PDA

View Full Version : NET News following an upset-filled week (January 20)



scottdude8
01-20-2019, 05:32 PM
Figured if I'm going to keep doing these I might as well make them somewhat organized, haha... and it's definitely worth doing again since there were some major shakeups in the ratings this week following a bunch of upsets!

First, in terms of the rankings themselves Duke comes in at No. 2. Some other interesting notes on that front:

UVA is at No. 1 despite the loss, which isn't all that surprising considering I don't believe the NET directly takes head-to-head into account (although I believe the committee does down the line).
The Top 6 matches the consensus "top-tier", with Gonzaga at No. 3, followed by Tennessee, Michigan State and Michigan. (Side note: I'm surprised that Michigan fell so far compared to Virginia, considering both of their first losses were tough road games, and Michigan played a superior non-conference slate I believe... this is one where I wish I could dig into the details of the algorithm to see what caused this).
Duke's big victories still look good, with Kentucky at No. 8, Texas Tech at 11, Auburn at 22, FSU at 33, and Indiana at 34. There's also a ton of room for more impressive wins with a lot of ACC teams at the top of the rankings.


So it appears that there are really six teams separating themselves from the pack in the running for No. 1 seeds. How does this pan out on the team sheets? Well:

Duke still has 5 Q1 victories, and even those are high-caliber victories within the Q1 designation. Interestingly, if you look at the sheet they are now splitting things even within each "quadrant" into the top and bottom half, so this is a potentially significant differentiator. Our two losses are Q1 (Gonzaga) and Q2 (Syracuse).
Virginia, Tennessee, and Michigan all have 4 Q1 wins. Michigan State has 7, although 3 are "lower caliber" Q1 wins. Gonzaga has 3 Q1 wins and given their conference will probably be stuck there.
Kansas could prove to be a real test for the NET, because they have 7 Q1 wins yet are ranked 19. This is especially odd considering they're ranked higher than 19 in all of the other computer rankings, so there has to be something in the NET calculator that is really hurting Kansas. If this holds up it could be a very interesting question for the committee.
There are a few other teams with 4 Q1 wins (including UNC), but most other top teams either have 3 or less Q1 wins or are starting to pile up losses.


The big takeaways: first, despite the Syracuse loss Duke is still in great shape for a No. 1 seed. Considering who we are going to still play, a Duke team that finishes with 6 or 7 losses will still have a major argument for a top seed considering who those victories will likely be against. Second, it's looking more and more unlikely that the Big 12 gets a top seed, and third it's likely going to be hard to give Gonzaga a No. 1 seed with only 3 Q1 wins alongside 2 losses. This means it's looking more and more likely that the ACC (or, in a less likely scenario, the B1G) will get 2 No. 1 seeds. So the rematch against UVA, alongside the two Michigan-Michigan State matchups (both of which happen very late in the year!) are going to have huge ramifications. But all of this combined means we essentially still control our own destiny with regards to seedings.

This leads me to wonder if we should aim our sights higher, i.e. we should aim to get one of the "top two" seeds to avoid a bad 2 seed matchup. Given the clear break between the Top 6 teams and the rest of the NCAA, both qualitatively and quantitatively, I think Duke ideally would want to avoid one of of the borderline one seeds in their bracket.

Interesting to see how people think the NET dealt with all the upsets this week/weekend, and debate on that final point!

Bluedog
01-20-2019, 05:41 PM
This leads me to wonder if we should aim our sights higher, i.e. we should be aiming to get one of the "top two" seeds to avoid a bad 2 seed matchup. Given the clear break between the Top 6 teams and the rest of the NCAA, both qualitatively and quantitatively, I think Duke ideally would want to avoid one of of the borderline one seeds in their bracket.

Thanks for the analysis but the above comment isn't accurate. That is, the top one seeds don't necessarily get the bottom two seeds. It is based on geography only so as the top 1 seed we get the top geographic preference then when they get to the two line they also give that two seed geographic preference taking into consideration conference affiliation and other rules. They do some balancing on the three and four lines if necessary so that a particular region cannot have all the top 1 through 4 seeds. Note that I think they may have changed the rule last year where the very top one seed could not get the top two seed but somebody please validate.

scottdude8
01-20-2019, 05:49 PM
Thanks for the analysis but the above comment isn't accurate. That is, the top one seeds don't necessarily get the bottom two seeds. It is based on geography only so as the top 1 seed we get the top geographic preference then when they get to the two line they also give that two seed geographic preference taking into consideration conference affiliation and other rules. They do some balancing on the three and four lines if necessary so that a particular region cannot have all the top 1 through 4 seeds. Note that I think they may have changed the rule last year where the very top one seed could not get the top two seed but somebody please validate.

I wasn't 100% sure on this either, but if memory serves this is something they implemented last year that the snake gets factored into the decision making, even if it isn't the primary factor. In fact, I think a new rule last year was that the top overall seed couldn't get the top 2 seed, or something like that. So you're right that being one of the top two seeds won't guarantee us avoiding the top two seeds, but I believe it would give us a better chance at doing so.

sagegrouse
01-20-2019, 05:55 PM
Thanks for the analysis but the above comment isn't accurate. That is, the top one seeds don't necessarily get the bottom two seeds. It is based on geography only so as the top 1 seed we get the top geographic preference then when they get to the two line they also give that two seed geographic preference taking into consideration conference affiliation and other rules. They do some balancing on the three and four lines if necessary so that a particular region cannot have all the top 1 through 4 seeds. Note that I think they may have changed the rule last year where the very top one seed could not get the top two seed but somebody please validate.

