Nebraska on the Selection Committee Board

[HuskerFever]

2 minutes ago, OmahaHusker said:

 

3 points for picking the right team, 3 points for correct seed, 1 point if they have a team within one seed line. So mix of both.

 

I would imagine that there really are only about 5-10 teams left in question between the brackets (assuming there are no surprises in midmajor championships). So much of the variance between brackets would come from seeding.

 

Now how do we find those brackets that account for eye tests, a chairman that attended your games, scheduling blunders, etc?

[Art Vandalay]

17 minutes ago, HuskerActuary said:

Bracket Matrix is in the top 10% of predicted brackets using the last five years (link). And the guy who is #1 still has us as the sixth team out, updated as of this morning. These aren't just a bunch of yahoos throwing darts (well, a few are)... but the results of past predictions are right there in the link.

 

Your point is? Great they are the best at using metrics to figure out who will make it. Guessing each year they miss 1-2 because the committee goes outside the numbers if needed. Going outside the raw numbers is how we will make it if we do so I do not put as much stock in the metric driven predictions sites. It does not mean they are not accurate overall but will naturally not love us as much as people (hopefully the committee people) who watch the games and debate who should get in based on eyeball test and closer looks at how the metrics come about.

[hhcmatt]

16 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I glanced at it and it looks like they're coming up with some sort of composite score and the lowest variance wins. Does this have more weight on picking the most accurate seeding? Or predicting the field of 68?

 

Only reason it matters for us this year is I'd rather have a more accurate forecast for the field of 68.

 

I don't think I've posted this already (there are 37 pages) but here is how the matrix of predictors has done (some guys have done better, worse)

 

2017 - 68 of 68 - 0

2016 - 65 of 68 - 3

2015 - 66 of 68 - 2

2014 - 67 of 68  -1

2013 - 68 of 68 - 0

2012 - 67 of 68 - 1

 

There have been years where teams have made the tournament while only showing up on 1 or 3 of this giant grouping of brackets.

If we're not projected to be in, there is still some hope.

If we're projected to be an 11th seed (or lower), we're still sweating during the selection process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HuskerActuary]

13 minutes ago, Art Vandalay said:

 

Your point is? Great they are the best at using metrics to figure out who will make it. Guessing each year they miss 1-2 because the committee goes outside the numbers if needed. Going outside the raw numbers is how we will make it if we do so I do not put as much stock in the metric driven predictions sites. It does not mean they are not accurate overall but will naturally not love us as much as people (hopefully the committee people) who watch the games and debate who should get in based on eyeball test and closer looks at how the metrics come about.

My point is that there is no better way to judge what the committee will do than to use people who are proven at judging with the committee will do. These guys say over and over that  they are trying to predict what the committee will do. Clearly I'm not coming through though, so we will agree to disagree here.

[royalfan]

It is amazing how Creighton wins a game and the douchebag Creighton fans are back to worrying about Nebraska.  Heard today, that we are in worse than a mid major league.  The quadrant system is benefitting us, we just don't know how it works because we are dumb.  St. Johns is 30 better than Penn St.   No way Bruce should help us get in after seeing how bad Penn St. is.  A few days ago, these douchebags were calling each other douchebags.  Now, all is happy again in douchebagville.  

[The Polish Rifle]

38 minutes ago, royalfan said:

It is amazing how Creighton wins a game and the douchebag Creighton fans are back to worrying about Nebraska.  Heard today, that we are in worse than a mid major league.  The quadrant system is benefitting us, we just don't know how it works because we are dumb.  St. Johns is 30 better than Penn St.   No way Bruce should help us get in after seeing how bad Penn St. is.  A few days ago, these douchebags were calling each other douchebags.  Now, all is happy again in douchebagville.  

I  just wish we could get more quad 1 opponents at home. We're averaging a 9.5 point win against quad 1 teams at home.

[HuskerFever]

Well this is concerning... "Most similar resumes to Nebraska 2018 since 2008":

 

http://barttorvik.com/resume-compare.php?team=Nebraska&year=2018

 

[hskr4life]

20 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

Well this is concerning... "Most similar resumes to Nebraska 2018 since 2008":

 

http://barttorvik.com/resume-compare.php?team=Nebraska&year=2018

 

 

Hit the exclude auto bids option and it gives a little more accurate picture.  More Power 5 teams and Purdue is one that got in with a resume like ours in 2015.

[big red22]

26 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

Well this is concerning... "Most similar resumes to Nebraska 2018 since 2008":

 

http://barttorvik.com/resume-compare.php?team=Nebraska&year=2018

 

The good thing is LSU, Georgia, Notre Dame, Washington, Oregon, Utah, Texas and Baylor don't look too good either

Edited February 27, 2018 by big red22

[HuskerFever]

2 minutes ago, hskr4life said:

 

Hit the exclude auto bids option and it gives a little more accurate picture.  More Power 5 teams and Purdue is one that got in with a resume like ours in 2015.

 

[hskr4life]

Using that site, Penn State's resume compares to 2008 Nebraska.

 

2014 Nebraska quadrants..... 3-9, 5-1,6-2, 5-0.

 

[big red22]

8 minutes ago, HuskerFever said:

 

I did the same thing and it gave me Mississippi State 2008 as an 8 seed as well.  2008 Mississippi State was 22-10 that year

[AuroranHusker]

 

[royalfan]

9 hours ago, HuskerFever said:

Well this is concerning... "Most similar resumes to Nebraska 2018 since 2008":

 

http://barttorvik.com/resume-compare.php?team=Nebraska&year=2018

 

 

The big difference between us and most of these is the intent of the schedule which Bruce has discussed.  

[Art Vandalay]

Not to mention most of those are mid majors at best. Even though the Big10 is considered down they will have to acknowledge most of our wins are against P5 teams unlike most on this list.

[bigFRED]

The Committee already said they will take into account how good Minnesota was when we beat them. So if they are true to their word, you can throw out all these computer metrics that have Minnesota as a below average win for us. 

[big red22]

I went down the list of conferences and here is how I see it at this point

 

( ) = Teams IMO we "should" be selected ahead of at the end of the regular season. Even if they win or lose the rest of their games 

 

AEC - 1

AAC - 1

A10 - 1(2) St. Bonaventure

ACC - 9(11) Syracuse, ND

Big 10 - 6(8) Texas, Baylor

Big East - 5(7) Providence, Marquette

Big Sky - 1

Big South - 1

Big 10 - 5

Big West - 1

CAA - 1

C-USA - 1(3) Western Kentucky, Old Dominion

Horizon - 1

IVY - 1

MAAC - 1

MAC - 1

MEAC - 1

MVC - 1

MWC  - 1(2) Boise State

NEC - 1

OVC - 1

PAC 12 - 2(7) UCLA, Oregon, Arizona St.(7-9), Washington, Utah

Patriot - 1

SEC - 6(11) Alabama, Missouri, LSU, Georgia, Texas A&M

Southern - 1

Southland - 1

SAC - 1

Summit - 1

Sun Belt - 1

WCC - 2

WAC - 1

 

By my calculations that is 59 teams... I know

 

Alabama has (Insert Number Quadrant 1 Wins)

Missouri has (Insert Number Quadrant 1 Wins)

Arizona St. has (Insert Number Quadrant 1 Wins)

ect...

 

Here is the problem guys who our destined to prove that Metrics are a bigger factor than Conference wins.  You know what I say to that BULL S***!!!  Winning matters more than any stat sheet you can show me!

 

Here is some big red22's metrics that should be basic knowledge to the average human being...

 

• Kenpom has the Big 10 as the Number 5 conference in the country AHEAD of the PAC 12 so why should any team 11-7 or worse be ahead of a 13-5 Nebraska.  No way should a 7-9 Arizona St. team be a lock... NO F****** WAY!
• 2011-2012 PAC 12 was ranked the 10th Best Conference... 2017-2018 Big 10 is ranked 5th or 6th.  The resume comparison is not even comparable, because Oregon and Washington never had to play 3 away games against Top 15 teams in the country.  They also had NO wins against a top 25 team
• "Nebraska hasn't beat any tournament teams, but one!" Guess what Penn State and Maryland would be tournament teams if we didn't beat them.  To add to this statement every tournament team we faced was on the road except for Kansas

Got to get back to work, but I will add more to this later if I see arguments against my metrics

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by big red22

[Nebrasketball1979]

One thing I heard this morning on the radio that I found interesting/troublesome is that of our 22 wins, only 6 came against teams with a winning record.  That seems remarkably low but I also tend to lean towards the optimistic side that if we take care of (hopefully!) Michigan on Friday, then we will secure a spot in the field.  I don't think Bruce Rasmussen was blowing smoke talking about how good our team looks, Minnesota win, intent of scheduling, etc.  I tend to think his word will carry just a bit more weight than these talking heads.  BUT...we can put all this speculation to bed by just winning, preferably three more!

[royalfan]

Treatment if you walk into the selection room with conference records, mention a Big 12 team losing, or attempt to discuss current form.  

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by royalfan

[colhusker]

13 minutes ago, royalfan said:

Treatment if you walk into the selection room with conference records, mention a Big 12 team losing, or attempt to discuss current form.  

 

Think the same would be true if you want to discuss why the $EC doesn't deserve 8 teams.

[hhctony]

Just completely realized I left the SEC out of my original post.

 

All -- I think this gives us a pretty accurate picture of who is involved in what we have left over the next few weeks. We need a few things to happen that we should watch over as the tournaments kick up.

 

1. One-Bid Leagues: Marked here with seeds 48-68 (The Valley to the SWAC). In addition, to create the biggest at-large pool available we need the MWC and Conference USA to be one-bid leagues. Certainly Nevada and Middle Tennessee could both steal bids from Nebraska and others. So, 23 one-bid leagues is our perfect number.

