Bracketology 2024

[stinger78]

The gap between the ACC fans insulting their own league all year and SEC and Big 12 fans making stuff up about how great they are has an effect on things like CFP and NCAAT selection. As much as it shouldn't, it does.

See the goofball ACC hating media in Raleigh as a primary source.

Exactly! I’ll never understand it.

Anyone who cares ought to go back and look at Sweet 16 teams for the NCAAT for the last 5-6 years (as 2020 was cancelled). The ACC had something on the order of 18 or so S16 teams. As high, or higher, than any other conference. Yes, there were a couple of down years, but every league has those. Don’t know where the self hate comes from.

 

[MtnWasp]

Don’t know where the self hate comes from.

I have a guess. Because ACC fans are used to being dominant, they are NCAAT obsessed. Because the NCAAT selection weighs early season games equally, and the ACC has a recent history of enduring tough early season losses, ACC fans get down on their conference because of the negative impact of those early losses on the NCAAT selection algorithm.

But it seems to me that a moderately savvy fan should know a good team when they see one, algorithmic computer generated rankings notwithstanding.

 

[57jacket]

I have a guess. Because ACC fans are used to being dominant, they are NCAAT obsessed. Because the NCAAT selection weighs early season games equally, and the ACC has a recent history of enduring tough early season losses, ACC fans get down on their conference because of the negative impact of those early losses on the NCAAT selection algorithm.

But it seems to me that a moderately savvy fan should know a good team when they see one, algorithmic computer generated rankings notwithstanding.

and the selection process should also recognize good teams.

 

[Ramble1885]

my FF is intact (UNC, Marquette, Creighton, Iowa State)

 

[Root4GT]

The highest seeds to push through to the Sweet 16 were Clemson (6) and NCSt (11). Only Duke (4) and SDSt (5) were above a 3 seed among the rest.

The ACC was woefully underrated yet again. I agree with ESPN, ACC fans are their own worst enemy, being so impatient with early season losses. It all just reinforces the false narrative of SEC/BIG domination.

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.

 

[ESPNjacket]

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 understate the value and influence of narratives. It isn't about fan support. It is about media narratives, anchoring, and amplification.

 

[stinger78]

I have a guess. Because ACC fans are used to being dominant, they are NCAAT obsessed. Because the NCAAT selection weighs early season games equally, and the ACC has a recent history of enduring tough early season losses, ACC fans get down on their conference because of the negative impact of those early losses on the NCAAT selection algorithm.

But it seems to me that a moderately savvy fan should know a good team when they see one, algorithmic computer generated rankings notwithstanding.

This would be my guess as well.

Here's the last 5 (played) NCAAT Sweet 16 results (Invites/S16 Teams) by major conference (ACC, Big East, B1G, B12, P12, SEC).

ACC: 2024 (5/4), 2023 (5/1), 2022 (5/3), 2021 (7/2), 2019 (7/5) - Total (29/15) - 0.517
BE: 2024 (3/3), 2023 (5/3), 2022 (6/2), 2021 (4/2), 2019 (4/0) - Total (22/10) - 0.455
B1G: 2024 (6/2), 2023 (8/1), 2022 (9/2), 2021 (9/1), 2019 (8/3) - Total (40/9) - 0.225
B12: 2024 (8/2), 2023 (7/2), 2022 (6/3), 2021 (7/1), 2019 (6/1) - Total (35/9) - 0.257
P12: 2024 (4/1), 2023 (4/1), 2022 (3/2), 2021 (5/4), 2019 (3/1) - Total (19/9) - 0.474
SEC: 2024 (8/2), 2023 (8/3), 2022 (6/1), 2021 (6/2), 2019 (7/4) - Total (35/12) - 0.343

Not sure what all we can take from this.
1) The ACC is as competitive as any other conference, maybe more so.
2) The more teams a conference gets (obviously) the lower the percentage making the S16 will be.
3) There are 2-3 conferences that routinely place fewer teams in the S16 yet get more invitations.
4) The metrics being used are pretty obviously trash.

