CSNbbs

(02-06-2018 11:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]UCLA is up to 56 in RPI and Mississippi State is up to 53.

Could really use both of them finishing strong and getting into the Top 40 or so.

(02-07-2018 08:55 AM)Ragpicker Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 06:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]Rag, smu didn't set any bar. Uc was the only tournament task smu beat all season. They objectively had the resume of a 7 seed when it comes to traditional metrics. Committee seeded them higher than they could have but litter than what they were skill wise. Uc had a better resume than smu but lost to them twice. Seemed like cutie split the difference. Different season. Different resumes.

Same league

The committee does not seed based on conference. Its why Gonzaga and Wichita State have both been given one seeds by the committee... as has St Joes. It's why UC got a 1 seed in CUSA. It's why SD State got a 2 seed from the MWC and the the MWC had 5 teams in the NCAA tournament in 2013 (with New Mexico as high as a 3 despite having 6 losses. The Committee cares about resume. Certain resume factors often give an advantage to power conference teams because they get more chances against other tournament caliber teams, but no conference is limited by what the conference got the year before. We've seen the PAC 12 get 1 team in (where it's regular season champ was left out) because of how bad the resumes were one year. The factors the committee considers are consistent. Your focus on the league is misplaced.

(02-07-2018 09:19 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 11:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]UCLA is up to 56 in RPI and Mississippi State is up to 53.

Could really use both of them finishing strong and getting into the Top 40 or so.

Mississippi State in the top 40 would be huge. UCLA is going to end up a tier 1 barring a major collapse.

(02-07-2018 09:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:19 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 11:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]UCLA is up to 56 in RPI and Mississippi State is up to 53.

Could really use both of them finishing strong and getting into the Top 40 or so.

Mississippi State in the top 40 would be huge. UCLA is going to end up a tier 1 barring a major collapse.

This mornings team sheet... if you believe this is what the committee will be using . Actually Temple and Houston somehow sneaking into the top 30 moves those home wins to Q1 would be big . 12-2 vs Q1 and Q2 regardless is hard to top.



We also would benefit greatly from UCF staying in the top 75

(02-07-2018 09:45 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:19 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 11:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]UCLA is up to 56 in RPI and Mississippi State is up to 53.

Could really use both of them finishing strong and getting into the Top 40 or so.

Mississippi State in the top 40 would be huge. UCLA is going to end up a tier 1 barring a major collapse.

This mornings team sheet... if you believe this is what the committee will be using . Actually Temple and Houston somehow sneaking into the top 30 moves those home wins to Q1 would be big . 12-2 vs Q1 and Q2 regardless is hard to top.



We also would benefit greatly from UCF staying in the top 75

If the teamsheet is used like the teamsheet has always been used (when it was just top 50, top 100 etc), UC is in really good shape. They have too many Quadrant 4 games, but other than that they are 4-2 in Quadrant 1 (all of those games are road/neutral) and they are 8-0 in Quadrant 2 (3 of those are road neutral). That's strong.

(02-07-2018 09:45 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:19 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 11:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]UCLA is up to 56 in RPI and Mississippi State is up to 53.

Could really use both of them finishing strong and getting into the Top 40 or so.

Mississippi State in the top 40 would be huge. UCLA is going to end up a tier 1 barring a major collapse.

This mornings team sheet... if you believe this is what the committee will be using . Actually Temple and Houston somehow sneaking into the top 30 moves those home wins to Q1 would be big . 12-2 vs Q1 and Q2 regardless is hard to top.



We also would benefit greatly from UCF staying in the top 75

I feel like Houston's only road to getting there would be beating us...so I'm good with them staying in Tier 2

(02-06-2018 10:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]Xavier now 9-0 in games decided by 7 points or less

Not surprisingly they are listed 8th on Kenpom's Luck category.

(02-07-2018 09:30 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 08:55 AM)Ragpicker Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 06:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]Rag, smu didn't set any bar. Uc was the only tournament task smu beat all season. They objectively had the resume of a 7 seed when it comes to traditional metrics. Committee seeded them higher than they could have but litter than what they were skill wise. Uc had a better resume than smu but lost to them twice. Seemed like cutie split the difference. Different season. Different resumes.

