2013 Bracketology Watch Thread

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 08:56:37 AM

Quote from: Moose on February 19, 2013, 08:26:16 PM

I think someone asked for this and the game notes break it down-

NCAA Bubble Watch: BIG EAST By The Numbers
• In assessing the young Red Storm’s NCAA Tournament chances, the following is a breakdown of success by total wins for BIG EAST teams (following the BIG EAST Tournament) since the first year of the league’s automatic bid (1982-83).
   • 17 overall wins — 167 of 209 teams reached the NCAA (79.9 percent)
   • 18 overall wins — 161 of 189 (85.2 percent)
   • 19 overall wins — 145 of 160 (90.6 percent)
   • 20 overall wins — 147 of 152 (96.7percent )
• In 2011-12, nine of 11 BIG EAST teams with at least 17 wins after the BIG EAST Tournament reached the NCAA Tournament, with only Pitt and Seton Hall failing to qualify. Eight of the nine 20-win teams made it (Seton Hall missed).
• Taking a look at conference win totals, only two teams since the 2005-06 BIG EAST expansion — and eight in league history — failed to be selected for the NCAA Tournament after mounting a 10-win campaign. Pitt in 1996-97, Providence in 2008-09 and Villanova in 1993-94 were all NIT teams after going 10-8 in league play.
• Seton Hall in 2002-03 and Syracuse in 2001-02 and 2006-07 both were in the NIT after posting a 10-6 conference record.
• Villanova in 1991-92 and West Virginia in 1996-97 were NIT teams after going 11-7.

Doing the math that means 6/20 17 win teams made it, 16/29 18 win teams made it.   Can't do the 19 win figure because your 20 win figure is wrong.   Has to be less teams with 20+ getting in than 19+.

Unless this means teams with exactly the number of wins which is highly unlikely because that would come out to 7 teams a year with 17, 6 teams a year with 18, 5 teams a year with 19, 5 teams a year with 20.  As you see it's a Mathematical impossibility.

Kid where are you getting those ratios?

167/209 for 17+ goes down to 161/189 for 18+, so that means 6/20 was the number for exactly 17 (since that is what dropped out of the 18+ number), 161/189 at 18+ goes down to 145/160 for 19+, which means 16/29 is the number there.   

And let's all be real, doesn't 30% for 17 win teams and a shade over 50% for 18 win teams make a whole heluva lot more sense?

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2013, 11:04:10 AM

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 08:56:37 AM

Quote from: Moose on February 19, 2013, 08:26:16 PM

I think someone asked for this and the game notes break it down-

NCAA Bubble Watch: BIG EAST By The Numbers
• In assessing the young Red Storm’s NCAA Tournament chances, the following is a breakdown of success by total wins for BIG EAST teams (following the BIG EAST Tournament) since the first year of the league’s automatic bid (1982-83).
   • 17 overall wins — 167 of 209 teams reached the NCAA (79.9 percent)
   • 18 overall wins — 161 of 189 (85.2 percent)
   • 19 overall wins — 145 of 160 (90.6 percent)
   • 20 overall wins — 147 of 152 (96.7percent )
• In 2011-12, nine of 11 BIG EAST teams with at least 17 wins after the BIG EAST Tournament reached the NCAA Tournament, with only Pitt and Seton Hall failing to qualify. Eight of the nine 20-win teams made it (Seton Hall missed).
• Taking a look at conference win totals, only two teams since the 2005-06 BIG EAST expansion — and eight in league history — failed to be selected for the NCAA Tournament after mounting a 10-win campaign. Pitt in 1996-97, Providence in 2008-09 and Villanova in 1993-94 were all NIT teams after going 10-8 in league play.
• Seton Hall in 2002-03 and Syracuse in 2001-02 and 2006-07 both were in the NIT after posting a 10-6 conference record.
• Villanova in 1991-92 and West Virginia in 1996-97 were NIT teams after going 11-7.

