You guys who know the ins and outs of this stuff think we are back on the 3 line now as long as we don't lose to LSU?

I don't think the committee sees this team as a top 12 team.

I think we were locked into 4/5 seed no matter if we'd lost or won both the remaining games. I know our NET is 20 right now, which would indicate a borderline 4.

I'd be very surprised if A&M was higher than 4

https://texags.com/forums/7/topics/3527610

they are right on the cusp of a 3 in the aggregate. it helps that A&M wasnt the only team losing the last 2 weeks.

http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

NyAggie said:

---

You guys who know the ins and outs of this stuff think we are back on the 3 line now as long as we don't lose to LSU?

---

NET barely budged. So probably not. Now if we were Texas…

After that win, things havent changed all that much from when we were talking about two seeds. 4 losses have dropped us about one seed line overall from back then.

Before the losing streak we had the predictive metrics (efficiency, power rankings, margin of victory, etc) of about low 4 seed (low meaning closeer to a 5 than a 3), but we had the resume (record and who we actually beat) of a 2 or even a borderline 1. Now we're about where the predictive metrics show a team thats about a 5, but the resume is of a teams that is a borderline 2/3.

Wow! The words in the thread are hilarious!

"Irreverent"? "Viola?"

We are a 3 seed now. Might slip to a 4 if upset by LSU. Would be difficult to get back to the 2-seed line - though I could see a 2-seed as our reward if we go on to win the SECT.

Iowa State losing at home last night helped us as well. I think we would be the last 3 seed if Selection Sunday was today, and will probably stay in that area as long as we win Saturday. Our resume metrics are REALLY good, and the committee has been very rewarding to teams with elite non-conference SOSs, which we have.

The NET in and of itself is not at all a good predictor of seeding.

Yes we are certainly a 3 seed in most people's brackets today.

just comparing the teams lunardi has ahead of A&M like Iowa state, Tex Tech, Purdue, St Johns....A&M is undeniable stronger in the Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 department. hell, iowa state and wisconsin are really bad in some of those metrics and theyre projected 2 seeds. If the committee seeds them higher than A&M, its purely about diversity.

I feel extremely confident if today was selection Sunday that we would be a 3 seed.

Our resume ranks as the 8th best in the country, as some pointed out our quality metrics rank as the 22nd best in the country (which would be a 6 seed). FWIW our quality was around 17th in the initial reveal and we were ranked #6, ahead of Houston at #8 who had the #1 ranked quality metrics.

I would look much more at WAB and SOR to predict seeding and then adjust up or down a seed line based on quality metrics. This is the same reason why Gonzaga isn't a 2 seed.

That said… it is very very close, the top 7 are pretty much locked in #8 (the last 2 seed) through the 2nd 5 seed are splitting hairs, but if we win Saturday our resume will be strong enough for a 3 seed.

Serious Lee said:

---

just comparing the teams lunardi has ahead of A&M like Iowa state, Tex Tech, Purdue, St Johns....A&M is undeniable stronger in the Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 department. hell, iowa state and wisconsin are really bad in some of those metrics and theyre projected 2 seeds. If the committee seeds them higher than A&M, its purely about diversity.

---

It's also about the dreaded "eye test". All of those teams are more aesthetically pleasing than we are. Not necessarily more deserving, but they're definitely the prettier girl at the prom compared to us.

ColleyvilleAg06 said:

---

Eye test is not part of the criteria and many of those types of "vibes" things are baked into the efficiency metrics of the quality numbers.

---

It may not be an official part of the criteria, but you can't tell me it's not a factor bouncing around in the committee's heads. Same way the "last 10 games" used to be an official factor but is not any longer. But if you don't think the committee rewards teams who are hot late vs. teams who limped to the finish, you're crazy. Recency bias - whether an official data point or not - is very much alive and well.

JJxvi said:

---

We just beat the #1 team. "Limped to the finish" is already virtually out of the window on that basis alone.

---

I agree and I didn't say we limped to the finish. My post wasn't about A&M specifically. Believe it or not, questionable committee decisions affect other teams as well...not just us.

Hypothetically...if we lose to LSU and go one-and-done at the SEC tourney (losing 6 of our last 7 games), you could definitely say we limped to the finish, even if that one win was over the #1 team. Again, I'm not saying that is what's going to happen. But if it did, the committee would definitely look at last night as an anomaly and not the norm.

ColleyvilleAg06 said:

---

The data I have seen (can't find it now) actually suggest that in the last dozen years since the took out last 10 games from the criteria, that how you finish is weighted statistically significant LESS than games in November and December. There is now such an over emphasis on non conference and computer metrics I honestly don't think a lot of the old school bias stuff (including eye test) has any effect.

There isn't a single "basketball person" on the committee, just a collection of athletic directors used to looking at spreadsheets that are picking this thing. I think they have figured out they aren't there for their basketball expertise of knowing what teams are good and instead rely on objective tools.

---

Makes sense. Probably why all of the prognosticators have had us seeded well, even through the 4-game skid. Those games vs. Ohio State, Oregon, Tech, Purdue, Creighton, and Wake Forest are paying dividends.

Luke The Drifter said:

---

ColleyvilleAg06 said:

---

Eye test is not part of the criteria and many of those types of "vibes" things are baked into the efficiency metrics of the quality numbers.

---

It may not be an official part of the criteria, but you can't tell me it's not a factor bouncing around in the committee's heads. Same way the "last 10 games" used to be an official factor but is not any longer. But if you don't think the committee rewards teams who are hot late vs. teams who limped to the finish, you're crazy. Recency bias - whether an official data point or not - is very much alive and well.

---

The last 10 being removed has been really prove able over the last few years. It's clearly not weighted any longer.

Eye test does enter the metrics so they do have that at their disposal but I don't think style points are awarded.

Last year we were rewarded big time for our SOS. Most of us thought we were a bubble team, and it turns out we weren't. I expect the same to happen this year- beat LSU and we avoid a single ugly loss on the year. Bodes well

ColleyvilleAg06 said:

---

The data I have seen (can't find it now) actually suggest that in the last dozen years since the took out last 10 games from the criteria, that how you finish is weighted statistically significant LESS than games in November and December. There is now such an over emphasis on non conference and computer metrics I honestly don't think a lot of the old school bias stuff (including eye test) has any effect.

There isn't a single "basketball person" on the committee, just a collection of athletic directors used to looking at spreadsheets that are picking this thing. I think they have figured out they aren't there for their basketball expertise of knowing what teams are good and instead rely on objective tools.

---

This

Us a few years ago when we got snubbed are the prime example of how being a hot team meant nothing to the committee

Non conference matters much more in recent years

Do they still hold a grudge about Buzz's 9 page document questioning why we were left out of the field in 2022?

Complete Idiot said:

---

Do they still hold a grudge about Buzz's 9 page document questioning why we were left out of the field in 2022?

---

If they do it wasn't on display last season where the committee held us in higher regard than pretty much every bracketologist.