Projected 4 seed
- Thread starter SaratogaBoiler1
- Start date
SEC Tournament hasn't disappointed - top 4 seeds get to the semis. #4 Tennessee takes out Auburn and awaits the winner of Florida (2)/Alabama (3), who are locked in a good one, 46-45 Gators under a minute in the first half.
Right or wrong it has been well noted that Matt gives a lot of freedom to his coaches and part of the reason why coaches want to go to Purdue. That said Johnson and Lusk handle the defense. Both have coached a lot on that side of the ball for winning teams that played good D.
The D has been bad as we all know. Losing Jacobsen hurt, but individual D has to improve. We see a step towards that with Giccari, CJ and West from what I understand. Losing Jacobsen and Catchings were two players that Purdue thought they would be able to play at this time last year and although Catchings wouldn’t help on the D and what we know now wouldn’t help on O without an attitude adjustment, but Jacobsen would have helped.
Top programs can get good bigs and there are a bunch of 6’8” and smaller players that are good. The next couple of months will be interesting to see what Purdue does concerning the portal.
St. Johns and Creighton are going AT IT! Like two junkyard dogs tearing into 5 lbs of ground beef.
Good action in da Garden.
Good action in da Garden.
Dang - Creighton just wilting from the onslaught of pressure from St. Johns - both these teams will be a tough out but especially the Red Storm.
I have to switch channels to save what's left of my Gussed up hearing.
I have to switch channels to save what's left of my Gussed up hearing.
Purdue is still listed as the last #4 in this morning's bracket matrix---above Michigan. My gut feel is that Purdue is a textbook #5. I can't see how Purdue is possibly above Michigan on the committee's S-curve.
Purdue is ranked #19 in both NET and Pomeroy (above Michigan in both).
Purdue's record against Quad 1 is worse than Michigan (by 4 games), Arizona, Maryland, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Oregon, BYU, and UCLA. It's slightly better than Kansas. It's about even with Missouri, Illinois, and Texas A&M. It's significantly better than Louisville. Clemson has a winning record against Quad 1, but in only 8 games vs. 17 for Purdue.
Purdue's greatest strength right now is non-conference SOS. It's 10 spots better than Kansas, 20 above A&M, and well above everyone else. (Missouri, BYU, and Maryland all have 300+ non-conference SOS; Wisconsin and Mississippi are close to 200--for what it's worth). But, Purdue's overall SOS is in line with the SEC teams that faced a brutal conference schedule. Purdue is also tied with Arizona for the second fewest Quad 4 games (4) among 4/5 contenders (Kansas has 3). That's a marginal stat, I know. But it could influence some committee members.
Purdue's offensive efficiency (according to Pomeroy) is one of the best among the possible 4/5 teams, but its defensive efficiency is among the lowest.
Head-to-head vs. 4/5 contenders, Purdue is:
1-0 vs Maryland (home)
0-1, vs. A&M (neutral)
1-2 vs. Michigan (home win, road and neutral loss)
1-0 vs. Oregon (road)
1-0 vs. UCLA (home)
0-1 vs. Illinois (road)
Purdue is ranked #19 in both NET and Pomeroy (above Michigan in both).
Purdue's record against Quad 1 is worse than Michigan (by 4 games), Arizona, Maryland, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Oregon, BYU, and UCLA. It's slightly better than Kansas. It's about even with Missouri, Illinois, and Texas A&M. It's significantly better than Louisville. Clemson has a winning record against Quad 1, but in only 8 games vs. 17 for Purdue.
Purdue's greatest strength right now is non-conference SOS. It's 10 spots better than Kansas, 20 above A&M, and well above everyone else. (Missouri, BYU, and Maryland all have 300+ non-conference SOS; Wisconsin and Mississippi are close to 200--for what it's worth). But, Purdue's overall SOS is in line with the SEC teams that faced a brutal conference schedule. Purdue is also tied with Arizona for the second fewest Quad 4 games (4) among 4/5 contenders (Kansas has 3). That's a marginal stat, I know. But it could influence some committee members.
