-
FINAL BRACKETOLOGY 2023
5/6 line was agonizing, as was the last team in. 14/15s were no fun either. Messy, messy year.
Here goes nothing….
POST-REVEAL UPDATE
It is Monday, but only just––12:25 AM pacific time––as I type this. Every year I tell myself I’ll do a final recap, and then I don’t. But this time is different. I think that… maybe… I might possibly… have a reasonable chance of… potentially being… the best bracketologist of 2023????
“Some say I’m delusional. I say I’m a dreamer” I don’t think I am, but on the off chance that I do end up as the high scorer in the Bracket Matrix tomorrow––er, today––this post might get a few eyes on it.
[at this point I copy-paste the Bracket Matrix data into Excel and put together a command that ranks all 117 final entries posted up to this point.]
It is now 1:31 AM and I might not be delusional. I’m in the lead. (IM IN THE LEAD???)
So as I was saying, this post might get a few eyes on it. And much in the same way that I cleaned my dorm room in college whenever I planned on having friends over, I’d like to make this place a little more presentable in light of expected company.
In any event, congratulations to all my fellow bracketologists out there on having another season in the books. It looks like 2023 was the best year yet for many of us. This is a testament to the fact that as a community, we are perfecting our craft. Our nerdy little craft, but still a craft nonetheless. This in turn means congratulations are in order for Chris Reynolds and the rest of the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament Selection Committee––you have successfully conformed to the expectations of several dozen hobbyists and a smattering of professional pundits, though Rutgers fans may have some unkind things to say.
And of course, thank you to Brian, administrator extraordinaire of the Bracket Project, which includes the Bracket Matrix. Community knowledge is an incredible thing.
Here I am, droning on and on as if I didn’t just watch the Oscars and question the self-awareness of every winner whose acceptance speech went on longer than it needed to be. And I haven’t even won anything!
Enough! Reader, let us descend into the bracket bunker one last time this season…
RESULTS
As the table below illustrates, I am happy to report that this was my best year of bracketology by far. I picked 67 teams correctly in the field, seeded 57 of them correctly, and was off by one for the other 10.
Year Picked Correctly Seeded Correctly Seeded
Correctly or +/-1Score Rank out of 2018 66 47 65 357 11th 187 2019 67 44 62 351 45th 195 2022 66 47 65 357 55th 211 2023 67 57 67 382 TBD TBD My bracketology results since ditching my formula-based project from high school Reader, 67-57-67 is INSANE. I’m not sure I’ll ever do this well again. As far as I can tell, the highest score in Bracket Matrix history (which goes back to 2006) appears to be 376, set last year by Deuce2Sports, who went 67-54-67. The MAXIMUM possible score is 408. The way things have been trending on the Matrix over the last few years, a perfect forecast might be on the horizon. Notice how 357 was good for 11th in 2018, but just 55th in 2022.
Here’s how my seed list (1-68) compared to the committee’s:
(Nevada was my 2nd team out. The committee had Rutgers as the 2nd team out. We both had OK State as the first team out.) Analysis
I looked for natural breaks among teams and clustered them accordingly.
First was Kansas/Alabama/Houston. Houston was always going to be under Alabama, but I’m surprised they ended up above Kansas. Nonetheless, they were all one seeds, so no harm, no foul for Bracket Matrix purposes.
The second cluster was Purdue/UCLA for the last 1 seed, who were both joined by Texas after the Longhorns’ win over KU. Ultimately I thought it was too late for UT to snag a 1 seed––the committee could have scrubbed them up to the 1-line on Sunday morning, but UCLA and Purdue had already been established as four and five overall for at least a week now and I didn’t see the committee deviating from that. When my beloved Bruins fell short in the Pac-12 Championship game, it confirmed my suspicion that we weren’t going to pass Purdue. Even if the Bruins had won, their relative lack of quad 1A wins compared to Purdue likely would’ve kept them on the 2-line, with or without Jaylen Clark.
