Great bracket article/resource

WichitaSooner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2015
Messages
5,600
Reaction score
432
Bracket Watch: Answering your questions on Michigan State, a 2-bid Valley and the NET2024 NCAA Tournament Bracket Watch: Why Michigan State is in, and NET confusion

This posted on The Athletic this morning and has a lot of very good info that addresses specific teams, and also answers some of the questions we were discussing yesterday.

OU isn’t mentioned in the mailbag, but we are a 7-seed in their current projection. That makes me very glad we won in Manhattan, and reinforces my belief that we need four more wins to feel comfortable. Had we lost Tuesday, we would have faced an uphill climb given how tough the schedule gets down the stretch.
 
Bracket Watch: Answering your questions on Michigan State, a 2-bid Valley and the NET2024 NCAA Tournament Bracket Watch: Why Michigan State is in, and NET confusion

This posted on The Athletic this morning and has a lot of very good info that addresses specific teams, and also answers some of the questions we were discussing yesterday.

OU isn’t mentioned in the mailbag, but we are a 7-seed in their current projection. That makes me very glad we won in Manhattan, and reinforces my belief that we need four more wins to feel comfortable. Had we lost Tuesday, we would have faced an uphill climb given how tough the schedule gets down the stretch.
It is a solid read, I like The Athletic.

However, I must point out in the article he says, "the selection committee always rewards teams that play challenging schedules", which is verifiably false (re: 2022).

Here is a great resource they site as a neat visual tool: Bracketologists :: NCAA Tournament Resumes with NET Rankings.

Per your 7-seed for OU, they have us playing 10 Michigan St...which is a matchup I want to avoid at all costs. MSU is a tournament team...so please keep us away from them.

Their breakdown of multi-team conference bids as of now
Big 129
SEC9
Big East8
Big Ten6
Mountain West5
ACC3
Pac-123
 
It is a solid read, I like The Athletic.

However, I must point out in the article he says, "the selection committee always rewards teams that play challenging schedules", which is verifiably false (re: 2022).

Here is a great resource they site as a neat visual tool: Bracketologists :: NCAA Tournament Resumes with NET Rankings.

Per your 7-seed for OU, they have us playing 10 Michigan St...which is a matchup I want to avoid at all costs. MSU is a tournament team...so please keep us away from them.

Their breakdown of multi-team conference bids as of now
Big 129
SEC9
Big East8
Big Ten6
Mountain West5
ACC3
Pac-123
I take his comment to mean they reward teams that play challenging noncon schedules -- after all, that is the only part of the schedule that teams/coaches can control. Note his comment about Tech -- how their ceiling is likely a 4-seed because of how bad their noncon was (sadly, ours was even a little worse).
 
I take his comment to mean they reward teams that play challenging noncon schedules -- after all, that is the only part of the schedule that teams/coaches can control. Note his comment about Tech -- how their ceiling is likely a 4-seed because of how bad their noncon was (sadly, ours was even a little worse).
Just to be sure I am understanding your critique, you’re specifically upset OU scheduled so many 200-300 teams?

I agree 100% that non-con scheduling can be and should be gamed but it also seems like a fair amount is out of a team’s hands. In October, who would have guessed 4/5 of the brand opponents would have underperformed (Providence/Iowa) or significantly underperformed (Ark/USC)? Plus it seems like one wants to bank wins at any cost knowing the conference schedule is so brutal (as others have pointed out, see 2022).

Calculus changes next year for sure though.
 
I take his comment to mean they reward teams that play challenging noncon schedules -- after all, that is the only part of the schedule that teams/coaches can control. Note his comment about Tech -- how their ceiling is likely a 4-seed because of how bad their noncon was (sadly, ours was even a little worse).
I know we keep going back and forth on this, but there should be no weight to either noncon or con. noncon should be moot and not matter if you played the toughest schedule bc your conference is insane. It should all factor into one total, that is, SOS. the identifier for noncon and con should not come into play.

Statistically it makes no sense to weight one more than the other. The only difference is, you chose the teams, that is it. Overall SOS should be the only thing that matters, noncon should not even be a factor unless you play in the WCC, MEAC and are vying for an at-large bid with some quality wins.
 
I agree that we need 4 more to be comfortable, which I expect we will get. There is really no reason to expect a collapse at this point other than the past traumas of conference play the last 8 seasons. This has been a tourney-worthy team thus far and is currently healthy.

I think it's possible to get in as 7-11 in conference, but I don't want to go that path and be on the edge of our seats in the conference tourney.
 
Just to be sure I am understanding your critique, you’re specifically upset OU scheduled so many 200-300 teams?

I agree 100% that non-con scheduling can be and should be gamed but it also seems like a fair amount is out of a team’s hands. In October, who would have guessed 4/5 of the brand opponents would have underperformed (Providence/Iowa) or significantly underperformed (Ark/USC)? Plus it seems like one wants to bank wins at any cost knowing the conference schedule is so brutal (as others have pointed out, see 2022).

