Bracketology 2024

[kg01]

The ACC is not underrepresented in this tournament. The ACC criminally underperformed during the regular season and was lucky to get five teams into the dance.

My internet motto is 'never let the facts get in the way of a good rant'..

So, if you don't mind, I'll just ignore your post and violently bid you good day.

 

[stinger78]

The ACC is not underrepresented in this tournament. The ACC criminally underperformed during the regular season and was lucky to get five teams into the dance.

Baloney. Pitt should have been there and Wake easily could have been. They were as good as aeveral of the SEV/B-G/B12 teams that loat early.

 

[lauraee]

The ACC is not underrepresented in this tournament. The ACC criminally underperformed during the regular season and was lucky to get five teams into the dance.

Now do the $ec, big 12 & MW.

 

[ThatGuy]

It's interesting how in football, the ACC Coastal was always the "weaker division" because there was no dominant team, and on any given Saturday, any team could win.

Meanwhile in basketball, the opposite logic seems to be applied to the Big 10 and Big 12 and SEC. Frustrating.

 

[Peacone36]

Baloney. Pitt should have been there and Wake easily could have been. They were as good as aeveral of the SEV/B-G/B12 teams that loat early.

Pitt's best victory was Duke. They also beat NC State twice. Thats awesome. Their best OOC victory was against West Virginia, a team that won 9 games. 4 Q1 victories, 2 Q3 losses. Non Con SOS 321

Wake Forest defeated five tournament teams. One of them being Virginia. They were also 4-11 in road and neutral games. I know that isn't a criteria that the committee uses but it does impact the net. They were 2-8 in Q1 games,. Non-con SOS was 195

Wake is very similar to Providence in the NET but Friars went 6-9 quad 1 games and lost fewer Quad 3 games. The win total is also padded by Q3 and Q4 victories so that's a wash. Non COn SOS of 156

Seton Hall, 5 Q1 victories. fewer Q3Q4 Losses but also a garbage Non-con at 178

Both Big East schools had better resume's and neither made it.

 

[Peacone36]

Now do the $ec, big 12 & MW.

You'll get no arguments from me on the SEC. In my mind, there was no reason to put Miss. State or A&M in this field. The MW and the Big 12 gamed the system, yes. I don't have the time or desire to run all over Warren Nolan again but I don't disagree.

My only point was that the ACC was not more deserving than two teams from the Big East. Which has been my stance since the bracket was released.

 

[ESPNjacket]

You'll get no arguments from me on the SEC. In my mind, there was no reason to put Miss. State or A&M in this field. The MW and the Big 12 gamed the system, yes. I don't have the time or desire to run all over Warren Nolan again but I don't disagree.

My only point was that the ACC was not more deserving than two teams from the Big East. Which has been my stance since the bracket was released.

GT was a resume destroyer in the ACC this year. A conference commissioner's nightmare.

 

[stinger78]

Pitt's best victory was Duke. They also beat NC State twice. Thats awesome. Their best OOC victory was against West Virginia, a team that won 9 games. 4 Q1 victories, 2 Q3 losses. Non Con SOS 321

Wake Forest defeated five tournament teams. One of them being Virginia. They were also 4-11 in road and neutral games. I know that isn't a criteria that the committee uses but it does impact the net. They were 2-8 in Q1 games,. Non-con SOS was 195

Wake is very similar to Providence in the NET but Friars went 6-9 quad 1 games and lost fewer Quad 3 games. The win total is also padded by Q3 and Q4 victories so that's a wash. Non COn SOS of 156

Seton Hall, 5 Q1 victories. fewer Q3Q4 Losses but also a garbage Non-con at 178

Both Big East schools had better resume's and neither made it.

My point is that there are several SEC and B1G teams that Pitt and Wake are absolutely on par with. How about a little more equity in doling out the invites?

As I said before, a very good team can still be very good and play a poor non-con slate, but if they do beat several other good teams that non-con should not be used to diminish them, IMPO. It really tells you nothing - both good and marginal teams beat poor non-cons. Further, looking at the ACC's NCAAT performance in recent history, it has shown itself to be a strong conference - contrary to the narrative. There was no reason, IMPO, not to invite at least 6, maybe even 7, ACC teams this season out of 9 teams that posted 20+ wins. The BE should have had 1-2 more as well, at least Seton Hall (13-7 BE) and maybe St. Johns (11-9 BE). The SEC/B12/MW all should have had 2 fewer teams to allow for this.

The NET rankings suck.

 

[stinger78]

The ACC is not underrepresented in this tournament. The ACC criminally underperformed during the regular season and was lucky to get five teams into the dance.