Same league

The committee does not seed based on conference. Its why Gonzaga and Wichita State have both been given one seeds by the committee... as has St Joes. It's why UC got a 1 seed in CUSA. It's why SD State got a 2 seed from the MWC and the the MWC had 5 teams in the NCAA tournament in 2013 (with New Mexico as high as a 3 despite having 6 losses. The Committee cares about resume. Certain resume factors often give an advantage to power conference teams because they get more chances against other tournament caliber teams, but no conference is limited by what the conference got the year before. We've seen the PAC 12 get 1 team in (where it's regular season champ was left out) because of how bad the resumes were one year. The factors the committee considers are consistent. Your focus on the league is misplaced.

I think unless UC really struggles in the next three games it is going to be hard to see the Bearcats falling below a four seed. Keep in mind even a loss to SMU or Houston would move those teams upl making the Cats home win look even better.

I can't point out a single team that UC has beat that is a lock for the tournament but I can tell you that UCLA, Houston, Temple, Miss State, and SMU are likely to going around the bubble until Selection Sunday and there is a good chance that a few on that list are in the field.

Buffalo is the favorite in the MAC while Pine Bluff and Savannah State are at the top of their awful leagues.

(02-07-2018 10:50 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:30 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 08:55 AM)Ragpicker Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 06:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]Rag, smu didn't set any bar. Uc was the only tournament task smu beat all season. They objectively had the resume of a 7 seed when it comes to traditional metrics. Committee seeded them higher than they could have but litter than what they were skill wise. Uc had a better resume than smu but lost to them twice. Seemed like cutie split the difference. Different season. Different resumes.

Same league

The committee does not seed based on conference. Its why Gonzaga and Wichita State have both been given one seeds by the committee... as has St Joes. It's why UC got a 1 seed in CUSA. It's why SD State got a 2 seed from the MWC and the the MWC had 5 teams in the NCAA tournament in 2013 (with New Mexico as high as a 3 despite having 6 losses. The Committee cares about resume. Certain resume factors often give an advantage to power conference teams because they get more chances against other tournament caliber teams, but no conference is limited by what the conference got the year before. We've seen the PAC 12 get 1 team in (where it's regular season champ was left out) because of how bad the resumes were one year. The factors the committee considers are consistent. Your focus on the league is misplaced.

I think unless UC really struggles in the next three games it is going to be hard to see the Bearcats falling below a four seed. Keep in mind even a loss to SMU or Houston would move those teams upl making the Cats home win look even better.

I can't point out a single team that UC has beat that is a lock for the tournament but I can tell you that UCLA, Houston, Temple, Miss State, and SMU are likely to going around the bubble until Selection Sunday and there is a good chance that a few on that list are in the field.

Buffalo is the favorite in the MAC while Pine Bluff and Savannah State are at the top of their awful leagues.

I think you're right. According to Sagarin predictor UC now has about a 75% chance to finish with 2 or less losses the rest of the way. The chances of losing 4 or more is right around 5%.... Obviously if that happens UC will drop, but if the most likely outcomes occur, UC is going to be a protected seed. These next 3 will tell us a ton. If UC gets through it unscathed a 2-3 seed is almost a guarantee... We'll find out Sunday if a 1 seed could even potentially be in play.

(02-07-2018 09:30 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 08:55 AM)Ragpicker Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 06:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]Rag, smu didn't set any bar. Uc was the only tournament task smu beat all season. They objectively had the resume of a 7 seed when it comes to traditional metrics. Committee seeded them higher than they could have but litter than what they were skill wise. Uc had a better resume than smu but lost to them twice. Seemed like cutie split the difference. Different season. Different resumes.

Same league

The committee does not seed based on conference. Its why Gonzaga and Wichita State have both been given one seeds by the committee... as has St Joes. It's why UC got a 1 seed in CUSA. It's why SD State got a 2 seed from the MWC and the the MWC had 5 teams in the NCAA tournament in 2013 (with New Mexico as high as a 3 despite having 6 losses. The Committee cares about resume. Certain resume factors often give an advantage to power conference teams because they get more chances against other tournament caliber teams, but no conference is limited by what the conference got the year before. We've seen the PAC 12 get 1 team in (where it's regular season champ was left out) because of how bad the resumes were one year. The factors the committee considers are consistent. Your focus on the league is misplaced.

The committee cares about money.
All references to past seeding prior to P5 formation is irrelevant counselor. Just ask Mick about the money match ups. And the highest AAC seed was? That's the only league that is in question.

(02-07-2018 09:45 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:31 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:19 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 11:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]UCLA is up to 56 in RPI and Mississippi State is up to 53.

Could really use both of them finishing strong and getting into the Top 40 or so.

Mississippi State in the top 40 would be huge. UCLA is going to end up a tier 1 barring a major collapse.

