Bracketology 2024

[MidtownJacket]

*Checking my bracket*

 

[kg01]

UNC losing makes me have to rethink my RD3 Ironman gifs.

If also the stupid Illini win too I’m going to be stuck a few spots above @kg01 which is .. ranch sour cream ice cream (brought to you by interns from KraftCheese) level bad.

My bracket? What bracket?

And I'm gonna just push through the ice cream slander. Meany

 

[stinger78]

Welp. ACC finally lost a game… their best team… to the SEC, no less. What a crappy conference! Ha! Guaranteed you’ll hear something akin to this in the next day or so.

 

[TechPhi97]

Fans are not relevant in selections. The NET System is a big driver in selections. Not the sole driver but a very important one.

The committee could have swapped out Miss St and GLA for Pitt, Wake, St John’s or Seaton Hall. All had resume flaws.

The issue I have is the NET like all metrics determines the outcome basically by late December which is crap. I don’t know how to devise a better metric but this on isn’t good. On the other hand it got Clemson a #6 seed with an 11-9 conference record and some bad conference losses. Clemson had a very high NET all season based on early season OOC wins over 4 OOC NCAAT Teams.

Bad system. There is built in bias but it’s not based on fan support.

You’re saying that the bias in the system is evident because Clemson beat four tournament teams OOC early in the season?

 

[kg01]

Welp. ACC finally lost a game… their best team… to the SEC, no less. What a crappy conference! Ha! Guaranteed you’ll hear something akin to this in the next day or so.

"THA SEC takes down the greatest team in the NCAA's!!! All the history, all the pageantry, it means NOTHING against the SEC juggernaut! Nevermind all them 1st round L's, and forget about the best SEC teams gettin put out on their a**es ... rowl tyde!"

 

[stinger78]

"THA SEC takes down the greatest team in the NCAA's!!! All the history, all the pageantry, it means NOTHING against the SEC juggernaut! Nevermind all them 1st round L's, and forget about the best SEC teams gettin put out on their a**es ... rowl tyde!"

There it is! You read it here first.

 

[TooTall]

It begins

Nate Oats Drops Savage Line After Alabama Upsets UNC

Alabama basketball coach Nate Oats dropped a savage line after the Crimson Tide beat UNC. Watch a video of his comment.

www.outkick.com

 

[Root4GT]

You’re saying that the bias in the system is evident because Clemson beat four tournament teams OOC early in the season?

Clemson was a NCAAT lock because of their OOC success. NET basically sets the conferences before conference play begins. Clemson was nothing special in ACC play. Clemson lost 3 of it's last 4 conference games to ND, Wake and BC, not impressive but they were considered a lock all season based on OOC play. That is the built in bias in the NET. Conference play is not nearly as important as OOC play.

 

[Root4GT]

Welp. ACC finally lost a game… their best team… to the SEC, no less. What a crappy conference! Ha! Guaranteed you’ll hear something akin to this in the next day or so.

Alabama played a great game. Very hard to hold Davis down as they did. He never got open 3 point looks. Carolina clearly had their chances to win. Withers went brain dead on both ends of the court in the last 2 minutes and that cost Carolina the game.

Very good basketball game by two very good teams. Clemson will have their hands full on Saturday with Alabama's quickness. However, Clemson has been playing great in the Tournament. Taking out a 2 and a 3 seed is very impressive! Hope they win on Saturday!

 

[gtbeak]

Texas' non con schedule, while not strong, was nowhere near as weak as TCU's and their other metrics were better. But even if you want to include them in the same group as TCU it doesn't really change the overall point. The Big 12 got two marginal teams in same as the ACC in that case.

The real question though is what is the strong argument that Pitt obviously deserved to be in over those mentioned? Is it just in conference win%? If so then that is a metric comparing different measurements since the conferences are not all equal. For example, Indiana State had an in conference record of .850. So shouldn't you be arguing for them instead? The "deep" run in the conference tournament for Pitt was winning one game after getting a double bye. Pitt could have been included over them and it wouldn't have been a big deal. But them being left out also isn't some huge travesty.

