Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
NCAA Tournament Criteria Primer
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 13
| visibility 1

NCAA Tournament Criteria Primer


Feb 16, 2020, 4:32 PM

I see a lot of tournament posts popping up yet again so I just thought I’d attempt to show some of the criteria that are used and some that are not in my opinion so we can quit arguing over criteria that are meaningless to the selection committee. Also this is not a pro/anti Brownell post either, but it will confirm we have zero shot at a tournament berth this year without and ACC title.

First, there was a time when there was something magic about 20 wins or going .500 or better in the ACC. Just throw that all away as those days are gone. What also doesn’t matter at all are conference standings. Most conferences don’t play balanced schedules (home and home vs every other team) therefore it’s impossible to equate two teams with identical conference records without knowing who played who. Finally another meaningless metric Is any of the voting polls. These reward teams for winning regardless of who you play and if you look at the top 25 against the top 6 seeds in each region you’ll find they stop aligning around the 3 seed if not sooner. There have been many years when a top 25 poll team doesn’t get in at all.

What now matters more are the NET rankings and the Quadrant system that creates. For a clear definition of each quadrant

https://bracketresearch.com/team-quadrant-wins-and-losses-tracker/


Basically each teams wins and losses are compiled in quadrants. The criteria for each quadrant is based on the opponents NET ranking and the location of the game (home/road/neutral).
There’s no set criteria of what makes a tournament team, but Q1 wins impress the tournament committee. You’d better be above .500 vs Q2 as a Q2 team is roughly a bubble team by definition. Any Q3/Q4 losses are bad losses. Basically a Q3/Q4 win is worthless.

In addition, several other advanced formulaic rankings other than net are considered. Those include KenPom, ESPN’s BPI, RPI, etc. By basic logic there are 36 at large bids. Add to that the fact that 6-8 automatic qualifiers will be highly ranked teams an you’ll need to be in the mid 40’s in these type of rankings to merit a bid. A ranking outside of 50 is typically on the wrong side of the bubble.

So with all that, even with our 2 huge wins this year we are ranked 79 in NET. We are ranked between 52 and 72 by other indexes. So not close to the bubble.

Record by Quadrant
Q1 2-6 This represents your record vs teams that would be in the tournament. NCAA would prefer this to be closer to .500
Q2 5-4 Ideally you’d like to be closer to .750 here as these are more low seeds or bubble teams.
Q3 2-2 These two losses are bad,
Q4: 4-0. Can’t lose these games.

Our remaining schedule consist of the following.

@ BC Q3
@ GT Q2
FSU Q1
@ VT Q2
GT Q3

First winning the last five would be a monumental task for a team that is 2-6 on the road in the ACC. But even with that there’s only 1 Q1 opportunity vs FSU.

That would put you at 3-6 vs Q1, 7-4 vs Q2. 10-10 vs Q1/Q2 teams. Ideally the committee would like this to be over .500.

Also the 79 NET ranking is an issue. Again this would need to bump up closer to 40 to get to the bubble. I”m not sure that’s possible when we play one team that is ranked above 76 in the NET in the next 5 games. It will be hard to pull that up.

I also see a lot of “win 2 games in the ACC tournament” talk. First, it depends on your seed. If we seeded the teams based on todays record we’d be the 7 seed playing 10 seed BC. That’s a meaningless win. BC is not a Q1/Q2 team. If we advance and the beat #2 Louisville, then that might be meaningful but winning 2 games in the ACC tourney is only going to add 1 quality win to our resume.

If you want to make the case that 10-10 vs Q1/Q2 teams and a NET ranking in the 50’s can get us in that’s fine, but please stop talking about getting to 20 wins with 2 wins in the ACC tournament, or going 12-8 in the ACC, or finishing 5th in the ACC or beating AP ranked teams as any type of meaningful measure for the tournament selection committee. None of those things really matter anymore.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Cold hard facts.


Feb 16, 2020, 4:43 PM

You got 'em.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

What is the basis for your "factual statements"?


Feb 16, 2020, 5:05 PM

You state as facts the NCAA committee would prefer .500 versus quadrant one, and .750 versus quadrant 2. Where is that written? Not disputing that they are necessarily facts, but because you put it on the internet doesn't make it true. What is your source? TIA

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: What is the basis for your "factual statements"?


