Disappointment is fine but thinking the program is better off without Shaka Smart is not

Losing in the NCAA Tournament is never easy. The finality of the season concluding so abruptly always makes it worse.

The reaction to the Golden Eagles' first-round defeat in the Marquette social media world (and even on alumni text chains) made it seem like this team just lost to Western Michigan at home during the first round of the NIT.

That did happen in 2005, and imagine what the reaction would have been if social media had been in full swing instead of being in its infancy (or if text messaging had been free).

Sure, the message boards existed, but the entire lunatic fringe of some fanbases did not feel emboldened to express such extreme views knowing they did not have an echo chamber to shout back "You're right."

Let's be clear, it is disappointing that Marquette lost to New Mexico in the first round, especially after there was hope of a Final Four once the team reached No. 5 in the AP rankings.

Remember, seeds matter more than rankings.

As Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's MU hoops beat writer Ben Steele pointed out there were plenty of flaws with this team exploited once the calendar turned to February that getting to the third weekend seemed impossible.

That still does not mean this was the worst season ever despite another untimely March exit.

20 wins should still be considered an accomplishment in college basketball. Heck making the tournament, especially after getting to just two in the Wojo era, is always nice.

Reaching the floor does not mean a complete failure. It just means coming up short on some goals. 

While it is frustrating this program has come up short for three straight seasons, let's hope two nights' sleep has calmed some of you down.

Especially, if you are in the camp of thinking Shaka Smart is not the guy to guide the program toward having sustained success. Maybe, you might want to re-examine how high your expectations should be.

Fan how you want but if you are in the camp citing Shaka is riding a Final Four run a decade ago, then hopefully you were not one of those in attendance at Fiserv Forum when former head coach Tom Crean got a standing ovation.

That guy made a career off of guiding the 2003 team on that magical run (all because of Dwyane Wade, Travis Diener, Robert Jackson, and Steve Novak).

It is fair to point out that Shaka Smart has not beaten a single-digit seed in the big dance in a while. You can also view it as the next hurdle to clear just like when the criticism was Shaka could no longer get to the Sweet 16. He checked that box last season for those keeping scoring.

Also, I just make these suggestions to those demanding heightened standards as I used to be among you.

Sometimes you must zoom out and realize winning in the tournament is hard. Especially in the NIL and transfer portal era.

The website is now defunct, but I once wrote a scathing (and regrettable) piece on Sportsbubbler.com tackling how Jerel McNeal, Dominic James, and Wesley Matthews only won two NCAA Tournament games. I argued that made them not great enough.

Looking back, that was really unfair (and I deserved the tongue-lashing I got from the now current AD and a good portion of the fan base) especially after I lived through the Wojo days. 

Making the tournament should still be an expectation for every fan. 

Making deep runs is a whole different story since it is so hard to win one game in this type of tournament let alone many, especially now that the tournament landscape has seen 16 seeds pull of upsets.

A cold shooting night or a bad matchup in January means a conference loss. In a one-and-done tournament like this, it means the season is over.

A short-term injury in December is survivable. An injury late in the season can be crippling. All things this program has dealt with in March the past couple of seasons.

To avoid everything like that plus any negative variance working against you for six straight games is tough.

If you want to cite programs like Duke, UConn, Michigan State, or Kansas that keep finding ways to make runs in the tournament, that's fine. 

Also, realize the big picture thing those programs have (or have had). 

Their head coaches have stayed long enough to establish those high standards. That means sometimes it is better to be patient.

Duke is not a brand name had the upset portion of their fan base gotten their way before 1986 and ran off Coach K.

You want an elite program? 

You need a head coach who can recruit and develop talented players. You need that coach to stick around. Now NIL is going to alter that a bit, but still, the secret sauce is having a strong leader who stays.

Right now, the coaches who have proven capable (Kevin O'Neill, Crean, and Buzz Williams) have treated this job as a stepping stone.

Shaka might finally be the guy to realize the grass is not always greener (since it was not in Texas) and build off of his four-year success here. 

Yet, a 3-4 record in March so far has a portion of the fan base questioning a coach who has won 98 games along with a Big East regular season and tournament title in four years.

That is also after taking over a program left in the gutter by Steve Wojciechowski.

Imagine if two decades ago Villanova had that same stance toward Jay Wright. 

It took him until his fourth year just to get the Wildcats into the dance and he did not win a Big East title until his fifth year. He also went 13-19 in 2011-12. Then he won two titles and is a Hall of Fame coach.

However, this is not to discount your hope for more March success from the core of Tyler Kolek, Oso Ighodaro, Kam Jones, Stevie Mitchell, and David Joplin.

That was a great core, and one Sweet 16 run that could have been a Final Four feels like being short-changed.

It is also fair to question Shaka's coaching when it comes to this team's rebounding ability and being so hesitant to use the transfer portal especially after he got Kolek and O-Max in the portal.

However, acting like everything is awful because of a poor stretch, well, then I suggest you keep checking out our guy Joe McCann's tweet to readjust your perspective.

New Mexico Preview, 2024-25

New Mexico Lobos

Friday, May 21 at Rocket Arena, Cleveland, OH

Head Coach: Richard Pitino (246-185 overall, 87-48 at New Mexico)

2024-25 NET Rank: 42

2024-25 kenpom Rank: 41

Donovan Dent is one of the best guards in the nation

Photo by Wendell Cruz | Imagn Images

While the results have been consistently solid, my guess is New Mexico fans would consider their team to have had an up-and-down season. It started fantastically well with a neutral court win over UCLA in Las Vegas and was reinforced with a win over USC, but losses to Arizona State and New Mexico State (along with a thumping at St. John's) showed cracks and had them playing like they'd be a team on the bubble in the early goings. A win over VCU sparked a run where they won fourteen of fifteen games, with the only loss by one point on the road at San Jose State. During the stretch from December 8th through February 16th, the Lobos ranked #24 at T-Rank and were in first place in the Mountain West. They've come back to earth a bit since. The Lobos lost back to back games at Boise State and San Diego State. The did win the Mountain West regular season title, but lost again to Boise State in the tournament semifinals, capping off a 4-3 stretch where they ranked #62 at T-Rank. They come into the NCAA Tournament possibly a little underseeded based on body of work, Cracked Sidewalks had them as a 9-seed, but Marquette could be a touch overseeded as an 8/9 Marquette/New Mexico was the exact matchup we predicted for the first round in Cracketology.

