Field of 68 Projection

[SelectionSunday]

Big Ten holding strong with 10 bids

An * denotes the conference leader in a multiple-bid conference or -- in the event of a tie -- the team with the best NET ranking.

FIELD OF 68 PROJECTION (through Jan. 13)
America East (1): Vermont (86)

American (3): Houston (8), *UCF (33), Cincinnati (35)

ACC (7): *Virginia (1), Duke (2), Virginia Tech (9), North Carolina (10), NC State (16), Louisville (23), Florida State (26)

Atlantic Sun (1): Liberty (45)

Atlantic 10 (2): VCU (52), *Saint Louis (61)

Big East (5): Marquette (19), *Villanova (29), Saint John's (37), Seton Hall (39), Butler (48)

Big Sky (1): Weber State (175)

Big South (1): Radford (103)

Big Ten (10): *Michigan (3), Michigan State (7), Nebraska (13), Purdue (18), Wisconsin (20), Indiana (21), Maryland (22), Iowa (30), Ohio State (36), Minnesota (46)

Big XII (7): *Texas Tech (4), Kansas (12), Oklahoma (15), Iowa State (28), TCU (31), Kansas State (49), Texas (50)

Big West (1): UC-Irvine (102)

CAA (1): Hofstra (56)

Conference USA (1): UTSA (151)

Horizon (1): Detroit (166)

Ivy (1): Princeton (180)

MAAC (1): Rider (161)

MAC (1): Buffalo (14)

MEAC (1): Norfolk State (259)

MVC (1): Valparaiso (171)

Mountain West (2): Nevada (27), *Boise State (146)

NEC (1): Wagner (217)

OVC (1): Murray State (42)

Pac 12 (2): Washington (38), *Arizona (51)

Patriot (1): Lehigh (149)

SEC (7): *Tennessee (5), Kentucky (11), Auburn (17), Ole Miss (24), LSU (25), Mississippi State (34), Alabama (60)

Southern (1): Wofford (32)

Southland (1): Sam Houston State (221)

SWAC (1): Prairie View (246)

Summit (1): South Dakota State (115)

Sun Belt (1): Georgia State (104)

WCC (1): Gonzaga (6)

WAC (1): UMKC (236)
_____________________

Last 4 In: Butler (48), Texas (50), VCU (52), Alabama (60)

First 4 Out: Florida (40), Utah State (41), San Francisco (43), Temple (44)

Next 4 Out: Lipscomb (47), Syracuse (59), Dayton (69), Arizona State (83)

Non-Power 6 At-Larges (4): Houston (8), Nevada (27), Cincinnati (35), VCU (52)

Gophers vs. the Projected Field: 3-2 (beat Washington, lost to Ohio State, beat Nebraska, beat Wisconsin, lost to Maryland)

 

[Go4]

i have a feeling we are going to be on the bubble the entire year.

 

[matt]

It'll be interesting to see how much value the committee and the talking heads place on NET vs résumé. Will teams be selected and seeded based strictly on WHAT they have done (résumé) or will they place more emphasis on HOW they have done it (NET)?

 

[SelectionSunday]

It'll be interesting to see how much value the committee and the talking heads place on NET vs résumé. Will teams be selected and seeded based strictly on WHAT they have done (résumé) or will they place more emphasis on HOW they have done it (NET)?

Definitely.

Gophers resume (to this point) inside & outside of the conference is more than solid. Washington win looking better & better, and Oklahoma State has perked up a little bit.

But the predictive and efficiency-based ranking models don't like the Gophers very much. The biggest head-scratcher to me is Nebraska as the next highest ranked (#13) Big Ten team after Michigan & MSU. Among the Big Ten's legit at-large candidates, without much trepidation I'd have the Huskers slotted 10th of the 10. Their two Big Ten wins are over Illinois & Penn State, both winless in the Big Ten. Nice win over Seton Hall and a couple other decent ones, but #13?

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

It is crazy to me that it seems like NET cares more about how many games it thinks you should have won rather than how many you actually did. Part of the beauty of team sports is that an ugly scrappy win counts the same as a pretty one, but NET seems to kill that.

 

[Instant_Offense]

Definitely.

Gophers resume (to this point) inside & outside of the conference is more than solid. Washington win looking better & better, and Oklahoma State has perked up a little bit.

But the predictive and efficiency-based ranking models don't like the Gophers very much. The biggest head-scratcher to me is Nebraska as the next highest ranked (#13) Big Ten team after Michigan & MSU. Among the Big Ten's legit at-large candidates, without much trepidation I'd have the Huskers slotted 10th of the 10. Their two Big Ten wins are over Illinois & Penn State, both winless in the Big Ten. Nice win over Seton Hall and a couple other decent ones, but #13?

I have been wondering the same thing about Nebraska and some other teams, I will pick NCST. Like you said efficiency based ratings hurt us. We give up to many points.We gave up over 70 points to Omaha and North Florida. On the flip side Nebraska gave up under 40 to two terrible teams. Our two opponents are much better but does that make there efficiency better, even though those two teams have an rpi in the 300's

Just looked at Jerry Palms newest BP. We are on the 10 line.
He talks about how the net hurts some and favors others. He said NCST is good at running up the score and their net is solid top 20 but their rpi is in the 100's. I don't believe there resume isn't good!