 

[Root4GT]

You understate the value and influence of narratives. It isn't about fan support. It is about media narratives, anchoring, and amplification.

The media has played up the Big 12 for a number of years. Kansas has been their stud. The SEC got hype last year with Alabama.

You all in Atlanta area suffer from local media bias. Here in Northern VA. The SEC gets no basketball hype at all. The Big East, ACC and B1G all get hype.

You obviously are aware of regional bias. It’s the stupid NET metrics that pre determine the outcomes in December.

Go back and look at the preseason poll. The SEC only had Tenn in the top 10. They did well in OOC games and then the die was cast in NET

 

[cpf2001]

Saw an ESPN article about the Big East saying the results meant the selections were a mistake.

Haven’t seen one for the ACC? Where’s the ACC’s PR team?

The league to be running its mouths on this so that the discussion isn’t “it wasn’t bad PR, it was the metrics” but becomes “wow, these metrics are bad metrics, let’s fix them.”

 

[ESPNjacket]

The media has played up the Big 12 for a number of years. Kansas has been their stud. The SEC got hype last year with Alabama.

You all in Atlanta area suffer from local media bias. Here in Northern VA. The SEC gets no basketball hype at all. The Big East, ACC and B1G all get hype.

You obviously are aware of regional bias. It’s the stupid NET metrics that pre determine the outcomes in December.

Go back and look at the preseason poll. The SEC only had Tenn in the top 10. They did well in OOC games and then the die was cast in NET

I don't consume local media. The SEC hype is national.

The Big East fans are always angry. The ACC fans are always sad. It is really weird but it is also off-putting to others, including the national media. It feeds the narratives. Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[kg01]

The media has played up the Big 12 for a number of years. Kansas has been their stud. The SEC got hype last year with Alabama.

You all in Atlanta area suffer from local media bias. Here in Northern VA. The SEC gets no basketball hype at all. The Big East, ACC and B1G all get hype.

You obviously are aware of regional bias. It’s the stupid NET metrics that pre determine the outcomes in December.

Go back and look at the preseason poll. The SEC only had Tenn in the top 10. They did well in OOC games and then the die was cast in NET

What the?

Who the heyul still relies on "local media"?

I am offended, root4. Bigly.

 

[ESPNjacket]

For those who want to learn about units

 

[MtnWasp]

This would be my guess as well.

Here's the last 5 (played) NCAAT Sweet 16 results (Invites/S16 Teams) by major conference (ACC, Big East, B1G, B12, P12, SEC).

ACC: 2024 (5/4), 2023 (5/1), 2022 (5/3), 2021 (7/2), 2019 (7/5) - Total (29/15) - 0.517
BE: 2024 (3/3), 2023 (5/3), 2022 (6/2), 2021 (4/2), 2019 (4/0) - Total (22/10) - 0.455
B1G: 2024 (6/2), 2023 (8/1), 2022 (9/2), 2021 (9/1), 2019 (8/3) - Total (40/9) - 0.225
B12: 2024 (8/2), 2023 (7/2), 2022 (6/3), 2021 (7/1), 2019 (6/1) - Total (35/9) - 0.257
P12: 2024 (4/1), 2023 (4/1), 2022 (3/2), 2021 (5/4), 2019 (3/1) - Total (19/9) - 0.474
SEC: 2024 (8/2), 2023 (8/3), 2022 (6/1), 2021 (6/2), 2019 (7/4) - Total (35/12) - 0.343

Not sure what all we can take from this.
1) The ACC is as competitive as any other conference, maybe more so.
2) The more teams a conference gets (obviously) the lower the percentage making the S16 will be.
3) There are 2-3 conferences that routinely place fewer teams in the S16 yet get more invitations.
4) The metrics being used are pretty obviously trash.