Rotation

Everything for the Lobos starts with Donovan Dent. The Field of 68 had him as a Third Team All-American and he is the only player in the country to average over 20 points per game and 6 assists per game. Dent isn't a usage monster, however, getting his points through efficient play, primarily at the rim. Despite his size, he's athletic with the ability to finish above the rim. Dent is also a great shooter from deep, though he rarely takes threes. Dent is a model of consistent quality. He has been over 100 in Adjusted Offensive Rating in 28 of 32 games, and below 93 just once (84). Bottom line, he's going to show up and give his best, night in and night out. Tru Washington is the back court Robin to Dent's Batman. He's an elite ball hawk on defense and would fit well in a Shaka Smart system, getting most of his points at the rim or from three. Marquette would be well served to lock in on Washington; when he scores 11+ points, New Mexico is 19-0, but just 6-7 when he does not (one DNP). He has been less efficient against top tier teams. Mustapha Amzil joined by way of Dayton. He's a lean forward that provides defensive length and help side rim protection as well as chipping in some scoring and rebounding. He's struggled with a foot injury since February, but seems to be healthy now. Filip Borovicanin transferred from Arizona and plays as a stretch four. He's not a great finisher offensively, but the Lobos defense is 9.8 points/100 possessions better with him on the floor and he is a great rebounding sidekick to Nelly Junior Joseph. Speaking of which, if it all starts with Dent, it often ends with Joseph. After wreaking havoc in the MAAC for Rick Pitino at Iona, the big man transferred to New Mexico and did the same to the Mountain West. He's a physical big that is one of the best rebounders in the country and strong finisher at the rim. He shoots 60.3% at the rim and takes 71.9% of his shots there. He will definitely test Marquette down low as he's effective on the glass at both ends. New Mexico's bench isn't very deep, and has already started to shorten up. C.J. Noland is the one regular contributor, filling in at the guard and wing. Their other bench options are Braden Applehans and Jovan Milicevic, both of whom add size and shooting from deep, but are defensive liabilities. Expect a six-man rotation with Noland the only bench player that gets significant run.

Style of Play

On offense, New Mexico likes to go. Their average possession length is 15.1 seconds, ranked 5th fastest in the country. They thrive in transition, ranking in the 99th percentile in transition attempt rate according to hoop-explorer. However, they are not the best at converting those attempts, scoring 1.063 points per possession in transition (48th percentile per Synergy). In the half court, they will look to get chances at the rim, sometimes through the drive, but often through big men cutting off screens to the basket. Dent and Joseph have a great sense for each other and do well creating easy looks there. Also look for Joseph to try to post up Gold down low. One of the biggest questions will be if Gold can replicate his non-conference defensive form that saw him hold up against guys like Derik Queen, Trey Kaufman-Renn, and Asa Newell. This is not, however, a great shooting team. While they have some shooters on the roster, New Mexico takes just 32.2% of the shots from deep and convert at a relatively middling 34.1%. They turn the ball over at a 15.6% rate, which is 69th in the country. New Mexico is decent at protecting the ball, but not elite. Look for Marquette to try to exploit that early.

 

Defense is where the Lobos shine. They have the 19th ranked defense according to kenpom, which is based on solid play across the board. They challenge shots (49.2 eFG% ranks 97th), force turnovers (20.5% ranks 35th), and clean the glass (25.6 DR% ranks 21st). Looking at the defensive shot chart above, this game will largely be decided where most Marquette games are. Marquette needs to go at UNM's strength and finish at the rim, and they need to hit their threes because Marquette will be able to get those shots. According to Synergy, New Mexico is in the 68th percentile allowing shots at the rim and in the 71st percentile defending them. Marquette will be able to get inside and will be able to get those shots off, but can you get them over the shot blockers is the question. Marquette also wants to get out in transition and run pick and roll, two areas where the Lobos are excellent defensively. This is a team that will blow up your actions and is good at forcing teams into shots they don't want to take.

Friday Outlook

As much as we'd all love to call this a comfortable Marquette win and move on with our days, this will likely be anything but. Both teams have elite lead guards, disruptive defenses with length, and competent complimentary pieces. I feel those pieces are likely where Marquette has the advantage. The experience and tenacity of Stevie Mitchell and Chase Ross can be a difference maker, and getting out of Big East play will likely be a positive. The physicality of the Big East won't be present on Friday, and Marquette did well handling non-conference opponents that relied on dominant big men (Maryland, Purdue, Georgia). I do think this game will come down to a couple possessions in the final minute, but I like Marquette to take the narrow win.

Marquette Connection

It would be easy to say "we played Rick Pitino on Friday, now we play Richard Pitino a week later," and while that would be true, it isn't nearly as interesting as another one of the UNM staff members. Associate Head Coach Isaac Chew was on Marquette's staff under Buzz Williams from 2012-14, most prominently with the 2013 Elite Eight squad. Chew went to Virginia Tech with Williams, then preceded him at Texas A&M. Chew is regarded as an elite recruiter and has been at Pitino's side since he took the New Mexico job four years ago. He is now the longest serving assistant on the Lobos staff.

Cracketology: Bracket Brokedown

 

Marquette celebrates their selection to the 2025 NCAA Tournament

Photo from gomarquette.com

Every year after the NCAA tournament bracket comes out, I look back to see how the Selection Committee did. Because their work reflects which teams are selected and where they are sent, they technically can't get it wrong. But this year, as soon as Selection Committee chairman Bubba Cunningham appeared with his Vice Chair Keith Gill, it was clear he needed cover for something the Selection Committee got wrong. We'll start with the most glaring error and work our way down from there.