So what I get out of the net rankings is run up the score and keep starters in until the very end. I know they say there is a cap at 10 but don't believe that.

 

[bfast]

Can someone make a case as to why Nebraska should be seen as a 4-6 seed versus Minnesota being considered a 10-11?

I don't think Minnesota should be much higher but Nebraska's resume is maybe hair better than Minnesota's if we're being generous. Nebraska had some decent wins with Seton Hall, Creighton and Clemson, but 2-3 in B1G with a head-to-head loss against Minnesota?

https://www.foxsports.com/college-basketball/bracketeering

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology

It seems like a lot of stock is being put into non-conference. Maryland looks like they should be in the #3 B1G spot based on conference scalps, but they didn't play anyone in non-conference. The non-conference darling status of Wisconsin and Iowa is still rubbing off at this point, and Nebraska looks to be in the same boat with their solid non-con wins mentioned above. I imagine things will even off as we get deeper into conference play.

 

[builtbadgers]

Definitely.

Gophers resume (to this point) inside & outside of the conference is more than solid. Washington win looking better & better, and Oklahoma State has perked up a little bit.

But the predictive and efficiency-based ranking models don't like the Gophers very much. The biggest head-scratcher to me is Nebraska as the next highest ranked (#13) Big Ten team after Michigan & MSU. Among the Big Ten's legit at-large candidates, without much trepidation I'd have the Huskers slotted 10th of the 10. Their two Big Ten wins are over Illinois & Penn State, both winless in the Big Ten. Nice win over Seton Hall and a couple other decent ones, but #13?

Predictive i could care less but efficiency shows exactly how well you score and defend by possession. If you do that top 20 in each you win a ton of games and it is adjusted for strength of schedule. This is time tested over a decade of data and no top 20 kenpom team has every missed the tourney. Coaches voted for it ! Those teams at the top of kenpom win 27-35 games. For the 35 kenpom team that goes 19-11 will have quality play and quality wins and get in. This gives more power to the power conferences as it should. No one can point out a top kenpom team and think they do not play well or win games. Those top 10 teams are the teams that win conference titles. Efficiency equals success. Winning by more than 10 does not carry extra weight in NET. Teams like UVA are playing not only walk ons late in games but the actual manager ! They led Florida State 65-36 with 2 minutes left and played walk on and the managers the rest of the way and got outscored 16-0 for a final of 65-52. They hurt their own efficiency but not their net. Again, coaches wanted a improvement and got it.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Predictive i could care less but efficiency shows exactly how well you score and defend by possession. If you do that top 20 in each you win a ton of games and it is adjusted for strength of schedule. This is time tested over a decade of data and no top 20 kenpom team has every missed the tourney. Coaches voted for it ! Those teams at the top of kenpom win 27-35 games. For the 35 kenpom team that goes 19-11 will have quality play and quality wins and get in. This gives more power to the power conferences as it should. No one can point out a top kenpom team and think they do not play well or win games. Those top 10 teams are the teams that win conference titles. Efficiency equals success. Winning by more than 10 does not carry extra weight in NET. Teams like UVA are playing not only walk ons late in games but the actual manager ! They led Florida State 65-36 with 2 minutes left and played walk on and the managers the rest of the way and got outscored 16-0 for a final of 65-52. They hurt their own efficiency but not their net. Again, coaches wanted a improvement and got it.

If efficiency helps you win, then any system that only measures wins, losses, and strength of schedule would alteady reward efficiency by giving you credit for the wins that efficiency helped you win.

 

[matt]

They hurt their own efficiency but not their net. Again, coaches wanted a improvement and got it.

Offensive and defensive efficiency are included in NET calculations, so UVA did impact their NET score by doing that. Like Instant_Offense said, it does incentivize teams to keep their best players in and run up the score to improve their offensive efficiency.

I think the coaches probably got an improvement with NET rankings. It depends on how NET rankings are used on Selection Sunday. If the committee uses them to help analyze résumés and compare Team A's Quad 1-4 wins and losses to Team B's, then I am all for it. If, however, they don't put much emphasis on résumés and use teams' NET ranking as their evaluation and analysis, then I don't like it.

I think the Selection Committee will get it right though and use a team's overall body of work. They did it with RPI (just using it as a tool) and they will probably use NET the same way. If the coaches just wanted to apply an S-curve to the NET rankings, they wouldn't need a Selection Committee. Their job is to dig in and analyze the overall body of work for each team.

 

[Instant_Offense]

I agree Matt.
I wonder how they do it? Plug in the conference champs, then put the top 8 seeds, then go from there? So use the net rankings to look at the next best 30- 40 teams and fill the rest of the field. At this point you would hope they look at the net rankings as a tool, then look at teams body of work to determine teams fate!
Unfortunately we always seem to be on the bubble, so I am always looking at all sorts of predictions and and anylasis. I wonder if Duke fans know what rpi, net, or kenpom rankings are?