Yes, I hate it when the NCAA changes the rules I worked so hard to learn. There is no longer an "S curve," whereby the strongest #1 gets the weakest #2 should form prevail. Isn't this so?

scottdude8
01-20-2019, 06:00 PM
Yes, I hate it when the NCAA changes the rules I worked so hard to learn. There is no longer an "S curve," whereby the strongest #1 gets the weakest #2 should form prevail. Isn't this so?

This is from Wikipedia so take it with a grain of salt, but there are citations at least:

A number of complex rules govern the seeding process, so it is not as simple as merely following the S-curve, although that is the top priority according to the NCAA's rules.[11] Better teams have priority in remaining close to home, but no hosting institution's team can actually play at the location where the institution is hosting tournament games (generally, games are hosted on neutral courts, so this is not usually a problem). Sometimes a top team may be a short drive away from its games; in 2006 Villanova played its first and second round games in Philadelphia at an arena where they had played three games that year, one fewer than the four required for a site to be considered a "home court" for a team, and in 2002 the Pitt Panthers played their first and second round games in the city of Pittsburgh at Mellon Arena (which was not their home court after the opening of their on-campus arena).

scottdude8
01-20-2019, 06:20 PM
Here's more details straight from the NCAA (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2018-10-19/how-field-68-teams-picked-march-madness):


2. The committee will then place the No. 2 seeds in each region in true seed list order. The committee may relax the principle of keeping teams as close to their area of natural interest for seeding teams on the No. 2 line to avoid, for example, the overall No. 5 seed being sent to the same region as the overall No. 1 seed. The committee will not compromise the principle of keeping teams from the same conference in separate regions.
...
5. After the top four seed lines have been assigned, the committee will review the relative strengths of the regions by adding the “true seed” numbers in each region to determine if any severe numerical imbalance exists. Generally, no more than five points should separate the lowest and highest total.


So the answer to the question about the S-curve is... maybe? Sometimes? If it's the third night of a blood moon and it rained on Selection Sunday?

scottdude8
01-21-2019, 02:04 PM
I thought it might be interesting to see how the NET is matching up with the AP Poll (maybe I'll wait to do these write-ups until Mondays in the future, haha). The "top 6" are consistent between the two rankings, as we would expect. From there things get a little wonky. For example:
The NET has Nevada at No. 22, while the AP has them at No. 7.
The NET has Kansas at No. 19, while the AP has them at No. 9.
The NET has Nebraska at No. 13, while they're unranked in the AP.
The NET has LSU at No. 14, while the AP has them at No. 25.
The NET has Purdue at No. 15, while they're unranked in the AP.

All things considered those aren't complete dealbreakers, especially compared to the mistakes the RPI would make. But if the NET continues to overvalue B1G and SEC teams while undervaluing Big 12 teams that could lead to some interesting conversations come March (importantly for us, it could keep the Big 12 out of the one-seed conversation entirely, which is what it looks like things are trending towards, but also could help the argument for two No. 1 seeds out of the B1G as opposed to ACC).

sagegrouse
01-21-2019, 02:17 PM
I thought it might be interesting to see how the NET is matching up with the AP Poll (maybe I'll wait to do these write-ups until Mondays in the future, haha). The "top 6" are consistent between the two rankings, as we would expect. From there things get a little wonky. For example:
The NET has Nevada at No. 22, while the AP has them at No. 7.
The NET has Kansas at No. 19, while the AP has them at No. 9.
The NET has Nebraska at No. 13, while they're unranked in the AP.
The NET has LSU at No. 14, while the AP has them at No. 25.
The NET has Purdue at No. 15, while they're unranked in the AP.

All things considered those aren't complete dealbreakers, especially compared to the mistakes the RPI would make. But if the NET continues to overvalue B1G and SEC teams while undervaluing Big 12 teams that could lead to some interesting conversations come March (importantly for us, it could keep the Big 12 out of the one-seed conversation entirely, which is what it looks like things are trending towards, but also could help the argument for two No. 1 seeds out of the B1G as opposed to ACC).

Well, there's the SEC-Big 12 Challenge later this month that should provide some alignment data. Not sure how results are likely to affect NET.

scottdude8
01-21-2019, 02:22 PM
Well, there's the SEC-Big 12 Challenge later this month that should provide some alignment data. Not sure how results are likely to affect NET.

