Yep, we have the NMD Sads too

 Welcome back #mubb fans, and we at #scrambledeggs are just as sad about the NMD result as you. We kind of, sort of, skip over the Butler game and jump right to the disappointing result against UCONN. We break down what we saw in the game, what we're concerned about, and how this team pivots from this moment. We then spend a lot of time talking about the St John's game on the road as it is likely the toughest test left on the schedule. We also talk about the road game at Creighton and what #mubb can do to replicate the early conference season victory. It's gonna be a tough week but there's potential to come out at the end of the week fighting for possession of a conference title. Enjoy!

Cracketology: Is BPI Fixed?

 

ESPN's BPI metric has drawn criticism from all corners of bracketology

Image from espn.com

In 2022, Cracked Sidewalks called out a discrepancy in the rankings witnessed on the Basketball Power Index metric. It is one of the predictive metrics used on the NCAA's official team sheets that help with selection and (more so) seeding when it comes to the NCAA Tournament field. One of the things that really stood out at the time was how much BPI seemed to favor teams that were in leagues with ESPN television contracts. The reason that seemed newsworthy is because BPI was designed and is run by ESPN. That metric, along with another ESPN resume metric Strength of Record, are the only metrics on the team sheets that are owned and operated by a media company that has a vested financial interest in which teams are selected and perform well in the NCAA Tournament.

Earlier this week, @JBRBracketology pointed out that it looked like BPI might have been fixed. In recent years, BPI had a strong bias against Mountain West teams compared to other predictive metrics. JBR noted that over the years, BPI compared to kenpom rated MWC teams 39.2% worse (2022), 25.9% worse (2023), and 32.2% worse (2024). But compare last year to this year and it's a stark difference:

Comparison from @JBRBracketology

When we first looked at this our focus was on the 21 teams in the 2022 NET Top-100 that had BPI as a 10+ spot outlier from both of the other metrics in either a positive or negative direction. These are teams that are typically in the running for NCAA bids, either as at-large teams or the better performing mid-major teams that are able to earn automatic bids through their conference tournament. Here is the original graph we shared, with the "Average" being the average of the three predictive metrics at the time (BPI, kenpom, Sagarin) and the "Change" being the amount that BPI improved or decreased a team's metric average from the average of the other two metrics.

A few things stand out. First is the number of teams with radical changes in their ranking. 6 of the 21 outlier teams had a metric drag of greater than -10. The teams most effected were from the western part of the country, primarily in the Mountain West. Further, every team that had a metric advantage was broadcast on an ESPN network. We weren't the only ones to take issue with BPI. Another bracketologist pointed out that BPI had by design a negative impact on teams that played at elevation:

ESPN's BPI, a predictive metric used on NCAAT team sheets, factors/seems to penalize altitude into its metric. Here's the highest-altitude arenas & their team's KP & BPI. A startling 40% diff on avg between them.

Affects teams in the Mountain West, Pac 12, Big 12, WAC & Big Sky. pic.twitter.com/YE4HLkABUu

— Made For March (@madeformarch) January 9, 2024

This certainly explained why teams like Wyoming, Colorado State, and BYU were negatively impacted. This also was a problem that provided a true issue for the teams it impacted. In the 2024 NCAA Tournament, excepting BYU and Gonzaga who were swapped seed lines to adhere to bracketing principles, here are the 6 teams that bracketmatrix.com found to be furthest away from their expected seed from the 227 bracketologists that participated:

Five of the six largest bracketmatrix discrepancies were negative seed impacts on Mountain West teams that play at elevation (Boise isn't in Made For March's tweet above, but they play 2,700 feet above sea level). Considering the league's lack of success in recent years, maybe those Mountain West teams were due to lose regardless, but their paths were significantly more difficult than would have been expected. Nevada, Boise, New Mexico, and Colorado State all lost in the Round of 64 as underdogs. Utah State won their opener in an 8/9 game, but then faced Purdue and lost. Might these teams have fared better if they had been given the expected 6-9 seeds their non-BPI metrics indicated they earned?

