I can't see any possible way to believe this backcourt = that high of a projection. Not by ranking, not by stats and not by eye test. Torvik using purely efficiency stats had us 11th/57th. Our group had us 8th/36th which I thought was too high. 3 seed implies top 12 in the nation. No freaking way ..
Our first option (TJD) would be third or lower option on half of teams in the conference. Our second option (Smith) would be fifth or lower in a majority and would have a hard time breaking into the starting lineup in many and our backcourt would struggle to break 20 minutes on half the teams. The only area we have talent equal to the conference best is in our four/five interior players .. the other perimeter positions are/were shaky at best and would rate lower half compared to the other big teams.
I just don't see it ..
As a bettor, I use Torvik and Kenpom quite a bit, as you know. That said, I wouldn't place my bar of expectation according to their forecasts, as a fan.
Built in to their numbers are past over-achievements (and under) as in the case of Texas Tech and Purdue this year. I had both in a cluster around #50 or so in Talent + Experience rankings, while Torvik had them #6 and #8 respectively (I knock out all mid-majors just because I don't want to do every roster).
So, if you grade your year off of Torvik, Painter and Beard have under-performed quite a bit this year, but they are still knocking it out of the park according to mine. Torvik had MSU and Florida #1 and #2, while I had them #19 and #20.
Don't get me wrong though, in the long run the analytics guys beat my preseason numbers up pretty good. I know that my own baseline numbers really aren't as predictive as they could be if I were to start making adjustments based on performance.
As a bettor, you don't want to be on the wrong side of coaching mismatches on a regular basis. I've become pretty comfortable grading coaching just based on the difference between my numbers and the analytics. If my numbers say that your team sucks and analytics says it's great = great coaching and vice versa.
I don't really use my pre-season stuff as more than a roster structure reference during the season. After the season is over, I grade coaches. There are many valid excuses, but, since I can't keep track of them all, I just exclude them. After a while the good coaches rise to the top excuses or not.
A #3 seed probably is unfair based on all we know about our own team. I do the same thing for every team though. I find their expected seed according to ranking, then assume good to great coaching should improve your seed line by up to 4 seed lines. IU ranked #23 which becomes #3- #6.
Anyway, perhaps I shouldn't reference my numbers when even I don't expect them to be nearly as predictive as the analytics guru's. I think I've pointed out quite often that mine are based purely on recruiting rankings + experience... nothing else. They serve the purpose that I want them to serve.