That's an interesting point... I had forgotten that a lot of those teams still had one big non-conference game left on the slate. As a Duke fan, how do you root in that Challenge? Considering Tennessee would need to hit some major stumbling blocks to fall out of the running for a No. 1 seed (possible, given they haven't played their toughest SEC opponents yet, but it would take a lot at this point), I'm thinking that anything further devaluing the Big 12 (and further minimizing the likelihood Kansas gets itself back into the No. 1 seed discussion) is the best outcome for us. Unfortunately that might (blech) include (blech) rooting (blech) for (blech) Kentucky against KU...

uh_no
01-21-2019, 02:26 PM
I thought it might be interesting to see how the NET is matching up with the AP Poll (maybe I'll wait to do these write-ups until Mondays in the future, haha). The "top 6" are consistent between the two rankings, as we would expect. From there things get a little wonky. For example:

The NET has Nevada at No. 22, while the AP has them at No. 7.
The NET has Kansas at No. 19, while the AP has them at No. 9.
The NET has Nebraska at No. 13, while they're unranked in the AP.
The NET has LSU at No. 14, while the AP has them at No. 25.
The NET has Purdue at No. 15, while they're unranked in the AP.

All things considered those aren't complete dealbreakers, especially compared to the mistakes the RPI would make. But if the NET continues to overvalue B1G and SEC teams while undervaluing Big 12 teams that could lead to some interesting conversations come March (importantly for us, it could keep the Big 12 out of the one-seed conversation entirely, which is what it looks like things are trending towards, but also could help the argument for two No. 1 seeds out of the B1G as opposed to ACC).

comparing to kp




NET
AP
KP


nevada
22
7
19


kansas
19
9
10


nebraska
13
nr
12


LSU
14
25
24


Purdue
15
nr
9




it's clear that some of the wonkies you point out actually aren't that wonky. nevada, nebraska and purdue are outliers of AP wrt KP, and kansas and LSU are outliers for NET.

Either way, I'm not sure the relative ranking of teams in this range will have much impact on which of the top 6 or so teams gets a 1 seed.

scottdude8
01-21-2019, 02:39 PM
comparing to kp




NET
AP
KP


nevada
22
7
19


kansas
19
9
10


nebraska
13
nr
12


LSU
14
25
24


Purdue
15
nr
9




it's clear that some of the wonkies you point out actually aren't that wonky. nevada, nebraska and purdue are outliers of AP wrt KP, and kansas and LSU are outliers for NET.

Either way, I'm not sure the relative ranking of teams in this range will have much impact on which of the top 6 or so teams gets a 1 seed.

Thanks for the KenPom insight! Considering that KP is a factor in the NET rankings it's not surprising that they correspond more with NET than the AP rankings do... so then the question becomes do we trust the analytics more than the media when it comes to ranking teams? I think most of us would lean towards the analytics considering how accurate KenPom has been over the past few years, but it's an interesting debate nonetheless.

I do disagree with you on your final point though, and I think last year's Kansas team is the perfect example as to why. Despite having 7 losses, some of them objectively bad ones (i.e. at home or to inferior competition, or both!), Kansas still earned a No. 1 seed based largely on the quadrant system and their number of "Q1" wins. So if there ends up being a team with a high NET ranking that seems to be an outlier compared to the consensus opinion of the experts (coaches, media, etc.), that could end up helping a team that defeated said outlier come tourney time (and the reverse could obviously also occur). Perceived conference strength does seem to factor into seeding, whether the NCAA intends it to or not, so from that perspective these outliers could end up mattering come Selection Sunday. Obviously that's speculation, but I think it's informed speculation based on my research and recent history.

Kedsy
01-21-2019, 02:59 PM
Considering Tennessee would need to hit some major stumbling blocks to fall out of the running for a No. 1 seed (possible, given they haven't played their toughest SEC opponents yet, but it would take a lot at this point)...

Every year at this time people around here say stuff like the above. I feel obligated to point out that teams that look like #1 seeds in January often don't end up that way.

My favorite example is 2010, when many people on this board were arguing that Duke had no chance for a top seed because all four #1s were locked in. Especially Texas, the #1 team on January 21, 2010, which based on its schedule had almost no chance to drop from a #1. Or so they said. By tournament time, Texas was a #8-seed that lost in the first round to Wake Forest.

In 2011 at this point, Syracuse was considered a shoo-in for a #1-seed. They ended up a #3 and lost to a #11-seed in the 2nd round. In 2012, people wondered whether Duke could beat out Baylor for a #1-seed. Neither of them made it, with Baylor ending up a #3. In 2014 at this time, people again considered Syracuse a lock for a #1, and again they ended up a #3 (and again they lost to a #11 in the 2nd round). Anyway, you probably get the pattern. Maybe Tennessee gets a #1 and maybe they don't. But it won't take "a lot" to knock them out, just the typical rough-and-tumble progression of a major conference schedule.

Kedsy
01-21-2019, 03:40 PM
I think most of us would lean towards the analytics considering how accurate KenPom has been over the past few years...

How do you measure "accuracy" in this context? I'm genuinely interested.

Are you saying KenPom has accurately predicted seeding? Because a quick count told me (pre-tournament) KenPom was off by at least two seeds on 15 different teams in just the last two seasons, including stuff like saying Wichita State was the 8th best team in the country in 2017 (and thus should have been a 2-seed) when the Shockers got stuck as a #10.

Or are you saying KenPom's top teams usually perform well in the tournament? Because (again) in the last two seasons, a full half (50%) of Pomeroy's top 8 teams (I chose top 8 because in theory that would be the teams deserving of #1 or #2 seeds) lost in the Round of 32 (and another three lost in the Sweet 16, meaning 69% of KenPom's top 8 teams lost before the Elite Eight in the past two seasons). For comparison, of the AP poll's top 8 teams (last poll before the NCAAT), only five teams lost in the first two rounds in the past two seasons (31.3%) and three more lost in the Sweet 16 (meaning 50% of AP's top 8 teams lost before the Elite Eight in the past two years).