Doing the math that means 6/20 17 win teams made it, 16/29 18 win teams made it.   Can't do the 19 win figure because your 20 win figure is wrong.   Has to be less teams with 20+ getting in than 19+.

Unless this means teams with exactly the number of wins which is highly unlikely because that would come out to 7 teams a year with 17, 6 teams a year with 18, 5 teams a year with 19, 5 teams a year with 20.  As you see it's a Mathematical impossibility.

Kid where are you getting those ratios?

167/209 for 17+ goes down to 161/189 for 18+, so that means 6/20 was the number for exactly 17 (since that is what dropped out of the 18+ number), 161/189 at 18+ goes down to 145/160 for 19+, which means 16/29 is the number there.   

And let's all be real, doesn't 30% for 17 win teams and a shade over 50% for 18 win teams make a whole heluva lot more sense?

So are you saying that 167 or 209 teams that had 17 wine OR MORE, made the tourney? 

Talk about fudging the data.

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 11:36:56 AM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2013, 11:04:10 AM

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 08:56:37 AM

Quote from: Moose on February 19, 2013, 08:26:16 PM

I think someone asked for this and the game notes break it down-

NCAA Bubble Watch: BIG EAST By The Numbers
• In assessing the young Red Storm’s NCAA Tournament chances, the following is a breakdown of success by total wins for BIG EAST teams (following the BIG EAST Tournament) since the first year of the league’s automatic bid (1982-83).
   • 17 overall wins — 167 of 209 teams reached the NCAA (79.9 percent)
   • 18 overall wins — 161 of 189 (85.2 percent)
   • 19 overall wins — 145 of 160 (90.6 percent)
   • 20 overall wins — 147 of 152 (96.7percent )
• In 2011-12, nine of 11 BIG EAST teams with at least 17 wins after the BIG EAST Tournament reached the NCAA Tournament, with only Pitt and Seton Hall failing to qualify. Eight of the nine 20-win teams made it (Seton Hall missed).
• Taking a look at conference win totals, only two teams since the 2005-06 BIG EAST expansion — and eight in league history — failed to be selected for the NCAA Tournament after mounting a 10-win campaign. Pitt in 1996-97, Providence in 2008-09 and Villanova in 1993-94 were all NIT teams after going 10-8 in league play.
• Seton Hall in 2002-03 and Syracuse in 2001-02 and 2006-07 both were in the NIT after posting a 10-6 conference record.
• Villanova in 1991-92 and West Virginia in 1996-97 were NIT teams after going 11-7.

Doing the math that means 6/20 17 win teams made it, 16/29 18 win teams made it.   Can't do the 19 win figure because your 20 win figure is wrong.   Has to be less teams with 20+ getting in than 19+.

Unless this means teams with exactly the number of wins which is highly unlikely because that would come out to 7 teams a year with 17, 6 teams a year with 18, 5 teams a year with 19, 5 teams a year with 20.  As you see it's a Mathematical impossibility.

Kid where are you getting those ratios?

167/209 for 17+ goes down to 161/189 for 18+, so that means 6/20 was the number for exactly 17 (since that is what dropped out of the 18+ number), 161/189 at 18+ goes down to 145/160 for 19+, which means 16/29 is the number there.   

And let's all be real, doesn't 30% for 17 win teams and a shade over 50% for 18 win teams make a whole heluva lot more sense?

So are you saying that 167 or 209 teams that had 17 wine OR MORE, made the tourney? 

Talk about fudging the data.

I believe that is what it must mean.  For there to be 209 teams over the last 30 years in the Big East with exactly 17 wins, that would mean there were nearly 7 teams a YEAR with exactly 17 wins.  And 6 with exactly 18.  And 5 with 19.  And 5 with 20.  And what about more than 20?  It has to mean 17+, 18+, 19+, 20+ and they DEFINITELY are misleading, if not flat out lying, with the data to make it seem better.  They definitely do not make it clear.