The excellent bracketology blog Bauertology also took BPI to task last year. He cites many different sources in his longer article but it all comes to the same conclusion Cracked Sidewalks had in 2022, that BPI was a problem that was an outlier from the other metrics and was negatively impacting teams. Now in 2025, it seems that these cries may not have fallen on deaf ears as the metric has clearly been reworked. First, let's look at a 2025 version of the top-100 NET outliers:

There are once again 21 outliers in the top-100, but only one team (#100 South Dakota State) is at a metric gain or drag of greater than 10. Not a single Mountain West team appears in our outliers, and Big East teams like UConn, Butler, and Providence actually benefit more from BPI than any other metrics, indicating the appearance of a network bias that seemed present in 2022 has been corrected, with eleven of the twelve most negatively impacted teams having ESPN contracts.

For those with Big East interests, eight of the eleven teams in the league have BPI as their best of the three predictive metrics, while just one (St. John's) has BPI as their worst metric. I would still argue this bears monitoring. It seems problematic that any of the team sheet metrics are intellectual property of a media outlet that has a vested interest in their media properties succeeding. I feel the NCAA would be better served still by replacing BPI with another predictive metric like Haslametrics or evanmiya that does not make money on league or team successes. I would much rather see something like BRCT (pronounced "bracket") on the team sheet than SOR. But if nothing else, an improvement to BPI is a welcome change.

Now let's see what BPI and the rest of the team sheet metrics and on-court results have produced with our latest S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 13

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 8

Big East: 4

ACC: 4

Mountain West: 3

WCC: 2

Big West: 2

Cracketology: Big East Check-In

 

Stevie Mitchell & Marquette are keeping the Big East at arm's length in the S-Curve

Photo by Michael Conroy | AP Photo

As the calendar creeps toward February, the Big East season is coming into the home stretch. The league's dismal November damaged any hopes of getting 6+ bids, but the league looks in solid position to exceed the 3 bids it earned last year and has a shot at getting 5 if things break right. Today we'll look at the resumes of teams in the Big East and what they need to do to get into the NCAA field.

Marquette: The Golden Eagles are flying high thanks to a solid non-conference performance that was highlighted by three wins over Big 10 teams (Maryland, Purdue, Wisconsin) currently in the field. At 18-3, Shaka Smart has the best record of his career through 21 games and Marquette is a solid 2-seed. They are as close to lock status as can be. Marquette still has an outside chance to reach the 1-line and is almost certainly going to be in the field.

Record needed: 2-8 or better

Remaining schedule: UConn, at St. John's, at Creighton, DePaul, Seton Hall, at Villanova, Providence, at Georgetown, at UConn, St. John's

St. John's: While St. John's boasts the same record as Marquette, they went just 1-2 against NCAA Tournament caliber competition in non-conference. They have just one Quadrant 1 win (at Xavier) and a losing record in Q1+2 (4-5). The lack of quality wins means their ceiling is probably a 5-seed unless they manage to pull off a Big East double-championship, but they are highly likely to be in the field.

Record needed: 4-6 or better

Remaining schedule: Providence, Marquette, at UConn, at Villanova, Creighton, at DePaul, UConn, at Butler, Seton Hall, at Marquette

Dan Hurley & Rick Pitino are in position to earn NCAA bids

Photo by C. Morgan Engel | Getty Images

Connecticut: The Huskies have been considered a lock all year long, with most people still feeling bullish about the two-time defending champs even after an 0-3 Maui. They have slid down to a 9-seed behind Creighton and still have the meat of their schedule to come. If they look better with Liam McNeeley back and don't lose games they are supposed to win, they should be in the field but after facing DePaul tonight, they are underdogs per kenpom at Marquette, hosting St. John's, and at Creighton. Their back loaded schedule gives them the opportunity to move up as high as a 4 or 5 seed, but they are trending closer to the bubble and still have work to do as they could easily miss the field if they lose games they aren't supposed to lose.

