A live #mubb champion AND pod

We are coming to you live from Phil's murder basement to talk 'ships for #mubb. We review the Creighton game and then pivot to the good stuff, the win over DePaul which results in MU having at least a share of the Big East Conference Title. We then talk the significance of this season and what we think the rest of the season looks like.....we spend very little time analyzing Butler and St John's for the record. It was a fun pod to record so we hope you enjoy! https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/mksskx/ScrambledEggs_Editted_022623.mp3

Bracketology What If?

Uatu is here to ask...What If?

Marvel fans are familiar with the concept of What If? The stories explore how events may have been different by changing the answer to one question. While that's easy to do in fantasy worlds, Mark Strotman raised the idea of doing What If? in the Marquette Cinematic Universe. With that in mind,we'll look at how Marquette's resume might be different if the final few minutes of some Marquette losses had played out differently. Where one question changes everything, today we ask...What If?

 What if Iggy had finished off Bully?

What If...Marquette had beat Mississippi State in Fort Myers?

This win might be the most intriguing because of the multiple reverberations it would have had. Not only would it turn a Quadrant 1 loss into a win, it would turn the Quadrant 4 Georgia Tech win into a Quadrant 2 Utah win. This assumes Marquette and Mississippi State both would have won the next night. This would improve Marquette's Q1 record from 5-5 to 6-4, improve their Q1+2 record from 9-6 to 11-5, and give them another win over the field. Playing Utah instead of Georgia Tech would also have improved the non-conference strength of schedule and overall SOS. That would've been enough to push them ahead of Indiana at the Reveal, and Marquette would have moved solidly on to the 3-line at worst with Iowa State's recent miscues.

What If...Marquette had won the final minute at Xavier?

After Oso Ighodaro's jumper tied the game at 72, Xavier took a timeout with less than a minute to play. Souley Boum scored on the ensuing possession and Xavier outscored Marquette 8-4 in the final minute to hold on in Cincy. Had Marquette won that game, they would've claimed a share of the Big East title on February 22nd with Providence's fifth loss. Marquette's Gold Out win over DePaul would've clinched the outright title.

In terms of resume, this would have had two impacts. First, it would've knocked Xavier out of the top-16 reveal, opening the door for UConn to replace them. Second, it would've given Marquette a road win the likes of which they didn't have at the time of the reveal. In all honesty, though, turning the Xavier loss or Providence loss to a win would've had the same impact, adding a Q1 road win and moving Marquette up slightly. Winning the Wisconsin game would've had a similar impact. While it wouldn't add the quality of win, it would take away Marquette's worst loss and the only one with potential to drop to Q3. While any of them would've moved Marquette up a spot or two, they weren't the most important narrow miss. 

 What If Purdue Pete had run out of steam?

What If...Marquette had held on to beat Purdue?

Marquette led 58-49 with less than 10 minutes to play, but the deciding moment likely came at about the 8 minute mark. Purdue started to get some momentum, but was still trailing by 6 when Brandon Newman turned the ball over. Chase Ross attempted a three in transition and missed. Kam Jones got the rebound, kicked it out, and Ross missed again. Oso Ighodaro collected yet another offensive rebound, the ball got back to Ross, and he missed another three. Newman secured the rebound, turned the ball up court, and David Jenkins hit a transition three to cut the lead to just 3. But what if Ross had hit one of those threes, Marquette re-established the 9 point lead, and was able to get the defense set instead of giving up a transition three opportunity? In our scenario, Marquette holds on and beats Purdue at Mackey.

We know what happened after that. Purdue dominated Duke and Gonzaga in Portland and spent much of the season ranked at the top of the AP Poll. Not only would Marquette have been ranked sooner and likely held on to their rankings through later losses, their resume metric average would be single-digits currently, their predictive metrics would be better, and they would have a second Q1A road win to go along with the Creighton victory last week. At the reveal, the only thing that separated Marquette from Kansas State and Iowa State on the three line was Quadrant 1A road wins. Having the Purdue win would've given Marquette clear metric and win quality superiority over those teams. They would have been no worse than 11 at the reveal. Further, the subsequent losses by Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, Baylor, and Texas, coupled with the Creighton win would have pushed Marquette near the top of the 2-line.

Perhaps most important, however, would be the impact this had on Purdue as they have struggled of late. Add another loss to their resume and we would be comparing 23-6 Purdue to 24-5 Marquette. Marquette would have the better record in Q1A, the better Q1A road wins, the better away record, and closer metrics. The Selection Committee noted at the reveal that Alabama was ahead of Houston because of their head-to-head win, which mattered that high up on the S-Curve. It is reasonable to think that had Marquette beat Purdue, that would resonate with the Selection Committee and be the reason why Marquette would at this moment be angling for a 1-seed instead of a 3-seed with an uphill climb to move any higher.