Feb 16, 2020, 5:43 PM

Don't see where he states these as facts. I see where it's stated prefer.

At this point, I hope we find a way to get into the nit. Think that's a noble realistic goal at this point in time. That'd help towards next year too for the young players.

One fact for sure. Brad can't rebound and can't shoot the baskets but he has to be held accountable for getting the players motivated to play. Had we had the work ethic in the wake and ND games that we had in the two big wins, we're no doubt a bubble team at the least.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg2016_pickem_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

He doesn’t have one - there is 1 year of data


Feb 16, 2020, 6:18 PM [ in reply to What is the basis for your "factual statements"? ]

And if you look at the data from last year on the bubble teams that got in then we’d compare with those on q1/q2 wins/%. Pair that with 3 top ten wins which is what we would have and the fact they take injuries, missed time by key players into account , we would probably be in. We moved up 22 spots in net with the last 2 wins. If We close with 7 wins then our Net will be in the range they’ll look at hard and then they would see the finish, the injuries, the maturing youth etc. The difficult part will be playing consistent enough to win 5 games as on the surface it looks like 2-3 without bottling what we have had the last 2 games. Remember we were around 35 in NET last year but were like 7-13 in q1 and q2 with no real marquee wins I believe. We lost out to teams like OSU who were in the 50s along with Temple and ASU who was almost 70 because they had better q1/q2 records. Heck Indiana was one of the first teams out at 17-15. Just play hard and try to win them all - that’s all we can do

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

No facts, just historical data


Feb 16, 2020, 8:47 PM [ in reply to What is the basis for your "factual statements"? ]

It’s a committee so they can do what they want. But if you look at the way the quadrants were established, it’s pretty evident they were established to distinguish a teams ability to play vs tournament competition.

A Q1 team is a top 50 team on a neutral floor. So basically your Q1 record would be your record against 12 seeds or higher. A Q2 team is a 51-100 team on a neutral floor, so that’s your record vs low seeds an bubble teams. You can’t be below .500 vs Q2 teams and think you belong in the tournament. You need to prove you are as good as the rest of the 1-12 seeds, thus a .500 record vs Q1 would be a logical assumption. Why would the committee put a team in the tourney that they felt couldn’t compete against Q1 teams. 2-6 does not prove we are competitive vs tournament at-large teams.

As for the NET rankings only being 1 year old. The same criterial was generally used when the RPI was the key index to rank teams. If you weren’t in the mid 40’s you weren’t getting in. It may be a new metric, but the logic that I’ve seen applied is the same.

Again these are all inferences based on historical selections. Have there been teams with RPI over 50 put in, Yes. Are those common. No. There’s no definitive criteria thus no source. There are plenty of interviews with prior committees and prior data to look and see what a tourney team looks like and Clemson doesn’t look like one statistically. I”m not debating that we should or shouldn’t be in, I’m telling people that basing your case on overall record, conference record, conference standings, etc are the wrong measures and when you look at the right ones we don’t stack up well.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

If we won out we’d be 3-6 quad 1 with all 3 likely


Feb 16, 2020, 11:00 PM

Top 10 wins. We’d be like 8-4 against quad 2. You’re grabbing these win 50% of quad 1 and 75% of quad 2 out of the air as what defines a tourney team. Go back and look at the bubble last year. That is not reality. The bubble teams were about .500 combined on quad 1 and quad 2 some just below .500 with a high # of games played in those categories. 2/3 of our games are going to be in the top 2 quads and we’d be prob a game over .500 in those if we won out. Again - very unlikely we win out but if we do, we have a decent shot of being in based on last year. I also think the bubble is even softer than it was last year and they do consider the injuries etc that I mentioned which I doubt there would be many on the bubble that had the extent of injuries we had early on.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I doubt anyone seriously thinks Clemson is a tournament team


Feb 16, 2020, 5:36 PM

They’re 13-12 overall and 7-8 in conference with 5 games to play. Could Clemson get in if they win the next 5 and win 2 in the ACC tournament? Yes, but this team is way to inconsistent to go on a long win streak, and there is no way they’re beating FSU.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: I doubt anyone seriously thinks Clemson is a tournament team


Feb 16, 2020, 5:47 PM

Like the positive thinking but still not sure that does it. It'd take a lot of help from teams we have no ties to, and some teams we've beat to go on super win streaks and qualify for a q1 or 2 status.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg2016_pickem_champ.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

We’re not even a lock to make the NIT!