 

2. Non-Power Six Leagues: Here is what we need to keep an eye on in the West Coast Conference, the Atlantic 10 and the American. The teams we want to win these are tournaments are as follows: Gonzaga or St. Mary's (WCC), Rhode Island or St. Bonaventure (A-10) and Cincinnati, Houston or Wichita State (American). Why? Because most of these teams are most certainly in (you'd likely move St. Mary's and St. Bonaventure in with the bubble if they lost). So if you have three of those teams win, you only take four at-large bids from the non-Power Six schools.

 

3. That leaves: 32 spots for the Power-Six and the biggest pool imaginable for us. Right now I can see that break down a few ways: ACC (7 teams really good, up to 10 still fighting which leaves 6 pretty good and 9 fighting for spots); Big 12 (lot of things going on here, but I'll say 6 in good shape and two more fighting, leaves 5 and 7); Big East (6 in good shape and one still fighting, leaves 5 and 6); Big Ten (Four stone cold locks, one fighting, two real long shots, so 3 and 3 here left), Pac-12 (1 lock and up to 8 fighting, so if Arizona would win the tournament that could add even another spot to the at-large pool), SEC (3 comfortable and 7 more on the bubble).

 

4. The math: Locked in at-larges (in my opinion). ACC (6), Big 12 (5/11), Big East (5/16), Big Ten (3/19), Pac-12 (1/20), SEC (3/23). So that leaves 9 teams to still go (and it would be 10 if Arizona won the Pac-12 tournament) and 22 or so teams to get those spots. I knew the odds seemed to good in my original post. I think the think to realized with all the middling in the Pac-12 and the SEC that the teams that lose in the quarterfinals will be sweating big time is my guess.

 

You don't need to agree with the picture below (I don't, but it is from the Bracket Matrix champ from last year and he is the five-year overall leader as well), but it gives you an idea of what we are competing against. About three ACC schools, two Big 12, one Big East and seven Pac-12 if I did the math right. We have rightly positioned ourselves well ahead of the two B1G long shots in my opinion.

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by hhctony

[Dean Smith]

 

4 minutes ago, hhctony said:

All -- I think this gives us a pretty accurate picture of who is involved in what we have left over the next few weeks. We need a few things to happen that we should watch over as the tournaments kick up.

 

1. One-Bid Leagues: Marked here with seeds 48-68 (The Valley to the SWAC). In addition, to create the biggest at-large pool available we need the MWC and Conference USA to be one-bid leagues. Certainly Nevada and Middle Tennessee could both steal bids from Nebraska and others. So, 23 one-bid leagues is our perfect number.

 

2. Non-Power Six Leagues: Here is what we need to keep an eye on in the West Coast Conference, the Atlantic 10 and the America. The teams we want to win these are tournaments are as follows: Gonzaga or St. Mary's (WCC), Rhode Island or St. Bonaventure (A-10) and Cincinnati, Houston or Wichita State (American). Why? Because most of these teams are most certainly in (you'd likely move St. Mary's and St. Bonaventure in with the bubble if they lost). So if you have three of those teams win, you only take four at-large bids from the non-Power Six schools.

 

3. That leaves: 32 spots for the Power-Six and the biggest pool imaginable for us. Right now I can see that break down a few ways: ACC (7 teams really good, up to 10 still fighting which leaves 6 pretty good and 9 fighting for spots); Big 12 (lot of things going on here, but I'll say 6 in good shape and two more fighting, leaves 5 and 7); Big East (6 in good shape and one still fighting, leaves 5 and 6); Big Ten (Four stone cold locks, one fighting, two real long shots, so 3 and 3 here left), Pac-12 (1 lock and up to 8 fighting, so if Arizona would win the tournament that could add even another spot to the at-large pool).

 

4. The math: Locked in at-larges (in my opinion). ACC (6), Big 12 (5/11), Big East (5/16), Big Ten (3/19), Pac-12 (1/20). So that leaves 12 teams to still go (and it would be 13 if Arizona won the Pac-12 tournament) and 15 or so teams to get those spots.

 

You don't need to agree with the picture below (I don't, but it is from the Bracket Matrix champ from last year and he is the five-year overall leader as well), but it gives you an idea of what we are competing against. About three ACC schools, two Big 12, one Big East and seven Pac-12 if I did the math right. We have rightly positioned ourselves well ahead of the two B1G long shots in my opinion.

 

Any way we can petition to count the Miss. State win on the road in our record?

[hhcmatt]

On 2/26/2018 at 10:38 AM, hhcdimes said:

 

I'm putting a lot more weight into what this guy is doing/saying than the people that are trying to guess what this guy is going to do.

With us being a weird team that should most years simultaneously be in and out I'm not getting bent out of shape by bracketologists.

 

Bruce Rassmussen on Sharp and Benning

 

[tcp]

seems like Bruce says this every time. yet almost no one believes him. I do. 

[big red22]

18 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Bruce Rassmussen on Sharp and Benning

 

They break down every little thing between us vs Texas, Syracuse, Baylor ect... Without basing everything on Metrics we are going to shine.  

 

He said the little things the media gets is the readers digest version. 

 

With that said we are in