Bracketology Updates

[odhgibo]

The Team Rankings computers have consistently given the Zips the highest seed of all the bracketology websites. When they crunched all the numbers after all of yesterdays games, the Zips ended the day holding on to their projected #9 seed.

Looking at the full set of charts and analysis makes me think that this site needs to reevaluate its algorithm. No way does the MAC winner -- whomever it is -- get seeded higher than the likes of Butler, SDSU, Mizzou, Cincinnati, and Wichita St. Teams other than Akron seeded too high: Virginia and UCLA.

W2@Q, then cross your fingers for a #12 rather than #13 seed.

[zipper12]

Go Zips

[Zipmeister]

Looking at the full set of charts and analysis makes me think that this site needs to reevaluate its algorithm. No way does the MAC winner -- whomever it is -- get seeded higher than the likes of Butler, SDSU, Mizzou, Cincinnati, and Wichita St. Teams other than Akron seeded too high: Virginia and UCLA.

W2@Q, then cross your fingers for a #12 rather than #13 seed.

So the Zips aren't better than a, trending downward, 22-7 overall, 4th place in A10, team?

[odhgibo]

So the Zips aren't better than a, trending downward, 22-7 overall, 4th place in A10, team?

We're talking seeds, not abstract better-worse. (Even in the abstract, most systems that include margin of victory still rate Butler higher than Akron, btw.)

Any team that has won at UNC and IU and beaten Gonzaga at home will get a higher seed than whichever team gets the MAC automatic bid. (Of course, if Butler tanks and doesn't win another game, that might change. I'm going on YTD only, because that's what the ranking system was using. Butler has a tough road game at UMass on Thursday, followed by a home game against X on Saturday, so it could be going into its conference tournament on a 4-game losing streak.)

[Dave in Green]

Team Rankings currently shows Butler as a #6 seed, which is the same seed they have as the average of all 96 projections in the Bracket Matrix. Of course a #9 is way optimistic for the Zips. Out of 91 sites listed in the Bracket Matrix, there's only one #9 and one #10 for the Zips. The other sites all show the Zips as a #11, #12 or #13. The average of all 91 seeds for the Zips is 12.39, and the Matrix currently shows the Zips as the top #13. If the Zips can win out from here, they will have a fair shot at moving up to a #12. The current #5 seeds in the Matrix are tOSU, Oklahoma State, St. Louis and UNLV.

[Zip It]

Can anyone remember the last MAC team to receive a #8 seed? They knocked off the #9 seed Duke Blue Devils in the first round. It can be done!

No. EMU was a #9, Duke was the 8th. No MAC team has been better than a #9 since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Unfortunately, when 10 of the MAC universities are within 200 mile radius of each other and cannibalizing each other over the left overs of Big Ten/Cincy/Xavier/etc., it really anchors the RPI of the good MAC teams. I think the Zips are likely a 11 if they win out, maybe a 10. They'd probably be a 12th seed if they back into an at-large seed.

http://www.databasesports.com/ncaab/tourney.htm?yr=1996

[Dave in Green]

Correction to my post above. I could swear that Team Rankings showed Butler as a #6 seed last night. But this morning Butler is shown as a #10. My browser cache probably needed to be cleared from an earlier viewing of the site. Three other bracketology sites also project Butler as a #10 seed, while most sites have them in the #5 to #8 range, and above the Zips.

[Dave in Green]

Here's something to file away for future at-large discussions. Jerry Palm tweets that the lowest number of top 100 wins he can find for any team that received an at-large bid is three, and that last happened in 2003. So it's probably safer to consider four top 100 wins a bare minimum for serious consideration. The Zips currently have four top 100 wins, and the only way they can get five is to beat OU in the MAC tournament championship, at which point they wouldn't need to be worried about an at-large bid.

[Z.I.P.]

No. EMU was a #9, Duke was the 8th. No MAC team has been better than a #9 since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. Unfortunately, when 10 of the MAC universities are within 200 mile radius of each other and cannibalizing each other over the left overs of Big Ten/Cincy/Xavier/etc., it really anchors the RPI of the good MAC teams. I think the Zips are likely a 11 if they win out, maybe a 10. They'd probably be a 12th seed if they back into an at-large seed.

http://www.databasesports.com/ncaab/tourney.htm?yr=1996

Thanks for the correction, ZipIt. I knew they played the 8-9 game, and thought Braun's team was the higher seed. Unfortunately the only story I found didn't specify. In any case, that EMU team was IMHO the best MAC squad since Akron's been in the league. Dials and Tolbert were beasts, and then there was the little guy.

