Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

[HuskerActuary]

Here's where I'm at right now with the NCAA tournament. This could change whether the bubble teams have unusually strong or unusually weak endings to the season.

 

23 total wins: very likely in. Doesn't really matter how we get there.

 

21 total wins: pretty likely out (I know others may disagree with this). Doesn't really matter how we get there.

 

22 total wins: this is what's really in question right now. I think that if we end up with 22 wins and one of them is a quality win in the Big Ten tournament, we'd probably be in. So an example of this would be finishing the regular season 6-2, getting the 4 seed, and beating the 5 seed in the tournament before losing in the semis. Another example might be finishing 5-3 and winning two games in the tournament and again losing in the semis, because this would mean we would have to beat at least a top-4 seed to get there.

 

But say we finish 7-1 in the regular season, get the 4 seed, and lose to the 5 seed in our first game of the tournament. I honestly think we would be 'out' due to our extreme lack of big-time wins.

[HuskerFever]

4 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

23 total wins: very likely in. Doesn't really matter how we get there.

 

This is where my head is at.

[HuskerActuary]

Jeepers. So this is just one man's opinion, but the USA Today bracketologist is not high on our tournament chances to say the least.

 

 

[brfrad]

15 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

Jeepers. So this is just one man's opinion, but the USA Today bracketologist is not high on our tournament chances to say the least.

 

 

I have a super hard time believing a Big 10 team that is 24 - 9, and 14 - 4 in conference does not make the tournament. No matter how few quality wins they have.

[HuskerActuary]

5 minutes ago, brfrad said:

I have a super hard time believing a Big 10 team that is 24 - 9, and 14 - 4 in conference does not make the tournament. No matter how few quality wins they have.

Agreed.

 

I think if we keep winning that you'll see a more varied opinion on Nebraska than normal bubble teams; some could say that we're in easily versus others like Shelby could say no way. All stemming back to the lack of top-100 wins.

[hskr4life]

52 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

Jeepers. So this is just one man's opinion, but the USA Today bracketologist is not high on our tournament chances to say the least.

 

 

 

Meh... Big 10 coattails... something or another.

 

Put me in the camp that says we don’t need to win out to dance.  People make it sound like we play in the SWAC sometimes.  This is still the Big 10 man.  Shoot Jon C just tweeted this morning that he thinks Indiana is a bubble team... if that’s the case we have 3 more opportunities vs bubble teams left!  Maryland, Indiana, Penn State.

[jayschool]

53 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

Jeepers. So this is just one man's opinion, but the USA Today bracketologist is not high on our tournament chances to say the least.

 

 

Alright! Just a 10-game win streak and divine intervention away from a possible NCAA berth! Woo-hoo! 

[jimmykc]

Axiom: Never eat at a place called Moms, never play poker with a person called Doc, and never trust the opinion of an expert named Shelby.

[Donkey]

1 hour ago, hskr4life said:

 

Meh... Big 10 coattails... something or another.

 

Put me in the camp that says we don’t need to win out to dance.  People make it sound like we play in the SWAC sometimes.  This is still the Big 10 man.  Shoot Jon C just tweeted this morning that he thinks Indiana is a bubble team... if that’s the case we have 3 more opportunities vs bubble teams left!  Maryland, Indiana, Penn State.

 

Most years I would agree with you. Take a look at RPI by conference. The BIG has 6 RPI 100+ rated schools with Minnesota and Northwestern in the 90s. The P5 and Big East conferences have a combined 9 RPI 100+ schools. All those conferences are deeper than the BIG as well. 

 

Try not to pay attention to supposed bubble teams. Somehow Baylor is a bubble team per Lunardi. 

[HuskerFever]

[big red22]

22 wins gets a Big 10 team in. 

 

22 is the magic number

 

21-10/12-6 gets us real close and in the talk for sure, but I have feeling it might not be enough for some reason.  Get that and a win in the tournament... We are in

 

Go 22-9/13-5 we are in, don't need anything in the Big 10 tournament.

 

I strongly agree with the guy that said it is not like we are playing in the SWAC here.  I will also say as crappy as everyone says the Big 10 is, why are there still bottom feeders?  Rutgers a 2-8 team in the Big 10, and they beat a NCAA lock in Seton Hall.  So us finishing 12-6 in a "crappy" Big 10 still gets us in, because even though it is down this year we were not one of those "down" teams!