Or is it something else? Because if it's either of the above, I don't think KenPom is any more accurate than AP (and it appears less accurate).


(and, sure, two years isn't that robust a sample; but KenPom's performance was so inaccurate in the two most recent years that I didn't feel the need to go back further)

uh_no
01-21-2019, 03:55 PM
How do you measure "accuracy" in this context? I'm genuinely interested.

Are you saying KenPom has accurately predicted seeding? Because a quick count told me (pre-tournament) KenPom was off by at least two seeds on 15 different teams in just the last two seasons, including stuff like saying Wichita State was the 8th best team in the country in 2017 (and thus should have been a 2-seed) when the Shockers got stuck as a #10.

Or are you saying KenPom's top teams usually perform well in the tournament? Because (again) in the last two seasons, a full half (50%) of Pomeroy's top 8 teams (I chose top 8 because in theory that would be the teams deserving of #1 or #2 seeds) lost in the Round of 32 (and another three lost in the Sweet 16, meaning 69% of KenPom's top 8 teams lost before the Elite Eight in the past two seasons). For comparison, of the AP poll's top 8 teams (last poll before the NCAAT), only five teams lost in the first two rounds in the past two seasons (31.3%) and three more lost in the Sweet 16 (meaning 50% of AP's top 8 teams lost before the Elite Eight in the past two years).

Or is it something else? Because if it's either of the above, I don't think KenPom is any more accurate than AP (and it appears less accurate).


(and, sure, two years isn't that robust a sample; but KenPom's performance was so inaccurate in the two most recent years that I didn't feel the need to go back further)

That's a REALLY bad sampling error, especially when discarding things like the final margin and how close the respective poll/metrics said it should have been. Say one team is #1 in the poll, and the other is unranked. Say KP had the unranked team winning by 1. Now suppose the actual outcome was the unranked team lost by 1.....who was closer? KP who was only off by a couple points in the final margin? Or the AP poll which vastly mis-represented at least one of the two teams? Obviously it depends on the context....but if your goal is to gain confidence in the predictor itself, the one that was off by 2 points is going to get my vote over the one that was off by 20 (?), even if in this case the victor was correct....since the former was far more accurate at correctly evaluating the relative strength of the two teams.


Anyway, the point I was trying to make wasn't that we should kow-tow to KP as the be all end all of a proper ranking system, but that NET's results are not all that wonky, and seem to align in most cases with at least some other reasonable metrics, which might be AP or KP or whatever. KP was just a proxy for "some other metric that is largely reasonable."

This is in contrast to RPI which seemed to sometimes produce results which were misaligned with every other metric under the sun....sometimes by huuuge margins.


As I've mentioned before, I'd love to run some regressions on stuff like polls, seeds, KP, and "sum of KP rankings" to see how they actually stack up over time....but alas, time. Maybe if I get bored over the summer.

Kedsy
01-21-2019, 04:28 PM
That's a REALLY bad sampling error, especially when discarding things like the final margin and how close the respective poll/metrics said it should have been. Say one team is #1 in the poll, and the other is unranked. Say KP had the unranked team winning by 1. Now suppose the actual outcome was the unranked team lost by 1...who was closer? KP who was only off by a couple points in the final margin? Or the AP poll which vastly mis-represented at least one of the two teams? Obviously it depends on the context...but if your goal is to gain confidence in the predictor itself, the one that was off by 2 points is going to get my vote over the one that was off by 20 (?), even if in this case the victor was correct...since the former was far more accurate at correctly evaluating the relative strength of the two teams.


Anyway, the point I was trying to make wasn't that we should kow-tow to KP as the be all end all of a proper ranking system, but that NET's results are not all that wonky, and seem to align in most cases with at least some other reasonable metrics, which might be AP or KP or whatever. KP was just a proxy for "some other metric that is largely reasonable."

This is in contrast to RPI which seemed to sometimes produce results which were misaligned with every other metric under the sun...sometimes by huuuge margins.


As I've mentioned before, I'd love to run some regressions on stuff like polls, seeds, KP, and "sum of KP rankings" to see how they actually stack up over time...but alas, time. Maybe if I get bored over the summer.

I understand the value of analytics in evaluating team performance. You know I do. I wasn't responding to your analysis, which I understood and which made sense to me.

The question (by another poster, not you) appeared to be when it comes to ranking the teams for the purposes of seeding, which has been more "accurate," in relation to NCAAT performance? Obviously, it's hard to answer that question without knowing the definition of "accurate." If it's evaluating predicted scores vs. actual scores (as you suggest) there might be a different answer than in evaluating future wins vs. losses (which appears to me to be all anyone really cares about in the NCAAT). And that's before considering the interdependence of seeding with winning (i.e., do better seeds win because they're better teams or because they're playing worse teams?).

Ultimately, systems like KenPom seem like a reasonable way to evaluate and compare the relative merit of college basketball teams. That's why I refer to KenPom often when we have conversations about evaluating and comparing NCAA teams. But the NCAA tournament often has little to do with which teams are objectively better. No system does that good a job in predicting who will win, lose, underperform, or overperform expectations in the one-and-done tourney.