West Virginia got snubbed

Buckle up, this is going to be a long one.

There is no other way to say it. The Mountaineers should have been in this field. This isn't just me saying it. On bracketmatrix.com, there were 111 brackets updated as of the Selection Show. All 111 had West Virginia in. No team has ever been left out that was included in all of their submissions. There are always additional brackets that come in from people who don't do regular updates throughout the year and just submit a bracket email at the end. Of the additional 109 brackets that did so, 104 had WVU in. Every serious bracketologist and the vast majority of people who just throw in results at the end included the Mountaineers.

Why should WVU have been a lock? The at-large field extends to team #46 on the S-Curve, North Carolina. In terms of selection, West Virginia was inside the top-46 (45 KPI, 42 SOR, 43 WAB) in all three resume metrics. North Carolina (55 KPI), Texas (58 KPI, 54 SOR), and Xavier (60 KPI) cannot claim the same, yet all three were in. As a result, West Virginia had a better resume average than any of those three included teams (as did Indiana, top-49 in all three metrics).

For years, we have been told the Selection Committee looks at who you played, where you played them, and what the result was. West Virginia won 6 Q1 games, 5 away from home (2 neutral, 3 true road games). Bubba Cunningham cited that West Virginia would be without Tucker DeVries for the Tournament as a reason they were left out. That is simply preposterous. DeVries only played 8 games this year. The Mountaineers were still 13-10 without him, including two of their best wins, at Kansas and over Iowa State. Those two wins are better than anything North Carolina has on their team sheet.

Cunningham needed Gill to provide air of legitimacy

Photo from CBS Sports broadcast

Vice Chair Keith Gill even cited North Carolina's Q2 record as a reason for inclusion. This is ridiculous for two reasons. First, no one has ever used Q2 record as a reason to include a team before, particularly a team that was 1-12 in Q1 games. Second, there were ZERO tournament teams on North Carolina's Q2 column. Xavier at least beat UConn and Creighton in Q2, but UNC didn't add a single game of value. What the Selection Committee is effectively telling us is that a win over UCLA on a neutral court is worth more than winning at the Phog (UCLA & Kansas are on the same seed line) and beating ISU (a 3-seed) combined. Not to mention the wins over Gonzaga (N), Arizona (N), Cincinnati (A), and Utah (A), all also Q1 wins the Mountaineers earned, each of which equals the sum total of UNC's Q1 wins and combined obviously are better than UNC's sum resume.

It has been noted that Cunningham would not have been in the room when North Carolina discussed. I'm sure this is true, but it does not preclude Cunningham as chair from influencing this decision without being in the room. When the Selection Committee was initially discussing their procedures and then first got together in February, it was presumably Cunningham who explained what would be important or not important for selection. At that time, North Carolina was already 1-10 in Quadrant 1 games, but 5-0 in Q2. Graham Doeren has pointed out the influence a Chairman can have in this regard. Looking ahead, UNC only had one Q1 game left on their schedule, so they weren't going to significantly improve their Q1 record. But they would have the chance to improve their SOR/WAB simply by winning Q2 & Q3 games in the ACC. If Cunningham says "we like to prioritize the metrics over just raw results, especially the new WAB metric that was added this year. And teams in Q1 and Q2 are designed to reflect postseason caliber teams, with Q1A representing protected seeds, Q1B representing at-large caliber teams, Q2A representing upper seed (12-14) auto-bid teams, and Q2B representing lower seed (15-16) auto-bid teams. Because all of these could be tourney teams, we will weigh those games about the same." Anyone saying that Cunningham didn't matter or couldn't have mattered in this regard is being disingenous.

And while I'm zeroing in on North Carolina, Texas might be an even more egregious inclusion. In terms of resume metrics, the only top-46 metric they had was #45 WAB. Yes, they had 7 Q1 wins, but they balanced that with 10 losses. We're told that for North Carolina, Q2 record matters, yet Texas was 3-5 in Q2. Like North Carolina, they had zero wins over tournament teams in Q2. Texas tied a record for the most total losses for an at-large team (15) and had an abysmal NCSOS (#286) so they positively fail the "who/where/result" question because in terms of their controllable schedule, they played 8 low-major buy games (all wins), 3 teams not near the tournament (all wins), and 2 teams that were in consideration (both losses). They didn't beat a single non-conference opponent that was in at-large tournament consideration. No team has ever made the field at more than 1 game under .500 in Q1-3, yet Texas was 12-15, worse than the precedent by a magnitude of three. 

But of course, Big East fans will be happy Xavier was included. Why was Xavier included? I'm confident the answer is because there is no comparison under which you can include North Carolina and not Xavier. Both had just 1 win in Q1, but Xavier had the better win percentage there and two additional wins over the field. Xavier had a cleaner resume, with zero losses outside Q1+2. And like UNC, they had 8 of these apparently now coveted Q2 wins.

Darian DeVries and West Virginia deserved a bid

Photo by William Purnell | Imagn Images

 

So in order to snub West Virginia, they had to make up an excuse for Tucker DeVries, who hasn't played since the kids were opening St. Nick's stockings, shoehorn Xavier in because of the UNC comparables, and include a Texas team with unprecedentedly bad performance in meaningful games.

Quickly on Indiana, they had 4 Q1 wins, including 2 over protected seeds (at Michigan State, over Purdue), were undefeated in Q2 (and Q3 for that matter), and had better resume metrics than any of the three "Last Four In" teams we are discussing here. And don't get me started on Boise State or UC Irvine, it's very obvious that even with a majority of non-power conference members, the name on the front of the jersey is a whole lot more important than the substance of the resume. Texas & UNC over Boise is laughably bad, and while I can see leaving Irvine out (I did) there is no world under which they are not in the First Four out and should certainly be ahead of Ohio State. But again, name on the front of the jersey, unless you're Indiana who already fired their coach.