This mornings team sheet... if you believe this is what the committee will be using . Actually Temple and Houston somehow sneaking into the top 30 moves those home wins to Q1 would be big . 12-2 vs Q1 and Q2 regardless is hard to top.



We also would benefit greatly from UCF staying in the top 75

That looks to me like the resume of a 2 seed if the tournament was selected today. 4 Q1 road and neutral victories is nothing so sneeze at, as well as undefeated against the other 3 groups. Another thing they may consider is that our closest win against Q3 and Q4 was 19, while our closest win against Q2 was 8. Obviously that's not as important as the Q1 stuff, but it does show how this team overwhelms lesser opponents with their talent and doesn't take nights off like some talented teams with lesser chemistry or culture tend to.

(02-07-2018 11:10 AM)Ragpicker Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:30 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 08:55 AM)Ragpicker Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 06:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]Rag, smu didn't set any bar. Uc was the only tournament task smu beat all season. They objectively had the resume of a 7 seed when it comes to traditional metrics. Committee seeded them higher than they could have but litter than what they were skill wise. Uc had a better resume than smu but lost to them twice. Seemed like cutie split the difference. Different season. Different resumes.

Same league

The committee does not seed based on conference. Its why Gonzaga and Wichita State have both been given one seeds by the committee... as has St Joes. It's why UC got a 1 seed in CUSA. It's why SD State got a 2 seed from the MWC and the the MWC had 5 teams in the NCAA tournament in 2013 (with New Mexico as high as a 3 despite having 6 losses. The Committee cares about resume. Certain resume factors often give an advantage to power conference teams because they get more chances against other tournament caliber teams, but no conference is limited by what the conference got the year before. We've seen the PAC 12 get 1 team in (where it's regular season champ was left out) because of how bad the resumes were one year. The factors the committee considers are consistent. Your focus on the league is misplaced.

The committee cares about money.
All references to past seeding prior to P5 formation is irrelevant counselor. Just ask Mick about the money match ups. And the highest AAC seed was? That's the only league that is in question.

LOL. I've been able to predict fairly accurately the committee's seeds for a decade plus every year. I never use "money match ups" as a criteria. The committee is open about their criteria and their seeding / who is included is almost always completely justifiable based on that criteria. I have issues with how they prioritize certain things and their use of the RPI as a grouping mechanism, but it's pretty easy to follow and they are remarkably consistent in how they apply it. There have been a couple of weird outliers over the years, but even those haven't been ones you could call "money match ups".... (Example Air Force's inclusion back in 2006 was inconsistent with committee criteria)

(02-07-2018 11:17 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 11:10 AM)Ragpicker Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 09:30 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 08:55 AM)Ragpicker Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2018 06:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]Rag, smu didn't set any bar. Uc was the only tournament task smu beat all season. They objectively had the resume of a 7 seed when it comes to traditional metrics. Committee seeded them higher than they could have but litter than what they were skill wise. Uc had a better resume than smu but lost to them twice. Seemed like cutie split the difference. Different season. Different resumes.

Same league

The committee does not seed based on conference. Its why Gonzaga and Wichita State have both been given one seeds by the committee... as has St Joes. It's why UC got a 1 seed in CUSA. It's why SD State got a 2 seed from the MWC and the the MWC had 5 teams in the NCAA tournament in 2013 (with New Mexico as high as a 3 despite having 6 losses. The Committee cares about resume. Certain resume factors often give an advantage to power conference teams because they get more chances against other tournament caliber teams, but no conference is limited by what the conference got the year before. We've seen the PAC 12 get 1 team in (where it's regular season champ was left out) because of how bad the resumes were one year. The factors the committee considers are consistent. Your focus on the league is misplaced.

The committee cares about money.
All references to past seeding prior to P5 formation is irrelevant counselor. Just ask Mick about the money match ups. And the highest AAC seed was? That's the only league that is in question.

LOL. I've been able to predict fairly accurately the committee's seeds for a decade plus every year. I never use "money match ups" as a criteria. The committee is open about their criteria and their seeding / who is included is almost always completely justifiable based on that criteria. I have issues with how they prioritize certain things and their use of the RPI as a grouping mechanism, but it's pretty easy to follow and they are remarkably consistent in how they apply it. There have been a couple of weird outliers over the years, but even those haven't been ones you could call "money match ups".... (Example Air Force's inclusion back in 2006 was inconsistent with committee criteria)

The only question I have about this season will be how does the committee value the composite computer rankings versus the RPI based tier based wins.