Sorry, no. This is not standing up for the BE, it is pooping - yet again - on the ACC. Every team has hiccups. Every. Team. Look at the season record and the league first and foremost and you cannot say that the ACC was "lucky" to get 5. You can say that UVA was lucky to get that 5th invite, but the ACC got shafted... yet again.

 

[Peacone36]

Sorry, no. This is not standing up for the BE, it is pooping - yet again - on the ACC. Every team has hiccups. Every. Team. Look at the season record and the league first and foremost and you cannot say that the ACC was "lucky" to get 5. You can say that UVA was lucky to get that 5th invite, but the ACC got shafted... yet again.

Yet again? Clearly this is not an objective opinion for you.
Im not ****ting on the ACC "again" I am simply being honesty about the situation.

 

[cpf2001]

Ideally someone in the ACC office would be making noise honestly or not, someone's gotta push the narrative. Marketing, anchoring, blah blah blah, it's all BS but you'll get left behind if you're the only one not playing the game.

 

[orientalnc]

Ideally someone in the ACC office would be making noise honestly or not, someone's gotta push the narrative. Marketing, anchoring, blah blah blah, it's all BS but you'll get left behind if you're the only one not playing the game.

Ask and You Shall Receive

 

[Root4GT]

What the?

Who the heyul still relies on "local media"?

I am offended, root4. Bigly.

The Washington Post is National. If ESPN is your only source as well as talk radio you get what you get. The preseason polls only had Tennessee in the top 10. No hype there.

If you are in the Southeast you get swamped with SEC Hype. That does not exist in basketball anywhere else.

Where is all the SEC Basketball media hype you are referring to?

Has the NCAA done anything right recently?

The NCAA got the seeding as good as one could expect this year. In the Sweet Sixteen

4 one seeds
4 two seeds
2 three seeds
2 four seeds
2 five seeds
1 six seed
1 eleven seed
14 of the 16 to make the Sweet Sixteen were Top 20 seeds.

Anyone complaining about poor seeding is clueless on college basketball this season. The last 4/6 in could be swapped with the last 4/6 out and there is very likely any change to the above. NCST is the only low seeded team to make it to the sweet 16.

 

[Peacone36]

Ideally someone in the ACC office would be making noise honestly or not, someone's gotta push the narrative. Marketing, anchoring, blah blah blah, it's all BS but you'll get left behind if you're the only one not playing the game.

I dont disagree, you need to protect your brand. However, there is a difference between JJ McCarthy being worthy of the #1 pick in the NFL draft and Jim Harbaugh saying he is the best QB in the draft. The difference is what JJ McCarthy showed during the season. He showed that he was very good at handing the ball to Michigan running backs.

 

[orientalnc]

The Washington Post is National. If ESPN is your only source as well as talk radio you get what you get. The preseason polls only had Tennessee in the top 10. No hype there.

If you are in the Southeast you get swamped with SEC Hype. That does not exist in basketball anywhere else.

Where is all the SEC Basketball media hype you are referring to?

The NCAA got the seeding as good as one could expect this year. In the Sweet Sixteen

4 one seeds
4 two seeds
2 three seeds
2 four seeds
2 five seeds
1 six seed
1 eleven seed
14 of the 16 to make the Sweet Sixteen were Top 20 seeds.

Anyone complaining about poor seeding is clueless on college basketball this season. The last 4/6 in could be swapped with the last 4/6 out and there is very likely any change to the above. NCST is the only low seeded team to make it to the sweet 16.

My complaint about the seeding is the favoritism toward rich football schools overall. It's more money pouring into those programs at a time when money buys better and better players. The lack of upsets this year, especially on Sat and Sun last weekend took away from the fan interest..

 

[stinger78]

Yet again? Clearly this is not an objective opinion for you.
Im not ****ting on the ACC "again" I am simply being honesty about the situation.

You’re being “honest” about how the NET ranks them. That ranking is demonstrably inaccurate and it feeds the negative narrative about the conference when in-court performance in the NCAAT shows otherwise.

You know what? The 5 years previous to the information I posted above show the same thing. On average, the past 10 years show that the ACC outperforms all other conferences, over time, in the NCAAT. Every conference has a bad year or two, but the ACC is tops over time. It’s the same so far this year.

The narrative is wrong. Now, I am not saying that the ACC is what it was from around 1980-95 or so. Others have definitely narrowed the gap. However, year in, year out, the ACC is still at the top.

 

[Root4GT]

You’re being “honest” about how the NET ranks them. That ranking is demonstrably inaccurate and it feeds the negative narrative about the conference when in-court performance in the NCAAT shows otherwise.

You know what? The 5 years previous to the information I posted above show the same thing. On average, the past 10 years show that the ACC outperforms all other conferences, over time, in the NCAAT. Every conference has a bad year or two, but the ACC is tops over time. It’s the same so far this year.

