USUFans.com

I have enjoyed the bracket matrix website this year since the average of many opinions is typically going to contain less impacting bias than a single result would.

But it’s a little frustrating to see that they have UN as the highlighted MWC champions. I am sure it’s an algorithm that highlights the best bid location in a conference where the auto-bid has not yet been determined. But this morning it looks lazy.

Yea. I don't think it's been fully updated. One example is they do have Davidson in as the A-10 champ, but none of the predictors have them seeded. Keep checking for an update dated 3/16.

It's been updated. Shows us as the auto-bid due to having a higher seed. Still no budge in the seeding though as it has us as the #2 10 seed.

Bank Shot wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:39 pm

It's been updated. Shows us as the auto-bid due to having a higher seed. Still no budge in the seeding though as it has us as the #2 10 seed.

Apparently one of the 124 brackets that they survey think SDSU will win today. I guess that’s just an outlier. USU is the lowest seeded team that is predicted to make the tournament in all 124 brackets.

Also, the USU NET rating has been pegged at 30 for about two weeks now. I thought that it would have moved up, with a lot of the teams ahead of them losing over that period, and USU picking up some decent wins.

dogie wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:58 pm

Bank Shot wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:39 pm

It's been updated. Shows us as the auto-bid due to having a higher seed. Still no budge in the seeding though as it has us as the #2 10 seed.

Apparently one of the 124 brackets that they survey think SDSU will win today. I guess that’s just an outlier. USU is the lowest seeded team that is predicted to make the tournament in all 124 brackets.

Also, the USU NET rating has been pegged at 30 for about two weeks now. I thought that it would have moved up, with a lot of the teams ahead of them losing over that period, and USU picking up some decent wins.

That zero movement in the NET has me a little confused also.

dogie wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:58 pm

Bank Shot wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:39 pm

It's been updated. Shows us as the auto-bid due to having a higher seed. Still no budge in the seeding though as it has us as the #2 10 seed.

Apparently one of the 124 brackets that they survey think SDSU will win today. I guess that’s just an outlier. USU is the lowest seeded team that is predicted to make the tournament in all 124 brackets.

Also, the USU NET rating has been pegged at 30 for about two weeks now. I thought that it would have moved up, with a lot of the teams ahead of them losing over that period, and USU picking up some decent wins.

I assume it's because those in front of us aren't taking "bad" losses. Nevada dropped 5 by losing last night and UCF dropped 2 to #29 after losing to Memphis. The one I find interesting is Maryland moving up from #29 to #27 after not playing yesterday and losing to Nebraska on Thursday, which is a Q2 loss.

Edit: Even more confusing is UCF's loss was a Q1 loss?????

jpswensen wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 1:09 pm

dogie wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:58 pm

Bank Shot wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:39 pm

It's been updated. Shows us as the auto-bid due to having a higher seed. Still no budge in the seeding though as it has us as the #2 10 seed.

Apparently one of the 124 brackets that they survey think SDSU will win today. I guess that’s just an outlier. USU is the lowest seeded team that is predicted to make the tournament in all 124 brackets.

Also, the USU NET rating has been pegged at 30 for about two weeks now. I thought that it would have moved up, with a lot of the teams ahead of them losing over that period, and USU picking up some decent wins.

That zero movement in the NET has me a little confused also.

The NET rankings are not like the AP poll, i.e., someone above USU in the rankings loses and USU wins ergo USU climbs in the rankings. A season’s worth of the NET’s five elements, including the team value index score, net efficiency, winning %, adjusted winning % and margin of victory do not lend themselves to much movement the farther into the season we get.

No other team jumped USU in the NET and neither did USU jump another team. Beating New Mexico was a Quadrant 3 win. Beating Fresno St. was a Quadrant 2 wins. Neither were world movers. Nevada’s loss was a bad Quadrant 3 loss, and then Nevada only dropped 5 places. If one of the highly-ranked Power 7 conference teams loses on a neutral court to another highly-ranked team, the game would go down as a Quadrant 1 loss and won’t drop a team much (if at all in the NET ranking). Thus losses by Virginia, Marquette, North Carolina, LSU, Purdue, and Kansas State resulted in zero change in their rankings. Of those only Purdue and Marquette suffered Quadrant 2 losses.

If USU loses to SDS it would be considered a Quadrant 3 loss and you would expect a similar 5 or 6 place “fall”. If USU beats SDS the Aggies net will likely remain at 30 but could move up or down one place regardless.

NET probably didn't change much because everyone's SOS is pretty much locked in one you get later into the conference season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dyedblue wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 1:50 pm

NET probably didn't change much because everyone's SOS is pretty much locked in one you get later into the conference season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, although the NET rating is published as a sequential rank of teams, each team has an underlying number that isn’t published. The RPI, in contrast, was published as both a number between 0.0000 and 1.0000 and a ranking.