I also believe that politics does play a role in the committee but mostly in the final selections and less so in seeding.

Regarding UC, we will learn a lot this Sunday. Anything lower than 12 or 13 would be a concern going forward because the Cats have 2/3 seed resume at the moment.

The Big Ten, PAC-12, and A-10 are all really down this season. This helps as the American is now viewed as the 7th best or lowest ranked power conference versus being grouped with A-10, WCC, and Mountain West as mid-major.

I still think 16-2, 30-4 will earn UC a 3 seed this season, while anything better is a 2 seed and anything worse is a 4 seed. If UC is the outright champion of the American that is also no worse than a 4 seed.

(02-07-2018 11:41 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: [ -> ]The only question I have about this season will be how does the committee value the composite computer rankings versus the RPI based tier based wins.

I also believe that politics does play a role in the committee but mostly in the final selections and less so in seeding.

Regarding UC, we will learn a lot this Sunday. Anything lower than 12 or 13 would be a concern going forward because the Cats have 2/3 seed resume at the moment.

The Big Ten, PAC-12, and A-10 are all really down this season. This helps as the American is now viewed as the 7th best or lowest ranked power conference versus being grouped with A-10, WCC, and Mountain West as mid-major.

I still think 16-2, 30-4 will earn UC a 3 seed this season, while anything better is a 2 seed and anything worse is a 4 seed. If UC is the outright champion of the American that is also no worse than a 4 seed.

I'm skeptical that there is any hidden agenda/politics involved in selection, though I think the composition of the committee inevitably plays some sort of role, but a role that is hard to account for. That doesn't change the fact that the selection process is pretty easy to figure out because there are clear objective criteria the committee repeatedly uses every year. I think sometimes at the end a team might get a closer look because of an advocate on the committee or maybe get overvalued for the same reason, but I don't think the committee pushes some hidden agenda because the process is open and when you understand the process the decisions they make almost universally make sense through an understanding of that process.

Mark, am I crazy or did you post your own bracket last year? How did it end up looking relative to the actual field?

(02-07-2018 11:52 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Mark, am I crazy or did you post your own bracket last year? How did it end up looking relative to the actual field?

I've posted one almost every year since about 2004. I nailed the field exactly last year, nailed the 1 seeds and was able to predict 63 of 68 teams within one seed line. Again, the criteria is very clear and applied pretty consistently every season.

http://bearcatmark.blogspot.com/2017/03/...-fans.html

(02-07-2018 11:54 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 11:52 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Mark, am I crazy or did you post your own bracket last year? How did it end up looking relative to the actual field?

I've posted one almost every year since about 2004. I nailed the field exactly last year, nailed the 1 seeds and was able to predict 63 of 68 teams within one seed line. Again, the criteria is very clear and applied pretty consistently every season.

http://bearcatmark.blogspot.com/2017/03/...-fans.html

Quote:I've posted one almost every year since about 2004. I nailed the field exactly last year, nailed the 1 seeds and was able to predict 63 of 68 teams within one seed line. Again, the criteria is very clear and applied pretty consistently every season.

(02-07-2018 11:54 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-07-2018 11:52 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote: [ -> ]Mark, am I crazy or did you post your own bracket last year? How did it end up looking relative to the actual field?

I've posted one almost every year since about 2004. I nailed the field exactly last year, nailed the 1 seeds and was able to predict 63 of 68 teams within one seed line. Again, the criteria is very clear and applied pretty consistently every season.

http://bearcatmark.blogspot.com/2017/03/...-fans.html

So if UC loses three tough road games to Wichita, Houston, and SMU, what seed do they get?

My premise is that all these teams will eat each other up, and only one team can win the Conference title, the rest will end their season with a loss. The bottom half of the league is horrible, and overall the AAC is not really well respected.

A couple of games that interest me tonight:

7 PM ESP

East Carolina 9-13 o138.5
Temple 13-10 -15.5

If Temple doesn't crap the bed they will reach 6-6 in conference play. Still some games to play that they need to win but interesting to see how this plays out with the Owls.


8:30 PM BTN

14 Ohio State 20-5 o145.5
3 Purdue 23-2 -10.5

I've watched both of these teams play and both are good. The Bucks have a skilled big and a frosh center that looks like Orlando Pace. I can't remember their names. Purdue is Purdue.


9 PM ESP2

Texas A&M 15-8 o151.5
8 Auburn 21-2 -7.5

I have not watched Auburn play this year. That ends tonight. My Auburn grad wife will be watching with me.