Bracketology 2024

orientalnc

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,910
Location
Oriental, NC
GT33 said:
Yep, only reason ACC team got another win was because their opponent really sucked

Worst rated 2 seed ever
Click to expand...
That is not what I said. AZ was a legit #2, but they had a few games this year like the one they played tonight. Clemson is not a powerhouse, so a #6 beating #2 should be a big deal deal. What I meant was AZ was capable of this type of game and showed it during the season.
 

GT33

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,180
orientalnc said:
That is not what I said. AZ was a legit #2, but they had a few games this year like the one they played tonight. Clemson is not a powerhouse, so a #6 beating #2 should be a big deal deal. What I meant was AZ was capable of this type of game and showed it during the season.
Click to expand...
I know that, it’s just everytime GT or an ACC does something good out comes the asterisk brigade. Damn, the ACC is clobbering the competition. The underrepresentation this year was horrendous, but we’re numb to it because it’s an annual occurrence
 
slugboy

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,491
ESPNjacket said:
That might explain UNC getting a 1 over Iowa State or Kentucky getting a 3.

It most definitely does not explain South Carolina or all of the Mountain West bids.
Click to expand...
Not the Mountain West, but South Carolina has a bigger fan base (or a higher spending one) than Pitt
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
stinger78 said:
No one - no one - is arguing whether or not UNC or UK deserve to be in the NCAAT. Absolutely no one. This is about equity of invites when a bunch of teams are relatively even. The ACC has been being shafted among those teams now for 5+ years. It is unfairly costing the ACC lots of dollars while (again) enriching the richest. Most of the money from the NCAAT is generated the first weekend when the most games are played. Whether these teams win or lose, they get a share.
Click to expand...

Except you are using conference wide numbers as a whole which implies that the performance of Kentucky, or any other team that got in, somehow is reflective of the conference not deserving as many invites. However, Kentucky's performance is theirs alone. Just like UVA's complete bombing isn't a negative reflection on any team but them. That's why it is silly to look at things like conference totals and conference achievement, especially in the context of a single elimination tournament.

Instead of looking at the conference as a whole, you should be looking at the teams actually relevant to the dynamic.

stinger78 said:
This season, the SEC got 8 invites: UT, UK, Bama, and 5 various next-level teams. The B12 also got 8 invites: Houston, Iowa St, and BYU, and 3-4 other next-level teams. Well, the ACC had 3-4 next-level teams as well in addition to UNC, Dook, and Clemson. Namely, Pitt, Wake, UVA, NCSU, and Syracuse. Yet, Pit and Wake, particularly, were left to pound sand and UVA was given a play-in game. Why? The point isw, once you get past the top-shelf teams and are into the next-level teams that are in the same bucket, dispense those more equitably. The ACC, particularly, has shown its competitiveness year after year.
Click to expand...


From the SEC, Auburn, SCar, and UF shouldn't be lumped in with TAMU and MSU. I see no argument at all for leaving any of the former out.
From the Big 12 there was those 3 but there is no reason to group Baylor, Texas Tech Kansas, and Texas in the same grouping as TCU.

No, they are not all in the same bucket once you get past the top of the conference.

Most of the top conference got one or two marginal teams in. SEC got Miss State with maybe TAMU in there was well. Big 12 got TCU. Big 10 got Northwestern. Pac 12 got Washington State and Oregon as an auto bid. The ACC got UVA and NCSU as an autobid. The big east is the conference that got screwed with none of their marginal teams in there.

Yeah, Pitt thinks they should be in there. So does Oklahoma, Cinci, Ohio State, Utah, and a couple of Big east teams. Not to mention Indiana state. There will always be teams left out that feel they should have been in, because there is never going to be a clear and distinctive line right at where the committee needs to make one. But the ACC wasn't shut out of marginal bids, nor were a particularly high number of marginal bids the reason why the SEC and Big 12 had the most.
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
10,790
Seems like announcers were leaning in favor of Arizona and now in favor of Alabama. The ACC used to get hyped but I guess those days are over for now.
 
stinger78

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,336
lv20gt said:
Except you are using conference wide numbers as a whole which implies that the performance of Kentucky, or any other team that got in, somehow is reflective of the conference not deserving as many invites. However, Kentucky's performance is theirs alone. Just like UVA's complete bombing isn't a negative reflection on any team but them. That's why it is silly to look at things like conference totals and conference achievement, especially in the context of a single elimination tournament.

Instead of looking at the conference as a whole, you should be looking at the teams actually relevant to the dynamic.




From the SEC, Auburn, SCar, and UF shouldn't be lumped in with TAMU and MSU. I see no argument at all for leaving any of the former out.
From the Big 12 there was those 3 but there is no reason to group Baylor, Texas Tech Kansas, and Texas in the same grouping as TCU.

No, they are not all in the same bucket once you get past the top of the conference.

Most of the top conference got one or two marginal teams in. SEC got Miss State with maybe TAMU in there was well. Big 12 got TCU. Big 10 got Northwestern. Pac 12 got Washington State and Oregon as an auto bid. The ACC got UVA and NCSU as an autobid. The big east is the conference that got screwed with none of their marginal teams in there.

Yeah, Pitt thinks they should be in there. So does Oklahoma, Cinci, Ohio State, Utah, and a couple of Big east teams. Not to mention Indiana state. There will always be teams left out that feel they should have been in, because there is never going to be a clear and distinctive line right at where the committee needs to make one. But the ACC wasn't shut out of marginal bids, nor were a particularly high number of marginal bids the reason why the SEC and Big 12 had the most.
Click to expand...
You completely miss the point. I’m done.
 
gtbeak

gtbeak

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
529
lv20gt said:
Except you are using conference wide numbers as a whole which implies that the performance of Kentucky, or any other team that got in, somehow is reflective of the conference not deserving as many invites. However, Kentucky's performance is theirs alone. Just like UVA's complete bombing isn't a negative reflection on any team but them. That's why it is silly to look at things like conference totals and conference achievement, especially in the context of a single elimination tournament.