Now...we move back to reality as we know it. First, a few notes on our new S-Curve and bracket:

• At 10 on the S-Curve, Marquette may be stagnating there due to K-State's favorable schedule  while everyone on the 2-line is stronger in terms of quality wins (current 2's all have at least 13 Q1+2 wins to Marquette's 9) and average metrics (RAP Scores between 5.7 and 9.2, compared to Marquette's 14.0). A reminder, RAP is the average of the Resume average And Predictive average from the team sheet. Teams line up within one seed line of that score 80% of the time.
• There is a viable way for Marquette to improve their Quadrant 1+2 record, but it's outside their control. Currently Villanova (#78 NET) and Seton Hall (#80) are right outside the magic #75 number. Marquette has a 4-0 record against them, which provides two Quadrant 2 road wins (76-135) and two Quadrant 3 home wins (76-160). If they move up a few spots though, all of those games shift up a Quadrant, which means the Q2 total remains the same, but the resume effect turns those Q3 games into Q1. Today, Marquette is 5-5 in Q1 and 9-6 in Q1+2 combined. Moving those games up would change that to 7-5 Q1 and 11-6 in Q1+2.
• The 75-rank swings both ways. If Villanova and Seton Hall moved up while #73 Colorado and #75 Washington State dropped down, Arizona would lose a Q1 win and add a Q3 loss while UCLA would effectively see two Q1 wins drop to Q3. What happens to those four teams could determine what happens on the 2-line come Selection Sunday.
  
• Lots of movement from familiar names. Arkansas and Kentucky have moved up significantly of late, while Iowa State and Providence are sinking down.
• The bubble is a mess. Wisconsin, Penn State, New Mexico, and the Big 12 bubble schools all took losses this weekend. Teams like Michigan, North Carolina, and Clemson are trying to knock on the door, but so far haven't done enough to get in. We have added Utah State and Arizona State to the field. At the end of the day, you have to put 68 teams in.

Here's the latest S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

Big 10: 8

SEC: 8

Big 12: 7

Big East: 5

ACC: 5

Mountain West: 4

Pac-12: 4

American: 2

WCC: 2

March Travel Plans

We have your travel breakdown for those looking to fly into March with Marquette
 Photo from gomarquette.com

Now that Marquette's NCAA Tournament fate is no longer a matter of if, it's time to start talking about potential destinations. Marquette moves up to a 3-seed in our latest bracket and the likelihood of playing relatively close to Milwaukee is improving consistently. The NCAA Tournament is broken up into eight first weekend destinations and 4 second weekend regions. With Marquette in mind, here are the travel distances to NCAA sites:

Let's go through the sites and see which are most likely and which probably won't come into play. We'll also look at potential geographical nightmares. The NCAA doesn't allow geographic disadvantages for seeded teams against opponents who are within 50 miles of the venue, but we do look at teams Marquette could see in the first weekend that are close but outside that 50 mile circle.

1. Columbus, OH (452 miles)

This is Marquette's second choice location and where they would land if the tournament started today. Purdue will almost certainly be here, but of the other teams fighting for a top-4 seed, only Indiana and Xavier have it as their first choice, and only Tennessee and Virginia have it as a top-two choice (both are likely to go to Greensboro). If Marquette started losing games, they could lose Columbus as a preference, but at this point Columbus is our pick for Marquette's opening weekend destination. Geographical Nightmare Draw: No one wants to be a 3-seed headed to Columbus to play the Dayton Flyers. The NCAA doesn't allow protected seeds to play any school within 50 miles of the site, but Dayton's campus is 70 miles from Nationwide Arena. Flyer fans would pack that venue and have all the hometown fans on their side.

2. Des Moines, IA (373 miles)

This is Marquette's first choice location, but it is also the first choice for Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Creighton, as well as second choice for Baylor. As a probable 1-seed, Kansas seems locked into Des Moines, which means the other teams are playing to be the team to join them. While it's only second choice for Baylor, the Bears' first choice is Birmingham, which is likely getting Alabama and Houston, so Baylor is one of the favorites for Des Moines as well. For Marquette to get to Des Moines, they need to get to the 2-line and get past both Baylor and Kansas State. That seems highly unlikely. I don't think Des Moines is likely to host Marquette. Geographical Nightmare Draw: The Iowa Hawkeyes are currently on the 9 line, but if they played their way to a 7-seed, that could create a 2017 South Carolina situation as Iowa's campus is 114 miles away from Wells Fargo. If Iowa is here, it would be packed with diehards and Wal-Mart fans alike.