Edited January 28, 2018 by big red22

[tcp]

2 hours ago, jayschool said:

Alright! Just a 10-game win streak and divine intervention away from a possible NCAA berth! Woo-hoo! 

 

so you're saying there's a chance?!

[Silverbacked1]

I think we get in just because everybody loves our story and feels sorry for us never winning an NCAA game.

[Huskerpapa]

1 hour ago, Silverbacked1 said:

I think we get in just because everybody loves our story and feels sorry for us never winning an NCAA game.

I agree with your thought Silver...our backstory certainly will not hurt us...

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

5 hours ago, big red22 said:

22 wins gets a Big 10 team in. 

 

22 is the magic number

 

21-10/12-6 gets us real close and in the talk for sure, but I have feeling it might not be enough for some reason.  Get that and a win in the tournament... We are in

 

Go 22-9/13-5 we are in, don't need anything in the Big 10 tournament.

 

I strongly agree with the guy that said it is not like we are playing in the SWAC here.  I will also say as crappy as everyone says the Big 10 is, why are there still bottom feeders?  Rutgers a 2-8 team in the Big 10, and they beat a NCAA lock in Seton Hall.  So us finishing 12-6 in a "crappy" Big 10 still gets us in, because even though it is down this year we were not one of those "down" teams!

 

I think people in this thread need to stop referencing the Big Ten. The selection committee has said in the past that they don't evaluate conferences, they evaluate teams. That means two things: they don't care about our conference record, and they don't care about our conference placement. 14-4 and 4th place are meaningless. The committee will never say, "well, we only have four Big Ten teams in right now, and we feel like they deserve a fifth." It is all about the team's resume.

 

Here is what matters:

1. Whatever analytical metric they use to evaluate teams, whether it's RPI, KenPom, or something else.

2. Quadrant Records, specifically how did you fare in the Q1 and Q2 games? They like to see that you are capable of winning big games.

 

Neither of these two measures will be in our favor. Our RPI and KenPom ratings are stuck in the low- to mid-60s. And when I say stuck, I mean stuck. Even if we finish 7-0, those ratings are not going to be much better than 50. Finish 6-1, and the rating gets worse. If we then got bounced in the first game at MSG, that'd put us at 23-10 with a very iffy RPI in the mid- to low-50s. If you matched that resume up with our 2014 resume when we were 19-12 with the #48 RPI and some quality wins, the 2018 team would lose that battle.

 

People are getting too enamored with the win total and the conference standings and not focusing on the important things. Unless we really impress the committee in the Big Ten Tourney with a big win over (most likely) Michigan, then a close loss in the semis against Purdue... 22 wins will not be enough with our resume, and 23 will be very close.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

[HuskerFever]

4 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

Here is what matters:

1. Whatever analytical metric they use to evaluate teams, whether it's RPI, KenPom, or something else.

2. Quadrant Records, specifically how did you fare in the Q1 and Q2 games? They like to see that you are capable of winning big games.

 

You're missing a major component: 3. The people themselves making the decisions in the room. Data doesn't make decisions, people do.

 

An advocate for Nebraska could go a very long ways. The same could be said of other bubble teams, however.

[Nebrasketball1979]

 

7 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

You're missing a major component: 3. The people themselves making the decisions in the room. Data doesn't make decisions, people do.

 

An advocate for Nebraska could go a very long ways. The same could be said of other bubble teams, however.

 

Agree 100%.  The more we win and the later we get into the season, there will certainly be more selection committee eyes on our games because we're in the bubble conversation.  I do believe that the "eye test" is a real thing and for that matter that we've passed that test since roughly mid-December, even in our losses.  The problem is that we haven't exactly been in the conversation during this run of good basketball.  We need to win with style points and really hammer some of the lesser competition we are facing.  The Iowa game was a good start and I'm of the mindset that we just need to find a way to win on the road.  Beating Maryland, Indiana, and Penn State soundly could go a long ways in helping our chances, especially if one of those teams happened to be on the bubble as well..  All I know is we would be in a world of hurt if there was some sort of BCS computer system deciding our fate!

[Dean Smith]

24 minutes ago, Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty said:

 

I think people in this thread need to stop referencing the Big Ten. The selection committee has said in the past that they don't evaluate conferences, they evaluate teams. That means two things: they don't care about our conference record, and they don't care about our conference placement. 14-4 and 4th place are meaningless. The committee will never say, "well, we only have four Big Ten teams in right now, and we feel like they deserve a fifth." It is all about the team's resume.