Instead of looking at the conference as a whole, you should be looking at the teams actually relevant to the dynamic.




From the SEC, Auburn, SCar, and UF shouldn't be lumped in with TAMU and MSU. I see no argument at all for leaving any of the former out.
From the Big 12 there was those 3 but there is no reason to group Baylor, Texas Tech Kansas, and Texas in the same grouping as TCU.

No, they are not all in the same bucket once you get past the top of the conference.

Most of the top conference got one or two marginal teams in. SEC got Miss State with maybe TAMU in there was well. Big 12 got TCU. Big 10 got Northwestern. Pac 12 got Washington State and Oregon as an auto bid. The ACC got UVA and NCSU as an autobid. The big east is the conference that got screwed with none of their marginal teams in there.

Yeah, Pitt thinks they should be in there. So does Oklahoma, Cinci, Ohio State, Utah, and a couple of Big east teams. Not to mention Indiana state. There will always be teams left out that feel they should have been in, because there is never going to be a clear and distinctive line right at where the committee needs to make one. But the ACC wasn't shut out of marginal bids, nor were a particularly high number of marginal bids the reason why the SEC and Big 12 had the most.
Click to expand...
What did Texas do that said they should be in? They have almost the exact same resume as TCU. As I wrote this afternoon, neither belonged in this tourney over Seton Hall or Pitt.
 
stinger78

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,336
gtbeak said:
What did Texas do that said they should be in? They have almost the exact same resume as TCU. As I wrote this afternoon, neither belonged in this tourney over Seton Hall or Pitt.
Click to expand...
He’s going back to rankings and NET despite the facts that have shown they’re screwed. Those teams aren’t better than mid-tier ACC teams. The top 2-3 jn each conf are the top-tier and the next 3-4 in each conf are the next level teams. There are no “ACC of the 80’s” 5/6-deep with top teams anymore. The rise of the mid-majors stripped that out. Polls and metrics that position them that way are showing bias, maybe not purposeful bias but bias (as in statistical error consistently beneficial to certain conferences).
 
gtbeak

gtbeak

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
529
lv20gt said:
Except you are using conference wide numbers as a whole which implies that the performance of Kentucky, or any other team that got in, somehow is reflective of the conference not deserving as many invites. However, Kentucky's performance is theirs alone. Just like UVA's complete bombing isn't a negative reflection on any team but them. That's why it is silly to look at things like conference totals and conference achievement, especially in the context of a single elimination tournament.

Instead of looking at the conference as a whole, you should be looking at the teams actually relevant to the dynamic.




From the SEC, Auburn, SCar, and UF shouldn't be lumped in with TAMU and MSU. I see no argument at all for leaving any of the former out.
From the Big 12 there was those 3 but there is no reason to group Baylor, Texas Tech Kansas, and Texas in the same grouping as TCU.

No, they are not all in the same bucket once you get past the top of the conference.

Most of the top conference got one or two marginal teams in. SEC got Miss State with maybe TAMU in there was well. Big 12 got TCU. Big 10 got Northwestern. Pac 12 got Washington State and Oregon as an auto bid. The ACC got UVA and NCSU as an autobid. The big east is the conference that got screwed with none of their marginal teams in there.

Yeah, Pitt thinks they should be in there. So does Oklahoma, Cinci, Ohio State, Utah, and a couple of Big east teams. Not to mention Indiana state. There will always be teams left out that feel they should have been in, because there is never going to be a clear and distinctive line right at where the committee needs to make one. But the ACC wasn't shut out of marginal bids, nor were a particularly high number of marginal bids the reason why the SEC and Big 12 had the most.
Click to expand...
What makes Virginia a marginal team that doesn't also make Texas Tech and BYU marginal teams? TBH, it appears to me that UVa has a better resume than either of those schools. To be clear, I think all of those schools belonged in the tourney, but UVa should not have been on the bubble if Texas Tech and BYU are in easily. So, I would argue that the ACC didn't receive any marginal bids, while there was at least one school (Pitt) who clearly belonged if you focus on winning basketball games.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
gtbeak said:
What did Texas do that said they should be in? They have almost the exact same resume as TCU. As I wrote this afternoon, neither belonged in this tourney over Seton Hall or Pitt.
Click to expand...

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).

gtbeak said:
What makes Virginia a marginal team that doesn't also make Texas Tech and BYU marginal teams? TBH, it appears to me that UVa has a better resume than either of those schools.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,064
leatherneckjacket said:
Not sure why UNC decided to stop running any semblance of an offensive play in the last few minutes besides RJ Davis trying to beat his man one on one, but they gave the game away.
Click to expand...
Bama played solid defense on Davis. UNC took out Cadeau and Trimble as they needed some size to defend Nelson. That didn’t really work. Withers put up a terrible 3 with UNC up 2. Then a stupid foul on Nelson who made the basket and FT. That changed the game.
 
MidtownJacket

MidtownJacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,862
Root4GT said:
Bama played solid defense on Davis. UNC took out Cadeau and Trimble as they needed some size to defend Nelson. That didn’t really work. Withers put up a terrible 3 with UNC up 2. Then a stupid foul on Nelson who made the basket and FT. That changed the game.
Click to expand...
AGREED Withers lived up to his name with that crazy 3 so early in the shot clock. Unacceptable.
 
Top