Some Interesting End of Season Numbers

06-07 Basketball General NCS Basketball97

During various bubble discussions, we talked about whether there was significance to being a 20-win team in a power conference. VaWolf posited that it was correlation, not causation – and the final tally this year proves him correct. Nine such teams are in the NIT: Michigan, FSU, WVU, Alabama, Oklahoma St., Kansas St., Clemson, Ole Miss, Syracuse.

Interesting tidbits from the final Sagarin ratings:

– Final rating: Drexel 74, NC State 75

– Worst NCAAT snubs: Clemson (26), Missouri State (27)

– Weakest at-large selectons: Texas Tech (64), Old Dominion (68)

– Teams with more Top 25 wins than NC State’s 5: UCLA (8), UNC (7), Georgetown (6), Oregon (6), Virginia (6).

About BJD95

1995 NC State graduate, sufferer of Les and MOC during my entire student tenure. An equal-opportunity objective critic and analyst of Wolfpack sports.

06-07 Basketball General NCS Basketball

97 Responses to Some Interesting End of Season Numbers

  1. redfred2 03/12/2007 at 9:42 AM #

    “Teams with more Top 25 wins than NC State’s 5: UCLA (8), UNC (7), Georgetown (6), Oregon (6), Virginia (6).”

    I was wondering about that last night. That is a fairly impressive statistic.

  2. Trout 03/12/2007 at 9:46 AM #

    I still scratch my head over UVA’s #4 seed. Yes, they did finish 11-5 in the ACC. However, RPI was in the 50s. They played the easiest unbalanced ACC schedule. In their last 4 games, they lost to Wake, Miami and NC State plus beat VT.

    Is that a #4 seed resume?

    Our final numbers:
    Record (before NIT): 18-15
    RPI: 89
    SOS: 28
    OOC SOS: 270
    vs. RPI Top 25: 2-5 (Duke and UNC w’s)
    vs. RPI Top 50: 5-9 (Duke, UNC, VT-3 times)
    vs. RPI Top 100: 7-13 (same as above, plus UVa and Michigan win)
    vs. NCAA Teams: 6-9 (Duke, UNC, VT – 3, UVA)

  3. choppack1 03/12/2007 at 10:03 AM #

    Trout – UVa’s seeding was a headscratcher to me too. I thought they would have actually earned that 4 seeding if they had beaten Wake and/or beaten us. Before the consecutive losses, I didn’t see them as a 6 or 7 seed, but after them, I thought that’s where they were headed.

    How did Stanford get a bid?

    Also, what was Clempson’s final RPI. They somehow got forgotten in all of the “bubble” discussions.

  4. RickJ 03/12/2007 at 10:10 AM #

    ^
    SOS: 28

    OOC SOS: 270

    I don’t know what to make of these numbers. Does anybody else have this kind of disparity in their overall strength of schedule and OOC SOS? An overall SOS of 28th is pretty good but every NCAA tournament criteria I’ve read states emphatically that OOC SOS is an important factor. I guess you have to assume if we didn’t play any OOC games, our overall SOS would close to #1.

    It seems to me that the overall SOS is the most important piece that should be considered. If not, you are penalizing the teams that play in the toughest conferences.

    Clemson’s final RPI was 46, FSU’s was 41. I really think FSU may have gotten hosed as much as anyone.

  5. StateFans 03/12/2007 at 10:37 AM #

    If the RPI’s formula was better and made more sense then some of these outcomes would align better with common sense.

  6. VaWolf82 03/12/2007 at 10:43 AM #

    Good catch on Mo St. This is the second year that they have come up just a little short.

  7. BJD95 03/12/2007 at 10:45 AM #

    I am all for mid-majors, but by that I mean DESERVING mid-majors. It’s not perfect, but I like the Sagarin formula. And it seems that Missouri State would have been a much better choice than Old Dominion for the last “Cinderella” slot.

  8. VaWolf82 03/12/2007 at 11:00 AM #

    I like the Sagarin formula

    I would like to understand why there is sometimes a big difference in Sagarin and RPI rankings. Clemson’s Sagarin ranking of 26 does not speak very highly for this formula.