Arizona’s win over UCLA sorted out a potentially hairy situation in cluster three (teams 7, 8, and 9): Arizona/Marquette/Baylor. I suspect that when the committee conditionally seeded the top 2 lines on Wednesday, the order here went Baylor-Arizona-Marquette. Even after Baylor’s early exit against Iowa State and Marquette’s Big East championship win, I still had Baylor-Zona-Marquette as 7-8-9, in that order. Marquette would leapfrog Baylor if they ended up next to each other thanks to the Golden Eagles’ blowout win over the Bears earlier this season, but Arizona was acting as a buffer. Arizona winning gave me the nudge I needed to put them over Baylor as 7th overall, which then allowed Marquette to jump Baylor for the last 2-seed.
Gonzaga at 10 and Kansas State at 11 were never in doubt.
Then came Xavier/Tennessee/UConn/Indiana. UConn was never going to be the last 3-seed––the committee had tipped its hand during the top 16 preview in February by leaving UConn out altogether, despite neutral court wins over Alabama and Iowa State. The message seemed clear: the Huskies were not going to jump Xavier after being swept by the Musketeers. I wasn’t inclined to make Indiana a 3-seed given the Hoosiers’ less-than-ideal NET situation, but was a little wary of them jumping Xavier given that’s exactly what the committee had them do in February. Ultimately it was Tennessee’s 3-seed to lose, and they lost it when they fell to Missouri. It confirmed that this was simply not the same team it was a couple weeks ago with a healthy Zakai Zeigler. When Xavier trounced Creighton for what was at the time the Musketeers’ 9th quad 1 win, they jumped the Volunteers, who were begging to be dropped to the 4-line after the aforementioned Mizzou loss. That left Tennessee (4th in NET on Selection Sunday), UConn (8th in NET on Sunday), and Indiana (30th). That stark NET contrast kept Indiana from getting close enough to Xavier to overtake them for the final 3-seed.
Then there’s this next batch, which amounted to this year’s biggest headache. Duke/Virginia/Saint Mary’s/San Diego State/Miami/Iowa State/TCU. Duke on the 4 line is the one decision that really has me kicking myself.
But it’s 4:15 AM now and I realllllllly gotta go to bed. Yeah, it’s spring break, but does the work ever really stop when you’re in law school? To answer that question, please give a warm round of applause for GRAMMY-nominated recording artist, Jessie J!
GRAMMY-Nominated recording artist Jessie J on whether the work ever really stops when you’re in law school Thank you, Ms. J. I’m afraid my exhaustion is taking me down like a domino, so we’re gonna have to call it here for now.
[I go to sleep]
UPDATE: It is now exactly 1 pm pacific time and I come bearing news from my spreadsheet. 211 brackets are in the matrix, and I am still in first. I am absolutely gobsmacked. Gobsmacked, I tell you! How am I in first? And how has Jessie J only been nominated for one GRAMMY in her entire career? And why does the recording academy insist on stylizing “GRAMMY” in all caps?! How clunky!
The finish line is in sight, and people are starting to take notice. Okay, maybe one person, but that one person is the 2018 Bracket Matrix Champion and he is ranked 6th in the bracketologist rankings (shoutout again to Brian for putting those together). His name is Joe Cook-Shugart––aka 1-3-1 Sports––a perennial powerhouse in the matrix! I’ve always been fond of the 1-3-1 trap, the preferred defensive scheme of my 5th grade boys basketball B team’s head coach back in 2010. But I once again digress. Look at this:
What, you expected me to embed the tweet? With you-know-who running the show at Twitter? That app is functioning like it’s being held together by duct tape and prayers, I need something more stable. I’m trying to build a historical record here! For all three people who might care!
Anyways, “someone” broke the “380 barrier”. He’s talking about me. I broke a barrier. This is surreal.
*WE INTERRUPT THIS BLOG FOR BREAKING NEWS*
Let it be known that I, like Angela Bassett before me, did the thing!