3. Albany, NY (911 miles)

If Marquette falls back to the 4 line behind Indiana, then Albany becomes likely. That's because Birmingham and Sacramento will likely fill with one and two seeds, Greensboro will go to teams that would likely pass Marquette in the process of falling down a line, and if Marquette was high enough to get Denver, at least one of their preferred options above would be there. There is a positive to getting Albany, as there could be a strong Big East contingent if UConn earns a protected seed and lands there. Geographical Nightmare Draw: It would be bad enough being a 4-seed having to face Rick Pitino in the first round, but Iona is 148 miles away from Albany's MVP Arena. This site would give Iona not just a coaching edge but a crowd edge against almost any opponent they see.

4. Orlando, FL (1,253 miles)

If Marquette is at the end of the 4-line or on the 5-line, Orlando is a very real possibility because this site will almost certainly have two 4-seeds as the least desirable location for most teams. This site has gone from highly likely to pretty unlikely as Marquette has moved up the S-Curve, but if things go bad, it's still a realistic opening weekend destination. Geographical Nightmare Draw: It's entirely possible a 4-seed could get sent to Orlando and have to take on the home state Miami Hurricanes in the second round. At 234 miles, this is Miami's first choice destination

We're not going to focus as deeply on the second weekend because with more limited options, everyone is competing for the same few spots so it's harder to isolate where a team might land based on who else is around them. Marquette's top choice would be Louisville, a little under 400 miles from campus. Instead, let's move on to the new S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 8

SEC: 8

ACC: 5

Big East: 5

Mountain West: 3

Pac-12: 3

American: 2

WCC: 2

Talking good crowds, Creighton, and titles

We're back to talk about your sole possession of first place in the Big East, #mubb (that's a lot, but I love it). We start off with a quick discussion of the Xavier game and the intensity of the crowd and the win itself. We then turn to the next big milestone and the biggest game of the season to date, a road game against Creighton. If you are superstitious you might want to knock on wood or something cause we're talking path to the Big East title. We then prep for Joe's first trip to the Fiserv and get a little silly(ier). Enjoy! https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/d6p5xf/ScrambledEggs_Editted_022023.mp3

Top-16 Reset

 

The NCAA revealed their Top-16 teams on Saturday, and the general reaction among bracketologists was one of confusion. There have been a number of comments about what the Selection Committee got wrong, where they were inconsistent, and where they flat out didn't make sense. But why was there so much confusion?

Matt Norlander on the CBS Sports Eye on College Basketball shared this from his interview with Selection Committee chairman Chris Reynolds: "They put about 22 hours of work into this top-16 this week...they got together on Monday, long day on Tuesday, a little more on Wednesday." This feels incredibly important for a few reasons. First, they were done selecting, seeding, and placing their top-16 by Wednesday. That means the Marquette win over Xavier, Tennessee win over Alabama, Indiana loss to Northwestern, and Maryland win over Purdue were not factored into the Top-16 at all. Norlander also mentioned "there was no other team in contention for a one-seed." We'll discuss this timing later, but this information seems incredibly important and might clearly explain the confusion from bracketologists.

In terms of results, Cracked Sidewalks had 15/16 teams correct (Our #12 UConn was out, our #18 Xavier was in). In terms of seeding, we had 11 exact and 5 within one seed line (including Xavier, though UConn was two off). However, to support the "decisions were made without factoring this week" theory, our bracket from Sunday was even more accurate. 15/16 were still correct, but 13/16 were exact seeds and the other 3 were within one seed line. Had we just gone with our bracket from before this past week's games, we would've been better than we were after the games. That supports that this past weeks games didn't matter. So what did we learn? Let's dig in.

1-Seeds: Alabama, Houston, Purdue, Kansas

We had all the teams right, but our order was off, with our #2 Kansas and #4 Houston flipped. Most likely, the Selection Committee voted on the 1-seeds and 2-seeds on Monday. At that time, Alabama had not yet lost to Tennessee and Purdue had not yet lost to Maryland. Despite that, it seems metrics were prioritized for Houston. The teams did fall in exact order of the RAP score on Monday night. Had they voted these on Friday, the order likely would've changed. But if they voted Monday and put heavy stock in Houston's predictive numbers, this makes sense.

2-Seeds: Texas, Arizona, Baylor, UCLA

We correctly placed 3/4 here, and said we could understand Arizona supplanting Tennessee, which is what happened in terms of teams, but again the order was wrong. This really seems to be down to timing. If the 2-seeds were voted in on Monday, Texas had the best RAP score and zero losses outside the field. That night, they took a loss to Texas Tech while Baylor got a win over the field against West Virginia. Two nights later, 3-seed Tennessee added a win over the top overall seed, Alabama. That win was a big part of why we put Tennessee on the 2-line. It seems UCLA's lack of quality wins hurt them and not factoring in results Monday or later impacted the order here. This will be considered in our new S-Curve.

