Bracketology

[TIrwin24]

Cool site I found that accumulates all the different bracket predictions. http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

This is pretty cool. Has us averaged as a 15.91 rank as of today.

At the bottom of the chart, it shows ineligible schools... anyone know why UC San Diego and Utah Tech are listed as ineligible?

[Desert_Bobcat]

I still believe that given the Big Sky's conference ranking, and the fact that MSU is now becoming a perennial participant, the bracketeers will put MSU into the main tourney without being in one of the play-in games. Just a gut feeling....

This is where I tend to land as well. Like all you, I’ve seen anywhere from 1st 4 to even a 15 seed. I personally think MSU is somewhere in the mid 15 seed to high 16 seed, avoiding the first 4. If you look at just their record, yes they’re probably a first 4 team. However based on how they’ve played the last month of the year, I’d say they’re deserving of a 15. Add in the historical context of being there 2x already I think the committee would have to take that into consideration as well.
On top of that, it’s hard for me to call the BigSky a “bad” mid-major conference given the circumstances. The reason that the 1 and 2 seed in the conference tournament lost in the 1st round was not because they were bad teams. It was because the floor of the BigSky is so much higher than even 2 or 3 years ago. Literally everyone beat everyone. Some may see that as a bad thing, hinting at a low ceiling for the conference. IMO the ceiling is as high as ever and I tend to think of it more as a very high floor. And the conference is only going to get more competitive in the coming years, assuming the lower tier teams can keep their coaches from being poached.

[MSU01]

Cool site I found that accumulates all the different bracket predictions. http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

This is pretty cool. Has us averaged as a 15.91 rank as of today.

At the bottom of the chart, it shows ineligible schools... anyone know why UC San Diego and Utah Tech are listed as ineligible?

Schools that move up to D-1 from D-2 are ineligible to play in the NCAA Tournament in their first couple of years as a D-1 team.

[MSU01]

Norfolk State loses to Howard in the MEAC semifinals. The three remaining teams are ranked 257, 278, and 309 in the NET and have records near or below .500, which may well put them all below MSU in the seeding list. Going by NET rankings, MSU would be at worst the #65 seed at this point which would put them as the highest ranked team in the FIrst Four games.

[Bocephus]

ESPN’s latest bracketology has the Cats against the SWAC champion Grambling in Dayton. Grambling has only lost 4 games since January 1st. How does the Big Sky compare to the SWAC?

[MSU01]

ESPN’s latest bracketology has the Cats against the SWAC champion Grambling in Dayton. Grambling has only lost 4 games since January 1st. How does the Big Sky compare to the SWAC?

The SWAC is the lowest rated conference in all of Division 1, and Grambling didn't win a single non-conference game against a D-1 opponent. Grambling or Texas Southern depending on who wins their championship game today would be an ideal matchup for MSU, at least on paper.

[MSUBRONCO]

I just saw one had us against Purdue. Yikes!

[MSU01]

I just saw one had us against Purdue. Yikes!

Yikes would apply to any #1 seed! Purdue is the matchup I'm hoping for so we can all see the Zach Edey vs John Olmsted matchup.

[profisme]

I just saw one had us against Purdue. Yikes!

Yikes would apply to any #1 seed! Purdue is the matchup I'm hoping for so we can all see the Zach Edey vs John Olmsted matchup.

If Olmsted got to match up with Clingan from UConn, that would actually be better than against Edey. Edey has turned into a polished inside scorer vs. his underclassman days when he couldn't score outside of 2 feet. His footwork has improved so much. But don't get me wrong, both guys are far more polished than Olmsted, but have nowhere near the moustache game of JO.

[Bocephus]

Whistle happy in the Purdue/Wisconsin game

[autocat]

Last year Fairleigh Dickinson #16 was in the play in game on Wednesday and beat Purdue #1 on Friday 63-58

[Bocephus]

Purdue goes down, does it cost them a 1 seed?

[MSU01]

Purdue goes down, does it cost them a 1 seed?

It might cost them the #1 overall seed, but they'll still be on the #1 line since Tennessee and Arizona also lost in their tournaments.

[Cledus]

I still believe that given the Big Sky's conference ranking, and the fact that MSU is now becoming a perennial participant, the bracketeers will put MSU into the main tourney without being in one of the play-in games. Just a gut feeling....

This is where I tend to land as well. Like all you, I’ve seen anywhere from 1st 4 to even a 15 seed. I personally think MSU is somewhere in the mid 15 seed to high 16 seed, avoiding the first 4. If you look at just their record, yes they’re probably a first 4 team. However based on how they’ve played the last month of the year, I’d say they’re deserving of a 15. Add in the historical context of being there 2x already I think the committee would have to take that into consideration as well.
On top of that, it’s hard for me to call the BigSky a “bad” mid-major conference given the circumstances. The reason that the 1 and 2 seed in the conference tournament lost in the 1st round was not because they were bad teams. It was because the floor of the BigSky is so much higher than even 2 or 3 years ago. Literally everyone beat everyone. Some may see that as a bad thing, hinting at a low ceiling for the conference. IMO the ceiling is as high as ever and I tend to think of it more as a very high floor. And the conference is only going to get more competitive in the coming years, assuming the lower tier teams can keep their coaches from being poached.

The RPI and other ratings encompass the entire season. The selection committee might use the RPI formula, but use a moving average or an exponential average which one would expect to see MSU trending upwards.