And the single best argument for Pitt deserving to be in there is in comparison to UVA who they had both better metrics than and won at virgina by 11. They were also hurt by NCSU stealing a bid (along with oregon).



How does UVA have a better resume than either of those teams to you? Is it just looking at overall record, conference record and being like, guess UVA is better? UVA's metrics are nowhere close to BYUs or TT where the worst of either BYU or TT's results based or predictive based metrics is 31 while the best for UVA is 32 with the others being 38,55, and 69. This is probably largely due to repeated performances like losing by 25 to duke, 24 to wisconsin, 25 to colorado state, 19 to wake, 34 to VT, 16 to NCSU, 23 to Memphis, 22 to ND. BYU had 4 double digit losses the worst being a 14 point loss to TT, and TT had 6 with two big losses by 23 to Houston (losing to them twice by the same margin), but the next highest being 16 and then 14. UVA also lacked as many top end wins as either of them.

First, thanks for correcting me on Pitt's performance in the ACC tourney. For some reason I was thinking they won two games and played in the championship game. Brain fart on my part.

To the discussion...you appear to be throwing the ACC #3 (UVa) in the same bucket as the Big 12 #8 (TCU) and the SEC #7 and #9 (Texas A&M and Mississippi St). You also throw the ACC #4 (Pitt) in the same bucket as the Big 12 #9 (Oklahoma). It really appears that you think the Big12 and the SEC are not just stronger than the ACC, but significantly stronger. Yet on court performance these last 8 days doesn't reflect that. And I know what happened last year shouldn't be considered for this year's selections, but it does show a trend that says these past 8 days probably are not just random results landing in the ACC's favor, but rather a fairly repeatable outcome.

To the team resumes, here is what I see (note that these records are prior to the NCAA Tourney):

The first bucket....teams who I agree belonged in the tourney, but whose seeding was questionable relative to the ACC equivalent:

Texas Tech: 12-8 in Big 12 play, 23-10 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference foes, including 0-0 against teams who ultimately made the tourney, 9-0 against schedule filler.
BYU: 11-9 in Big 12, 23-10 overall, 3-1 against P6 non-conference + SDSU, including 2-0 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler.
UVa: 14-8 in ACC, 23-10 overall, 3-2 against P6 non-conference + Memphis, including 2-1 against tourney teams. Beat Florida head-to-head.
Florida: 14-8 in SEC, 24-11 overall, 3-3 against P6 non-conference, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 7-0 against schedule filler. Lost to UVa head-to-head.
Summary: UVa tied for best overall win%, tied for best conference win%, best win% vs. P6 conference teams, played the most eventual tourney teams in non-conference and acquitted themselves well, won the only head-to-head game played amongst this group. To me that equals best resume of these four schools,

2nd bucket....teams who are "marginal" to use your term:

Texas: 9-10 in Big 12 play, 20-12 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler. Beat TCU head-to-head.
TCU: 10-10 in Big 12 play, 21-12 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference + Nevada, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler. Lost to Texas head-to-head.
Mississippi St: 10-11 in SEC play, 21-13 overall, 4-1 against P6 non-conference, including 2-0 against tourney teams, 7-1 against schedule filler (lost to Southern). Lost to A&M h-t-h.
Texas A&M: 11-10 in SEC play, 20-14 overall, 4-4 against P6 non-conference + Memphis & FAU, including 1-3 against tourney teams, 5-0 against schedule filler. Beat Moo-U h-t-h.
Pitt: 13-9 in ACC play, 22-11 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference, including 0-1 against tourney teams, 7-0 against schedule filler.
Summary: Pitt had best win% overall and also against P6 competition. The two SEC schools have the best non-conference wins. To me the two Big 12 schools are clearly the bottom of this bucket. Pitt's biggest blemish is only playing one tourney team in non-conference and losing. Mississippi St has the losing SEC record, which IMO should disqualify them from consideration, but I admit they have a nice non-conference record. As I pointed out in my other post yesterday afternoon, that nice non-conference resume was built mostly on two days in November. Still, those two days did happen. My main complaint here is that Texas and Mississippi St not only were selected, but were seeded to win a game. That is just crazy to me. Also, all four of these marginal schools were seeded higher than Virginia because.....?

Alrighty, I'm done. I've spent way too much time on this, something that doesn't really matter. TBH, this subject isn't one that usually interests me, but for some reason this thread piqued my curiosity.

 

[ESPNjacket]

First, thanks for correcting me on Pitt's performance in the ACC tourney. For some reason I was thinking they won two games and played in the championship game. Brain fart on my part.

To the discussion...you appear to be throwing the ACC #3 (UVa) in the same bucket as the Big 12 #8 (TCU) and the SEC #7 and #9 (Texas A&M and Mississippi St). You also throw the ACC #4 (Pitt) in the same bucket as the Big 12 #9 (Oklahoma). It really appears that you think the Big12 and the SEC are not just stronger than the ACC, but significantly stronger. Yet on court performance these last 8 days doesn't reflect that. And I know what happened last year shouldn't be considered for this year's selections, but it does show a trend that says these past 8 days probably are not just random results landing in the ACC's favor, but rather a fairly repeatable outcome.

To the team resumes, here is what I see (note that these records are prior to the NCAA Tourney):

The first bucket....teams who I agree belonged in the tourney, but whose seeding was questionable relative to the ACC equivalent:

Texas Tech: 12-8 in Big 12 play, 23-10 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference foes, including 0-0 against teams who ultimately made the tourney, 9-0 against schedule filler.
BYU: 11-9 in Big 12, 23-10 overall, 3-1 against P6 non-conference + SDSU, including 2-0 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler.
UVa: 14-8 in ACC, 23-10 overall, 3-2 against P6 non-conference + Memphis, including 2-1 against tourney teams. Beat Florida head-to-head.
Florida: 14-8 in SEC, 24-11 overall, 3-3 against P6 non-conference, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 7-0 against schedule filler. Lost to UVa head-to-head.
Summary: UVa tied for best overall win%, tied for best conference win%, best win% vs. P6 conference teams, played the most eventual tourney teams in non-conference and acquitted themselves well, won the only head-to-head game played amongst this group. To me that equals best resume of these four schools,

2nd bucket....teams who are "marginal" to use your term:

Texas: 9-10 in Big 12 play, 20-12 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler. Beat TCU head-to-head.
TCU: 10-10 in Big 12 play, 21-12 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference + Nevada, including 0-2 against tourney teams, 9-0 against schedule filler. Lost to Texas head-to-head.
Mississippi St: 10-11 in SEC play, 21-13 overall, 4-1 against P6 non-conference, including 2-0 against tourney teams, 7-1 against schedule filler (lost to Southern). Lost to A&M h-t-h.
Texas A&M: 11-10 in SEC play, 20-14 overall, 4-4 against P6 non-conference + Memphis & FAU, including 1-3 against tourney teams, 5-0 against schedule filler. Beat Moo-U h-t-h.
Pitt: 13-9 in ACC play, 22-11 overall, 2-2 against P6 non-conference, including 0-1 against tourney teams, 7-0 against schedule filler.
Summary: Pitt had best win% overall and also against P6 competition. The two SEC schools have the best non-conference wins. To me the two Big 12 schools are clearly the bottom of this bucket. Pitt's biggest blemish is only playing one tourney team in non-conference and losing. Mississippi St has the losing SEC record, which IMO should disqualify them from consideration, but I admit they have a nice non-conference record. As I pointed out in my other post yesterday afternoon, that nice non-conference resume was built mostly on two days in November. Still, those two days did happen. My main complaint here is that Texas and Mississippi St not only were selected, but were seeded to win a game. That is just crazy to me. Also, all four of these marginal schools were seeded higher than Virginia because.....?