3-Seeds: Tennessee, Virginia, Iowa State, Kansas State

This is the first line that shocked us, mainly because of the inclusion of Iowa State and Kansas State. Metrically, this line went perfectly with RAP Score of these teams, but Gonzaga, Marquette, and Indiana all had better RAP Scores than ISU or KSU. Metrically, there is a huge gap between Tennessee and Virginia to the rest of this line. The other thing that stands out is wins over the top two lines. Tennessee, Iowa State, and Kansas State all had three wins over teams on the top two lines while Virginia had one. What this tells us is that as we get further down the S-Curve, quality wins are more important than raw metric numbers. However, we also know that on Tuesday, Kansas State lost to Oklahoma, on Wednesday, Tennessee beat Alabama, Marquette beat Xavier, and Iowa State beat TCU. We do not believe these results were factored into the Top-16.

4-Seeds: Indiana, Marquette, Gonzaga, Xavier

The biggest surprise here, depending on who you ask, was either Indiana's inclusion (though we predicted them as a 4) or UConn's exclusion (that was surprising). What surprised us about Indiana was their placement ahead of Marquette and Gonzaga, During the week, both Marquette and Gonzaga improved their position with significant wins while Indiana hurt their own standing. Xavier added a loss that may not have hurt much, but opens the door for the teams behind them. Indiana does, however, have three true road wins over tourney teams, which is three times as many as Marquette, Gonzaga, and Xavier combined. We continue to see the importance of true road wins over tourney teams (something Marquette should bear in mind Tuesday night).

Presumed 5-Seeds: Creighton, Miami, St. Mary's, and UConn were mentioned in alphabetical order. Reynolds specifically said this was not the actual order of those teams. One thing that's notable is Creighton, St. Mary's, and UConn were the three highest NET and Predictive Metric Average teams not included. Further, of all the teams considered with five or more Q1+2 wins, Miami and St. Mary's had the best winning percentages. This shows a pretty straightforward mix of computer numbers and quadrant performance. So as confusing as this Selection Committee looks, it's probably more straight forward than people assume.

Takeaways

• Road wins over tourney teams are gold: Whether it's the placement of K-State and Iowa State or the inclusion of Indiana, the teams that outperformed their metrics are the ones that got big wins on the road. Looking down the bracket, this is good news for teams like Kentucky, Wisconsin, and New Mexico.
• Metrics alone are not enough: UConn and to a lesser extent St. Mary's not making the cut shows that just having gaudy predictive numbers won't be enough. Teams like North Carolina and Memphis shouldn't feel safe, but this reveal only makes it worse.
• Championship Week (again) won't matter: If they made these decisions with 4-5 days of results not factored in, it's highly unlikely they'll allow the results of Championship week to matter. We saw it with Texas A&M's exclusion and Virginia Tech's seeding last year. Championship Week isn't worth considering when it comes to selection or seeding changes.
• The Bubble shrunk: It looked a lot more wide open a week ago, but the weight of road wins over tourney teams really helps the competing Big 12 schools and high-majors like Mississippi State and Wisconsin while hurting teams like North Carolina and Arizona State. Ultimately, the final two spots came down to just four teams, with USC and Wisconsin edging out New Mexico and Penn State. The further we go into the season, the more clear the bubble becomes.
  

 Let's look at the updates.

Multibid Leagues

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 8

SEC: 8

ACC: 5

Big East: 5

Mountain West: 3

Pac-12: 3

American: 2

WCC: 2

Top-16 Reveal Preview

Shaka Smart has Marquette in the Top-16 Reveal in his second year in Milwaukee

Photo by Mark Hoffman | JS Online

The NCAA's annual Top-16 Reveal will be released Saturday morning and for the first time since 2019, Marquette should expect to hear their name included in that group of teams. Today Cracked Sidewalks looks at what we expect to see tomorrow, as well as where there might be debate along the seed lines.

1-Seeds: Alabama, Kansas, Purdue, Houston

The teams here seem relatively certain. Alabama should be the top overall seed, and we have Kansas ahead of Purdue due to the sheer volume of Quadrant 1 wins. The Jayhawks metrics have largely caught up with their gaudy resume as well. Purdue's loss at Maryland dropped them to three overall, with Houston the final 1-seed.

Where we're prepared to be wrong: The order may be different, but it would be truly shocking for any other teams to be on the 1-line. Baylor's overall resume comes up short, UCLA doesn't have the quality wins, and no one else has a legitimate case for the top line.

