Joe Lunardi's updated bracket

Donate To GopherHole


8-10 and no bad losses in the Big Ten tourney may get us in if there aren't many conference tourney upsets.
 

Rosemountian said:
8-10 and no bad losses in the Big Ten tourney may get us in if there aren't many conference tourney upsets.
Click to expand...

If we go 8-10 with no "bad" losses we should be in. Bracketology101 thinks at this point Michigan has a legit chance at getting in even tho at the moment they are on the "Next four out" i believe, that shows you just how weak the bubble is this year.
 

Yup. Not only is there 68 teams instead of 65....but even if it was a 65 team tourney the bubble would be pretty weak and not very deep this year.
 


Not to be picky but I still want to get off that 8/9 line....
 

Michigan being on the first four out makes me feel pretty confident in our chances. Their best win is at Michigan State who sucks this year and their second best win is either Penn St. or Oakland. Ugh.
 


Prolific said:
Michigan being on the first four out makes me feel pretty confident in our chances. Their best win is at Michigan State who sucks this year and their second best win is either Penn St. or Oakland. Ugh.
Click to expand...

Their best win is @ Clemson.
 






Prolific said:
A decent win, but Clemson is just a middle of the pack team in a terrible conference. Michigan State is definitely better.
Click to expand...

Clemson is #33 at kenpom. Michigan St. is #48. It's debatable, but one is not definitively better than the other.

Also, ACC is a "terrible conference"? Are you on drugs? They may be down from years past, but that doesn't make them terrible. They are not as deep as the Big Ten, but are just as good in the upper quartile, especially with Illinois and Michigan St. being down this year.
 




It would be nice to win during this "softer" portion of the schedule to get out of that 8-9 game. I'd rather have a 10 or 11 seed (as we did the last two years) than be an 8 or 9 seed.

I also wonder what makes Illinois two seeds better than us? I know they beat us in our building, but resumes of each would have us almost identical. We've each beaten North Carolina, we each have similar in-conference wins (they beat Wis, we beat PU), we both have "bad losses" at Indiana. ILL also lost at PSU, where we go Thursday. ILL also has that horrific out of conference defeat to UIC. We have Virginia (not as bad). Plus, we have a win over West Virginia. Seems like a dead heat, at best. Our RPI is a bit better than Illinois right now. Yet, Lunardi has them a 7 and we're a 9.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Clemson is #33 at kenpom. Michigan St. is #48.
Click to expand...


The NCAA Selection Committee pays no attention to Ken Pomeroy. None. Zip. Zero. His ratings mean nothing to the NCAA. He's just a guy who runs some computer formulas based on defensive and offensive efficiencies and posts the results on a webpage.

The NCAA Selection Committee does pay very close attention to RPI. Michigan State is #47 and Clemson is #78 in that measurement. Meaning to the NCAA Selection Committee, as of right now, a win over MSU is a TOP 50 RPI win. A win over Clemson is not. That is actually significant, because Top 50 RPI wins are one of the many determining factors that the committee uses to help it set the field.
 

Given our woes of late, I'd be very pleased with a #9 seed.
 


Yeah, I don't think RPI per se is relevant. I believe the selection committee uses an "S curve" similar to what Lunardi uses that ranks the teams, and the S curve takes into account all the things RPI does.
 


anticallihan said:
Examples? I can't think of any. That had an at large bid, and didn't make a post season run in the conference tourney.
Click to expand...

I can't an absolute recent stat, but more than 20 men's teams have received at-large bids to the tournament with losing conference records since the men's tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985.

Not sure what is more?
 

OSUfan said:
Yeah, I don't think RPI per se is relevant. I believe the selection committee uses an "S curve" similar to what Lunardi uses that ranks the teams, and the S curve takes into account all the things RPI does.
Click to expand...

The committee uses the RPI numbers to help establish the S-curve. I'm not suggesting it is the end-all and be-all. But RPI numbers are absolutely taken into account by the committee in relation to several things. Ken Pomeroy's numbers?? Not so much.

rcpratt said:
RPI hardly means anything anymore.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There is no question committee members still use it as a guide. The RPI Index ratings are literally part of the packet of info that selection committee members are given on a weekly and daily basis leading up to Selection Sunday. The RPI numbers are updated and given to members right up to the last game of the Big Ten tourney. The RPI straight ratings aren't the only thing they use. They use it to help determine the number of quality wins and bad losses a team may have and it can help the committee differentiate bubble teams.
 

I do love that nobody has mentioned we are playing the team that beat the "unbeatable" Duke. At this point a 9 seed is deserved but if we are in right now doesn't that mean if we win out theoretically we should be a 6 seed as long as we don't lose to a bad team in the tourney?
 

dpodoll68 said:
Clemson is #33 at kenpom. Michigan St. is #48. It's debatable, but one is not definitively better than the other.

Also, ACC is a "terrible conference"? Are you on drugs? They may be down from years past, but that doesn't make them terrible. They are not as deep as the Big Ten, but are just as good in the upper quartile, especially with Illinois and Michigan St. being down this year.
Click to expand...