And that was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I didn't make it so well.

uh_no
01-21-2019, 04:43 PM
I understand the value of analytics in evaluating team performance. You know I do. I wasn't responding to your analysis, which I understood and which made sense to me.

The question (by another poster, not you) appeared to be when it comes to ranking the teams for the purposes of seeding, which has been more "accurate," in relation to NCAAT performance? Obviously, it's hard to answer that question without knowing the definition of "accurate." If it's evaluating predicted scores vs. actual scores (as you suggest) there might be a different answer than in evaluating future wins vs. losses (which appears to me to be all anyone really cares about in the NCAAT). And that's before considering the interdependence of seeding with winning (i.e., do better seeds win because they're better teams or because they're playing worse teams?).

Ultimately, systems like KenPom seem like a reasonable way to evaluate and compare the relative merit of college basketball teams. That's why I refer to KenPom often when we have conversations about evaluating and comparing NCAA teams. But the NCAA tournament often has little to do with which teams are objectively better. No system does that good a job in predicting who will win, lose, underperform, or overperform expectations in the one-and-done tourney.

And that was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I didn't make it so well.

I'm sure I'm on the bad end of the misinterpretation :) I usually am.

scottdude8
01-21-2019, 04:52 PM
How do you measure "accuracy" in this context? I'm genuinely interested.

Are you saying KenPom has accurately predicted seeding? Because a quick count told me (pre-tournament) KenPom was off by at least two seeds on 15 different teams in just the last two seasons, including stuff like saying Wichita State was the 8th best team in the country in 2017 (and thus should have been a 2-seed) when the Shockers got stuck as a #10.

Or are you saying KenPom's top teams usually perform well in the tournament? Because (again) in the last two seasons, a full half (50%) of Pomeroy's top 8 teams (I chose top 8 because in theory that would be the teams deserving of #1 or #2 seeds) lost in the Round of 32 (and another three lost in the Sweet 16, meaning 69% of KenPom's top 8 teams lost before the Elite Eight in the past two seasons). For comparison, of the AP poll's top 8 teams (last poll before the NCAAT), only five teams lost in the first two rounds in the past two seasons (31.3%) and three more lost in the Sweet 16 (meaning 50% of AP's top 8 teams lost before the Elite Eight in the past two years).

Or is it something else? Because if it's either of the above, I don't think KenPom is any more accurate than AP (and it appears less accurate).


(and, sure, two years isn't that robust a sample; but KenPom's performance was so inaccurate in the two most recent years that I didn't feel the need to go back further)

Good catch, because I definitely wasn't clear in my point here! What I was going at wasn't about seeding accuracy but more about what do we think is the most accurate rankings as far as overall team quality. I was going a bit from memory, but I remember in that in the early years of KenPom there was something along the lines of the National Champion ended up as No. 1 or No. 2 in his final rankings a disproportionate amount of the time (again, I'm going from memory here, I'm sure someone can correct me with what the actual trend was), and that was how KenPom sort of made his name.

So I was probably reaching a bit with that statement, but the general thing I was going for was that analytics like KenPom have done a better job in the recent past at identifying the real NC contenders than things like the poll which are skewed by the eye test, the names of the schools, etc. Again, I could be completely wrong on that front because I'm operating from memory, haha.

Kedsy
01-21-2019, 05:35 PM
Good catch, because I definitely wasn't clear in my point here! What I was going at wasn't about seeding accuracy but more about what do we think is the most accurate rankings as far as overall team quality. I was going a bit from memory, but I remember in that in the early years of KenPom there was something along the lines of the National Champion ended up as No. 1 or No. 2 in his final rankings a disproportionate amount of the time (again, I'm going from memory here, I'm sure someone can correct me with what the actual trend was), and that was how KenPom sort of made his name.

So I was probably reaching a bit with that statement, but the general thing I was going for was that analytics like KenPom have done a better job in the recent past at identifying the real NC contenders than things like the poll which are skewed by the eye test, the names of the schools, etc. Again, I could be completely wrong on that front because I'm operating from memory, haha.

Your memory is not wrong (though the people who said that stuff about Pomeroy were). For years, people have claimed such things about KenPom, but when they did they almost always were talking about post-tournament rankings.

Here's a table of the champions during the 17 years of KenPom, with post-tourney and pre-tourney Pomeroy, along with pre-tourney AP:



Year Champion PostKP PreKP PreAP Seed
2018 Villanova 1 2 2 1
2017 UNC 3 3 6 1
2016 Villanova 1 5 3 2
2015 Duke 3 6 2 1
2014 UConn 15 25 21 7
2013 Louisville 1 2 4 1
2012 Kentucky 1 1 1 1
2011 UConn 10 15 21 3
2010 Duke 1 2 4 1
2009 UNC 1 3 1 1
2008 Kansas 1 1 4 1
2007 Florida 2 3 6 1
2006 Florida 1 6 11 3
2005 UNC 1 2 2 1
2004 UConn 2 5 7 2
2003 Syracuse 8 20 13 3
2002 Maryland 3 4 4 1


You probably read what you did around 2010 (in those days the 2002 and 2003 data was not available on KenPom's site, i.e., every year from 2004 to 2010 the national champ was #1 or #2 in KP's post-tourney rankings). Over the 17 years of (now) available KenPom stats, pre-tournament, the eventual national champion was #1 or #2 in only six of the 17 seasons (35%). For comparison, in five of the 17 seasons (29%) the eventual champion was #1 or #2 in the final (pre-T) AP rankings. So Pomeroy is a little more "accurate" but not much.