Wait that means company is almost here and I haven’t finished straightening up! We haven’t even gotten to the 4/5/6 seed situation! Okay uhhh if you’re here, thank you for coming, the rest of this column will be ready shortly! Please enjoy the hors d’oeuvres and make conversation amongst yourselves in the meantime.
[Okay, I’ve published that update. Hors d’oeuvres. Like this is the ****ing Met Gala or something? “This year’s theme is Varsity Hues: A celebration of competetive garb in collegiate atheltics“. Idiot. They’re gonna think I’m crazy! I’m just sleep-deprived! Whatever, too late now, I gotta get back to writing. Those non-existent appetizers won’t last long.]
Hello again! So sorry to keep you waiting. Let’s get back to business, shall we?
The 4/5/6 cluster: Duke/Virginia/Saint Mary’s/San Diego State/Miami/Iowa State/TCU. Virginia had that last 4 seed, but I took the bait when Duke beat them in the ACC title game and scrubbed the Blue Devils up to 16 overall. I should’ve known better. Duke was probably a 6 or a 7 seed before they beat Miami on Friday. The Blue Devils would have had to win head-to-head votes over six different teams ahead of them before they could be compared to Virginia. Lose just one of those votes, and the Blue Devils’ climb comes to a screeching halt. And indeed it did, against San Diego State (17 overall), the last team standing between Duke and Virginia.
With Duke and UVA sorted, that left Saint Mary’s, San Diego State, Miami, Iowa, and TCU to take the other three 5 seeds and the first two 6 seeds. This was the final decision I made before submitting on Sunday, and it was agonzing. I told myself not to peek at the Bracket Matrix on Saturday, but I cracked in the evening and started questioning myself when I saw that everyone seemed to have both Big 12 teams as five seeds and Saint Mary’s and Miami as six seeds.
- Saint Mary’s clearly had the worst resume of the group, but the Gaels had been a five seed all season long, and they were still NET darlings.
- San Diego State was remarkably consistent, but would they surpass Saint Mary’s in a head-to-head vote? The Gaels had beaten the Aztecs on a netural court, after all.
- Miami’s bad metrics, lack of quad 1A wins, and multiple losses in quads 3 and 4 made the Hurricanes an obvious candidate for being sent to the back of the line.
- Iowa State is the ghost that haunts me. They were the only team I had off by two lines in 2022. I had them off by two lines in 2019, too, under eerily similar circumstances. I remember it like it was yesterday––I was a sophomore in college, emerging from a particularly unforgiving winter in Evanston, Illinois. I slotted the Cyclones in as the last 4 seed, lured by the siren song of eight quad 1 wins. I thought the committee would overlook Iowa State’s suboptimal win-loss record. The committee did not. “The number six seed…the Cyclones of Iowa State!” Pain. Now here they were again, with even more quad 1 wins (10!) and an even worse record (19-13!). A recurring challenge with this year’s bracketology was the unprecedented strength of the Big 12 threatening to throw out every convention and norm. Teams with 10 quad 1 wins and no Q3/Q4 losses do NOT go below a 5-seed, but teams that go 19-13 do NOT go above a 7-seed! Something had to give.
- TCU deserved better, with road wins at Kansas and Baylor on the resume. But there were two problems: first, they were swept by Iowa State in the regular season, so they weren’t going to jump the Cyclones. Second, the committee didn’t even mention the Horned Frogs among the teams that were in contention for a top 4-seed during the Feburary preview. It told me that wherever I thought TCU deserved to be, the committee would put them lower. (As it turns out, the committee didn’t even have TCU in this cluster at all)
In the end, my logic went like this: San Diego State had too polished a resume to be anything lower than a 5-seed, and the committee wouldn’t drop Saint Mary’s below the Aztecs because of the head-to-head win (I was wrong about this, but they were still a 5-seed!). One five seed left. TCU couldn’t overtake the Cyclones. So Iowa State, or Miami. Iowa State. Or Miami. She loves me. She loves me not. It was the very last decision I made. I went back and forth on this one question for at least twenty minutes. My visions of 2019 won out. To continue the James Bond tradition, faces from my past return(ed) / another lesson yet to learn. There was just no time to die, not for the Cyclones again. Miami 5. Iowa State 6. TCU 6.