  9. CedarGroveWolf 03/12/2007 at 11:02 AM #

    “Teams with more Top 25 wins than NC State’s 5: UCLA (8), UNC (7), Georgetown (6), Oregon (6), Virginia (6).”

    glad VT is #25

  10. Six Pack 03/12/2007 at 11:07 AM #

    I know this is off topic, but who made the all-tournament team? I can’t find it anywhere!

  11. choppack1 03/12/2007 at 11:07 AM #

    “If the RPI’s formula was better and made more sense then some of these outcomes would align better with common sense.”

    Got that right. I think it’s fundamentally flawed. To my knowlege, it doesn’t consider margin of victory…flaw #1. It’s my opinion that given the technology available today even that isn’t enough. I’d also consider a 5 minute variable w/ possibly even more weight. (What was the score w/ 5 minutes left in the game) for wins and losses. Margin of victory in hoops is misleading because of the tendency for the losing team to foul and hoist up 3s. However, if you look at a game at the 5 minute mark, that tells you a lot. Obviously, you don’t want to negate wins vs. losses, but if you are looking for more accurate data this is one of those things that should be considered.

  12. MadWolf92 03/12/2007 at 11:10 AM #

    Va, it would seem to be the case that that would speak more lowly of the RPI formula.

    Sagarin ratings consider point differential, a non-PC component that the RPI won’t use. It also is less skewed in the home/away/neutral adjustments.

  13. MadWolf92 03/12/2007 at 11:13 AM #

    In addition, the Pomeroy rated Clemson at 25 and the Massey rated them at 32. I think the better question is: why does Clemson rate so well? The answer probably has to do with the fact that their early season was a lot better than their late season.

  14. choppack1 03/12/2007 at 11:14 AM #

    “FSU is the highest ranked BCS team (#41) to get left out this year. Stanford is the lowest ranked at-large bid at #65.”

    Stanford was by far the biggest head scratcher…Didn’t they also back into the tournament?

    Regarding your Czar for the day thing, an NIT of the low conferences would surely kill this tournament faster than anything else. I do think we’re probably on the same wavelength that if you’re 16 seed or even a 15 seed, you have virtually no shot – or at best, Rudy-like odds of making it past the first 2 rounds.

  15. Dan 03/12/2007 at 11:22 AM #

    Arkansas gets in continuing my theory that 20 wins plus a top 40 RPI means an invite for a BCS team.

    FSU and Clemson dropped just below that line. Too bad for them.

    I dont get Stanford at all. I guess they just wanted 5 Pac 10 teams. But if Stanford gets in this year because they beat UCLA at home, why in the hell didnt FSU get in last year… or this year for that matter.

    When you compare Stanford directly to FSU its really puzzling. FSU got snubbed in my opinion. Two years in a row too? Makes you wonder who has it out for Hamilton.

  16. foz 03/12/2007 at 11:37 AM #

    here you go six pack:

    First Team
    Brandan Wright, North Carolina (MVP)*
    Brandon Costner, NC State*
    Ty Lawson, North Carolina
    Wayne Ellington, North Carolina
    Gavin Grant, NC State
    *denotes unanimous first-team selection

    Second Team
    Courtney Fells, NC State
    Ben McCauley, NC State
    Engin Atsur, NC State
    Al Thornton, Florida State
    Tyrese Rice, Boston College

  17. LRM 03/12/2007 at 12:03 PM #

    “I would take the bottom 15 basketball conferences (or so) and reform the Div 1-AA classification.”

    In response to this:

    Just so we’re clear, there’s no such thing as I-AA for basketball, and there never has been. That is (was, now that it’s the D-I Championship Subdivision) a football classification for teams that couldn’t compete at a higher-level. A lot of people never understand this. In college basketball D-I is D-I, which created the need for us to further classify this into mid-majors. It’s not even a good gage for comparison because some of the so-called I-AA football schools, most notably Georgetown, play at a high level in basketball (Temple, Marquette, UMass, Providence, Gonzaga, to name a few).