Record needed: 6-5 or better

Remaining schedule: DePaul, at Marquette, St. John's, at Creighton, at Seton Hall, Villanova, at St. John's, Georgetown, at Providence, Marquette, Seton Hall

Creighton: The Blue Jays are inching their way up the S-Curve, with wins over Kansas, St. John's, and at UConn checking the big win box. The ceiling here is a protected seed, possibly as high as a 3 if they really get hot. I think it's more likely they end up in the 5-7 range and barring collapse are likely to be in the field. 

Record needed: 5-6 or better

Remaining schedule: Xavier, at Villanova, at Providence, Marquette, UConn, at St. John's, Georgetown, DePaul, at Xavier, at Seton Hall, Butler

When Xavier takes on Villanova in February it could be a de facto elimination game

Photo from Xavier Athletics

Xavier: After Xavier beat Villanova at home, I told my bracketology group chat "If they can win two of their next four, Xavier is in really good position to earn a bid." Most people aside from the Xavier fan laughed that off, but adding wins at Marquette and over UConn have put the Musketeers in much better position. At just 1-6 in Q1, the Musketeers really need at least one more top-line win (at Creighton, at Villanova are the last two chances) but their schedule is very favorable, as they are favored in 8 of their 10 remaining games per kenpom. Get one of those Q1 road games, hope for UConn to get back into the NET top-30, and win the games you're supposed to and I think Xavier could slip in, possibly getting as high as a 9 or 10 seed.

Record needed: 8-2 (with a Q1 win)

Remaining schedule: at Creighton, Georgetown, at Villanova, at Providence, DePaul, Butler, at Seton Hall, Creighton, at Butler, Providence

Villanova: The Wildcats are all but done, and it wasn't Big East play but rather losses to Columbia, St. Joe's, and Virginia in November that put them in jeopardy. With a 0-5 Q1 record and multiple bad losses, I don't see 'Nova punching a ticket, but they do have opportunities with Creighton, St. John's, and Marquette all coming to Philly and a road trip to UConn. They need to not take any more bad losses and stack those quality wins to get to Dayton. It's unlikely, but not quite impossible.

Record needed: 8-2

Remaining schedule: Creighton, at DePaul, Xavier, St. John's, at Providence, at UConn, Marquette, at Seton Hall, Butler, at Georgetown

The rest of the Big East needs 4 wins to get to the NCAA Tournament, but they would all have to come at Madison Square Garden in March.

Interesting note about this week's bracket is Marquette's path, and I swear it just happened like this. The opener is against Milwaukee in Cleveland. They play because UWM couldn't go to Fiserv against a protected seed, making this the closest available site when their slot came up. In the second round, it would be Clemson or Texas, both schools Shaka Smart previously coached at. In the Sweet 16, the most likely opponents would be Michigan State, who eliminated Marquette in 2023, or Ole Miss, coached by Chris Beard, who followed Smart at Texas. It's funny how the bracket breaks sometimes.

Let's take a look at our current S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid conferences

SEC: 13

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 8

Big East: 4

ACC: 4

Mountain West: 3

WCC: 2

MVC: 2

Call (out) and Response from the Bench

Welcome back #mubb fans to another episode of #scrambledeggs! First there is technically non-basketball news to cover, Marquette has a new athletic director in Mike Broeker. Congrats to Mike and we dissect the hire. Then we turn to basketball and talk about Shaka (and this podcast) calling out the bench and they responded with significant minutes in the Seton Hall game and a strong performance against Villanova. We break down both games a little bit but really focus on if the results mean Kam is back. We then look add to the trapiest trap game that ever trapped in Butler and then really look ahead to National Marquette Day against UConn. Enjoy!  