Missed Seedings

Three in particular stood out. The first one was on the 5-line, where Memphis shows up. The Selection Committee has 7 metrics on the team sheet. According to the NET, which is primarily a sorting tool for the quadrants, Memphis is ranked #51, which equates to a 13-seed. According to the results average, their 18.3 does reflect a 5-seed, but their predictive average puts them at 51.3, also a 13-seed. Logically, they should be somewhere between those ranges, which is why we had them as an 8-seed, giving them extra credit for their big wins and result averages despite the quality metrics saying they should be 5 seed lines lower. This miss was so bad that Memphis is a +3.5 point underdog at Action Network against 12-seed Colorado State.

Memphis earned their bid, but not their 5-seed

Photo by Ben Solomon | AAC

What compounds this is our next missed seed. Louisville landed on the 8-line. We had them as a 6, which was right in line with their 23.3 overall metric average. But if the message from Memphis is that resume metrics matter more for seeding, then why was Louisville's 13.7 resume average, more than a full seed line in value better than Memphis', not get them a better seed than the Tigers, particularly when Louisville was better in every other metric on the team sheet? This is the definition of hypocrisy, having completely different criteria for teams. This is exacerbated by putting Louisville in the Lexington pod with Auburn. This means that if Louisville wins, the overall #1 seed will be playing a de facto road game in their opening weekend. It's less than an 80 mile drive from Louisville to Lexington. That will be a heavily pro-Louisville crowd. So not only are the Cardinals punished in terms of being given a seed worse than they deserved, Auburn is punished by being bracketed against a team better than they should see in the second round in a road environment. Typically, a team is never given a true seed lower than their lowest metric. Louisville's lowest metric on the team sheet was their #28 BPI, which was only that low because it includes a factor for preseason ranking, so Louisville's worst metric was that bad because the formula BEFORE ANY GAMES WERE PLAYED didn't think they were good. But even with that, they should be no lower than #28, which is the last 7-seed. There is no excuse for this.

The last error of note is Gonzaga. Quite simply, they should not have been an 8-seed. The design of the bracket is to give a favorable path to the best teams. That means a 1-seed should not have to worry about facing a top-10 predictive matchup before the Elite Eight, and certainly not in the round of 32. But that's the case for Houston if they advance to play the Zags. While the seeding is only one line off what we had, Gonzaga's predictive metrics were far too good to put a 1-seed in that position the first weekend.

Our Results

On the whole, it was a decent year. We correctly predicted 65/68 teams, but as virtually everyone had West Virginia in, it was more akin to 65/67. Of those 65, we had 49 on their exact seed line and 14 that were one line off. Our total Paymon score, which is used to judge entries on the Bracket Matrix, was 356 points, a 10-point improvement over last year. Rankings will be out later, but we'll mostly be on to other pursuits (like picking our own bracket) at that point.

My final argument is that it is past time for the Selection Committee to be broken up and reconfigured. Having partisan conference members play such a major role in who gets in and who is left out is a bad look. Right now, it is impossible to not look at the selection of UNC over West Virginia and not assume the Chair's presence influenced that decision. According to the New York Post, Cunningham earns a $67,905 bonus for making the field. Whether that played into the selection or not, the mere impression that it could is problematic.

Rocco Miller belongs on the Selection Committee more than the current members

 

Photo from ESPN broadcast

The Selection Committee makeup should be radically reshaped. If conference commissioners and athletic directors are included, that should only be a portion of the makeup. On a 12-team Committee, they should make up no more than 3 spots. Perhaps one P4 member, one from the traditional non-P4 multibid leagues (Big East/Mountain West/WCC/American/etc), and one from the single-bid leagues. The Committee should also feature members of the media who cover this the entire year round at different levels. This shouldn't just be prominent names like a Gary Parish or Seth Davis, but people who track low and mid-majors, such as Jim Root from Three Man Weave. I would put three media members on the panel. There should also be bracketologists. For someone like me, this is a hobby I do aside from my full-time job, but there are people who track this annually and are in touch with the sport as a whole like Joe Lunardi, Rocco Miller, and Lukas Harkins. That should make up a portion of the Committee. And finally, there should be coaches in there. None that are working, and none that have not worked at multiple programs across different levels. People like Matt McCall, Scott Davenport, or Jay Wright would fit that mold.

The Committee as it exists clearly follows an agenda that has not been the best for programs at all levels of the sport. Diversifying the people that make these selections, bringing in different levels of media, coaching, and bracketologists to bolster the experience of college administrators would not only improve the process but the perception from the outside.

I would also make one last plea that this shows the need for expansion. If we are going to get garbage high-major teams like Texas and North Carolina with a field limited to 68, then the sport should really look at expanding to 80 so teams like Boise State and UC Irvine, both of whom were more deserving than any of the three high-major teams heading to Dayton, aren't left out in the cold and the bracket has room for them. I'm sure others will come away with the opposite conclusion, but year after year I've seen teams like 2019 UNC-Greensboro and 2024 Indiana State left out. There are countless others, but if the Selection Committee, even with a 7-5 membership edge outside the current power structure, cannot put these teams in under the current format, we need more bids to insure these teams get a shot.

Okay, ranting over. Enjoy the true start of March Madness!

Please Dance with Caution

 Welcome to the most exciting, important, and stressful portion of #mubb season. We are back to talk about where they are seeded in the tournament, what take-aways we have from BET, and how we feel going forward. We chatted about the match up against New Mexico and then look forward a potential match-up for revenge against Michigan State. We talk about hope (and good 3pt shooting) as the one and only path to a deep run. It's a fun pod and have to hope we've got several left in the season. Enjoy!

 

 https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/y56tvczjh8rwuiqu/Eggs_2025_March_16_Dance8qk7q.mp3

 

Cracketology: Final Submission

Pencils down!