2-Seeds: Baylor, UCLA, Texas, Tennessee

While Baylor is our top 2-seed, if they show up on this line it would be unprecedented. Never before has a team outside the top-11 in the current NCAA metric been included in the top two seed lines at the reveal. We're standing by the Bears due to their Quadrant 1 work, and they were in the top-11 of NET earlier this week before Gonzaga's win at LMU. UCLA and Texas look very solid here as well. Tennessee was a tough call, but they have a RAP score of 6.25, which is 6th best in the country and their top-level wins (including the recent win over Alabama) really shone through.

Where we're prepared to be wrong: It isn't unprecedented Baylor but rather Tennessee we have the least confidence in. It wouldn't be shocking to see Arizona ahead of the Vols due to their 5-0 Quadrant 1A record. However, Arizona's RAP score of 9.6 just doesn't match up and they have two losses worst than Tennessee's worst loss. In fact, all of Arizona's losses came to teams outside the field. However, Arizona does have a home win over Tennessee. Last year the Selection Committee did cite head-to-head in the Reveal, so that could play in here. It's close between those two, but we're sticking with the Volunteers.

3-Seeds: Arizona, Virginia, Gonzaga, Connecticut

As mentioned, this is as low as Arizona could fall. Virginia looks very solid for the 3-line with a 9-4 Q1+2 record, zero losses outside Quadrant 1, and good metrics, but then it gets a bit murky. We went with Gonzaga and Connecticut. Gonzaga had the best RAP score, the best Q1+2 record, the best individual win (Alabama on a neutral), and the best road record. UConn got the nod because of their stellar metrics. While there are some questionable losses, the Selection Committee has consistently shown they value wins more than losses, and UConn's wins over Alabama and Iowa State on neutral courts as well as Marquette and Creighton at home are better than anyone else below them can present.

Where we're prepared to be wrong: Bracket Matrix has Marquette ahead of both Gonzaga and Connecticut, and we would be ecstatic for them to be right and us to be wrong. Last night, we joined the Delphi Bracketology podcast, and both of the other bracketologists also had Marquette on the 3-line. So why is this Marquette blog lower on Marquette? Their RAP score lags behind the Gonzaga and Connecticut teams they were being compared to. Their three best wins are all at home and they don't have a single win away from home over a team currently in the projected field. Marquette's resume is good and they've been great in Big East play, but that doesn't nullify what Gonzaga and UConn did in non-conference play. At this point, Marquette just doesn't look like a 3-seed yet. Beat Creighton on Tuesday and that would almost certainly change.

4-Seeds: Marquette, Iowa State, Kansas State, Indiana

Marquette and Iowa State were easy choices to be here. After that it was very difficult. Historically, 96.9% (93/96) of the teams included in the reveal were in the top-22 of the current metric. Both Indiana (17) and Kansas State (20) met that criteria. Kansas State boasts three wins against teams on the top-two seed lines, and two of those were in true road games. The Wildcats' predictive metrics (31.3) drag down their RAP score and limit how high they can be placed, but their overall body of work warrants a 4-seed. Indiana was a tougher call, but adding a win over Purdue to their wins at Xavier and Illinois really help. Their RAP score is consistent with this range and they have a winning Q1+2 record with no losses outside those Quadrants.

Where we're prepared to be wrong: Not on Marquette, unless they are higher than we project them. Ultimately, 5 other teams were considered for the final Top-16 spot that went to Indiana. In NET order, they were St. Mary's, Creighton, San Diego State, Xavier, and Miami. It isn't unreasonable to think any of those teams could sneak into the reveal. All of them, however, have some issues. In terms of RAP score, four of the five are behind Indiana, with only St. Mary's ahead of them. In terms of bad losses, four of the five have at least 1 Quadrant 3 loss, with St. Mary's having two and only San Diego State being unblemished there. Indiana is tied for the most wins against the field (6) with Xavier. Indiana is also the only team here with a win over a projected 1 or 2-seed, with their win over Purdue. It wouldn't shock us to not see Indiana, but in basically every category that mattered, the Hoosiers were either the best or right there, and they didn't have any borderline disqualifying blemishes, like St. Mary's two Quadrant 3 losses, Creighton's 30.5 resume average, or the sub-22 NET of #26 Xavier and #30 Miami. San Diego State also didn't have anything disqualifying but the 5-2 Quadrant 1 win edge, the 6-2 wins over the field edge, the 18.85-20.15 RAP scores, and like it or not, the Big 10-Mountain West league affiliations all played in Indiana's favor.

Other things to watch: Where Houston falls on the 1-line could be telling. They have a skimpy resume in terms of quality but excellent metrics. That could bode well for teams like Kentucky and North Carolina on the bubble. Similarly, if Kansas is closer to the top with their mass of Q1 wins, that could be good for teams like Wisconsin and Oregon who have nice wins but mediocre metrics. St. Mary's is another to watch. If their NET gets them into the Top-16 despite their bad losses, that could bolster the hopes of teams like FAU and Clemson, though for different reasons.

