I'd like to get a handle on what kind of arguments there could be to put us below a 7. Bracket Matrix has us as a 9, ESPN has us as an 8. First, let's take a look at the facts/numbers:
22-4, Conference Tournament Champions NET: 10 KenPom: 9 BPI: 20 AP: 18 Q1: 2-2, Q2: 4-2, Q3/4: 16-0 Extras: Won 6 in a row, 9-1 in last 10 games, Won 17 of last 18 games, 8-3 road record.
A lot of times, there's a "blind numbers" test given. The numbers above would be our data. Compare it to others to judge where we should fit. For instance, here's another team (don't cheat by looking it up):
17-7, 4th Place in Conference (hasn't played tournament yet) NET: 24 KenPom: 26 BPI: 22 AP: 13 Q1: 6-6, Q2: 3-1, Q3/4: 8-0 Extras: Won 3 in a row, 6-4 in last 10 games, 6-2 road record.
Between these two teams, who should get a higher seeding? Many people would look at more Q1 games won by the 2nd team, but they also lost half their games to Q1 competition. Neither team had a "bad loss" in the Q3/Q4 category.
You'd figure Team 1 would be seeded slightly higher, wouldn't you? If you knew Team 2 was Texas, does that make a difference where you seed them?
So here's my argument for Loyola that I've thought about a lot. If you decide to seed Loyola 2 or 3 seedings BELOW Texas, then numbers and metrics really mean nothing. You're really saying that raw number of Q1 wins (not percentage of Q1 wins) is more important. There ARE going to be teams ranked high who have losing records against Q1/Q2 teams, but they had one impressive win on the road over a top Blue Blood. So we're back to where we started before the numbers and quadrants and the dog and pony show of painfully deliberative selection committees and all the trappings of a serious process.
There are a lot of teams who have many "bad" losses: Creighton is 7-3 against Q3/4 teams, Colorado is 10-3. Texas Tech has NINE Q1 losses against four Q1 wins-- combined, they're 5-9 against Q1/Q2 teams, and yet Texas Tech is a consensus 5 seed in bracket projections, despite their 35% winning percentage against "very good" teams. San Diego State has ZERO Q1 wins, and they're from a conference that KenPom ranks BELOW the MVC, but they're sitting on an 8th seed in Bracket Matrix while we're at 9. There is no broad evaluation number (erm, except Strength of Schedule, but the quadrants and efficiency numbers are supposed to measure that) where Texas Tech, San Diego State, USC, Florida or Oklahoma, comes out ahead of Loyola-- NET, BPI, AP, KenPom, percentage of Q1 or Q1+Q2 wins, etc.-- but they're almost certainly going to be seeded several levels above Loyola, maybe as many as four seeding lines.
OK... that's my opinion. We need to advocate, with apples to apples data, to refute the "Team X may only be 5 games over .500 overall and 2 games under .500 in their Big Conference, but they beat Blue Blood State in mid January!" arguments. Because we really do compare favorably to top half teams when you measure PERCENTAGE of quality wins, not just volume of high quality wins.
|