pic.twitter.com/URNJiTlS6R

— Joe Lunardi (@ESPNLunardi) March 10, 2023

Lunardi has us matched up against Colgate… hard pass that's a MM we would struggle with.

I'm confused at KSU at a 4. Their non-con is horrible, but they proved themselves in the toughest conference in the land. Weird spot.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

I'm confused at KSU at a 4. Their non-con is horrible, but they proved themselves in the toughest conference in the land. Weird spot.

---

Wondered the same. NET must be killing them is the only thing I can surmise.

Ok. Think I found a couple of things that may explain it.

It is generally accepted the primary tools used by the committee are:

resume (SOR/KPI/NET)
predictive (KenPom/Sagarin/BPI)

K State:

NET: 23
KPI: 12
SOR: 13

KenPom: 23
Sagarin: 25
BPI: 30

Other tools are used as well, but it's just been mentioned by Seth Davis and others who have gone through the tutorial provided by the NCAA that the one's above are the primary basis.

DanaDane said:

---

Ok. Think I found a couple of things that may explain it.

It is generally accepted the primary tools used by the committee are:

resume (SOR/KPI/NET)
predictive (KenPom/Sagarin/BPI)

K State:

NET: 23
KPI: 12
SOR: 13

KenPom: 23
Sagarin: 25
BPI: 30

Other tools are used as well, but it's just been mentioned by Seth Davis and others who have gone through the tutorial provided by the NCAA that the one's above are the primary basis.

---

The computers like us and West Virginia too much and Kansas State and TCU too little IMO. But I think TCU is the only team on that list with a chance of making it past the Sweet 16, unless the others just get ridiculously favorable pairings.

I'm not sure that with a healthy Mike Miles that TCU isn't the most dangerous team in the Big 12 right now. I know I wouldn't want to play them.

I've been wrong plenty of times before, but I think a lot of people are gonna find out the Big 12 was, without a doubt, the most COMPETITIVE conference but not necessarily the conference with teams which can be versatile enough in matchups to go far in a one game elimination tournament.

I won't bet against KU just because they've proven me wrong time and time again this year, but I'm not totally convinced the Big 12 will have more than a couple of teams remaining after the first weekend.

DanaDane said:

---

I've been wrong plenty of times before, but I think a lot of people are gonna find out the Big 12 was, without a doubt, the most COMPETITIVE conference but not necessarily the conference with teams which can be versatile enough in matchups to go far in a one game elimination tournament.

I won't bet against KU just because they've proven me wrong time and time again this year, but I'm not totally convinced the Big 12 will have more than a couple of teams remaining after the first weekend.

---

I wouldn't be surprised if not too many big 12 teams advance, but for a different reason. The big 12 schedule is an exhausting and self-cannibilizing gauntlet. No cupcakes on the schedule and these teams have beat each other up for 2.5 months which might take its toll both mentally and physically. I hope I'm wrong because as a fan I would love to multiple big 12 teams in the sweet 16.

Yes, that's a good reason as well. Will be interesting.

On the flip side, I can definitely some teams struggling with Big 12 teams if the game is allowed to be played as physically as Big 12 games are. I think that is what caught Bama offguard in Norman. Well, that and the fact OU shot almost 35% higher than they did any other game in the year including 70% from 3. haha

So, did Lunardi just say we were replaced on the 2 line by Marquette now after they advance to the Big East final?

No, he just clarified and said they would have to WIN tomorrow to take the 2 seed.

(Not that he's actually making the selections that count)

Kinda wondered the same, Quinton. We were previously bolstered on the second line because of high KPI and SOR rankings at 6 and 7. Everything else would have us as a 3rd seed. We're now 8 and 9 in the KPI and SOR, so I guess we're still hanging on there?

To me a team better have a great reason to lose to a decent to solid team three times… much less in losing pretty handily each time. A team that has been handled fairly easily multiple times

Otherwise when you combine that with many other bad losses would think the ceiling is 3 but this year is soft at the top. Hoping Marquette loses and we somehow get a 2. Team might lack the toughness to take advantage but it gives you a great chance to advance a few rounds

IowaBear said:

---

Lunardi has us matched up against Colgate… hard pass that's a MM we would struggle with.

---

If that happens, possibly a Yale or Georgia State type matchup in round one(?)

Unfortunately, Gonzaga is also in play to try and nab a 2 seed. DeCourcy with Fox already dropped us to the 3 line, in favor of the Zags, with Marquette a chance to move up to a 2 with a win today.

Other projections have us still holding the 2 line. Highest I have seen is the #7 overall seed.

