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!
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:
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.
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
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
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:
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