I do have to disagree with your finish though -- the reason they can't be an at-large is because they'll be no more than a 12 even if they win out.

[Dave in Green]

A few observations on the Zips' current standing in the Bracket Matrix. The Matrix monitors 91 bracketology websites and updates frequently. In addition to showing each site's projected seeding for each team, the individual team seedings are averaged. Of the 91 sites, 90 list the Zips while one site lists OU as the MAC representative. Here's the current distribution of the 90 seeds projected for the Zips:

#9 (1)

#11 (3)

#12 (20)

#13 (66)

The Zips' average seed from those 90 sites is 12.67, which is tied with Louisiana Tech for the top #13 seed. Bucknell (13.00 average) and Stephen F. Austin (13.47) are the other #13 seeds, while Valparaiso (13.76) is the top #14 seed. There's a fairly large gap between the Zips' 12.67 average and the bottom #12 seed, Villanova (11.99).

Obviously the selection committee doesn't consult all of these bracketologists before making their decision, so this is speculative. But more than 70% of them see the Zips as a #13. Winning the next three games may improve the Zips' odds of landing a #12 in the Bracket Matrix, depending on what other teams in that range do between now and Selection Sunday. The selection committee may or may not agree.

[bUAkronG]

For the record, teamrankings.com has dropped us to a #10 seed.

What's more interesting is that they now project us with the same(actually a fraction of a percent higher) chance of an at-large bid as an auto-bid:

43.8% for Auto, 43.9% for at large. Interesting.

[Dave in Green]

Other teams besides the Zips are in trouble, so much so that the Zips have actually moved up in the Bracket Matrix from the top #13 seed to the bottom #12 seed. Needless to say, that's based on W2@Q, as the Zips have been dropped from most bubble watches due to losing 2 games plus losing Rico. Interestingly, the Bracket Matrix has been modified to include only 79 bracketology sites instead of the previous 91. Of the current 79 sites, 75 still project the Zips as the MAC representative while 4 predict OU. The Zips' previously most optimistic bracketologist -- Team Rankings -- has dumped the Zips in a big way. They now project OU as the MAC entry with the bottom #15 seed.

[Dave in Green]

Bracketology footnote: Fox Sports ranks the Zips #2 in their list of Teams That Need Big Conference Tournaments:

Not long ago, the Zips were the hottest thing in college hoops, having won 19 games in a row, the longest winning streak in the nation. March has not been kind to the Zips. They’ve lost two out of three games, and their starting point guard was arrested on charges of trafficking and possession of marijuana. If they’d won out in the regular season, the Zips could have made a long-shot case for being an at-large team in the tournament, even though they’re from the MAC. As it stands, they’ll need to win their conference tournament — highly unlikely without their starting point guard and with a hot Ohio University team staring them in the face.

[bUAkronG]

Bracketology footnote: Fox Sports ranks the Zips #2 in their list of Teams That Need Big Conference Tournaments:

"As it stands, they’ll need to win their conference tournament — highly unlikely without their starting point guard and with a hot Ohio University team staring them in the face."

In the eyes of the national media, the target is no longer on the Zips' back. I am eager to see hhow they respond.

[skip-zip]

I thought it was interesting to read this morning that Middle Tennessee will likely NOT make the tournament field after losing in their conference tournament, despite the fact that they lost only one conference game, and will likely finish the season with a Top-30 RPI.

I guess that provides another possible measuring stick.

[Dave in Green]

@skip-zip, despite their otherwise good numbers, MTSU has only one top 100 RPI win for the whole season. No team has ever been awarded an at-large bid without at least three top 100 wins. The last time a team with only three top 100 wins made the tournament with an at-large bid was in 2003. So you really need at least four top 100 wins to have a reasonable shot. The Zips currently have four top 100 wins, but fall short in other areas. Check out MTSU's NCAA Selection Sheet.

[Lee Adams]

"As it stands, they’ll need to win their conference tournament — highly unlikely without their starting point guard and with a hot Ohio University team staring them in the face."

In the eyes of the national media, the target is no longer on the Zips' back. I am eager to see hhow they respond.