 

Here is what matters:

1. Whatever analytical metric they use to evaluate teams, whether it's RPI, KenPom, or something else.

2. Quadrant Records, specifically how did you fare in the Q1 and Q2 games? They like to see that you are capable of winning big games.

 

Neither of these two measures will be in our favor. Our RPI and KenPom ratings are stuck in the low- to mid-60s. And when I say stuck, I mean stuck. Even if we finish 7-0, those ratings are not going to be much better than 50. Finish 6-1, and the rating gets worse. If we then got bounced in the first game at MSG, that'd put us at 23-10 with a very iffy RPI in the mid- to low-50s. If you matched that resume up with our 2014 resume when we were 19-12 with the #48 RPI and some quality wins, the 2018 team would lose that battle.

 

People are getting too enamored with the win total and the conference standings and not focusing on the important things. Unless we really impress the committee in the Big Ten Tourney with a big win over (most likely) Michigan, then a close loss in the semis against Purdue... 22 wins will not be enough with our resume, and 23 will be very close.

There’s what the say they do and what really happens in the room. Now I’ve never been in the room when it happens but there always seems to be some matchups, usually second round that seem to be more than random. And there are always teams that stack up very well based on what they say they are looking at that don’t get in and usually some power 5 conference schools or some that have compelling stories that have lesser numbers but manage to get in. Computers don’t make the picks humans do so I think, for better or worse, some of those things that arent supposed to count end up counting a lot. 

[hskr4life]

Also, when watching them discuss why teams did and didn't get in, they are usually pretty vague.

 

They never say team A had the higher RPI, etc.  I guarantee that they will not say team A got in over team B because of more quadrant 1 wins.

 

They will use vague terms like overall body of work, eye test, etc.  Why?  Because they are human.  Sometimes I think that basketball fanatics can get so wrapped up in "the numbers" that they forget the personnel actually selecting the teams is prone to mistakes, and bias as well.

 

Now I am not saying that just because we are Nebraska we are getting in.  I'm just saying that they may say they are going to use this and that, but in the end, they are still human.

[rr52]

Do they still use "how a team did in there last 10 games" component? 

[REDZONEDAN]

1 minute ago, rr52 said:

Do they still use "how a team did in there last 10 games" component? 

No, I believe they stopped using that component around the same time we last made the NCAA Tournament.

[hskr4life]

1 minute ago, REDZONEDAN said:

No, I believe they stopped using that component around the same time we last made the NCAA Tournament.

 

I hear that is going to be another option along with the tiers this year!  Who would of thunk it?

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

32 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

You're missing a major component: 3. The people themselves making the decisions in the room. Data doesn't make decisions, people do.

 

An advocate for Nebraska could go a very long ways. The same could be said of other bubble teams, however.

 

I definitely agree with this. We can only hope that the committee is watching us because we certainly are a tournament quality team. But the fact is the analytics do matter, and they won't be in our favor. Even if we win out to finish 23-8, I think one win at MSG is important to cement us in the committee's minds as a team that's playing good ball.

 

The main point I'm trying to make is that I think people are focusing too much on the Big Ten standings. Maybe seeing that we're the 4 seed could subconsciously inflate us in some committee members' minds, but I don't think they will use it as hard evidence for why we should get in.

[tcp]

separation of bubble teams is highly imperfect. we can't forget that most of the committee watch a lot of game sat the end of the season, and that experience forms a lot of their "tie breaking" methods when it comes to picking between two otherwise deserving teams. 

That's not going to change, quadrant scheme or no quadrant scheme (which, incidentally, I think will last for all of a whopping one season. It'll be gone for next year). 

 

 

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

1 minute ago, tcp said:

separation of bubble teams is highly imperfect. we can't forget that most of the committee watch a lot of game sat the end of the season, and that experience forms a lot of their "tie breaking" methods when it comes to picking between two otherwise deserving teams. 

That's not going to change, quadrant scheme or no quadrant scheme (which, incidentally, I think will last for all of a whopping one season. It'll be gone for next year). 

 

 

 

Really? I think the quadrants are great. It's an improvement over just analyzing 1-50, 51-100, etc.