That fateful decision is why I type before you today as the best bracketologist of 2023.
Look, my fifteen minutes of fame are almost up and I’m still not really convinced that anyone cares that much about the intricacies of my decisions. And I do have law school stuff that I need to tend to. If you are interested about the details, feel free to hit me up @JakeLiker on twitter while that bird app is still up and running. For the rest of you, here are the quick hits:
- I dropped Creighton out of the 6-line to make way for Kentucky, a decision that ultimately did not matter
- Memphis replaced Iowa on the 8 line by beating Houston
- I had Maryland as a 9 because they struggled on the road
- Utah State eked out Providence and Mississippi State for the last 10 seed solely because of their NET ranking
- The last spot came down to Arizona State/Oklahoma State/Nevada. Had Avery Anderson been healthy for the Big 12 tournament, I would have put the Cowboys in
- 12s, 13s, and 16s were refreshingly straightforward
- 14/15 was very hard to judge, other than UNC Asheville as a 15. Princeton entering the fray really threw me for a loop
Okay, we’re done here. I hope many of you return to this bracket bunker next year, preferably with no expectation of me ever doing this well again.
One final thank you goes out to Warren Nolan for his color-coded team sheets that replicate the ones the NCAA uses. The NCAA used to publish the official ones, but stopped doing so in 2020. For me, the duplicates on the Warren Nolan website are the only reason I’m still able to do bracketology.
See you all in 2024!
-
Bracketology 3/10/23 – In Defense of NC State
Updated Mid-Day on Friday, March 10th, after the Tennessee-Missouri game Column
In my years as a bracketologist, I have…not been kind to North Carolina State. But today I make a full-throated defense of the Wolfpack. This is an emergency.
If the selection committee snubs NC State on Selection Sunday, it could lead to the end of bracketology itself. Selections may be turned over to computers, a la the BCS. The committee would be no more. Leaving NC State out of the Big Dance would do that much damage to the integrity of the selection process.
Perhaps you have heard the chatter about UNC and why the Tar Heels will miss the tournament. They only have one quad 1 win, and that’s a problem! Take it from Dick Vitale:
Recall that a quad 1 win is a win over a top 30 team at home, a top 50 team on a neutral court, or a top 75 team on the road (keep that in mind). These are completely arbitrary cutoffs, but they are the cutoffs that govern what your Team Sheet looks like. They contour the committee’s view of you on paper. They are INCREDIBLY important.
Northwestern’s Team Sheet circa February 7th. Unlike UNC, NC State has been thought to be a tournament team for at least the past few weeks. The Wolfpack have had two quad 1 wins on their resume for quite some time and no quad 3 or quad 4 losses. As long as they didn’t trip up against Virginia Tech to open the ACC Tournament, NC State would be just fine. Let’s see how that went, shall we?
Wow! Great! They CRUSHED the Hokies.
And so the Wolfpack went to bed that night knowing that they had almost assuredly done enough to make the tournament, thanks to their win at home over Duke (19th in NET) and their road win over Virginia Tech (70th in NET).
But when they woke up the next morning, one of their quad 1 wins had vanished.
The Wolfpack had beaten Virginia Tech by too much. NET has proven to be particularly responsive to high margins of victory and defeat, and this 20-point gap was no exception––Virginia Tech dropped to 78th overnight. NC State’s road win over the Hokies from earlier in the season was suddenly a quad 2 win.
Now with just one quad 1 win, NC State’s resume was starting to look like UNC’s, but at least they were in the top 40 in NET now. The Tar Heels were not. And by moving on in the ACC Tournament, the Wolfpack had a chance to add another quad 2 win to their resume, this time against Clemson. Everything is gonna be fine.
Uh-oh.