Quote from: dR3w on February 22, 2013, 11:51:17 AM

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 11:36:56 AM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2013, 11:04:10 AM

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 08:56:37 AM

Quote from: Moose on February 19, 2013, 08:26:16 PM

I think someone asked for this and the game notes break it down-

NCAA Bubble Watch: BIG EAST By The Numbers
• In assessing the young Red Storm’s NCAA Tournament chances, the following is a breakdown of success by total wins for BIG EAST teams (following the BIG EAST Tournament) since the first year of the league’s automatic bid (1982-83).
   • 17 overall wins — 167 of 209 teams reached the NCAA (79.9 percent)
   • 18 overall wins — 161 of 189 (85.2 percent)
   • 19 overall wins — 145 of 160 (90.6 percent)
   • 20 overall wins — 147 of 152 (96.7percent )
• In 2011-12, nine of 11 BIG EAST teams with at least 17 wins after the BIG EAST Tournament reached the NCAA Tournament, with only Pitt and Seton Hall failing to qualify. Eight of the nine 20-win teams made it (Seton Hall missed).
• Taking a look at conference win totals, only two teams since the 2005-06 BIG EAST expansion — and eight in league history — failed to be selected for the NCAA Tournament after mounting a 10-win campaign. Pitt in 1996-97, Providence in 2008-09 and Villanova in 1993-94 were all NIT teams after going 10-8 in league play.
• Seton Hall in 2002-03 and Syracuse in 2001-02 and 2006-07 both were in the NIT after posting a 10-6 conference record.
• Villanova in 1991-92 and West Virginia in 1996-97 were NIT teams after going 11-7.

Doing the math that means 6/20 17 win teams made it, 16/29 18 win teams made it.   Can't do the 19 win figure because your 20 win figure is wrong.   Has to be less teams with 20+ getting in than 19+.

Unless this means teams with exactly the number of wins which is highly unlikely because that would come out to 7 teams a year with 17, 6 teams a year with 18, 5 teams a year with 19, 5 teams a year with 20.  As you see it's a Mathematical impossibility.

Kid where are you getting those ratios?

167/209 for 17+ goes down to 161/189 for 18+, so that means 6/20 was the number for exactly 17 (since that is what dropped out of the 18+ number), 161/189 at 18+ goes down to 145/160 for 19+, which means 16/29 is the number there.   

And let's all be real, doesn't 30% for 17 win teams and a shade over 50% for 18 win teams make a whole heluva lot more sense?

So are you saying that 167 or 209 teams that had 17 wine OR MORE, made the tourney? 

Talk about fudging the data.

I believe that is what it must mean.  For there to be 209 teams over the last 30 years in the Big East with exactly 17 wins, that would mean there were nearly 7 teams a YEAR with exactly 17 wins.  And 6 with exactly 18.  And 5 with 19.  And 5 with 20.  And what about more than 20?  It has to mean 17+, 18+, 19+, 20+ and they DEFINITELY are misleading, if not flat out lying, with the data to make it seem better.  They definitely do not make it clear.

you are absolutely correct.  i noticed the same thing right away.  lies, damn lies, and statistics

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 12:00:32 PM

Quote from: dR3w on February 22, 2013, 11:51:17 AM

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 11:36:56 AM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2013, 11:04:10 AM

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 08:56:37 AM

Quote from: Moose on February 19, 2013, 08:26:16 PM

I think someone asked for this and the game notes break it down-

NCAA Bubble Watch: BIG EAST By The Numbers
• In assessing the young Red Storm’s NCAA Tournament chances, the following is a breakdown of success by total wins for BIG EAST teams (following the BIG EAST Tournament) since the first year of the league’s automatic bid (1982-83).
   • 17 overall wins — 167 of 209 teams reached the NCAA (79.9 percent)
   • 18 overall wins — 161 of 189 (85.2 percent)
   • 19 overall wins — 145 of 160 (90.6 percent)
   • 20 overall wins — 147 of 152 (96.7percent )
• In 2011-12, nine of 11 BIG EAST teams with at least 17 wins after the BIG EAST Tournament reached the NCAA Tournament, with only Pitt and Seton Hall failing to qualify. Eight of the nine 20-win teams made it (Seton Hall missed).
• Taking a look at conference win totals, only two teams since the 2005-06 BIG EAST expansion — and eight in league history — failed to be selected for the NCAA Tournament after mounting a 10-win campaign. Pitt in 1996-97, Providence in 2008-09 and Villanova in 1993-94 were all NIT teams after going 10-8 in league play.
• Seton Hall in 2002-03 and Syracuse in 2001-02 and 2006-07 both were in the NIT after posting a 10-6 conference record.
• Villanova in 1991-92 and West Virginia in 1996-97 were NIT teams after going 11-7.