Here are changes since this morning:

• Michigan winning the Big 10 Tournament moved them up to the 4 line, replacing Oregon.
• Rescrubbed the 6/7 cutoff, Saint Mary's moved up to a 6 and Kansas moved down to a 7.
• Reconsidered the bubble, heavily considered Xavier and UNC, but ultimately stuck with Indiana and Boise as the last two teams in the field.

Here we go:

 

Cracketology: Dreaming of a White Selection Sunday

 

Marquette fans in Milwaukee were greeted this morning by a heap of snow falling on this most festive of days. We may not have had a White Christmas, but we certainly have a White Selection Sunday. Let's get a quick rundown of where things stand going into Selection Sunday.

The last 1-seed: I feel good about Florida here, even if they lose. I'll re-evaluate if Tennessee pulls it off, but Florida will have the better metrics and Q1+2 record regardless. If not, Florida is clearly the most dangerous 2-seed.

At Sixes & Sevens: There is certainly confusion and disorder at the end of the 6-seeds and start of the 7-seeds. It seems for the most part that Missouri, Kansas, UCLA, and Illinois are the root of that. I went with Missouri and Kansas on the 6-line because they have better top end wins and metric averages. I seem to be in the minority, but we'll see how it pans out. BYU is also a complication because depending on the order of the 3-seeds, they may not be able to play as a 6-seed. I'm projecting Wisconsin as Big 10 champs, which pushes them up to #10 overall and opens the door for BYU/Texas Tech in Wichita.

Marquette's Seed: Because of the metrics and the evolution of wins, I can't get Marquette higher than #29 overall, the top 8-seed. I'm prepared to be wrong because Marquette does have a 6-seed resume, but the top 7 lines are stronger than normal this year, which means everyone from the 6-line to the middle of the 8-line has a 6-seed resume or better. One more win and Marquette is probably a 6, but they didn't get it while other teams got just enough results to inch ahead. The Golden Eagles playing New Mexico in Auburn's Lexington pod has been in every scenario I've envisioned since yesterday morning.

Last Team In: I agonized over this last night and this morning. I was down to Xavier, UNC, and UC Irvine. The overall resume favors UC Irvine, the cleanest resume belongs to Xavier, and UNC has the best metrics. Ultimately, the UC Irvine loss to UCSD was one loss too many, which knocked them out (UCSD would've been an at-large). That left Xavier and UNC, and from Q1 record to wins over the field to best overall win, Xavier was the winner. I feel good about Xavier ahead of UNC, and felt good about them as my last team until Boise lost to Colorado State. That puts Boise back into the at-large field. They have a better resume average than Xavier, similar win away from home (Saint Mary's on a neutral), and six wins over the field to Xavier's three. For now, Boise State is my last team in.

Bid Thieves: George Mason (A-10) and UAB (American) remain as potential bid thieves. One winning would knock Boise State out, two would knock Indiana out as well. George Mason would slot in as a 12-seed, while UAB is likely a 13 or 14. Personally I'd love the bid thieves because it would take out the debate over the last two spots. I do think VCU would get in if GMU wins the A-10, likely heading to Dayton. Memphis would stay on the 8-line.

Surprise Exclusions: Teams that most everyone projects in that could be left out are Baylor and Vanderbilt. The Bears' 13-14 record in Q1-3 is uninspiring and while most of their losses are Q1A, they only have 1 win in that same quadrant. I've seen them as high as the 9-line, but they could be on the outside looking in. Vanderbilt has a great collection of wins, but their #331 NCSOS typically isn't good enough to get to Dayton. That alone could keep them out, especially because in terms of scheduling intent, teams like SEMO & Jackson State (both Q4) were projected to be even worse to start the season.

Surprise Inclusions: We covered the most likely bubble teams, but if someone's name shocks people by getting in, it's either Ohio State with their excellent collection of wins or UC Irvine. The Buckeyes have three wins over top-5 seeds (Maryland, Kentucky, Purdue) with the latter two away from home and three more Q1 wins away from home. UC Irvine set a record for the most road wins by a D1 team. While 10 were in Q3+4, they went 4-1 in true road games in Q1+2. That's impressive, and I'd be very happy to be wrong and see UC Irvine in the field.

Here's the updated S-Curve and bracket:

Cracketology: Marquette Falls

A valiant first 10 minutes wasn't enough for Marquette

Photo by Jason Szenes | NY Post

The first 8 minutes against St. John's went about as well as Marquette could hope for. Kam Jones was cooking, the threes were falling, and the Golden Eagles raced out to a 24-9 lead. Then it all came apart as St. John's pulled back within 2 by halftime and overwhelmed Marquette in the second half. That result not only knocked Marquette out of the Big East Tournament, but coupled with Louisville's win over Clemson  pushed them down to an 8-seed. It could also jeopardize Marquette's 50-week streak in the AP Top 25 (4th longest in the nation) but that won't impact their NCAA selection or seeding.

The bubble is also of interest. First, here are the potential bid thieves still remaining:

Mountain West - Boise State/Colorado State: A thief here is guaranteed, and they knocked UC Irvine out of our field late last night. Boise has been tentatively placed as the Mountain West champ, and is still a viable at-large candidate. Colorado State likely needs to win to take a spot. The biggest question is if the winner will be on the 11 or 12 line, which would determine if a play-in game goes to the 12-line.

Atlantic 10 - George Mason/St. Joseph's/Loyola-Chicago: Any of these would be unexpected, and at a glance VCU should be included. However, the Selection Committee could hold their #280 NCSOS against them. Would it matter that teams like Seton Hall (bad loss) and Miami were Q4 games that typically would not be expected that low? Unsure, but VCU winning is best for teams on the bubble.

American - North Texas/UAB/Tulane: Memphis is locked into the field, though have also fallen down the seed lists. Any of these teams winning would likely slot them to the 12/13 lines. Keep an eye on this one until the end, no one on the bubble will feel safe until the American is decided.

