Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

[Chuck Taylor]

One thing with the brackets is that some reflect the current state (if the season ended today) and some predict the eventual outcome, not really the same thing. Lunardi brags about accuracy, but it's based on his final bracket vs. the real thing. His accuracy during the season isn't impressive in the slightest.

 

All the brackets tell us is that we have work to do, and everybody already knows that.

[OmahaHusker]

9 hours ago, PimpMario said:

http://thebiglead.com/2018/01/30/nebraska-cornhuskers-bracketology-ncaa-tournament-chances/

D St is bbbbaaadddd.

 

I listened to the The Ticket a couple days ago talking about his specific article and how beating Delaware State is hurting our RPI, and therefore, hurting our tournament chances. I then remembered my friends that are Crayton fans complaining about how awful their non con home schedule was and did some research...

 

The Jays played Alcorn State (RPI 343), Maryland Eastern Shore (349), Southern Illinois-Edwardsville (326), USC Upstate (337). That is MUCH worse than our cupcake non con slate, yet they are still solidly in the tournament. Why? Because they performed not great, but relatively well in non con with wins on that road at Northwestern and against UCLA on a neutral court. What I'm trying to say is if we win even one of our non con games that are of significance (St Johns, UCF, Creighton, Kansas) then we don't need to point to articles like this one and look for excuses. That article just kind of upset me, and I apologize, but how about we take care of business in non con instead of blaming wins against Delaware State and Stetson as why we wont dance?

[HoiBall]

Well the good news is we are now The 8th team out on Joe Lunardi's board. So we are somewhat close, right Joe?

[Alwaysred]

So head to head vs the Big Least conference, the Big Ten is 6 wins and 5 losses. 4 Big Ten teams in the top 25 vs 2 Big East teams in the top 25 and yet the Big East is predicted to get 7 teams in the tourney and the Big Ten only 4?   How does that make any sense?

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

24 minutes ago, Alwaysred said:

So head to head vs the Big Least conference, the Big Ten is 6 wins and 5 losses. 4 Big Ten teams in the top 25 vs 2 Big East teams in the top 25 and yet the Big East is predicted to get 7 teams in the tourney and the Big Ten only 4?   How does that make any sense?

 

Because the selection committee doesn't care about your conference. They care about your resume. RPI isn't everything, but it's a pretty good indicator for whether or not you get in. Here's the teams that are in contention for the tournament with their current RPIs.

 

Big East - if the tournament were selected today, they'd have 6 locks and 1 on the bubble:

1. Xavier (3)

2. Villanova (2)

3. Creighton (27)

4. Seton Hall (18)

5. Butler (25)

6. Providence (34)

7. Marquette (53)

 

Big Ten - currently would have 4 locks and 2 on the bubble:

1. Purdue (8)

2. Ohio State (22)

3. Michigan State (23)

4. Nebraska (59)

5. Michigan (32)

...

9. Maryland (58)

 

There's been some discussion on here about how the Big Ten is at a disadvantage for RPI this year because as a whole, the conference started the year so poorly. When you start poorly in the non-con, it's pretty much impossible for your entire conference to improve its RPI because they are only playing against each other. So any time a team within the Big Ten improves its RPI, it comes at the expense of another Big Ten team. This is a flaw in the RPI system, because when a conference has a lot of inexperienced teams that drastically improve as the year goes on (Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State) it doesn't get reflected properly in the rankings.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

[royalfan]

What is really annoying to me is this tier nonsense.  The selection people cant just look at the schedule and see who you beat and lost to?  They need to lump it into the really arbitrary tiers?  Why is 25th a cutoff point other than it is a nice round number?  How about 50?  Is there something significant to that?  Yes, it is a round number.  These tiers just simply dumb people down.  I cannot even believe they are really a thing.  As if beating the 25 team is remotely the same as beating the 1 or 2 team.  And the difference between beating 51 and 50 is not significant.  Sure as hell not deserving of being recognized as being the same as beating 26 and 74(or wherever the hell the tier 3 cutoff is).  The entire this is asinine and really annoys the hell out of me.  That's all.  Back to discussing how we are going to get screwed if we aren't perfect.  

[royalfan]

And also to Cookie's point, when you have above average coaching in your league, teams get better during the season at an above average rate as well.  This cannot really be factored in with the way this works.  

[49r]

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

 

Because the selection committee doesn't care about your conference. They care about your resume. RPI isn't everything, but it's a pretty good indicator for whether or not you get in. Here's the teams that are in contention for the tournament with their current RPIs.

 

Big East - if the tournament were selected today, they'd have 6 locks and 1 on the bubble:

1. Xavier (3)

2. Villanova (2)

3. Creighton (27)

4. Seton Hall (18)

5. Butler (25)

6. Providence (34)

7. Marquette (53)

 

Big Ten - currently would have 4 locks and 2 on the bubble:

1. Purdue (8)

2. Ohio State (22)

3. Michigan State (23)

4. Nebraska (59)

5. Michigan (32)

...

