Bracketology 2024

[gtbeak]

Using your words then Alabama was a proper selection over FSU as that Bama team returned a lot of their players from their prior years very successful teams and should have been given the benefit of the doubt while FSU has been a poor team for years prior to this past season. Heck UGA as a 2 time defending champion should have been selected as well for the CFP based on their returning the core of their prior years team. Clearly next season if it a close call between Clemson and Alabama Alabama gets picked over Clemson as they made the CFP more recently!

That is silly thinking at best!. No different in the NCAAT!

The converse is GT hasn't made the NCAAT in years so as a possible bubble team they should be on the outside over other bubble teams who have been in the NCAAT recently and won a game or two.

My take is that winning games is the main thing that should be looked at. In football FSU won all of their games. Alabama won all but one. Close, but Florida St had more wins so they should be in unless there is some EXTREMELY compelling reason to put Alabama ahead of them. There was not unless you buy the Jordan Travis injury explanation, which I don't, at least not enough to overcome the fact that they won two games against decent teams after that injury.

In basketball, I've already shown that UVa and Pitt both won games at the same or higher level than the schools taken or seeded ahead of them. So, there must be a compelling reason to dock UVa and Pitt as compared to those other schools. There isn't one, yet the basketball universe seems to think there is as evidenced by the fact that they annually dock the ACC schools at the expense of the Big 12 primarily and the SEC secondarily. Perhaps also the Big 10, I haven't looked all that closely at them. I think that is where the "look at past performance" narrative comes from...whatever the basketball universe is looking at that says the Big 12 is head and shoulders above the ACC seems to be proven wrong on a regular basis in the tourney. As GT33 said, if one is wrong nearly every time they do something (pick and seed NCAA teams in this case), one should probably re-evaluate the process that is being used.

ETA: As Stinger stated, equitable treatment, not preferential treatment.

 

[Root4GT]

My take is that winning games is the main thing that should be looked at. In football FSU won all of their games. Alabama won all but one. Close, but Florida St had more wins so they should be in unless there is some EXTREMELY compelling reason to put Alabama ahead of them. There was not unless you buy the Jordan Travis injury explanation, which I don't, at least not enough to overcome the fact that they won two games against decent teams after that injury.

In basketball, I've already shown that UVa and Pitt both won games at the same or higher level than the schools taken or seeded ahead of them. So, there must be a compelling reason to dock UVa and Pitt as compared to those other schools. There isn't one, yet the basketball universe seems to think there is as evidenced by the fact that they annually dock the ACC schools at the expense of the Big 12 primarily and the SEC secondarily. Perhaps also the Big 10, I haven't looked all that closely at them. I think that is where the "look at past performance" narrative comes from...whatever the basketball universe is looking at that says the Big 12 is head and shoulders above the ACC seems to be proven wrong on a regular basis in the tourney. As GT33 said, if one is wrong nearly every time they do something (pick and seed NCAA teams in this case), one should probably re-evaluate the process that is being used.

As has been discussed the NET/Quad system is a significant flaw. But looking at prior years for selecting teams is stupid and wrong.

I assume you agree with that. If not then never complain when the SEC gets the benefit of past performance in the CFP.

Current season results are what count. Arguing over teams on/near the bubble in a 68 team field will occur every year. Teams have 30 plus games to make their case. MCST is a great example. They did not make a case in the regular season but won the automatic ACC bid. Now they made the Elite Eight. Would you have selected them had they not won the ACCT? Of course not.

Yea Pitt had as good a case to be in as any Bubble team. They also had reasons, as previously discussed to not be in.

Props to Duke, Clemson and NCST. The highest seeded ACC Team UNC lost in the Sweet 16. Upsets happen all the time. That doesn’t mean they didn’t deserve being a #1 seed even though they were not in last year’s NCAAT. Only this year’s season results matter.

 

[GT33]

That is my point of view. Past season's success should NOT influence the current season's selections or seedings. That would be stupid in my opinion.

I take that GT33 is saying that the ACC's prior year accomplishments/success should be a factor in selecting and seeding teams for the current season.

GT33 what exactly is your position on prior years conference teams' accomplishments impacting current year's conference teams selections and seedings?

My position is and has not changed:

a. There is a broke selection process
b. The process perpetually rewards underperforming media darling conferences at the expense of overperforming conferences
c. That process needs changing asap.

This process egregiously rewarded weak, underperforming conferences again- a decades of data support this also. Obviously in the ACC’s case, even teams with a poor ACC conference record benefit significantly from playing in our conference to the point they’ll handily beat media/self-designated heavyweights.