    The NCAA tournament is by all means perfect, in large part due to the fact that the so-called lesser schools help the cream rise to the top through upsets. Who doesn’t enjoy watching the 14 upset the 3 when that 3 is Carolina or Duke? It’s not a true D-I national tournament if we exclude the automatic-only bids, especially when that’s what the tournament was founded on.

    Teams are snubbed every year, which is what helps make March so great. By this methodolgy George Mason wouldn’t have ever had a chance to make the Final Four last season. Adding teams to the field or removing the lower teams to help the powerhouse conferences only takes away from the excitement of the tournament.

  18. Gene 03/12/2007 at 12:03 PM #

    I dont get Stanford at all.

    I don’t either, but I think the PAC-10 must have been lobbying, and some folks midway through the year thought they were the best conference. I don’t think some folks like to change their minds.

    I think with the rise of mid-majors, no conference is getting a record breaking 8 teams from one conference in the NCAA’s this year or in the near future, which is why FSU and/or Clemson got left out.

  19. Astral Rain 03/12/2007 at 12:07 PM #

    Looked over your idea for making I-AA basketball. 15 conferences is too much for I-AA. Basically you’d be taking the 13-16s out entirely, and the 13s and 14s are usually competitive. Also, only two or three conferences consistantly produce 16 seeds. Look at Holy Cross’s 13 this year, and Patriot League usually produces a 15 or 16. If you listed the 15s and 16s as noncompetitive- that’s only 8 leagues, and one of those horrible leagues producted Winthrop this year. What about Tex A&M-CC (I’m going to pick them as my upset pick this year)

    As for the NIT, right now it’s too small. Needs to be expanded to 48 teams if they keep the auto bids. This way top 32 teams would get a home game, which is the point.

  20. Astral Rain 03/12/2007 at 12:10 PM #

    One thing I would change- I’d make play-in games be for the last 8 at-large teams, who would then get seeded in the tournament in those last at large slots…

  21. Mr O 03/12/2007 at 12:12 PM #

    RPI of teams hosting a home game for the NIT:
    FSU – 41
    Mich – 54
    Miss St – 36
    Bradley – 38
    Drexel – 39
    UMASS – 62
    OSU – 51
    W. Va – 57
    UGA – 64
    Kansas St – 56
    Air Force – 30
    Depaul – 68
    Clemson – 45
    Cuse – 50
    Mississippi St – 65
    ole Miss – 58

    NC State -89

    Did we really get a bad seeding?

  22. LRM 03/12/2007 at 12:13 PM #

    I thought the comittee did a good job with the #1s — their rationale was that each of the #1s were both regular season and tournament champs — but after that it’s kind of muddled. Still a bit confused as to how Tennessee got a 5 when many thought they were a bubble team going into the SEC tourney.

  23. CaptainCraptacular 03/12/2007 at 12:15 PM #

    *I know this is off topic, but who made the all-tournament team? I can’t find it anywhere!*

    I had the same issue. It had been posted here but I wondered where the source of the info was. Its actually in a tiny little inconspicuous box on the right hand side of the tourney central page at http://www.theacc.com

  24. Mr O 03/12/2007 at 12:21 PM #

    There really is no reason not to expand the tournament to at least 80 teams. Essentially, you would have the bottom four seeds in each bracked determined by a “play-in” game.

    Why leave NCAA opportunities up to a human committee with inherent biases trying to compare mid-majors and majors with such different schedules and very few common opponents?

    It just isn’t logical. Let the final bids be determined by play on the court.

    20 of 64 teams were automatic bids with RPIs greater than 60. That is almost 1/3 of the field.

    18 came from outside the top 64.

1 2 3 4

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. StateFans Nation » Blog Archive » Post Selection Sunday Thoughts - 03/12/2007

    […] StateFans Nation Your independent blog on the NC State athletics community. « Some Interesting End of Season Numbers […]

Leave a Reply