9. Maryland (58)

 

There's been some discussion on here about how the Big Ten is at a disadvantage for RPI this year because as a whole, the conference started the year so poorly. When you start poorly in the non-con, it's pretty much impossible for your entire conference to improve its RPI because they are only playing against each other. So any time a team within the Big Ten improves its RPI, it comes at the expense of another Big Ten team. This is a flaw in the RPI system, because when a conference has a lot of inexperienced teams that drastically improve as the year goes on (Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State) it doesn't get reflected properly in the rankings.

 

I wonder how much of the RPI discrepancy could be attributed to the B1G teams having 23, 24 (and in Nebraska's case 25!!) games played while all the Big East teams have between 21 and 23 games played.

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

2 minutes ago, 49r said:

 

I wonder how much of the RPI discrepancy could be attributed to the B1G teams having 23, 24 (and in Nebraska's case 25!!) games played while all the Big East teams have between 21 and 23 games played.

 

That's a good question. I don't think it impacts it all that much. Like I said in the last post, the conference RPIs don't change much once conference play begins. We're currently in 6th and I doubt that will change.

 

http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2018/conferencerpi

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

18 minutes ago, royalfan said:

What is really annoying to me is this tier nonsense.  The selection people cant just look at the schedule and see who you beat and lost to?  They need to lump it into the really arbitrary tiers?  Why is 25th a cutoff point other than it is a nice round number?  How about 50?  Is there something significant to that?  Yes, it is a round number.  These tiers just simply dumb people down.  I cannot even believe they are really a thing.  As if beating the 25 team is remotely the same as beating the 1 or 2 team.  And the difference between beating 51 and 50 is not significant.  Sure as hell not deserving of being recognized as being the same as beating 26 and 74(or wherever the hell the tier 3 cutoff is).  The entire this is asinine and really annoys the hell out of me.  That's all.  Back to discussing how we are going to get screwed if we aren't perfect.  

 

It's just another way of breaking it down. You're right, it has its flaws. But so does every other qualification measure. That's why they try their best to consolidate it all and go from there. I'm sure when they're comparing resumes they take note of whether your Tier 1 win was against the #5 team compared to the #30 team.

[Nebrasketball1979]

Well, some good news is that Lunardi finally has Nebraska among the next 4 out and officially 8 spots away.  I think this is encouraging for one primary reason - it at least gets Nebraska on more radars.  It would be hard to convince me that these selection committee members don't at least peak at these bacteriology projections.  And, at least seeing them included is a start for more discussion amongst the broader national media and it should help get more selection committee eyeballs on upcoming games as well.  In any event, we can speculate all we want on how many games we need to win to get in.  The bottom line is keep winning and we should continue to inch up all of these projections.  

 

[royalfan]

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

 

It's just another way of breaking it down. You're right, it has its flaws. But so does every other qualification measure. That's why they try their best to consolidate it all and go from there. I'm sure when they're comparing resumes they take note of whether your Tier 1 win was against the #5 team compared to the #30 team.

Oh right it is 30 not 25, lol  Even dumber yet.  If they are taking note like they should and you say they do, then there is absolutely no reason to have these asinine tiers.  Not a single one.  

[Swan88]

Looks like Syracuse is no longer ahead of us:

 

 

[uneblinstu]

3 minutes ago, Swan88 said:

Looks like Syracuse is no longer ahead of us:

 

 

I don't think that's what it means. He had them in the field, now they're not. That "next four out" list looks like it's ordered by closest to the field to me. I think they're still a few spots ahead of us according to him.

[royalfan]

First column realtime rpi  second number sagarain rating which loosely resembles truly how good you are similar to Vegas.   We are clearly being overly victimized by the flaws of the RPI as a league.  Only two teams have a better RPI than Sag rating and they are very close.  Some incredibly large gaps the otherway around.  Lots of them.  Our league is way better than how it is being credited in the RPI.  

 

purdue 8-2

ohio st 22-25

mich st 23 -6

michigan 32-18

maryland 58-36

nebraska 59-63

NW  104-54

Penn St 110-49

Indiana 119-69

Minny 122-65

Iowa 145-77

Wisconsin 146-75

Illinois 158-79

Rutgers 199-135

[royalfan]

Big East numbers

 

Villanova 2-1

Xavier 3-9

Seton Hall 18-26

Butler 25-28

Creighton 27-16

Priovidence 34-52

Marquette 53-50

St. Johns 103-86

Georgetwon 165-98

Depaul 175-122

[TourneyBound]

39 minutes ago, Nebrasketball1979 said:

Well, some good news is that Lunardi finally has Nebraska among the next 4 out and officially 8 spots away.  I think this is encouraging for one primary reason - it at least gets Nebraska on more radars.  It would be hard to convince me that these selection committee members don't at least peak at these bacteriology projections.  And, at least seeing them included is a start for more discussion amongst the broader national media and it should help get more selection committee eyeballs on upcoming games as well.  In any event, we can speculate all we want on how many games we need to win to get in.  The bottom line is keep winning and we should continue to inch up all of these projections.  