And remember that whole thing about NET being sensitive to large margins of defeat? The Wolfpack are down to 45th now. UNC is 47th. These two resumes are starting to look the same:
- NC State: 23-10 • NET/SOS: 45/75 • Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4: (1-6)(7-4)(5-0)(10-0)
- UNC: 20-13 • NET/SOS: 47/46 • Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4: (1-9)(6-4)(7-0)(6-0)
But they are not the same. NC State’s resume is an optical illusion.
If NC State misses the tournament, I fear it will be on account of having only one quad 1 win. I sincerely hope that the Selection Committee does not punish a team for winning a game too convincingly. Incentivizing bubble teams to point shave to satisfy the capricious whims of an unknown formula would be madness, and not the good kind.
Bracket in Text Format
Midwest
Kansas CityDes Moines
(1) Kansas
(16) Grambling
(8) Arkansas
(9) IowaAlbany
(5) Iowa State
(12) Oral Roberts
(4) UConn
(13) IonaDes Moines
(6) Creighton
(11) Utah State
(3) Kansas State
(14) LouisianaSacramento
(7) Texas A&M
(10) Providence
(2) Arizona
(15) UNC AshevilleSouth
LouisvilleBirmingham
(1) Alabama
(16) NKU
(8) Maryland
(9) West VirginiaOrlando
(5) TCU
(12) Charleston
(4) Virginia
(13) ToledoColumbus
(6) Kentucky
11 NC St./Penn St.
(3) Marquette
(14) FurmanDenver
(7) Northwestern
(10) Mississippi St.
(2) Texas
(15) ColgateWest
Las VegasBirmingham
(1) Houston
16 TAMCC/Howard
(8) Illinois
(9) Boise StateOrlando
(5) Saint Mary’s
(12) VCU
(4) Indiana
(13) Utah ValleyColumbus
(6) San Diego St.
11 Pitt/OK State
(3) Gonzaga
(14) UC IrvineSacramento
(7) Michigan State
(10) Auburn
(2) UCLA
(15) Montana StateEast
New YorkColumbus
(1) Purdue
16 SEMO/FDU
(8) FAU
(9) MemphisAlbany
(5) Miami (FL)
(12) Drake
(4) Xavier
(13) YaleGreensboro
(6) Duke
(11) Rutgers
(3) Tennessee
(14) Kennesaw St.Denver
(7) Missouri
(10) USC
(2) Baylor
(15) VermontLAST FOUR BYES: Providence, USC, Utah State, Rutgers
LAST FOUR IN: NC State, Penn State, Pitt, Oklahoma State
FIRST FOUR OUT: Arizona State, Nevada, North Carolina, Clemson
NEXT FOUR OUT: Oregon, Wisconsin, North Texas, Vanderbilt -
Bracketology 3/7/23 – A Bloated Bubble
Tuesday 1:33 PM ET – The bubble is quite bloated. Everyone seeded 1-9 (except Boise State) will make the tournament for sure. Boise State plus all 10 seeds and 11 seeds could still miss the tournament. Full column to come today or tomorrow. Text layout to come later today. Apologies for the delay. Law school keeps me busy. – Management (AKA Jake)
Wednesday 10:06 AM ET – Management regrets to inform you that there will be no column for this bracket. In return, a column will accompany an update later this week. Here’s what to watch for today, and an update to last night:
- Northern Kentucky replaces Cleveland State as #63 in the seed list, making them a 16-seed. The Norse become a 15-seed if either Lafayette or Northern Arizona win their conference finals tonight (vs. Colgate and Montana State, respectively)
- It is a distinct possibility that at least one of Oral Roberts and College of Charleston will be an 11-seed. This would bump the last two at-large teams in to the 12-line. Currently that’s Utah State and Wisconsin. I will reevaluate later this week.
- Oklahoma State, North Carolina, and Arizona State all need to win tonight to stay alive. The same is likely true for Wisconsin.
Midwest
Kansas CityDes Moines
(1) Kansas
(16) Grambling
(8) Arkansas
(9) IowaAlbany
(5) Iowa State
(12) Oral Roberts
(4) UConn
(13) IonaDes Moines
(6) Creighton
(11) Utah State
(3) Kansas State
(14) LouisianaSacramento
(7) Texas A&M
(10) Providence
(2) Arizona
(15) UNC AshevilleSouth
LouisvilleBirmingham
(1) Alabama
(16) NKU
(8) Maryland
(9) West VirginiaOrlando
(5) TCU
(12) Charleston
(4) Virginia
(13) ToledoColumbus
(6) Kentucky
11 NC St./Penn St.
(3) Marquette
(14) FurmanDenver
(7) Northwestern
(10) Mississippi St.
(2) Texas
(15) ColgateWest
Las VegasBirmingham
(1) Houston
16 TAMCC/Howard
(8) Illinois
(9) Boise StateOrlando
(5) Saint Mary’s
(12) VCU
(4) Indiana
(13) Utah ValleyColumbus
(6) San Diego St.
11 Pitt/OK State
(3) Gonzaga
(14) UC IrvineSacramento
(7) Michigan State
(10) Auburn
(2) UCLA
(15) Montana StateEast
New YorkColumbus
(1) Purdue
16 SEMO/FDU
(8) FAU
(9) MemphisAlbany
(5) Miami (FL)
(12) Drake
(4) Xavier
(13) YaleGreensboro
(6) Duke
(11) Rutgers
(3) Tennessee
(14) Kennesaw St.Denver
(7) Missouri
(10) USC
(2) Baylor
(15) Vermont -
Bracketology 2/21/23 – Quick Hits
Hello again! It’s been far too long. Please, come in, have a seat, feel free to put on a mask on the way in. My sinuses, much like New Mexico State, are in shambles at the moment. I hope you don’t mind. I would have rescheduled but I couldn’t bear to rain check two weeks in a row.
Unfortunately because of my illness and the amount of work I have to do, I have no column to present this week. The best I can offer is a bullet point or three.
You can find the bracket in text form (rather than image) at the bottom of this post.
The Usual Disclaimers
- Projections attempt to simulate what the selection committee would do given what we know about each team. This is not my opinion of the teams, this is my prediction of the committee’s opinion.
- This bracketology is a snapshot, frozen in time. It does not aim to predict what will happen; it is a simulation of what would happen if the season ended today.
- Conference champions are determined by whoever has the fewest losses in conference play, with NET as a tiebreaker.
- Projections made based on NET data entering Monday but win-loss records entering Tuesday
- Please feel free to @ me on Twitter with any comments, questions, concerns
Quick Hits
- The committee released its top 16 preview over the weekend, and while there were no surprises regarding 1 seeds and 2 seeds, I was surprised to see Gonzaga on the 4-line instead of the 3-line. UConn‘s absence was the biggest shock. It seems the committee didn’t put as much stock as I would have expected into those teams’ neutral wins over Alabama
- Marquette has a glaring weakness in its resume: 0-5 against top 50 teams away from home, and that weakness may catch up to them if they don’t resolve it quickly
- Don’t sleep on USC and Wisconsin, who, much like Creighton, appear deceptively weak on paper. Injuries contributed to a few of the blemishes on both teams’ resumes, and the committee will no doubt be aware of this.
Bracket
Midwest
Kansas CityDes Moines
(1) Kansas
(16) Grambling
(8) Arkansas
(9) IowaAlbany
(5) Iowa State
(12) Oral Roberts
(4) UConn
(13) IonaDes Moines
(6) Creighton
(11) Utah State
(3) Kansas State
(14) LouisianaSacramento
(7) Texas A&M
(10) Providence
(2) Arizona
(15) UNC AshevilleSouth
LouisvilleBirmingham
(1) Alabama
(16) NKU
(8) Maryland
(9) West VirginiaOrlando
(5) TCU
(12) Charleston
(4) Virginia
(13) ToledoColumbus
(6) Kentucky
11 NC St./Penn St.
(3) Marquette
(14) FurmanDenver
(7) Northwestern
(10) Mississippi St.
