Hey! Figured I might as well do this in preparation for the reveal tomorrow 30 minutes after games start. No clue what the committee will prioritize between metrics and resume this year, but I'll take a stab at it.
Seed list
1. Purdue (1)
2. Houston (1)
3. UConn (1)
4. Arizona (1)
5. Tennessee (2)
6. Marquette (2)
7. North Carolina (2)
8. Iowa State (2)
9. Baylor (3)
10. Auburn (3)
11. Kansas (3)
12. Alabama (3)
13. Illinois (4)
14. Duke (4)
15. Wisconsin (4)
16. BYU (4)
5-seeds: Creighton, Dayton, Clemson, San Diego State
Regions
Midwest
1. Purdue (1)
2. North Carolina (7)
3. Baylor (9)
4. BYU (16)
South
1. Houston (2)
2. Marquette (6)
3. Alabama (12)
4. Wisconsin (15)
East
1. UConn (3)
2. Tennessee (5)
3. Kansas (11)
4. Duke (14)
West
1. Arizona (4)
2. Iowa State (8)
3. Auburn (10)
4. Illinois (13)
Comments
Why Houston over UConn? – I've been on this train most of the year, and it's mainly because of how big of a lead Houston has in the predictive metrics. The teams both have eight Q1 wins, four Q1-A and four Q1-B a piece, with Houston having an extra Q1 loss but UConn having one of their losses in Q1-B compared to all three of Houston's being in Q1-A. UConn does have 5-0 Q2 record compared to Houston's 1-0, but I don't think UConn has enough of a resume advantage there. It's also of note that Houston is 3rd in KPI (a resume metric), while UConn is 6th, and while that feels wrong, it may play into the committee's thought process.
Why is Iowa State the last 2 seed? – The consensus pick of Kansas' metrics are way too bad. As for the other candidates, Alabama is worse than Auburn for reasons I'll explain later, Baylor has worse metrics and an extra Q2 loss, while having a Q1 win for a Q2 win, and Auburn has just two Q1 wins to Iowa State's five. I think all of them have cases, but Iowa State's is the best to me. UNC is actually pretty close to ISU now, but I think UNC stays slightly ahead of Iowa State, and they have pretty similar reasons to be above Auburn and Baylor.
Why is the 3 line the way it is? – This was by far the hardest part. Auburn is top-5 in metrics, but with just two Q1 wins, it's tough to have them too high up. Kansas has a solid resume and has been projected high for a while, but their KP is 20th and BPI is 17th. I figured that Kansas could never be ahead of Auburn with that big of a metric gap, and Alabama also can't be ahead of Auburn because they're just a little worse across the board – even with one more Q1 win, they have two more Q2 losses and two less Q2 wins, along with worse predictive metrics and similar resume metrics.
Baylor is a version of Kansas that's a bit better in quadrant records with slightly worse resume metrics and a lot better on predictive metrics. They also have a head-to-head win over Auburn, and I went with their extra four Q1 wins and the head-to-head being enough to push them ahead. This is the pick I have the least confidence about, and Baylor and Auburn could easily be switched depending on how heavily this committee weighs the Q1 win count.
Kansas is ahead of Alabama because of the extra loss the Crimson Tide have, and the fact that Kansas has beaten four of the top 10 overall teams in this reveal (Alabama has beaten just one, and it's Auburn). I don't feel too confident about this either, especially because Kansas has a Q3 loss, but the metric gap isn't as significant as it is with Kansas and Auburn. Kansas' road record could also be a killer, given they're 2-5 on the road with their best win being Indiana.
Illinois is also pretty close, but they're a slightly worse version of Alabama in my view, with the resume metrics not favoring them like they do Alabama.
Why are Wisconsin and BYU the last two teams in? – I think this is the question more people will ask. Wisconsin's six Q1 wins and five Q2 wins are just too much for any of the others to contend with, outside of maybe Dayton, and I'll go into them more later. BYU, to me, feels like a team with a slight edge over Creighton. I could see it going either way for the last 4-seed between those two, but the two extra Q2 losses have Creighton's resume metrics worse than BYU's, even with an extra Q1 and Q2 win and one less Q1 loss. The Q1-A/Q1-B/Q2-A/Q2-B divides are also important with those two; four of BYU's five Q1 losses are Q1-A, while just two of Creighton's are, and they each have one Q1-A win. I think that evens out the Q1 disparity to some extent. Creighton does have an advantage over BYU in BPI, but BYU has the edge in NET, so I think that ultimately balances out. Creighton is 6-4 on the road while BYU is 2-4, and that could be the difference if it goes the other way.
San Diego State's in a rough spot, because I expect the top 16 to largely be unaffected by SDSU's game at home against New Mexico. A win probably doesn't move them in, especially with BPI having them 35th. The lack of a loss below Q1 is nice, but not enough in this group with otherwise pretty average metrics/resume and BPI having them so low.
I think Dayton is the big question mark here. They sit 10th in KPI and 12th in SOR, while 22nd in both KenPom and BPI, and 19th in NET. They have a solid 20-4 record, but they do play in the A10; they still have a 3-3 Q1 record and a 5-1 Q2 record, but those games are skewed towards Q1-B/Q2-B (just one Q1-A win, at #40 SMU, and two of their Q1 losses are Q1-B, while four out of five Q2 wins are Q2-B). I could reasonably see them ending up anywhere from above Wisconsin to below Clemson, and I have no idea what path the committee will take. Since I'm expecting some favor towards predictive metrics, I'm opting to leave BYU as #16.
Clemson is a wild card. They have a pair of road wins at Alabama and North Carolina, a far better pair of wins than any other contender here has. The problem is the two Q2 losses and the Q3 loss they have, with predictive metrics hanging in the mid-to-low 20s. SOR also barely has them above BYU, so I don't think they'll get the edge there.
I also took a glance at South Carolina and Utah State, and while the record and resume is nice for both of them, they both suffer from horrid predictive metrics, even more so in South Carolina's case.
Why are the regions what they are? – It's a crapshoot, I'm not used to projecting regions. it's been a few years since I've done any of it. Hopefully I followed the principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment