*****ColleyvilleAg06 Bubble Watch*****

50,631 Views | 513 Replies | Last: 1 min ago by LouisvilleAg
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JJxvi • 8:44p, 3/10/25
AG
JJxvi said:
Can someone think of any other team that ever received a #2 seed in the NCAA Tournament that would be similar to St Johns getting one without even playing a single team rated in the top 20, much less beating one?


https://www.barttorvik.com/resume-compare.php?team=St.+John%27s&year=2025


I agree with Bobinator that historical data is a little harder to use this year given WABs introduction, but to answer your question, the profiles most similar to St. John's have all been 2 seeds.

2013 Gonzaga didn't play anyone in the top 20 and got a 1 seed. This year's Big East is significantly stronger than the 2013 WCC.

FWIW - the profiles similar to 2025 A&M about half have been 3 seeds and half have been 4s. But again… WAB is A&Ms strongest metric and was not a factor for those years.
Reply Quote
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:04p, 3/10/25
AG


Quote:
2013 Gonzaga didn't play anyone in the top 20 and got a 1 seed. This year's Big East is significantly stronger than the 2013 WCC.
Interesting, thanks. It looks like that team did go like 5-0 vs the top 30 though, and likely had (the equivalent of) a quad-1 record that blows St Johns away. St Mary's was more highly ranked at #21 than Marquette is currently for St Johns.

I'm not surprised that Torvik's most similar resume is saying 2 seed, since obviously his model is projecting a 2 seed. I'm just saying that I dont get it. The NET(or RPI which may not matter as much, I get it) and resume columns are nowhere close to the other teams it is claiming have similar resumes based on the win buckets
Reply Quote
4 edits
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:12p, 3/10/25
AG
https://www.barttorvik.com/resume-compare-all.php?s=1&conlimit=All&atlonly=0&autoonly=0&start=2008&end=2025&netlow=0&nethigh=400&reslow=0&reshi=400&wablow=0&wabhi=400&elolow=0&pwrlow=0&q1low=0&q2low=0&reclow=-40&seedlow=1&maxct=100&elohi=400&pwrhi=400&q1hi=40&q2hi=40&rechi=40&seedhi=2&miss=0&noauto=0&hteam=&rev=0

According to Torvik's resume database only two teams have gotten a 2 seed or better with a worse ranking based on the Resume column. 2021 Houston (one of the covid years) and 2014 Wichita State. Both of those teams (and both Gonzaga teams we talked about as well as Gonzaga 2019 which is on this list) were all top 5 level teams in the quality metrics though. St Johns is being treated like they are a team from a weaker conference that has like a top-5 in the power rankings, but they dont.
Reply Quote
1 edit
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:20p, 3/10/25
AG
I actually wonder if what is making Torvik say those resume's are similar and why it loves St John's and why it says that they are comparable to 2011 North Carolina, etc is the "hot at the end of the season" factor that we've been telling people doesnt really exist anymore.
Reply Quote
3 edits
agent-maroon
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:22p, 3/10/25
AG
Is there a good resource to explain the new WAB metric like I'm 5 years old and stupid? I've tried the google search thing and can't find one that's dumbed down enough for me to get it.

And I think St Johns is good, but their hype is as much of a comeback story for Pitino as anything IMO
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1 edit
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to agent-maroon • 9:30p, 3/10/25
AG
agent-maroon said:
Is there a good resource to explain the new WAB metric like a 5 years old and stupid? I've tried the google search thing and can't find one that's dumbed down enough for me to get it.

And I think St Johns is good, but their hype is as much of a comeback story for Pitino as anything IMO
WAB stands for Wins Above Bubble. It basically takes the #45 team in NET and compares it to your schedule and calculates what that #45 team's expected number of wins would be if they played your schedule. Then you subtract that number from your actual wins. What is published is expressed as a ranking. We are currently #8 which means only 7 teams have more of these "Wins Above Bubble" than we do.

Currently the #45 team is Boise State, so basically only 7 other teams have more wins than Boise St would be expected to have against their schedule vs how many wins better than Boise St we would be.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
agent-maroon
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JJxvi • 9:36p, 3/10/25
AG
Thanks. The confusing part for me is why the comparison to the #45 team? Seems kind of random/arbitrary. Is there some kind of significance to #45 with reference to the tournament or something?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:47p, 3/10/25
AG
Not specifically that exact number, but typically the last at-large bid to make the field of 68 is roughly around the 45th best team in the tournament.
Reply Quote
bobinator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to agent-maroon • 9:47p, 3/10/25
AG
Yeah that's basically the average NET of a team you'd expect to be right on the bubble. I don't know what formula they used exactly but that's the gist of it.

It's easier to think of the WAB as a "how good is this team's whole resume" ranking and not worry too much about the details of it. As opposed to the "how efficient is this team?" rankings like Ken Pom or Torvik.

Actually winning and losing games matters more in the WAB, so it better reflects the strength of the resume as opposed to just the quality of the team.
Reply Quote
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:49p, 3/10/25
AG
The theory is that its especially useful for determining the last 4 in and gives an objective metric to say something like - well VCU would have only won 19 games against UNC's schedule.
Reply Quote
t - cam
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bobinator • 9:52p, 3/10/25
AG
bobinator said:
Yeah that's basically the average NET of a team you'd expect to be right on the bubble. I don't know what formula they used exactly but that's the gist of it.

It's easier to think of the WAB as a "how good is this team's whole resume" ranking and not worry too much about the details of it. As opposed to the "how efficient is this team?" rankings like Ken Pom or Torvik.

Actually winning and losing games matters more in the WAB, so it better reflects the strength of the resume as opposed to just the quality of the team.


Good news is that the initial committee ranking seemed to lean hard on the WAB ranking. I think at that time our wab was 6 and the committee ranked us 6.
Reply Quote
1 edit
bobinator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:52p, 3/10/25
AG
As much as this whole process is insanely stupid I do think the nerds they hired basically nailed the NET WAB, I'd almost be fine if they just seeded the field by it.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
t - cam
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bobinator • 9:53p, 3/10/25
AG
bobinator said:
As much as this whole process is insanely stupid I do think the nerds they hired basically nailed the NET WAB, I'd almost be fine if they just seeded the field by it.


Same, who cares if you beat a terrible team by 40 or 19 but the current net cares a lot.
Reply Quote
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56p, 3/10/25
AG
The number that boosts St. John's the most to me is 14-4 vs. quad 1 +2. Between that, a better SOR and better quality numbers i think they have a very slight edge. I would love to be surprised though.
Reply Quote
bobinator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ColleyvilleAg06 • 9:59p, 3/10/25
AG
For me it's the closeness of their four losses too. St John's has only lost four games and by a total of 7 points.

That's pretty wild.
Reply Quote
1
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to t - cam • 10:00p, 3/10/25
AG
t - cam said:
bobinator said:
Yeah that's basically the average NET of a team you'd expect to be right on the bubble. I don't know what formula they used exactly but that's the gist of it.

It's easier to think of the WAB as a "how good is this team's whole resume" ranking and not worry too much about the details of it. As opposed to the "how efficient is this team?" rankings like Ken Pom or Torvik.

Actually winning and losing games matters more in the WAB, so it better reflects the strength of the resume as opposed to just the quality of the team.


Good news is that the initial committee ranking seemed to lean hard on the WAB ranking. I think at that time our wab was 6 and the committee ranked us 6.


Correct. They leaned hard into WAB in the sneak peak which gives me hope.

That said, our numbers now are down across the board from where we were when they did the reveal

2/15
KPI 6
SOR 6
WAB 5
BPI 14
KenPom 13
Torvik 16

Now
KPI 10
SOR 10
WAB 8
BPI 20
KenPom 17
Torvik 25
Reply Quote
bobinator
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ColleyvilleAg06 • 10:05p, 3/10/25
AG
I've said this before but the one bias I'm certain the committee has is a bias towards their own laziness which is why I'm all but certain we won't get the other two. (And neither will Kentucky.)
Reply Quote
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:12p, 3/10/25
AG
14 quad 2+ wins is not particularly good though, is it? 10-0 in Quad 2 games is impressive but is it an achievement really on its own?

Kentucky only played 2 quad 2 games total. They are 11-10 vs St Johns 14-4. St Johns is 4-4 (and really a weak 4-4) vs 10-9 for Kentucky in quad 1. Those are not similar achievements but winning percentage suggest they are. Praising st Johns for 14-4 is defacto punishing Kentucky for playing 19 quad 1 games at a better winning percentage than st Johns did playing 8.
Reply Quote
2 edits
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18p, 3/10/25
AG
It is the winning % that is impressive.

Neither A&M or UK were able to go undefeated in quad 2 like they were. Much fewer games but St. Johns win % against Quad1A is also better.

Again these are razor thin margins with SJ, A&M, UK and Tech and you could easily argue for any of the 4. I guarantee you there will be committee members that each favor one of the 4. Who will be the most persuasive? Nobody knows.
Reply Quote
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:20p, 3/10/25
AG
OP is updated. Gonzaga/San Fran will be updated tomorrow.

Not much to update other than some auto bids getting their tickets punched. I did re look at the 4 line and ended up reworking that a bit with Oregon moving up and Wisconsin/Purdue moving down.
Reply Quote
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:28p, 3/10/25
AG
Quote:
Much fewer games but St. Johns win % against Quad1A is also better.


Saying st Johns quad 1-a winning percentage is "better" is just the kind of thing Im talking about. Higher winning percentage of a tiny sample size is meaningless.

Here are the quad 1-A games for St Johns and for us.

W @ #25 (NET) Marquette
W @ #32 Connecticut
L @ #38 Creighton


W vs #2 Auburn
L @ #4 Florida
L vs #5 Tennessee
L vs #6 Alabama
W vs #7 Texas Tech
L @ #12 Kentucky
W vs #14 Purdue
W @ #21 Missouri
W @ #28 Ole Miss
L @ #34 Miss St

Which one suggests a better team? You just brought up the first teams winning percentage in these games and said it was "better" but the second teams record would be virtually identical if they just hadnt played the 7 hardest games at all

Higher winning percentage against weaker opponents is misleading. Kentucky played harder opponents than St Johns did. 21 quad 2+ games vs 18. 19 of Kentucky's games were on a harder tier vs only 8 of St Johns. St Johns would be expected to have a higher winning percentage based on that alone.

I realize we're going beyond "whats the committee" going to do, but these kind of evaluations agitate me and to me its in these types of numbers games where people find what they want to see and think thats happening with St Johns. Not necessarily here but elsewhere out in the national basketball scene.
Reply Quote
5
4 edits
LouisvilleAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ColleyvilleAg06 • 10:31p, 3/10/25
AG
ColleyvilleAg06 said:
This pdf is 14 years old. The NCAA publishes their updated procedure at their website.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2025-01-16/how-field-68-di-mens-teams-picked-march-madness-each-season

That confusing language (which was referring to the principles of conference teams not playing each other) was reworded.


Ha. Chat gpt sucks!
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson
Reply Quote
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42p, 3/10/25
AG
It's not beyond what the committee will do. The committee will parse through these datapoints too. Bottom line is that uk probably lost too many games this year to be on the 2 line. I think the fact that SJ lost by a total of 7 points in 4 games and won their other 27 games, 14 of them against good competition is going to be enough .. we will see
Reply Quote
2
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:48p, 3/10/25
AG
Is someone in the room making sure "only lost 4 games by 7 points" is on the st johns flashcards?
Reply Quote
2
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:53p, 3/10/25
AG
The really disturbing part is that one of my few allies in this anti st John's quest is Joe Lunardi
Reply Quote
1
Fanatic15...Drs2B!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:54p, 3/10/25
For the record, i see a slight trend for picking the Aggies as the final 2 seed in some of the bigger bracketology projections.