Thanks for compiling the number Stinger78. I take a lot away from the numbers.

During conference play conference teams "beat each other up." The debate is always whether it is parity or mediocrity. Pessimists and critics always interpret parity as mediocrity. ACC coaches always talk about depth and parity while the fans and media jump on the mediocrity bandwagon.

The problem with any forecasting of complex systems via statistical algorithm, and this true whether we are talking NCAAT seeding, climate, economics or epidemiology, is their dependence of pre-existing conditions. Those are the initial inputs and how they are weighted. This has a large impact on the final forecasts and is a source of inaccuracy.

There is no good way to do it. But one thing is for sure, the present NCAAT selection and seeding algorithm has been gamed by the BIG, Big12 and the SEC over the last five years. They have out-paced the other Power conferences in bids attained and have performed decidedly worse over a 5 year period. I would be shocked if it did not reach statistical significance.

 

[stinger78]

Thanks for compiling the number Stinger78. I take a lot away from the numbers.

During conference play conference teams "beat each other up." The debate is always whether it is parity or mediocrity. Pessimists and critics always interpret parity as mediocrity. ACC coaches always talk about depth and parity while the fans and media jump on the mediocrity bandwagon.

The problem with any forecasting of complex systems via statistical algorithm, and this true whether we are talking NCAAT seeding, climate, economics or epidemiology, is their dependence of pre-existing conditions. Those are the initial inputs and how they are weighted. This has a large impact on the final forecasts and is a source of inaccuracy.

There is no good way to do it. But one thing is for sure, the present NCAAT selection and seeding algorithm has been gamed by the BIG, Big12 and the SEC over the last five years. They have out-paced the other Power conferences in bids attained and have performed decidedly worse over a 5 year period. I would be shocked if it did not reach statistical significance.

Ah yes, forecasting for complex systems. A fool’s errand. Nothing is linear, yet most algorithms plot linear regressions. The questions are: what are the positive and negative feedback loops, and how can we sense what effect they will have? Very difficult to do. Yet we continue to rely on linear metrics.

 

[Peacone36]

Having live in Raleigh for over five years I can confirm that the Raleigh media has a severe "little brother" complex.

 

[MtnWasp]

Ah yes, forecasting for complex systems. A fool’s errand. Nothing is linear, yet most algorithms plot linear regressions. The questions are: what are the positive and negative feedback loops, and how can we sense what effect they will have? Very difficult to do. Yet we continue to rely on linear metrics.

Exactly! trying to pound the round peg of linear mathematics into the square hole of non-linear (chaotic) systems is doomed to fail.

It is done for ideological reasons and not scientific ones. It is the difference between Scientism and science. Amazingly, it does apply to the NCAAT seedings, but probably beyond the scope of sports social media....

 

[kg01]

For those who want to learn about units

 

[57jacket]

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.

The net system sucks! Any automated system sucks.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

UNC beat a 19 and 9 seed as a 1 seed - met expectations
Duke beat a 13 and 12 seed as a 4 seed - met expectations
Clemson beat a 11 seed and a 2 seed - met expectations and exceeded expectations
NCST beat a 6 seed and a 14 seed - beat and met expectations
UVA lost to a 10 seed as a 20 seed - toss up

Summary - The ACC teams won every game they were a favorite (6 games) and won 2 games as an underdog. They lost one game they were the same seed. Excellent performance. The Committee got the right ACC teams into the tournament!

I almost wanted to stand up and cheer

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I hate to do the typical 'bash the media' thing but, as you describe, all this stuff matters nowadays. The SEC 'plays the game' better than anyone. And, as the CFP and tournament selection shows us, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Ol' backwoods a** ACC chiefs sitting on their fat arses like all they gotta do is whip it out and all the action gonna come. But the reality is they got a beer belly, they're balding, and that tact stopped working like 13 years ago.

I didn’t even have to keep reading this, you had me at “hate.”