Bracketology

[Justan opinion]

This is really the only argument in favor of them being in that makes any sense, and I also think it's where I'm at. The bubble is truly horrendous this year. Let's see what they can do (spoiler alert, it's not gonna be much).



1. If they were undefeated they would be dancing.

2. The problem is where does it end. What if they were 30-1 and lost in the tournament? You'd all be saying "They won 30 games, let them in." 29-2, then win a game in tournament before getting knocked out? Same deal. They win 29? "That's more than anyone else, let them in!"

3. One of the fun things about the Tourney is upsets. Miami (OH) isn't upsetting anyone. They aren't that good. They're going to get manhandled. There are better mid-major teams you could put in that might make their game fun.

1. I can't argue.
2. Where does it in? So we let a P4 team that went 8-12, 7-13? They play good teams, they just don't beat any of them?
3. This is opinion based on your bias against Miami. We don't know what they can do. But they did win 30 games. I don't think Miami can win a game. But I sure don't believe Indiana or Auburn can either. But I would rather see Miami get a chance over teams that had plenty of chances and failed.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

I don't even feel strongly about Miami (OH) getting in, especially since they literally lost in their Quarterfinals ... my comments the other day were more about the lack of respect they seemed to get before they even had a loss. Undefeated in any league is hard, and they didn't deserve too many haters before they lost one.

However, I kind of hate rewarding objectively mediocre (or worse) Power Conference teams based on metrics or SOS, too. Sorry, but Indiana* doesn't deserve squat ... they might have better metrics and wins than some smaller conference teams, but that's to be expected. They were bad at what they are supposed to do -be a Tournament-caliber Big Ten team with a lot of money to spend on building a roster and getting a good coach. Not saying any smaller school (much less Miami (OH)) deserves a spot at the expense of a team like Indiana, necessarily, I just think we definitely shouldn't go too far in just affording certain leagues SUCH a reputation that its bad teams can squeak in. There should be a bit of a "Do they deserve it?" element that goes beyond metrics ... and I think there is, and I like that.

* I realize Indiana just likely played themselves out of the NCAA Tournament, I am just talking generally about that archetypal type of team from a Power Conference who puts together an unimpressive season but gets rewarded because their conference is well thought of.

 

[grue2]

How many mid majors in the last decade have won every single conference game?

The most recent that I can remember is Wichita State somewhere in the 2012-2014 period (not quite this decade). I think they were given a #1 seed. The same "If they were in a P5 conference, they wouldn't be anywhere near undefeated" argument was made at the time. The skeptics were right. They lost to the #8 seed.

 

[HailtotheChief]

I’m not a Miami (Ohio) hater and maybe they could not get anyone to play them. But I looked at the schedules of the other top midmajors.
Miami was 1, Gonzaga 2 and St. Mary’s 3 in the mid-major rankings. I skipped Gonzaga and St. Mary’s as well as #7 Santa Clara because they played each other, but I will note all 3 played high majors such as Vandy, Arizona State and Minnesota.

#4 Akron played Purdue
#5 Liberty played NC State
#8 Yale played Alabama
#11 McNeese State played Michigan
#12 ND State played Gonzaga and Nebraska
#13 Utah Valley State played San Diego State

I just find it odd that these other good mid-majors could find better competition to play.

Im not selecting but if i was i would not select Miami Oh. They played absolutely no one worth a damn and i dont buy for 1 second they couldnt schedule at least 1 power school. We have played them before. They should be punished for not playing some good teams in the non conference. They will be getting picked to.lose in my bracket should they make it the first game they play a power school if that even happens.

 

[aaeismacgychel]

I'd love to see a poll of that. We would have had 3 more quad 1 wins than them. They literally played ZERO quad 1 games. How can you tell what they would have done with that schedule? Would they be 0-15? What would the 18-14 team do with the Miami(OH) schedule? 32-0?

They scheduled nobody and this is what happens when you do that. Gonzaga plays a dumpster fire conference schedule, but they load up in the non conference games. Maybe Miami(OH) should have done that?

I know we like to pretend that Miami of Ohio is completely incapable of winning a single Q1 game in 13 tries whereas Indiana has won 3. But we do have Q2 data from Miami. If we compare Q2, Miami is 2-0 while Indiana is 4-4.

So Indiana is proven to not be even close to a Q1 team, and they've been proven to be about .500 with Q2 teams. But the Q2 teams Miami has played, they've beaten.

