Remaining schedule:
South Carolina #64
At aTm #132
Bama #35
At mizzou #87
At South Carolina #64
OM #81
Printable View
Remaining schedule:
South Carolina #64
At aTm #132
Bama #35
At mizzou #87
At South Carolina #64
OM #81
TeamRankings projects us as a 10-seed at 20-11
We get a quad 1 win and our NET is 1 spot worse?
@South Carolina is our last chance for another Quad 1.
Alabama and mizzou could be... both are closeQuote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
Yea, I don't even understand how that is possible. Seems like whether its the RPI or the NET, whatever needs to happen to screw us over in the calculation happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
To also add, the biggest thing screwing over the SEC and others is the fact that apparently 10 or more Big 10 teams are going to get in to the NCAA. Given their current team ratings, no matter what any Big 10 team does, win or lose, it will never hurt them in the NET because they are all ranked so high. Its a perpetual ranking because nobody in the conference is ever punished in the calculation for losing.
The top of the SEC did not fair well yesterday. Auburn and LSU both losing hurt the conference. The conference doesn't have any dominant teams. Got a lot of good to pretty good teams.
There are 7 SEC teams between 24 and 52 in the NET. And of our remaining schedule, 5 of those 6 games are against the teams outside the Top 60 in NET. We don't have many chances to improve our NET.
If we want to make the tournament, we have to finish 5-1 in conference and we can't lose to anyone but Bama or MAYBE SC. Lose to OM or TAMU and it's game over.
And ark did not drop after losing at home to us. Weird
One thing to keep in mind is we have 4 Q2 games left at the moment with OM potentially making that 5. We're 2-1 in Q2 games right now, so raising that to 5-2/maybe 6-1 would be big tooQuote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
That shows that formula is total BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Get to 12-6 and it won’t matter.....
Go 5-1 and we're in
These ranking systems couldn't be any more flawed.
A few things to remember about the NET:
1. The NET was made up by laymen, not mathematicians or statisticians, so we can't necessarily expect logical outcomes from it.
2. Yesterday's game represents only 4% of our season so far, so any results these days are going to have a small impact on the overall rating, especially when...
3. Winning by 1 point over a team that's only a few spots ahead of you is pretty close to the expectation the NET already had, so it's only not going to move the needle that much anyway, even before you consider the impact is only 4%.
4. We don't play in a vacuum. Every other team in our vicinity was moving up or down along with us yesterday, and all of our previous opponents' results yesterday also played into our new rating.
Still, I figured we would improve a little. Looks like we have our work cut out for us.
It's fluid, so would not surprise me if we beat usce Wednesday and jump 4-5 spots. Just win games and we will be fine
Just win baby! Everything else will take care of itself
They aren't perfect, but last year 14 of the 16 sweet 16 teams were top 16 in the NET.Quote:
Originally Posted by OLJWales
Good news is Frank Martin will not play zone. That could be two wins.
Damn, that's a compelling stat. I just wish I understood how you go on the road and get a quad 1 win and manage to still go down.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
Well yea, bc the committee used the NET to seed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
It's not like the committee seeded independent of the NET, then looked over at the NET and was like, what a coincidence, the evaluation tools we used yielded the same results as the evaluation tools that go into forming the NET.
It's because of two things.Quote:
Originally Posted by OLJWales
1) The ranking is only in relation to other teams. It's possible our actual rating improved but our ranking moved down because teams around us improved even more.
2) The things that have happened already aren't set in stone. If a bunch of the teams on our schedule lost, our rating could go down even as we win yesterday because our previous opponents aren't as highly rated now.
No, 14 of the teams that actually made the Sweet 16.Quote:
Originally Posted by confucius say
Yes, it was a really chalk year, but that's the point. Using the NET seemed to lead to more accurate seeding.
Dropped to 53 yesterday lol
Let's just keep winning
SC is gonna be a "dog fight", they are very physical and play great defense which may help us inside. This game to me is a toss up!Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
I saw ark dropped 4 spots too without playing. I think there are a bunch of teams very close to each other 35-55.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
I would put every game we play going forward as a toss up. We could beat every team left on the schedule but we are not above losing to any of them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by basedog
Here's BPI's view of each of our remaining games using our winning %....
South Carolina 77.4%
At aTm 76.2%
Bama 68.9%
At mizzou 57.6%
At South Carolina 48.5%
OM 80.1%
Part of the problem with these algorithms is they are strictly numbers with no intelligence to them. For example, we were punished more for the OM loss than we were rewarded for the Arkansas win even though OM is a better team right now than Arkansas is.
They're gonna have to go 12-6 to be in comfortably IMO and the 6th loss can't be to ATM.
How would you suggest a system incorporate 'how a team is playing right now' in a way that seems fair and legitimate?Quote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania
I genuinely struggle to understand why people have an issue with the NCAA Tournament selection process. It is a group of people who are able to consider weird things that won't show up in the numbers but who have a data-driven system to help sort things out in that process. It is pretty much the best possible way to go about this.