Purdue's offensive efficiency (according to Pomeroy) is one of the best among the possible 4/5 teams, but its defensive efficiency is among the lowest.
Head-to-head vs. 4/5 contenders, Purdue is:
1-0 vs Maryland (home)
0-1, vs. A&M (neutral)
1-2 vs. Michigan (home win, road and neutral loss)
1-0 vs. Oregon (road)
1-0 vs. UCLA (home)
0-1 vs. Illinois (road)
My gut does say 5 as well, but when I ran it last night, as you'll see in the thread I just started, I made Purdue the last 4. Ahead of Michigan. Body of work is better. Slightly.
Think this highlights that in recent years the Selection Committee has put a good bit of weight on non-conference SOS when teams are bunched, and that is really helping Purdue this season, and arguably one of the items that kept them on the #1 line two seasons ago. Michigan State for the better part of Izzo's tenure has done similar, a side benefit from also rigorously preparing your team for a potential post-season.
Teams can't control the conference schedule, especially in the super-sized world and unbalancing, but they can control the non-conference. Yes, SEC teams will benefit from bashing each others' brains out during the season and in the SEC tournament - but all things considered, non-conference SOS could still be a separator among them or with similar teams near the seed lines.
Also - with the bubble teams, they're looking at additional metrics.....
JMHO
Pomeroy's non-conference SOS among likely last in/first out teams:
North Carolina: #7
San Diego State: #8
Ohio State: #90
Boise State: #125
Indiana: #134
Xavier: #213
Wake Forest: #240
Vanderbilt: #343
Texas: #349
So, if non-conference SOS is a determining factor, UNC and SDSU would be the front-runners. Vandy and Texas are the most disadvantaged. Boise and Indiana are in the middle. OSU and Wake Forest are probably out of the running.
Last edited:
Idk what to say about the other comments, but that worst in the country against opponent 2 pt fgs is inexcusable. Shows just how flawed we are defensively.
It's certainly bad. Inexcusable is a term I find hilarious when used by fans. So since you aren't excusing them for it.......
Down the stretch…Purdue was 3-7. It seems to me that the selection committee puts weight on how a team finishes. And for Purdue…it wasn’t good. I will say a #5 seed.
Last 10 games is no longer used as a criteria. Does it still weigh in their minds? No way to know.
It used to be specifically - the last ten games' record. Committee at least publicly has stated that's not a metric anymore, and it looks at the whole season without weighting any particular portion more or less.
That stated - won't be surprised either way 4 or 5.....anything else, I would be somewhat surprised.
My definition of a superstar is much different than yours. That doesn’t mean I don’t know squat ! My definition of a superstar is one who can carry a team on his back to win a championship. I’m sure not seeing that from either TKr or smith this year. Joe Barry Carroll was a superstar. Edey was a superstar. Big dog was a superstar Mount was a superstar. Dwayne Wade in the 90’s was a superstar. Lew AlCinder was a superstar. I’m not seeing that from either tkr or smith. A superstar shows up for every game and doesn’t get tired and outshines all of the competition and doesn’t worry about the refs or makes excuses. On every team you are going to have someone who scores points. Just because a player scores points, doesn’t make them a superstar. Ivey was not a superstar. JJ was not a superstar Hummel was not a superstar. They were great players, but not superstars.
That’s like talking about the GOAT. By definition there can only be one GOAT. You don’t have the GOAT of 2025 . Or the GOAT of the last 20 years!
Not all All Americans are superstars. Being identified as an all big 10 or all American does not make the player a superstar. It just means they were the best player at that position for that year. To prove my point, take a random year. Let’s say 2019. How many of those all Americans or big 10 players can be considered as superstars?
Proving that all Quad 1 wins are not created equal. I trust your analysis, I think it will be very close between the last 4 seed and a a 5.
Take a look at the 2020 all Americans! Luke Garza was a superstar Mount? Being an all American doesn’t mean a player is a superstar.
Similar threads