IowaBear said:

---

Lunardi has us matched up against Colgate… hard pass that's a MM we would struggle with.

---

Dude, c'mon. If we lose to a team like Colgate it's a major upset. Lot of recency bias here against a team that's beaten both Texas and Kansas this year.

Of course it's a major upset… major upsets happen literally every year in March. you must have missed the 2 years Baylor was on the losing end of major upsets in March. This team plays bad enough team defense that they're vulnerable against anyone in the dance. We're also good enough to get to the S16… a lot could happen but to act like a team as good as Colgate has zero shot against the Bears is a bad take

Baylor has a NET rating of 13, Colgate is 101. We haven't lost to a team this year lower than 29 (TCU), while playing in the best conference in America. If we lost to Colgate, the whole season would be a fraud.

A lot of self hate in this thread. I guess it's years of being Baylor. It's almost like we're trying to convince the committee to drop us.

I don't know if we're a 2 or a 3 or a 4. But it sounds like some of y'all will be upset if we stay a 2. I ain't gonna complain.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

A lot of self hate in this thread. I guess it's years of being Baylor. It's almost like we're trying to convince the committee to drop us.

I don't know if we're a 2 or a 3 or a 4. But it sounds like some of y'all will be upset if we stay a 2. I ain't gonna complain.

---

Yep lots of complaining and negativity toward our team and players. I was around back in the Harry Miller and Dave Bliss days and will never take for granted an opportunity to go into the Big Dance with a top 10 team and a 2 or 3 seed.

Baylor had 11 Quad-1 wins, and that’s 3rd nationally.
Bears had 3rd toughest schedule nationally.
The team had 10 loses, but 5 of those were to two teams that were tough matchups.
Still projected as a 2-seed, but does falling to a 3-seed really matter?

— David George (@davidleegeorge) March 11, 2023

pic.twitter.com/MU9wTX5Ltz

— Joe Lunardi (@ESPNLunardi) March 11, 2023

I personally think we deserve a three seed, but that is based off recent performance, not overall record. The eye test tells me this team is not a top ten team on most nights. They have the potential for sure, but there is a moxie characteristic missing that you need to make a run in the tourney. I think they can get it going for sure, but it seems like going down 10-12 lately has been a death blow, where in past years our team has almost thrived in those situations. I have worked for the team and seen way worse days to be sure, but expectations are higher for a lot of reasons, talent being the biggest. Stoked to see where we will be seeded and maybe even try to get to a game, but Drew needs to dig deep to figure out how to get our D and rebounding better in a hurry.

I mainly look at Lunardi's stuff just because it seems to be more prevalent all over social media and, of course, ESPN broadcasts. Question to anyone who follows all of this stuff much closer than me: over, let's say, a 5 year period has one person (Lunardi, Palm, etc..) showed a higher percentage of predicting final seeding correctly than all the others or are they all basically within a percentage point or two of each other?

DanaDane said:

---

I mainly look at Lunardi's stuff just because it seems to be more prevalent all over social media and, of course, ESPN broadcasts. Question to anyone who follows all of this stuff much closer than me: over, let's say, a 5 year period has one person (Lunardi, Palm, etc..) showed a higher percentage of predicting final seeding correctly than all the others or are they all basically within a percentage point or two of each other?

---

I used to follow the details more closely but not in the last 2 years. But both Palm and Lunardi have been pretty good at predicting the at-large field with Lunardi a little better at seeding. Palm was often way off in what region Big 12 teams landed in.

Bracket Matrix is also very good at predicting seeds for the top 5 seeds.

Last numbers I saw is Lunardi has averaged about 66 out of 68 on picking the teams and 40-42 out of 68 on picking the exact seeds last 5 years. It's about 60 out of 68 on picking within 1 seed line

Marquettes hammering Xavier. I'd be shocked if we're on the 2 line tomm. Guessing either the highest or 2nd highest 3 seed

Apparently, every team in the Big 12 (at least the top half) benefits from playing in the toughest, best conference.

Here are the teams with the most Quad 1 wins in the country:

Kansas 17-6
Texas 14-8 (including tonight's win)
Baylor 11-10

Source: https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/college-basketball-ncaa-tournament-quadrant-1-wins/

All 10 teams are in the top 35, although some have pretty bad records overall.

Marquette 65
Xavier 51

The NCAA Selection Committee Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves If Baylor Is A 2 Seed Ahead of Marquette https://t.co/iV5gtq8LMl

To all the Marquette faithful …

— Rico Bo$co (@Return_Of_RB) March 12, 2023

How much diff does a 2 bs 3 make?