Doing the math that means 6/20 17 win teams made it, 16/29 18 win teams made it.   Can't do the 19 win figure because your 20 win figure is wrong.   Has to be less teams with 20+ getting in than 19+.

Unless this means teams with exactly the number of wins which is highly unlikely because that would come out to 7 teams a year with 17, 6 teams a year with 18, 5 teams a year with 19, 5 teams a year with 20.  As you see it's a Mathematical impossibility.

Kid where are you getting those ratios?

167/209 for 17+ goes down to 161/189 for 18+, so that means 6/20 was the number for exactly 17 (since that is what dropped out of the 18+ number), 161/189 at 18+ goes down to 145/160 for 19+, which means 16/29 is the number there.   

And let's all be real, doesn't 30% for 17 win teams and a shade over 50% for 18 win teams make a whole heluva lot more sense?

So are you saying that 167 or 209 teams that had 17 wine OR MORE, made the tourney? 

Talk about fudging the data.

I believe that is what it must mean.  For there to be 209 teams over the last 30 years in the Big East with exactly 17 wins, that would mean there were nearly 7 teams a YEAR with exactly 17 wins.  And 6 with exactly 18.  And 5 with 19.  And 5 with 20.  And what about more than 20?  It has to mean 17+, 18+, 19+, 20+ and they DEFINITELY are misleading, if not flat out lying, with the data to make it seem better.  They definitely do not make it clear.

you are absolutely correct.  i noticed the same thing right away.  lies, damn lies, and statistics

I found a site with BE results since 93-94.  Please excuse any human error:

Results    NCAA Tourney  RPI
17 wins   1 of 9   (11%)    37
18 wins   2 of 12 (16%)    49, 58
19 wins   3 of 15 (20%)    25, 45, 57
20 wins   10 of 19 (53%)  range 25-70 ... curiously StJ had a 70 RPI and made it
                                    of the nine teams who didn't get it (42, 47 , 49, 54 , 56x2, 68 x2, 71)
21 win    9 of 14  (64%) 
22 win    9 of 11  (82%)
23 win    only one team didn't make it with 23, Syracuse in 2001-2002 with an RPI of 25
24 win    only one team didn't make it with 24, Syracuse with an RPI of 50

The site didn't have Strength of Schedule ... but that is a factor in RPI.
The total wins probably include NCAA tournament wins, so there is some error in the data for teams who did make it in, but not for those who did not make it.

So based on this data, StJ with a 20 win season has about a 50/50 chance of making it, based on Stats only.  I do realize that other factors are taken into consideration.