Our Bracket: We have a full S-Curve and bracket below. We're getting closer to the time when these things start to more closely mimic what we'll see in less than a month. A few things to remember. First, automatic bids will change the 12-16 lines significantly. Because many of these projected teams will lose in their conference tournaments, the odds of the teams here (especially in the 13-15 range) showing up exactly where predicted if they make it is unlikely. Don't put much stock in where a Bradley or Iona is today, that will likely change if they get in.

The 7-line made things very difficult because it consisted of 4 Big 10 teams. That led to moving one of the 11-seed play-in games down a line. The at-large play-ins need to be on different days (one plays Tuesday, one Wednesday), which meant a play-in had to go to Sacramento. However, it was impossible to put a non-SEC team there opposite Auburn, and despite numerous efforts to shuffle the 6-seeds, the best option was to move Charleston up to the 11 line and put a 12-seed play-in in Orlando.

Finally, Marquette's draw was interesting. Former Marquette player and assistant Brian Wardle and Bradley to open things up, the winner of St. Mary's and Sam Houston (who owns two Q1 wins), and likely overall top seed Alabama in the Sweet 16. If they advance past that, either Texas or Tony Bennett would be the likely impediments to a Final Four. Of course, plenty will change between now and Selection Sunday, but it isn't too early to start thinking about some of these matchups. Let's get on to the results of our latest bracket scrub:

Multibid Leagues

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 8

SEC: 8

ACC: 5

Big East: 5

Mountain West: 3

Pac-12: 3

American: 2

WCC: 2

Mixed results, but #mubb is in the hunt for a title

We are back for another #ScrambledEggs podcast to discuss the week that was and what will be for #mubb. First we chat about the UConn loss and dissect how bad it was. We spend as little time as possible talking about the Georgetown game since it was essentially a buy game for MU. We then talk progress for the team and what to expect against a short handed Xavier game. Finally, we play a "how likely is it" game with season awards, etc. As always, enjoy! https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/krn3dz/ScrambledEggs_Editted_021123.mp3

Saying No to the NCAAs

Kentucky fell out of the field after losing to Georgia
 Photo by Tony Walsh | Dawg Nation

It's starting to feel like the NCAA Tournament no one wants to play in. The weekend's chaos started with New Mexico losing at Air Force, dropping the Lobos to the 11-line. Then came Saturday. Penn State lost at Maryland, Kentucky lost at Georgia, Clemson lost at North Carolina, Florida lost to Vanderbilt, Wisconsin lost at Nebraska, USC lost at Oregon State, Seton Hall lost at Villanova, Oregon lost to UCLA, and Utah State lost at San Jose State.

Any of those teams could've conceivably been in the field with a win. While North Carolina won, beating Clemson at home was more a case of not hurting themselves than actually helping their resume. A Quadrant 2 home win is better than a loss, but not enough to lift the Tar Heels into the field. For weeks, I've been high on this bubble, feeling like there were more teams that I wanted to put in than I was able, but this weekend shifted that and we are back to the seemingly omnipresent soft bubble territory.

There were other teams that helped themselves. Nevada, Pittsburgh, Boise State, Oklahoma State, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Memphis, and Arizona State picked up wins that got their heads above water. The toughest call came down to the final spot. It came down to Kentucky, North Carolina, USC, Clemson, and Wisconsin. Here are the comparative resumes, sorted by NET. Green highlights indicate the best in a category, the red indicates the worst:

A few things to consider at this point. Typically, it's hard (but not impossible) to get selected with a NET in the 70s. Second, teams usually need to be at least +4 in the overall win column to make it in. Resume-wise, teams below 52.5 average rarely get selected. Another non-obvious factor is that it's uncommon to see teams with a losing record in Quadrants 1-3 get selected.

Let's analyze the resumes:

Kentucky: The NET and predictive metrics love them, but having only a single Quadrant 1 win in 8 attempts is poor. It's great that the win is at Tennessee, but doesn't stand out as much with Tennessee sliding and UCLA (USC's best win) and Marquette (Wisconsin's best win) moving up.

North Carolina: Middle of the pack in NET, Record, and computer rankings. Then you get to their Quadrant breakdowns and the only thing they have going for them is a 9-0 record against Q3 and Q4. When the best thing that can be said about you is "they didn't lose bad games" that's not a ringing endorsement. Digging deeper, their only Q1 win is over an Ohio State team that is falling faster than a Chinese spy balloon. Simply put, their resume is gross and doesn't belong in the field.