I know we love metrics. Hell, I'm a stats guy, but when blowing terrible teams out by 40 and losing by under 20pts to top teams supercedes actually winning the games, I'm sorry, that I can't support. Just like I can't support a 9-3 B10 or SEC team saying they belong in the CFP over a 12-0 Midmajor. They don't. If they did, they wouldn't have lost 25% of their games. Or in basketball 43% of their games.

 

[wc_illini]

5 (1). Florida (+0)
4 (2). Illinois (+0)
6 (2). Houston (+0)

Can you explain the 5/4/6 numbers? In an average of BPI/KenPom/Torvik, think it's FL, Hou, then us

 

[IlliniwekKDR]

Uggh, I refuse to watch anything with Bruce Pearl!!

Honestly, he was great in South Park

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

I know we like to pretend that Miami of Ohio is completely incapable of winning a single Q1 game in 13 tries whereas Indiana has won 3. But we do have Q2 data from Miami. If we compare Q2, Miami is 2-0 while Indiana is 4-4.

So Indiana is proven to not be even close to a Q1 team, and they've been proven to be about .500 with Q2 teams. But the Q2 teams Miami has played, they've beaten.

I know we love metrics. Hell, I'm a stats guy, but when blowing terrible teams out by 40 and losing by under 20pts to top teams supercedes actually winning the games, I'm sorry, that I can't support. Just like I can't support a 9-3 B10 or SEC team saying they belong in the CFP over a 12-0 Midmajor. They don't. If they did, they wouldn't have lost 25% of their games. Or in basketball 43% of their games.

That's exactly the problem. We don't know.

Think about our schedule for a second. It's not just about playing one Q1 game, then Penn State. We get in stretches where we'd play four in a row. There's absolutely no time to lick your wounds. We don't play UCLA, then get Buffalo. We get UCLA, then Michigan is hanging out there or we go to MSU, then Wisconsin is right there....then we go West. Every Big Ten team runs that gauntlet and it's the mental fatigued that can lose a game. You can't even start to compare that schedule with a MAC one.

There's a lot that goes into navigating a 20 game major conference schedule vs 20 games against teams that wouldn't finish above 16th in the conference.

I can understand the undefeated take, but once you lose to a team like UMASS....I don't know. That's Rutgers type stuff.

 

[Piotyr]

Can you explain the 5/4/6 numbers? In an average of BPI/KenPom/Torvik, think it's FL, Hou, then us

Typo, it's 4-5-6 with Illinois 5th.

 

[wc_illini]

Typo, it's 4-5-6 with Illinois 5th.

Isn't Houston #5 and we're #6 in BPI and Torvik, while that's flipped in KenPom?

 

[Piotyr]

Isn't Houston #5 and we're #6 in BPI and Torvik, while that's flipped in KenPom?

NET is also averaged in.

EDIT: Tiebreaker is NET rating also.

 

[wc_illini]

NET is also averaged in.

EDIT: Tiebreaker is NET rating also.

I don't think it's clear-cut, but I thought the committee uses NET only as the basis for Quadrants then uses the other three as the predictive metrics.

And that's what Torvik does:

 

[mysterio2525]

Most years? Don't put them in, the metrics aren't supporting it.

This year? The bubble is the weakest I've ever seen. Put them in over another terrible P4 team.

also I want to screw over Auburn if possible...

 

[ejam21]

I know we like to pretend that Miami of Ohio is completely incapable of winning a single Q1 game in 13 tries whereas Indiana has won 3. But we do have Q2 data from Miami. If we compare Q2, Miami is 2-0 while Indiana is 4-4.

So Indiana is proven to not be even close to a Q1 team, and they've been proven to be about .500 with Q2 teams. But the Q2 teams Miami has played, they've beaten.

I know we love metrics. Hell, I'm a stats guy, but when blowing terrible teams out by 40 and losing by under 20pts to top teams supercedes actually winning the games, I'm sorry, that I can't support. Just like I can't support a 9-3 B10 or SEC team saying they belong in the CFP over a 12-0 Midmajor. They don't. If they did, they wouldn't have lost 25% of their games. Or in basketball 43% of their games.

First off, F IU and i hope they are out ha

But context matters also

The Q2 teams that IU lost to NW, USC before CBM left, and UM would all be favored against miami of kenpom, and those games came in hte middle of the B10 gauntlet

For instance, IU lost to USC coming off playing purdue and at UCLA where miamis two Q2 wins (akron) came on the heels of Q4 and non d1 games

I think the fun debate here would be waht do we think Miami does with IUs schedule and a full gauntlet of big 10 games. Do they come out 18-14 or better?