Ya gotta hate it when a team is always dangling by a thread. If everything doesn't go exactly as planned(kids will be kids) the whole thing tends to disintegrate. Here is hoping they can suck it up and win the tourney. Otherwise it could be somewhere south of the NIT.

[Dave in Green]

@Lee Adams, not sure what you mean by the Zips ending up "somewhere south of the NIT," but the regular season MAC champion is guaranteed a spot in the NIT. Then again, I don't think we should even be talking about that, as the Zips players are definitely not talking or even thinking about the NIT. They believe they will W2@Q. So no more mention of NIT.

[Xman95]

If the Zips don't win the MAC Tourney, they're going to have to hope other conference tourneys hold true to seeding, at least those conferences with teams already assured of dancing. If lesser teams start stealing away auto-bids, it then wipes out some of the At Large bids. It happens every year and every year deserving teams lose out. But it's part of what makes college basketball and this time of year so great. Everyone has a shot at the Big Dance.

Hopefully the Zips just take care of business, win the MAC and don't leave it up to the opinions of a committee. Many on that panel may not have even seen Akron play so it's safest to not leave your fate in their hands. Just win two this weekend and the only drama will be Sunday night waiting to find out what seed the Zips get!

[skip-zip]

If the Zips don't win the MAC Tourney, they're going to have to hope other conference tourneys hold true to seeding, at least those conferences with teams already assured of dancing.

Xman, It's great that you are still hoping, but if you have been following the data for the last couple of weeks, I can tell you that we are now at ZERO chance of an at-large bid. It was even a remote possibility before the last two losses.

[skip-zip]

@skip-zip, despite their otherwise good numbers, MTSU has only one top 100 RPI win for the whole season. No team has ever been awarded an at-large bid without at least three top 100 wins. The last time a team with only three top 100 wins made the tournament with an at-large bid was in 2003. So you really need at least four top 100 wins to have a reasonable shot. The Zips currently have four top 100 wins, but fall short in other areas. Check out MTSU's NCAA Selection Sheet.

Dave, I didn't ignore their number of Top-100 wins. I was merely pointing out that winning all but one of your games in a "lesser" conference and a Top-30 RPI is still not going to get someone in this year. That's certainly another barometer that has to frustrate those of us who root for teams in those "lesser" conferences.

I know I've said this before, but just winning a large number of games, as much as we had hoped otherwise, is almost meaningless these days.

[Dr Z]

Joe Lunardi says only one way in for Zips...reported by GT.

“I think that’s in question now,” ESPN college analyst Jay Bilas said. “Having lost Alex [Abreu], I think they’re going to be looked at as ‘what have you done for me lately’ without him.”

“They’re not going to let us in just because we’re coming in with an inexperienced point guard,” he said after Wednesday’s practice.

Hmmmm, where have I read this before....I just can't remember...hmmmm

“They don’t schedule out of the league,” Bilas said. “If you want to get into the tournament, you have to schedule outside the league. If the entire league is [outside] 100, you have to go find other games because outside the 100 doesn’t move the meter. It may not be fair and it may not be right, but that’s the way it is.”

[Dave in Green]

@skip-zip, right, it's not the overall number of wins that impresses the selection committee. It's the top 100 wins that are given highest priority, and especially top 100 wins away from home. This is what signals to the selection committee that a team is capable of winning in the NCAA tournament, where they're only going to be playing away from home against quality opponents. It's not just one or two things but the total body of work that counts -- RPI, SOS, top 100 wins, overall record, etc. There's no real mystery here. The media likes to build up human interest stories every season about the last couple of teams out or the last couple of teams in. These teams usually have a fair number of the bases covered, but not all of them. That's what makes them bubble teams. We just need to remember all of these different parameters every season when the inevitable at-large discussion comes up so that we can have realistic expectations.

[Z.I.P.]

This may be very peripheral, but my question on George's article is about the quotes from Jay Bilas. Did Jay say those things on the air, or did George interview him personally. I haven't heard anything about Akron on ESPN since the K.S.U. loss. We are well under the radar now.

[Dr Z]

...on George's article is about the quotes from Jay Bilas. Did Jay say those things on the air, or did George interview him personally...

I'm assuming that it was on the same phone conference with reporters that Lunardi was on. It wasn't very clear though. Maybe George can clarify. I would love to have followed up Jay's comment with a question.