USC: This feels like an incredibly under the radar resume. NET and record are both good enough. Resume numbers are great, particularly Strength of Record (31) which seems to be a major deciding factor. Their Q1-3 total is 13-7, which is very good, and their 3 wins against the field are tied for best among this group.

Clemson: Their record is very nice, but the NET and resume average are borderline disqualifying. Having the worst predictive numbers as well, along with as many losses outside the first two quadrants as the other four teams combined pushes them over that border. Clemson is not a tournament team.

Wisconsin: I've had a really tough time knocking this team out. Their NET sucks, but their Q1 win total is similar to Rutgers last year, who got in with a 77 NET. While they don't have Rutgers' Q1A wins, they also don't have any bad losses. They're also the only team here with a winning record away from home. They also have 3 wins over the field, tied for most, and only 2 losses outside the field, tied for fewest.

This was a difficult decision. Ultimately, Clemson was eliminated because of poor computer numbers, bad losses, and nothing in terms of great wins that made you say "this team has to be in." North Carolina was eliminated because when you're pointing more to lack of losses than quality of wins, you aren't getting in. Kentucky was eliminated because while the computers like them, there just isn't enough quality beyond the Tennessee win.

That left me with USC and Wisconsin. And of course, this brought in the extra factor that Wisconsin did beat USC on a neutral court. Despite that, I went with USC. Nothing about their resume has the "borderline disqualifying" that Wisconsin's NET, overall record, and Q1+2+3 record does. As of this morning, USC makes it as the last team in while Wisconsin is the first team out.

This also creates a difficult bracketing decision. Because all of the 3-seeds are scheduled to play at sites on Friday/Sunday, one of the 11-seed play-ins had to be moved to the 12-seed line. In addition, Arizona State and USC were the last two teams in, but as they are in the same league couldn't play each other. I also hoped to avoid any of the Pac-12 teams meeting before the Elite Eight. Memphis was matched with Arizona State and sent to the 12-line in Orlando against San Diego State. That should have pushed Charleston (the 12-seed moving up) up against Illinois (the strongest 6), but that would've meant USC could meet Arizona before the Elite Eight, so Charleston went to Denver to play Miami (the second strongest 6) while the play-in game went to Illinois.

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

Multibid Leagues

Big 10: 8

Big 12: 8

SEC: 7

ACC: 5

Big East: 5 

Mountain West: 4

Pac-12: 4

American: 2

WCC: 2

NMD and 77s were a hit, on to UConn

Welcome back to another Scrambled Eggs victory party. #mubb is now a top 10 team in the country and we gotta talk about that! Then we talk the week that was including a tough victory over Nova and an expected win over Butler with a beer review dropped in for good measure. We then turn to the next couple of weeks for the team which will decide their fate in winning an outright Big East title. We focus in on the UConn game and make predictions. We hope you are enjoying this season and as for this episode? Enjoy! https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/723bg6/ScrambledEggs_Editted_020623.mp3

Marquette's Q1 Gauntlet

 

You should rewatch Stevie on defense in the final minute of the NMD game

Photo by Ebony Cox | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

After managing to get through the "Don't talk about Marquette" part of the schedule without any losses, the Golden Eagles have come to the most important remaining stretch of their schedule. Their next four games are at Connecticut, at Georgetown, Xavier, and at Creighton. Without dismissing the Hoyas, the other three opponents are the only projected NCAA teams Marquette will face before the Big East Tournament. All three are currently also Quadrant 1 games. This stretch will go a long way to determining Marquette's final seed in both the Big East and NCAA Tournaments.

When looking at the resumes of teams around Marquette, there are a lot of similarities. Going on the S-Curve from Baylor at 8 to St. Mary's at 17, Marquette looks like a pretty average team, which makes sense given their 12 overall curve position. Net of 14 vs 12.9 average, 19-5 record vs 18.1-5.0 average, 15.1 RAP score vs 14.8 average. But there are places where teams stand out. Baylor's single-digit RAP score and 7 Q1 wins are the reason they are on the 2-line above the rest. UCLA's great 6.1 RAP and no losses outside Q1 or the field have them at the top of the 3-line. But where Marquette comes up short is Q1 wins and record.

 

If Marquette wants their seed to hold or move up, they need to overachieve in this stretch of Quadrant 1 games against tournament teams. Currently, kenpom projects Marquette go to 1-2 in these games. If they do that, their sub-.500 record against Q1 and the field will likely have them right on the 3/4 cutline, with a 4-seed more likely. If they can steal one of the road games, getting above .500 in Q1 and the bump they would get to their metrics across the board would likely solidify their position on the 3-line. If they want to get to the 2-line, they really need to sweep those three (and maybe get some luck elsewhere). 7-4 in Quadrant 1 with a winning record against the field would give them a leg up on the teams currently ahead of them. In addition, that would likely move their Resume and Predictive Averages (and thus also their RAP score) into single digits.