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2013, 11:04:10 AM

Quote from: Tha Kid on February 22, 2013, 08:56:37 AM

Quote from: Moose on February 19, 2013, 08:26:16 PM

I think someone asked for this and the game notes break it down-

NCAA Bubble Watch: BIG EAST By The Numbers
• In assessing the young Red Storm’s NCAA Tournament chances, the following is a breakdown of success by total wins for BIG EAST teams (following the BIG EAST Tournament) since the first year of the league’s automatic bid (1982-83).
   • 17 overall wins — 167 of 209 teams reached the NCAA (79.9 percent)
   • 18 overall wins — 161 of 189 (85.2 percent)
   • 19 overall wins — 145 of 160 (90.6 percent)
   • 20 overall wins — 147 of 152 (96.7percent )
• In 2011-12, nine of 11 BIG EAST teams with at least 17 wins after the BIG EAST Tournament reached the NCAA Tournament, with only Pitt and Seton Hall failing to qualify. Eight of the nine 20-win teams made it (Seton Hall missed).
• Taking a look at conference win totals, only two teams since the 2005-06 BIG EAST expansion — and eight in league history — failed to be selected for the NCAA Tournament after mounting a 10-win campaign. Pitt in 1996-97, Providence in 2008-09 and Villanova in 1993-94 were all NIT teams after going 10-8 in league play.
• Seton Hall in 2002-03 and Syracuse in 2001-02 and 2006-07 both were in the NIT after posting a 10-6 conference record.
• Villanova in 1991-92 and West Virginia in 1996-97 were NIT teams after going 11-7.

Doing the math that means 6/20 17 win teams made it, 16/29 18 win teams made it.   Can't do the 19 win figure because your 20 win figure is wrong.   Has to be less teams with 20+ getting in than 19+.

Unless this means teams with exactly the number of wins which is highly unlikely because that would come out to 7 teams a year with 17, 6 teams a year with 18, 5 teams a year with 19, 5 teams a year with 20.  As you see it's a Mathematical impossibility.

Kid where are you getting those ratios?

167/209 for 17+ goes down to 161/189 for 18+, so that means 6/20 was the number for exactly 17 (since that is what dropped out of the 18+ number), 161/189 at 18+ goes down to 145/160 for 19+, which means 16/29 is the number there.   

And let's all be real, doesn't 30% for 17 win teams and a shade over 50% for 18 win teams make a whole heluva lot more sense?

Thanks didnt look at it like that. Terrible stuff.

Some important games today

First 4 out (According to Lunardi)

Memphis 89 Southern Miss 73
Marquette @ Nova 6 PM
Missouri @ Kentucky 9 PM

Last 4 in

Auburn @ Ole Miss 5 PM
Baylor @ Oklahoma 5 PM
California @ Oregon St. 6 PM

Thanks for the that list RedStormy.

Baylor down 26 at half. Have lost 5 of 7 coming into today's game.

Baylor down 26 at half. Have lost 5 of 7 coming into today's game.

Its why the Murray lost was so bad.  Beat them avoid Baylor play Colorado and probably win the tournament.

Don't get your logic. Baylor not as good as everyone thought so if we lost to them why would you think we would have beaten Colorado who beat them?

Don't get your logic. Baylor not as good as everyone thought so if we lost to them why would you think we would have beaten Colorado who beat them?

Match-ups.
I watched all those games too down there.  I was not scared of Colorado.

They seemed like a well coached, veteran team with height and I think they would have given us plenty of trouble just as Murray and Baylor did although I still think we played our best stretch of ball of the season in that tourney.

They seemed like a well coached, veteran team with height and I think they would have given us plenty of trouble just as Murray and Baylor did although I still think we played our best stretch of ball of the season in that tourney.

Definitely well coached.  Best true big man is a freshman (Scott).  Roberson is their best on the boards but more of a 6'7 athlete which we know very well.  Their backcourt are sophomores.  Again sound familiar?

Guess I just liked the way they hustled and played hard. One of their guards was all over the court and deceptively fast and quick.

Guess I just liked the way they hustled and played hard. One of their guards was all over the court and deceptively fast and quick.

Agree.  Loved watching them play.  Besides back to the point.  Beating Murray is one less loss.  Regardless of if we beat the Buffs.

Gotcha. Also would have loved one more win as we finished 4th with a 1-2 record while the 5th place finisher goes 2-1. Weird. Always thought the team with 2-1 record should be elevated over the 1-2 team for purposes of determining order of finish but no big deal.

Nova going to get a big win against Marquette.  I would think they are in solid now.

 Lunardi:
LAST IN: Nova, ASU, OleMiss, Temple
FIRST OUT: Baylor, UK, St. John's, IndSt.

ASU is down by 8 to a 14-13 Washington team at home with 8 mins left in the 2nd half....would be pretty sweet if UW won.