If you look at how far away from #1 the pre-T rankings were (e.g., in 2010 Duke was #4, and that's 3 away from #1), the KenPom pre-T rankings are again a little more accurate than AP but not much (a total of 7 closer, over 17 years). Like I said in an earlier post, no system is very good at predicting the results of the NCAA tournament.

Note also that 10 of the champions were in KenPom's top 4 (59%), and 10 were in the AP's top 4 (also 59%), but 11 of the champs (65%) were #1 seeds.


.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
01-22-2019, 05:54 AM
Every year at this time people around here say stuff like the above. I feel obligated to point out that teams that look like #1 seeds in January often don't end up that way.

My favorite example is 2010, when many people on this board were arguing that Duke had no chance for a top seed because all four #1s were locked in. Especially Texas, the #1 team on January 21, 2010, which based on its schedule had almost no chance to drop from a #1. Or so they said. By tournament time, Texas was a #8-seed that lost in the first round to Wake Forest.

In 2011 at this point, Syracuse was considered a shoo-in for a #1-seed. They ended up a #3 and lost to a #11-seed in the 2nd round. In 2012, people wondered whether Duke could beat out Baylor for a #1-seed. Neither of them made it, with Baylor ending up a #3. In 2014 at this time, people again considered Syracuse a lock for a #1, and again they ended up a #3 (and again they lost to a #11 in the 2nd round). Anyway, you probably get the pattern. Maybe Tennessee gets a #1 and maybe they don't. But it won't take "a lot" to knock them out, just the typical rough-and-tumble progression of a major conference schedule.

It's too early for my yearly "definition of 'lock'" rant.

COYS
01-22-2019, 08:53 AM
Note also that 10 of the champions were in KenPom's top 4 (59%), and 10 were in the AP's top 4 (also 59%), but 11 of the champs (65%) were #1 seeds.


.

This is the most relavent point, to me. We want a number 1 seed. Number 1 seeds have the easiest path to the Final Four. Falling to a 2 seed definitely hurt us in 2013 (when perhaps we could have avoided Louisville until the FF) and in 2017 (when we could’ve avoided a semi-away game against SC in the second round). It’s also why I view games like tonight’s matchup against Pitt as a must-win. It certainly doesn’t take us out of the running for a top seed if we stumble, but our path is a lot easier if we take care of business.

HereBeforeCoachK
01-22-2019, 02:51 PM
This is the most relavent point, to me. We want a number 1 seed. Number 1 seeds have the easiest path to the Final Four. Falling to a 2 seed definitely hurt us in 2013 (when perhaps we could have avoided Louisville until the FF) and in 2017 (when we could’ve avoided a semi-away game against SC in the second round). It’s also why I view games like tonight’s matchup against Pitt as a must-win. It certainly doesn’t take us out of the running for a top seed if we stumble, but our path is a lot easier if we take care of business.

I agree, but in general, we didn't "fall" to a number 2 seed so much as we rose to one with the ACCT title...a four day run that clearly was the peaking, and exhausting, of that team, a team that played one mediocre and one poor game in SC. We'd have been much better off winning a couple ACCT games, then resting and landing as an overlooked 3 or 4 somewhere else.

BandAlum83
01-22-2019, 02:57 PM
I'll give my lock of the year prediction:

If we run the table and don't lose another game, we get the overall #1 seed.

Lock it in!

Tripping William
01-22-2019, 03:00 PM
I'll give my lock of the year prediction:

If we run the table and don't lose another game, we get the overall #1 seed.

Lock it in!

And another ACC championship, another Final Four banner, and another natty. By definition. :o

COYS
01-22-2019, 03:20 PM
I agree, but in general, we didn't "fall" to a number 2 seed so much as we rose to one with the ACCT title...a four day run that clearly was the peaking, and exhausting, of that team, a team that played one mediocre and one poor game in SC. We'd have been much better off winning a couple ACCT games, then resting and landing as an overlooked 3 or 4 somewhere else.

You're right that our seeding shifted dramatically thanks to our ACCT run. However, when I say we "fell" to a 2-seed, I'm referring more to winnable games that we lost earlier that season. The away games at 'Cuse and Miami come to mind. If that team enters the tournament with a 6-loss record, an ACCT title, and a 2-1 advantage over fellow 1-seed rival UNC, that team probably gets a number one seed. Who knows how that might have changed things? It might not have made any difference. It might have made all the difference.