Bunch of GT men here, ostensibly highly analytically minded folks but where staring at irrefutable empirical data will make all kinds of rationalizations suggesting otherwise.

 

[stinger78]

How is a team that loses 10 of it's last 14 a cautionary tale about not overweighing early season games? Yes, they are on a tremendous run. And if they had lost any of the 5 games in the ACCT they wouldn't be in the NCAAT, and it wouldn't be because of the early season losses. It'd be because of the end of the regular season.

It’s a fair question, but you chose an odd interval that highlighted your point. I was focusing mainly on the months of February and March, including the ACCT. Just curious… why did you leave out their 5-game win streak through the ACCT?

Prior to January, they were 9-3 having lost to every team with a winning record except BC. Through January, NCSU was 6-4 having played only a ranked UNC in conference, which they lost. From February 3 onward, they were 8-7 having played UNC and Duke both 2x and having split them 2-2, plus the 5-game streak through the ACCT, which was determinative.

I’d say that’s a stronger finish than start, but perhaps that’s just me.

 

[lv20gt]

It’s a fair question, but you chose an odd interval that highlighted your point. I was focusing mainly on the months of February and March, including the ACCT. Just curious… why did you leave out their 5-game win streak through the ACCT?

It's not an odd interval. Your point was that they were some great example of a team that was misevaluated because of a disproportionate emphasis on the early season non con schedule. The point I made was that even after the conclusion of their conference schedule, they still weren't anywhere near the bubble, and it was just as much, if not more, due to how they were playing at the end of the regular season.

The ACCT games weren't guaranteed, and them winning the ACCT took the issue out of the hands of the committee. Had they lost to UVA for example, their improved play in the ACCT wouldn't have got them in. Just not because of some disproportionate importance put on the early season.

 

[Root4GT]

My position is and has not changed:

a. There is a broke selection process
b. The process perpetually rewards underperforming media darling conferences at the expense of overperforming conferences
c. That process needs changing asap.

This process egregiously rewarded weak, underperforming conferences again- a decades of data support this also. Obviously in the ACC’s case, even teams with a poor ACC conference record benefit significantly from playing in our conference to the point they’ll handily beat media/self-designated heavyweights.

Bunch of GT men here, ostensibly highly analytically minded folks but where staring at irrefutable empirical data will make all kinds of rationalizations suggesting otherwise.

I agree on mostly on A and completely on C. In my view “B” is bunk. The Media are not the issue in my view.

 

[stinger78]

It's not an odd interval. Your point was that they were some great example of a team that was misevaluated because of a disproportionate emphasis on the early season non con schedule. The point I made was that even after the conclusion of their conference schedule, they still weren't anywhere near the bubble, and it was just as much, if not more, due to how they were playing at the end of the regular season.

The ACCT games weren't guaranteed, and them winning the ACCT took the issue out of the hands of the committee. Had they lost to UVA for example, their improved play in the ACCT wouldn't have got them in. Just not because of some disproportionate importance put on the early season.

Here's what I typed: "NCSU is single-handedly showing the world what is wrong with over weighting early season games. TBH, the way they’re playing, I’d not be surprised to see them take it all. Just like the Braves in 2021, they gelled midseason and are tearing it up now."

I've never made any pretenses that they would have made the NCAAT w/o winning the ACC. Say what you want, to me, it was an odd interval, going back into mid -January and not including their 5-game win streak in the ACCT. Why? Of course... it helped your point, so I get it.

In reality, they started weak and finished strong - and are still going strong. That was and is my point, and it is really irrefutable (though I'm certain you'll try). It is simply the case.

The one place that you and I likely agree is that had they finished 4 of 5 in the ACCT they would not have made the NCAAT at 21-15 (13-12 ACC counting the ACCT) and runner-up in the ACCT.

 

[Root4GT]

Here's what I typed: "NCSU is single-handedly showing the world what is wrong with over weighting early season games. TBH, the way they’re playing, I’d not be surprised to see them take it all. Just like the Braves in 2021, they gelled midseason and are tearing it up now."

I've never made any pretenses that they would have made the NCAAT w/o winning the ACC. Say what you want, to me, it was an odd interval, going back into mid -January and not including their 5-game win streak in the ACCT. Why? Of course... it helped your point, so I get it.

In reality, they started weak and finished strong - and are still going strong. That was and is my point, and it is really irrefutable (though I'm certain you'll try). It is simply the case.