Cracketology: Bracketing the Megaconferences

The ultimate "nerds in mom's basement", the NCAA Selection Committee

Photo by Drew Angerer | Getty Images

This week we're going to do something a little bit different and start with what usually comes at the end of these articles. Consider that the record for total bids earned by a single conference is 11 by the 2011 Big East, and on only three occasions has a league earned 9 bids (2012 Big East, 2017 & 2018 ACC). Now look at the bid totals we currently project for 2025:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 12 

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 9

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

ACC: 4

Big East: 4

Mountain West: 3

Missouri Valley: 2

WCC: 2

A few things stood out to me looking at this. The first is the sheer difficulty to bracket these teams. Typically, a league should have no more than one protected seed per region and no more than two teams overall per region. With eight teams currently in the top-16 protected seed spots, the SEC shatters the first and with three leagues all having 9 teams, the second is a much harder guideline to follow.

The next thing that jumped out was when counting multibid leagues, it is always "conference champion plus number of at-large bids." Which means the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 are currently taking up 27 of the 37 at-large bids. That simply doesn't leave a lot of room for leagues like the Big East (3.9 average at-large bids since 2014) or ACC (5.6 average at-large bids since 2014), much less anyone else.

There are a few other rules the Selection Committee tries to follow. First, they avoid first-round intra-conference matchups. Second, they avoid rematching non-conference opponents that played in the regular season in the first round and teams that played in the NCAA first round the year before in the first round. So what did all this consolidation look like? Here are a few of the issues I ran into this week:

The Protected Seeds

Placing the top SEC teams feels like a game of Pong. I made it my goal to keep them apart until the Elite 8. What helped currently was that there are 2 SEC teams on each line of the S-Curve. The 1-seeds all went to their closest geographic region when their spot came up, then it was a matter of placing the SEC 2-seeds in regions that did not have SEC 1-seeds, the SEC 3-seeds in regions that did have SEC 1-seeds (so the 2's and 3's wouldn't play in the Sweet 16), and finally placing the SEC 4-seeds in the regions with the non-SEC 1-seeds.

This created another problem, however. When I got to the 4-line, there were two SEC and two Big 10 teams. While there were just four protected Big 10 teams, in order to place the SEC 4-seeds away from the SEC 1-seeds it meant putting Ole Miss and Mississippi State in Iowa State and Duke's regions. That left one of Oregon or Illinois having to go to the Atlanta region where Purdue was the 2-seed. Ultimately I put Oregon as the 4-seed in Atlanta because they were only scheduled to play Purdue twice and the SEC is already creating multiple potential Elite 8 matchups with their protected seeds so doing it once for the Big 10 seemed okay.

The Middle Seeds

These were a little easier, though having two 4-seeds and two 5-seeds from the Big 10 meant keeping those teams apart. Placing the 6-seeds, the biggest issue I had was trying to remember if Texas A&M and Arizona are in the same conference. Everybody's shuffling!

The 7/10 matchups also presented a headache. There were three SEC teams placed into 7/10 games. They couldn't play each other, but because there were two SEC teams on the 2-seed line it meant creating a potential SEC/SEC second round game. As a Marquette fan old enough to remember Marquette playing Syracuse to get to the Sweet 16 in 2011, I sent Vanderbilt to Cleveland opposite Florida. This made sure that if the favored seed won (7-Clemson over 10-Vanderbilt) the intra-conference matchup wouldn't take place and Florida/Vanderbilt only play once in SEC play so this matchup is okay, if not ideal. The 8/9 games were surprisingly easy because there were 6 conferences represented. Keeping Gonzaga and St. Mary's apart was easy because they were on the same line, so it was just keeping UCLA and Ohio State apart.

The Bubble

Perhaps the biggest difficulty was here. The first problem was having two Big 12 teams in Dayton, so I needed to keep them apart. However I also had two Big 12 teams on the 6-seed lines opposite the 11-seed play-in games, which mean the play-in winners could not go to play 6-seeds West Virginia or Arizona. When bracketing play-in games, the play-in winners are always placed first to avoid scheduling conflicts. That didn't work as well here. The problem was that Indiana and Wake Forest could not play each other and one of them had to play into Louisville. That meant either Indiana (played Louisville in Atlantis) or Wake Forest (fellow ACC school) had to play into the Cardinals. There was no way to bracket this without violating NCAA policies. In this case, I put Indiana/Arizona State into Louisville, though I suspect the actual committee would consider moving West Virginia down to the 7-line and St. John's up to the 6-line to accommodate all this, which would let Indiana/Arizona State play into St. John's and remove the conflicts.

Between the bracketing and the crazy basketball finishes last night (Xavier/St. John's, the SEC insanity, and SDSU/Air Force which came down to a buzzer-beater keeping the Aztecs in the field) here are the results:

Might be rock bottom, might not be, but we'll find out together

Well, a loss in conference place was probably inevitable so no need to panic but also, it was a tough week generally. #ScrambledEggs is back to talk the least fun week of #mubb on the season. We start with the actual loss against Xavier and discuss some of the challenges facing the bench and the offense. We spend a little time acknowledging the basketball gods correcting our hubris for trying to cancel #DLTD and what that game told us. We then turn to the week ahead and what we can hope/believe can be a recovery week. We close out with congratulations to Bill Scholl and light AD speculation. Enjoy!

 

Cracketology: Quick Hits

 

David Joplin scored a career high 30, but Marquette took a metric hit in Chicago

Photo by Erin Hooley | AP Photo

It was a busy Tuesday night, which led to late night crunching and early morning revisions. As a result, just a few quick thoughts on the bracket today to go along with a new S-Curve and bracket.

• Marquette's 1-Seed Chances: The chances of a 1-seed really come down to one thing and that's running up scoring margins. The Golden Eagles ranked #13 in resume average before the overtime win at DePaul. They can get a 2-seed on the strength of a Big East double title like they did in 2023, but if they want a 1-seed, they need to be beating teams like Georgetown and DePaul by 20+ points, not single digits. Right now I think Marquette is unlikely to earn the first 1-seed in program history.
• The Current 1-Seeds: Auburn rolling without Johni Broome locks them at the top of the bracket, though Duke and Iowa State aren't far behind. The last 1-seed does seem to be up for grabs, as Tennessee had it, fell back to a 2-seed after the loss to Florida, then jumped ahead of Alabama again after the Tide lost last night. Florida and Kentucky are the other most likely candidates to push for that spot with Marquette as the Gators have great metrics and Kentucky has a ton of great wins.
  
• Big East Bids: Creighton moved into our bracket thanks to their 4-2 Big East start and big win over Providence. Georgetown is on the bubble, but needs some marquee wins and dropping three straight to Marquette, UConn, and St. John's won't help. Villanova and Xavier were also considered, but don't have enough heft at the top end to offset their atrocious resume averages.
• Who wants a bid? On the bubble, New Mexico, Arizona State, Ohio State, Indiana, Arkansas, and Georgetown all took damaging losses last night. It was so bad that New Mexico and Arizona State only fell from the first play-in to the second play-in game because no one did enough to pass them.

Here's the updated S-Curve and bracket:

 

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 12

Big 10: 9

Big 12: 9

ACC: 5

Big East: 4

Mountain West: 3

WCC: 2

Talking basketball and absolutely no other sports

 Welcome back #mubb fans, light week for basketball content so we make the most of it. We first discuss the news of Sean Jones redshirting this year to continue his recovery from injury and the implications it has on the roster. We then chat about the tougher than some expected (but not us) Georgetown game. We then discuss the week ahead, including if #DLTD is still a thing and a home crowd for Xavier. Enjoy!

"https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/rs7wctmpswqfy8qu/Eggs_2025_Jan_1283r0w.mp3"

Cracketology: Anatomy of a 1-Seed

 

Shaka Smart & his daughter Zora at the 2023 Marquette watch party

Photo by Mike De Sisti | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

When Shaka Smart led Marquette to a 2-seed in 2023 it was the highest NCAA Tournament seed in school history. As Marquette began the 2023-24 campaign ranked in the top-4, there was optimism they could improve upon that and earn a 1-seed, but ultimately they again landed on the second line. This season many expected the team to step back, but they have maintained their level of play and are currently in line for a 2-seed once again, though it's still early in the season from a bracket perspective.

So what would it take to improve upon that and earn the first 1-seed in Marquette history? Today we dig into the resumes of 1-seeds in the NET era to see what it would take for Marquette to get there. Of course, the first question many will ask is why it matters. Quite simply, 1-seeds are a lot more likely to win the NCAA Tournament. No team lower than an 8-seed has won it all. Here's a list of the number of champions by seed:

While earning a 1-seed is far from guaranteeing a title (especially as there are four of them every year) it stands out that 1-seeds have won nearly twice as many titles as all other seeds combined. This follows logically because 1-seeds tend to have the best paths in terms of both geography and quality of competition.

With that in mind, what will it take this year? For starters, let's look at the resumes of all the 1-seeds in the NET era, then we can identify a few commonalities. We are including 2020 because while there was no Tournament held, the four 1-seeds were obvious and they had completed seasons up to the end of conference play.

Record: With the exception of the COVID-shortened 2021 season, every 1-seed has had at least 26 wins, and most have had 27+ (85%). The loss column is even more notable. No 1-seed has more than 7 losses, but it's also worth noting that no high-major team with 4 or fewer losses has failed to earn a 1-seed. This year, Marquette will likely need a Selection Sunday record of 29-5 or 30-4 to earn a 1-seed because the Big East isn't as strong as it often is, so keeping up with the high-powered SEC resumes will require extra punch in the win column.

Quadrant Records: In Quadrant 1, 22/24 (91.7%) teams to earn 1-seeds had at least twice as many Q1 wins as they did losses, and the only exceptions were in the first year of the NET, 2019. In Quadrant 2, no more than 1 loss is advisable, as only two teams have earned 1-seeds with 2+ Q2 losses. Losses in Q3 and Q4 are virtually forbidden, as only one team (2023 Houston) had a loss outside the first two Quadrants and earned a 1-seed.

Analytic Rankings: This is where Marquette at #11 in the NET needs work. Every team ranked #1 or #2 in the NET has earned a 1-seed and 20/24 (83.3%) were in the NET top-5. No team with a double-digit NET has earned a 1-seed. In terms of the other metric averages, ranking inside the top-4 in both is ideal, but at least one is pretty much required. 12/24 (50%) teams ranked top-4 in both but 21/24 (87.5%) were top-4 in at least one of the two averages. No team has ranked lower than 10 in any average and earned a 1-seed.

Strength of Schedule: This doesn't need to be elite, but it does need to be strong. In terms of overall SOS, 23/24 (95.8%) have ranked in the top-60 overall, but non-con SOS is even less important, with 17/24 in the top-60. Marquette's current 19 NCSOS builds a solid foundation that will likely keep them in that top-60 overall.

Championships: Before Selection Sunday, a couple things need to happen. First, you either need to win your league regular season or you need to only finish behind other 1-seeds. In the instances where a team was not at least sharing their regular season conference title, they were ranked #2 or #3 and everyone ahead of them in their league was also a 1-seed. In terms of the conference tournament, 15/21 teams to play a conference tournament made it to the Championship Game, and 20/21 at least made the semifinals.

So what does Marquette's resume look like, and what would it need to look like? Because we're talking about earning a 1-seed, we are going to assume Marquette will win the Big East Tournament Final. This means based on current NET rankings they would still play eight Q1 games, six Q2 games, four Q3 games, and one Q4 game. Here's what the current resume looks like and what it would likely need to look like on Selection Sunday:

Obviously this outcome requires a lot of optimism, but not impossible levels of optimism. If you look at the current game-by-game projections in kenpom, Marquette is favored to win every game except UConn on the road (projected 1-point loss). On an aggregate percentage, the league record is expected to be 16-4, but if Marquette could split the difference on the positive side between the 19-1 game-by-game projection and the 16-4 percentage projection to land at 18-2 in Big East play, a 1-seed would certainly be on the table. They also project to be favored in any game at the Big East Tournament.

I ran game-by-game projections through the T-Rank simulator with losses at St. John's and UConn, and a Big East Tournament path of wins over Providence, St. John's, and UConn. The T-Rank simulator agreed that this would get Marquette the last 1-seed, joining Auburn, Tennessee, and Duke on the top line. I did also run it with a loss to UConn in the final and T-Rank projected Marquette as a 2-seed, so at least according to that system 30-4 is the target. It's possible they could get there at 29-5 or 28-5 (Big East semifinal loss) if other teams slip up, but for Marquette to control their own 1-seed destiny, 30-4 is the mark they need to reach.

Going 17-2 from here on out is certainly unlikely. It essentially means Marquette cannot slip up in any remaining games. Earning a 1-seed is very difficult. But the difficulty reflects its value and why the championship odds increase so much for teams that get there. You have to be really good, and really good teams tend to be the ones that win the NCAA Tournament. Can Marquette get there? Right now, no one knows, but at least now you know what to hope for in order for Marquette to secure the first 1-seed in program history.

Here's the updated S-Curve and bracket:

Multibid Leagues

SEC: 12

Big 10: 11

Big 12: 7

ACC: 5

Big East: 3

WCC: 3

Mountain West: 2

A-10: 2

The one where MU wins and we answer questions

 Welcome back to #ScrambledEggs where we're going to talk wins, Georgetown is good?, and answer your questions. First we talk about the back to back wins against Providence and Creighton to move #mubb to 4-0 in Big East play. We then talk about a Georgetown game that should be somewhat challenging, not that MU should lose but this isn't your little niece's Georgetown. We then close out the show with multiple questions from the audience ranging from line up changes to Jimmy Butler to the Bradley Center. Enjoy!

 

 

https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/sv6mmfa3rnwntwdv/2025_Jan_5a0saf.mp3

Cracketology: Not So Big East

Kam Jones is hoping to create a lasting image at Marquette this season
 Photo by Mark Hoffman | JS Online

On the opening night of the 2024-25 season, the Big East had a night to forget. While all eight Big East teams in action won that night, only Marquette and St. John's covered the spread, with five buy game victories coming by single digits. Those six losses led to a collective 72-spot drop in kenpom rankings for those Big East teams that night. While it was far too early to make any definitive statements, this is what I tweeted in response to those results:

Hey Big East, if you want 5-6 bids come March, this ain't it. Collectively, the league needs to be better. pic.twitter.com/7U0BSl8Lnt

— Alan Bykowski (@brewcity1977) November 5, 2024

Right before the first NET rankings came out for this year, I went back and compared the league's cumulative and average NET rankings at the start of Big East play to the cumulative and average NET rankings on Selection Sunday. This was to determine if league NET rankings are effectively stagnant. Yes, individual teams will go up and down with results, but because the results are all in league and what the winning team gains will be approximately equal to what the losing team loses, it would stand to reason that once you get to league play, what you are as a league is fairly similar to what you will be on Selection Sunday. I also looked at how many Quadrant 1 games the league's NET leader at the start of Big East play and on Selection Sunday had. The reason for picking the leader is that team has always been Q1 on any floor, so their Big East Q1 total would be the minimum a team could play (with the maximum being two more than that for a sub-75 team that would play the leader twice). Essentially, this is telling us how many Q1 opportunities are there in league play. Here are the results for the last three years, and yes, I know what the cumulative abbreviation here is. Have a good laugh and continue.

By the end of November, it looked pretty dire for the league. The league had a cumulative NET of 924, which on its own is bad, but worse there were just 5 Q1 opportunities for Marquette, by far the fewest of any league leading team before conference play. The next two weeks saw a dramatic improvement for the league. The Big East/Big 12 Battle was a metric success, the league started to win and cover predicted efficiency margins, and the league cumulative NET improved to 766. The league average went from 84 to 69.6, nearly a 15-spot average improvement while the number of expected Quadrant 1 games went from 5 to 8, putting the league on significantly stronger footing.

The drawback to all this is while the league is collectively much better, there are really three tiers in the league:

Protected Seed Contenders: Marquette, UConn

Single-Digit NCAA Seeds: St. John's

Closer to NIT than NCAA: Xavier, Creighton, Butler, Villanova, Georgetown, DePaul

The problem here is who has what. Xavier and Creighton have metrics to earn a bid, but they are a combined 1-8 in Q1, just not enough resume quality to really be in the hunt. Butler and Villanova both have multiple Q1 wins, but they also have Q3 or worse losses that drag them down. Georgetown and DePaul have enough wins to get them in the discussion, but the quality of their opponents isn't good enough to move the radar. As a result, the league still looks like a 3-bid league as it was last year

But the point is the opportunity is there for teams to get into the field. If St. John's can get to the top-30 in the NET, that makes 6 Q1 opportunities for the next five. If they are all in the top-75 by the end of the year, all of them get Q1 chances when they play each other on the road. That provides 10 Q1 shots each. Any of these teams that can get 3-5 Q1 wins will put themselves in position to push for a bid. 5-6 bids is still possible, but the more the top teams push away from the bottom, the harder that becomes.

Ultimately, if teams with NETs in the 60s and 70s move up to the 40s and 50s, that will be a result of quality wins. Metrics will rise accordingly and allow the league to get more teams in. But if the top dominates, it's possible none of the teams in the middle will break toward the field, and St. John's could even be a casualty as they are sitting with zero Q1 wins at the moment. The league did well to improve the metrics in December, but now needs the wins to back up the statistical improvement.

A few more bracket notes:

• Marquette's Position: Thanks to seven wins in Q1+2 and solid metrics across the board, Marquette checks in as the top 2-seed, #5 overall. You can call me greedy, but I think this is underselling where this team should be. The Dayton loss cost them a seed line at the moment, especially considering the 90% second half win probability and 70% win probability with 8 minutes to play. Three of the teams currently on the top line play in leagues that will likely lead to more losses than Marquette will accrue in this Big East. If Marquette stays healthy and the league quality remains static, Marquette should be a 1-seed on Selection Sunday.
• January Bracketology Accuracy: I'll be the first to say we should take January brackets with a grain of salt. There's a lot of ball left to be played, but I looked back at the first Cracked Sidewalks bracket from last year. In that, 13 of the 16 teams on the first four seed lines were still protected seeds on Selection Sunday. 37 of the top-48 teams in the seed list were in the Selection Sunday field, and if not for bid thieves, it would've been 41 of the top-49 (#2 out Indiana State was team #49). What you see here today is probably closer to the truth of Selection Sunday than you might be inclined to think.
• The Conference Bid Record: Everyone is talking about whether the SEC can get more bids than the 2011 Big East that landed 11/16 teams in the field. Currently we have 12/16 SEC teams in, but with growing conferences, those numbers aren't really relevant. The REAL conference bid record leagues should be compared to is the 1991 Big East that got 7/9 teams in the field. I know 7 is less than 11 or 12, but 77.8% is more than the comparative 68.8% of the 2011 Big East or the current 75.0% of the SEC. To break that record, the SEC would have to get 13 (81.5%) of their teams in. Missouri is currently our second team out, so the SEC isn't far from challenging the real record as well.

Here's our current S-Curve, bracket, and bids by conference:

SEC: 12

Big 10: 10

Big 12: 8

ACC: 5

Big East: 3

WCC: 3

A-10: 2

Mountain West: 2