No, the ACC is normally very good, this year it sucks and it's been well documented. Other than the putrid Pac 10 it's probably been the worst power conference.
 

Kenpom gets way too much credibility. Games aren't played by computers. Sabermetics has value, but its not the end all be all.
 

anticallihan said:
Examples? I can't think of any. That had an at large bid, and didn't make a post season run in the conference tourney.
Click to expand...

It's happened many times with 8-10 and 7-9 teams. The worst I ever recall is Texas Tech getting in with a 6-10 record in the Big 12. It was a year when Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma were all like top 15 and 5 of the 10 losses were to those schools and they had several good non-conference wins IIRC.
 

Going back 10 seasons (2001-01 through 2009-10)

In the last 10 seasons, 8 teams earned at-large bids despite finishing the regular season with a below .500 conference record. Somewhat surprisingly, none are from the Big East.

(1) Penn State 7-9 in Big Ten in 2000-01

(2) Alabama 7-9 in SEC in 2002-03

(3) NC State 7-9 in ACC in 2004-05

(4) Iowa 7-9 in Big Ten in 2004-05

(5) Arkansas 7-9 in SEC in 2006-07

(6) Arizona 8-10 in Pac 10 in 2007-08

(7) Maryland 7-9 in ACC in 2008-09

(8) Georgia Tech 7-9 in ACC in 2009-10

The worst regular-season conference mark ever to receive an at-large bid was Florida State in 1997-98. The Seminoles finished 6-10 in the ACC that season. The 'Noles at least validated their selection, earning a first-round win before losing to Bryce Drew & Valpo in the second round.

A side note. Since 2000-01, there have been four instances where a below .500 (in conference) team from one of the Power 6 conferences earned an automatic NCAA bid by winning its conference tournament: Iowa (2000-01); Maryland (2003-04); Syracuse (2005-06); and Georgia (2007-08).
 

Prolific said:
No, the ACC is normally very good, this year it sucks and it's been well documented. Other than the putrid Pac 10 it's probably been the worst power conference.
Click to expand...

See, that's a different point altogether. If you want to make the argument that the ACC is a "terrible power conference", I can at least listen to it. It's not correct, but it's at least defensible.

The Southern Conference is a terrible conference. The Summit League is a terrible conference. The Atlantic Coast Conference is not a terrible conference.
 

SelectionSunday said:
In the last 10 seasons, 8 teams earned at-large bids despite finishing the regular season with a below .500 conference record. Somewhat surprisingly, none are from the Big East.

(1) Penn State 7-9 in Big Ten in 2000-01

(2) Alabama 7-9 in SEC in 2002-03

(3) NC State 7-9 in ACC in 2004-05

(4) Iowa 7-9 in Big Ten in 2004-05

(5) Arkansas 7-9 in SEC in 2006-07

(6) Arizona 8-10 in Pac 10 in 2007-08

(7) Maryland 7-9 in ACC in 2008-09

(8) Georgia Tech 7-9 in ACC in 2009-10

The worst regular-season conference mark ever to receive an at-large bid was Florida State in 1997-98. The Seminoles finished 6-10 in the ACC that season. The 'Noles at least validated their selection, earning a first-round win before losing to Bryce Drew & Valpo in the second round.

A side note. Since 2000-01, there have been four instances where a below .500 (in conference) team from one of the Power 6 conferences earned an automatic NCAA bid by winning its conference tournament: Iowa (2000-01); Maryland (2003-04); Syracuse (2005-06); and Georgia (2007-08).
Click to expand...

Good post--just a note on that Maryland team from 03-04, they were 7-9 in conference play, won the ACC tournament and received a 4 seed in the NCAAs. A FOUR SEED.
 

SelectionSunday said:
In the last 10 seasons, 8 teams earned at-large bids despite finishing the regular season with a below .500 conference record. Somewhat surprisingly, none are from the Big East.

(1) Penn State 7-9 in Big Ten in 2000-01

(2) Alabama 7-9 in SEC in 2002-03

(3) NC State 7-9 in ACC in 2004-05

(4) Iowa 7-9 in Big Ten in 2004-05

(5) Arkansas 7-9 in SEC in 2006-07

(6) Arizona 8-10 in Pac 10 in 2007-08

(7) Maryland 7-9 in ACC in 2008-09

(8) Georgia Tech 7-9 in ACC in 2009-10

The worst regular-season conference mark ever to receive an at-large bid was Florida State in 1997-98. The Seminoles finished 6-10 in the ACC that season. The 'Noles at least validated their selection, earning a first-round win before losing to Bryce Drew & Valpo in the second round.

A side note. Since 2000-01, there have been four instances where a below .500 (in conference) team from one of the Power 6 conferences earned an automatic NCAA bid by winning its conference tournament: Iowa (2000-01); Maryland (2003-04); Syracuse (2005-06); and Georgia (2007-08).
Click to expand...

Did I imagine Texas Tech getting in at 6-10? I could have sworn it was earlier this decade. I know it was under Knight. Perhaps they ended up just on the wrong side of the bubble. But the fact that FSU did it at 6-10 shows it's possible. We will see more of that with 68.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom