Jump to content
hhctony

Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

I went through all of the brackets on Bracket Matrix and found those that had been updated since yesterday's games. Based on this, we are still probably the fifth team out or so.

 

MM - 6th out
Hasla - 5th out
BBP - 1st out
Bracketologist 3 - Not in first 8 out
Zac - not in field
WAG - Somewhere between 5th out and 14th out
T-Rank - 9th out
SM - 1st out
BracketTodd - somewhere between 1st and 9th out
BracketBingo - not in field
BBByJon - 2nd out
RealTimeRPI - not in field
GDBracketology - not in field
HoopsHD - not in field

Lunardi - 4th out

 

At this point in the season, how much do you think these people are tweaking their models to adjust to other hard-to-measure variables versus leaving their model as-is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HuskerFever said:

 

At this point in the season, how much do you think these people are tweaking their models to adjust to other hard-to-measure variables versus leaving their model as-is?

Tough to say, but I think it varies a lot from one to the next. There is a lot of variance in the expertise and the sophistication of these brackets, I think, but it's been shown that the average of what Bracket Matrix shows ends up being pretty close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big wins have always counted more than bad losses - they're just putting a "face" to it with tiers this season.

 

I went back and looked at the last 4 years comparing the last 8 NCAA at-large teams vs the first 8 NIT seeds - the bubble teams. The most obvious difference I could find was this formula: (Top 50 RPI wins minus 101+ RPI losses)

 

2017

  • If you were +3 in the formula, you made the NCAA (4 teams), including RPI 56 & 61 teams
  • At +2, 2 were NCAA teams (Okla St, RPI 40 & 3 Top 50 wins and KSU RPI 57 & 4 Top 50 wins)/3 were NIT  (Cal, RPI 53 & 2 Top 50 wins, while Clemson & Iowa each had 4+ Top 50 wins but had RPIs of 68 & 81)
  • At +1 USC (RPI 41) and VCU (RPI 22) made NCAA with 2 & 3 Top 50 wins each. Syracuse was an NIT team at RPI 84 but had 6 Top 50 wins
  • At 0 or negative, all four teams were in the NIT, including an RPI 33 team

So not sure if that shows a definitive anything, but teams with the highest numbers in the formula made it most of the time (always understanding that there will be an outlier or two). RPI seemed more of a tie-breaker among teams in the middle of the list. 

 

I can post more details if anyone wants, but the numbers were pretty similar on 2 of the other 3 years.

  • 2016: 5 teams were at +1 or better, 4 made NCAA; only one of the six teams that was -1 or worse made NCAA and that was an RPI 63 with only 2 Top 50 wins (definite outlier)
  • 2015: Odd season, as there weren't many great numbers among at-large teams. Of those -1 or better, 6 made NCAA, 5 made NIT. However, in that group, only 5 of the 11 were Power 5 teams, so a bunch of smaller schools on the bubble, which probably threw off the numbers a bit. Of the 5 Power 5 teams in that list at -1 or better, 4 made the NCAA. There was one significant outlier in 2015, Georgia had 0 Top 50 wins, was -2 in the formula, but made NCAA with a 38 RPI.
  • 2014: 7 of the 10 teams that were +1 made NCAA. BYU also made it at -1, with a 31 RPI. Of the 3 teams that were +1 that ended up in the NIT, they had RPIs of 53, 54, and 63. (For comparison that year, NU was RPI 48 with 4 Top 50 wins and a +1 in the formula.)

Certainly, a lot of this depends on what the other bubble teams do. In 2014, 10 of the bubble teams were +1 or better and 12 were at +1 or better in 2016, but only 5 of them in 2016 were +1 or better and only 4 of them in 2015.

 

Bubble teams at +1 or better

  • 2017: 8 of 12 in the NCAA (67%)
  • 2016: 4 of 5 in NCAA (80%) - [also at 0 or better, 7 of 10 were in NCAA (70%)]
  • 2015: 2 of 4 in NCAA (50%) - [also at -1 or better, 6 of 11 were in NCAA (55%)]
  • 2014: 7 of 10 in NCAA (70%)
  • TOTAL: 21 of 31 in NCAA (68%)

Also interesting with this formula:

  • 2017: Marquette led the bubble teams at +5 and made NCAA with 61 RPI (4 bubble teams with better RPIs were NIT teams)
  • 2016: Michigan led the bubble teams at +4 and made NCAA with 57 RPI (6 bubble teams with better RPIs were NIT teams)
  • 2015: Texas led the bubble teams at +3 and made NCAA with 42 RPI (2 bubble teams with better RPIs were NIT teams)
  • 2014: Iowa led the bubble teams at +3 and made NCAA with 56 RPI (4 bubble teams with better RPIs were NIT teams)

And on the other end of the spectrum

  • 2017: Houston & Ill St were at the bottom of the list among bubble teams at -1 or worse, both were NIT but had RPIs of 33 & 54 (3 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 54; 7 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 33)
  • 2016: Valpo was at the bottom with -3 and was in NIT with RPI of 49 (6 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 49)
  • 2015: Old Dominion was at the bottom with -4 and was in NIT with RPI of 46 (2 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 46)
  • 2014: Georgia was at the bottom with -3 and was in NIT with RPI of 74 (0 bubble teams made NCAA with RPI lower than 74)

 

Who knows whether the selection committee will look at this differently with the tiers publicly in play this season. But based on recent history, if you can be in plus territory on the Top 50 wins versus sub-100 losses formula, you're usually on the right side of the bubble. That doesn't mean you can't make it at 0 or worse, as there also seems to be an outlier every year, and some years there aren't many bubble teams in the +1 or better category, but making the NCAA becomes that much tougher if you're at 0 or worse in that formula ... at least in the past few years.

 

Edited by throwback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, we just need to finish the regular season strong, get to the B1G semis, and we'll be fine. Even if we finish at 0 in that formula, it's a tougher path, but far from impossible.

 

I'm sure finishing the season strong (not necessarily 6-0, but strong) & going 2-0 vs Michigan would be more than enough to overcome a 0 in the formula.

 

But our numbers aren't occurring in a vacuum - it matters how the other bubble teams stack up around us. If there's 10-12 bubble teams at +1 or better with higher RPIs than NU has, we're probably in trouble. If there's 5-7 bubble teams at +1 or better, our chances go way up.

 

Going to be interesting to see how they treat the B1G in terms of seeding too, as the B1G's RPI is a mess. 

  • Purdue has a 7 RPI this morning, but they're a sure-fire #1 seed I'd think
  • MSU has a 21 RPI & OSU has a 20, but they both have to be a Top 4 seeds, don't they?
  • MIchigan at 31 RPI, but probably at least 6 seed right now

So if they're giving those teams the benefit of the doubt in RPI (ie, higher seed line than their RPI would suggest), I would expect the committee to do that with the other teams in the league as well, which benefits NU.

 

Edited by throwback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, throwback said:

I agree, we just need to finish the regular season strong, get to the B1G semis, and we'll be fine. Even if we finish at 0 in that formula, it's a tougher path, but far from impossible.

 

I'm sure finishing the season strong (not necessarily 6-0, but strong) & going 2-0 vs Michigan would be more than enough to overcome a 0 in the formula.

 

But our numbers aren't occurring in a vacuum - it matters how the other bubble teams stack up around us. If there's 10-12 bubble teams at +1 or better with higher RPIs than NU has, we're probably in trouble. If there's 5-7 bubble teams at +1 or better, our chances go way up.

 

Going to be interesting to see how they treat the B1G in terms of seeding too, as the B1G's RPI is a mess. 

  • Purdue has a 7 RPI this morning, but they're a sure-fire #1 seed I'd think
  • MSU has a 21 RPI & OSU has a 20, but they both have to be a Top 4 seeds, don't they?
  • MIchigan at 31 RPI, but probably at least 6 seed right now

So if they're giving those teams the benefit of the doubt in RPI (ie, higher seed line than their RPI would suggest), I would expect the committee to do that with the other teams in the league as well, which benefits NU.

 

 

Can't be the stats clearly show Purdue should be a 2 seed and MSU a 6th. Clearly the committee is not allowed to use their eyes or consider flaws in the stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, throwback said:

I agree, we just need to finish the regular season strong, get to the B1G semis, and we'll be fine. Even if we finish at 0 in that formula, it's a tougher path, but far from impossible.

 

I'm sure finishing the season strong (not necessarily 6-0, but strong) & going 2-0 vs Michigan would be more than enough to overcome a 0 in the formula.

 

But our numbers aren't occurring in a vacuum - it matters how the other bubble teams stack up around us. If there's 10-12 bubble teams at +1 or better with higher RPIs than NU has, we're probably in trouble. If there's 5-7 bubble teams at +1 or better, our chances go way up.

 

Going to be interesting to see how they treat the B1G in terms of seeding too, as the B1G's RPI is a mess. 

  • Purdue has a 7 RPI this morning, but they're a sure-fire #1 seed I'd think
  • MSU has a 21 RPI & OSU has a 20, but they both have to be a Top 4 seeds, don't they?
  • MIchigan at 31 RPI, but probably at least 6 seed right now

So if they're giving those teams the benefit of the doubt in RPI (ie, higher seed line than their RPI would suggest), I would expect the committee to do that with the other teams in the league as well, which benefits NU.

 

 

I always have found that you could get a pretty accurate seed list by doing a formula that was RPI + AP Rank + USA Today Rank and then sorting lowest to highest for seeding. Purdue would certainly be on the top line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, throwback said:

I agree, we just need to finish the regular season strong, get to the B1G semis, and we'll be fine. Even if we finish at 0 in that formula, it's a tougher path, but far from impossible.

 

I'm sure finishing the season strong (not necessarily 6-0, but strong) & going 2-0 vs Michigan would be more than enough to overcome a 0 in the formula.

 

 

If Nebraska defeats Michigan at MSG, it's a tier one (top 50 'neutral site') victory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:33 AM, HuskerActuary said:

I went through all of the brackets on Bracket Matrix and found those that had been updated since yesterday's games. Based on this, we are still probably the fifth team out or so.

 

MM - 6th out
Hasla - 5th out
BBP - 1st out
Bracketologist 3 - Not in first 8 out
Zac - not in field
WAG - Somewhere between 5th out and 14th out
T-Rank - 9th out
SM - 1st out
BracketTodd - somewhere between 1st and 9th out
BracketBingo - not in field
BBByJon - 2nd out
RealTimeRPI - not in field
GDBracketology - not in field
HoopsHD - not in field

Lunardi - 4th out

 

I like using T-Rank as it's basically a free version of KENPOM...but, I have no idea where he is getting #67 RPI for us.   I have not seen that number anywhere else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited to show games through February 4. Nebraska currently 58 in RPI. The only good news here is Michigan. It would seem to me they have a chance to get in top-30 with a one-loss finish before the conference tournament. That said, Wisconsin (home) has dropped to a tier four win (quite amazing) and we need them to get back to tier 3 ASAP. Long Beach State has dropped to tier four as well, would need to get back in top-200 to move back to tier three.

 

Tier 1 (0-5): Michigan State (21), Creighton (23), Kansas (9), Purdue (7), Ohio State (20). REMAINING: none.

Tier 2 (3-3): St. Johns (94), UCF (73), Boston College (79), at Northwestern (99), Penn State (104), Michigan (31). REMAINING: vs. Maryland (55), at Minnesota (117).

Tier 3 (5-0): Minnesota (117), at Rutgers (197), Iowa (152), Illinois (154), at Wisconsin (163). REMAINING: at Illinois (154), vs. Indiana (121), vs. Penn State (104). 

Tier 4 (9-0): Eastern Illinois (276), North Texas (209), North Dakota (218), (n) Marist (320), (n) Long Beach State (201), UTSA (202), Delaware State (351), Stetson (325), Wisconsin (163). REMAINING: vs. Rutgers (197)

Edited by hhctony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

If Nebraska defeats Michigan at MSG, it's a tier one (top 50 'neutral site') victory.

 

 

Purdue, Ohio St and  Michigan St should also be potential top 50 opponents in the tourney. Maryland can sneak in there if they most to all of their games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's an interesting metric I ran across today. In "tournament quality" games, of which we are 2-6 in 8 games, we are 21st in the country in efficiency. This is basically trying to measure how well each team plays against tournament worthy teams. The top three teams in this metric are Virginia, Villanova, and Purdue, which are also the top three teams in Bracket Matrix right now, so the validity of this metric at least somewhat checks out.

 

http://barttorvik.com/altrank.php?r=qrank&year=2018

 

The irony of this is that the  committee will see our winless record against tier 1 teams and think we can only beat poor competition. This metric would say it's just the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, huskerbaseball13 said:

 

I like using T-Rank as it's basically a free version of KENPOM...but, I have no idea where he is getting #67 RPI for us.   I have not seen that number anywhere else. 

HB13, it's his estimated final RPI ranking for Nebraska.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, uneblinstu said:

If Nebraska keeps winning, Michigan can't catch them. I don't think Michigan will win out, so even if we drop one, Michigan still probably doesn't catch us. That's the goal the rest of the way. Just up to us to do it.

 

Exactly this. In order to have a reasonable hope of dancing we need to finish 5-1, which would only require Michigan to drop one more game for us to get the 4 seed. Their schedule includes road games at NW, PSU, and Maryland plus a home game against the Buckeyes.

 

Chances are they aren't winning out, so I'm going to root for them for the time being. We need that win to look as good as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

As of last night, BracketMatrix was showing that we were in 6 different projected brackets (average 11.83 seed). That's much more than the 1-2 we've been seeing. Still a lot more work to do, but we're getting there one game at a time!

Most brackets would not have been updated to reflect the Minnesota win, either. I'm guessing we'll be in more than six brackets by the time we play our next game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the odds that Miles' getting run in our last trip to the tourney has soured the committee's taste in us?

 

Might that have an affect on any decision making?  Of course they wouldn't admit to it.  Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, atskooc said:

What are the odds that Miles' getting run in our last trip to the tourney has soured the committee's taste in us?

 

Might that have an affect on any decision making?  Of course they wouldn't admit to it.  Just wondering.

 

None

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×