That being said, while many if us discount conference tournament results, whoever has the earliest exit between St John's and our Aggies may end up with the top 3 seed while the other gets the last 2 seed.
Reply Quote
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JJxvi • 4:14a, 3/11/25
AG
I feel pretty confident it gets brought up that A&Ms losses are by 77 points, UK by 104 and St. John's by 7.

The point is that St. John's is a few made free throws away from being a no doubt 1 seed even amongst this special group of 1s
Reply Quote
Fanatic15...Drs2B!
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:12a, 3/11/25
Yes.

But also bring up St john's OOC SOS. New Mexico (back when the Lobos were also losing to Quad 3 teams) was their only notable OOC win that I saw. They were beat by the 11th place team from the SEC.

The emphasis on OOC SOS as of late is wildly in favor of the Texas Aggies.
Reply Quote
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:06a, 3/11/25
AG
They had a big win against possible CAA champion Delaware...

They didnt play really an awful schedule, but who they did play just didnt up being really good (ie Baylor, Kansas St, Georgia, Virginia)
Reply Quote
PJYoung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29a, 3/11/25
AG
BrackMatrix has slipped us to the last 3 seed as a bunch of people have us as a 4 for whatever reason. I think only one bracket has us at the 2.
Reply Quote
NyAggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PJYoung • 11:50a, 3/11/25
AG
PJYoung said:
BrackMatrix has slipped us to the last 3 seed as a bunch of people have us as a 4 for whatever reason. I think only one bracket has us at the 2.


I don't see us getting a 2

I think we wind up a 3 but I'd put us as a 4 before I'd put us as a 2
Reply Quote
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:57a, 3/11/25
AG
Yes ooc sos will obviously be a big factor also and one we fare very well in.

Just to be clear… I'm not arguing St. John's should be in, I am trying to predict what the committee will do based on their past behavior. And based on that I am saying they could do any of SJ, UK, Tech or us. I think it's most likely that they land on SJ.

Of course I want A&M to be the pick, and I can argue all day long about what factors A&M has over SJ.

If you ask me who the most deserving team is? I think A&M

Who is the best among the 4 on a neutral court any given day? I'd probably say Tech and we might be 4th on that list.

Who has the best combination of quality metrics, resume metrics, record, etc. I give a very slight edge to SJ.
Reply Quote
ColleyvilleAg06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NyAggie • 12:01p, 3/11/25
AG
NyAggie said:
PJYoung said:
BrackMatrix has slipped us to the last 3 seed as a bunch of people have us as a 4 for whatever reason. I think only one bracket has us at the 2.


I don't see us getting a 2

I think we wind up a 3 but I'd put us as a 4 before I'd put us as a 2


I disagree with this. I took a really hard look at the 4s last night. If today is selection Sunday I feel extremely confident my projected 3s would all be a 3 with Iowa state the only one remotely vulnerable. As close overall as it is #8 to #17, there is a bit of a gap that developed there over the weekend with Wisconsin, Michigan and Purdue losing and the 3 line getting big road wins.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
NyAggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ColleyvilleAg06 • 12:06p, 3/11/25
AG
ColleyvilleAg06 said:
NyAggie said:
PJYoung said:
BrackMatrix has slipped us to the last 3 seed as a bunch of people have us as a 4 for whatever reason. I think only one bracket has us at the 2.


I don't see us getting a 2

I think we wind up a 3 but I'd put us as a 4 before I'd put us as a 2


I disagree with this. I took a really hard look at the 4s last night. If today is selection Sunday I feel extremely confident my projected 3s would all be a 3 with Iowa state the only one remotely vulnerable. As close overall as it is #8 to #17, there is a bit of a gap that developed there over the weekend with Wisconsin, Michigan and Purdue winning and the 3 line getting big road wins.


That makes me feel better

Hoping you are right

I think we're a solid 3 but you just never know

Reply Quote
JJxvi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:09p, 3/11/25
AG
Yeah, I feel like I could see us as a 4, but only with a loss Thursday and also some really bad luck.
Reply Quote
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.