Road Wins vs Protected Seeds

[xubrew]

Protected seeds, that's an actual NCAA Tournament distinction for teams who get a 1, 2, 3, or 4 seeds, as a rule pretty much never lose at home.

The 16 teams that the committee ranked this past Saturday were a combined 224-16 at home going into last night. After last night, those numbers are actually higher.

Since the shot clock became a thing, Xavier has three road wins against protected seeds in their entire history. in 2015 they won at Georgetown (4 seed), in 2003 they won at Dayton (4 seed), and in 1997 they won at Cincinnati (3 seed).

Since the implementation of the three point shot, Xavier has been to the Elite Eight as many times as they have won a true road game against a protected seed. Those might be the only three wins in Xavier's entire history, but I only went back as far as the three point shot.

The year X got a #1 seed, they didn't win a road game against a protected seed.

The year X got a #2 seed, they didn't win a road game against a protected seed.

#1 seeds usually do have a road win against a protected seed, but not always. In fact of the four teams that the committee gave #1 seeds to this past weekend, Arizona is the only one who had a true road win over another protected seed (Illinois). Granted, Auburn has a win at Alabama, who could end up as a protected seed, but as of now they're not.

I point this out so people understand just how rare it is for a protected seed to lose at home. To anyone. It's not #16 beating a #1 seed rare, but it actually is #15 beating a #12 seed rare. If you look at the percentage of the time a visiting team wins a road game against a protected seed in a given season, it's about the same as the all time winning percentage of a #15 seed in the NCAA Tournament. Right around 5-to-6 percent.


I know the season has been frustrating. I know it was particularly frustrating to lose at home to two teams that don't even appear to be on their way to the NIT, much less the NCAA Tournament (although the Johnnies have picked it up).

But, to be angry about a triple overtime loss to Providence, who right now is a protected seed, and who right now has only one loss at home to Villanova, is kind of crazy. It was a high level game, with lots of big plays from both teams, and yes A WELL COACHED GAME by both head coaches. In a vacuum, not only was that arguably the best full game Xavier has played this year, but it might be the best game they've played in several years. On the road, against a protected seed, who themselves played really well, in triple overtime, and with a freakin' rain delay!! That was just an awesome college basketball game!! It hasn't been an awesome season, but in a vacuum last night was a tremendous effort to where I don't think you can blame or fault anyone for the loss. X came very close to doing something that they have only ever done three times before.

I hate to interrupt everyone's anger with a bit of praise, but last night deserves it. The season as a whole does not, but last night did. That was a hell of a game!

[GoMuskies]

Yes, congrats on the moral victory. A moral victory that we might have been perfectly happy with if, you know, we weren't in the middle of a complete bed shitting of a February.

[Xville]

The “anger” is not about last night it’s about 4 years of crap basketball.

Also, moral victories are for losers.

[Masterofreality]

The “anger” is cumulative after playing like crap at home to DePaul and St. John’s blowing a chance to beat Providence at home- with the ball in a tied game-then the brain fart by Steele on lineups at the end of the first half of the UConn game. So we finally came out and played a solid complete basketball game for the most part?
Doesn’t make up for 3 1/2 trash performances.
Hence “anger”

[xu82]

Yes, congrats on the moral victory. A moral victory that we might have been perfectly happy with if, you know, we weren't in the middle of a complete bed shitting of a February.

Come on now….it’s become a tradition at this point. Are you not embracing it?

[xubrew]

I never said it was a moral victory. I never even implied that because I don't believe in those either. I also said that I know the whole season has been frustrating. In a vacuum, not winning on the road against a protected seed hardly qualifies as shitting the bed. That's really all I was saying.

[MHettel]

So we have 3 wins that meet the criteria you outlined. How many losses?

I mean, your population of 16 teams is pretty narrow. I would think, especially prior to joining the BE, that we would have had almost NO opportunities to win these games because we didn't play those teams.

Also, I would be interested in knowing our record at HOME against these 16 teams over the same period of time.

