Bubble Watch

[stever20]

It's remarkable how absolutely scared to death folks here are of Tulsa making the tourney. Absolutely remarkable. Like not only do we want 6 but we want to make sure the AAC only has 3.

[stever20]

the big difference between Tulsa this year and SMU last year-
TCU sub 100 losses-
179 Oral Roberts
D2 SE Oklahoma St

SMU sub 100 losses-
227 USF
174 Temple
138 Houston

Also I think the timing of the SMU losses really hurt as well(all 3 in the last 12 games). That won't be the case for Tulsa- as both of theirs came in the first 9 games.

[Barley]

It's remarkable how absolutely scared to death folks here are of Tulsa making the tourney. Absolutely remarkable. Like not only do we want 6 but we want to make sure the AAC only has 3.

Stever, I think I speak for everyone when I say the level of angst is not with Tulsa at all. It's with you. You do not need to post in every thread 1000x defending the A10 and AAC. It's getting very old already. Just stop!!!

[Vill]

It's remarkable how absolutely scared to death folks here are of Tulsa making the tourney. Absolutely remarkable. Like not only do we want 6 but we want to make sure the AAC only has 3.

Stever, I think I speak for everyone when I say the level of angst is not with Tulsa at all. It's with you. You do not need to post in every thread 1000x defending the A10 and AAC. It's getting very old already. Just stop!!!

[Bill Marsh]

I agree on STJ needing to win tonight. They don't want to have a sub .500 conference record on the resume come selection day. 9-9 is fine, 8-10 draws unnecessary attention.

As many brackets have Tulsa in today as have them out. So it's too early to celebrate either way. A somewhat common list of today's bubble teams compiled from several sites include these 10: UCLA, Illinois, UMass, Pittsburgh, Davidson, ODU, Miami, BYU, Boise St., Rhode Island. There's not much love for Buffalo out there.

From 96 different brackets, only 19 have Tulsa in. 80% have Tulsa out. Check http://www.bracketmatrix.com.

Yes, not much love for Buffalo. Toledo gets the nod from the MAC. Maybe they seem some advantage for them due to the tourney location.

Here's the composite last to in, starting with the very last in:

Stanford
Purdue
Oregon
Illinois
NC State
Texas A&M
LSU
Georgia
St. John's
Iowa

You are looking at old numbers. More like 40% of current brackets have them in. To say that Tulsa is not in the NCAA conversation today isn't accurate. They may not be in the conversation this time next week, but today they are a bubble team.

Yes, I was looking at old numbers because it's an old post - at least in the context of things changing on a daily basis. Those were the most current numbers at the time I posted. I never said that they're "not in the conversation". I simply posted the fact that at that point they were out as far as 80% of the available bracketologists were concerned. I wash"t trying to argue with you. I thought that I was just providing additional information beyond the handful of brackets that any of us get to see.

There is no doubt that the Temple win helped them. But even after that win, 60% of the new brackets that have been posted since then still have them out. That's not "as many have them in as have them out." 50% more have them out than have them in.

I think that we give these "bracketologists" too much credit. Polling them is not the same as polling the committee. The fact that Tulsa is in the conversation among some bracketologists tells us absolutely nothing about what committee members are thinking although I'm sure that their staffs are tracking Tulsa along with a ton of other schools. Bracketologists have no inside access to the committee, who are the decision makers. They are on the outside making educated guesses, just like the rest of us.

Tulsa has a long list of negatives, which the committee will surely consider.

1. A full season SOS of 89.
2. 10 wins against teams with an RPI of 200+
3. 5 more games against teams with a 150-199 RPI, one of which was a loss.
4. a home loss to a bad D-II team, which isn't calculated into their RPI.

To overcome that kind of baggage, their performance against the rest of their schedule would have to be sensational, but it isn't.It's 5-5 against teams with an RPI under 150. They are 0-4 against the top 25 and 2-2 vs 26-50. I frankly don't see the committee giving them much consideration after all this is pointed out to them, which it surely will be.There are representatives of at least 5-6 other conferences who will be highly motivated to make sure the Southeast Oklahoma State loss and all of their other negatives are front and center for the committee to view when they are being discussed. Those representatives would like to have one of their conference members get the spot that could otherwise go to Tulsa. Tulsa's only hope is to elevate their play in the remaining games and the AAC tournament to a level that they haven't shown all season so that they have some signature wins that don't exist on their result right now other than Temple.