1

Feb 16, 2020, 6:21 PM [ in reply to I doubt anyone seriously thinks Clemson is a tournament team ]

Got to at least have a winning overall record for that, and our work is not done there yet.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: We’re not even a lock to make the NIT!


Feb 16, 2020, 10:02 PM

Also, teams from 1-bid conferences that lose in their conference tournament & don’t receive an NCAA at-large bid are guaranteed a spot in the NIT. That takes away spots that used to go to mediocre power conference teams. In last season’s NIT there were 10 automatic bids that went to teams from 1-bid leagues & 22 at large teams.

badge-donor-05yr.jpgmilitary_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Which is why for this particular team


Feb 16, 2020, 10:39 PM

with the Youth and adversity, the NIT would be a successful season. Last year it was a failure with the veteran team, this year it would be a significant accomplishment

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Winning the ACC Tourney is their only hope.***


Feb 16, 2020, 8:20 PM



2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: NCAA Tournament Criteria Primer


Feb 17, 2020, 11:44 AM

Let me preface this by saying that I don't believe the Tigers are making the Dance... In my opinion it would likely take a 5-0 finish, and no worse than 1-1 in Greensboro... Given the youth, shooting, etc... I'm just not sure that consistency in that manner is a reasonable expectation over these last three weeks... That being said, I agree with many of your points... however much of what you've typed is based on assumptions, and in some cases, things that are just flat out incorrect.

You stated that the NET would need to be close to 40 to be on he bubble... We have exactly one year of evidence with the NET, and that one year provided several examples of teams MAKING the tourney with NET's nowhere near 40. The NET was developed as a tool by which to group teams into Quadrants to determine who you beat, as well as who you suffered losses to... The intention was always to use it in a manner similar to the RPI in the past... Not necessarily as a ranking to simply select at-large teams. As the committee said last season, if you only have a high NET, but no wins of significance... you really have nothing. And they proved that point by excluding teams like NCSU (33) and Clemson (35) in favor of teams like Arizona St (63) and St. John's (73). In the example of St. John's, a 5-7 record vs. Q1 was more important in the selection process when compared to a team like CU ranked 40 spots higher, yet with only 1 Q1 victory.

The other thing to be mindful of is that the NET, like any other metric is not static... It can and will change, in some cases drastically. VT is a GREAT example of this... The Hokies are currently 76th, however if they finish the season ranked only one spot higher (75), a road win in Blacksburg would count as another Q1 victory, and the loss at home would move from Q3 to Q2. Likewise one or more of our wins can certainly move in the opposite direction.

The NET is also only one of MANY metrics that are provided as part of the team sheets available to committee members. They will also be provided the Sagarin, KPI, BPI, Kenpom, and SOR... Sagarin currently has CU at 51... KPI/BPI are both in the mid 60's.. While Kenpom/SOR are in the low to mid 70's. A 5-0 finish probably moves ALL metrics to a range of 40's-60's... And that is certainly well within the range of bubble conversation when considering Quadrant records.

Again... it is super unlikely... but I can guarantee that a 5-0 finish would have CU very much in the conversation for one of the last 4-6 spots, particularly if VT manages to finish 75th or higher (and no current wins/losses move to lower Quadrants). In that scenario we would be heading to Greensboro with the following resume:

18-12 overall
4-6 vs. Q1
6-4 vs. Q2
9-1 vs. Q3/4
Metrics rankings likely between 40-65

That is a WAY better resume as compared to a year ago when we would have ranked 25-30 spots HIGHER in the NET... And three of those Q1 victories would be vs. teams likely in the top 3 on seeding lines... Impossible to know if it would be enough (bid stealers in conference tourney's, what other bubble teams do between no and then, etc.), but we would absolutely be in play...

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 13
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic