Everything has been reprogrammed to extract the required data regularly. It's just a matter of following a pattern to consistently manage the data to build a product. The metrics I am rating on are same as last year. First, a "Basic" measure that indicates as to whether or not they play good basketball (do they score more per possession/do they allow fewer points per possession). Next, there is a "Strength" measure that digests RPI and schedule to verify the results. Finally, there is a "Trend" measure that addresses the when and where of results. Typically, the analysis is done independent of record until that matters (closer to March). Basically, a 5-4 team now (like Florida, URI) doesn't just topple out of the field, nor does an undefeated team (I hate using the Georgetown example because it is extreme, so Syracuse) with good metrics immediately drop other proven teams. A four metric blends the three to give a broader picture.
Logic is also applied, such as MTSU has a blistering RPI, but the C-USA doldrums will dampen their seed. Schools outside the Big 6 will need sterling resumes. Come March, since the NCAA shares their RPI breakdown, that will be used as a tie breaker, because the exercise is to project the field, not argue who deserves it more.
One of the criteria that DOES NOT help analyze and project the field is looking at Top 25, 50, 100 wins and losses. First, rankings change hourly, and your snapshot is as good as the last result. A top 25 team can topple out of the Top 50 with a sprained ankle, and then that win is worthless. The Big East was a mess of who beat who and when last year. The Pac12 and Big12 had teams jockeying the 50 line every night, with some teams losing as many as 6 "Rated" games a night based on results, only to have a few pop up the next night when more results come in.
The other things that do need to be considered: health, ratio of games played away, non-conference schedule balance, and avoiding unexplainable losses.
Here is a snapshot of the tool:
Numbers-minded folks probably recognize some of the value sources, but it is really how you interpret the committee's mindset AT THAT TIME as to how you balance the formulas.
That said, the bracket:
After Duke LOLed in Chestnut Hill (don't be fooled there), it created firm separation between Villanova, MSU, and the other 349 teams. The curve smooths after that, with Duke and Wichita State riding shotgun for the other #1 seeds. I was pretty relaxed with the regions and had no problem dropping UVA out west. Despite Nova's roll, I still like Xavier to pace them in the conference, and a 2 seed fits their numbers. UNC and WVU continue their silent assaults. A&M, Kansas, and Gonzaga are next up. The biggest surprises falling into the chaos? Kentucky is struggling a little, Notre Dame crapped the bed, Cincinnati should be much closer to the Shockers, and Florida has entered the abyss. Minnesota was hot, then suddenly not. The Gaels are on life support now... getting swept by the Zags again with boot them. The Pac12 is a dumpster fire. Surprises emerging? Tennessee, Temple, Clemson, OHIO STATE (maybe it was all Thad's back), and of course Arizona State.
Breakdown by conference:
A10: 2
AAC: 5 (yes, 5)
ACC: 8
Big Ten: 5 (Wisc/NW implosions have left their mark)
Big 12: 7
Big East: 6
MVC: 2
MWC: 1 (but oh so close Boise)
Pac12: 2 (I see 4 here again, but what a miserable non-conf run)
SEC: 7 (yeah, I had to wtf that one as well)
WCC: 2
22 one bid leagues
Teams that are closest to the bubble:
Virginia Tech, Ohio State, Temple, Minnesota, Saint Mary's
The major conference teams just need to defend their home court and not lose to the dregs on the road and their numbers will remain steady. The Gaels and Owls will likely be on a weekly SOS rollercoaster as to whether or not they are safe.
Last 5 in:
Alabama, Houston, Providence, Saint John's, Northern Iowa
The Panthers need help from a middling MVC. Bradley has rebounded to give the league a sixth decent team, but Valpo, the Redbirds, Bears, and Braves are all going to be eyed as NIT at best, even with a strong conference run. Loyola and Northern Iowa need to stay on top of that middle class and hope it keeps their numbers strong. These aren't Creighton and WSU from the old Valley though. The Big East has 3 team log jam, and that could break at any point. WSU's move to the AAC should buoy Temple and Houston's numbers for the rest of the season; double digit conference wins will be huge. The SEC is so strong that Alabama went from potential Top 3 to "just hope to stay in the top half."
First 5 out:
Syracuse, Butler, Maryland Boise State, UCLA
UCLA is a solid cut below the other 4. Depending how I prioritize the numbers, Cuse, Butler, MD, and Boise replace any of the 5 teams ahead of them (and Minnesota). UCLA is really just there, not bad, but in need of big wins in the state of Arizona to really have a shot. Boise needs good seasons out of Fresno, SDST, UNLV, and New Mexico to boost the conference numbers.
Next 5 out:
Penn State, Iowa State, Marquette, Utah, Oregon
If you were looking for the Pac12, you have found the mortuary. Marquette can jump into the BE mix again if they get hot. Penn State is exactly what you expect from the middle of the pack in the Big 10. Decent numbers, a few notable win, and no idea whether or not they are any good. When I was originally programming the spreadsheet, the first run pumped out 9 teams (OKST was DOA). Kansas lost and KSU lost and OKST lost. Iowa State has a ways to go, but the ground work is there. Better shape than UCLA long term; no bad losses in the Big12.
In the Hunt:
BYU, KSU, Miss St, Georgia, Fresno, SDST, NCST, Towson!, UNLV, Northwestern, UCF, ODU, Wisconsin, Wake Forest, and I swear-to-freaking-god Boston College.
Anomoly:
I have Hawaii as my Big West pick... but UC Davis looking really good.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment