Californiaās resume is also very bleh. 4 Q1 wins, 2 Q2 wins, but a Q3 loss. Also poor performance metrics of Torvik=67, and KenPom=71. That is usually not good enough. The WAB of 49 and SOR of 52, is borderline. I like their 4 Q1 wins (most among serious bubble teams in the first 8 out) and 4 wins over likely NCAAT teams. So even though I have them as the first out, a win over FSU will probably not be enough in and of itself. Maybe if all the bubble teams poop the bed and they follow it up with a respectable effort vs Duke. A win over Duke would probably get them in.
2 Likes
@Raleigh_Hoo Is the bubble worse than usual this year, or am I just forgetting how bad bubble teams usually are? These teams all seem particularly meh
22 of High Pointās 30 wins are Q4. They havent played a Q1 game, 0-2 Q2, 5-2 Q3. Their WAB is -1.85.
Are they even near the bubble?
1 Like
KenPom is quite possibly the worst, most biased person to weigh in on this topic (outside of Bruce Pearl). He simply does not value Wins. He cares more about winning a possession than winning a game, which I find problematic for many reasons (mainly because the whole point is to win the game and that not every possession happens in a vacuum). His tool has use, but it also has limitations.
Why should we complain more about Miami getting a bid because they went undefeated than an objectively terrible team getting hot for 3 games and stealing an auto-bid? Auto-bids reward winning games that matter, regardless of the opponentsā KenPom ratings. I donāt have an issue with a team being rewarded for winning games. There is a reason why so few teams have done what Miami has done, and theyāre not the first mid-major team with an easy schedule.
4 Likes
Careful what you say, he might be Adventive Quasarā¦
For real though, Ken in that post is arguing for WAB, a resume metric, as the objective metric. Not his own metric or any other efficiency metric. And heās not complaining about Miami getting a bid:
āPoint is, WAB is probably pretty friendly to mid-majors with gaudy records against weaker schedules. Which I suspect is a feature for most people. And thus, most people should realize itās in their best interest to push hard for an objective measure to be the sole determinant of at-large status.ā
4 Likes
Tate Frazier and Eamonn Brennan had a long convo about this.
Basically the top 5-6 teams or so are a cut above and the top 25-30 teams are a cut above the bubble teams (or something along those lines).
My personal theory is that itās basically because we had the House ācliffā this past offseason where teams that could spend freely, did spend freely. Which was an acceleration (at least) of a trend from previous years. TBD what happens this offseason if we get some contraction in salary (at least between P5 haves and have nots).
1 Like
Eh heās not really defending WAB. Heās just saying itās better than the āblowhards on TV arguing about a teamās merits based on their own personal interestsā (which is hilariously ironic given he makes a comparison between Miami and Marquette based on his own personal ratings-system in the following paragraph).
Man, you really donāt like that guy. 
Iām not Ken (he has 3x more gadfly in him than I could dream of having) but I endorse his message. My WAB stump speech would be:
- Itās legible - you can show everyone what each game is worth for a win or a loss (if you want to and donāt have weird hangups about displaying metric values and not just ranks, cc: NCAA)
- Wins always have a higher value than losses, no matter the opponent, which is the time-honored critique of efficiency/predictive metrics.
- The committee gets so much time back for golfing this weekend. Like so much time.
IMO, this is solvable in a WABsolutist (h/t @haney ) world. WAB values displayed next to schedules. Joe Lunardi pulling out a comically over-sized calculator to total a teamās potential remaining WAB as we get deep into conference play. You could let seeding be more subjective so fans have something to argue about. We might even be able to spend more time discussing the actual basketball games in terms of what happened on the court (novel idea, I know).
3 Likes
I do like this part. It bothers me that every game is now perceived as primarily just part of a resume. āThis win moves them up one seed line blah blah blahā
1 Like
Itās not necessarily him but itās how people literally donāt understand what predictive ratings are and arenāt, as well as how āgameableā they are. Again, super useful tool and the introduction of predictive analytics to college basketball has been a game changer (for the better) but I think we as consumers of the data tend to misinterpret its actual meaning and ignore its flaws. And itās just something that consistently irks me (especially weāre on the verge of losing seeding to Gonzaga for no reason other than predictive metrics).
1 Like
Oh look, 2024. Maybe it wouldāve been better for us if the bubble in 2024 wasnāt so weak and we missed the tournament that season.
But is this calculation really comparing the strength of the bubble across years? Or is it comparing the strength of bubble teams vis a vis top teams across years?
At least to me, this year tops his chart because the top 10 teams are much better than other years. The 40s teams seem about the same or even better as most years.
1 Like
This was in response to āhow is UNI a 13ā not the bubble. High Point over 30 spots higher in WAB, so I expect theyāll get the 12.
I donāt want anything to do with McNeese St. No idea on metrics but just what Im seeing. Very athletic team
3 Likes
I think theyād shake out as a 12. Top 70 on KenPom
4 Likes
Iām thinking only Duke, UVA, Miami, UNC, N. C. State, Louisville and Clemson get in.
2 Likes
If SMU drops out, someoneās got to replace them and Calās resume is about as good as anyone elseās. I donāt think SMU is dropping out though.
3 Likes
Someoneās gotta be last.
1 Like
Indiana is out now. Who is getting the last spot? Maybe Auburn? Maybe Miami OH if they lose?
1 Like