The one place that you and I likely agree is that had they finished 4 of 5 in the ACCT they would not have made the NCAAT at 21-15 (13-12 ACC counting the ACCT) and runner-up in the ACCT.

I think the question becomes what do you consider a late season run? 5 games, 10 games, 15 games or some other number?

For NCST their wins/losses were:
Five games - 5-0 ACCT
Ten games - 6-4 including the ACCT
Fifteen games - 8-7 including the ACCT

For 5 games they were on a historic run. For 10 or 15 games they were a very average team at best who made a historic run in the ACCT. That run proved them worthy of the ACC Automatic bid to the NCAAT. They have played Great in the NCAAT. I hope they win the whole darn thing!

 

[lauraee]

Kind of like how the SEC should get extra slots in the CFP because of past performance success? You on board with that? I am not.

Every season is a stand alone season and every team is an individual team.

Huh? Like it or not, the SEC does get extra slots in the CFP. Past performance, media, & selection bias..

 

[Root4GT]

Huh? Like it or not, the SEC does get extra slots in the CFP. Past performance, media, & selection bias..

My point is they should nNot get that. According to GT33 the NCAAT should operate the same way and use past year performance as a reason to select teams.

You think that is correct?

 

[lauraee]

My point is they should nNot get that. According to GT33 the NCAAT should operate the same way and use past year performance as a reason to select teams.

You think that is correct?

Well it annoys the **** out of me that the $ec is now getting the same in basketball. 8 invites is bull****.

 

[kg01]

Well it annoys the **** out of me that the $ec is now getting the same in basketball. 8 invites is bull****.

Always remember, the NCAA makes literally 93-95% of their revenue in the month of March.

Let that sink in.

Whoever draws the most dollars will get the benefit of the doubt in the selection committee room. Period.

 

[Root4GT]

Always remember, the NCAA makes literally 93-95% of their revenue in the month of March.

Let that sink in.

Whoever draws the most dollars will get the benefit of the doubt in the selection committee room. Period.

Basketball is not a huge draw in SEC Land. It is Huge in B1G land and parts of ACC Land. The Big 12 is everywhere so who knows. TV isn’t making extra money off having MISS ST sand USC East in the Tournament vice Saint John’s, UCLA, Maryland or many other Basketball Schools.

 

[stinger78]

Always remember, the NCAA makes literally 93-95% of their revenue in the month of March.

Let that sink in.

Whoever draws the most dollars will get the benefit of the doubt in the selection committee room. Period.

And folks wonder why college athletics are so screwed up.

 

[GT33]

My point is they should nNot get that. According to GT33 the NCAAT should operate the same way and use past year performance as a reason to select teams.

You think that is correct?

They beat the ACC in head to head match ups something like 55% of the time. They deserve some extra consideration. Unfortunately, again they get extra slots they have not earned many years.

 

[kg01]

Basketball is not a huge draw in SEC Land. It is Huge in B1G land and parts of ACC Land. The Big 12 is everywhere so who knows. TV isn’t making extra money off having MISS ST sand USC East in the Tournament vice Saint John’s, UCLA, Maryland or many other Basketball Schools.

You're right and wrong, imho. I don't think it's that they're making "extra money" with the misst's of the world. It's that they spent billions on the rights to that product already, so there's an inherent incentive to promote it.

 

[Techster]

 

[Root4GT]

You're right and wrong, imho. I don't think it's that they're making "extra money" with the misst's of the world. It's that they spent billions on the rights to that product already, so there's an inherent incentive to promote it.

Of course the Networks and NCAA promote the Tournament. That has zero to do with intentional bias in selection.

The fuss has been about bubble teams and a couple of over seeded teams out of 68 teams.

The Committee did a very good job this year.

Break break - the NET/Quad system has major issues as the primary metric tool for the committee.

 

[kg01]

Of course the Networks and NCAA promote the Tournament. That has zero to do with intentional bias in selection.

The fuss has been about bubble teams and a couple of over seeded teams out of 68 teams.

The Committee did a very good job this year.

Break break - the NET/Quad system has major issues as the primary metric tool for the committee.

I think we're missing each other. I'm saying there is a financial incentive to promote teams from certain conferences. That seems to jive with what you're saying. What am I missing?

 

[awbuzz]

Anyone watching UConn open up the industrial size can of whoop asss on the Illinois?
59-30 with 9:15 left...
Illinois scored 0, yes, zero points in the first 7+ minutes of the 2nd half. Only 7 points in the first 11 minutes of the half.