Jump to content

Early season prediction thread


bauman

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, bauman said:

wg, we have the same 4, A-10 losses.  I agree with your number 1, 3 and 4 but not so much with the schedule being so difficult (2).  I see only 4 challenging games, Memphis, @Auburn, Maryland and whichever we play of the Miami/Providence duo.  Boise St. is supposed to be down this year and I can't call our MVC games as tough.  If we are as good as we think or hope then we should be able to beat any Valley teams, especially at Chafitz.  One game on the difficult/non-difficult bubble is @ Iona.  

I am kind of with you on this.  Murray State won't be as good as last season, and as you say Boise State won't be as good as last season. Iona probably not as solid as last year, but we play them on the road so yeah, bubble.  Drake is the one team that should be significantly better than last season.  I'm glad we play them here.  SIUC here should be close to a double digit home W.  And the four you mentioned, yep.

Time will tell, but there could be only three or four Q1 games in the OOC, Memphis, Auburn, and one or two of the MTE games.  Last season we ended up with 3 Q1 OOC games, Memphis, Auburn and Boise State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

21 minutes ago, bauman said:

wg, we have the same 4, A-10 losses.  I agree with your number 1, 3 and 4 but not so much with the schedule being so difficult (2).  I see only 4 challenging games, Memphis, @Auburn, Maryland and whichever we play of the Miami/Providence duo.  Boise St. is supposed to be down this year and I can't call our MVC games as tough.  If we are as good as we think or hope then we should be able to beat any Valley teams, especially at Chafitz.  One game on the difficult/non-difficult bubble is @ Iona.  

Any road game at a top 100 team is a tough game.  That's why high majors generally avoid those type of mid-major matchups.

Billiken Rich likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

Underseeded mid-majors are usually the ones that make a run in the tournament.  Unless you're a top 4 seed, there's really no advantage in being ranked.

No advantage in the tournament..

However being ranked means more local coverage, more National coverage, and more tickets sold. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

Agreed.  First priority, however, is a tournament run.  After that, the ranking means more.

Well the tournament run can't happen till mid-March, so yeah, it would be kind of nice to be ranked all year, draw fan interest and get a top 6 seed, rather than hope for an 11 or 12 seed which is what you seem to be suggesting we do since a lot of mid-majors have made runs from those seeds. I'd like to see how many "mid-major" runs happen from teams seeded 1-6 compared to teams seeded 11-12. Pretty sure the 1-6 would have a lot higher percentage, but people's memory is only of the 11-12 seeds. 

SLU can't do anything about a "tournament run" right now so to me the priority at this moment should obviously be winning games and hopefully with that getting all the benefits (national acclaim, local excitement, ticket sales, donations, etc.) that come from a top 25 ranking. We can worry about the tourney run in March. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2022
St. Peter's 15

2021
Oral Roberts 15 
Loyola 8

2019
None

2018
Loyola 11

2017
None

-----

Every year there was at least one mid-major with a top 6 seed.  None of them made it.   It's easier to be the hunter of a high-major than to  be hunted by one.

Top 25 is about bragging rights. If you're interested in actually making a run, history tells us you're better off being underseeded or a top 4 seed (which means you're one of the best teams in the country).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 3star_recruit said:

2022
St. Peter's 15

2021
Oral Roberts 15 
Loyola 8

2019
None

2018
Loyola 11

2017
None

-----

Every year there was at least one mid-major with a top 6 seed.  None of them made it.   It's easier to be the hunter of a high-major than to  be hunted by one.

Top 25 is about bragging rights. If you're interested in actually making a run, history tells us you're better off being underseeded or a top 4 seed (which means you're one of the best teams in the country).

Hold up.  A definition of mid-major may be needed here. I don't think I'd call St. Peter's a mid-major and I'd like to say we have way more in common with a Houston or Creighton (both made long tourney runs in recent years) than St. Peters or Oral Roberts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

2022
St. Peter's 15

2021
Oral Roberts 15 
Loyola 8

2019
None

2018
Loyola 11

2017
None

-----

Every year there was at least one mid-major with a top 6 seed.  None of them made it.   It's easier to be the hunter of a high-major than to  be hunted by one.

Top 25 is about bragging rights. If you're interested in actually making a run, history tells us you're better off being underseeded or a top 4 seed (which means you're one of the best teams in the country).

By your definition of "mid-major", which you seem to associate with any A-10 team, includes anybody not in the Power 6 or AAC or Gonzaga? So based on that definition here are the "mid-major" top 6 seeds and their performances.

2022: St Marys as a 4 seed lost in the round of 32 and Colorado St. as a 6 seed lost in the first round

2021: San Diego St. and BYU as 6 seeds lost in the first round.

2019: Buffalo as a 6 seed lost in the round of 32.

2018: Wichita St. as a 4 seed lost to another mid-major in the first round

2017: None

2016: None

So basically in the last 5 years a grand total of 6 "mid-major" teams have had top 6 seeds and none of them have made the sweet 16. And you compare that to the "mid-major" field for those same years that includes all teams with seeds 8-15. In 2022 alone there were 20 such mid-major teams. If that average holds over 5 years, there are 100 such opportunities for low seeded mid-majors to make a run.