The narrative is wrong. Now, I am not saying that the ACC is what it was from around 1980-95 or so. Others have definitely narrowed the gap. However, year in, year out, the ACC is still at the top.

The ACC is a good basketball conference anchored by two exceptional programs, UNC and Duke. Below them there are a number of programs that have good to great years but are not consistently top 10-20 programs.

The ACC needs two more programs to step up to be consistent top 20 teams. I sure hope GT becomes one of them.

 

[Peacone36]

You’re being “honest” about how the NET ranks them. That ranking is demonstrably inaccurate and it feeds the negative narrative about the conference when in-court performance in the NCAAT shows otherwise.

You know what? The 5 years previous to the information I posted above show the same thing. On average, the past 10 years show that the ACC outperforms all other conferences, over time, in the NCAAT. Every conference has a bad year or two, but the ACC is tops over time. It’s the same so far this year.

The narrative is wrong. Now, I am not saying that the ACC is what it was from around 1980-95 or so. Others have definitely narrowed the gap. However, year in, year out, the ACC is still at the top.

No i am looking at schedules and results. Yes the Q system is helpful in sorting through some of the data. I am not a fan of the NET, i think its quite ridiculous in some instances. Look at any metric you'd like, the ACC is no longer the power in college basketball. It hasnt been in the top 3 according to Kenpom since 2018-19. If you wanna be nostalgic about the ACC that is fine, i love the old days when it was the best basketball on the planet. The fact remains last season they finished behind both the Pac12 and the MWC for seventh. This season they finished fifth, the Big East finished second. Is that because they only had three good teams?

 

[stinger78]

I'm not being nostalgic, peacone. I clearly stated they are not what they were back in the day. Read my reply again. Based on performance into the Sweet 16, which is point when most of the middling teams have been weeded out, the ACC is the best over the last 10 seasons. There is no reason to penalize the conference based on some trumped-up proxy for performance (NET, Ken Pom, RPI) when the ACC's actual performance is there for all to see.

Same drill only for 2014-2018 NCAAT performance for major conferences (Invited/S16 teams).

ACC: 2018 (9/4), 2017 (9/1), 2016 (7/6), 2015 (6/5), 2014 (6/1) = 37/17 = 0.459
BE: 2018 (6/1), 2017 (7/2), 2016 (5/1), 2015 (6/1), 2014 (4/0) = 28/5= 0.179
B1G: 2018 (4/2), 2017 (7/3), 2016 (7/3), 2015 (7/2), 2014 (6/3) = 31/13 = 0.419
B12: 2018 (7/4), 2017 (6/3), 2016 (7/3), 2015 (7/2), 2014 (7/2) = 34/14 = 0.412
P12: 2018 (3/0), 2017 (4/3), 2016 (7/1), 2015 (4/3), 2014 (6/3) = 24/10 = 0.417
SEC: 2018 (8/2), 2017 (5/3), 2016 (3/1), 2015 (5/1), 2014 (3/3) = 24/10 = 0.417

 

[slugboy]

I'm not being nostalgic, peacone. I clearly stated they are not what they were back in the day. Read my reply again. Based on performance into the Sweet 16, which is point when most of the middling teams have been weeded out, the ACC is the best over the last 10 seasons. There is no reason to penalize the conference based on some trumped-up proxy for performance (NET, Ken Pom, RPI) when the ACC's actual performance is there for all to see.

Same drill only for 2014-2018 NCAAT performance for major conferences (Invited/S16 teams).

ACC: 2018 (9/4), 2017 (9/1), 2016 (7/6), 2015 (6/5), 2014 (6/1) = 37/17 = 0.459
BE: 2018 (6/1), 2017 (7/2), 2016 (5/1), 2015 (6/1), 2014 (4/0) = 28/5= 0.179
B1G: 2018 (4/2), 2017 (7/3), 2016 (7/3), 2015 (7/2), 2014 (6/3) = 31/13 = 0.419
B12: 2018 (7/4), 2017 (6/3), 2016 (7/3), 2015 (7/2), 2014 (7/2) = 34/14 = 0.412
P12: 2018 (3/0), 2017 (4/3), 2016 (7/1), 2015 (4/3), 2014 (6/3) = 24/10 = 0.417
SEC: 2018 (8/2), 2017 (5/3), 2016 (3/1), 2015 (5/1), 2014 (3/3) = 24/10 = 0.417

That’s the kind of argument the ACC could use, but

1. That explains why to let in Duke, UNC, and teams that go to the Sweet 16–the best of the ACC is reliably ready for that round. How does it get Pitt and Wake into the tournament?
2. Is .459 that different from .419? Didn’t we just say the SEC got way too many teams in? Is the difference one more for us and one less for them?
3. Don’t games in November and December count? Shouldn’t Wake and Pitt actually schedule good teams to play?