Based on kenpom theyd be underdogs in 20 of the 32 games. If we assume they win all the favored games, which given who they just lost to isnt a given (mass is 200ish net, and miami lost to them and won by 2 at home vs them

Lets give them the 12 wins anyway

That means they have to win 6 of

At minnesota (77)

Neutral Lousville (16)

At UK (27)

Home washington (54)

Home Neb (12)

At MSU (9

Home Iowa (25)

At michigan (2)

Home Purdue (8)

At UCLA (28)

At USC (79)

Home wisky (244)

At Illinois (5)

At Purdue (8)

Home Nw (57)

Home MSU (9)

Home Minnesota 77

At OSU

N NW 57


Do we think they are taking 6, or 30% of these games? I think maybe, but i wouldnt be too confident given all the Q4 close calls and seeing them play about 5 times.

For the record i'm on the side of having htem in, i just see the nay POV also

 

[aaeismacgychel]

That's exactly the problem. We don't know.

Think about our schedule for a second. It's not just about playing one Q1 game, then Penn State. We get in stretches where we'd play four in a row. There's absolutely no time to lick your wounds. We don't play UCLA, then get Buffalo. We get UCLA, then Michigan is hanging out there or we go to MSU, then Wisconsin is right there....then we go West. Every Big Ten team runs that gauntlet and it's the mental fatigued that can lose a game. You can't even start to compare that schedule with a MAC one.

There's a lot that goes into navigating a 20 game major conference schedule vs 20 games against teams that wouldn't finish above 16th in the conference.

I can understand the undefeated take, but once you lose to a team like UMASS....I don't know. That's Rutgers type stuff.

Of course you're pretending they wouldn't otherwise there's no argument. Even if Miami played 13 Q1 games instead of Q4s and lost every single one of them they'd be 18-14. If they win even 2 of those Q1s they're 20-12 and have a better winning percentage than Indiana against Q1 and Q2. So yes, by putting the entire premium on playing Q1 games, not winning them, but simply playing them, then true you're no longer rewarding beating cupcakes, but instead you're rewarding something worse in my opinion- rewarding schedule and conference affiliation over winning.

 

[2qtslow]

I may be more than a little sick: I want Miami to get in, but I also want to see them lose by 30 in the first round.

 

[jrichisamazing]

Of course you're pretending they wouldn't otherwise there's no argument. Even if Miami played 13 Q1 games instead of Q4s and lost every single one of them they'd be 18-14. If they win even 2 of those Q1s they're 20-12 and have a better winning percentage than Indiana against Q1 and Q2. So yes, by putting the entire premium on playing Q1 games, not winning them, but simply playing them, then true you're no longer rewarding beating cupcakes, but instead you're rewarding something worse in my opinion- rewarding schedule and conference affiliation over winning.

Why do you keep comparing them to Indiana? Indiana is out because they have a very weak resume.

Compare them to Auburn, Texas, VCU, Santa Clara, Mizzou, etc...

 

[the juiceman cometh]

2. Where does it in? So we let a P4 team that went 8-12, 7-13? They play good teams, they just don't beat any of them?

I'm assuming you're only citing a conference record here. Which is crucial, because if you start comparing these teams' performance against the types of teams Miami (OH) beat, then your point gets weakened considerably. Let's take one of this year's actual bubble teams, Indiana. The WORST team Indiana lost to was Minnesota, a team that managed to beat Michigan. Indiana did not lose to a single mid-major. They played 11 Q3 and Q4 teams and dominated them. Miami played 27, lost to one of them, and barely scraped by in many others.

3. This is opinion based on your bias against Miami. We don't know what they can do. But they did win 30 games. I don't think Miami can win a game. But I sure don't believe Indiana or Auburn can either. But I would rather see Miami get a chance over teams that had plenty of chances and failed.

It's an opinion based on their schedule and how they've handled it. They just lost to a Quad 4 team and have multiple OT and single possession close call wins against BAD teams. Look at Indiana's games against Q4 and Q3 teams. They're 11-0 in those games, none of them by a single score margin, only one in single digits (8pt win over UIW), 8 of them by 20+, 5 of them by 30+, and 3 of them by 40+. Meanwhile Miami (OH), in 27 (!!!) Q3 and Q4 games, has 8 OT and/or single-score victories vs only 3 20+ point victories (and of course they also now have that one loss).

