[Cracked Sidewalks] Cracketology: Not So Big East

[brewcity77]

When the NET debuted in early December, the Big East was not looking good. The league helped itself a lot to move the metrics before conference play started, but will those metric gains result in more bids? We look into that today in our first Cracketology of the year.

We also have the first S-Curve and bracket. And while January bracketology is a notoriously unreliable practice, 13 of the top-16 teams in our first January bracket last year finished in the top-16 protected seed spots on Selection Sunday, so this might not be as unreliable as you'd think.

Cracketology: Not So Big East

[tower912]

So, just like when MU was team bubble watch, it is up to MU to take care of business.  Because help isn't coming.

[brewcity77]

The irony is the best thing Marquette and UConn could do to help the league is to drop games as resume boosters for the rest of the league, but that puts their own 1/2 seed aspirations at risk.

It reminds me of when Villanova was locked into a high seed and the best way to clear a path to a bid was to beat them, except we're the Villanova now.

[StillAWarrior]

Nice work; thank you.

Marquette in Cleveland...fingers crossed.

[barfolomew]

And thumbs up on the rebrand to Cracketology
 

[GoldenEagles03]

If Marquette could've predicted Shaka's success, maybe they would've bought out the Bradley Center just to be able to host and play 1st weekend games in Milwaukee as a top seed 😅

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Nice job Brew. My only comment is don't get your hopes up for that 1 seed. Too many SEC teams in contention (good chance the SEC gets three 1 seeds), plus Duke, and Iowa State.

The weak BE also hurts our chances for Marquette to put together a 1 seed resumé.  Not only would MU need to dominate record wise, but metrically as well.

If Marquette somehow gets to top 5 in all resumé metrics, then we'll talk.

[TallTitan34]

Nice job Brew. My only comment is don't get your hopes up for that 1 seed. Too many SEC teams in contention (good chance the SEC gets three 1 seeds), plus Duke, and Iowa State.

I can't see the SEC getting three one seeds. Florida (220 SOS) and Tennessee (185 SOS) haven't exactly played the toughest competition to date. 

And someone has to lose when they play each other.

[tower912]

That is an important point.  All of these teams have to play conference road games against good teams, too.  If MU takes care of business and has no weak losses, their odds are as good as any.

[brewcity77]

I think the SEC has too much quality to get three 1-seeds. There are 7 teams on the top-4 lines, which is insane. If three of them get really hot and jointly run over the others, maybe they get three 1-seeds.

It's more likely the SEC gets one 1-seed than three. When the Big East got 11 teams in, they had just one 1 and one 2. Most teams were 3-6 because someone had to take losses and that dilutes top-tier resumes. The Big East got three 1-seeds in 2009, but just 7 bids overall and those three all had 5 or fewer losses on Selection Sunday.

To get a 1-seed, Marquette needs to perform closer to the kenpom game by game than the aggregate, but if they finish with 5 or fewer losses (17-3 + BET or 18-2 + BET loss) they are almost certain to get a 1-seed.

[GoldenEagles03]

I think the SEC has too much quality to get three 1-seeds. There are 7 teams on the top-4 lines, which is insane. If three of them get really hot and jointly run over the others, maybe they get three 1-seeds.

It's more likely the SEC gets one 1-seed than three. When the Big East got 11 teams in, they had just one 1 and one 2. Most teams were 3-6 because someone had to take losses and that dilutes top-tier resumes. The Big East got three 1-seeds in 2009, but just 7 bids overall and those three all had 5 or fewer losses on Selection Sunday.

To get a 1-seed, Marquette needs to perform closer to the kenpom game by game than the aggregate, but if they finish with 5 or fewer losses (17-3 + BET or 18-2 + BET loss) they are almost certain to get a 1-seed.

I think it will still be unlikely, but I'm still curious to see what could happen with these larger conferences. Big Ten up to 18 teams...what if 6, 7 or 8 of them fall in the 7/10 range or 8/9 range on the S-Curve? They'll have to give someone a worse seed just because they aren't allowed to play a conference opponent in round 1. Could be problematic.