Big West - UC Irvine: This is where it gets interesting. If the Anteaters take the automatic bid, UC San Diego goes into the at-large pool with a 2-1 Q1 record, a win at Utah State, and 11-5 record in the first three quadrants. I think that would be enough to get them to Dayton, but it would be close. I'm pulling for 2-bid Big West, but it feels like a long shot.

So what about the teams hoping to get in? Here are quick thoughts batching the teams at the bottom.

Shock Miss Potential - Baylor/Vanderbilt: Baylor is 13-14 in Q1-2 with only 1 Q1A win. Vanderbilt has a respectable all-around resume, but a glaring #331 NCSOS is something the Selection Committee could leave out. I think these teams are in, but while it would surprise pundits, there is precedent for leaving them out.

Sweating on the Inside - San Diego State/Indiana/Xavier: I think SDSU's wins over Houston and Creighton get them in, but every metric is very bubbly. Indiana has good resume metrics, but 4-13 in Q1 isn't good at all. Oklahoma was the first team out last year at 4-12 in Q1, so Indiana being left out wouldn't be unprecedented, but it took five bid thieves to knock OU out. Xavier is hanging on by their fingertips. They edge out North Carolina in Q1 and not having any bad losses, but bubbly metrics and a UConn win that is teetering on Q1/Q2 could be the deciding factor. If anything, this is clear evidence to do away with the Quadrant system.

Banging on the Window - UC Irvine/North Carolina: UC Irvine can remove doubt by winning today. Their 15-5 Q1-3 record and NCAA record 14 road wins are strong indicators, but UNC's metric superiority and the presence of Bubba Cunningham as Selection Committee chair could come into play. Colorado State could be in the mix, but I think they need to win their way in.

Unprecedented Either Way - Texas: No team that is more than 1 game under .500 in Q1-3 has ever made the tournament, and Texas is 12-15. No team with 7 Q1 wins has ever been left out of the field, and Texas has that. I think the shrinking bubble keeps them out, but they have a slim shot.

Here's our updated S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 13

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 8

Big East: 5

Mountain West: 4

ACC: 3

WCC: 2

Cracketology: March Dreams & Nightmares

Kam Jones & Shaka Smart want more NCAA milkshakes in March

Photo by Mike de Sisti | Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Selection Sunday is just days away, which means we will soon know where Marquette is going and who they will be matching up with in the NCAA Tournament. So much of March success is about matchups, which is why today we are going to look at potential first and second round opponents for Marquette to see who we hope to see and hope to avoid in the opening weekend.

First, we need to assess Marquette's strengths and weaknesses. I used a combination of kenpom, CBB Analytics, Haslametrics, and Synergy Sports to determine places Marquette can take advantage of opponents on offense and defense as well as places opponents can exploit Marquette.

Marquette Offense: Marquette's drive to get to the rim pays off as they are one of the best teams in the country when they get there. They are also very good at pick & pop plays, largely highlighted by Ben Gold's tendency to pop off of screens. In transition, they get a heavy dose of chances and are lethal when they are on the run. There are negatives as well. Marquette is miserable against zone. And while their 3PFG% conversion rate is just below average, the high frequency of three point attempts makes this a weakness, especially against teams that let them shoot those shots they are poor at converting on. Haslametrics notes Marquette performs poorly against teams that deny second chance points, largely because while they are decent on the offensive glass, they are terrible at putting those rebounds back through the hoop.

Marquette Defense: Marquette's pick and roll familiarity pays off with high efficiency defending those plays. They also excel at forcing turnovers and converting them into points, which is related to the offensive transition numbers. Marquette is also very good in isolation, which is good because it's a frequent means of attack for opposing teams. Where Marquette struggles is on cuts to the rim as well as defending off screens. Marquette can also be beat on the boards as teams are good at getting second chances and better at converting them.

We currently expect Marquette to land as either a 6-seed or 7-seed and will base our opponent expectations on those seed lines. Most of these evaluations will be based on Synergy percentiles, which means the higher the number the better the team is in that particular area.

Opening Round Opponents

11-Seed Dream - Indiana: Offensively, Marquette would likely gash Indiana at the rim (53%) and in transition (19%). They are average rebounding on both ends, so this isn't an area they would really be able to exploit. Indiana runs a lot of pick & roll ball handler (74%) but are terrible at executing it (7%). They're also an even worse shooting team than Marquette. One thing that jumped out is that while they don't use a lot of zone (3.9% of defensive possessions) they used zone on 42/66 possessions in their upset win at Michigan State. But overall, this is a team where the matchups would really favor Marquette.

11-Seed Nightmare - VCU: Defensively, what Marquette wants to do is exactly what VCU is best at taking away. They are in the 99th percentile of at the rim defense, they defend well off screens, and they are great denying second chances. While I do think Marquette could turn VCU over, their other strengths don't really play into what VCU is best at. The Rams are good at cuts and excellent coming off screens, both of which would be problematic. Add in a pair of high-major caliber scorers in Joe Bamisile and Max Shulga and the Rams will be a tough out. Not to mention all the extra attention that will come with a Shaka vs VCU matchup.

Marquette shouldn't be afraid of Jeremiah Fears & Oklahoma

Photo by Tim Aylen | AP Photo

10-Seed Dream - Oklahoma: This is a team Marquette should feast on. They are awful defending at the rim (9%), not particularly good in transition (43%), and turn the ball over a lot (Ranked 202nd). They don't run much zone and are poor defending putbacks. On the other end, pick and roll ball handler is their second most frequent play type but they execute poorly (11%) and they run heavy isolation (96% usage) with mediocre effectiveness (43%). They're also a poor cutting team (12%) and on put back attempts (26%) so they don't seem suited to take advantage of Marquette's weaknesses. While the individual talent of guys like Jeremiah Fears and Duke Miles is impressive, this is a team Marquette should handle.

