Most years, a team with a losing record in conference play has a slim chance of earning an at-large bid to the NCAA Tournament. Last year was not like “most years” – five teams with losing league records were selected. This year is looking a lot like last year.
TCU faces a must-win (especially for Kansas fans) Big Monday contest when league-leading Kansas State visits. Following Saturday’s 81-66 lopsided loss to Texas Tech, the Horned Frogs can do no better than finish 8-10 in the Big 12. And that record is only possible if TCU beats the Wildcats and then closes the regular season with a victory at Texas.
“There’s no question that teams with losing (conference) records are getting in this year and we’re playing in the best conference,” TCU coach said after Saturday’s loss. “We have an opportunity. We’re playing for an NCAA Tournament bid and we’ve got to find a way. I still believe in this team.”
That’s not just coach speak/happy talk. Dixon no doubt is aware of the projections and possibilities in terms of earning an NCAA bid. The numbers nerds who are dedicated to the bracketology profession consider the Frogs as viable instead of DOA.
Bracketmatrix.com compiles the projections of 105 bracketologists and as of Sunday TCU was projected as a No. 11 seed and was listed on all but one of the brackets.
Here’s what Rob Dauster of NBCSports.com wrote about the Frogs in his latest Bracket Banter:
“They have a sweep of Iowa State on their resume, and they also beat Florida (29) at home. With no bad losses to their name, that’s enough to keep them on the right side of the bubble fairly comfortably. That said, they’ve now lost five of six and seven of ten and they still get Kansas State and at Texas before the season is over. Can they get a bid at 6-12 in league play?”
TCU is one of three Big 12 teams currently in the at-large pool who will cause consternation if their names are in the real bracket. Oklahoma (18-11 overall) is 6-10 in Big 12 play and has lost six of its last nine. Texas is 16-13 overall and is 8-8 in Big 12 play. The Longhorns could have as many as 15 losses and still dance. Last season, UT finished 8-10 in the Big 12 and earned an at-large bid with a 19-14 overall record.
Moaning about the lack of worthy teams who deserve at-large bids is one of the rites of March Madness. Perhaps the expansion of the field from 64 to 68 teams in 2011 has supported the theory that there aren’t enough deserving teams to fill out the bracket. Those who have campaigned that the bracket needs to expand to 72, 96 or 128 (please, please no) teams look silly based on this season’s weak at-large field.
There have been 44 teams that have been at-large teams with losing conference records with 42 being two games under .500. Two of those – Iowa State (5-9) in 1992 and Florida State (6-10) in 1998 – had the worst league records. (TCU fans are painfully aware that the Seminoles, who were a No. 12 seed, upset the fifth-seeded Frogs in the first round.)
Between now and Selection Sunday (March 17), prepare to hear more about the NET – and no, not the internet. NET is the acronym for NCAA Evaluation Tool. The NET lead to RIP for the RPI (Ratings Percentage Index).
For years, the RPI was one of the tools the NCAA selection committee used to help separate teams. However, the tool had become worn and dull and many felt that schools had figured out how to “game the system” with scheduling to help shore up the strength of schedule portion of the RPI.
While the RPI formula was simple to duplicate, the NET is far more complicated. It incorporates more modern analytics and is figured using five factors – a Team Value Index which figures in strength of schedule, Net Efficiency (using points scored and points allowed on a per-possession, overall Division I winning percentage, an adjusted winning percentage (which accounts to locations of games) and scoring margin (capped at 10 points.)
Told you it was more complicated.
Also, because this is the NET’s first season, the NCAA has been tweaking the formula as the season has progressed, plus it has been secretive about how the NET is compiled. The updated rankings are posted each day on the organization’s web site.
Another term that will be in heavy rotation over the coming weeks is “quad.” To help separate teams, the NCAA is tracking results in four quadrants. A team can earn a “Quad One” victory by beating a top 20 team in the NET at home, a top-50 team at a neutral site and a top-75 team on its home court. The NET rankings are fluid and the quadrant victories for a specific team can change as its opponents’ rankings fluctuate.
Obviously, a team wants as many Quad One victories and as few Quad Three/Quad Four losses as possible.
What will be interesting is how the new analytics will influence the tournament committee. If half a dozen teams from power conferences finish below .500 in league play and get bids – especially if those bids come at the expense of deserving mid-major teams – the TV talking heads will have plenty to yell about.
One team that will be a fascinating case study is Indiana. The Hoosiers are 15-14 and 6-12 in the Big Ten (which plays a 20-game conference schedule).
Saturday Indiana completed a season sweep of Michigan State and has five victories over NET top 25 teams and no sub-100 losses. The Hoosiers are only in two of the brackets tracked on Bracketmatrix but if Indiana beats Illinois and Rutgers this week – losing to either would be a “bad loss” – the Hoosiers’ status could change.
Indiana at one point lost 12-of-13 Big Ten games, a stretch of futility that would automatically disqualify a team. But with the mystery of the NET ratings, it’s no longer how it used to be.