[SaveOD238]

I think the SEC has too much quality to get three 1-seeds. There are 7 teams on the top-4 lines, which is insane. If three of them get really hot and jointly run over the others, maybe they get three 1-seeds.

It's more likely the SEC gets one 1-seed than three. When the Big East got 11 teams in, they had just one 1 and one 2. Most teams were 3-6 because someone had to take losses and that dilutes top-tier resumes. The Big East got three 1-seeds in 2009, but just 7 bids overall and those three all had 5 or fewer losses on Selection Sunday.

To get a 1-seed, Marquette needs to perform closer to the kenpom game by game than the aggregate, but if they finish with 5 or fewer losses (17-3 + BET or 18-2 + BET loss) they are almost certain to get a 1-seed.

I was thinking the same thing.  Torvik's site game-by-game predictions have us only losing twice in Big East play, which would get us to 27-4 before the Big East tournament.  That's probably a 1.

But Torvik's aggregate assumes we will probably lose a game or two we are favored in.  25-6 is more likely to be a 2 than a 1.

[Scoop Snoop]

I like that we are discussing whether we will be a #1 seed or #2 seed at season's end vs. where we were at season's end just 4 years ago. We finished 13-14 then, including a 68-49 first round loss to Georgetown in the BET as our finale. 

[brewcity77]

I think it will still be unlikely, but I'm still curious to see what could happen with these larger conferences. Big Ten up to 18 teams...what if 6, 7 or 8 of them fall in the 7/10 range or 8/9 range on the S-Curve? They'll have to give someone a worse seed just because they aren't allowed to play a conference opponent in round 1. Could be problematic.

It's already stressing bracketing principles. You are only allowed to have one team from each league in the top-4 of a region, but because of the top-heavy SEC the are 2 SEC teams in the top-4 of 3/4 regions.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Wisconsin in round two, but that happened because the only 7-seed that could go to the South was Oklahoma as B10 Oregon was already there and the other three 7s were B10 teams. Not only that, but they were all B10 teams that Marquette had played.

Credit to Bauertology, his website has a full distance matrix and rematches to avoid to make bracketing as easy as it can be, which isn't easy at all this year.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I can't see the SEC getting three one seeds. Florida (220 SOS) and Tennessee (185 SOS) haven't exactly played the toughest competition to date. 

And someone has to lose when they play each other.

I don't think NCSOS will matter for them. Their overall SOS will take care of itself in SEC play.

I think the SEC has too much quality to get three 1-seeds. There are 7 teams on the top-4 lines, which is insane. If three of them get really hot and jointly run over the others, maybe they get three 1-seeds.

It's more likely the SEC gets one 1-seed than three...

To get a 1-seed, Marquette needs to perform closer to the kenpom game by game than the aggregate, but if they finish with 5 or fewer losses (17-3 + BET or 18-2 + BET loss) they are almost certain to get a 1-seed.

I think the SEC is more likely to get three 1 seeds than one. I think two 1 seeds is practically a lock. If Auburn or Tennessee fall off the 1 line, they are likely going to be replaced by another SEC team.

I think SEC teams that finish 13-5 will be 1 seed locks. Even 12-6 will be in 1 seed contention. They will have so many quality wins in conference play and they have the computer metrics to match.

The SEC teams have more margin of error than Marquette. Duke should run roughshod over the ACC. As I see it, between Duke and the SEC, that's 3 projected 1 seeds.

I think SEC #3 and Iowa State (or maybe Houston if they win the Big 12) battle it out for the final 1 seed. 

Marquette needs to go 29-5 to be in the 1 seed discussion, but I don't see that happening. Blowing the lead at Dayton, and nearly blowing leads against Maryland and Xavier make me skeptical. It shows me this team lacks the consistency to dominate in 1 seed fashion.

I'm thinking Marquette finishes with 26 to 28 wins. That's 2/3 seed territory.

[TallTitan34]

I don't think NCSOS will matter for them. Their overall SOS will take care of itself in SEC play.

My point was more so that they likely won't keep winning at the same pace once they play legitimate teams.