[Bill Marsh]

the big difference between Tulsa this year and SMU last year-
TCU sub 100 losses-
179 Oral Roberts
D2 SE Oklahoma St

SMU sub 100 losses-
227 USF
174 Temple
138 Houston

Also I think the timing of the SMU losses really hurt as well(all 3 in the last 12 games). That won't be the case for Tulsa- as both of theirs came in the first 9 games.

As we all know, the committee stopped emphasizing the last 10 games years ago. All games are now given equal weight.

[GoldenWarrior11]

The problem with the AAC is that, whether it's football or basketball, the league's bottom-dwellers really bring down any strong teams the league has at the top. Tulane, East Carolina, UCF, USF and Houston all have 5 or fewer conference wins. In an 11-team conference, that really brings down a conference's strength - no matter how strong the top half is. In football this past year, that same number of teams (5 - USF, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, UConn) finished the season with 4 or fewer wins during the season. In a 13-game season, that is awful.

Judging by SMU last year, I would guess Tulsa doesn't make it either. The league just gets too many cupcake wins against weak opponents.

[DudeAnon]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketb ... -committee

1. RPI is the only metric: You may love KenPom, Sagarin, whatnot. Doesn't matter. The AP and coaches polls? Neither is a factor. Until one of those other ratings shows up on these sheets, they aren't relevant to this process. That said, RPI alone is never decisive. The committee never, ever compares two teams and picks the one with the higher RPI because it has a higher RPI.

2. Conference records and/or standings: Neither appears. Teams are judged on their entire seasons, not their conference seasons. The only conference-specific data that appears is the strength of schedule within the conference. Also note that unlike football, head-to-head is not a major factor either. It can be if two teams are relatively equal (nothing is ever totally equal), but again, teams are judged on entire seasons, not one, or two, or sometimes even three games.

3. Game dates: There is a common perception that how a team is playing at the end of the season is more important. Many people feel it should be. None of those people are on the committee. That used to be a factor, which is likely why many people still think it is. They used to track how teams performed in their final 12 games, but got rid of that several years ago. Now, you can't look at those team sheets and even determine how a team has done lately in your head because the dates of the games aren't listed. The committee is committed to the concept that every game counts equally no matter when it's played.

There also are a couple pieces of relevant information that don't appear on the sheets. One is information about roster issues. Injuries, suspensions and such are reported separately, but rest assured, the committee knows all about whatever problems a team has had. It's not terribly important, though. In general, a team's profile is its profile. The committee will not assume a team would have won a game it lost had it been at full strength. They also will not ignore the game. There may be some slight seeding consideration given, but sometimes that doesn't even happen. Those adjustments tend to happen more to teams that have lost key players for the season rather than for a few games.

Another relevant piece of data that will never appear on the sheets is the team's record against teams already in the field (by either winning their conference or having been voted in by the committee) or under consideration (teams on the committee's at-large consideration list). They don't appear on the sheet because they don't even exist until the selection meeting starts, and it can change frequently during the meeting. It's important, though, because only one team in the past 21 years has received an at-large bid without a win against a team in the field, and only about one team per year gets in with only one such win.

[stever20]

The problem with the AAC is that, whether it's football or basketball, the league's bottom-dwellers really bring down any strong teams the league has at the top. Tulane, East Carolina, UCF, USF and Houston all have 5 or fewer conference wins. In an 11-team conference, that really brings down a conference's strength - no matter how strong the top half is. In football this past year, that same number of teams (5 - USF, Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, UConn) finished the season with 4 or fewer wins during the season. In a 13-game season, that is awful.

Judging by SMU last year, I would guess Tulsa doesn't make it either. The league just gets too many cupcake wins against weak opponents.

Look at the AAC's projection on RPI forecast-
10-11th place teams at 3-15
8-9th place teams at 6-12
7th place at 7-11.

A lot of the games with those bottom teams still left to play.

[billyjack]

I found this on another site:

This is the 2014-15 NCAA men's basketball committee:
Chair: Utah State AD Scott Barnes
-- LSU AD Joe Alleva
-- Oklahoma AD Joe Castiglione
-- Michigan State AD Mark Hollis
-- Conference USA associate commissioner Judy MacLeod
-- Creighton AD Bruce Rasmussen <--- Yeah, Baby...!!!
-- Northeastern AD Peter Roby
-- UNC-Asheville AD Janet Cone
-- Stanford AD Bernard Muir
-- BYU AD Tom Holmoe