(2) Texas
(15) ColgateWest
Las VegasBirmingham
(1) Houston
16 TAMCC/Howard
(8) Illinois
(9) Boise StateOrlando
(5) Saint Mary’s
(12) VCU
(4) Indiana
(13) Utah ValleyColumbus
(6) San Diego St.
11 Pitt/OK State
(3) Gonzaga
(14) UC IrvineSacramento
(7) Michigan State
(10) Auburn
(2) UCLA
(15) Montana StateEast
New YorkColumbus
(1) Purdue
16 SEMO/FDU
(8) FAU
(9) MemphisAlbany
(5) Miami (FL)
(12) Drake
(4) Xavier
(13) YaleGreensboro
(6) Duke
(11) Rutgers
(3) Tennessee
(14) Kennesaw St.Denver
(7) Missouri
(10) USC
(2) Baylor
(15) VermontBubble
LAST FOUR BYES: West Virginia, Boise State, Memphis, Mississippi State
LAST FOUR IN: Pitt, Oklahoma State, Wisconsin, USC
FIRST FOUR OUT: New Mexico State, North Carolina, Utah State, Penn State
NEXT FOUR OUT: North Texas, Texas Tech, Michigan, Virginia Tech -
Bracketology 2/7/23 – A Familiar Face
This week’s projections feature one of the mostly highly-anticipated 6-11 matchups of all time. Reader! Oh it’s so good to see you again. Please, please, do come in. Welcome back to the bracket bunker.
My apologies for the lack of column last week––the first bracket of the season is always the most time-consuming. Let us breeze through the formalities.
The Usual Disclaimers
- Projections attempt to simulate what the selection committee would do given what we know about each team. This is not my opinion of the teams, this is my prediction of the committee’s opinion.
- This bracketology is a snapshot, frozen in time. It does not aim to predict what will happen; it is a simulation of what would happen if the season ended today.
- Conference champions are determined by whoever has the fewest losses in conference play, with NET as a tiebreaker.
- Projections made based on NET data entering Monday but win-loss records entering Tuesday
- Please feel free to @ me on Twitter with any comments, questions, concerns
Column: A Familiar Face
This week I planned to discuss how the NET rankings have seem to gone a bit haywire this season, but there is sometihng much more urgent to discuss. It appears that NET’s problems are here to stay this season, but there is a far more fleeting phenomenon that must be discussed right now lest it disappear again.
Reader, I confess that my college years conditioned me to be quite cynical about my alma mater’s men’s basketball program. The team went 45-74 in my four years as an undergrad. They never finished with a winning record. They went 19-58 in conference play. No matter the circumstances, defeat always loomed over the horizon, an ineffable truth bound to manifest itself. I learned to never, ever have hope.
And so imagine my surprise upon realizing that the Northwestern Wildcats might actually have a legitimate shot at making the NCAA tournament this year. Shocking! Baffling!
I have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, lead astray, run amok, and flat out decieved by the Northwestern Wildcats In the good old days, the NCAA made carbon copies of all its team sheets available daily. Team sheets are an incredibly important tool for evaluating a team, presenting just about every important piece of information you could want in one meticulously organized, calmingly color-coded page.
Alas, in 2020 this was taken from us and replaced with a more interactive version. I miss the simple daily stack of PDFs, for now the color coding is gone, and so too are some subtle but important features of the team sheets that the committee actually uses. Thankfully, Warren Nolan is here to save us all, with much more accurate depictions of the team sheets. Without his work, this column would likely not be possible.
Here’s what we’re looking at with Northwestern’s team sheet:
This is…quite good! I daresay it’s a bona fide tournament-quality resume. 52nd in NET while 61st in strength of schedule is puts the ‘Cats squarely in bubble territory. Their metrics (KPI, SOR, BPI, POM, SAG) confirm that this a team that merits serious consideration.
But there are three aspects of this resume that take Northwestern from a bubble team to a surefire tournament team.
First, their record. 16-7 is a very attractive record. But that alone is not enough.
The second and more important of the three: quality road wins. The committee reallllllly cares about neutral-site and away games. A team that can only win at home will surely falter in the Big Dance, in which all the games are played at neutral sites. With 5 road wins in quadrant 1 and the top half of quadrant 2, Northwestern has a major leg up over most other bubble teams. That win at Indiana has aged particularly well in light of the Hoosiers’ home win over Purdue.
But even a good record and a decent number of quality non-home wins might not be enough to put a team comfortably in the tournament (see: Clemson). The icing on Northwestern’s cake is the team’s complete lack of bad losses. The right side of the sheet, quadrants 3 and 4, are completely spotless. Not a speck of red on that half of the page.
A team that wins, wins consistently, and wins away from home is a team that makes the tournament, just about every time.
Northwestern is on track to make the tournament. Who knows what fate lies beyond the horizon…
-
Bracketology 1/31/23 – Here we go Again
Because law school is a rather time intensive commitment, I’m afraid I have no time to deliver a column to accompany this first update of the season. Rest assured that this will not be the norm–there is much to discuss.
-
2022 FINAL BRACKETOLOGY
This is it. Several stomach-churningly difficult decisions had to be made.
There were six teams that deserved to be 2 seeds, but two of Auburn, Duke, Kentucky, Purdue, Tennessee, and Villanova had to be bumped to the 3-line. I bumped Duke and Purdue.
One of Illinois, Wisconsin, and UCLA will be the last three seed. Despite what the committee signaled it would do during its top 16 preview three weeks ago, I decided that Wisconsin’s resume was just too compelling, despite their suboptimal NET.
The last 6-seed was especially challenging. Colorado State, Michigan State, Murray State, and Ohio State all had serious cases to make. I ultimately went with Colorado State on the grounds that they were the least likely of the bunch to be an 8-seed.
North Carolina and Memphis are both probably better than Marquette, Iowa State, and Creighton, but the latter group just racked up too many high-quality wins with very few bad losses. As such, the last 9 seed will go to UNC, unless Memphis beats Houston in the American.
The bubble. The most challenging bubble I’ve ever had to deal with. Normally you can bank on 65 or 66 teams being locks in the tourney. This year, it’s just 62. The last 6 slots are anyone’s guess. The most agonizing choice was the very last slot: Oklahoma, Rutgers, or Wyoming? I felt like Wyoming most the most deserving, but feared that the committee would choose Rutgers.
I was burned for being cynical the last time I did this (three years ago, when I wrongly believed that the committee would deny a deserving Belmont team of a bid), so this time I’m putting my faith in the committee. Rutgers ran from the grind in non-conference play––they essentially played a box of cupcakes, and lost to two of them. They should be punished for that, especially given their terrible NET. Oklahoma ultimately wasted too many Q1 opportunities to merit a spot in my book. It really is a toss-up, though.
Chattanooga vs Vermont for the last 12 seed killed me. I gave the edge to Vermont because of their superior NET and general consistency against Q3 and Q4.
Any of the four 14 seeds could be a 15 seed instead of Longwood. Don’t feel great about that.
But alas, Selection Sunday is here, and the die is cast. Hopefully this goes well.
-
Bracketology 3/8/22
Folks, we’re getting down to it. I spent far too much time on this so I have no column to offer, but I’m happy to answer any bracketology questions on Twitter.
MARCH!
-
Bracketology 2/26/22
Hello, reader. Much has happened since you last heard from me. It was the first week of March, 2020, I was a junior in college, San Diego State and Dayton were legitimate contenders for 1-seeds––it was a simpler time.
My parting words from that bracketology column? The Madness has already begun. If I only knew…
Hopefully I’ll get the chance to build out this hastily-thrown together WordPress site at some point and maybe address what I’ve been up to in the two years since you’ve heard from me. But for now, I’m a busy first-year law student (?!) so I have no real column to offer at the moment. Whether you’ve read my bracketology stuff before or you’re new around here, thanks for checking this out.
…
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Jake Liker's Bracketology 