So, total road and home records against the "Protected seeds." I'm not sure what I expect to see in these numbers, but your choice to isolate only the 3 wins to make your point is a little dubious....

[94GRAD]

I never said it was a moral victory. I never even implied that because I don't believe in those either. I also said that I know the whole season has been frustrating. In a vacuum, not winning on the road against a protected seed hardly qualifies as shitting the bed. That's really all I was saying.

Every loss is blood in the water for the Steele sharks!

[MHettel]

I never said it was a moral victory. I never even implied that because I don't believe in those either. I also said that I know the whole season has been frustrating. In a vacuum, not winning on the road against a protected seed hardly qualifies as shitting the bed. That's really all I was saying.

But the bed was already shit on. This would have at least been a chance to change the sheets. But nope, we get to sleep in it.

[GoMuskies]

In a vacuum, not winning on the road against a protected seed hardly qualifies as shitting the bed.

Unfortunately it wasn't in a vacuum, and when you shit the bed at home against DePaul and St. John's you have to do something a bit extraordinary to make up for it.

Great effort last night. But not great enough.

[GoMuskies]

Every loss is blood in the water for the Steele sharks!

It's been quite the bloody February.

[xubrew]

So we have 3 wins that meet the criteria you outlined. How many losses?

I mean, your population of 16 teams is pretty narrow. I would think, especially prior to joining the BE, that we would have had almost NO opportunities to win these games because we didn't play those teams.

Also, I would be interested in knowing our record at HOME against these 16 teams over the same period of time.

So, total road and home records against the "Protected seeds." I'm not sure what I expect to see in these numbers, but your choice to isolate only the 3 wins to make your point is a little dubious....

I was looking at PROTECTED SEEDS!! It's a specific classification.

My point was that they almost never lose at home. To ANYONE. Even other protected seeds.

Geez, I had no idea I was so far out on a limb with that point!! Maybe I should go back and rethink my stance that it's very hard to win on the road against teams who earn protected seeds. Maybe I'm missing something.

[UCGRAD4X]

That was a great analysis Brew. You are spot on about the degree of difficulty the game presented. In a way, that is what makes it so frustrating, that they came so close to something that would have been a HUGE mark and a real indication of a potential tide-turning event. But they didn't just lose, they blew it. Whether through bad coaching or players not stepping up at the most crucial moments, the "what ifs" of this game leave a particularly sour taste. Just when we needed a win like this the most, they failed to step up.

[JTG]

I was looking at PROTECTED SEEDS!! It's a specific classification.

My point was that they almost never lose at home. To ANYONE. Even other protected seeds.

Geez, I had no idea I was so far out on a limb with that point!!

Delving into basketball minutiae, which you have a penchant for, can be dangerous with this crowd. I just marvel at the amount of info whirling around in your head. Most of us are just happy or pissed off depending on what X does on the court.

[X Factor]

It's been quite the bloody February.

Yes, losing 7 of 10 would qualify as bloody.

[xukeith]

Yes, congrats on the moral victory. A moral victory that we might have been perfectly happy with if, you know, we weren't in the middle of a complete bed shitting of a February.

Go root for your Flyers.

[GoMuskies]

Go root for your Flyers.

Yes, huge Flyers fan here. How did you know?

[Masterofreality]

Yes, huge Flyers fan here. How did you know?

My Gawd

[GoMuskies]

My Gawd

I mean, just for the mascot alone.

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5bbd10430cdf452cf93ca22f/master/w_1920,c_limit/Crouch-Gritty.jpg

[Strange Brew]

Yes, huge Flyers fan here. How did you know?

Go Pens!

You must give off that, uh, Flyer vibe.

[GIMMFD]

I mean, just for the mascot alone.

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5bbd10430cdf452cf93ca22f/master/w_1920,c_limit/Crouch-Gritty.jpg

Who doesn't love Gritty??