Indiana has wins against Purdue, UCLA, and Wisconsin this year. Are they likely to make noise in the tournament? Of course not, but they've shown that on the right day, they can beat a tournament team, and at a minimum the game is less likely to be a blowout.

 

[Justan opinion]

Why do you keep comparing them to Indiana? Indiana is out because they have a very weak resume.

Compare them to Auburn, Texas, VCU, Santa Clara, Mizzou, etc...

I believe the argument is P4!teams that have a losing record in their conference. Indiana is one such team. Auburn also.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

Why do you keep comparing them to Indiana? Indiana is out because they have a very weak resume.

Compare them to Auburn, Texas, VCU, Santa Clara, Mizzou, etc...

If Auburn wins this game, they'll have wins @FLA, home Arkansas, home Kentucky, neutral Tennessee, neutral St Johns. There's a 0% chance Miami OH would've won those games.

Miami OH hasn't even played a single Q1 game the entire season.

Edit: they seem to be choking the lead against Tennessee. However, that's still a lot of quality in those wins that Miami OH doesn't have a glimmer of a shot at.

 

[Illini2010-11]

Of course you're pretending they wouldn't otherwise there's no argument. Even if Miami played 13 Q1 games instead of Q4s and lost every single one of them they'd be 18-14. If they win even 2 of those Q1s they're 20-12 and have a better winning percentage than Indiana against Q1 and Q2. So yes, by putting the entire premium on playing Q1 games, not winning them, but simply playing them, then true you're no longer rewarding beating cupcakes, but instead you're rewarding something worse in my opinion- rewarding schedule and conference affiliation over winning.

Actually they would be 15-14 (can't count the non-D1 games) to the committee with a Quad 4 loss. Though this argument is largely academic. Really can't compare the grind of the B1G season with the MAC season.

I personally lean toward the committee putting them in the field as play-in. The reality is that Miami had complete control over their non-conference portfolio and failed to draw any major conference team (they literally had more games that don't count in the quad system compared to Q1/Q2 games). Right or wrong, that is 100% on Miami. I simply do not buy the excuse that nobody wanted to play them. They deserve props for going unbeaten through the regular season, as that is extremely hard to do and has not been done in over a decade. However, they won seven games against poor competition by 2 or 3 points (translates to 24% of their D-1 games). This really hurt their analytics. Yes, a win is a win, but it really does put us in the predicament that we see.

The bind is the super soft bubble teams from the power conferences have serious known flaws that have been exposed by their conference grinds. Miami does not have that huge conference grind, yet still struggled to win 1/4 of their games. Good teams do find ways to win, but Miami is still a great unknown because they have not played anybody notable. I think the committee will reward the unknown to the sense of playing in Dayton (IU has played their way out of contention and are undeserving given the way they finished year). However, I would not see it as terrible if Miami was left on the wrong side of the bubble either. Say they played Penn State or Rutgers this year and lost (instead of playing a D2 school). I am sure nobody would see the injustice of them being left out.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Of course you're pretending they wouldn't otherwise there's no argument. Even if Miami played 13 Q1 games instead of Q4s and lost every single one of them they'd be 18-14. If they win even 2 of those Q1s they're 20-12 and have a better winning percentage than Indiana against Q1 and Q2. So yes, by putting the entire premium on playing Q1 games, not winning them, but simply playing them, then true you're no longer rewarding beating cupcakes, but instead you're rewarding something worse in my opinion- rewarding schedule and conference affiliation over winning.

I mean, this is a way to slice the already hypothetical scenario to fit your agenda that's kind of hilarious. In this scenario they'd have a worse Q1 record, still have fewer Q2 wins, and still have more Q4 losses. So they'd still have arguably a comparable or worse resume than a team that is currently OUT of the tournament. Honestly, the semi-P4 Miami (OH) you're describing is essentially a slightly worse resumed Virginia Tech, a team who is definitely not making it. Meanwhile, here is arguably the worst P4 team that is currently in on brackets:

Do you seriously think this Miami (OH) is racking up those wins against St. John's, Arkansas, Florida, and Kentucky?

 

[AnnaMay]

I dont think Miami, OH should make it. But if the committee wanted to end all debates, just put them in the play in against Auburn.

 

[Illinisnake]

Iowa State has been moved to the #2 seed line bumping Illinois to the #3 seed in St Louis, Duke's region.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

Iowa State has been moved to the #2 seed line bumping Illinois to the #3 seed in St Louis, Duke's region.

A Nebraska and MSU loss tomorrow combined with an Illini win would make for an extremely great day and would more than make up for ISU's recent rise, IMO!