It will also matter what happens around them. When teams are as close as this bunch is, scoreboard watching matters because while Marquette didn't earn any wins that moved them up specifically the past two weeks, simply not losing while other teams took losses moved them up.

A few notes on what might be some perceived oddities here. Xavier is ahead of Marquette despite the lesser metrics. That's because of their 7-4 Q1 record and 6-4 record over the field. The head-to-head helps, but it's less important than simply having a greater volume of quality wins that overcomes their NET score. Kansas State also stands out because of their Q1 and field records yet being placed on the 4-line. That's because, like Wisconsin and Providence last year, their predictive metrics don't match their body of work. Wisconsin had a 2-seed body of work last year and Providence had a 3-seed body of work, yet they were placed on the 3 and 4 lines respectively. K-State looks like they could see a similar fate.

Finally, St. Mary's has some great numbers and the win over Gonzaga helps, but they are the only team here with 3 losses outside Quadrant 1 (no one else has more than 1) and the only team with 2 losses outside Quadrants 1+2. They also are tied for the fewest wins over the field. At some point, you need to have some wins to hang your hat on, and they don't have enough to match their lofty computer numbers.

Here's the full current S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 8

SEC: 7

ACC: 5

Big East: 5

Mountain West: 4

Pac-12: 3

American: 2

WCC: 2

Blue Blooded Bubble

The current bracket matches North Carolina and Kentucky in Dayton

Photo from Getty Images

Digging into resumes this week, two teams really stood out when it came to the bubble discussion. Not only did North Carolina and Kentucky both end up among the last teams in the field, this week they are slated to play each other in Dayton, with the winner meeting Indiana.

It's six weeks to Selection Sunday so a lot of this will change. But as it stands right now, Kentucky and North Carolina are both 1-6 against Quadrant 1 opponents. They both have losing records against Quadrants 1 and 2 combined. The main things holding them in the field are their metrics. Let's compare the resumes of the the current Dayton teams (last four in) and the NIT 1-seeds (first four out).

Looking first at Kentucky, they have great Predictive numbers and a solid NET, but that 1-6 Quadrant 1 mark is glaring and having a Quadrant 4 loss certainly doesn't help. What really buoys them into the field is who that Quadrant 1 win was against. They beat Tennessee on the road, which is one of the best wins in the country this season. While other bubble teams have more quality wins, none have a win that good coupled with the Wildcats' metrics.

For North Carolina, their lone Quadrant 1 win is less impressive. They beat Ohio State, who took a loss to Wisconsin last night and dropped to .500 on the year. UNC's only win against an at-large caliber opponent was over NC State at home, which is currently a Quadrant 2 win. But with no bad losses and good metrics, it's hard to keep them out entirely.

The last two teams in are Wisconsin and Clemson. Bucky's win at Ohio State vaults them back into the field. Not only does Wisconsin have 3 Quadrant 1 wins, all three are Quadrant 1A, which are the highest level of win recognized by the Selection Committee. Clemson is an odd case where they have some truly terrible losses but an incomparable 7-2 record in Quadrants 1 and 2 combined; only 1-seeds Purdue, Alabama, and Houston have a better Quadrant 1+2 winning percentage. Because we use highest NET instead of conference record, they don't get in as an automatic qualifier, but their resume average jumps off the table compared to the rest of the bubble. In for now, but hanging on by a string.

On the outside, it's a glut of high majors. Our first eight out are all from traditional Top-6 conferences. Penn State was strongly considered with 3 wins over the field, but a combined 4-8 in Q1+2 wasn't good enough to offset their metrics. Seton Hall is making a push of late and their 3 Quadrant 1 wins really stand out, but like Penn State the metrics weigh them down and they likely need to pick off another top Big East team before they cross into the field. Arizona State and Oklahoma both have a very good top-of-the-resume win, but just not enough volume of quality to overcome their negative factors.

This will all certainly change in the next 6 weeks, but for Marquette fans, I imagine the storyline of Kentucky/North Carolina playing in Dayton for the right to take on Indiana (with UCLA in the same pod) would have storyline potential outmatched only by Marquette's own pod. This week we see MU matched up with alum Brian Wardle and Bradley, with the winner taking on the winner of Duke playing its own alumni match against Chris Collins and Northwestern. As much as people think the NCAA sets these storylines, sometimes it's just how the bracket falls.

Let's look at the S-Curve and bracket ahead of the weekend:

Multibid Leagues

Big 10: 9

ACC: 7

Big 12: 7

SEC: 6

Big East: 5

Mountain West: 4

Pac-12: 3

American: 2

WCC: 2