I only mention that because all the online rankings and predictors are probably not considering which way MSU is trending and the overall program strength.

[Catprint]

For reasons I don't understand, MSU has moved up from 209 to 208 in the Net Rankings as of Saturday afternoon and Stetson dropped from 207 to 209. So now MSU is #5 in the Net Rankings (from the bottom). If committee goes solely by Net Rank, then Howard (274), Grambling (285), Wagner (288) and Stetson (209) would be in the play-in games. I understand winners and losers today and tomorrow could change these standings again because every game has some sort of domino effect on close Net Rankings.

I do think it is a mixed bag. A Play-in game actually gets national exposure (although not huge viewership) and does earn the Big Sky conference a lot of money. Each game is worth about $2 million. So if the Cats won a play-in game, the Big Sky would get $4 million instead of $2 million. From that perspective, not sure why the Big Sky wouldn't want to be in the play-in games as I think the odds of winning are way higher than as a regular 15 or 16 seed. I realize lots of it is about pride and not feeling like the play-in games are the real tournament.

[Bocephus]

For reasons I don't understand, MSU has moved up from 209 to 208 in the Net Rankings as of Saturday afternoon and Stetson dropped from 207 to 209. So now MSU is #5 in the Net Rankings (from the bottom). If committee goes solely by Net Rank, then Howard (274), Grambling (285), Wagner (288) and Stetson (209) would be in the play-in games. I understand winners and losers today and tomorrow could change these standings again because every game has some sort of domino effect on close Net Rankings.

I do think it is a mixed bag. A Play-in game actually gets national exposure (although not huge viewership) and does earn the Big Sky conference a lot of money. Each game is worth about $2 million. So if the Cats won a play-in game, the Big Sky would get $4 million instead of $2 million. From that perspective, not sure why the Big Sky wouldn't want to be in the play-in games as I think the odds of winning are way higher than as a regular 15 or 16 seed. I realize lots of it is about pride and not feeling like the play-in games are the real tournament.

I would be interested to know how the team feels about the play in game?

[MSU01]

For reasons I don't understand, MSU has moved up from 209 to 208 in the Net Rankings as of Saturday afternoon and Stetson dropped from 207 to 209. So now MSU is #5 in the Net Rankings (from the bottom). If committee goes solely by Net Rank, then Howard (274), Grambling (285), Wagner (288) and Stetson (209) would be in the play-in games. I understand winners and losers today and tomorrow could change these standings again because every game has some sort of domino effect on close Net Rankings.

I do think it is a mixed bag. A Play-in game actually gets national exposure (although not huge viewership) and does earn the Big Sky conference a lot of money. Each game is worth about $2 million. So if the Cats won a play-in game, the Big Sky would get $4 million instead of $2 million. From that perspective, not sure why the Big Sky wouldn't want to be in the play-in games as I think the odds of winning are way higher than as a regular 15 or 16 seed. I realize lots of it is about pride and not feeling like the play-in games are the real tournament.

Seems to me that the three "locks" to be in the First Four are Howard, Wagner, and the SWAC champion. Then you've got MSU and Stetson, with MSU in the higher rated conference but Stetson with the better win-loss record. I can see it going either way, although most of the experts have MSU in the First Four and Stetson out of it. There are a few more teams in the low 100s in the NET, with St. Peter's (194) qualified and Brown (193) and Temple (198) in their championship games tomorrow. St. Peter's would probably be the only potential First Four team from that group as the other two are in better conferences than the Big Sky.

[Bobcat4Ever]

I don’t think everything is based on NET….given that NEW Mexico State University is ranked 25, and right now they are considered one of the first teams out. The Big Sky is ranked the 22nd out of 33 Conferences, so I’m guessing that will keep up out of Dayton. I love the ESPN bracket….but I don’t understand why we are a 15 seed and SDSU is 16….especially since they beat us. I also don’t understand how Wisconsin has lost 8 of 11 and the bracketologists only dropped them from 5-6. Finally, I don’t understand why bracketologists have Danny and Utah State a 7 seed, and SDSU and Nevada are 5 seeds. I know there will never be a perfect way to seed teams….but some of this defies logic.

I think there is a shot we get 15 depending on how the other tournaments shake out. A play in game might be to our advantage because wed have a pretty good chance at a win,

I think you have to do like the committee does and start at the top going backward. For entertainment value, I suspect there are a number of matchups that they (and fans) would like to see. They probably fill in those and start working the bracket to make it happen — or just turn it over to the software to match the criteria as best as can be done. These people are well aware of the stories — and one that got some attention as it developed was Sprinkle and the team moving to Utah State. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Utah St. / Montana St. game was flagged as a desirable matchup, and may well have affected the placing of Utah St. Seeds in that middle area are pretty fuzzy anyway and attracting more viewers seems as good a way as any to distribute them in the bracket.

[HighPlainsBobcat]

I know what I’m about to say isn’t the way it’s done, HOWEVER, why is it not a thing that EVERY conference tourney champ get seeded in the 64 team field? Then have the lowest ranked at large teams play the first four games?

[Prodigal Cat]

I know what I’m about to say isn’t the way it’s done, HOWEVER, why is it not a thing that EVERY conference tourney champ get seeded in the 64 team field? Then have the lowest ranked at large teams play the first four games?

They kinda already do. There will be 4 playin games next Tuesday. 2 will be 16 seeds, the lowest AQ teams. And 2 will be the lowest at large teams (11seeds).