10-Seed Nightmare - Utah State: Defensively this team is trouble. They primarily run zone, which will immediately make things more difficult for Marquette. They aren't great guarding the paint but do very well keeping teams out of it (7% frequency). They rate out as excellent guarding transition (89%), off screens (94%), and pick and roll ball handler (91%). Offensively, they are don't use much pick and roll ball handler (22% frequency) or iso (27%) and have the best turnover rate on the 10-line (ranked #87). They are great on cuts (99%) and good off screens (75%) and put backs (96%). Basically, the things Marquette would exploit they don't do frequently, and the things Marquette does poorly they are great at. Historically Mountain West teams don't fare well in the tournament, but I'm not sure Marquette wants to test that trend.

----------

--------------------

----------

Second Round Opponents

2-Seed Dream - Alabama: Take this with the caveat that playing any 2-seed isn't ideal, but what Marquette does well is suited to beat the Crimson Tide. They're the worst 2-seed defending the rim defending in transition (62% in both). They didn't run a single possession of zone this year per Synergy, don't chase teams off the line, and are abysmal on offensive putbacks (6%). Offensively, they're good-not-great on cuts (74%), off screens (59%), and on putbacks (53%) so they aren't going to massively exploit Marquette's weaknesses. While they are a good P&R team (89th), they turn it over a lot (Ranked 167th) while not turning opponents over at all (350th) so this is a team Marquette should have a possession edge over. Add in the marquee matchup of Kam Jones vs Mark Sears and I would like Marquette's chances.

2-Seed Nightmare - Tennessee: The Vols have an elite rim defense (98%) and are good guarding off screens (73%) and transition (69%). They don't chase teams off the line but are great at shutting down three point shooters (#2 rank 3PFG% D). Offensively, they are a great cutting team (86%). And while it wasn't one of our focuses above, they are also elite on baseline out-of-bounds plays (93%) which is another weakness for Marquette (9%) as anyone who watched the Dayton game will remember.

Buzz Williams' Texas A&M squad would be a tough, tough out

Photo by Erik Williams | USA Today Sports

3-Seed Dream - Kentucky: The Wildcats are poor defending the rim (32%) and in transition (25%). While they run a little zone, they are 1-5 in games where they play 5+ zone possessions and their zone efficiency (2%) is woeful. And while it's not as prevalent as it was with Tyler Kolek, Kentucky's defense saw more pick and roll ball handler than any other play type and were miserable (5%) defending it, which is still a place Marquette excels (90%). Offensively, they would pose problems as it would be strength on strength with their offensive pick and roll (92%) and isolation (92%), while they are a great cutting team (100%). Kentucky doesn't turn it over a ton (Ranked #37) but were 1-4 in games where they turned over 19.2+% possessions, something Marquette did in 20/31 games.

3-Seed Nightmare - Texas A&M: This would be another game that fans thought was planned by the Selection Committee. The Aggies are great defending the rim (88%), pick & pop (86%), and mix in a lot of zone (79%) with very good results (84%). Offensively, it all really comes down to rebounding. Texas A&M leads the nation in offensive rebound rate and second change points according to Haslametrics. They wouldn't beat Marquette with skill, but their physicality is like St. John's on steroids. It would also be a particularly bitter pill to come up short against Buzz Williams. Marquette would have to turn A&M over, turn up the pace, and turn this into a shooting contest.

14/15-Seed Dream - Anyone: While it wouldn't be unheard of for a 14-seed or 15-seed to win, any of these are preferable to anyone above. If Marquette gets to the second round against a lower seeded team, that's a dream under any circumstance.

Let's look at the updated S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 13

Big 10:  9

Big 12: 8

Big East: 5

ACC: 3

Mountain West: 3

Big West: 2

WCC: 2

Cracketology: Championship Week Watchlist

 

Marquette & Kansas will battle for conference titles & seeding this week

Photo by Marco Garcia | AP Photo

We have made it to Championship Week, and while it might not be the week to watch that Marquette fans were expecting in January, there's still a lot to pay attention to. Today will just be a quick hit to update the seed list and explain the six groupings of teams we are looking at. We'll go a bit deeper on the third grouping, which is where Marquette is located.

First Grouping - The 1-Seed Contenders: Auburn, Duke, Houston, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Michigan State

The first four currently sit in 1-seed position. Auburn and Duke are pretty well cemented here. Houston and Florida are solid, but Alabama or Tennessee can make a case with an SEC Tournament title, while it would be hard to imagine a Big 10 regular season and tournament champ not being on the 1-line. None of these teams will be below a 2-seed.

Second Grouping - Protected Seed Contenders: St. John's, Texas Tech, Kentucky, Texas A&M, Iowa State, Purdue, Maryland, Wisconsin, Clemson, Oregon, Arizona, Saint Mary's

I feel confident about the St. John's through Wisconsin group likely being protected seeds. One of those Big 10 teams might fall out, but they are in good shape. Clemson and Oregon are very close for the last 4-seed, with Clemson having the edge metrically over Oregon's overall wins. Arizona and Saint Mary's are a stretch in this group, but too good to be in the next group.

Third Grouping - The Middle Seeds: Michigan, UCLA, BYU, Illinois, Louisville, Ole Miss, Kansas, Marquette, Missouri, Memphis, Mississippi State

This group has fluctuated a little, but the 20-30 spots have been the hardest to sort out over the past 7-10 days. A tournament title could put any of these teams into the mix to climb into the battle for the last 4-seed, while a loss could have them dropping to an 8 or even a 9. I expect game through Friday to hold weight here because the resumes are so close. We'll look ahead at each of these teams further down this page so you know when to tune in for Marquette fans trying to figure out their seed in real time.