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

Cracketology: Not So Big East – Brewtown Andy, Anonymous Eagle – January 2, 2025

The league still looks like the 3-bid league as it was last year. St. John's could even be a casualty as they are sitting with zero Q1 wins at the moment.

Excellent article Brewtown Andy.  As always, your articles highlight your excellent research and very significant analytical skills, not to mention a lot of time-consuming work to illustrate your points. Well done.

Big East NET rankings as of games of January 3, 2024

New      Old

9    9    Marquette   
13    12    UConn   
38    36    St. John's

60    57    Xavier   
61    61    Villanova   
62    64    Creighton   
75    77    Georgetown
78    79    Butler   
88    88    Providence   
90    90    DePaul   
199    189    Seton Hall

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Introducing Wins Above Bubble - Calvin Wetzel, herhoopstats - February 16, 2021

The basic explanation of WAB is that it is precisely what the name sounds like: the number of wins a team has above a typical bubble team's expectation. In other words, it answers the question, "How many more wins does Team A have than the number of wins a bubble team would be expected to have against the same schedule?"

For example, if Team A is 14-2, and a bubble team would be expected to go 11-5 against Team A's schedule, then Team A will have a WAB of 3. A negative WAB indicates a team that has won fewer games than what would be expected of a bubble team against its schedule; if Team A were instead 10-6 against that same schedule, its WAB would be -1. A notable feature of WAB is that it doesn't take into account margin of victory. It isn't attempting to predict future results, rather it's analyzing the strength of a team's résumé based purely on wins and losses.

So how is it calculated? The key is the "expected" part. There are a few steps to figuring out how a bubble team would be expected to do against a given team's schedule.

The NCAA Is Adding Torvik & Wins Above Bubble To The Men's Basketball Selection Criteria – Brewtown Andy, Anonymous Eagle – July 11, 2024

Wins Above Bubble is the measurement of how much better you are than a team that would be right on the cut line. How many more wins do you have than a team that would be on the edge of missing the tournament seems like an incredibly valuable measurement.

I agree.

NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings – NCAA.com - updated January 4, 2025

Click on column heading WAB (Wins Above Bubble) to see some interesting surprises.

[Uncle Rico]

Cracketology: Not So Big East – Brewtown Andy, Anonymous Eagle – January 2, 2025

Excellent article Brewtown Andy.  As always, your articles highlight your excellent research and very significant analytical skills, not to mention a lot of time-consuming work to illustrate your points. Well done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Introducing Wins Above Bubble - Calvin Wetzel, herhoopstats - February 16, 2021

The NCAA Is Adding Torvik & Wins Above Bubble To The Men's Basketball Selection Criteria – Brewtown Andy, Anonymous Eagle – July 11, 2024

I agree.

NCAA Men's Basketball NET Rankings – NCAA.com - updated January 4, 2025

Click on column heading WAB (Wins Above Bubble) to see some interesting surprises.

Dayton sucks

[brewcity77]

Cracketology: Not So Big East – Brewtown Andy, Anonymous Eagle – January 2, 2025

Excellent article Brewtown Andy.  As always, your articles highlight your excellent research and very significant analytical skills, not to mention a lot of time-consuming work to illustrate your points. Well done.

Thanks, but I'm not Andy. Different content creators on different websites.

[barfolomew]

Thanks, but I'm not Andy. Different content creators on different websites.

Ok, sure. Nice try, Andy.

[brewcity77]

I think the SEC is more likely to get three 1 seeds than one. I think two 1 seeds is practically a lock. If Auburn or Tennessee fall off the 1 line, they are likely going to be replaced by another SEC team.

History would disagree. Only twice has a league earned three 1-seeds, and in both cases less than half the teams in the league made the field. The 2009 Big East had 7/16 make it while the 2019 ACC had 7/15 make it.

Look at the leagues considered the "best" ever. 2011 Big East only had one 1-seed, same for the 2023 Big 12. The years where the Big 12 and Big East got 7/10 teams in, neither ever had more than one 1-seed. A league can maximize bids or maximize 1-seeds. Historically they don't go both.