Alrighty, I'm done. I've spent way too much time on this, something that doesn't really matter. TBH, this subject isn't one that usually interests me, but for some reason this thread piqued my curiosity.

They really don't care at all about conference standings.

 

[gtbeak]

They really don't care at all about conference standings.

I understand, but the implication of that is the college basketball season runs from around November 10th to December 31st, takes 10 weeks off, then a committee decides who did the best in November and December without totally embarrassing themselves in that 10 week off period, and then play a tournament amongst those schools. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[ESPNjacket]

I understand, but the implication of that is the college basketball season runs from around November 10th to December 31st, takes 10 weeks off, then a committee decides who did the best in November and December without totally embarrassing themselves in that 10 week off period, and then play a tournament amongst those schools. That doesn't make sense to me.

They count as games, they just don't care about the standings. I think I have proven why and how they improperly overweight OOC SOS so there is an impact to the weight of conference games. I agree with you it should not be that way.

 

[GT33]

This whole thread is pretty comical. GT's in a conference. We seemingly have no way of getting out of it. The data is clear that our conference has been harmed financially over a very long period of time and GT is damaged by that happening. Some are contriving all kinds of excuses about why every year like this year is an exception and we got what we deserved. That is the prevailing media story. Again the data clearly refues that, it took 10 games for our suck *** conference to finally lose a game where an expert committee hand selected each team based on merit. They and the apologists have no answers as to how to stop it happening year after year after year, prefer to attempt to explain how our conference sucks each year and all the other conferences are superior. If you can't get the people that are supposed to support you behind you, how the hell would we ever get any traction with the neutral parties involed much less our competitors. People wonder why the ACC has a bad rep, start with the ACC fanbases because they're all just like GT's.

 

[stinger78]

I understand, but the implication of that is the college basketball season runs from around November 10th to December 31st, takes 10 weeks off, then a committee decides who did the best in November and December without totally embarrassing themselves in that 10 week off period, and then play a tournament amongst those schools. That doesn't make sense to me.

Conference standing should be a high consideration, especially if you play in a conference with multiple expected invites. I understand conference schedules are unbalanced, but they are more balanced in college basketball than almost any other sport. IOW, there is meaning to it.

 

[g0lftime]

Alabama played a great game. Very hard to hold Davis down as they did. He never got open 3 point looks. Carolina clearly had their chances to win. Withers went brain dead on both ends of the court in the last 2 minutes and that cost Carolina the game.

Very good basketball game by two very good teams. Clemson will have their hands full on Saturday with Alabama's quickness. However, Clemson has been playing great in the Tournament. Taking out a 2 and a 3 seed is very impressive! Hope they win on Saturday!

It looked like they kept trying to run a screen for Davis to drive the lane and either score or draw a foul. They ran it so many times that Bama finally rolled the big center to protect the rim. Becot was not open for a pass from him either. I guess the strategy was put the ball in Davis' hands and let him make a play. It worked a few times. That 3 by Withers? was not a good decision at that point in the game. UNC did not execute very well the last minute. It was a fun game to watch. That center for Bama had a heck of a game on both ends of the court.

 

[Root4GT]

I understand, but the implication of that is the college basketball season runs from around November 10th to December 31st, takes 10 weeks off, then a committee decides who did the best in November and December without totally embarrassing themselves in that 10 week off period, and then play a tournament amongst those schools. That doesn't make sense to me.

That is the major problem with the NER/Quad system. There is little chance to improve significantly in Conference play.

Going back to your examples you could say Clemson at 11-9 in conference was marginal but their non conference wins were a major factor for them. Beating Alabama at Alabama gave them a high initial net that even losing at home to GT, Quad 3 loss didn’t get them anywhere near not being in the tournament.