Fourth Grouping - Should Be In: UConn, Creighton, Gonzaga, Utah State, Georgia, New Mexico, West Virginia, Vanderbilt, Drake

Obviously Drake is in, but they round out this group of teams from a seeding perspective. These are primarily the 8-10 seeds that should feel confident they will hear their names on Selection Sunday. Gonzaga is probably the most difficult to figure out here, as they have 11-seed resume metrics and 3-seed predictive metrics. The WCC finishes early, so if they can get the title it might push them as high as a 6 or 7. I do think they are in regardless, but I wouldn't advise losing their opener to test the Selection Committee. For Marquette, a UConn/Creighton Big East Tournament title would be a bad thing. Right now the non-con wins have Marquette clearly grouped ahead of the other Big East teams here, but if they are drawn into a direct comparison, Creighton being the outright #2 with so a double-round-robin to compare and UConn having the sweep of Marquette could have either of those teams jumping up ahead of the Golden Eagles.

Fifth Grouping - Bid Thief Watchers: Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, San Diego State, Xavier, UC San Diego, Baylor, UC Irvine

This past weekend really cleared up the bubble picture. These teams are in, but those last three in particular (four if SDSU loses to Boise) should be watching for bid thieves. These are teams that have generally overcome fatal flaws and have enough to be in. I don't think these teams will automatically fall out with an early loss, but a loss and a bid thief could push any of them (especially the Dayton-bound) out of the field. In the Big West, UC San Diego has the better bubble case than UC Irvine because of their win over Utah State, so for that to be a 2-bid league the most likely scenario is Irvine beating UCSD in the title game.

Sixth Grouping - On Life Support: North Carolina, Boise State, Wake Forest, Dayton

I have a hard time seeing any of these teams getting in, but if some of the teams in the fifth grouping lose early and there aren't many bid thieves, these are the teams with the best cases to sneak into Dayton. UNC and Wake will likely have a play-out game on Thursday with the winner needing to beat Duke to have any shot of an at-large. Boise gets SDSU in a game that could flip the two Mountain West schools. Dayton has been hanging at the edge of the bubble but the big non-con wins might get them back in the mix if they can add a couple wins and get chaos ahead of them. Anyone not listed here likely needs to win a conference tournament to hear their name.

Here's a quick look at the next games for the teams in the third grouping:

Michigan vs Purdue/Rutgers/USC - Friday, March 14: Michigan needs a couple wins to have any hope of getting back to the 4-line. They haven't played well of late, but if they get a win over Purdue it would likely secure them on the 5-line barring someone from behind making a big run.

UCLA vs Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa - Friday, March 14: The Bruins have been strong since their 4-game swoon in early January. Their top end wins are excellent but the 5-line is probably their ceiling because of the late title game.

BYU vs Iowa State/Oklahoma State/Cincinnati - Thursday, March 13: BYU has rocketed up the seed list of late. They might have the best case in this grouping to be able to get to the 4-line with a tournament title because their path would likely include Iowa State, Houston, and another team in the field while also wrapping up by Saturday night. Their seed could come down to location as they need to open play in Providence, Lexington, Wichita, or Denver while playing in the East or West regions.

Illinois vs Iowa/Ohio State - Thursday, March 13: Which Illinois team will show up in Indianapolis? They could win the whole thing and likely push for a 5-seed or possibly back end 4, or could drop their first game and crack the door for Ohio State (if they are alive) to crawl back into the field.

Louisville vs Stanford/Virginia Tech/Cal - Thursday, March 13: Louisville won't move the dial on Thursday, needing to beat Clemson and/or Duke to really help their case. Despite the gaudy record, the lack of resume wins in the ACC has them looking destined for the 6/7 lines.

Ole Miss vs Arkansas/South Carolina - Thursday, March 13: For Ole Miss to move the needle they need to win at least two games, which would include Auburn on Friday. That feels unlikely. I feel safe pencilling them in as a 7-seed, as their destiny seems to rely more on the teams around them than themselves.

Kansas vs Utah/UCF - Wednesday, March 12: The Jayhawks win over Arizona stopped the bleeding, but they'll need to win their opener and beat Arizona again to have any shot at moving up further. It feels like a 6-seed is their ceiling unless they win the Big 12 Tournament.

Marquette vs Xavier - Thursday, March 13: It will be a desperate Musketeers squad that lines up Thursday night as they are 2 bid thieves removed from being on the outside looking in. If Marquette can win Thursday and Friday, they should be safely on the 6-line, with a 5-seed still possible. Barring some collapse further up the bracket, I don't see them getting back to the protected seeds. On the other end, a loss could see Marquette end up in an 8/9 game, though most likely still wearing home whites in the opener.

Missouri vs Mississippi St/LSU - Thursday, March 13: If Mississippi State beats LSU, that sets up the only Middle vs Middle battle currently on our slate. Mizzou's wins have them on the 7-line ahead of Mississippi State, but if one of these teams can win and then beat Florida, they could jump up 1-2 lines. I can't imagine much after that mattering with the SEC not wrapping their tournament until Sunday.

Memphis vs South Florida/Wichita State - Friday, March 14: Tiger fans won't like seeing themselves on the 8-line, but their wins have lost some luster and three Q3 losses is more outside Q1+2 than any team in the running for a single-digit seed. This is one of the hardest teams to seed as they have 5-seed resume metrics and 13-seed predictive metrics. They get bumped up a bit because of their Q1 record (6-1) and counting as AAC champs, but this is a team that could land anywhere from the 5-10 seed lines because of their bizarre resume.

Here's our current seed list:

 

Better but not good enough ends the regular season

 Welp, it wasn't the regular season ending we wanted for #mubb and it's been a long time since we've been daggered like that. We're back to talk about the last week of the regular season and just kind of sort out our feelings. We also talk about where the team is at overall and what hope/fears we have for the win or go home portion of the season. We chat about the Big East tournament and what we can expect from there before turning to the NCAA tournament and touching on seeding and match ups. Now it's time for everyone to get serious. Enjoy!

 

 

https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/hc29ndu5nrmvee4j/Eggs_2025_March_9_FSJU6tdbu.mp3