[xubrew]

That was a great analysis Brew. You are spot on about the degree of difficulty the game presented. In a way, that is what makes it so frustrating, that they came so close to something that would have been a HUGE mark and a real indication of a potential tide-turning event. But they didn't just lose, they blew it. Whether through bad coaching or players not stepping up at the most crucial moments, the "what ifs" of this game leave a particularly sour taste. Just when we needed a win like this the most, they failed to step up.

To me what's frustrating isn't so much that they lost at Providence. It was DISAPPOINTING in the way that blowing a no-hitter in the 8th inning would be, and I wouldn't celebrate it as a moral victory, but I can still look at it and objectively say that they played great. What's frustrating is...WHERE THE HELL HAS THAT BEEN ALL YEAR?? I mean shit! If X had played like that on a regular basis THEY'D be within reach of a protected seed.

[MHettel]

I was looking at PROTECTED SEEDS!! It's a specific classification.

My point was that they almost never lose at home. To ANYONE. Even other protected seeds.

Geez, I had no idea I was so far out on a limb with that point!! Maybe I should go back and rethink my stance that it's very hard to win on the road against teams who earn protected seeds. Maybe I'm missing something.

No. You dont need to rethink your point. But maybe provide some additional context. Like how many losses did we have against those teams on the road. what if we were 3-7 against those teams. What would I think about that? Or, maybe we are 3-27 against those teams. that would definitely get my attention.

And then the next question is how did we do against those teams on our home court? lets say we were 3-7 against them at home too. Then it would appear that the location of the game didn't really matter too much, and the moral of your story kind of goes down the drain. BUT, maybe we were 5-5 at at home against them. Ok, yeah maybe it is a little harder to win on the road....as if that wasn't already universally known.

It's really no surprise that the top seeded 16 teams probably had very good win / loss records. Another A-HA moment!

If a team was losing games at home, they probably wouldn't earn a protected seed, right? It's self fulfilling.

Please provide our W/L record at home and away against protected seeds since the 3 pt shot inception. If you dont have it, thats fine....it's probably pretty tedious to create it. But if you do, please share.

[GoMuskies]

Xavier didn't beat Providence, and if Providence lost at home to Xavier they wouldn't end up as a protected seed.

[MHettel]

one other point. the current projected protected seeds have a 224-16 home records. That 240 games total, among 16 teams for an average of 15 home games each.

I looked at the top 25, and most teams have played between 25-27 games so far this year. Knowing that conference schedules are usually 50/50 home and away, it's safe to conclude that a number of the home wins for these teams were in fact "buy games" that literally by definition mean that they are purchasing a win. You gotta take those out of this mix.

Lets look at Arizona. They are 24-2 and have played 17 home games and 9 away games. They played 9 non-con home games and 2 on the road. They played 3 quality opponents, Michigan (Win at home) Illinois (Road win) and Tennessee (Road loss).

I dont put any stock into an analysis that suggests that Arizona beating UT Rio Grand by 54 at home means that we werent supposed to beat providence last night.

We beat OURSELVES last night. The flagrant 5th foul on Nunge is an absolute intolerable and unforgivable coaching mistake. Steel didnt know the rule that it would be a flagrant (which makes total sense because it's a cheap tactic that making it a flagrant will discourage), nor did he know that Nunge had 4 fouls. Thats the ONLY explanation. Unless you believe that Nunge went rogue.....which is a WHOLE different problem.

The 2 endgame designed plays were horrible, and the roster management (Hunter) was (again) a key example of just bad coaching.

Tired of it.

[Masterofreality]

one other point. the current projected protected seeds have a 224-16 home records. That 240 games total, among 16 teams for an average of 15 home games each.

I looked at the top 25, and most teams have played between 25-27 games so far this year. Knowing that conference schedules are usually 50/50 home and away, it's safe to conclude that a number of the home wins for these teams were in fact "buy games" that literally by definition mean that they are purchasing a win. You gotta take those out of this mix.

Lets look at Arizona. They are 24-2 and have played 17 home games and 9 away games. They played 9 non-con home games and 2 on the road. They played 3 quality opponents, Michigan (Win at home) Illinois (Road win) and Tennessee (Road loss).

I dont put any stock into an analysis that suggests that Arizona beating UT Rio Grand by 54 at home means that we werent supposed to beat providence last night.

We beat OURSELVES last night. The flagrant 5th foul on Nunge is an absolute intolerable and unforgivable coaching mistake. Steel didnt know the rule that it would be a flagrant (which makes total sense because it's a cheap tactic that making it a flagrant will discourage), nor did he know that Nunge had 4 fouls. Thats the ONLY explanation. Unless you believe that Nunge went rogue.....which is a WHOLE different problem.

The 2 endgame designed plays were horrible, and the roster management (Hunter) was (again) a key example of just bad coaching.

Tired of it.

Bingo!!!!

[xubrew]

one other point. the current projected protected seeds have a 224-16 home records. That 240 games total, among 16 teams for an average of 15 home games each.

I looked at the top 25, and most teams have played between 25-27 games so far this year. Knowing that conference schedules are usually 50/50 home and away, it's safe to conclude that a number of the home wins for these teams were in fact "buy games" that literally by definition mean that they are purchasing a win. You gotta take those out of this mix.

Lets look at Arizona. They are 24-2 and have played 17 home games and 9 away games. They played 9 non-con home games and 2 on the road. They played 3 quality opponents, Michigan (Win at home) Illinois (Road win) and Tennessee (Road loss).

I dont put any stock into an analysis that suggests that Arizona beating UT Rio Grand by 54 at home means that we werent supposed to beat providence last night.

We beat OURSELVES last night. The flagrant 5th foul on Nunge is an absolute intolerable and unforgivable coaching mistake. Steel didnt know the rule that it would be a flagrant (which makes total sense because it's a cheap tactic that making it a flagrant will discourage), nor did he know that Nunge had 4 fouls. Thats the ONLY explanation. Unless you believe that Nunge went rogue.....which is a WHOLE different problem.

The 2 endgame designed plays were horrible, and the roster management (Hunter) was (again) a key example of just bad coaching.

Tired of it.

I get the frustration. I really do. I'm not telling people not to be frustrated. I just wanted people to understand just how hard/unusual it is to win a road game against a protected seed.

What I can easily do (and sort) is tell you what those 16 teams have done against each other in true road games.


Gonzaga - 0-0

Auburn - 0-0 - but is at Tennessee tomorrow

Arizona - 1-2 -

Kansas - 0-2 - still goes to Baylor

Baylor - 0-2

Kentucky - 1-2 - although to be fair, they lost a key player in the second half at Auburn, and while I obviously don't know for sure, I think they win that game if that doesn't happen.

Purdue - 1-0 - they still go to Wisconsin

Duke - 0-0 - I can tell you that this isn't by accident. Not that you need me to tell you that.

Nova - 1-2

Texas Tech - 2-2

Tennessee - 0-2

Illinois - 0-1

Wisconsin - 1-1

UCLA - 0-1

Providence - 1-0 - although to be fair one of Wisconsin's best players was injured when they won there, and they still have to go to Villanova

Texas - 0-3


That's a total record of 8-20 (if my Xavier math is right). And in all likelihood it will be 8-22 after Saturday. I don't think Kansas will win at Baylor, but Auburn MIGHT win at Tennessee.

Even the protected seeds, who are the top teams in the country, win true road games against other protected seeds less than 30 percent of the time in a typical year. And even you don't think it's important, or relevant, or for whatever reason you don't buy it, trust me when I say the selection committee does. I can ASSURE you of that. Texas getting a protected seed was a surprise. I think they basically gave Texas mulligans for their three road losses against other protected seeds because they have this data. They know this. They're not going to ding a team for not winning a game where the win probability is that low even for a team that's considered to be among the best in the nation. Xavier may get dinged for a lot of things they've failed to do this year, but losing at Providence won't be one of them.