It’s probable that there happens to be a large gap in the underlying NET number between 29 and 30 and between 30 and 31, which would explain why there hadn’t been any movement in the ranking.

dogie wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 2:58 pm

dyedblue wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 1:50 pm

NET probably didn't change much because everyone's SOS is pretty much locked in one you get later into the conference season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, although the NET rating is published as a sequential rank of teams, each team has an underlying number that isn’t published. The RPI, in contrast, was published as both a number between 0.0000 and 1.0000 and a ranking.

It’s probable that there happens to be a large gap in the underlying NET number between 29 and 30 and between 30 and 31, which would explain why there hadn’t been any movement in the ranking.

I wonder if the way they set up the quadrants ends up causing artificial separation that occurs at the quadrant boundaries (understanding that the quadrants are defined differently based on home/neutral/away).

Bank Shot wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 1:13 pm

dogie wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:58 pm

Bank Shot wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:39 pm

It's been updated. Shows us as the auto-bid due to having a higher seed. Still no budge in the seeding though as it has us as the #2 10 seed.

Apparently one of the 124 brackets that they survey think SDSU will win today. I guess that’s just an outlier. USU is the lowest seeded team that is predicted to make the tournament in all 124 brackets.

Also, the USU NET rating has been pegged at 30 for about two weeks now. I thought that it would have moved up, with a lot of the teams ahead of them losing over that period, and USU picking up some decent wins.

I assume it's because those in front of us aren't taking "bad" losses. Nevada dropped 5 by losing last night and UCF dropped 2 to #29 after losing to Memphis. The one I find interesting is Maryland moving up from #29 to #27 after not playing yesterday and losing to Nebraska on Thursday, which is a Q2 loss.

Edit: Even more confusing is UCF's loss was a Q1 loss?????

I'm no expert, however, I researched it a bunch, and watched some pannel's discussing Q1 games,

These are a gold mine in evaluating the tournament teams and seeding. Depending on the year and bid stealers ie ST. Mary's. there will be more or fewer bubble teams make it in. In theory, as I understand it we are in because our metrics say so. The NET rankings being the biggest tool.

Here is how Q1 games are viewed with weight on the whole, a Q1 home win = 2 Q1 road loss. and a Q1 road loss = 2 Q1 home wins. Overall record matters significantly as well.

What's the moral of the story? it's good to have home games, but for the selection committee you need to win as many Q1 road/neutral court games as humanly possible;

Now having said that, you can't take any game off, bad losses, ie D2 teams vs D1 schools kills a resume for a Mid-major school and an at large bid.

I think the teams with 4 or fewer losses, and a very strong Q1 resume, is a solid at large team. Think Gonzaga, or Butler when they had Hayward and the following number of years. Those teams went and won games all year long on the road in tough and neutral venues. They earned the right to be 6+ seeded teams.

The last point or item of note, I think how a team plays from Jan onward, if they can keep their losses to 4 or less, and have a run .. say 10-15 games won in a row, and keep conference/non-conference road losses to a bare minimum, this shows the team overall improvement through a season. This has to carry weight in all considerations when seeding the teams.

utaggies wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 1:42 pm

jpswensen wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 1:09 pm

dogie wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:58 pm

Bank Shot wrote: ↑

March 16th, 2019, 12:39 pm

It's been updated. Shows us as the auto-bid due to having a higher seed. Still no budge in the seeding though as it has us as the #2 10 seed.

Apparently one of the 124 brackets that they survey think SDSU will win today. I guess that’s just an outlier. USU is the lowest seeded team that is predicted to make the tournament in all 124 brackets.

Also, the USU NET rating has been pegged at 30 for about two weeks now. I thought that it would have moved up, with a lot of the teams ahead of them losing over that period, and USU picking up some decent wins.

That zero movement in the NET has me a little confused also.

The NET rankings are not like the AP poll, i.e., someone above USU in the rankings loses and USU wins ergo USU climbs in the rankings. A season’s worth of the NET’s five elements, including the team value index score, net efficiency, winning %, adjusted winning % and margin of victory do not lend themselves to much movement the farther into the season we get.

No other team jumped USU in the NET and neither did USU jump another team. Beating New Mexico was a Quadrant 3 win. Beating Fresno St. was a Quadrant 2 wins. Neither were world movers. Nevada’s loss was a bad Quadrant 3 loss, and then Nevada only dropped 5 places. If one of the highly-ranked Power 7 conference teams loses on a neutral court to another highly-ranked team, the game would go down as a Quadrant 1 loss and won’t drop a team much (if at all in the NET ranking). Thus losses by Virginia, Marquette, North Carolina, LSU, Purdue, and Kansas State resulted in zero change in their rankings. Of those only Purdue and Marquette suffered Quadrant 2 losses.

If USU loses to SDS it would be considered a Quadrant 3 loss and you would expect a similar 5 or 6 place “fall”. If USU beats SDS the Aggies net will likely remain at 30 but could move up or down one place regardless.

That's interesting on the Q3 Neutral court games, you might be right, I personally don't know.