But history is on the side of 1-seeds. The idea that it is better to be a well-rested 3 or 4 seed instead of a 2-seed or a 1-seed that wins a conference tournament doesn't really have any historical backing, even if it makes some intuitive sense. Having easier opponents in the first round plus allowing for the chance that tougher teams will be upset prior to the sweet 16 and beyond are far more valuable than a day of rest the week before the tournament. Heck, even 2-seeds have a much tougher time winning the whole tournament than 1-seeds. 1-seeds are (usually) the best teams AND have the easiest path. There's no downside to being a 1 seed as far as I'm concerned, even if we play some hard-fought games in the ACCT tournament to get one.

scottdude8
01-22-2019, 03:26 PM
You're right that our seeding shifted dramatically thanks to our ACCT run. However, when I say we "fell" to a 2-seed, I'm referring more to winnable games that we lost earlier that season. The away games at 'Cuse and Miami come to mind. If that team enters the tournament with a 6-loss record, an ACCT title, and a 2-1 advantage over fellow 1-seed rival UNC, that team probably gets a number one seed. Who knows how that might have changed things? It might not have made any difference. It might have made all the difference.

But history is on the side of 1-seeds. The idea that it is better to be a well-rested 3 or 4 seed instead of a 2-seed or a 1-seed that wins a conference tournament doesn't really have any historical backing, even if it makes some intuitive sense. Having easier opponents in the first round plus allowing for the chance that tougher teams will be upset prior to the sweet 16 and beyond are far more valuable than a day of rest the week before the tournament. Heck, even 2-seeds have a much tougher time winning the whole tournament than 1-seeds. 1-seeds are (usually) the best teams AND have the easiest path. There's no downside to being a 1 seed as far as I'm concerned, even if we play some hard-fought games in the ACCT tournament to get one.

A good piece of evidence to support your point might be the weirdness that resulted with the B1G Tournament being a week early last year. All of the B1G teams were certainly well rested come tourney time, yet all (except my Wolverines!) underperformed in the tourney itself, especially everyone's dark-horse favorite Michigan State. And there was a lot of speculation (no solid evidence, but speculation nonetheless) that having the tourney early might have taken the B1G out of the forefront of the committee's mind and led to some slightly lower seeds. I think MSU would have definitely traded less rest for a higher seed that would've ensured they avoided a solid ACC foe in Syracuse in the second round... Purdue similarly would've loved to be a No. 1 seed and avoid Texas Tech (although losing Haas was the biggest factor for them). Obviously this is anecdotal evidence which must always be taken with a grain of salt, but it is an interesting case study for how much being "well-rested" really helps in the tournament.

uh_no
01-22-2019, 03:36 PM
You're right that our seeding shifted dramatically thanks to our ACCT run. However, when I say we "fell" to a 2-seed, I'm referring more to winnable games that we lost earlier that season. The away games at 'Cuse and Miami come to mind. If that team enters the tournament with a 6-loss record, an ACCT title, and a 2-1 advantage over fellow 1-seed rival UNC, that team probably gets a number one seed. Who knows how that might have changed things? It might not have made any difference. It might have made all the difference.

But history is on the side of 1-seeds. The idea that it is better to be a well-rested 3 or 4 seed instead of a 2-seed or a 1-seed that wins a conference tournament doesn't really have any historical backing, even if it makes some intuitive sense. Having easier opponents in the first round plus allowing for the chance that tougher teams will be upset prior to the sweet 16 and beyond are far more valuable than a day of rest the week before the tournament. Heck, even 2-seeds have a much tougher time winning the whole tournament than 1-seeds. 1-seeds are (usually) the best teams AND have the easiest path. There's no downside to being a 1 seed as far as I'm concerned, even if we play some hard-fought games in the ACCT tournament to get one.

Not to mention the USC game was a 8 days after the ACC final. No doubt they would have been toast near the end of the tournament, but the following week in which they just had to beat troy by 22 ought to have been plenty of time to be almost 100%.

If there was any question to the rested-ness of the players, then I doubt K would have played tatum and the bunch 30+ minutes in a game that was over with 12 minutes to go.

The USC team was a good team that had every right to beat us, and the defense that we played was exactly the kind of poor performance we precedented in several earlier, presumably more rested, games. (UNC, syracuse, FSU, VT)

HereBeforeCoachK
01-22-2019, 03:39 PM
You're right that our seeding shifted dramatically thanks to our ACCT run. However, when I say we "fell" to a 2-seed, I'm referring more to winnable games that we lost earlier that season. The away games at 'Cuse and Miami come to mind. If that team enters the tournament with a 6-loss record, an ACCT title, and a 2-1 advantage over fellow 1-seed rival UNC, that team probably gets a number one seed. Who knows how that might have changed things? It might not have made any difference. It might have made all the difference.

But history is on the side of 1-seeds. The idea that it is better to be a well-rested 3 or 4 seed instead of a 2-seed or a 1-seed that wins a conference tournament doesn't really have any historical backing, even if it makes some intuitive sense. Having easier opponents in the first round plus allowing for the chance that tougher teams will be upset prior to the sweet 16 and beyond are far more valuable than a day of rest the week before the tournament. Heck, even 2-seeds have a much tougher time winning the whole tournament than 1-seeds. 1-seeds are (usually) the best teams AND have the easiest path. There's no downside to being a 1 seed as far as I'm concerned, even if we play some hard-fought games in the ACCT tournament to get one.

My point is, things could not have worked out any worse for that team......4 straight games.....then having to play AT the 7 seed in virtually a home game. Historical precedent or not, that was the worst possible seeding and location for that Duke team. Sure it's better to be a 1 than anything else, but it's better to be a 3 and not have a pure ROAD game in the first two rounds than it is to be a 2 and face that specific situation.