 

Surprised that Marquette still that high after losing last night??

[royalfan]

Sag order  East Ten Ten East Ten East Ten East East Ten Ten East East Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten East East Ten

RPI order   East East Ten East Ten Ten East East Ten East East Ten Ten East Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten Ten East Ten

 

This shows that when things get set with early season out of conference games in RPI they cannot unset.  It is also why it can be manipulated like the Mo Valley used to do.  It is extremely flawed.  Sag order is a realistic indicator of the conference pecking order.  Once the RPI gets skewed it continues to spiral out of control all year by feeding off of the skewed data.  

[royalfan]

Those obsessed freaks like Double Douche etc over at that crappy Creighton board sure love to use the RPI as it fits their agenda nicely.  

[Elytron]

1 hour ago, royalfan said:

What is really annoying to me is this tier nonsense.  The selection people cant just look at the schedule and see who you beat and lost to?  They need to lump it into the really arbitrary tiers?  Why is 25th a cutoff point other than it is a nice round number?  How about 50?  Is there something significant to that?  Yes, it is a round number.  These tiers just simply dumb people down.  I cannot even believe they are really a thing.  As if beating the 25 team is remotely the same as beating the 1 or 2 team.  And the difference between beating 51 and 50 is not significant.  Sure as hell not deserving of being recognized as being the same as beating 26 and 74(or wherever the hell the tier 3 cutoff is).  The entire this is asinine and really annoys the hell out of me.  That's all.  Back to discussing how we are going to get screwed if we aren't perfect.  

I agree. My issue with the tier system (both current and previous) is that it does not provide any additional or meaningful information, but rather only represents a sub-sample of a teams data used to compile its RPI. Essentially, it's detrimental to ranking teams because it is all already included in a teams RPI, so using these tiers is not providing more data, it's just the same data cut into smaller slices. But in doing so, it throws away too much information to actually be useful....there is barely enough games in college basketball to rank teams as it is

[49r]

This is hilarious!

 

 

 

[OmahaHusker]

2 minutes ago, 49r said:

This is hilarious!

 

 

 

 

If you guys didn't check out those mentions yet on Lunardi's Nebraska tweets yesterday, I highly recommend it. Our fans are almost like a mob it's hilarious.

[royalfan]

13 minutes ago, Elytron said:

I agree. My issue with the tier system (both current and previous) is that it does not provide any additional or meaningful information, but rather only represents a sub-sample of a teams data used to compile its RPI. Essentially, it's detrimental to ranking teams because it is all already included in a teams RPI, so using these tiers is not providing more data, it's just the same data cut into smaller slices. But in doing so, it throws away too much information to actually be useful....there is barely enough games in college basketball to rank teams as it is

Exactly!!

[Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty]

29 minutes ago, Elytron said:

I agree. My issue with the tier system (both current and previous) is that it does not provide any additional or meaningful information, but rather only represents a sub-sample of a teams data used to compile its RPI. Essentially, it's detrimental to ranking teams because it is all already included in a teams RPI, so using these tiers is not providing more data, it's just the same data cut into smaller slices. But in doing so, it throws away too much information to actually be useful....there is barely enough games in college basketball to rank teams as it is

 

I agree with this for the most part. Like you said, the data reflected by the tiers is already reflected by the RPI. But I think that fact shows us exactly what the tiers are used for: assessing your quality wins.

 

If Team A's RPI is 51 and Team B's RPI is 50, but Team A is 4-7 against the top two tiers and Team B is 2-9, they're probably taking Team A. Yes, the given data implies that Team A likely had more bad losses than Team B, but the committee has shown that they typically like the teams that have proven capable against tournament-level teams because it shows they can win in the tourney. A big win is more significant to the resume than a bad loss. That's why the tiers are used. I'm not saying whether or not the tiers are an appropriate way to determine that, but they do have a use.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Cookie Miller Wasn't Dirty

[Huskerpapa]

One are that used to be emphasized (or at least considered) was how a team was playing at seasons end.  Why?  Oftentimes (like Nebraska this year) the team takes a bit of time getting used to playing with each other.  When the team character is built and players understand strengths and roles, they tend to jell.  Are you (collectively) saying that trait is not being looked at this year?