Will 12-6 be comfotably in?Quote:
Originally Posted by RLM38654
I know historiaclly that has always gotten a bid, but what are our Q1 wins going to be? Arkansas on the road and Florida on the road? Any others?
Are two Q1 wins enough? Is that basically what a bubble teams resume looks like, or could only having two potentially cause us to miss out even at 12-6?
Alabama could be one. South Carolina on road could be one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
There is absolutely a 100% way to do it and that would be that your last 10 games or so are weighted more heavily than those before but that wouldn't fly with teams that want their good wins back in November and December to be given full credit. So we have what we have. I was just pointing out that there was absolutely no shame in losing to OM in Oxford right now (granted it should not have been a blowout) but it is treated like a really bad loss by the NET. Just bad luck on our part I guess. But I can tell you that if KY had been playing in Oxford this past Saturday instead of Lexington, they would have lost as well. Actually how you played in the last 10 regular season games was an actual criteria of the NCAA committee up until a few years ago when determining who got in with the lower seeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
If you weight the last 10 higher in the official formula, the SEC (or maybe a scrappy mid-major conference) could set up its schedule for everyone to play conference games in November/December and easier non-conference games in February/March.
Yeah, if it ended today, our remaining games would be:Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Q2 SC at home
Q2 A&M away (just barely q2, could easily be q3 by end of season)
Q2 Bama at home (they're just outside Q1 home game at 36 right now)
Q2 Mizzou away
Q1 SC away
Q3 OM at home (just barely Q3. If they move inside the top 75 this is a quad 2 game and the loss in Oxford becomes Quad 1)
Then the metrics say we are going to be either the 4,5, or 6(small % on 6) in the SECT. That means you'd likely play A&M on Thursday which is a quad 3 game that doesn't help and potentially/probably Florida in the quarterfinals on Friday. That would be a quad 1 opportunity.
I know people say that the committee doesn't put a number or cap on how many teams a league gets, but I'm pretty certain without some crazy happening the last 3 weeks that the SEC is a 5 bid league. I think 3 are secure in UK, Aub, LSU. I think UF is safely in for now but could play their way out. That 5th spot is up for grabs. Right now I think Bama would get it. Arkansas is in a tailspin without I. Joe and it's going to be hard for them to get to 9-9 in league play which is probably what they need to get in. S. Carolina is playing their way into a chance with a solid stretch run, but they're on the outside looking in. If State can take care of their business this week, it sets up a huge game next Tuesday at Bama which will give the winner a huge trump card on selection sunday. I think we need to go 12-6 in conference to feel comfortable. 11-7 means you probably need to beat a good team in the quarterfinals of the SECT to get in.
If they go 12-6, I'm thinking 10 seed, could lose the first game of the SEC Tournament, and it doesn't matter what happens in the other conference tournaments. They don't have any great wins, obviously, but they don't have any really bad losses either, like South Carolina for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
Lunardi said in his latest bubble article that 11-7 in conference would warrant a very serious consideration from the committee or something along those lines. I personally would be very nervous at 11-7 but I think 12-6 and we?re definitely in
But is that fair and legitimate? You may think so, but others may not. Should a game now bear more weight than one a couple months ago? They're all played within the same season. If you're weighting recent games more, why even play the games in November/December?Quote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania
My point is that any criteria you use will have advantages and disadvantages. Having a data-driven ranking system that rates teams objectively and then putting that in the hands of a subjective committee who will use that but also consider other factors seems like the best way to set it up, yet you constantly hear people whine and complain about how unfair the selection process is. If someone wanted to look at a team's individual season and schedule and value certain games more or less, they are currently free to do that. That's exactly what you're suggesting.
I had said on here that no 12-6 team had ever been left out (from the SEC). I was wrong on that. There were a few in the first 2 years of the 18 game league schedule. Teams that finish with 11 or 12 conference wins get in at about the same rate (~60%) but it's a small sample size. That number jumps up to 100% at 13-5. That being said, I think the task is pretty clear. We can lose 2 more games, but we'll have to do some work in the SECT. Going 5-1 down the stretch should punch our ticket. 6-0 absolutely punches our ticket, but IDK if we are strong enough to pull that off. I'd say 4-2 if I had to wager. Losses at USC and at Mizz. 3 weeks remaining and it's all up in the air. We moved up to the 4th team out on bracketmatrix. That site is awesome for those that like to track it this time of year.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPdog
So if we go 4-2 the rest of the way, where would that put us seed wise in the SEC tourney? Bye or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipedream
Probably 4-6th, would get a first round by at 5th and 6th. Double bye at 4th. Kenpom has MSU, Florida and South Carolina projected to be 11-7.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtowndawg