Our final bracketology is not yet posted. But our semi-final one is. And while it may settle out when we swap in the real reactions of KPI/SOR/NET to yesterday’s games from how our proxies thought they would react, and while there are still five games to be played, we have a pretty good idea of where our model differs from consensus. Here are the spots where our model’s the biggest outlier on Bracket Matrix, with some thoughts on each:
San Diego State: 4-Seed (Our Model) vs. 8-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
It’s possible this will consolidate. In our model, San Diego State came out just ahead of BYU for the final 4-seed this morning, while in Bracket Matrix, they’re the top 8-seed with not all brackets updated after last night’s Aztec win.
The body of San Diego State’s résumé is strong. The Mountain West champions lost only one Quadrant II game, and dropped none against Q3 or Q4. Against Q1 and Q2 combined, they’re 8-4. At the same time, though, they lack a headline victory. Their best one came against UCLA at home, and while UCLA might not be at a huge risk of missing the field, they aren’t guaranteed a spot.
Our model respects the body of the résumé. If I had to guess, I’d guess the committee likes it too. But I also think the Bracket Matrix hesitancy reflects a lack of buzz around this year’s SDSU team, which is natural after last year’s carried an undefeated record so late into the season. As I’ll be saying with many of these, expect SDSU to fall between our projection and that of the matrix.
BYU: 5-Seed (Our Model) vs. 6-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
This is only a one seed-line difference, but with BYU the last 6-seed in Bracket Matrix and the first 5-seed in our bracket, and with the possibility BYU will bounce back up to the 4-line for us, it seemed best to address it.
This gap lessened (with the matrix moving in our direction) after BYU played Gonzaga as close as it did in the WCC Tournament Championship. But we’re still high on them, and the reasons are similar to those concerning SDSU. While BYU has a few worse losses than the Aztecs, none of them fall in Q3 or Q4, and they have road wins against Utah State (squarely on the bubble) and San Diego State (already mentioned) to go with a neutral-court victory over USC (another team in the 4-to-7-seed range). Those aren’t of the caliber a lot of teams around them have, but they look better on a team sheet than they do listed altogether.
One risk for BYU is that depending on when discussions on them started, the Utah State win might look better now than it did at the beginning of the week. Ditto the SDSU win. That’s something our model doesn’t consider at all.
Purdue: 6-Seed (Our Model) vs. 4-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
Purdue has a staggering 13 wins against Q1/Q2 competition. It has just one Q3/Q4 loss, and coming on the road against Miami in December, it’s one of the better Q3/Q4 losses one can have.
And yet.
Purdue isn’t in the top 20 in NET.
Purdue isn’t in the top 20 in KPI.
Does the committee buck those at times? Yes. Will Purdue get more credit for the 13 Q1/Q2 wins than our model assumes? Probably. Is this an instance where SOR, which has Purdue 13th, may be more predictive than the others? Possibly. But there are things on Purdue’s résumé that provoke hesitancy. Nine total losses. And those Q1/Q2 wins? Only four came against tournament locks. And “lock” may be a generous word for Maryland.
St. Bonaventure: 7-Seed (Our Model) vs. 9-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
Some of this is that our model expects the Bonnies to beat VCU today, which may or may not impact the committee’s evaluation of them. A lot of it is that SBU will have only played 20 games even when today’s is over.
We really don’t know how the committee will account for teams not playing as many games as those around them in the field. Our model is built such that it assumes the committee will react similarly to NET/SOR/KPI (all of which have SBU at 28th or better). We’ll find out if it’s right.
VCU: 8-Seed (Our Model) vs. 10-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
More A-10 love.
KPI adores the Rams. It has them 18th. This pulls them up in our model’s estimation. The things KPI sees? Well, nine of VCU’s 19 wins have come against Q1/Q2 competition, and while most of those have been bubbly, that’s still a solid number.
If pressed, I’d say this is one where Bracket Matrix is more right than we are, especially if VCU does lose to St. Bonaventure today (or the committee locks them in regardless of that result). VCU’s two Q3 losses will sting on a résumé that will likely just have two victories over tournament teams, and possibly only one.
Missouri: 8-Seed (Our Model) vs. 6-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
NET doesn’t think much of Missouri. It wouldn’t have them in the field, actually, I don’t believe (Mizzou’s 47th, and I believe the NET cut line would be 46th).
Mizzou’s résumé is better than Mizzou. Their bad losses almost all came on the road. Their good wins—and there are some great ones—were almost always close. They played being an NIT-caliber team perfectly. They won the games they needed to win. They avoided terrible losses. I’d guess the industry is right about them, and that our model is putting too much stock in NET here.
Texas Tech: 8-Seed (Our Model) vs. 6-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
Contrarily to Mizzou, Texas Tech’s résumé is a lot worse than Texas Tech. The Red Raiders are 37th in SOR, 34th in KPI, and 17th in NET. A lot of this is that they played 14 Q1 games and only managed to win four of them.
One question here is whether the committee will be swayed at all by the brand Chris Beard has built, which is one through which Tech seems to be seen as an elite program in the wake of their 2019 championship game appearance. I don’t have an answer to that question.
Wisconsin: 9-Seed (Our Model) vs. 7-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
Wisconsin is 62nd in KPI. It’s 11th in KenPom.
The Badgers played even more Q1 games than Texas Tech (fifteen of ‘em), and won one more than the Red Raiders (five). They also played more against Q2, going 5-2 in those.
It was a stacked schedule for Greg Gard’s crew this year, but Bucky just didn’t capitalize. Going back to wins over tournament teams: Wisconsin might only have three, and none come over teams our model or Bracket Matrix has better than a 7-seed.
A curious case.
Colgate: 10-Seed (Our Model) vs. 13-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
Ugh. Colgate.
Colgate broke NET. With the Patriot League erring (justifiably—we are not here to criticize the Patriot League) on the cautious end of the Covid-response spectrum, the Raiders played only three teams in the regular season. They won every game but three by double digits, and they went 11-1. KPI is impressed: It has Colgate 49th, which is high for a low-major. SOR is impressed: It has Colgate 58th, which is also high for a low-major. NET is broken: It has Colgate 9th.
Colgate’s questions, then, are whether their NET will be considered at all (or just tossed out the window) and whether the low number of games they played (even fewer than St. Bonaventure, and by a significant margin) will hold them back. There’s also the question of whether they’ll beat Loyola-Maryland today. If they lose, they’re probably out of the field altogether.
It’s possible they’ll be a 12-seed. I’d doubt they’ll be a 10-seed, or even an 11-seed, and if forced to put odds on them, I’d say the 13-line is their likeliest home. But we’ll find out.
Oklahoma: 10-Seed (Our Model) vs. 8-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
Oklahoma’s venture into the top ten of the polls has given them some buzz that does not line up with either their résumé or how good they are. The Sooners are in the 40’s in KPI and SOR and in the 30’s in NET and KenPom. Maybe the buzz from that winning streak will keep them up. Maybe the committee will successfully view them outside the context midseason timing created.
Syracuse: 10-Seed (Our Model) vs. 11-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
I include Syracuse because they’re the last team in the field right now on Bracket Matrix, whereas our model has them ahead of seven at-large teams. The Orange have a home loss to Pitt pulling them down, and their best wins came at home against UNC, Clemson, and Virginia Tech—not exactly murderer’s row. Every one of the four rating systems we’ve mentioned has them in the field, though, and their flaws seem lesser than those of their counterparts. Could they miss the tournament? Yes. But our model doesn’t indicate they will.
Utah State: 12-Seed (Our Model) vs. First Team Out (Bracket Matrix)
The Aggies could flip in Bracket Matrix, but as of right now, we have them in and Bracket Matrix has them out. This is one of the smallest disagreements between our model and the industry, but it’s one of the most significant because of where it falls. Not a lot to say, because in the end, we generally agree, and it’s just a matter of how closely we agree.
Michigan State: Fifth Team Out (Our Model) vs. 11-Seed (Bracket Matrix)
After Michigan State beat Michigan last weekend, many declared them safely in the field.
Our model did no such thing.
SOR likes the Spartans. It has them 38th. KPI, NET, and KenPom don’t. In KPI, they’re 64th. In NET, they’re 70th. In KenPom, they’re 56th. They’ve successfully avoided any terrible losses, and they do have wins over Illinois, Ohio State, and Michigan, all in the last three weeks. If Tom Izzo’s going to dance, it’s going to be because of recency and perhaps a dash of name value/media consensus. But to be perfectly frank, Michigan State doesn’t deserve to dance.
***
We’ll keep an eye on Bracket Matrix and may, if time allows, post an update here if anyone moves into/out of their field on the final update or into/out of ours. With how quickly things will be happening, though, we can’t offer a guarantee.