Put differently, because 4 out of 100 mid-major teams made a run to the sweet 16 you think it is "easier" to do it as an 8-15 seed than it is as a 1-6 seed??

As I said before, give me a top 25 ranking and a top 6 seed and I'll take my chances. You can keep the 4 in 100 chances that seem to be the rest of the mid-major field.

SLUMedBilliken15 likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, kshoe said:

By your definition of "mid-major", which you seem to associate with any A-10 team, includes anybody not in the Power 6 or AAC or Gonzaga? So based on that definition here are the "mid-major" top 6 seeds and their performances.

2022: St Marys as a 4 seed lost in the round of 32 and Colorado St. as a 6 seed lost in the first round

2021: San Diego St. and BYU as 6 seeds lost in the first round.

2019: Buffalo as a 6 seed lost in the round of 32.

2018: Wichita St. as a 4 seed lost to another mid-major in the first round

2017: None

2016: None

So basically in the last 5 years a grand total of 6 "mid-major" teams have had top 6 seeds and none of them have made the sweet 16. And you compare that to the "mid-major" field for those same years that includes all teams with seeds 8-15. In 2022 alone there were 20 such mid-major teams. If that average holds over 5 years, there are 100 such opportunities for low seeded mid-majors to make a run.

Put differently, because 4 out of 100 mid-major teams made a run to the sweet 16 you think it is "easier" to do it as an 8-15 seed than it is as a 1-6 seed??

As I said before, give me a top 25 ranking and a top 6 seed and I'll take my chances. You can keep the 4 in 100 chances that seem to be the rest of the mid-major field.

Thanks for doing this work.  You've demonstrated that both scenarios are longshots and we're essentially rationalizing why our longshot scenario is more plausible.  Long live Billikens.com.

SLUMedBilliken15 likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

2022
St. Peter's 15

2021
Oral Roberts 15 
Loyola 8

2019
None

2018
Loyola 11

2017
None

-----

Every year there was at least one mid-major with a top 6 seed.  None of them made it.   It's easier to be the hunter of a high-major than to  be hunted by one.

Top 25 is about bragging rights. If you're interested in actually making a run, history tells us you're better off being underseeded or a top 4 seed (which means you're one of the best teams in the country).

I would much prefer the program aspire for more than a Cinderella story like St. Peter's and Oral Roberts. The three-year run by the Majerus teams are what the program should strive to be - trips to the Tourney with #9, #5 and #4 seeds, teams that were often ranked throughout that time, and got a NCAA Tourney victory in each of those three years. A Sweet 16 was just one more win away. 

Young Charles and Adman like this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

Thanks for doing this work.  You've demonstrated that both scenarios are longshots and we're essentially rationalizing why our longshot scenario is more plausible.  Long live Billikens.com.

Making the sweet 16 as a 1-6 seed is not really a long shot. It happened that during that window of time 6 "mid-majors " had that chance and failed, but that doesn't make it a long shot. It's kind of like if Goldschmidt goes 0-6 over two games, I don't think it's a long-shot for him to get a hit in the next game.

You keep believing that we'll have a better shot at the sweet 16 as a 11-15 seed and I'll keep believing it's better to be in the top 25 and be a 1-6 seed. And we can all live in billikens.com harmony.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, kshoe said:

Making the sweet 16 as a 1-6 seed is not really a long shot. It happened that during that window of time 6 "mid-majors " had that chance and failed, but that doesn't make it a long shot. It's kind of like if Goldschmidt goes 0-6 over two games, I don't think it's a long-shot for him to get a hit in the next game.

You keep believing that we'll have a better shot at the sweet 16 as a 11-15 seed and I'll keep believing it's better to be in the top 25 and be a 1-6 seed. And we can all live in billikens.com harmony.

 

as long as we avoid the 8-9, Im happy......

willie likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kshoe said:

Making the sweet 16 as a 1-6 seed is not really a long shot. It happened that during that window of time 6 "mid-majors " had that chance and failed, but that doesn't make it a long shot. It's kind of like if Goldschmidt goes 0-6 over two games, I don't think it's a long-shot for him to get a hit in the next game.

You keep believing that we'll have a better shot at the sweet 16 as a 11-15 seed and I'll keep believing it's better to be in the top 25 and be a 1-6 seed. And we can all live in billikens.com harmony.

 

Agreed. Not sure why we would limit the sample to "mid-majors". It doesn't matter what conference a team comes from if they are good enough to get a high seed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cowboy II said:

-according to printyourbrackets.com here are the number of Final Four appearances by seed from 1979 thru 2022 (if doing the math remember no tourney in 2020)

1-69

2-37

3-19

4-14

5-8

6-6

7-4

8-7

9-2

10-1

11-5

12 and beyond-0

Point of information... 

In 1979 there were only 10 seeds

1980-84...only 12 seeds

1985+...16 seeds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...