]

Funny you should say that....

[FadedCrown]

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2018/team-sheet?team=Loyola-Chicago

Very mediorce

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2018/team-sheet?team=Saint-Marys-College

Loyola has a better resume, unbelievable

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Very, very quick look... that Q4 loss really hurts Loyola.

[ShockCrazy]

I’d be interested to see a breakdown of st Mary’s vs Loyola. Smc is firmly on the bubble, 10 seed on bracket matrix and “should be in” according to espns bubble watch. Loyola on the other hand is nowhere to be found. What am I missing?

They are very similar but not sure how Loyola has a better resume as FadedCrown mentioned. Both 1-1 Q1, Loyola 2-2 and SMC 2-1 Q2. SMC other losses are both Q3, Loyola has 1 Q3 and 1 Q4. The results metrics SMC has a slight edge, the predictive ones, SMC with a MASSIVE edge. Most other bracket watches though have Loyola right on the fringe, ESPN is weird.

Loyola definitely has some interesting things going on their resume though that that won't control. They NEED MSU to not lose Thursday night and stay top 135, moving that loss to Q3 could doom them. They need to hope the winner of UNI/Evansville slides into the top 135 to bump a road win up. They also have to have ISUr or SIU be the team they lose to in the final, not only does it keep it from being a bad loss, it also bumps their H-H games each up a tier, giving them another Q1 win. They best case for Loyola's resume selection Sunday is to be sitting at: 26-6 overall, 2-1 Q1, 3-3 Q2. That MIGHT be enough. But it'll be close.

[Cdizzle]

Sidenote that this is really fun, arguing about being 2-4 seeds instead of 4 seed vs. bubble, which is the stupidity that has been going on the last few years.

[Anthroshock]

T-Rank comparisons for current teams with historic teams of similar profile. This will change over the next week. It will be interesting to see how we shake out.

Best finish for a similar team is 2013 Syracuse in the F4.

Edit: For fun Loyola's profile only has 2 out of 10 making the tournament as an at large. A lot of similarities to Ill St.

Edit2: Oh and Michigan State looks like 2014 Wichita St and a lot of Gonzagas.

[Steeleshocker]

Pretty cool site.

[WuShock Reaper]

The 2018 Bracket Matrix
Updated: 2/26/18 8:10 PM

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

# of Brackets = 110

Cincinnati = 3-Seed, (3.01)

Wichita State = 4-Seed, (3.87)

Houston = 6-Seed (7.75)

Temple = 2nd Group of Next Four Out

[WuShock Reaper]

College Basketball Ranking Composite
Updated: Sunday, February 25, 2018 (60 Rankings)

https://www.masseyratings.com/cb/compare.htm

Cincinnati = would rank out as the last 2-seed (#8)

Wichita State = would rank out as the first 4-seed (#13)

Houston = would rank out as the third 6-seed (#23)

Temple = #70
UCF = #91

[Shox The Revenant]

While I do want a good seed, we all know that match ups play a major role in determining how far a team goes. Is it too much to ask for a good seed and good match ups?

[Dan]

I'd love to beat Kentucky.

[Horn28Clem30]

I think Kentucky is going to be an incredibly tough out, i would definitely prefer to avoid them at all costs!

[Dan]

Shaq, Rashard, Brown and Willis would chew these 18 year olds up on the inside. I’d love to play Kentucky. You guys are crazy for wanting to hide from a bunch of NBA wanna be’s.