COYS
01-22-2019, 03:43 PM
A good piece of evidence to support your point might be the weirdness that resulted with the B1G Tournament being a week early last year. All of the B1G teams were certainly well rested come tourney time, yet all (except my Wolverines!) underperformed in the tourney itself, especially everyone's dark-horse favorite Michigan State. And there was a lot of speculation (no solid evidence, but speculation nonetheless) that having the tourney early might have taken the B1G out of the forefront of the committee's mind and led to some slightly lower seeds. I think MSU would have definitely traded less rest for a higher seed that would've ensured they avoided a solid ACC foe in Syracuse in the second round... Purdue similarly would've loved to be a No. 1 seed and avoid Texas Tech (although losing Haas was the biggest factor for them). Obviously this is anecdotal evidence which must always be taken with a grain of salt, but it is an interesting case study for how much being "well-rested" really helps in the tournament.

Thanks for this anecdote. I had forgotten about the quirky scheduling for the B1G tourney last season.

I will fully admit that rest might be important if it means a key player comes back healthy AND the team doesn't drop down a seed-line (Ty Lawson and Cheaters in '09 come to mind). Also, Duke might have benefited from extra rest in 2015 after losing to The Irish in the ACCT quarters but that team had also locked up a number one seed. If Duke is fortunate enough to win out (unlikely . . . but we can dream, can't we?) during the regular season and Tre has had enough time to return and reintegrate with the team, I probably wouldn't care as much as usual if we did what the 2015 team did and lost in the ACCT quarters. With two total losses plus a regular season sweep against UVA and UNC, we'd almost certainly have a number one seed in the bag. So the extra rest wouldn't hurt.

But that would probably be the only way I'd be ok with getting extra rest for the team. Even then, I'd still prefer that Duke win the ACCT.

Tripping William
01-22-2019, 03:51 PM
Thanks for this anecdote. I had forgotten about the quirky scheduling for the B1G tourney last season.

I will fully admit that rest might be important if it means a key player comes back healthy AND the team doesn't drop down a seed-line (Ty Lawson and Cheaters in '09 come to mind). Also, Duke might have benefited from extra rest in 2015 after losing to The Irish in the ACCT quarters but that team had also locked up a number one seed. If Duke is fortunate enough to win out (unlikely . . . but we can dream, can't we?) during the regular season and Tre has had enough time to return and reintegrate with the team, I probably wouldn't care as much as usual if we did what the 2015 team did and lost in the ACCT quarters. With two total losses plus a regular season sweep against UVA and UNC, we'd almost certainly have a number one seed in the bag. So the extra rest wouldn't hurt.

But that would probably be the only way I'd be ok with getting extra rest for the team. Even then, I'd still prefer that Duke win the ACCT.

The 2015 team lost to ND in the ACC Semifinals. The Devils beat State 77-53 in the quarters that year.

4Gen
01-22-2019, 04:51 PM
This thread demonstrates monstrous time consuming research. And to think I was able to read it in well under a minute.

COYS
01-22-2019, 05:08 PM
The 2015 team lost to ND in the ACC Semifinals. The Devils beat State 77-53 in the quarters that year.

Whoops. I’m not that old, but I guess my memory is already foggy. Now I remember that the showing against the Irish was all the more perplexing given how thoroughly we dominated State the day before.

uh_no
01-22-2019, 05:25 PM
This thread demonstrates monstrous time consuming research. And to think I was able to read it in well under a minute.

You and I have very different definitions of "monstrous time consuming research"

HereBeforeCoachK
01-22-2019, 05:47 PM
Whoops. I’m not that old, but I guess my memory is already foggy. Now I remember that the showing against the Irish was all the more perplexing given how thoroughly we dominated State the day before.

I was relieved.....allowed Duke to get some rest before the NCAAT.....worked out a lot better than '17.

English
01-22-2019, 06:03 PM
Allow me to make a quick plug for the latest Jordan Sperber pod “Solving Basketball,” as he and his guest Bart Torvik get into a discussion about halfway through of their impressions of the NET. Among the ancillary topics: the relative merits of the NET over the egregious RPI, the “NCSU has gamed the system scheduling and clobbering awful teams” theory (spoiler alert: they refute it), the NET/KenPom comparison, and their general satisfaction of the NET.

Special bonus—they open with a fun conversation about the relative value of individual players in projecting game results, with a discussion (pre-UVa game, this was taped Friday) of the impact of missing Tre Jones. If you’re into hoops analytics, check out Sperber’s pod.

NSDukeFan
01-22-2019, 07:58 PM
I was relieved....allowed Duke to get some rest before the NCAAT....worked out a lot better than '17.

Do you really believe that having 5ish vs. 6ish days rest is really what made the difference? I can understand there is a difference between 2 and 3 days rest as a quick turnaround, but beyond that, I doubt it matters, unless there’s an injury, for 18-22 year olds. I want to see a banner for an ACCT and if the team only has 5 or 6 days to recover, instead of 6 or 7, until they play a 14, 15 or 16 seed, I think they will be okay. I am pretty sure that Duke teams historically have done better in the NCAAT when they have won the ACCT, in part because those tend to be better teams.