By your counting Clemson was 11-10 in conference in 6th place and had a 1st round loss to the 11 seed in the conference tournament. Obviously they have proven worthy of their bid and 6 seed. Hope the reach their 1st Final Four.

The NET system is clearly flawed. The ACC needs to go to 18 conference games like the Big 12 and SEC. Getting two more non conference games can make a big difference for NET Rankings. Now will the ACC be able to go back to 18 conference games? There will be pressure from the ACCN not to do that.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Preface: I think the ACC and the Big East were stiffed.

I find it interesting all the discussion around the Men's NCAAT and how the OOC performance is getting too much use and the conference schedule is basically being white-washed. Isn't this the same thing, in reverse, during football? Wasn't there too much credit afforded the SEC conference games and not enough discredit for their poor OCC performance? I'm not sure if that's saying something about us as fans and our fickleness depending on which side of the fence we find ourselves or if the cosmos are just out to screw us any way it can. I know, football/basketball, apples/oranges, but I do find it interesting.

 

[CEB]

Alabama played a great game. Very hard to hold Davis down as they did. He never got open 3 point looks. Carolina clearly had their chances to win. Withers went brain dead on both ends of the court in the last 2 minutes and that cost Carolina the game.

Very good basketball game by two very good teams. Clemson will have their hands full on Saturday with Alabama's quickness. However, Clemson has been playing great in the Tournament. Taking out a 2 and a 3 seed is very impressive! Hope they win on Saturday!

This is all correct and Withers certainly was the most glaring at the most critical time, but there was plenty of blame to go around for UNC. Yes, Bama did a nice job on RJ, but Ingram and Ryan had been doing a spectacular job for most of the game. Down the stretch, they didn’t touch it (maybe credit Bama here too).
Unc came out of the locker room flat (collectively) and Bama erased 8 points in a hurry. UNC missed bunnies and jacked threes (with the guys who hadn’t been hitting) and couldn’t get going.
Bama cooled off and they played back and forth but UNC really got going on the inside and taking the ball to the basket. Davis could t hit crap from the floor but was scoring at the line. There was a point with about 5 minutes left UNC goes up 5 and doesn’t get back on D. Lead is cut to three and UNC’s next four possessions are two missed threes, a missed point blank dunk by bacot and a turnover by bacot. Bama is up five with a couple
Minutes to play when UNC could’ve put it away.

 

[Root4GT]

This whole thread is pretty comical. GT's in a conference. We seemingly have no way of getting out of it. The data is clear that our conference has been harmed financially over a very long period of time and GT is damaged by that happening. Some are contriving all kinds of excuses about why every year like this year is an exception and we got what we deserved. That is the prevailing media story. Again the data clearly refues that, it took 10 games for our suck *** conference to finally lose a game where an expert committee hand selected each team based on merit. They and the apologists have no answers as to how to stop it happening year after year after year, prefer to attempt to explain how our conference sucks each year and all the other conferences are superior. If you can't get the people that are supposed to support you behind you, how the hell would we ever get any traction with the neutral parties involed much less our competitors. People wonder why the ACC has a bad rep, start with the ACC fanbases because they're all just like GT's.

Dude, if you have read the posts many have clearly explained the issue. It is not the media’s bias that hurts the ACC.

The “NET System” is flawed and the ACC hurts itself badly with having 20 conference games.

As ESPNJ pointed out the OOC games Nov-Dec establish teams NET rankings. Once they are set it’s hard to move up in NET rankings in Conference games. Bad system. Bad ACC decision to play 20 conference games. The Committee does not care about a conference win vs an OOC win. Early season OOC wins very much influence NET which influences the committee and who gets selected.

You don’t have to like the system but understanding it is critical, especially for the Conference Leadership. The ACC leaders don’t seem to understand how the system works.