Calculus changes next year for sure though.
My thinking is this: it is precisely because you can't predict exactly how well the 5 "good" teams will do that you need to bake in some certainty by making sure not to play too many teams from, say, 250 on down. And it's fairly easy to know who those will be -- the bottom few teams from the worst leagues. Those rankings tend to be pretty stable.

But I wasn't even thinking about our schedule when I posted this thread, I just thought it was interesting since it talks about Sparty and some of the things we were discussing yesterday.
 
I know we keep going back and forth on this, but there should be no weight to either noncon or con. noncon should be moot and not matter if you played the toughest schedule bc your conference is insane. It should all factor into one total, that is, SOS. the identifier for noncon and con should not come into play.

Statistically it makes no sense to weight one more than the other. The only difference is, you chose the teams, that is it. Overall SOS should be the only thing that matters, noncon should not even be a factor unless you play in the WCC, MEAC and are vying for an at-large bid with some quality wins.
I don't necessarily disagree -- I'm just saying that seems to be how the committee views it, regardless of our feelings about it. I can kind understand their thinking, though. I don't think they weigh noncon MORE than conference. Since conference play makes up about 60 percent of the schedule, it actually carries more weight. I just think that if they are looking at two teams with very similar resumes (whether it is for seeding or simply making the tourney), they default to rewarding teams that challenge themselves the most out of conference. Otherwise, a Big 12 team, for example, could play 13 awful teams in the noncon, knowing that they will get probably 10+ chances to win Q1 games in league play. I think it is reasonable to say that if you take that approach, you better (a) not lose any of the 13 gimmes, and (b) pick up more than just a couple nice conference wins.
 
My thinking is this: it is precisely because you can't predict exactly how well the 5 "good" teams will do that you need to bake in some certainty by making sure not to play too many teams from, say, 250 on down. And it's fairly easy to know who those will be -- the bottom few teams from the worst leagues. Those rankings tend to be pretty stable.

But I wasn't even thinking about our schedule when I posted this thread, I just thought it was interesting since it talks about Sparty and some of the things we were discussing yesterday.
Ok, that’s fair assuming the stability of bottom rankings but don’t know the analytics that well. I’ll just have to disagree given OU’s situation in the Big 12.

Knowing how wins are at a premium in conference and the SOS/intangible boost that gives OU come selection Sunday, I’d prioritize maximizing the record in non-con in hopes of getting to 20 wins or whatever is deemed aesthetically pleasing. Because while the committee seems to be embracing analytics more, just want to avoid historical black marks (like <20 wins) & their SOS seems to be a more important metric than a broken-out conference SOS /non-conference SOS.
 
Bubble Watch: Did the Big 12 game the system? And 6 more locks2024 NCAA Tournament Bubble Watch: Did the Big 12 game the system?

Another interesting column that more directly touches on the question of how the poor noncon schedule may affect us and other Big 12 teams that find themselves on the bubble.
"It makes for a fun February debate, albeit one lacking in other data points. The Big 12 has the best winning percentage against the other top six conferences. Metrics such as the NET and KenPom factor things like strength of opposition into their formulas. It also tends to require “good” teams to beat up on “bad” ones to the degree the Big 12 has, which has been backed up by the depth and competitiveness of Big 12 league play. No doubt Iowa State benefited from its nonconference schedule from a win/loss perspective, but the Cyclones beat Houston and Kansas and were a tenth-of-a-second from taking down Baylor on Saturday. Iowa State’s nonconference strategy worked, and the Cyclones are good. Those aren’t mutually exclusive."

That is in response to the narrative aligned with Terrence Oglesby from the Field of 68, citing that the Big12 is over-rated for playing a weak non-con.

Counterpoint is that all the other data doesn't seem to align with that random line of thinking. So seems like it's a moot point when overall end of season SOS will be the thing that matters more. Fluff NC or not, some of those Big12 teams will get in and some won't.
 
Current and Future SOS to finish season:

TeamNETKPCurrent SOSNC SOSRecordSORFuture SOS Ranks
Cincy
30​
30​
51​
297​
15-7
45​
14​
Oklahoma
31​
25​
55​
278​
16-6
26​
4​
Texas
32​
26​
27​
226​
15-7
30​
15​
Texas Tech
33​
32​
69​
302​
16-5
24​
22​
Utah
34​
40​
20​
25​
15-7
35​
55​
Boise St
35​
45​
33​
31​
14-6
43​
84​
TCU
36​
29​
56​
334​
16-6
27​
20​
Texas A$M
50​
48​
19​
22​
13-8
50​
29​
Va Tech
53​
58​
21​
38​
13-9
68​
77​

Future SOS per TeamRankings

So while yes, currently, Noncon makes their Overall SOS better, OU has the hardest road to finish the bubble games and if they win at the same rate will have a better strength of record bc these teams have weaker conferences to bring their overall SOS back down.

So Noncon is absolutely pointless to make a factor unless you think overall SOS is not important. Bc that is what matters, the whole thing.
 
Back
Top