[American X]

Thanks for the analysis. I agree that losing at Providence was not bad in isolation. I actually thought that Xavier looked like a tournament team, even without Nate Johnson.

Despite losing, I strangely feel better about winning the rest of the regular season and maybe making some noise in the Big East Tournament. I would relish another shot at Providence on a neutral floor.

[MHettel]

I get the frustration. I really do. I'm not telling people not to be frustrated. I just wanted people to understand just how hard/unusual it is to win a road game against a protected seed.

What I can easily do (and sort) is tell you what those 16 teams have done against each other in true road games.


Gonzaga - 0-0

Auburn - 0-0 - but is at Tennessee tomorrow

Arizona - 1-2 -

Kansas - 0-2 - still goes to Baylor

Baylor - 0-2

Kentucky - 1-2 - although to be fair, they lost a key player in the second half at Auburn, and while I obviously don't know for sure, I think they win that game if that doesn't happen.

Purdue - 1-0 - they still go to Wisconsin

Duke - 0-0 - I can tell you that this isn't by accident. Not that you need me to tell you that.

Nova - 1-2

Texas Tech - 2-2

Tennessee - 0-2

Illinois - 0-1

Wisconsin - 1-1

UCLA - 0-1

Providence - 1-0 - although to be fair one of Wisconsin's best players was injured when they won there, and they still have to go to Villanova

Texas - 0-3


That's a total record of 8-20 (if my Xavier math is right). And in all likelihood it will be 8-22 after Saturday. I don't think Kansas will win at Baylor, but Auburn MIGHT win at Tennessee.

Even the protected seeds, who are the top teams in the country, win true road games against other protected seeds less than 30 percent of the time in a typical year. And even you don't think it's important, or relevant, or for whatever reason you don't buy it, trust me when I say the selection committee does. I can ASSURE you of that. Texas getting a protected seed was a surprise. I think they basically gave Texas mulligans for their three road losses against other protected seeds because they have this data. They know this. They're not going to ding a team for not winning a game where the win probability is that low even for a team that's considered to be among the best in the nation. Xavier may get dinged for a lot of things they've failed to do this year, but losing at Providence won't be one of them.

I think the real friction point that we are having comes down to something very basic.

We just missed out on our LAST opportunity for a quality win that would have provided us a little breathing room and may have punched our ticket to the dance short of an 0-4 finish. We have dug a hole for ourselves over the last 8-10 games and we had a lifeline. But we blew it. The Nunge foul was intolerable and I view it as the final nail in the coffin for Steele. There is no moral victory to be had here. There is no "look at the bright side." There is no participant trophy to put on the shelf.

The Team has been LIFELESS for the first half of almost every game for the last month and a half. The lack of effort and boneheaded plays WILL result in consequences when these guys are at home in mid-march.

We had that Providence game won. The players did their part. the coach lost that one. And I'm fucking irate about it.

[xukeith]

I think the real friction point that we are having comes down to something very basic.

We just missed out on our LAST opportunity for a quality win that would have provided us a little breathing room and may have punched our ticket to the dance short of an 0-4 finish. We have dug a hole for ourselves over the last 8-10 games and we had a lifeline. But we blew it. The Nunge foul was intolerable and I view it as the final nail in the coffin for Steele. There is no moral victory to be had here. There is no "look at the bright side." There is no participant trophy to put on the shelf.

The Team has been LIFELESS for the first half of almost every game for the last month and a half. The lack of effort and boneheaded plays WILL result in consequences when these guys are at home in mid-march.

We had that Providence game won. The players did their part. the coach lost that one. And I'm fucking irate about it.
I don't remember X being up 5 with less than a minute to play. i don't remember X throwing the ball away with 10 seconds on the clock.
X didn't choke.
Providence was up 1 with 2 minutes in regulation.
Xavier up 1 with 1:20 in regulation
X up 2 with 48 seconds to play.
Providence ties it with 23 seconds left
X jumped to a 4 -5 point lead in one of the OT's but Friars tied it quickly;

[MHettel]

I don't remember X being up 5 with less than a minute to play. i don't remember X throwing the ball away with 10 seconds on the clock.
X didn't choke.
Providence was up 1 with 2 minutes in regulation.
Xavier up 1 with 1:20 in regulation
X up 2 with 48 seconds to play.
Providence ties it with 23 seconds left
X jumped to a 4 -5 point lead in one of the OT's but Friars tied it quickly;

Huh?

We had the lead throughout most of the second half. The game was close, but we were leading most of the time. We called a TO with 23 seconds left and settled for a Kunkle jump shot. Missed opportunity #1.

We had a 5 point lead with 2:15 left in OT1. In 54 seconds we allow an AND1 layup, miss the front end of a 1 and 1 free throw, and allow an offensive rebound and put back. Tie game. The game stays tied until we called a TO with 20 seconds left and misses a layup with 6 seconds left. Missed opportunity #2.

We started OT2 by gifting them an AND 1 Jumper. We got down 4 and tied it up with 2:30 left. Playing from behind, we tie it up at the buzzer with the Scruggs 3, but no before we see Providence take 11 Free Throws in 5 minutes, counting of course the 2 by Watson on the moronic flagrant foul by Nunge. We were down by 1 with 7 seconds left when he fouled. Watson went 1 for 2, then they got the ball and we fouled again and Breed went 1 for 2 to put them up by 3. Now rethink what COULD have happened in that sequence. Certainly we could have been down 4 or 5, but also we could have been down by 2, which means Scruggs game tying 3 would have really been a game WINNING 3.

We play the 3rd OT with Hunter because of the dumb Nunge foul. hunter had a turnover, 2 missed layups and a missed 3 during OT3. We were tied at the 1:19 point when Watson got an OREB and a putback (would have been nice if Nunge was in the game there...). We never scored again and they tacked on a 3 and 2 free throws.

In fact we scored 4 points in the entire 3rd OT without Nunge in there.

So, yeah. That was our game. Ball in hand TWICE for the last shot. Boneheaded foul and catch a break from missed FTs and get a MIRACLE 3 that at this point means NOTHING. And then we have to sub in a guy that honestly makes the team worse when he is out there. But of course Edwards and Stanley never play, so you wouldnt put THEM in there. And Miles, is he healthy? Heck is he even on the team?

[UCGRAD4X]

Yes. Winning this kind of game is rare. But really good teams win these games when they get the opportunity that we had. They win the rare game more than rarely. This one got away. Not what really good teams do, because __________________________ (fill in the blank).

[profson]

We did not “settle” for the Kunkel shot. Free was alone in the lane just before that and Scruggs missed him. He sees him, game over.

Opportunity #2 is stated to a missed layup. In what universe is a that bad coaching? I thought
that the goal is to get layups.

(Yes the +1s were bad but that that is player error)

Why do you assume Steele ordered the Nunge foul or was unaware of the flagrant rule or that Nunge had 4 fouls? You have no basis for that.

You play the worst sort of could of game with the Paul 3. If we had been down 2 both the play and the defense might have been different. And in the actual circumstance Paul should not even have had the opportunity as PC should have fouled before the shot.

As for Hunter, not my favorite, but to suggest Stanley as an option is absurd. Right, Stanley on Horchler.

BTW why not blame the failure to assess a flagrant when Durham impeded Nunge from behind as contributing to the loss? Doesn’t fit the narrative I guess.

This was a terrific game by both teams. X was masterful in containing Watson. Hats off to Bynum and Durham.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Haven't read this whole thread yet, someone probably said this, but I am not angry about the Providence loss. It sucks though and is disappointing bc we needed a big win. It would have been a lot less gut wrenching to lose that if you take care of home court against St. Johns and DePaul.

I havent looked at the numbers but it feels like Xavier has become a place where it isn't particularly difficult to win at, without countering that with winning some more difficult BE road games ourselves.